It had always been told that Sui raise 1 million army in their invasion of Koguryo

How would that be as China had gone through nearly 400 years no non stop wars since the end of Han

Surely the popluation would not grown that much during those troubled time & the people must be tired of wars & want peace

Also the project of the Great Wall & Canal must taken it tolls

So how was 1 million raised

They were never raised at all since it would have surpassed the level of contempory logistics far and away.

The largest army to date was Napoleon's Grand Armée in 1812 invading Czarist Russia with 612 000 troops (wherof 120 000 to 180 000 were deployed to secure the northern and southern flanks in Lithuania and Belarus and never penetrated deep into Russian territory).

Ancient Chinese army statistics used to be grossly exaggerated like anyhwere else.

Actually, given the much larger population base of Sui,it is perfectly feasable to raise such an army. However, as "Tibet Libre" points out,the logistics of feeding them was the killer. As it was the Sui raised far too many troops (the exact number is probably not that important, and I suspect was far less than 1,000,000) The army suffered horribly and most died of famine and disease.

The same thing happened with the later Tang attack and then later still the Liao attempted to march large numbers of militia from the Southern Circuit to join their attack on Korea and they too suffered hugh losses.

What is your general opinion of numbers for army sizes from the Warring States to Tang Dynasties? How reliable are they? Supposedly the figures are accurate records rather than exaggerated numbers common in the Classical world. But I have always wondered what those numbers represented? When they say they raised an army of 800,000 are we sure all 800,000 are actual soldiers?

What do you suggest as a good way to find out accurate and realistic figures?

Logistics for one. In a world where even in the most fertile regions agriculture only was operated only slightly above subsistence level, no army of several hundred thousands could have been fed out of the country so to speak. Also supplying such huge numbers from the hinterland was even more out of the question, just remember how difficult it is even today to supply the hundreds of thousand displaced people after the tsunami in SE Asia or the hurricane in New Orleans.

The ancient usually had absolutely no clue about numbers and how 10 000 or 100 000 men amassed 'looked like'. When they saw 10 000 men, they had no idea if it was 10 000, 50 000 or 250 000. Even today, estimations about huge crowds still differ greatly. At demonstrations, for example, police and organizers estimations of the participants more often than not differ easily by 50%, 100 up to 200% and more. And the bigger the crowd, the less sure even the most educated guess. The same rule obviously must have for the ancient armies.

The problem with your whole theory however, is that the Sui estimation is not based on "observation" but detailed conscription and counting as well as logistic preparations which took years, a more realistic number for Sui's invasion as Graff point out would be 600,000.
The 1,120,000 men thats recorded was probably the original INTENT and not part of the actual process.
However, 1 million men is not IMPOSSIBLE, there were also up to 3 million total including logistic lines as recorded, if the Sui emperor is crazy enough, by mathmatic and demographic calculation it would be 15% of the population of some 50 million men within the empire. Thats improbable, but not impossible.

Then the counting of the ancients was deeply flawed (or it was propaganda in the first place). And for a start, Sui China never could have had a population of 100 million since Han China's population was at its peak about 55 million and China had just experienced three centuries of turmoil and fragmentation before the Sui reunited it. At best the population level under the Sui would be again around 50 million which is already a quite optimistic guess.

50 million makes 25 million male makes roughly 10 million men fit for action. So, according to your numbers given, a third of the adult male population were actively engaged in military campaign or logistics! How could a agricultural society manage to release up to 33% of its most productive workforce for a sterile campaign? The answer is it never could have, these percentages were never reached in pre-industrial times, perhaps never in history altogether.

So, again, it's fantasy of the ancients, uncritically accepted by modern readers.

One example would be Cao Cao's claim of having 800,000 troops in the Chibi campaign, which was meant simply to scare Sun Quan into surrender. Zhou Yu pointed out that Cao Cao could only have no more than 150,000 to 160,000 troops.

"Then the counting of the ancients was deeply flawed (or it was propaganda in the first place). And for a start, Sui China never could have had a population of 100 million since Han China's population was at its peak about 55 million and China had just experienced three centuries of turmoil and fragmentation before the Sui reunited it. At best the population level under the Sui would be again around 50 million which is already a quite optimistic guess."


No one said it had 100 million. 50-60 million is the general estimation. Nor was the 5th century an age of turmoil, it was relative peace and a population boom.



"50 million makes 25 million male makes roughly 10 million men fit for action. So, according to your numbers given, a third of the adult male population were actively engaged in military campaign or logistics! How could a agricultural society manage to release up to 33% of its most productive workforce for a sterile campaign? The answer is it never could have, these percentages were never reached in pre-industrial times, perhaps never in history altogether."

