Alexander and his mind

[Semiramis]

Alexander would have faced non-conventional guerrilla-type warfare in Central Asia. I'm not sure he would have been surprised to face the same sort or resistance in India.It would not have made sense in the part of the Indian armies incapable of facing Alexander's forces to invite him to face-to-face battle. However, it makes plenty of tactical sense to simply wait for Alexander's army to run out of supplies/succumb to disease/mutiny. Locals would have been aware that just like the Persian Kings, this invader could not hang around forever either.

If there is any difference in Alexander's campaigns in India it seems quantitative, not qualitative. The carrot and stick (read "choice between non-massacre or massacre") theme has been present in his career ever since Thebes. If the Indian massacres were more brutal, I am inclined to put it down to the length of the campaign. The desensitization and brutalization of the main Macedonian core of the army after long hard years of war. If the mutinies are anything to go my, morale was at an all time low for the rank and file and even officers.

[Paralus]

It would not have made sense in the part of the Indian armies incapable of facing Alexander's forces to invite him to face-to-face battle. However, it makes plenty of tactical sense to simply wait for Alexander's army to run out of supplies/succumb to disease/mutiny. Locals would have been aware that just like the Persian Kings, this invader could not hang around forever either.

Several of the confrontations (most? will have a re-read) did begin as face to face and then became a flight from the field to a town or redoubt. It was always the latter stage that resulted in the slaughter. Others were just this latter scenario where towns were depopulated and the inhabitants removed themselves to fortresses.

After the initial losses it made sense to avoid climactic clashes as you say.

If there is any difference in Alexander's campaigns in India it seems quantitative, not qualitative...

Yes, that I also see. This army had become very good at killing by this stage. In most of these confrontations Alexander takes the Agrianes, the hypaspists, the aesthetairoi (occasionally) and a brigade or three of the phalanx. The army would be split (Ptolemy often places himself in command of the second half if I recall) and the Indians surrounded and massacred

If the Indian massacres were more brutal, I am inclined to put it down to the length of the campaign. The desensitization and brutalization of the main Macedonian core of the army after long hard years of war. If the mutinies are anything to go my, morale was at an all time low for the rank and file and even officers.

That too is most likely. It had been a long campaign and the army of the Hellespont was not one primarily of young recent drafts. The hypaspists (and likely the aesthetairoi) and a good number of the phalanx had campaigned under Philip for quite some years. What were hardened campaigners had become professional killers – particularly the hypaspists who are attested at nearly every confrontation throughout the campaign. By the time of Jhelum their coldly efficient killing is clearly on display. Here the Indian army is rolled up from the right and surrounded. Had there not been a break forced in the cordon, it is likely that the lot will have bitten the sarisa. They were still terribly efficient at it seven years after Alexander’s death when they twice took apart Antigonus’ phalanx. Desensitised to it and coldly comfortable with it.

This, I’d argue, was attempted at both Issus and Gaugamela. At the latter it explains the Persian’s desperation to avoid the cordon being drawn around them. Alexander’s battle plans called for the utter destruction of the enemy in field.

[marcus]

Yes, that I also see. This army had become very good at killing by this stage. In most of these confrontations Alexander takes the Agrianes, the hypaspists, the aesthetairoi (occasionally) and a brigade or three of the phalanx. The army would be split (Ptolemy often places himself in command of the second half if I recall) and the Indians surrounded and massacred

If the Indian massacres were more brutal, I am inclined to put it down to the length of the campaign. The desensitization and brutalization of the main Macedonian core of the army after long hard years of war. If the mutinies are anything to go my, morale was at an all time low for the rank and file and even officers.

That too is most likely. It had been a long campaign and the army of the Hellespont was not one primarily of young recent drafts. The hypaspists (and likely the aesthetairoi) and a good number of the phalanx had campaigned under Philip for quite some years. What were hardened campaigners had become professional killers – particularly the hypaspists who are attested at nearly every confrontation throughout the campaign. By the time of Jhelum their coldly efficient killing is clearly on display. Here the Indian army is rolled up from the right and surrounded. Had there not been a break forced in the cordon, it is likely that the lot will have bitten the sarisa. They were still terribly efficient at it seven years after Alexander’s death when they twice took apart Antigonus’ phalanx. Desensitised to it and coldly comfortable with it.

This, I’d argue, was attempted at both Issus and Gaugamela. At the latter it explains the Persian’s desperation to avoid the cordon being drawn around them. Alexander’s battle plans called for the utter destruction of the enemy in field.

