THE STRENGTH OF THE PERSIAN ARMY AT ISSOS

[Hando]

It is not usual to discount troops simply because they are useless, or rather not used sensibly; it is worth doing when computing the kill ratio

I'm sorry but I seem to have lost you here. What do you mean by "it is worth doing when computing the kill ratio?

Also, do you consider Arrian to be more accurate than Diodorus with regards to the account of Gaugamela? If so I think it may become my primary source for Gaugamela.

[Hando]

Further we are guessing at numbers, it would be fair to say that the Macedonians were outnumbered (other than at Graneikos and possibly Hydaspes), but the opposition were out-classed.

Even though only 18,000 Persians fought against 47,000 Macedonians?

[agesilaos]

Attempts have been made, notably by Krentz to quantify the percentage of casualties suffered by the victors and defeated in hoplite battle, unfortunately this sort of investigation has to consider the tactical factors, so that if only one wing of each army actually engage it is facile to compute casualty ratios based on the strength of both armies rather than the engaged wings.

However, it is a question of personal choice what one includes in amy strength if one applies this principle to the more complicated arena of all arms combat. The Persian levies did not fight but beyond the Agrianes, cavalry and hypaspists how many of Alexander's troops actually fought? The phalanx does not seem to have done much more than react to the chariots, do we knock 9,000 off Alexander's totals, nor did the allied hoplites engage; that's 15,000 down so only 25,000 foot and one could go on; the bigger question is did they not fight or do our Alexandrocentric sources simply ignore any action not centred upon him; I cannot tell you which approach is more correct, it is a choice and as long as you can explain why you choose that approach and which you have adopted it is valid (although open to critcism, of course, as it should be). In Ancient History particularly most things will depend on a commentator's assumptions and evaluation of the sources. YES, you should choose Arrian as your primary source, he is head and shoulders above the rest, but still needs to be read critically; there is much in Curtius which derives from Ptolemy and supplements Arrian, unfortunately it is mixed in with much detritus from Kleitarchos and later rhetorical sources, like Hegesias; but this is my view and by no means universal, though more so than any favouring another source than Arrian. Basically it is more to what degree one trusts Arrian rather than supplanting him completely. He is an easy read, then try Curtius then Plutarch for light relief, then Diodoros (you'll notice mny commonalities with Curtius) and finally Justin. That's the big five, but they can be supplemented by epigraphy and many minor writers only extant as fragments, but I would only advise approaching those once you have a sound narrative grounding from Arrian; if any disagree, I'll meet them on the Playing fields ...

[Hando]

The Persian levies did not fight but beyond the Agrianes, cavalry and hypaspists how many of Alexander's troops actually fought? The phalanx does not seem to have done much more than react to the chariots, do we knock 9,000 off Alexander's totals, nor did the allied hoplites engage; that's 15,000 down so only 25,000 foot and one could go on

Agesilaos, thanks for your recommendations and answers. Especially for the quote above indicating that many of the Macedonians did not fight. I read Arrian's account of Gaugamela with your insight in mind and picked out the Macedonians who fought. Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that only the following Macedonians fought.
1)Cavalry of the Grecian mercenaries under Menidas vs Scythian cavalry and the Bactrians
2)Aristo's Paeonians and Grecian auxiliaries vs Scythians
3)Agrianians and the javelin-men with Balacrus vs scyhted chariots
4)Grooms of Alexander's army and royal shield-bearing guards.vs scythed chariots
5)Companion cavalry and part of the Macedonian phalanx vs. Persians around Darius
6)Simmias' phalanx brigade vs persians
7)Companion cavalry vs Presian right
8)Parmenion vs Persian right
9)Thessalian cavalry vs Persian right

A)How many Macedonians fought and how many Macedonians did not fight? I could not make this out from Arrians' account.
You said the Macedonian Phalanx and allied hoplites did not fight. Who else? And how many were they in total numbers?

