Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 808164" data-attributes="member: 463">I agree that European estimates of army sizes on the fringes of Europe (like Thucydides putting the Persian army at 2.5 million!) should be treated sceptically.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Rulers who used semi-professional clan/militia or levy forces can field much larger armies than rulers who rely on all-professional forces, though.  A clansman born in a tradition where all men are warriors can be nearly as good as a professional soldier - better, in some respects - and much cheaper to field. I suspect the Benin figure is the size of the army the king could (theoretically) field, rather than a permanent standing body.  African armies could certainly be large when fielded, though - eg the Zulu army of over 20,000 at Isandhlwana (sp?), who armed only with spears & clubs attacked and wiped out a professional British army of 1,500 armed with Martini-Henry rifles.</blockquote>