Never say "never in history" because of obvious limitations in knowledge. Russian conscript during world war 2 reached over 25 million conscript in a population below 160 million, thats over 1/7 of its total population, and not including "logistic support" Germany's conscripts also made up over 15% of its total population. The 50 million of Sui is actually just a census, the real population is most likely higher, as BeiJing's newest economic study show, its probably closer to 60 million. which means that the registration hosehold of some 50 million is already within the range of conscription.



"Zhou Yu pointed out that Cao Cao could only have no more than 150,000 to 160,000 troops. "

Don't forget Liu Biao's surrendered force of some 70,000-80,000. Making roughly 240,000 for Cao Cao's invasion.

Most recorded numbers under 200,000 are most likely accurate. Those that are over has to be taken with skepticism, but within the realm of high pprobability. Those that are just reachsome 3 quarter million however is most probably exaggerated.

You said so: However, 1 million men is not IMPOSSIBLE, there were also up to 3 million total including logistic lines as recorded, if the Sui emperor is crazy enough, by mathmatic and demographic calculation it would be 15% of the population of some 50 million MEN within the empire. Thats improbable, but not impossible.




You are comparing apples with oranges. Both are examples from the industrial era and communist Soviet Union and fascist Germany were the two most centralized states in WW II in terms of military and economic planning.

The following is obviously only a crude method but any number for a campaign army over 200 000 in ancient or medieval times, in West and East alike, is most certainly made up, mispresented or propaganda and thus false. And anything between 100 000 and 200 000 should be under very close scrutiny. Over the course of time and study, I came to find 125 000 - 150 000 a credible upper limit for the biggest armies around.

For major campaigns:
> 200 000: impossible
> 150 000: highly unlikely
> 125 000: super campaigns
> 75 000: big campaigns

Unless you can't read, tell me where is 100 million mentioned here? In fact 50 million men is clearly mentioned in the second to the last line.





No I'm comparing the limit of possibility. Soviet Russia is far from fully industrialized and even Tsarist Russia, as well as the Second Reich could muster comparable proportions. Napoleonic France is not industrilized at all, and it was already able to gather over 600,000 soldiers. The Chinese universal conscription system was little different from the second reich.




If you don't understand something don't make up numbers.




The list only pertains to European and Islamic states where mass conscription was rarely practiced. In addition, these state's population, resource, budget, and weapon output also pale in comparison with those of the celestial emprie.
200,000 is fully within the possibility of large bureaucratic empires like China. Even imperial Japan could muster such armies. And it has been done during the Imjin war. In fact even in Europe and the middle east, such an army has been mustered. Examples include Boudica's rebellion and the Persian invasion of Greece are such examples. If Persia or Britain could already gather such forces, then it would have been even easier for China, considering its much larger population and the presence of its universal conscription system.
500,000 is also fully within the range of possibility, and has been pulled off numerous times such as the Tumu campaign.

Except that its well above subsistence level. Learn agricultural history before you make any more ignorant comments like these. Napoleonic army's agriculture science isn't any superior to Qing agriculture which in turn is only about 50 percent higher than the Sui agricultural production.
Nor was Napoleonic countries in Europe any more integrated. 18th century Europe has nothing to compare to the well designed canal system of the Qing. Granted much of this is created during the end of Ming but the Grand canal is already completely by Sui times.(and you probably don't even know what that is). So tell me what makes NAopleonic France any more capable than Sui to muster such forces? Especially when Sui's population is nearly twice higher than that of Napoleonic France.




You are the one that has no clue, the art of war mention specifically the logistic requirement for an army of 100,000. Its laid out in details. And thats in kingdoms with populations of only 3 million.
Even in the Middle East such feats have beeen done, what do you call the Persian wars. Unless you agree with some estimators that put the Persian army only at 80,000 men.

"One example would be Cao Cao's claim of having 800,000 troops in the Chibi campaign, which was meant simply to scare Sun Quan into surrender. Zhou Yu pointed out that Cao Cao could only have no more than 150,000 to 160,000 troops. "

The difference here Yun is that the author of the book does not have the first hand account of the Wei army, but the
Sui army is checked by detailed count of registered population.

Ok, now I see, there is a misunderstanding. You were talking about men=human beings and I was reading men=male. Still the same nonsense as supporting 3 million soldiers out of 25 million males is absolutely impossible for an agricultural society:

25 million males altogether -> minus roughly one fourth not fit for work -> 18 million adult fit for work -> minus 3 million conscripts -> 15 million / 3 million = 5

So for every soldier or man involved in logistics there were ONLY 5 in the fields and elsewhere working...! That's a modern, industrial age ratio and a very demanding, too. Sorry, the 3 million are just fantasy.

