Establishing casualty numbers

Please post here if you have any constructive comments, support requests or queries about pothos.org itself.

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Post by marcus »

Efstathios wrote: Arrian wasnt in Alexander's royal court but lived in the 1st century a.d. Some people seem to forget that. He didnt have a reason to make propaganda, at least as far as i know. And he didnt have only Callisthenes as a source, who surely he knew that he could have been guided by Alexander as to what he wrote about some things.
I will just jump in here, to point out that we are all perfectly aware that modern writers have vastly different ideas about Alexander: from Tarn's heroisation to Worthington's "Devil incarnate" interpretation. All modern historians write with their own bias, and use the source material at their disposal to form and support their arguments, which cannot help but be influenced by the zetigeist of their own time - hence Tarn in the 1930s, and why the revisionists are so strong in the 1990s and the early 21st century.

Ancient historians were no different; and as you quite rightly said, as Arrian was writing 350-350 years after Alexander, he was indeed a historian. An ancient historian had the same points of view and interpretations as any modern historian, using the source material at hand to form and support their arguments. So I have to agree with Paralus - even if Arrian didn't realise he was doing it, he could not help but write to his own agenda.

The only thing that I would add, however, is that I do think "propaganda" is too strong a word; or, rather, that our interpretation of propaganda, since the days of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, makes it rather too strong and 'planned' a word to use.

That's what makes history so interesting! :lol:

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Paralus wrote:I wasn’t actually aware that the position of Hypaspist was hereditary as Hammond implies here. As well, were these “sons” to be old enough to number among the active service Macedonians in 323, they will need to have been conceived prior to the Chaeronea campaign …

… Why also, if these “hypaspists” have been “raised in camp”, do we not ever hear of them until 317 in Eumenes army? The “sons” of the Hypaspists are not attested anywhere else that I’m aware of – whether there were 1,000 of them or not in 323.

…There is apparently an article Hammond refers to where he argues his rationale for this description. Couldn't lay hands on it could you Amyntoros??
Good arguments, Paralus - including those which I didn’t quote above. Unfortunately, I don’t have Hammond’s article where he argues his rationale for the description – I assume you mean the one he refers to in his notes; Classical Quarterly 28 (1978) 133 n.21. Can anyone else here help?

On to the total numbers of troops in India – my obsession, it appears, but I’m still trying to reconcile the difference between the supposedly huge number of Persians who survived Gaugamela (even using the lowest figures given) and the apparent disappearance of most of them from the histories for the next seven or eight years. Whilst looking for more evidence of the 30,000 Persians in India, I found that Arrian too, in the Indica (19.4-5), gives a figure of 120,000 at the Indus: “… for by this time a hundred and twenty thousand fighting men were following him, including those he had himself brought up from the sea-coast and those whom his officers, sent to recruit forces, had brought with them; at the same time he led all sorts of barbarian tribes, armed in every fashion.” Hmmm, same figure given as that of Efstathios’s “unreliable” Curtius (8.5.4) – a figure which would include the 30,000 Persians. (Btw, I’m going to a literary sci-fi con at Tarrytown next weekend and the first thing I shall do is have a button made with the words Curtius is Unreliable emblazoned upon it. I will wear it for the entire con in honor of Pothos! :lol: )

Brunt in Appendix XIII of the Anabasis argues against Curtius figures (with no mention of Arrian’s in the Indica), but having recently been reading an early article of his where he again discusses numbers - Alexander’s Macedonian Cavalry; JHS, Vol. 83 (1963), 27-46 - I have to say that, IMO, he excels in what is known as “creative accountancy.” In said article he has a table which gives figures (without losses) of 42,000 Macedonian Foot and 5,600 Cavalry in 324-3! How d’ya like them apples, Paralus? :wink: Have to say that I’m continuing to lean towards the 30,000 Persians at the Indus being a potentially credible figure.

An aside of sorts here: Hammond, in his The Genius of Alexander the Great Page 176, says that before crossing Gedrosia Alexander “had sent home most of the numerous Asian cavalry and the Indian infantry.” No source is given for this and right now I don’t know of one. Anyone?

