I probably shouldn't play the numbers game again, especially after others have moved to other matters, but …Efstathios wrote:Amyntoros: Rogers is to my point of view more objective, and that's what i am saying. Because he writes
So he leaves the probability the the Persian army was indeed a much bigger army than Alexander's. Maybe not 600.000 as he says, but a big army. I have no disagreement with that. As we have discussed some time ago this subject, a big army could also be 300.000 people compairing to Alexander's 45.000. But figures that are given by some writters such as 100.000 Persian army, are way too low. This is the Persian Empire that we are talking about. The Greeks managed to assemble a big force in Plataies, like 100.000, or maybe less, but still a big force, and Darius couldnt gather thrice that much?These numbers probably were enlarged to enhance Alexander’s subsequent glory, but there are indications that Darius did indeed assemble a very large army … Whatever the exact numbers, Alexander’s army clearly was outnumbered, perhaps by a very wide margin, and this time the Persians would be led by the Great King himself.
And Rogers in most occassions avoids to write numbers. He only says that Darius' army clearly outnumbered Alexander's army by a large margin.
Much depends on what you consider a "wide margin". Frankly, in ancient warfare I would consider being outnumbered 2 to 1 to be a considerable enough margin, thus making 100,000 Persians not unreasonable, although I would consider a slightly larger figure possible as well. However, and I’ve said this before, when trying to decide on Persian numbers consideration ought to be given not to how large an army Darius and the Persian nation could field, but to what happened to all the Persians AFTER the battle. At the battle of Issus Arrian gives the number of fallen Persians as 100,000, which may include the wounded. If we accept anything near his figures it would mean that 500,000 Persians got away, yet Arrian tells us Darius escaped with only 4,000 (!) men whilst 8,000 mercenaries made it to Tipolis. Are we then to believe that the other 488,000 men of the Persian army made it safely away from the battle, the majority of them on foot? And this presumably during the time that Alexander was pursuing Darius, otherwise he would have "met" them on his return to the battlefield. Where on earth did this massive army go? No matter how you may juggle these numbers they don't work. If you were to suggest that another 100,000 or more were wounded, this would mean that the rest escaped or else Alexander had to care for (imprison?) more than eight times as many men as were in his entire force.
My comments still apply if/when you drastically reduce the original numbers (or accept Plutarch and Curtius figures of 400,000) even if you continue to accept Arrian's figures for the fallen. You suggest 300,000 Persians at the start of the battle, but this would mean we'd need to account for a remainder of 200,000 (who were still loyal to Darius) and supposedly fled to "somewhere" whilst Alexander was off pursuing the king. This just doesn't work for me.
I do believe that the ancient Greek language is compulsory for anyone taking a PhD in ancient Greek studies, so all the academics who write on Alexander should know the language and this, in fact, is apparent in most scholarly articles. Not all of them may work from the Greek when they're writing a book, but I was reliably informed (by Jeanne Reames in her online LJ) that some of them do. Andrew Stewart, for instance, did all his own translations in his Faces of Power. And our own Andrew Chugg works from Greek and Latin sources! However, if a scholar should choose to work mostly from published translations when writing his book - well the Loeb editions are considered to be most reliable and the Greek is available on the facing page for a writer to check anyway. This means, in essence, I'm inclined to trust the translations given by academics more than I am a modern Greek-speaking hobbyist. (No offense meant – I consider myself a hobbyist also.) And argue as you might, the ancient Greek language does differ from the modern one. If you were to try to tell me they are same I would ask you why it is that the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki , for example, has required courses for graduate students in both Ancient Greek and Modern Greek? Sorry, Efstathios, but I don't buy into your "translation error" arguments because being a native Greek doesn't qualify you as an expert on the ancient language.Efstathios wrote:Anyway, about the old Greek Macedonian rival: This is again the famous paragraph that Rogers simply dictates. I dont know if he can read ancient Greek good, or if he even read the original in order to write the book, or just the English translation. But it is an example as to how much these kind of mistranslations are widespread among scholars without them knowing that the translation isnt actually accurate. I wouldnt expect from every foreign scholar to sit and read the texts in the original ancient Greek. Because they just trust the English translations, and that's normal. But the translations are not accurate.
Best regards,