Dude, it's not the conscription system, it's the strength and the composition of the economy which stands behind the army, try to get that.



Because they were the first to mobilize the entire population on a consistent basis according to the idea of the sovereignty of the people?




Well, thanks for the example, it fits perfectly into what I am trying to say. Herodot estimated the Persian invasion army under Xerxes at 1 million combatants. And what do modern researchers do? They act on the assumption of 100 000 men.

It would help from time to time if Chinese scholars follow the example of their Western colleagues and don't take any number given by the ancients at face value.

"Still the same nonsense as supporting 3 million soldiers out of 25 million males is absolutely impossible for an agricultural society:"

Tell that to Napoleon. He could create an army several times that of the Grand army with no problem when including the logistic supports.

"Dude, it's not the conscription system, it's the strength and the composition of the economy which stands behind the army, try to get that. "

Which is no different. As I repeat again.





"Because they were the first to mobilize the entire population on a consistent basis according to the idea of the sovereignty of the people?"

Wrong, full population mobilization for war existed as early as the warring state. the state of Qin could conscript all of its male subjects above the age of 15. Read the law of Shang Yang, then babble.






"Well, thanks for the example, it fits perfectly into what I am trying to say. Herodot estimated the Persian invasion army under Xerxes at 1 million combatants. And what do modern researchers do? They act on the assumption of 100 000 men."

Except the flaw here is that it was the Greeks which OBSERVED the army. You are comparing two totally different things since it was the Sui which counted the army by registration, not the Koreans(which mean it would not be propaganda or imperial pride as you constantly claim witout a clue.) which observed the Sui army.


"It would help from time to time if Chinese scholars follow the example of their Western colleagues and don't take any number given by the ancients at face value."

They don't, it would help if you read just one of their work instead of critisizing something that you have no historical competence about.

I already told Napoleon. The 612 000 men of the Grande Armée are commonly regarded as the biggest campaign army to date. Napoleonic France, even though not as industrial as most of its neighbours then, was a world away from early medieval Sui China in every conceivable respect save the sheer number of inhabitants. Heck, Sui China didn't even have paved roads, were the hundreds of thousands troops marching to the front in knee-deep mud or what?

It was/is very hard to use large armies in a way that was not selfdefeating on the battlefield, as an eksample when Alexander met Darius III at Gaugamela he conviniently use the persian armys size against itself on the battlefield chosen (Among other things)
Xerxes invasion of Greece was realisticly at around 1/4 million men, but *only* 100000 were use in the invasion proper, the rest were logistical support and fleet (one and the same thing in many occasions).

Alexander the Great had the capabillity to raise far large armies than he actually did, but he knew that any army larger than 50000 that could not be properbly provisioned, were only deadweight, so even throu he was fully capable of raising armies greater than 100000 men he didn't not least becourse he would lose large parts of it to disease before he would even got whitin strikeking distance of his opponents, and end up whit an army not much larger than what he would have if he had startet whit 50000 men instead, and the remains of his great army would be weak of disease, hunger and thirst on the basic level. Summa summarum, he has more healthy troops whit 50000 (As an eksample) than whit 100000, when he meet his opponents on the field in a campaign.

Large armies were only a possibility close to good infrastructure (Great channel fks or coastlines/rivers) base of operations (Cities/Logistic bases) or/and whit superior command or/and mobillity for quick dispersal and concentration (Mongols is the superior eksample in this).

Using large armies of more than ½ million men for campaigns into enemy territory, away from good infrastructure and base of operations is unlikely, is it possibly. Yes of course. would you win anything whit it..NO. your army would defeat itself from sheer weight of numbers unless you have an ekstremly good coordination (And luck) and mobillity to spread the army over a HUGE area, and only concentrate when battle is to be joined.

*thumbs up*

I like you expression 'deadweight'. Thats how I view it, too: armies which would crush under their own weight, even if they manage to exceed, by some combination of skill, luck and extraordinary circumstances, the usual dimensions by far. Or more precise: just because they exceed some kind of natural upper limit imposed by the demands of logistics, supply and manoeuvrability.

Fiirstly some basics...