B)According to Arrian's account of Gaugamela, the only Persians who ran soon after Darius took flight were those nearest him and also those who "were riding round the wing... when Aretes made a vigorous attack upon them." Even after Darius fled, many other Persians stood and fought, such as the Indians and Persian cavalry who attacked the Macedonian baggage train. The Persian right wing also did not flee but attacked Parmenion's flank, because they weren't aware of Darius flight. So how many Persians do you think actually engaged the Macedonians at Gaugamela? Ie. saw "action"? In this question are included those Persians who may have eventually fled, but still initially engaged the Macedonians nontheless. Lendering makes it look like large chunks of Persians flew en masse (He says "Well, as Diodorus says: the wings started to run away, the center remained."), but my reading of Arrian suggests only some fled first with Darius, while others fled later and only after engaging the enemy. Jona says Diodorus is more reliable than Arrian...

Thank you in advance for your answers to A and B.

[agesilaos]

2battle_gaugamela_lg.jpg (89.68 KiB) Viewed 5624 times

This is a reasonable map; as you can see the second phalanx, of allied hoplites or possibly half the Macedonian phalanx too ' ἡ μὲν ἐπὶ μετώπου τάξις Ἀλεξάνδρῳ ὧδε κεκόσμητο: [12] ἐπέταξε δὲ καὶ δευτέραν τάξιν ὡς εἶναι τὴν φάλαγγα ἀμφίστομον' III 11 x to 12 i, meaning 'The front-line (matapou taxis) was arranged by Alexander in this way: he also organised a second line in or to have a 'double-mouthed' phalanx.' which ought to mean that the file leaders of the rear line were to the rear and it may do here as they are told to ' epistrophe' which is simply turning around rather than counter marching; there were 9,000 phalangitai, 3,000 hypaspistai and 6,000 allied hoplites so it is possible that Alexander deployed his phalanxes two unit s up, in the front line and one back thus

DEPDISTOMPHAL.png (5.03 KiB) Viewed 5624 times

Since the Hypaspistai do not seem to have been split (other than the smaller group that joined the grooms to combat the scythed chariots) we would have 9,000 men in both lines which works, but since itonly works when they are at the same depth and there would be no need to set the hoplites sixteen deep we should have them at eight deep, which alters the frontage, which expands from 750 to 1125 metres, the extra 375m could add 1,250 cavalry to the Persian total which we may as well round up to 20,000.

This would not affect the numbers of unengaged Macedonians though as these troops are the ones that do not seem to have come to grips befor the Persians fled so 18,000 potentially unengaged Maceonians; potially because we hear so little of the fight on the left wing that those phalanxes may well have fought.

I am curious, and slightly worried, about the use to which you intend to put this type of analysis though. Just as Dareios needed his foot to carry supplies and flatten the area, Alexander's counter to Dareios' novel deployment would be nowhere without the rock of the central pike blocks. Being unengaged does not mean one is of no worth.

[Hando]

...the extra 375m could add 1,250 cavalry to the Persian total which we may as well round up to 20,000.

This would not affect the numbers of unengaged Macedonians though as these troops are the ones that do not seem to have come to grips befor the Persians fled so 18,000 potentially unengaged Maceonians; potially because we hear so little of the fight on the left wing that those phalanxes may well have fought.

Just as Dareios needed his foot to carry supplies and flatten the area, Alexander's counter to Dareios' novel deployment would be nowhere without the rock of the central pike blocks. Being unengaged does not mean one is of no worth.

Agesilaos, thank you for taking the trouble to post those maps and for explaining things in detail. They were both thoughtful and helpful. I did look at these maps before, but I did not understand nor appreciate their use at the time. So I do appreciate how you used them to explain things. They make more sense now. I have three questions I'd be grateful if you could help me with.

1)Since the only Persian troops that fought at Gaugamela were the cavalry which totaled 18,000 to 20,000, while amongst the Macedonians, there were 18,000 potentially unengaged troops (9,000 phalangitai, 3,000 hypaspistai and 6,000 allied hoplites), is it safe to assume that those who actually fought was 18,000 to 20,000 Persians against 29,000 Macedonians?