I agree with everything that has been said, but of course Alexander's veterans had been hardened killers by the time Alexander took them over the Hellespont - years of campaigning with Philip, then 18 months or so of campaigning with Alexander (including the destruction of Thebes, which was not so very much different from what they ended up doing in Inida, and had already done to the cities along the Jaxartes in 329BC - 7 cities reduced in 5 days, and the inhabitants taken off to slavery in Alex. Escharte).

Perhaps they became more efficient by the time they were in India; perhaps they were more desensitized ... I wonder whether they actually needed to be any "better" or "hardened" at killing than they already were?

ATB

[Paralus]

...Alexander's veterans had been hardened killers by the time Alexander took them over the Hellespont - years of campaigning with Philip, then 18 months or so of campaigning with Alexander (including the destruction of Thebes, which was not so very much different from what they ended up doing in Inida and had already done to the cities along the Jaxartes in 329BC - 7 cities reduced in 5 days, and the inhabitants taken off to slavery in Alex. Escharte).

Yes: it's often missed that the army of the Hellespont was not terribly young. Many had served years under Philip as Justin notes:

Whether, with this small force, it is more wonderful that he conquered the world, or that he dared to attempt its conquest, is difficult to determine. When he selected his troops for so hazardous a warfare, he did not choose robust young men, or men in the flower of their age, but veterans, most of whom had even passed their term of service, and who had fought under his father and his uncles; so that he might be thought to have chosen, not soldiers, but masters in war.

These men will likely have been with Philip at Crocus Field in 352 where they destroyed the army of Phocis in the Sacred war. Diodorus (16.35.6) gives the result:

In the end, more than 6,000 Phocians and mercenaries were killed, including their general, and no fewer than 3,000 were captured alive. Philip hanged Onomarchus and drowned the remainder as temple despoilers.

The operations on the Jaxartes were the precurser to what transpired in India. Arrian is clear that all the men in these towns were slaughtered and the women and children carried off as prizes of war or "sold into slavery":

They killed all the men, according to Alexander’s injunctions; but the women, the children, and the rest of the booty they carried off as plunder. Thence he immediately marched to the city situated next to that one; and this he took in the same way and on the same day, treating the captives in the same manner.

What is more, Alexander sends cavalry to the next towns to expressly bottle up the men so as they cannot take themselves to safety:

...he sent out his cavalry to the two neighbouring cities, with orders to guard the men within them closely, so that when they heard of the capture of the neighbouring cities, and at the same time of his own near approach, they should not betake themselves to flight and render it impossible for him to pursue them.

It should come as no surprise that, finding themselves so coralled, "nearly all were killed". Similar tactics - on a larger scale - would be employed against the Mallians in India. The result we know. Arrian has a wry observation of those results:

At this time arrived envoys from the Mallians who still survived, offering the submission of the nation.

Perhaps they became more efficient by the time they were in India; perhaps they were more desensitized ... I wonder whether they actually needed to be any "better" or "hardened" at killing than they already were?

They were indeed hardened campaigners and killers. I'd suggest it simply became more "routine" by the later stages of Alexander's campaign. Certainly they'd become that much more desensitised - by then they'd been killing for kings and country for a good part of their adult lives. The taunt of the hypaspists - then Argyraspids - at Gabiene, describing themselves as men who'd conquered the world with Philip and Alexander, sums them up as does the closing threat (19.41.2):

...in a little while they (Antigonus' Macedonians) would see that these veterans were worthy of both those kings and of their own past battles.

And indeed they were.

[marcus]

I'd suggest it simply became more "routine" by the later stages of Alexander's campaign.

Thank you - that's what I was trying to say, but I had rather an eloquence deficiency yesterday - all to do with it being so close to the end of term, and having been out too late on Friday night!

That is indeed the thing. They weren't any "better" at killing, but perhaps more efficient and routine about it.

ATB

[Semiramis]

I agree with everything that has been said, but of course Alexander's veterans had been hardened killers by the time Alexander took them over the Hellespont - years of campaigning with Philip, then 18 months or so of campaigning with Alexander (including the destruction of Thebes, which was not so very much different from what they ended up doing in Inida, and had already done to the cities along the Jaxartes in 329BC - 7 cities reduced in 5 days, and the inhabitants taken off to slavery in Alex. Escharte).

Perhaps they became more efficient by the time they were in India; perhaps they were more desensitized ... I wonder whether they actually needed to be any "better" or "hardened" at killing than they already were?

ATB

Absolutely. No doubt Phillip's army were hardened full-time warriors already. The Macedonian Phalanx weren't feared for nothing...