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

amyntoros wrote:Whilst looking for more evidence of the 30,000 Persians in India, I found that Arrian too, in the Indica (19.4-5), gives a figure of 120,000 at the Indus: “… for by this time a hundred and twenty thousand fighting men were following him, including those he had himself brought up from the sea-coast and those whom his officers, sent to recruit forces, had brought with them; at the same time he led all sorts of barbarian tribes, armed in every fashion.” Hmmm, same figure given as that of Efstathios’s “unreliable” Curtius (8.5.4) – a figure which would include the 30,000 Persians.


Without having Arrian to hand, I’d have to continue to say that this is still a fantastic figure. Arrian describes quite fully the trip to “Ocean” after the Beas fiasco. Going from memory, I can’t recall there being any descriptions of 120,000 troops operating. We have the army divided occasionally but what, three army groups of 40,000 or two of 60,000?

It may have occurred but I just don’t see it - remember it – written up as such
amyntoros wrote:In said article he has a table which gives figures (without losses) of 42,000 Macedonian Foot and 5,600 Cavalry in 324-3! How d’ya like them apples, Paralus?


Creative accounting indeed. That might approximate the number of Macedonian troops operating in the Balkans, Greece and Asia but that overstates the mark there too.

Enron apples them.

amyntoros wrote:An aside of sorts here: Hammond, in his The Genius of Alexander the Great Page 176, says that before crossing Gedrosia Alexander “had sent home most of the numerous Asian cavalry and the Indian infantry.” No source is given for this and right now I don’t know of one. Anyone?
Home would imply their home. So he is suggesting that the Dahe, the Saca and others from Sogdia, Bactria, Parapamisadae and Arachosia were essentially sent back the way they had come? Under whose command? That too might well be true but, the numbers were not huge. These would be the cavalry that Eumenes will have collected amid his rather polyglot satrapal army of 318/17.

The Indians – at some 5,000 – are easier to understand. No longer required, they would better serve the empire as statrapal forces under their reinstated monarchs
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Post by agesilaos »

Diodoros XIX 28 i speaks of pais twn hypaspistwn pais may mean descendents ie sons or daughters or it can mean young men or women it can even mean slaves. As such you takes your pick certainly 'sons of the hypaspists' seems too specific by far and quite unlikely, they were a corps chosen on ability and not by bloodline. I'm not too sure about these boys being Asians, however as it would surely have riled the Argyraspids to have their corps name given to some Asians by a Greek, and as Paralus so rightly says Eumenes was short on Macedonians and could not afford to alienate these old birds. Hammond is thinking of a passage in Justin where he speaks of the soldiers raised in the camp and trained by Alexander but these people were subsumed into the pantodapoi or men from all lands. I used to think that the Argyraspids were the old Agema and the hypaspists the other two chiliarcies but Didoros' numbers add up so I am unsure now.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

agesilaos wrote: I'm not too sure about these boys being Asians, however as it would surely have riled the Argyraspids to have their corps name given to some Asians by a Greek, and as Paralus so rightly says Eumenes was short on Macedonians and could not afford to alienate these old birds.
It is possible they may not have been. The oddity is that – outside of the Argyraspids – they are the only other troops directly named that might be Macedonian. How Eumenes, in collecting his units of the satrapal coalition (of the upper satrapies), came by a lone corps of 3,000 Hypaspists, though, is most intriguing. In collecting this army, Eumenes cobbles together the forces available to the various satraps. This will be a fight to the death against Antigonus. Peucestas is attested (318) with an army which comprised 10,000 “Persian” infantry and – notably – 3,000 “eastern infantry” trained and armed in the Macedonian fashion. The number is interesting. In Opis Alexander already had his Asian “Silver Shields” in tow as the successors to his Hypaspists. One suspects the belligerent old buggers were, by now, beyond that type of insult?

Interesting too that when – in Persepolis – Eumenes, Peucestas and the other satrapal commanders sit down to a feast (to recall Alexander’s mollifying of the Macedonians seven years earlier), it is the Argyraspids who are sat in a circle around the commanders with others of the satraps’ guard who had service under Alexander and recalled those days. We do not know how many these "others" were and, I suppose it could round out to 3,000 but it more likely refers to their cavalry agema one suspects.