A rich agricultural economy can release a significant proportion of its population for short periods (typically in the summer between the end of sowing and the start of the harvest, fields need little attention and animals are out to pasture). I don't know the details for the Tang but in contemporary England (also rich, agriculture base, good organisation etc) Perminant military forces (huscarles and some butscarles) added up to roughly one free adult male per hundred. The trained and equipped militias (theigns, ceorls, butscarles) could be called out for up to fourty days (after that the king had to provide food and pay) and represented about one man in two. The population also included servants, slaves, juviniles, old men, women and children but we are still talking about fighting with 25% of the adult male population. The drawbacks with this system are that you can't raise troops at harvest time. and such economies have real problems re-supplying the troops when the initial rations run out. The only options are using long term grain reserves (from government grain stores) or herds of cattle and sheep (that would normaly be slaughtered at the end of autum when the fodder runs out but are the main winter foodstuff).

China woud be similar (though differences in the agriculture of South China changes things somewhat), armies of a million men total (remember they were split into separate marching columns and used multiple routes to go to Korea) were perfectly feasable. Keeping them supplied for long periods wasn't. The effort was clearly made and it ruined the economy, the war was followed by huge loss of life, famines etc... (because irreplaceable surplus produce was used to feed the troops)

As to the recorded numbers.
Historians always use the recorded numbers, there is a certain amount of built in exageration, this is clear fromthe repeated exertions of government to make people fill in returns accurately (and repeated, quite severe penalties for not doing so) but they are inflated by 10-20% not by orders of magnitude. This has been widely discussed in the field for the last hundred years or more.

I forgot to add, Imperial Rome in the 1st C AD had a permanent standing army of some 300,000 men out of a total population of some 5,000,000.

According to history, Qin Shi Wang had an army of greater than 0.5 million when he begin to conquer the six kingdoms to unite China. Qin has only a population of 5 - 6 million. Historical it is thought that the army size is impossible.

However recent research into the lifestyle and the conscription systems showed that it is entirely possible. The Shen Yang systems is very strict. All the male population has strict obligations to the state. They are required to either serve in the army, provide provision to the army, or work as weapon smith for a period of time. In addition, the social status is tied directly to the honors earned in the battle field. The more enemies you killed, the big piece of land is awarded to you by the state. So for the poor, the army is the only way to improve your lot in life.

In Ming dynasty, there are 2 seperate register for the population. One is the normal peasants who are required to pay taxes, another for peasants which have military services in return for lower tax or tax exemption.

Recent findings also showed that Chinese are excellent infrasture builders. Chinese infrasture are ahead of their time compared to the europeans. Chinese traditionally look down on traders, so the main purposes of these excellent infracture is normally for military or transportation of grains.

So it is entirely possible for Chinese to raise armies of 1 million.

*So it is entirely possible for Chinese to raise armies of 1 million.*

Never said it wasn't possible but as i said it would be (And was) selfdefeating to raise such huge armies for one campaign in a relativly small area (Korea fks).
This is also why i very much doubt the sizes mentioned in many (But not all) battle is Chinas antiquity.
Not least becourse i don't see the war leaders of the time to be any dumber than average, (And they could read *Art of war* too!) so for the most part i have a sneeking susption that when these huge million man armies are mentioned, they count each and every body called up for duty incl logistic support and garrisons, NOT the campaigning army only. (Makes sence, since in that case the bureaucrats have not lied about the number of conscrips).

About losses.... Sometimes i have to shake my head when i read old (And new) testimony about how many fought and died in various battles, not only in China but in general, not that Hand to hand is not bloody.. IT IS, but sometimes the losses seems so enormous that it is a wonder that the loser can raise even one company a generation later.
This is especially the case when we hear about a enemy whit superior mobillity getting slaughtert, It's not going to happend unless one of two things is happening either 1) they are trapped.. 2) they fight for something more precious than their life. IE family and clan/tribes future.

By whom? Show us the historians who stated this and let us examine whether they are qualified to make such grandiloquent proclamations.



Its clear that you don't know anything about economic history. Napoleonic France isn't industrial at all. None of the European countries other than Britain(which just entered the industrial revolution)was. Nor was French agriculture highly advanced that would make a decisive difference. Army mobilization and transportation prior to the invention of railroads were not much different across the globe. Nor was Napoleonic France's agriculture that much more productive. Other than animal domestication, European agriculture during Napoleon's time was just not that much more developed. In fact Sui China's harvest ratio was around 1:12; Europe's harvest ratio was only around 1:8.
Sui had plenty of roads, calculated to be over 4,000 miles. Just because it isn't paved doesn't mean its going to be in mud. That only happens when it rains hard. And to repeat again, canals can transport troops just the same.



Which is the whole point of "improbable but not impossible". But Tibet Libre, been the incompetent historian that he is. Insist on this "impossibility".

And I suggest Tibet Libre just stop here. Since his original nonsense: that 200,000 army is impossible is already proven to be FALSE.

