War stories from YOUR ancient relatives

[emzie]

My granddad's cousin has her own wikipedia page from her time in the WAAF and SOE. She got tortured by Nazis. My great-granddad and his brother (her dad) were both pilots in the First World War.

My granddad got blown up by a car bomb in Palestine in 1947 and had open heart surgery to remove a piece of shrapnel.

Beyond that, don't really know. I have a hard time claiming a personal connection to people born before 1900.

 

[History_Buff]

What percentage of the population was ever directly involved in war though? It can't be that a high a percentage, especially the farther you go back.

The point is that if you go back that far in time, your number of ancestors (based on a simple exponential curve, assuming 20-30 year generations) exceeds the number of people that were living on the planet at that time.

So given that you are alive now, you had an absolute buttload of ancestors that were alive then. So as long as people were fighting wars, then it's basically a certainty that one of your ancestors once tried to kill one of mine.

That sort of analysis is probably really, really oversimplifying things, and there'll be tons of duplicates and double-counts and such (we are all inbred hicks!) but it only becomes more and more likely as you go further back. Of course, you could always be from some isolated island group somewhere, which would mean you might be the exception to that line of reasoning. Then you get to know that one of your ancestors tried to kill one of your other ancestors, which is either more or less interesting depending on what you're in to.

Beyond that, don't really know. I have a hard time claiming a personal connection to people born before 1900.

That's my problem too. I don't know much of anything about my family beyond 1900 or so. I've always been kind of curious to find out if anyone in the bunch knows more, but I've never gotten around to it.

 

[Domen]

Yes - there is a very high probability that there was at least 1 of all my great great great great great... grandfathers among the forces of Hammurabi.

As already explained by History Buff.

Everyone here certainly has some 13th century ancestor that was shot at by somebody else's 13th Century ancestor.

This is actually much less probable. Such a statement is much more probable regarding early to middle Antiquity.

Especially that population of Europe alone in the 13th century was about as big as population of entire world in 400 BC - 500 BC.

In 500 BC population of entire world was around 100 million. In 400 BC around 25 million people lived in India.

In times of Hammurabi global population of humans was over 30 million (and Mezopotamia was one of the most densely populated areas):

http://www.worldhistorysite.com/population.html

That's my problem too. I don't know much of anything about my family beyond 1900 or so.

I have managed to trace it to around 1800 - but only one "branch" of it. Basically one of my paternal great great... grandfathers.

But if we average a generation every 30 years you are looking at over a million male ancestors by 1350, (...) Sure there is going to be considerable overlap but the odds are there are at least a few cases.

This means that even if we assume no overlap at all, then still my ancestors in 1350 CE were only 2% of male population of Europe (and of course assuming no overlap is wrong, because it is impossible). But when speaking about 1759 BC, dozens of generations earlier, then it is a different story.

I still say that my great great great great great great great great great great... grandfather fought for Hammurabi in 1759 BC.

But I don't think that any of my ancestors fought at Crecy in 1346 CE. That one of them fought at Plowce in 1331 CE is more probable.

BTW - I have a friend whose family has managed to trace their history more or less to the Middle Ages. Their family (or rather clan) website:

http://paruszewscy.pl/

==========================================

Let's listen to the songs typical for our "very Ancient" ancestors:


Link to video.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, the furthest back I can trace - read: that my grandfather and uncle can trace - is to some crown official or possibly a sheriff in Lancashire in the early fifteenth century.

 

[Domen]

What percentage of the population was ever directly involved in war though? It can't be that a high a percentage, especially the farther you go back.

Depends on war.

If we believe the numbers given by some Ancient chroniclers, it would mean that sometimes a very high percentage was involved in war. For example Ancient Greek sources regarding the size of the Persian invasion force in 480 BC sometimes claim even 1 - 2 million men, both under arms and non-combatants.

If we assume that this number is true, then this would mean that around 2% - 4% of entire male population of the globe invaded Greece.

If - of course - modern estimations regarding the total global human population in 500 BC are more or less correct.

Surely the Persian Empire was the largest and the most populous empire on Earth in 480 BC, but I think Ancient Greek sources exaggerate.

==================================================

Anyway - it seems that it is also quite probable, that some great great great great... grandfather of any of us fought in the battle of Plataea.