That the decisions within this army were taken by Eumenes, in consultation with the other commanders is well described. The commamders - in discussion - are listed and outside of the Satraps there is only the co-commamder of the Argyraspids, Teutamus (Antigenes being hiself a satrap). The only other group attested to to have a say are the Argyraspids. Unfortunately for Eumemes, it was a large and, in the end, final say.

It is salutary that the 3,000 “hypaspists” are portrayed as having no voice here.

agesilaos wrote: Hammond is thinking of a passage in Justin where he speaks of the soldiers raised in the camp and trained by Alexander but these people were subsumed into the pantodapoi or men from all lands.
Again, I find that most interesting. The mathematics of it means that any of an age to serve in 323 will have been born in 340/39; those that will have been old enough to serve in Eumenes’ coalition in 334/3. It seems extraordinary that such will have been carted about the east. The pantodapoi may give the clue. Perhaps these are children of the camp followers attached to the Macedonians. That is, children predating the anabasis relationship?
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

I didnt check the forums for a few days so i will comment now on some of the posts:
pais twn hypaspistwn
Just a clarification. "Pais" means child. The correct in the plural form should be "paides twn hypaspistwn" which of course means children of the hypaspists, and not sons. But not slaves either.

If the translation wrote "sons" then this is another example of how translations are not accurate and can change the whole meaning up to unknown extends.

As to the earlier posts:

Michael, i do not believe that Arrian said little about the Persepolis incident just because he didnt want to spill Alexander's image. If he had this intention, then he wouldnt mention his oppinion about Parmenion, Cleitus, Gedrosia, e.t.c. And he wasnt apologetic. Plutarch may have been in some occassions , but i dont see that in Arrian. Not as in Plutarch at least.

Arrian was mostly focused in describing the campaign and the battles and the key events. But yet he spend some time critising some of Alexander's actions, which wasnt the initial intend of his anavasis i believe.

And i insist that we dont know exactly what sources Arrian had in his hands. While the primary may had been Ptolemy and Aristovoulos, dont forget that there was a vast amount of information available, not like now that we try to figure out history through 3-4 sources.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Efstathios wrote: Michael, i do not believe that Arrian said little about the Persepolis incident just because he didnt want to spill Alexander's image. If he had this intention, then he wouldnt mention his oppinion about Parmenion, Cleitus, Gedrosia, e.t.c. And he wasnt apologetic. Plutarch may have been in some occassions , but i dont see that in Arrian. Not as in Plutarch at least.
Yes Stathi, we argue about single words in limited sources because that's all we have. And, if that was all we had about Gettysburg,for example, we might think that the entire battle was simply Pickett's charge.

That aside, Arrian could hardly fail to mention the assassination of the Army's leading general or top soldier in Parmenion. Nor his son, the commander of the Companion Cavalry. He had little more choice when it came to Clietus. These things were, abviously, a matter of public record.

I agree, he is not as apologetic as Plutarch. The sematic gymnastics performed by the venerable Chaeronean in relation to Alexander's alcohol consumption and subsequent sleeping until midday the next day - if not all of it - are near hilarious to anyone with an even near-hangover experience.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

Hmmm, the Greek way of training demanded early wake in the morning. Apart from some occassional times when Alexander could have slept until midday, i dont think he did it that often. He wouldnt have been able to fight, and sometimes the fighting was constant each day. So that would have happened during breaks from the fighting, and during those big fiestas in the camp, where everyone drunk the Ephratis river in wine.But heh, that wouldnt be that often.

It would be interesting to make a little research and see how many times the army could stop and actually make a feast, or while they were in cities, and if they could actually drink anything when they had long marches and fighting the next day.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Drunken soldiers

Post by marcus »

Efstathios wrote:Hmmm, the Greek way of training demanded early wake in the morning. Apart from some occassional times when Alexander could have slept until midday, i dont think he did it that often. He wouldnt have been able to fight, and sometimes the fighting was constant each day. So that would have happened during breaks from the fighting, and during those big fiestas in the camp, where everyone drunk the Ephratis river in wine.But heh, that wouldnt be that often.