Good point. A typical summer campaign took three months and there were indeed states where the rural population was left with little to do. That way, when the Nile flooded the fields, the pyramids have been built in Egypt. But, then again, things in Egypt were different than elsewhere in many ways.




I read it, too, and I say these numbers are totally nonsense:

5 million people
-> 2,5 million men
-> 1,6 million men (one third non-combatants through age, that is the young and the old)
-> according to the numbers above, every man in the army would have to be supported by only two on the fields, in commerce, in administration, etc. - sorry, but these numbers are insane!

Yes, there were indeed armies with an unusual high proportion of fighters, but these were whole tribes on the march, like the Cimbern and Teutonic, not sedentary communities.




The only thing proven is that you need a healthy dose of valium from time to time and that some or other moderator must turn a blind eye to your constant rantings. Your almost religious belief in allegedly exact numbers, wherever you snapped them up, is something you have to work on if you wanna make the jump from war game forum posting to history board discussions.

So far the only trait you've exhibited is that your facts are completely baseless. And your misinterpretation of my sources as "belief in exact numbers" to defend your baseless garbage is just lame. The numbers I've shown in the past were estimations made by demographic historians. Since its mathematics that derived the estimation, the result would obviously be exact. So your criticism is just retarded. All the exact numbers I posted were quoted from another historian. Remove that fantasy and continue when you learn something.

"The only thing proven is that you need a healthy dose of valium from time to time and that some or other moderator must turn a blind eye to your constant rantings"

I've already shown the possibilities and analyzed them. The same can't be said for you. You simply deny the fact that you were proven wrong because the facts don't fit your proffered conclusion. You simply do not have the ability to conduct a historical debate.
Stay out of this discussion and led more competent people continue.

I just had to reply to this asinine remark after reading it again. It appears that you naively treated the estimation of army sizes as an algebraic equation. In another word, you think the ratio between the size of the Persian army that Herodotus recorded and the actual size of the army that modern historians guessed should match exactly with the ratio between the recorded size of the ancient Chinese armies and what the actual size of the ancient Chinese army was. I've never seen anyone stupid enough to treat anecdotal evidence as a form of mathematical equation, and you ironically accuse me of believing in mathematical precision? You've completely ignored individual factors such as the level of bias of different historians,(they are not equal)and the circumstances under which they documented their facts,(which as I said before, are completely different; Herodotus merely looked at the enemy whereas the Sui historians had direct access to the military bureau's enumeration information)

Actually, since the the decree of the National Assembly, dated 23 August 1793, almost every resource in France had been utilised for the war effort. Many buildings were converted into factories for the manufacture of armaments and the like. During the initial conflict of 1792-97 the French Republic had maintained a standing army of some 1,500,000 out of a populatio of 27,000,000. Mass industrialisation started in the wars of the 1790s and continued into the Napoleonic Empire.

The Napoleonic Empire is very different to the Republic. Imperial France never mobilised more than 1,100,000... However, Napoleonic France had many, many vassal states. The entire area that was presided over by Napoleon had a population well in excess of 60,000,00. In addition to that 60,000,000 there is Prussia's 10,000,000 and Austria's 28,000,000 - both of them were Napoleonic allies in 1812. Thus we are lookign at around 100,000,000 people within Napoleon's sphere of influence - considerably more than the Sui Empire. It should be noted that a majority of the troops in the Grande Armee were not French, but from French client states and French allies, such as Austria and Prussia.

Most of the states within this empire had centralised systems of government, after Na;poleon had swept aside the more primitive and decentralised feudal systems. Napoleon generally gave quotas of conscription for each of these newly cxentralised states to meet. Given that each of these states was generally quite small it was easy for them to manage their small comitments - often only 10,000 or 20,000. These were then sent to mobilisation points to add to other Imperial forces for a campaign. Thus Napoleonic Europe was just as centralised as Sui China. I'm not sure on precise figures, but I'm quite sure Napoleonic Europe had far more than 4,000 km of roads. Moreover Napoleonic Europe was a much smaller area, so far easier to manage and to co-ordinate. In addition it utilised a semaphore system, allowing rapid communication over considerable distances. As such I'll warrant Napoleonic Europe was considerably different to Sui. In addition the Napoleonic military system was far more complex than the Sui system, thus allowing superior logistics (greatly improved upon since the 1790s when the Republic was woefully unprepared for the massive expansion in its armies).

