You must log in or # to comment.
Explanation: Sources in antiquity are generally fond of inflating numbers. Roman sources generally give what-are-considered reliable numbers for their own forces, but often exaggerate numbers for enemy forces. Funny enough, Caesar is one of the less egregious offenders in this, though even the least critical modern view of the numbers of enemy forces he gives would consider it only an estimate, and a high estimate at that, rather than a serious attempt at objectivity.
Xerxes apparently had 1,700,000 people invade Greece, according to Herodotus
Wouldn’t it be a good thing to overestimate your opponent though?
I get the numbers are inflated for historic purposes to make the battles seem more exciting, but wouldn’t acting like your opponent is stronger than you always be a good thing?
If you’re right then you prepared appropriately. Of you’re wrong you steamroll them.
Sounds like a win win to me
If you’re wrong, you can end up acting overcautiously, like McClellan against Lee in the US Civil War.
Knowing when the enemy is at a disadvantage, or when the odds of a battle are winnable, is a key part of estimating the enemy. If you think the enemy has twice the number of troops they actually do, you’ll miss windows of opportunity to make successful strikes - because you think they’re twice as strong at that point than they actually are.
I see what she did wrong and it’s pretty funny.
How will our battle seem impressive if the enemy is not an uncountable horde??