It would be interesting to make a little research and see how many times the army could stop and actually make a feast, or while they were in cities, and if they could actually drink anything when they had long marches and fighting the next day.
That's true. As far as I recall without trawling all the way through the sources, the 'binge' drinking is only specifically recorded (a) at Maracanda, when Cleitus is killed, and (b) with Medius in Babylon, just before the final illness. The only other time I am aware of that he 'slept in' was on the morning of Gaugamela, and none of the sources attribute that to excessive consumption of alcohol.

However, it is certainly true that Alexander enjoyed a 'tipple', if only for companionship's sake (according to Plutarch :wink: ). And that additional source that Amyntoros provided, from Athenaeus, shows that heavy drinking was considered part of the Macedonian way of life.

So no, I don't think it was that often - then again, during the winters in Bactria and Sogdia, when there wasn't much else to do ...

It just occurred to me - all this being said, it was well said that the British army in the 18th/19th centuries was filled with dropouts who joined as much because of the pint of rum a day that they were promised; and, whether true or not, it has also been said that the soldiers were drunk most of the time they fought. In Spain, particularly, from 1809-1813, they had to be drunk to even consider taking part in some of the action they saw (e.g. the siege and storm of Badajoz)! :wink: :cry:

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Drunken soldiers

Post by Paralus »

marcus wrote:That's true. As far as I recall without trawling all the way through the sources, the 'binge' drinking is only specifically recorded (a) at Maracanda, when Cleitus is killed, and (b) with Medius in Babylon, just before the final illness...

However, it is certainly true that Alexander enjoyed a 'tipple', if only for companionship's sake (according to Plutarch :wink: ). And that additional source that Amyntoros provided, from Athenaeus, shows that heavy drinking was considered part of the Macedonian way of life.
I rather suspect that there was more than those incidents related. Those are reatailed for the other parts of the story occasioned by the alcohol consumption. There will have been many other - incident free (for want of a better description) - binge symposia and an inclusion of many will have been to little point. During those Afghan winters indeed as well as the sojourns in Babylon and Persepolis.

The particular passage in Plutarch, by its very nature, indicates he was not speaking of a single or isolated incidence. The entire construct is inserted to explain away the criticism or stories, which must have been at least somewhat prevalent, in material we no longer have access to? The subtext is clearly "many have daid that Alexander often drank to excess, that is not true what really happened was..."

Well, to me anyway.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Drunken soldiers

Post by marcus »

Paralus wrote:
marcus wrote:That's true. As far as I recall without trawling all the way through the sources, the 'binge' drinking is only specifically recorded (a) at Maracanda, when Cleitus is killed, and (b) with Medius in Babylon, just before the final illness...

However, it is certainly true that Alexander enjoyed a 'tipple', if only for companionship's sake (according to Plutarch :wink: ). And that additional source that Amyntoros provided, from Athenaeus, shows that heavy drinking was considered part of the Macedonian way of life.
I rather suspect that there was more than those incidents related. Those are reatailed for the other parts of the story occasioned by the alcohol consumption. There will have been many other - incident free (for want of a better description) - binge symposia and an inclusion of many will have been to little point. During those Afghan winters indeed as well as the sojourns in Babylon and Persepolis.

The particular passage in Plutarch, by its very nature, indicates he was not speaking of a single or isolated incidence. The entire construct is inserted to explain away the criticism or stories, which must have been at least somewhat prevalent, in material we no longer have access to? The subtext is clearly "many have daid that Alexander often drank to excess, that is not true what really happened was..."

Well, to me anyway.
Oh, I totally agree. As I said, particularly in those Afghan/Uzbek winters.

Actually, it occurred to me also that it is certainly implied that the army's first stay in Babylon, at the end of 331BC, was quite a sustained party - none of those silly opening time restrictions that have blighted Blighty for the last 90 years or so. Judging by the way things are going here in the UK now, what with 24-hour pub opening times and the advent of super casinos, the only thing we now need to do is legalise prostitution and we really will be a second Babylon ... :D or :cry: (I'm not sure which - I'll let you know after my friend's impending stag night ...)

