Size of Hannibal's Army Ebro-Po

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,302
No.

You said that Romans were operating so many miles away from Rome.

To which I point out that there are supply depots such as Canne. Ergo, your argument falls apart.

This was never about unlimited numbers of supply depot, that argument would b absurd.
Cannae was in carthaginian hands.... Where are those supply depots of yours ?
 

mariusj

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,057
Los Angeles
Cannae was in carthaginian hands.... Where are those supply depots of yours ?
Are you denying there are Roman supply camps inside the republic? I don't have to prove where exactly was one so long as I can prove they exist because your argument was 'oh no but all these army roaming inside the republic are so far from Rome how are they supplid.'
 
Feb 2017
526
Latin America


The estimate by Nadal [1984] is the most accepted one. Nadal [1984] proposes a population near 4.6 millions of inhabitants in the late XVth century

Comparing this figure for the late XV century with the estimates offered in the Roman period, one may question some of them, since even in the best of the cases (4 millions in the Roman period) this would mean that the population was stagnant at least 10 centuries (A.D. V-XV). Due to the problems that these estimates arise, an alternative calculation of the population in Roman Spain is suggested here, combining information supplied by ancient texts, papyrology and archaeology


With all the inconveniences, at least there is a final figure for the population of Roman Spain. Total population Urban population (24.23%) 1.002.238 inhab. Rural population (75.77%) 3.132.864 inhab. Total 4.135.102 inhab. This total is not far from the one suggested by Vives [1956]


So it is at best 4 mio, and that is 2 centuries or more AFTER Hannibal
Someone doesn't understand basic demography and history. For starters, numbers for Spain at the time of the Catholic Monarchs range from the one you gave to upwards of 8 million, excluding Portugal which can give a height of as much as 10 million for the whole of Iberia. Secondly, the reason why Spain's population didn't change much from the time of Hannibal was the demographic catastrophes of the Antonine Plague, the Third Century Crisis, the Justinian Plague and, most importantly, the Bubonic Plague. The fact that you don't even take the latter into account shows just how little of demography and even history in general you know.

A height of 6 million for Iberia is thus possible at the time of Hannibal, and the population is definitely not getting below the three million mark.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,302
Someone doesn't understand basic demography and history. For starters, numbers for Spain at the time of the Catholic Monarchs range from the one you gave to upwards of 8 million, excluding Portugal which can give a height of as much as 10 million for the whole of Iberia. Secondly, the reason why Spain's population didn't change much from the time of Hannibal was the demographic catastrophes of the Antonine Plague, the Third Century Crisis, the Justinian Plague and, most importantly, the Bubonic Plague. The fact that you don't even take the latter into account shows just how little of demography and even history in general you know.

A height of 6 million for Iberia is thus possible at the time of Hannibal, and the population is definitely not getting below the three million mark.

The quote is from people who have done serious research and you have been provided with a link to it.... You may send them your snide comments.....
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,302
Are you denying there are Roman supply camps inside the republic? I don't have to prove where exactly was one so long as I can prove they exist because your argument was 'oh no but all these army roaming inside the republic are so far from Rome how are they supplid.'
The place they were "roaming" was Cannae where the "supply camp" was already taken over by the carthaginians.... Also you have ignored the fact that storing supplies for super armies of 80 000+ men is not practical, since such armies would rarely if ever be gathered in one place and the romans were unlikely to have such huge surpluses at hand to be stocked in not one but multiple (number unspecified by you) "supply camps".... ....

And yes you do have to explain how this super army of 80 000+ would have been supplied....
 