2) By the "rock of the central pike blocks" do you mean the Macedonian Phalanx, hypaspistai and allied hoplites?

3) You said "Being unengaged does not mean one is of no worth." So wouldn't this then mean that although the 60,000 Persian infantry levies fled without fighting at all, they still had worth as combatants deployed on the battle field, because their mere presence effected both the way the Macedonians used their troops, as well as effecting the way the Macedonians reacted to the Persian lines? Please tell me if you agree with me or not, and if you do, can you suggest other ways in which these 60,000 infantry levies proved combat "worthy" on the battle field, even though they did not fight? I exclude their use as porters and flattening the field for the chariots, since these are not combat activities.

Thank you in advance. If you could reply to each of the 3 questions individually, I'd appreciate it as that would avoid confusion. All your answers so far are very enlightening and eye opening. I never thought of Gaugamela this way.

[agesilaos]

The hypaspists did fight as they formed one flank of the wedge that Alexander drove through the Persian lines (I think I may have included their 3,000 in the non-coms, my error).

1) Arrian gives Alexander 7,000 horse and 40,000 foot since all the horse and all but a potential 15,000 foot fought that would make, 32,000 Macedonian combatants against 20,000 Persians.
2) Yes.
3) I would say , rather, that they had 'military value' for the reasons you outline. They were not equipped or trained for combat against the Macedonian army. I am always surprised that the Persians do not seem to have made any use of mass archery, their former forte.

I had not thought about the 'phalanga diastoma' very clearly myself

[Hando]

3) I would say , rather, that they had 'military value' for the reasons you outline. They were not equipped or trained for combat against the Macedonian army.

Sorry, but I'm confused at the apparent contradiction between the first and second sentences. If they had military value, wasn't this because they were relatively well armed? Armed enough to influence the Macedonians' battle tactics/behaviour?

And weren't the 60,000 Persian infantry levies armed with javelins, shields and armour? And weren't they given some military training?
Even their archers were less armed but proved effective...

Thank you Agesilaos.

[agesilaos]

Javelins? Yes. Shields? Probabl. Armour? No.Training? No.

These are not the sparabara/takabara of Xerxes ' Persia they are armed servants. Their military value on th efield is not that they can actually do anything against the Macedonians in combat but that the Macedonians still have to factor them into their plans regardless.At issos they had occupied a flanking position and had failed to exploit it, which gives me to believe they were armed servants and not trained troops. The only troops to stand up to the sarissa-armed phalanx were Greek hoplites, and they lost on every occaision!.

[Hando]

Their military value on th efield is not that they can actually do anything against the Macedonians in combat but that the Macedonians still have to factor them into their plans regardless.

1)So it seems to me that the reason why every single one of these 60,000 infantry levies ran away from the Macedonians, without even a single threatening thrust of their javelins towards the Macedonian lines was because they knew it was hopelessly futile to fight against the Macedonians. It wasn't a lack of courage, it was an accurate assessment of their situation. So in the final analysis, the Persians lost because their 60,000 infantry levies ran away, not because of any brilliant generalship by Alexander as we have been led to believe.

2)And the Persians also lost because they were in effect, outnumbered 20,000 to 32,000 in terms of actual troops who fought. If the 60,000 had any chance against the Macedonians, the Persians would have outnumbered the Macedonians and had a chance to win, but since none of the 60,000 could do anything against the Macedonians, the Persians were in effect outnumbered. The 60,000 infantry levies might as well have been porcelain soldiers lined up along the battle field, like those buried with the Chinese emperor in Xian.

[agesilaos]

Aha, I had a feeling you were leading in this direction.

Why the levies broke (Led Zepp, anyone?), would be a combination of factors, certainly a feeling of being outclassed, the example of their mounted betters being driven back and Jona's omens; it must also be borne in mind that the Persian army had stood to througout th enight and would have been totally knackered. Fatigue does not promote clear thinking or resilience.

