Ptolemy's army at Gaza

[ruthaki]

Does anyone have an idea of how large Ptolemy's army was at Gaza? And possible in comparison to how large an army Antigonos/Demetrius might have had? thanks in advance.

[Paralus]

Diodorus 19.80.3- 84.8 will tell you all you need to know.

[abm]

Diodorus 19.80.3- 84.8 will tell you all you need to know.

If you interpret him correctly, that is. There is disagreement as to whether the "great number" of Egyptians were included in the 18,000 infantrymen. Most scholars assume they were not, but it seems more likely they were. I would say that Ptolemaios' army consisted of 18,000 infantry, of whom many were Egyptians, and 4,000 cavalry, but it is not impossible that he had 22,000 infantry and cavalry and in addition to that a great number of Egyptians.

[Paralus]

Yes: it's as clear as mud as to exactly Ptolemy's numbers and breakdown. Possibly the key is the phalanx infantry. Demetrius has a slight edge in cavalry and, if we apply 1,500 for "the normal complement of light troops" between the elephants staioned before the phalanx (even though there are only thirteeen this force screens the phalanx on Diodorus' description and one suspects light infantry with the cavalry of the right). Demetrius then has some 18,400 odd men in the field.

Diodorus states that Demetrius' philoi counseled against taking on not only seasoned generals but a "superior force". abm will have a far better sense of the Greek but I suspect the rub is "superior force". The logical conclusion is numbers but there is another possibility. Demetrius has only 2,000 Macedonians; might there have been more Macedonians in the Egyptian force? "Some were Macedonians and some were mercenaries, but a great number were Egyptians" does not tell us much. Macedonians, though, were the homoioi of the time.

The text - in translation - gives the indication that the Egyptians were included in Ptolemy's infantry. They were possibly a trained force in the "Macedonian manner" but Diodorus is not replete with detail: "armed and serviceable for battle" is not a great description(armed how??). The others are described as weapons porters and the like and most likely doubled as light infantry as well. In any case, the concern of the philoi might well have been the fact that the Antigonid phalanx infantry were outnumbered (as it appears) and, just possibly, outnumbered in Macedonians or infantry deployed in the "Macedonian manner".

The detail for Demetrius speaks to an ultimate source for this encounter on the Antigonid side of the field. It seems that there was no hard and detailed information about the makeup of Ptolemy's array else Diodorus might have recorded it.

[agesilaos]

Philip A Sabin has just published a book, 'Lost Battles', in which he develops a broad brush model of ancient warfare and then applies it to known battles to a) test the validity of the model and b) see if the model can help illuminate any of the finer points that the sources leave out, Gaza is explored but, as usual, I have not got the book here so will post tomorrow. If you like wargames then the book is interesting but the half of it concerning the model's development and the actual rules may put others off. There was much with which to agree but the brush strokes are broad.

[wmp]

There's an extract from 'Lost Battles' on Prof Sabin's homepage, with downloads including a chapter about Hydaspes & the cyberboard (incompatible with Macs) for those of you who are interested - Philip encourages links to his web pages, not the separate files.

[Paralus]

If you like wargames then the book is interesting but the half of it concerning the model's development and the actual rules may put others off. There was much with which to agree but the brush strokes are broad.

From exploring the link that wmp posted, I'd agree: the wargaming community would love the book. Having not read the rationale I can't comment but I must say that I don't find much to disagree with in Sabin's Hydaspes rationale. His arrival at the width of the opposing lines is the same as I've posted hereabouts. The conclusion is inescapable: Porus' army was no huge host and 200 elephants is Greco-Macedonian fantasy - especially at 100 yards apart. Curtius' 85 is far closer to the truth and fifty yards separation as well. It is clear that Alexander attacked this force with some 2,000 or more light troops (entirely dependant on the numbers of Agrianes at this stage), 6,000 heavy infantry (hypaspists and two taxeis) and about 5,000 cavalry.

The man was a very clever strategist; not a complete goose.

[ruthaki]

Thanks for all the useful and great information. As always you folks on Pothos are a valuable source of details.