I honestly don't see how one can argue for those numbers when they basically indicate very high mobilization levels, which we can only justify in nomadic armies or modern industrial armies. Is there anything outside those figures(whose sources are clearly not that good, see below) that indicates we had those napoleonic-sized armies running around? He pretty much did what he could: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori..._people_knew_their_quoted_numbers_of/drn48gt/ You can't use exaggerated figures from one side to support exaggerated figure on the other, you assume the Greek wouldn't be surprised by 50k men because you assume that the sizes given for the Greek armies have are true, which we have no reason to believe to begin with. Even using some estimates of the Greek population(3 million Greek speakers in the Aegean?) and pretty high mobilization rates(2%) the total amount wouldn't make the Greek army that much larger than the Persian forces which clearly would be comparatively scarier given it's a seemingly unified invading force compared to the divided Greeks.