That said, I think Sui Yangdi was something of a megalomaniac so, even if it wasn't espeically practical or useful, he would have been immensely interested in simply creating an army of an unusually large size. That said, I find it hard to imagine that he would manage to raise three armies of over a million for successive invasions of Koguryo. I don't doubt, myself, that he could raise an army of 1 million once across the empire, but that he could afford to concentrate these troops for the one campaign and that he could then repeat this amazing achievement three times, even as he was utilising millions of workers in his massive construction projects (if the numbers there are accurate, which again is open for discussion), seems somewhat unlikely to me.

Likewise I think an army of 600,000 for Wang Jian's invasion of Chu implausible. In European history I think the figures of a Muslim army of 400,000 at the Battle of Poitiers unlikely, though, unlike the figures Herodotus gives for Xerxes' invasion, this number is commonly accepted. Certainly I don't think Chinese historians are sufficiently sceptical of the massive numbers that are repeatedly used over the course of history.

I should also add that since the Agricultural Revolution of the 18th Century Europe's agriculture was considerably beyond any medieval equivalent's, thus this is another distinction that must be made between Sui and Napoleonic Europe.

?? First C AD?? the Romans controlled a empire whit more than 50 million subjekts at the time. + they were not adversed to hired Auxilliary to complement their legions from whit out the Empires borders.
The romans also possesed the best over land infrastructure in the world until late Napoleonic times, so they had far better capabilities to support and supply their landforces than most of their advesaries. Best count of the Roman roads placed them at more than at more than 6000miles+ for mainland Europe alone. (They were mainly build by the legions and maintained by slaves or lokal princibalities).

Sui could whitout a doubt raise the million man army, but i personaly think that there is good reason why Sun Tzu mention 100 000 man armies in his eksamples.
First off a 100 000 man army is quite capable of being supplied in areas of fairly good infra structure and rich farmlands almost indefinently.
Secondly it will leave enough troops both for securing bases and supply stations while maintaining a good reserve/siege group/army and still have between 50-60000 men to confront your enemy in open battle.
My best guess from the thing i have been able to Goggle about the infra struture not to mention the climate in Koguryo, i would say that whit total sea control he should be able to keep around 1/4 million men on average in the field on a year round basis, whitout taking overly large losses from hunger and sickness.
BUT he would need at least one man in logistic for every one in the field to keep them supplied. Especially in winter were the weather becomes atrocious.
Anything more or bad luck whit the weather and the Sui forces would lose far more to Famine and Sickness than they would to their brother War.

Sun Tzu was writing for the tiny kingdom of Wu, not of the centralized and militaristic state of Sui almost 1000 years later. And most of the loses of Sui forces suffered were from famine and diseases, as recorded in the histories.

And to Warhead: Stop feeding the trolls! Or you'll really develop medical conditions that need valium sooner or later.

I know but who Sun Tzu was writing fore but his 100K army is still the best size when figthing campaigns when you see logically and realistically at it. not that it keept you from having more than army of that size, they just couldnt occupy the same area for to long.
By the way as far as i remember it was not only Wu he was figthing fore, he was a general for hire at the start of his carrer if i remember correctly.

Factories doesn't make a country industrialized. Sui had factories too. Industrialization require large amount of factories operated by machinary, which Continental Europe did not have until the 1820s when British industrilization spread. 18th century Qing empire had a much greater quantity of iron and effective ways of producing them than even Britain. For example, the province of Canton produced 27,000 tons of iron alone in 1740 compared to 18,000 for Britain. France was alittle bit above Britain in iron production but still miniscule compared to China.
Almost every resource has been utilized in the Sui empire for the Koguryo invasion as well. Sui Shu mentions that all the armies of the entire empire met up at Zhu Jun for the invasion. And divided it into 12 separate divisions with a total head count of 1,133,800, claimed to be 2 million at the time. And the source states "近古出师之盛，未之有也" "From ancient to the present, there has never been such a large campaign."
The fact that there were rebellions rising in every part of the empire shows the effort of the Sui in the Koguryo campaign. However, these 1,133,800 might have simply been the amount that was counted when the conscription and FuBing were called upon. We have no reason to doubt the detailed counting system of the Sui board of military. The only question remains if Sui indeed sent all of them for the invasion.
Since numbers from military records are usually above actual numbers, in practice, the actual numbers of fighting men is probably below the head count due to desertion, fraud by officers, and death. This is the same in Napoleonic Europe as well. For example the French army reached a recorded number of 1.5 million Frenchmen enlisted after the revolution. This plus the original standing army and navy makes the total French force near 3 million at the time.




The Republic alone has shown the capability of enlisting hundreds of thousands of men. While the invasion of 1812 itself has 450,000 French forces alone.

