How many deaths?

[karen]

Hi all:

Has anyone ever done up a tally of how many people in total died due to Alexander's actions? (I know it would have to be rough, or a range, since the numbers of opposing armies are in dispute.)

Anyone want to, or have an estimate?

I'm curious.

ATB
Karen

[aleksandros]

I'd say 500.000 ~ 1.000.000

[Beatriki]

If we had the Royal Diary it would be easy to say, but now that you ask, I will sum up the number of deads according to Arrian, which was based on Ptolemy who used this Diary to write his memories. But I think they would be nearer to one million than 500.000

Kisses, Beatriki

[dean]

Hello Karen,

How many people died due to Alexander's pothos?

I have to confess utter ignorance on this one but we would have to think not only how many Persians lost their lives but also Macedonians, Greeks, Indians you name it.

In fact, if we had a balance I wonder if numbers wouldn't be pretty much similar on both sides especially when we take into account the heavy losses on the way from Patala to Pura.

Best regards,
Dean

[Paralus]

Just happened across this thread - what an interesting question.

Even more interesting are the guesses: 500,000 to one million! That was one busy "visionary, civilising conqueror". Somewhat less I'd think. Direct deaths, as a result of action taken by Alexander and the Macedonias, that is

In truth, the real numbers – or anything near them – are largely irrecoverable. Greek writers are replete with numbers. The problem arises in the fact that they rarely agree, except in terms of the rather incontinent innumeracy unabashedly displayed with respect to Persian hordes. Of course, given those sorts of numbers, a Macedonian swathe through Asia might well have accounted for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Plutarch, for instance, records that the Persians lost some 20,000 foot and 2,500 cavalry at the Granicus. Since this most likely resembled something near to the total satrapal forces that took the field that day, it may be taken with a liberal dose of blood pressure inducing salt.

Still in all, we are told that some 6,000 were slaughtered in Thebes; 6,000 (again) plus 2,000 crucified in Tyre; god knows how many during the Indian Campaign and with anything from 500,000 – 1,000,000 Persian barbaroi at Gaugamela, who knows?

Nevertheless, 1,000,000 dead (on all sides) over the space of some thirteen years would equate to something in the order of Antigonus' array (80,000) of 306 - each year: 76,923. Or 1,479 per week.

Something of a Macedonian pogrom that.

[karen]

He was pretty good about reporting on numbers of casualties, though of course he doesn't necessarily agree with, say, Curtius, on things like 2,000 Tyrians being crucified on the beach.

Put that way, Paralus, a million does seem a little high. I wonder if 500,000 is more realistic?

Warmly,
Karen

[rjones2818]

The number of casualties probably changes with what your view of the Persian army sizes were. Most of the casulalties would probably happen during the pursuit during the land battles. If you accept ~600,000 at Gargamala, then the casualties would be higher than if you think its ~100,000. If you're from the 'realist' camp, the numbers will be lower than the 'original source' camp.

[derek]

I'm reading about India at the moment and the numbers just don't add up. Alexander was forever splitting his forces and he'd go on an expedition with say, the Agrianes, 1,000 men, the hypaspists, 3,000, two taxeis of the phalanx, 3,000 men, half the companions, 1,000, the mounted archers, 1,000 and so on. The troops under his personal command can't have exceeded 15,000 at most, yet he'd rout an army of 50,000 and then lay siege to a town of 70,000 and on and on. I've just been reading how he ran rings around 50,000 Mallians with just his cavalry, and then the arrival of the Agrianes was enough to make these 50,000 fierce tribesmen turn and run. Hmmm?...Every engagement would have been a victory on a par with Gaugamela if the enemy numbers are to be believed.

Scaling them down to more realistic levels, my estimate would be a maximum of 500,000 deaths from the time Alexander took the throne.

Derek

[Paralus]

The troops under his personal command can't have exceeded 15,000 at most, yet he'd rout an army of 50,000 and then lay siege to a town of 70,000 and on and on. I've just been reading how he ran rings around 50,000 Mallians with just his cavalry, and then the arrival of the Agrianes was enough to make these 50,000 fierce tribesmen turn and run. Hmmm?...Every engagement would have been a victory on a par with Gaugamela if the enemy numbers are to be believed.