Feb 2017
526
Latin America
The quote is from people who have done serious research and you have been provided with a link to it.... You may send them your snide comments.....
So what, there are other estimates by professional demographers as well, and the one you gave doesn't even analyse Iberia at the time of Hannibal but at the time of the Romans, after the Romans had caused much devastation with such events like the burning of Numantia and the Sertorian civil war, nor does it take into account the catastrophic distasters I mentioned when it expresses skepticism at why Spain's population was still so low 10 centuries later. For instance, this estimate gives a total population of nearly 8 million for just Spain, excluding Portugal:
"Castile had a population of almost 7,000,000"

This of course excludes Aragon, and doesn't mention Portugal. Your author is also relying mainly on Pliny the Elder. He is not relying as much on archaeology and is not taking into account just how developed Iberia was economically. The Tartessian civilisation, the Celtiberians of the Hallstat and La Tene culture, and more prehistoric prominent urban sites like Los Millares mentioned by Renfrew. Iberia is the site of the second largest pre-Roman treasure hoard in Europe, the treasure of Villena, second only to the treasure of Agamemnon. It was an area no less developed than the Greek Peninsula. And of course, I already gave another professional estimate, by Bruce Frier, in my response to Tulius, which you have completely ignored.
 
Sep 2019
187
Vergina
There is no evidence either of Alexander fielding 100 000 men in any one battle..... Normal estimates are -again- between 30 000 to 50 000.....

32,000+ - the field army for Alexander the Great's invasion of the Achaemenid Empire - according to Diodorus Siculus. This figure fluctuated, for example at Gaugamela, Alexander commanded at least 47,000 soldiers.
There is plenty of support. Read my response to Tulius. And like I told Arrhidaerus, Alexander's nearly 50 thousand force is still about half of Hannibal's army against Rome, with a much lesser population pool.
Did some more research into this. According to Plutarch (66.5), Alexander departing India had 120,000 infantry and 15,000 cavalry. Modern authors have universally reject this number. It has no bearing on the Greece only debate but still found it interesting to note.
 
Feb 2017
526
Latin America
Did some more research into this. According to Plutarch (66.5), Alexander departing India had 120,000 infantry and 15,000 cavalry. Modern authors have universally reject this number. It has no bearing on the Greece only debate but still found it interesting to note.
I honestly don't know why they reject these numbers. It's plausible with what he had and it explains his victories over the Mallians for example. There are some cases of very undue skepticism. No one nowadays seems to doubt the Persians had 100,000 at Thermopylae (which was only part of the Persian army invading Greece), and Alexander had most of the Persian Empire by the time he had reached India.
 
Sep 2019
187
Vergina
I honestly don't know why they reject these numbers. It's plausible with what he had and it explains his victories over the Mallians for example. There are some cases of very undue skepticism. No one nowadays seems to doubt the Persians had 100,000 at Thermopylae (which was only part of the Persian army invading Greece), and Alexander had most of the Persian Empire by the time he had reached India.
I don't know enough about logistics to give my own assessment but to me it does look to be very high. However I do agree with your point, modern historians like to reject the ancient source work and simply speculate. In this case Bosworth-Heckel they reject Plutarch's numbers and say Alexander had somewhere around 30,000. That number isn't found in the ancient source work just rational speculation on their part.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2017
526
Latin America
I don't know enough about logistics to give my own assessment but to me it does look to be very high. However I do agree with your point, modern historians like to reject the ancient source work and simply speculate. In this case Bosworth-Heckel they reject Plutarch's numbers and say Alexander had somewhere around 30,000. That number isn't found in the ancient source work just rational speculation on their part. Off topic but I ran into a similar situation recently when looking at a discussion on Ptolemy. Ancient historians mostly imply he was Alexander's illegitimate brother while modern historians reject this idea. Some posters were defending the ancients conclusion others arguing in favor modern speculation.Wiki demostrates this as well:

"Ostensibly, Ptolemy's father was Lagus, a Macedonian nobleman from Eordaea, but many ancient sources claim that he was actually an illegitimate son of Philip II of Macedon. If true, this would have made Ptolemy the half-brother of Alexander. It is probable that this is a later myth fabricated to glorify the Ptolemaic dynasty. "
How is Alexander defeating the great Indian armies such as that of Porus and completing sieges like that of the Mallian capital with just 30,000 men? The distance between Persepolis and northern India is about the same as the distance between Persepolis and Greece. Alexander had extensive time to prepare for the campaign in India. He wouldn't have advanced so deep into India with just 30,000 men in my opinion.