More likely on the Persian side, of course. Due to their numerical superiority in the battle.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, nobody's taken Herodotos' numbers seriously ever since Hans Delbrück comprehensively demolished them over a century ago.

 

[Domen]

On this forum (link below) user "Macedon" is taking these numbers seriously:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/19...ogy/306489-ancient-army-numbers.html?start=30

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, and there are people who deny that the Middle Ages even existed, too. I should've said "nobody well-regarded in academia".

 

[Domen]

I should've said "nobody well-regarded in academia".

True. But several hundred thousands is maybe a realistic number for the size of the Persian army. Also up to 240,000 could serve in the Navy (if the number of 1200 ships claimed by Herodotus is correct - because some other sources claim just 600 ships in the Persian Navy). Assuming 200 crewmen per ship.

The Roman Empire had ca. 435,266 soldiers (including 45,262 in the Navy) in the beginning (most probably) of Diocletian's reign (according to Joannes Lydus Laurentius - his numbers are so precise that they are probably from some official document) and around 645,000 in the early 5th century CE (according to Agathias Myrinae), probably after tetrarchy and reforms of Constantine. However, these are most likely numbers "on paper" rather than in reality according to the book "Amida 359" by Tomasz Szeląg (and also according to A.H.M. Jones) and Szeląg estimates the real number as 450,000 including around 200,000 in the field army and the rest as garrison troops, Navy, etc. ("Amida 359", page 79). Other estimations say 500,000 (C. Zuckermann), 400,000 (A. Cameron).

====================================

Parthian Empire had no standing army (it had a feudal one), but could field ca. 50,000 of excellent cavalry (not including infantry). Sassanids in the 5th - 6th centuries had a standing army of perhaps 70,000 regulars (K. Farrokh), not including numerous support units, levy infantry units, maybe some cavalry was not among the regulars as well (I'm not sure if all of nobility served as regulars or rather some of them served as feudal troops typical for the Parthian cavalry).

Majority of the 70,000 Sassanid regulars were cavalry, but also some elite spear & shield armoured infantry and elite foot archers were among them.

The Han Empire was also able to field large cavalry forces for their major campaigns. For example in 126 BC against Xiongnu they fielded over 100,000 cavalry, similar number was fielded in another campaign in 119 BC - two cavalry armies 50,000 strong each (in total also 100,000 cavalry).

Apart from cavalry, they were also capable of mobilizing enormous numbers of chariots if needed. For example "The Military Storehouse of YongShi's 4th year Equipment Account Book", which lists equipment stored just in Donghai Commandery, mentions 7174 chariots of 22 different types.

The Han Empire developed an organized system of breeding good quality horses on large scale.

Of course Ancient China was also capable of mobilizing a much bigger number of infantry if needed (surely at least several hundred thousands).

=========================

The Ptolemaic Empire in ca. 246 BC fielded according to royal registeries (basilikai anagraphai): 300 war elephants, 2000 chariots, 40 thousand cavalry, 200 thousand infantry, enough weapons stored to equip further 300 thousands recruits if needed and considerable Navy (this is according to N.G.L. Hammond).

In 242 BC Carthage mustered a fleet numbering 250 Pentera ships. Each had a crew of 300 rowers and could also transport 200 soldiers. According to B. Nowaczyk, Carthage between 5th and 3rd centuries had a fleet ranging in size from ca. 200 to ca. 400 war ships and ca. 1000 transport ships.

Total Naval casualties during the 1st Punic War (264 - 241 BC) amounted to ca. 700 (Rome) and ca. 500 (Carthage) war ships sunken.

The Ptolemaic fleet at its peak strength (around 260 - 250 BC) amounted to (it seems slightly exaggerated though) 4000 ships - 2000 small ships, 1500 war ships of various kinds (the largest of them being Pentera ships) and 800 yachts. Later the Ptolemaic Kingdom developed a new kind of war ship.

The Ptolemaic fleet had at least 90,000 of rowers alone.

This new kind of war ship was enormous Tessarakontera - its crew numbered 400 sailors, 4000 rowers and it could transport 3000 soldiers.