Yes. Well said. The numbers given for Alexander's force are difficult to believe. 125,000 from memory? Alexander is not ever recorded operating with anything like that size of force at any other time in his rather stellar battlefield career.

With this immense force - larger than any of his successors' arrays - at his disposal, he takes on Porus outnumbered (again), seemingly by choice. Can't remenber the thread, but I once tallied up the forces attested to at Hydaspes and couldn't make them greater than 30,000 (I think). Folly.

Alexander was well aware that a battle - which he was bringing on and wanted settled - was soon to be fought with what essentially amounted to a "Satrapal" or "Principate" army. Indeed, he was at pains to ensure that other local dynasts did not join Porus in his opposition. Are we to assume that he knowingly marched to this battle with inferior numbers of his choosing?

The descriptions of Alexander splitting his forces in India - opposite river banks aside - generally revolve around Ptolemy, Kraterus, Hephaestion or Koenus settling the affairs of towns that had pledged loyaty or scouting - and engaging if needed - those unkmown. The forces, generally, were not large and the bulk remained together as a unit.

The truth is rather more mundane I'd suspect. Alexander most likely operated with numbers not much greater (if greater) than he fielded at the Achaemenid's last great stand on the plains Gaugamela. By the time of his departure for India, his army may have numbered more, but, he left some 25,000 (?) behind in Afghanistan. Ostensibly - according to my DVD - to ensure the spreading of democracy, Greek education and culture.

If when he met Porus, he had a detachment off elswhere (as Bosworth postulates as apossibility) then he may well have fronted with some 30,000. I can't, for the life of me, imagine that he will have knowingly taken on the Rajah's army - reported to him to be of 50,000, reputed to be fierce and containing many ancient Abrams (elephants) - some twenty thousand men short.

I'd guess that Porus' army was likely half that or roughly equal to Alexander's forces.

[Paralus]

He was pretty good about reporting on numbers of casualties, though of course he doesn't necessarily agree with, say, Curtius, on things like 2,000 Tyrians being crucified on the beach.

Put that way, Paralus, a million does seem a little high. I wonder if 500,000 is more realistic?

Yes, 500,000 or some less may be closer to the truth. As I say, the numbers are lost to us due to the propaganda in the sources as much by time.

For instance, at the Granicus Arrian - who is largely preferred here - plumps for about 1,000 of the Persian cavalry being slain. Having said that the Greek mercenaries - the entire infantry force which, given we are in Asia Minor, is quite possible - numbered a little less (16-18,000?), he states that only 2,000 survived the massacre. So we have some 17-19,000 dead.

Plutarch, on the other hand, relates the quite fantastical figure of 20,000 Persian cavalry slain. Preposterous if we accept that Alexander preferred to massacre the Greek mercenaries and did not pursue.

Also preposterous - if we accept that the cogent advice of Parmenio was ignored (and I believe it was not) - are Macedonian losses of 115 or so. Of that, only thirty infantry are recorded. Remember, if the account of the brilliant Alexander - contemptuous of the little stream in relation to the Hellespont - is to be preferred, then the Macedonian phalanx, battling its way across a river and up its defended bank, will have offered up more phalangite perished than that ridiculous number.

Plutarch, it seems, would have us believe that as the result of a battle that took place "late in the day", whilst busily murdering Greeks who sought to surrender, the Macedonians managed also managed to account for 20,000 mounted soldiers. I can’t see it

As I say, the numbers in Greek sources when it comes to action against Persian forces are seemingly as believable as Arthur Anderson’s were in relation to Enron.

[Paralus]

The should read 2,500 cavalry dead and 20,000 footmen. Implying that - were there no Persian infantry - the Greeks numbered some 22,000. As I've related, this is likey most of the Persian array assembled that day. Arrian's figures are likely closer to the mark.

I find it odd that the satraps would have access to that many Greek mercenaries. Certainly their forces were dominated by cavalry.

[karen]

Hi Paralus et al:

What I find interesting about the Graneikos numbers is that even though Plutarch & Arrian have them coming from different units, the total number is roughly the same.

Makes me suspect that it is correct, and someone (cough *Plutarch* cough) got his units mixed up.

Thanks for this contribution.

Warmly,
Karen

[Paralus]

Makes me suspect that it is correct, and someone (cough *Plutarch* cough) got his units mixed up.

