Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SHARK" data-source="post: 185471" data-attributes="member: 1131">Greetings!Well, of course at different times, and in different battles, there have been inflation of troop strengths. In the first century, the city of Rome had a population in excess of one million people. The empire was huge, and seeing that their ability to maintain law and order, as well as a sophisticated, complex economy on a mass scale, they would indeed have far larger populations than that of medieval Europe. Medieval Europe was not the apex of achievement, population, or even advancement. The ancient world had managed a great deal of wonders, and that included the capacity to house and feed far more people than was the norm for the Middle Ages. Rome didn't conquer the world with an army of 5,000 soldiers. They did it with armies of hundreds of thousands of troops. See also &quot;Warfare of the Classical World&quot;, by John Warry; &quot;Caesar's Legions&quot; by Sekunda, Northwood, and Simkins. Also, &quot;The Grand Stategy of The Roman Empire&quot; by Edward N. Luttwak. I, however, am offering what the best scholarship knows to be true. For example, in the Battle of Cannae, 216 BC, we know that Rome lost approximately 80,000 soldiers in one day. That is a fact. The truth of these matters can be arrived at, with careful scholarship. It is how we &quot;Know&quot; anything. In the example, 80,000 men were lost to Hannibal's army. It wasn't 40,000 men, or 180,000 men, but approximately 80,000 men. That means that realistically speaking, it could have actually been as few as 65,000 men, or as much as 95,000 men. 80,000 is considered the best estimate. The figure represents a variance of =/- 20%, which is considerable, but the stated figure still represents historical accuracy. Deviate much beyond this figure, and you are merely exersizing fantastic imagination rather than careful scholarship.Semper Fidelis,SHARK</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SHARK, post: 185471, member: 1131"] Greetings! Well, of course at different times, and in different battles, there have been inflation of troop strengths. In the first century, the city of Rome had a population in excess of one million people. The empire was huge, and seeing that their ability to maintain law and order, as well as a sophisticated, complex economy on a mass scale, they would indeed have far larger populations than that of medieval Europe. Medieval Europe was not the apex of achievement, population, or even advancement. The ancient world had managed a great deal of wonders, and that included the capacity to house and feed far more people than was the norm for the Middle Ages. Rome didn't conquer the world with an army of 5,000 soldiers. They did it with armies of hundreds of thousands of troops. See also "Warfare of the Classical World", by John Warry; "Caesar's Legions" by Sekunda, Northwood, and Simkins. Also, "The Grand Stategy of The Roman Empire" by Edward N. Luttwak. I, however, am offering what the best scholarship knows to be true. For example, in the Battle of Cannae, 216 BC, we know that Rome lost approximately 80,000 soldiers in one day. That is a fact. The truth of these matters can be arrived at, with careful scholarship. It is how we "Know" anything. In the example, 80,000 men were lost to Hannibal's army. It wasn't 40,000 men, or 180,000 men, but approximately 80,000 men. That means that realistically speaking, it could have actually been as few as 65,000 men, or as much as 95,000 men. 80,000 is considered the best estimate. The figure represents a variance of =/- 20%, which is considerable, but the stated figure still represents historical accuracy. Deviate much beyond this figure, and you are merely exersizing fantastic imagination rather than careful scholarship. Semper Fidelis, SHARK [/QUOTE]

Verification