 

[Lord Baal]

Last time I checked, 300,000 was accepted as the upper limit of the forces of the Persian Empire during their invasions of Greece. Both the army and the fleet, and that was not just the invasion force, but the entirety of the Persian Empire's armed forces. That could have changed in the last eighteen months though.

On the topic of family members trying to kill one another, didn't horseface from SlutsSex I the City - Sarah Jessica Parker - find out on that show about celebrity family trees - Who Do You Think You Are? - that one side of her family had died in the Holocaust, while the other side had worked as guards at the same concentration camp? How much does that knowledge have to screw you up?

 

[Domen]

and that was not just the invasion force, but the entirety of the Persian Empire's armed forces.

The entirety of the armed forces could not march on a single military campaign.

Something had to stay at home, because leaving the Empire completely undefended would not be acceptable.

For example the Roman Empire as I wrote before, in the 4th century had around 450,000 soldiers in the army and navy. Of this 200,000 were the field army. But only 80,000 invaded Persia with Emperor Julian in 363 AD (and Persia was the main enemy of the Romans at that time). To this 80,000 add further 20,000 sailors in the fleet (the Roman fleet - 1000 ships - in this invasion sailed along the river Euphrates). When Julian destroyed his fleet, they reinforced the army.

On the other hand, we should remember that this is just the number of soldiers. And soldiers are always accompanied by non-combatants.

Camp servants and other non-combatants are often ommited and forgotten when counting the size of armed forces from the past.

There is a good article "Zapomniana armia" ("The forgotten army") by Polish historian Radek Sikora about this. Actually calling them "non-combatants" is a bit misleading. They were usually armed (of course not nearly as well as actual soldiers) and could fight if it was absolutely necessary.

 

[Lord Baal]

The entirety of the invasion force could not march on a single military campaign.

Something had to stay at home, because leaving the Empire completely undefended would not be accepted.

For example the Roman Empire as I wrote before, in the 4th century had around 450,000 soldiers in the army. Of this 200,000 were the field army. But only 80,000 invaded Persia with Emperor Julian in 363 AD (and Sassanid Persia was the main enemy of the Roman Empire at that time).

On the other hand, we should remember that this is just the number of soldiers. And soldiers are always accompanied by non-combatants.

Camp servants and other non-combatants are often ommited and forgotten when counting the size of armed forces from the past.

There is a good article "Zapomniana armia" ("The forgotten army") by Polish historian Radek Sikora about this. Actually calling them "non-combatants" is a bit misleading. They were usually armed (of course not nearly as well as actual soldiers) and could fight if absolutely necessary.

What does that have to do with Herodotus's numbers? Unless you're saying Xerxes brought 700,000 camp followers.

 

[Domen]

Not with Herodotus' numbers, but with the very low estimations of the size of Persian forces.

Very low estimations are equally wrong as Herodotus' exaggeration.

Remember that in the battle of Plataea united Greek city-states gathered an army of ca. 100,000 (at least 1/3 of them being heavy infantry). If Greeks could gather so many then the Persians could gather much more. But of course it is easier to gather troops for defence of your own land than for invasions abroad.

 

[Lord Baal]

Not with Herodotus' numbers, but with the very low estimations of the size of Persian forces.

Very low estimations are equally wrong as Herodotus' exaggeration.

Remember that in the battle of Plataea united Greek city-states gathered an army of ca. 100,000 (at least 1/3 of them being heavy infantry). If Greeks could gather almost 100,000 then the Persians could surely gather much more. But of course it is easier to gather troops for defence of your own land than for invasions abroad.

I hardly consider 300,000 a "very low estimation." Even today, it's a very large number for an army.

 

[Domen]

Even today, it's a very large number for an army.

Today - surely. But not in World War 2 or in World War 1.

In Napoleonic period and Revolutionary France some armies were also much bigger than 300,000.

In 1794 Revolutionary France had 1,500,000 troops under arms (according to wikipedia). Due to mass conscription.

During Napoleon's 1812 campaign in Russia total forces of each side of the conflict also exceeded 500,000 (on each side).

Unless you're saying Xerxes brought 700,000 camp followers.

No. But if he brought 300,000 soldiers, he could bring further 300,000 camp followers. In total 600,000.

