Gaugamela

[Megan]

Thank you very much to all of you who answered my recent question about the death of Alexander. But I am also curious about the battle of Gaugamela, of which Alexander won. I wish to know what happened to Darius III after the battle, and what happened to his army. I also know that Alexander's army used the "Phalanx" and "Spear" approaches, but I don't know in what ways he used them. Thank you.

[Dave j]

Megan,I am not sure that averybody will agree with me but I would not say that Guagamela was a victory for the Phalanx and Spears (or Sarissa). I would argue that the Cavalry played the major role in the victory, Alexander and the companions turned Darius and this led to the colapse of the Army. The Infantry held but was unable to stop the India Cavalry attaking the Bagage train or the reserve depending on whose theory you beleive. I beleive Fuller who claims the baggage was to far away to have been attacked. As For Darius after fleeing the battle field he was killed by some noble and left for dead. When alexander found him he was either near dead or actually dead, again depending on who you believe.

[maciek]

I think that most striking in all his conquest was use of the different kinds of weapon in one battle - combined arms (weapons) and it was so crucial in all battles of this campaign. It is hard to say what was more or less importand because without phalanx cavalry itself would not win the battle but I agree that decicive moment (in all battles) was use of hetairoi. They was hitting into the holes in enemy line and directing into the commander (king or stathrap) in the middle of formation. It's so interestin issue that we could fill all this forum with conversation about it but here are peages where all this is described - still it's always a pleasure to think again about such battles. Darius was killed by Bessos (i think) which claimed to be a new king of Persia but Alexander found him (the traitors again) and made him regred his doings.
Maciek

[yiannis]

Totally agree Maciej, that it was the combination of arms that made the difference. I'd like to add that Darius fled the field of battle and escaped to the North-east with some remands of the army. Alexander frantically went after him because he did not wanted Darius to have the change to organize resistance in the Eastern provinces. This continuous pursuit is what made Bessus assassinate Darious (in order to please Alexander?). In any case Alexander captured Bessus and gave him to the hands of Darius family to be tried (and executed) in the Persian manner (that is to be impaled)...Regards,
Yiannis

[marcus]

Hi Yiannis,The only issue I take with your response is that Alexander didn't 'frantically' chase Darius. If you recall, he first went to Babylon, then on to Susa and Persepolis, where the army stayed some time. It was only later that he went after Darius, when news arrived that he was raising another army.My understanding of this is that, after winning the battle, securing the capitals of the empire (in which I include Babylon because it had a very high status, even though it wasn't a Persian city) was the primary concern. Darius was a spent force as far as Alexander was concerned, and it was only when the rumour came that Darius was raising another army that it became necessary to stop him once and for all.All the bestMarcus

[maciek]

We have also quite relieble opinion of Peter Green about chasing the Darius: he wrote in his book that main reason for it, was that Alex wanted to take the lead of the country (persian empire) in (some how) formal way - using another words - he was so nice for Darius's mother and didn't want to kill Darius because he wanted to be his descendand. I'm sceptic for that book, but he had few good points and I belive he might be right in this one (exept for treating the Darius's mother and wife which I belive was sincerely. Maciek

[yiannis]

Marcus, I think that I'll, reluctantly, disagree with you. I'm at the office right now and I have to rely solely on my memory (which doesn't always serve me well I'm afraid:-) but still I recall that after the battle of Gaugamela over 100 horses were mentioned to be ridden to their death out of exhaustion in the pursuit of fleeing Darius. I think it's fair to assume that one force went to secure the treasury at the Persian capital and another one kept on pressing Darius escape. At least this is what I recall on this incident.Br,
Yiannis

[marcus]

Yiannis,You are extremely polite! Yes, Alexander did pursue Darius immediately after Gaugamela - when they got to Arbela they found that he had already fled. But at that point they gave up and went on to Babylon, Susa and Persepolis, and only then did the pursuit of Darius resume.So if, when you mentioned a frantic pursuit, you meant this, then yes, you are right. But I understood your comment to refer to the pursuit at the end of which Darius was killed, which didn't happen for 2-3 months at least.All the bestMarcus

[nick]

Gaugamela was fought on (presumably) the 1st of October 331 BC - Darius was murdered in July 330 BC - so that is over 9 months after Gaugamela. As always, Alexander let strategical advantage (capturing Babylon - residence of the Persian kings for part of the year - Susa and Persepolis) prevail over tactical advantage (capturing Darius). Yes, in the night after Gaugamela Alexander pursued Darius for some 70 miles, but the Great King managed to get away. Alexander then turned his attention to strategical matters.I think we have a nice Gaugamela-article in the Battles (Major) section. Apart from that: yes, the Companion cavalry probably delivered the decisive blow, not the phalanx (which was more suited for defense of the Macedonian center). Also remember Bessus was the first one to order his troops to withdraw. Jona Lendering (http://www.livius.org) cites some very interesting Babylonian tablets which say that Darius was abandoned by his troops at Gaugamela (and not the other way round, as some tend to believe).Regards -
Nick

[marcus]

Good clarification, Nick! I knew it must have been more than 2-3 months but I wasn't sufficiently sure of the timescale.All the bestMarcus

[ruthaki]

You fellows are awesome! This was a most interesting, scholarly form discussion.Thanks.

[Nicator]

Hi Megan,
Alexander used his phalanx as a holding force, and his cavalry became the striking hammers used to outmaneuvre and over-run his Persian host. After the victory, Alexander was considered to be the "Lord of Asia", and Darius was not taken as a serious threat anymore, though he still was at large, and needed to be dealt with. Gaugamela was truly an amazing victory which military historian's and tactician's cite as one of the most important in the history of warfare. There are problems with Gaugamela though, in that we don't have accurate information concerning large portions of the contest. Alexander should have lost this battle...he was outnumbered, and on an open field he would need exceedingly great speed and cunning (not to mention luck) to win. I don't know of any source which suggests that he may have lost this battle, which would suggest that he did in fact score a major victory against overwhelming odds, which catapulted him into the Asian realm for good. later Nicator

[marcus]

Hi Nicator,Everything I have read about Gaugamela indicates that Darius fleeing from the field was what turned the battle. Considering the overwhelming size of the Persian army, it does indeed seem incredible that Alexander should have won.Interesting: I've just been reading 'Redcoat', a history of the British soldier from the 30 Years' War to the Indian Mutiny. It is amazing how, despite the huge number of front-line officers that were killed in the course of battle, the soldiers just kept fighting, the more junior officers taking command of units. But what we will never know is what would have happened had Wellington, or Napoleon say, been killed during Waterloo. I suspect that it would have been like Gaugamela - once the head is cut off, the rest just folds.All the bestMarcus

[Nicator]

Hello Marcus,No arguments there, Darius pulled the plug on his own operation, and his retreat signaled a general rout. Have you read anything on the "30 Years War"? I read this great book on it with the same title. It was a horrible event which changed the history on Europe forever. It allowed France to become dominant, and set up the English for more than a century of dominance later. The English of course elected to stay out of it altogether. The real interesting story was the tactical genious of the Swedish leader Gustov Adolphus. He changed warfare and almost won the war...he died in the 2nd great battle of Lutzen against Wallenstein. His body was found naked under a pile of corpses with a dagger in his side, shot twice in the back, and a ball in his left arm. The Swedes won the battle, but at terrible cost. That cost was the loss of Gustov amongst other things. He, like Alexander, was always in the thick of the fighting, and rallied his troops by his own valor and actions.later Nicator