Population of Europe in the Napoleonic wars:
France: 38,000,000
Italy: 6,400,000
Spain: 10,000,000
Holland: 1,880,000
Poland: 4,500,000

The total population of the Napoleonic empire is roughly: 61 million

This in addition to the allies.
Austria: 19,000,000
Prussia: 5,000,000

Total of 23 million more people. Of course Neither contributed much in that campaign. They provided at most a few ten thousand forces. Negligible in the calculation.

The Sui's population is also around 50-60 million.(Zhong Guo Li Dai Ren Guo Tong Ji) thus the purpose of the statement does not change; Sui could raise over 1 million soldiers.
And don't forget Sui has its own vassals and allies too. The Korean campaign had auxiliars, the Tujue was suppose to join but didn't come.


Care to explain what "logistical superiority" exist in the Napoleonic empire which Sui does not possess? The Sui has a centralized system of government as well. With the San Shen Liu Bu structure that is highly sophisticated for its time. You think the Sui doesn't have a semaphore system of communication? How do you think the Great Wall functioned? This system existed as early as the Western Zhou.
And also give me the details on how Napoleonic military organization is superior to the Sui, as John fairbank stated: the concept of dividing arms equal in proportion was considered a great innovation of the Napoleonic era, but it existed in China since different arms existed. The only thing that was superior in the Napoleonic era was military theory. It became a field of science during the early 19th century, first studied by Prussians. That however, does not have any relevance to logistics that we are discussing here.
And I'll repeat, Sui's canal systems is more sophisticated than any European countries even up til the time of Napoleonic era. And do give me a figure for the roads of Europe at the time, because right now you are only assuming the milage. And its not just the distance of the road that matter, but their proportion to the size of the land.







He didn't, only one of the invasion had such size.
Since you don't think 1 million is impossible, this discussion can be brought to a close. With the conclusion that it could be achieved, just not likely.






600,000 is said to be most of Qin's army, thus its not impossible since Qin's have the perfect ability to maintain such size with its universal conscription system. Qin's population at that time is nearly 20 million.

Let me, if I may, inject some Korean perspective into this debate.

I think all parties agree that the traditional 1.1 million or thereabouts numbers we read seem to be an exaggeration. But I think the numbers that the contemporary historian Graff gives, which was a little over 600,000 or so (if I remember correctly--as it has been years since I read him), on the basis of a more minute counting, is possible and possibly even likely.

I think Warhead has given enough arguments as to why the 600,000 or so number is not so far-fetched, but let me concentrate on a few points.

First, the Sui numbers are more reliable than the "ancient" numbers that some posters here so readily lump the Sui numbers with.

In particular, I think it's plainly preposterous to compare the Sui numbers with the Persian numbers of over a million that Herodotus mentions regarding Xerxes' invading force. For one, the Chinese sources are describing the strength of their own armies, whereas Herodotus is describing the strength of foreign armies. In particular the Sui numbers were computed through a rather exact accounting method using the actual number of smaller organizational units that composed the entire. Next, it should be understood in general not all "ancient" records are of equal reliability. Thereare "ancient" periods and then there are periods so far into the distant past that it merges with and becomes almost synonymous with legend. The Sui era can be classified as the former and the Greco-Persian Wars can almost be classified as the latter. We are speaking of some 1000 years that separate them. To be more specific, the Sui records were composed when there is a very settled historiographical tradition in China, whereas Herodotus is literally the father of Western historiography and is not even a "historian" in the strictest sense of the term.

Second, as Warhead has already mentioned in comprehensive fashion, large armies--the size of which were not imagined in the ancient West with the exception of perhaps Rome--were often fielded in centralized, bureaucratic empires of the East. Certainly the 200,000 men army limit is ridiculous and has been exceeded quite often, though their tactical effectiveness is another matter. Someone already mentioned that Hideyoshi's invading force numbered around 200,000, and to my knowledge very few historians think this is a significant exaggeration. But perhaps most germane to the Sui question, consider the size of the army that opposed it, according to Korean sources. Koguryo itself had a mobile, non-garrison strike force of around 50,000, pretty much continuously since the time of Gwang-gae-to until its demise. Combined with reserves that could be quickly called up and the garrison units, the total military manpower of Koguryo is often said to have been around 300,000 during its wars with the Sui and the Tang. Moreover, Koguryo was able to consistently put a single strike force of around 100,000 on various battles, including the 150,000 relief force that tried to lift the siege of the An-shi Fortress during Taizong's 1st campaign (though I have been recently led to believe that this number could not have been possible because of factors other than its sheer size). If that kind of force can be put together by a less centralized and far smaller nation, why is it surprising that the Sui can mass an army twice larger? Even the far smaller Silla supposedly sent a 100,000 men force to the ultimate conquest of Koguryo in 666.

