"barbarian army sizes" Topic

A decade or two ago i read an article in a wargames magazine regarding the actual as opposed to recorded size of barbarian armies during the roman era.

Roman defeats were ascribed to been swamped by vast hordes of up to 100,000 barbarian warriors. Without giving an idea as to how a barbarian society could possibly put an army of this size in the field and keep it supplied.

Up until industrialisation, even advanced, civilised, organised nations had great difficulty doing this and even they relied heavily on sea transport.

What are the facts?

Hans Delbruck pioneered the examination of ancient sources on those battles. He suggested (and with pretty good cause) that the numbers of barbarians was not only highly inflated, but often inferior to the Romans, particularly at the strategic level. In general (IIRC), Delbruck said that the victor almost invariably had a numerical edge, contrary to what dramatic accounts had to say.

Presumably, this numerical edge would have to allow for discipline, morale and cohesion since these acknowledged force multipliers throughout history.

I remember reading some research about the Siege of Alesia. Caesar claims in his politicised account for consumption of the populace back in Rome that he had surrounded and besieged 100,000 Gauls on the heights of Alesia. An archeologist who visited and surveyed the site believed even 10,000 men would struggle to fit on the heights, much less be supplied with water, etc.

Not suggesting the Siege of Alesia was not a great Roman triumph and masterful demonstration of Roman combat engineering but, yes, perhaps the Gallic Horde was over-estimated numerically.

King Alf of Alfland, in a suit of top-quality second-rate armor, his nephew Bing swinging a good broad-sword as his Champion, three household spearmen, seven militia axemen, and a half-witted staff slinger named Rory.

link

I also tought that the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains was the biggest battle rome ever fought… So if you take the highest figure claimed for the hunnic/german army you have automaticly the all time maximum!

Greetings and have fun

How long is a piece of string?

Darthfozzywig, I think it's now generally accepted that Delbruck was a little too sceptical and that to put the numbers all down to propaganda is too simplistic. Each case is different, but if every able-bodied man is being mustered for the battle large numbers are not impossible. Probably not as large as reported, but still quite a lot.

Cheers,
Aaron

Generals lie about numbers, Historians lie about numbers, particularly nationalistic historians.
Xerxes numbers invading Greece are an obvious overestimate by Herodotus, but then he is writing in a context in which Asiatics are uniformly seen as treacherous, effeminate, disorganised and in huge numbers.
For the Greeks and Romans barbarians are always in huge numbevrs , but they are ill disciplined and characteristically enthused at the beginning of a fight, demoralised by the end.
Aaron is right, there are really two numbers for tribal armies, that for an expedition where you will get professional warriors and that for a mass migration when every adult male in the tribe turns up, often with poor or improvised weapons. So you might get 10,000 good warriors and yet manage 30,000 for a complete levy.

I tend to doubt that the Romans were often outnumbered.

Under the Republic one of Romes great strengths was its ability to put greater numbers of soldiers into the field than its opponents. In the later period a serious Roman mobilisation would dwarf the military resources available to most opponents. Its only in the age of the super tribes that Rome is short of troops.

Romes tribal opponents I think would mostly be outnumbered when push came to shove. For urban opponents once their professional soldiers were gone they were hard to replace a problem Rome did not often have.

I'm hard pushed to think of a society in the ancient period where it was possible to mobilise every man as a fighter. In more equal societies the numbers expected to fight would be greater but the number of professionals less and vice versa.

Regardless of how many men were available in the tribe, how much food could they carry or find? How about water? Sickness and desertion would quickly pare numbers down, and the better Roman logistics tail would keep their numbers fairly stable. As pointed out above, even a thousand years later with a vastly improved road net, European armies stayed small and were attrited gradually while on campaign.

I agree with Delbruck. On the other hand, as he points out, the Romans had to inculcate discipline and training in their guys to compensate for the Barbarians natural war-like abilites, so even if inferior in numbers, they were scary enough.