But perhaps he did not bring 300,000 soldiers for the invasion of Greece (unless we include crews of the fleet).

If we assume Xerxes had 600 ships in his fleet (rather than Herodotus' 1200) then it still requires 120,000 men (assuming 200 per ship).

 

[Lord Baal]

Or you could accept the number of 300,000 for the entire empire, in which case he brought nowhere near that many. It's not like I pulled that number from thin air. It's from the Persian Wars case study used by all Australian HSC ancient history students. As in, actual scholarship, not bullcrap on websites like "Roman Army Talk." I just wish I had the book with me now, but unfortunately it's at work, not home.

 

[Domen]

Sure but it's just one of many estimations. And doesn't necessarily has to be more correct than other estimations. Which doesn't mean that bullcrap on RAT is not bullcrap. Same with Herodotus. I think that the Persian Empire could mobilize more than 300,000 in extreme situations, especially when defending.

Not for a single campaign though. And this means that Greeks at Plataea were not outnumbered, or at least not considerably outnumbered.

============================================

And soldiers are accompanied by camp followers as a matter of fact. No army can operate for long time without supply service.

So if someone claims that Persian Empire could mobilize 300,000 soldiers, it is correct to assume that they could mobilize further 300,000 camp followers. Not necessarily all of the camp followers had any weapons with them, though. And again - they could not send everything for a single invasion.

 

[Gucumatz]

I also forgot to say, I know that my Great Grandfather on my German side fought at Tannenberg. Besides that I don't know where else he fought, but likewise he made it through the war. My family has had a historical tendency to fight Russians . At our family house in Germany I believe we still have some stuff from my Great Grandfather from WWI in our attic

 

[sophie]

Yeah, the furthest back I can trace - read: that my grandfather and uncle can trace - is to some crown official or possibly a sheriff in Lancashire in the early fifteenth century.

15th century is pretty damn impressive.

My aunt is the genealogist in our family. The farthest back we've gone is: Norwegians living on Tøvik Island in the upper reaches of Norway into the 1820s and 30s, coming over in the 1840s and beyond. We still have some very distant relatives living up there. That's my Maternal grandfather's maternal line.

On the paternal side of things our family legend has us being some kind of Prussian nobility into the 19th century. My aunt has spent much time quibbling over whether the surname "Tabbert" is a French name or a German name, or perhaps even an English name, but she's pretty certain now that it's a Prussian one. In all likelihood they're Prussian peasantry. I believe they came over in the early 19th century.

On my maternal Grandmother's side we've traced it to Scotsmen coming over to the US in I believe the 1740s. This line of the family is the one she's been working on most intently for the last few years. She's been having trouble pegging down that line before they came to America.

On the paternal side of things we know virtually nothing about the family. This is primarily because the family is extremely small (both my paternal grandfather and grandmother were only children, and they only had 2 sons themselves. Contrasted with my paternal grandfather who, in typical Midwestern-Norwegian fashion was one of 5 siblings, and would himself father 5 while his sister mothered 7). It's also difficult because my paternal grandfather was abandoned by his father when he was 15 - I'm not sure if he ever knew his mother - and at any rate he doesn't like talking about either of them. The only things I really know about that side of the family - the ones whose surnames I now hold is that they were Friedrichs living in Bavaria who moved to the UK in the 1870s following the Franco-Prussian War, and that they changed their surname to the more anglicized Frederick during the Great War.

I don't know much about my paternal Grandmother's side either although I understand that she's done quite a bit of research into that side. This is the Welsh side of my family, named Davies (very Welsh). My Grandmother was born in Caerdydd, but the family originally hails from Abertaue. This naturally means that my family could just as easily be English migrants or possibly even Dutch. Who knows. What I do know is that my Grandmother moved out of Wales very early on because her mother despised Wales and refused to let her daughter grow up Welsh (including not letting her learn the language). Beyond that I don't know much of anything about them.

 

[History_Buff]

This is actually much less probable. Such a statement is much more probable regarding early to middle Antiquity.

No, it does actually happen much more recently that. "Worst Case", your number of required ancestors exceeds total world populations (which was of course not the actual breeding pool of your ancestors) around 1100AD or so. Quite probably much more recently than that for most of us.

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/GenealComp1.html