One very big one. Canned food. The French had canned food that could last for months if not years and were very easy to transport, stackable and in durable packaging- i.e. tin.

The French also had Marshal Berthier, a very talented staff officer who always made sure Napoleon's logistical objectives were in line with his strategic ones. The French army would not have functioned as well as it did without him.

With canned food, the Sui could of spent a winter in the Liaodong peninsula and that would have made a BIG difference.

But that is partially offset by the fact that Napoleon did not have water transportation logistics because the British had blocaded every major port in continental Europe. And also the geographical nature of the Russian continent. Thus Napoleon had to transport all his supply through land. The Sui on the other hand merely had to sent its supply by seas through the Bo Hai. This is also not taking into consideration that the distance in which the Sui has to march to Koguryo(from Hobei to Liao Dong) was less than 200 miles.(The force that invaded PyongYang was only 305,000 under Yu Wen Shu, supported by the navy as well while the remainder stayed in Liao Dong.) While in the case of the French invasion from Poland to Moscow, it was several times that distance.


Also, I just edited my original post with a much more detailed analysis. You can look back at it.

In the art of war, it was mentioned that to raise an army of 100,000 men, for each person conscripted, you will trouble 8 other households. This is because in warring states China, 8 households alternate in providing conscription thus when one family provide a soldier, the other 8 support the logistics. If one household is around 5-7 person then it is 40-56 personal to supply one soldier.

From the Art of War, we know that roughly 1/50 person in the empire can support one for a temporary army. Hence 1.13 million men requires about 56 million people in the empire. Which is about the population of the Sui Empire.

Just went back to my sources and it seems as if Sui was not always able to use their naval advantage, particular in the second and largest campaign. The 9 armies (~300k men) and the naval forces were never able to connect around Pyongyang and the land forces were obliged to retreat because they could not be resupplied by the navy.

Agreed that Napoleon did not have access to the oceans as the Battle of Trafalager made all the world's oceans one big British lake.

Another disadvantage that Sui had was Koguryo's scorched earth policy. Napoleon's troops had the advantage of supplimenting their rations with, er, "appropriated" local food stuffs. They were not able to do this in Russia as they instituted a similar scorched earth policy and the French suffered accordingly during the retreat back to the European interior.

Heck, even Modern day North Korea is capable of raising and maintaining a 1 million man army, I don't see why the Sui Dynasty might not have had such a large army. Exception is that the North Koreans are slowly starving to death.

That could just as well mean that the Chinese sources were more biased, since they described themselves. There is no reason to doubt Herodot's intimate knowledge as he must have had sources enough: The Persian army was full of Greeks (not to mention the navy which was strongly recruited from Greek cities in Asia Minor and Cyprus) and almost half of European Greece (most territories north of the Thermophylae) were actually allied with Xerxes.



Small correction. He is - in an admittedly abstract style - the father of ALL historiography, since his historical work was the very first. As such he was, of course, still somehow a man of transition from the previous semi-legendary style, but so was, for example, Sima Qian. There is no credibility problem with Herodot per se who travelled extensively in the eastern Mediterranean to collect first hand impressions (and testimonies).

Napoleon could not do it after the Russian desaster, despite being a military genius, having command over a nationally mobilized society and controlling many of the richest and most economically advanced regions with the highest GDP per capita, the densest infrastructure, and the best bureaucracy of the globe. So why should an early medieval society should do it better than him - or all his rivals for that matter? Only because the mist of time sheds it from critical investigation?

Herodotus is perhaps even more biased since Greeks tended to exaggerate their odds to make themselves more heroic. There is no way in hell the Persians could've raised a million man force in the 5th century BCE. Modern historians put the real number around 200,000-300,000, with 500,000 at the absolute maximum. The logistics of even a half million man force marching from Iran to Greece would be nearly mind boggling...horses, food, supplies, water, weapons, clothing, etc

Were there any seiges involved between the Persians and Macedonians? If so then the seige engines that had to be moved would make the logistics even more difficult.

There is nothing similar between the Sui method of counting soldier and Herodotus's method of counting soldiers and I don't know why Tibet Libre is still adamantly holding on to this discredited notion. Even bias has a limit. The former is based on systematic bureaucratic census, the latter is based on a secondary account taken from a soldier who had a mere glimpse of the Persian force. And I don't even know where Tibet Libre got the notion that the Chinese forces were more biased. Biased about what? That Koguryo defeated the Sui force with vastly inferior numbers?