Ah, but if the most critical questions could be answered from the historical sources then they wouldn't be subject to debate.aleksandros wrote:I am so sick of the fact that the most critical questions will never be answered from the historical sources.
As it happens, I'm now able to contribute to the discussion of numbers thanks to C. T. Griffith's The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World (which I borrowed from the library recently and have since ordered from Amazon – although originally published in 1935 the book is still a keeper!). For the purposes of his book Griffith is very specific – all troops with Alexander who were NOT Macedonian he treats as mercenaries, thereby including Greeks, Agrianians, Odyrysians, etc. As he says (page 14), if they were to be considered allies in the first place they certainly became mercenaries later. And he proposes – quite reasonably in my opinion – that mercenaries constituted the great majority of the soldiers settled in Alexander's new cities or left in garrisons. I quote: "Mercenaries are not always specifically mentioned as settlers, but clearly they are the part of the army for which he (Alexander) could best spare for that purpose."Griffith also considers Curtius'(8.5.4) figure of 120,000 "following" Alexander in India to be not totally unreasonable, noting that Arrian gives the same number in the Indica (19.5). He then charts both mercenary reinforcements and figures given for the settlements using the same method as Engels, although excluding Macedonian numbers. Interestingly, I wondered if Engels had referred to Griffith for his own work, however the book is not listed in his bibliography. So it seems that both writers independently came to similar conclusions regarding the numbers in Alexander's army.
Griffith shows a total of 59,180 recorded mercenary reinforcements plus the x-factor – instances where exact numbers are not given in the sources. Those instances are the Agrianian reinforcements at Gordium (Curtius 3.9.10); the Greek allied infantry and cavalry who volunteered in Media to remain as mercenaries (Arrian 3.19.6; Diodorus 18.74.4); and at Babylon upon Alexander's return to the west (Arrian 7.23.1). So his estimated total is "say 65,000" incoming.
Figures given for settlements and garrisons total 36,100 with a more substantial x factor. I.e., figures are not given in the sources for those left at Mytilene (Arrian 2.1.4); various new cities (Arrian 3.2.9; 4.3.6; 4.1; 16.4 sqq.; 29.5 sqq.; ibid. 6 sqq.; 22.5; 24.7; 30.4; Diod. 18.83.2; Curt. 7.10.5); cities in India; those mercenaries who died in Gedrosia; and the Mouth of the Euphrates. Now in his chart Griffith uses the figure from Arrian (4.22.3) for the army of occupation in Bactria – "10,500 infantry (not all certainly mercenaries) and 3500 cavalry". He notes, however, that "It is not easy to arrive at a probable evaluation of the unknown quantity – x" but refers to the two revolts which broke out "the one shortly before, the other shortly after Alexander's death, no fewer than 26,000 Greeks settled in the eastern provinces took part – and some may have remained idle" So, I would say, we can include at least 10-12,000 in the x-factor here, making it not too unlikely that the charts will balance out with the other x numbers. As Griffith says, "If these two sets of figures are correct, it must follow that Alexander used up his mercenaries almost as fast as they reached him, and that he never had any very great number attached to the field army at any one time – perhaps not more than 10,000 or so even for the Indian campaign."
Given the above, I also think that the figure of 120,000 is probably close to the truth. It could be merely a matter of interpretation. IMO. Both Curtius and Arrian say this is the number that was following Alexander on his Indian campaign. Strictly speaking, all the soldiers settled in garrisons and cities were still "following" Alexander – they certainly remained under his command and were not free to stay or leave as they wished. Perhaps Curtius and Arrian (or some earlier source, maybe Nearchus) used the figures for reinforcements in order to reach this total without factoring in the numbers who had been settled in the cities?
Best regards,