Not to mention myself – in a hurry at the office – stuffing things up. Perhaps that too was Plutarch’s excuse??

The numbers likely reflect a common source. Unfortunately, no source gives a firm outline of the Persian order of battle. What we do have leans overwhelmingly in favour of large numbers of cavalry. There is mention of Persian “peltasts” and infantry. Again – most unsatisfactorily – no hard details are supplied.

What can be said – from my viewpoint – is that going by previous Persian armies (for example, those that seemingly continually struggled to retake Egypt – a serious venture) the Greek contingents were not huge, being in the order of 8-10,000. Similar to that assembled by Cyrus in his fateful attempt to wrest the empire in 401. I’d expect that to be the case here rather than 20,000 or so. Similarly at Issus, I’d doubt that there were 30,000 Greek mercenaries in the Persian army. Such a number would equate to what the Greeks fielded at Chaeronea.

But then, that was part of the fantastical array of 600,000.

[Efstathios]

I'll have to reply on this:

Given that the population of Greece during Alexander's time may have been around 7 mil, ( according to Mogens the population factor increased by ten during the years from 800 - 350 bc, from 700.000 to 7-8 mil), and given the fact that many people were not in favour of the Macedonian reign, then it could be possible that there were even 20.000 Greek mercenaries at Issus.

But that was that. They were mercenaries. They didnt fight for the holy and sacred , and their homes, so they werent exactly the opponent that Philip and Alexander faced in Chaeronia. Of course Arrian mentions about a fierce fight (this little passage that it's meaning has been manipulated, and has been discussed here) and surely there was one, in comparisson to the Persians that were like non existant in terms of fighting. The mercenaries may have been the main opponent for Alexander at this battle. Once he defeated them, then the rest was easier.

[Paralus]

They didnt fight for the holy and sacred , and their homes, so they werent exactly the opponent that Philip and Alexander faced in Chaeronia. Of course Arrian mentions about a fierce fight (this little passage that it's meaning has been manipulated, and has been discussed here) and surely there was one…

Hi Efstathios.

The RSW was the Shiraz mate!

It's possible that there were 30,000 Greek mercenaries at Issus; 20,000 at the Granicus as well for that matter. I just don't think so.

Being home, I'm afforded the luxury of consulting the Library of Paralus. Much smaller than the Library of Congress to be sure, but eclectic and reasonably subject specific.

The size of Persian armies is open to conjecture. Greek writers, inevitably, post rather incontinent figures: 300,000 (a favourite of Diodorus), 400,000 (Ephorus), 900,000 (Xenophon – excluding the tardy Abrocomas and his 300,000), 600,000, 500,000 and one million. All of which stands rather at odds with figures we receive for Greek mercenary numbers. The Persian army assembled for the invasion of Egypt after the Great King's Greek settlements of the 380s (Kings Peace, etc) contained 20,000 (Diodorus) led by Iphicrates or 12,000 (Nepos). Diodorus informs us that the next army off to recapture Egypt (343) contained 10,000.

Why are such figures important? In Philip's and Alexander's armies, it was the Macedonian phalanx that formed the palette upon which to paint victory. In Greece it proved the corps par excellence. The general figure given for them in the Macedonian army of invasion is about 15,000. This out of a total of 30,000 to 43,000 (depending on the source). In Persian armies – at least of the fourth century – the Greek mercenary hoplite contingent performed the exact same role. It was around this infantry that success would be built. From this, one might assume army sizes of say 40 – 60,000. To accept the figure of 600,000 at Issus – even with 30,000 Greeks – is to suggest Darius offered a scotch and water made with a shot of scotch and a litre of water. I'd suggest 60-90,000?

And no, they weren't the opponent Philip defeated at Chaeronea. The numbers comparison was the point there as opposed to motivation.

…in comparisson to the Persians that were like non existant in terms of fighting. The mercenaries may have been the main opponent for Alexander at this battle. Once he defeated them, then the rest was easier.

Now, that's quintessentially Greek. Herodotus claims that the Persians were not lacking in either courage or strength. They were, though, singularly lacking in serious armour.

I'd agree that – the Persian horse aside – the Greeks were main problem for the Macedonians. Indeed, they made the Macedonian phalanx pay dearly for the gap that Alexander left when he charged.