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Efstathios wrote:
pais twn hypaspistwn
Just a clarification. "Pais" means child. The correct in the plural form should be "paides twn hypaspistwn" which of course means children of the hypaspists, and not sons. But not slaves either.

If the translation wrote "sons" then this is another example of how translations are not accurate and can change the whole meaning up to unknown extends.
But if "pais" means child and "paides" means children and we know that that there were no women or "daughters" in the hypaspists, then doesn't "children of the hypaspists" and "sons of the hypaspists" have exactly the same meaning in this context? I don't see how this makes for either an inaccurate translation or a change in the whole meaning.

Definitely confused . . .

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

Is prostitution illegal in the uk? I dont mean those that roam the streets of course.

24 hour pub opening times? Well, that must be a big step for the UK. I think the pubs closed at 11, or was it 2 a.m? Well in Greece the bars and cafeterias stay open as long as there are people inside. Normally at the week they close at about 2 a.m. depends on the bar, but at the weekends, friday and saturday night they close at 3-4 a.m. and the more popular bars or clubs, at 5-6 or 8 a.m. :P Night life in Greece at the weekends or at the islands during the summer usually starts at 11-12.00.

Amyntoros :

Actually i was wrong. In ancient Greek pais meant a male child, a boy. The daughter is thygatera. Something that we still use today as a formal word, and we do use "paidi" from "pais" which means child , but for both a boy or a girl. Hence my confusion. Shame on me, i hasted in accusing the translators :P
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Efstathios wrote:Amyntoros :

Actually i was wrong. In ancient Greek pais meant a male child, a boy. The daughter is thygatera. Something that we still use today as a formal word, and we do use "paidi" from "pais" which means child , but for both a boy or a girl. Hence my confusion. Shame on me, i hasted in accusing the translators :P
Don’t worry about it, Efstathios. I don’t think that you were wrong in your interpretation, although perhaps you were a little unjust to the translators. :wink: Agesilaos, earlier in this thread, gave pretty much the same translation as yourself:
agesilaos wrote:Diodoros XIX 28 i speaks of pais twn hypaspistwn pais may mean descendents ie sons or daughters or it can mean young men or women it can even mean slaves. As such you takes your pick certainly 'sons of the hypaspists' seems too specific by far and quite unlikely, they were a corps chosen on ability and not by bloodline.
My comment on this is, again: Is Hammond’s “sons of the hypaspists” really too specific? We can obviously rule out the contingent being made up of young women, daughters, or slaves, leaving us with either “young men of the hypaspists” or “sons of the hypaspists.” If “young men” then where did they come from? Not via any reinforcements from Macedonia, that’s for certain, so Hammond’s interpretation that they are sons of the Macedonians, born and raised in camp, makes some sense. Except that Paralus is right about the age problem – they would be too young in 317 unless they were all born of Macedonian fathers and Persian women right after the Granicus! (I can’t believe there are any circumstances wherein children would have crossed the Hellespont with the army.)

Former pages, perhaps? But that would mean pages had been brought to Asia by the hundreds each year, leaving one to wonder how long those involved in the pages conspiracy waited until they all had duty at the same time. :roll: Doesn’t seem very feasible, does it? Meaning we’re left, once again, to consider the possibility that these were Persian youths who had been trained in the Macedonian manner.

(Did any pages become foot soldiers, by the way? Or were they all promoted into the cavalry?)

I'm at a loss for a convincing solution to this conundrum.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

Amyntoros -- found 'em in Curtius

Post by karen »

Curtius 8.5.1 (p. 187 in the Yardley trans.):
It was now Alexander's intention to head for India, then the Ocean. To obviate any difficulties behind him that could interfere with his plans, he gave orders for 30,000 men of military age to be selected from all the provinces and brought to him in arms, to serve simultaneously as hostages and soldiers.
I interpret "all the provinces" to mean all the provinces of the Persian empire, since I don't think there was any other nation around that had provinces, correct? So the soldiers would have been of many different ethnicities, only some of them pure Iranian Persian -- but still "Persian" in the sense of having lived under the empire and the Great Kings.

Warmly,
Karen
Post Reply