This was the battle where Alexander actually displayed his tactical genius at its best; the problem he faced was attacking a larger more mobile army and engineering a decisive advantage at one point; defensively he had to guard against the scythed chariots and the almost inevitable encirclement. All this with two open flanks on a flat plain. Strategically, which is literally generalship, Alexander had deceived Dareios as to his chosen route across the Tigris and drawn him away from his supply base, Babylon, while keeping his own forces well supplied. The Persians were defeated by Alexander's generalship, the Macedonian army was an excellent tool, but a tool is only as good as the workman wielding it.

We never count only those troops engaged when computing odds as this gives a false impression. Good generalship will get more men to a place than the enemy faster (Nathan Bedford Forrest said the only principal in generalship was 'To get there fastest with the mostest.'), Battlefield generalship or grand tactics endeavous, among other things to concentrate your mass against an enemy weak point (Schwerpunckt), these principals contrive to leave a large section of the opposition unengaged whilst employing the most of one's own strength, so that counting engaged troops would give a waped view of the available forces. Should you ever get to go to Paris and visit 'Les Invalides' their equivalent of the 'Imperial War Museum' and visit the Franco-Prussian War gallery they have a series explaining that the Prussians cheated throughout 1870 by outnumbering the French in every battle, what they fail to point out was that the French were outnumbered because they failed to get their troops into the theatre in time to fight whereas the Prussians moved their troops efficiently to a plan; generalship is not about fighting on a level playing field its sole concern is winning.


Working out how many men were engaged is useful for a more precise look at the distribution of casualties between winners and losers or unit types; Krentz did not take this into account in his analysis of hoplite battles, so that instead of considering Leuktra as a fight between the Theban wing and the Lakedaimonian, he divides the casualties into both armies skewing the result. Unfortunately we rarely get trustworthy figures for either army strengths or casualty figures and certainly not for Alexander's battles.

[Hando]

Why the levies broke (Led Zepp, anyone?), would be a combination of factors, ...the example of their mounted betters being driven back

1)Haha, yes I am a big Zep fan too and I also immediately associate word's like "levies broke" with their songs. Another is "finding the bridge."

2)So the levies fled only after they saw their cavalry losing? The scenario I had in my mind was that of the levies fleeing immediately at the very beginning of the battle, as soon as the opposing Macedonians charged at them. I did not know the levies actually stood their ground until their cavalry in front of them started to flee.

[Hando]

We never count only those troops engaged when computing odds as this gives a false impression...what they (the French) fail to point out was that the French were outnumbered (in the Franco-Prussian war), because they failed to get their troops into the theatre in time to fight whereas the Prussians moved their troops efficiently to a plan; generalship is not about fighting on a level playing field its sole concern is winning.

Yes, I agree with you and I didn't think about this before. But for me, the difference between the unengaged Persian levies and the unengaged French troops who did not participate in their respective battles, is that the French were willing to fight and actually tried to come to grips with the Prussians. It seems to me that the Persian levies simply wanted to run away without a fight and simply melted away. For this reason they seem to be a non factor in the battle. This is the reason why I feel the Persians were numerically disadvantaged at Gaugamela. I'd like to be proven wrong and I am only suggesting my opinion. I'm not claiming that I'm right. Thanks for your thoughts on this.

[agesilaos]

I'm not quite sure how keen the French were to get into action, but I would saythat we don't realy know musch about the motivation of the Persian foot; we are caught between the cultural bias of our Greek sources and the fact that they did run, with the additional possibility of bad omens, what we don't have is any Persian source to illuminate their side of the story. Certainly, comment was passed at the time on the quality of Alexander's opponents with Alexander of Epeiros allegedly describing them as women.

[Hando]

Why the levies broke, would be a combination of factors, .... the example of their mounted betters being driven back...

Is it correct that the levies fled only after they saw their cavalry losing? The scenario I had in my mind was that of the levies fleeing immediately at the very beginning of the battle, as soon as the opposing Macedonians charged at them. I did not know the levies actually stood their ground until their cavalry in front of them started to flee.