In the Gallic War, vii.90, Caesar says that after the fall of Alesia he restored 20,000 of the prisoners taken to the Arveni and Aedui, and that the rest were distributed as booty amongst the legionaries, one to each man. So that's at least 60,000 there, if we accept the figure of 20,000 released.

Caesar couldn't get away with saying he gave a prisoner to each man in his army without it being true.

And these were not non-combatants either, as they had been expelled already.

That's probably true as politics goes but as long as the soldiers got a slave each they would be satisfied regardless if the slaves had helped defend Alesia or not.

Could Alesia have accomodated 60 to 100 thousand soldiers? I've not visited the site but it would have to be very big to house so many and supplies.

I seem to recall the Roman siege defences were said to be 30 miles in total but they faced both ways so the circumference might have been 15 miles.

Likewise the returned prisoners the Arveni and the Aedui were hardly likely to complain they didn't get 20,000 back but only 7000 or whatever.

The evidence that the size of barbarian armies were wildly exaggerated is confirmed by the lifestyle of Iron Age societies. Germanic and Celtic cultures were dependent on subsistence farming, herding, and fishing. Infant mortality was high and medical care primitive.

A more recent analogy might be seen in 19th century African societies that faced European opponents. The Zulu kingdom, which was very large, could field around 20,000 – 30,000 warriors if the king mustered his entire force. These folk were also dependent on herding and basic farming techniques. It should be noted that most of the European barbarians were not as centralized as the Zulus (Germanic and Celtic kings did not wield absolute power), so Iron Age peoples would have likely had less than 20,000 men, even when you include every able bodied warrior.

These numbers match well with Ammianus Marcellinus. He has the Alamanni at Argentoratum having 35,000 warriors, but this force included the contingents of several kings, mercenaries, and freebooters. Ammianus reports the Goths at Adrianople numbering 25,000 or so.

Both the Goths and the Alamanni were large groups so perhaps an average-sized group might be in the 6,000 – 15,000 range.

Phil Sabins textbook lost battles gives I think realistic numbers, certainly there is enough support that a large number of barbarian can be beaten by a well trained smaller corp of professional soldiers.

@rvandusen
I very much agree I think that there are grades of tribes
Those with 5000 warriors
Those with 10-15000 warriors
Those with 20-30000warriors.
Being whaked by another , bigger tribe could push you down a grade, incorporating another tribe coukd bump you up a grade. So in Spain in the Vth century the Asding Vandals, Siling Vandals and Alans are ll around the 10000 men mark, the Silings and the Alans are beaten hard by a Gotho Roman force and fall to the 5000 man level which forces them to amalgamate with the Asding Vandals into one tribe. When the Lombards invade Italy they are a tribe of around 10,000 warriors, but they beef this up by 5000 Gepids and Sarmatians and Bulgars and another 5000 Saxons . That gets them to a 20,000 unit that can take on the Byzantine garrisons.
In Gaul in 53 BC caesar takes on the Helvetii who are a 25,000 warrior unit but who have two other tribes with them one of 5000 men, one of 10,000. That makes up a really large force, enough to take on any other tribe in Gaul which is what worries Caesar.
Its rule of thumb and quite crude but it sort of works.

I think that's a handy enough ready reckoner Roy.

I think another thing to consider is the component parts of the tribe that contributed to the tribal host but sometimes could be detached by the Romans. Tribal leadership was often in the hands of inter related families who competed for the supreme leadership of the polity. Its why we read of Britons fleeing to Rome after being ousted at home. Or the pro and anti Roman factions of the Aedui mentioned by JC.

I think Caesar said that the troops in Alesia had supplies for about a month, and the plateau itself is about a mile and a half long and about half a mile wide, so that's a pretty decent size.

We're never going to know for sure of course, but I think the general trend for the Romans to be outnumbered when fighting barbarian armies (outside of Rome and in the time of the Republic at least) is correct.

Interesting topic – thanks to all who've contributed.

Cheers,
Aaron