I will use a battle in the first Punic war as an example because it is most glaring. Am I really supposed to believe that two empires which collectively controlled Tunisia, Italy, and Spain could muster 700 ships and 300k sailors for one battle? The US navy today only employs 350k personnel. This is just one example in what I see as a serial over exaggeration of military sizes in antiquity.
>>17435484First Punic war sources are Romans that were born decades or centuries after the war, so it's all obviously exagerared and romanticized. I am also supposed to believe suffering 3 Spanish Armada tier sea disasters didn't cripple Rome? And that they won because muh Roman nevera surrender? Load of bullshit.Reality is probably similar, but not as cool and epic.
Insanely retarded thread.>The US navy today only employs 350k personnelSo? The size of militaries today are very small compared to the 20th century.
>>17435746Even if you compare this to Jutland, the numbers are astronomically larger.
>>17435780those ships are a lot smaller and made out of wood with no long lead time items like massive guns or thick armor belts.
>>17435787I imagine the point is more personnel than number of ships. Weird that you don't see punic war numbers again until the 18th century.
>>17435746350k people in the navy is a lot. For instance the German military in 1910 numbered about 670k(circa 50k of which were navy) and that's a country practicing 3 years long conscription.
>>17435701Hey retard, historians don’t automatically take primary sources, not even the only primary sources, at face value.
