1 hour?

[dean]

Hello,Just reading yesterday the analysis of the battle of Issus,(nice summary by the way) by Pothos Org - a great Iliad of a battle,and was surprised by the detail that the battle was "concluded in an hour".I find it hard to imagine that a battle of such collosal size with so far reaching consequences as for example, more or less bringing an end to the Achaemenid dynasty could have been over in "an hour".I mean a big fight, rumble in the jungle, all out blow for blow fight with Tyson can go on longer than that!Anyway guys- why so fast?
(Poor Achilleus was trying "10 years" to win his Iliad!)Best regards,
Dean.P.S. May I just say while I remember that Karen's post about Alexander's burning passion and transcendence which is on the site is very good, I enjoyed reading it.

[susa]

This is probably one of those hyperboles about Alexander.But maybe they were so high-spirited then that, umm, the whole thing might have lasted less than the eight hrs they took to rout Puru's army.

[jan]

I noticed that there is a film being advertised on the Battle of Issus on the internet that can be purchased for the price of $99. I found it to be very interesting that it is available and that the seller is apologizing for the price.An hour! Lightning fast, huh? I made a copy of the page 160 in Weigall's book which describes the preparation for the battle.It is to remind me of my experience at the battle of Issus.Jan

[karen]

Ancient battles were very different from modern ones, both for the obvious reason of weapons technology (hand-to-hand vs. firearms) and the less obvious logistical reasons (unless there was navigable water close, supplies had to be moved via pack-animal, meaning an army couldn't stay in a place without navigable water for very long). Thus the weeks-long battles that happened in, say, WWII, with shifts of soldiers rotating in covered positions exchanging fire while internal combustion engines brought up their supplies just didn't happen. Except for sieges, the idea was to get the two armies together and get it over with. (Apologies to all the ancient warfare experts here, to whom this is all old hat.)Most casualties would not happen in the actual face-to-face fighting, but after one side had had enough and its soldiers were fleeing -- because it's much easier to stick someone in the back where he can't see it coming than in the front, from which he might parry or stick you. Because of this, once some men began to flee, the rest (except for those who fought to the death on principle) would quickly follow -- because they all knew their best odds of survival came if they could beat the rush. Even if, say, three men of a ten-man unit fled, the other seven were in trouble because they were now fighting seven on ten enemies. So routs would spread very quickly, particularly if *commanders* fled. This was why courage, especially in commanders, and unit discipline were such prized virtues.In regard to Issos, if we're talking about the duration of a battle, we have to define the beginning and end points. It could be said that the battle started, in a sense, as Alexander marched his army down into the plain, widening the line as the plain widened, since he was already making tactical decisions; or even when Darius positioned his on the river-bank. And does a rout end when the last fleeing soldier is struck down, or all victors have given up the chase, or when? Let's just set the beginning point as the first engagement -- armies coming into arrow-range of each other, or even non-missile weapons meeting (since those two times won't be far apart), and the end point as the point at which the outcome is clear and irreversible. We don't know our historians did this, but it's likely.continued...

[karen]

Alexander knew all about morale and the dynamics of routs, of course. He sensed from certain aspects of Darius's deployment, and from who knows what else (Spies? The grapevine? The tone of Darius's letters? That Darius wasn't tested as a fighting king?) that the Great King had a certain lack of confidence. He also believed in the old Homeric ideal that champion should fight champion and king fight king. So he charged straight for Darius himself, in the hope of a fast, decisive victory that would win him all Persia.
Killing or capturing Darius would have done better for his overall campaign plans, but making him flee the field was just as good for the purposes of this one battle. Alexander and his army already had enough of a reputation that facing them would have been scary enough for your average Persian soldier -- but seeing his Great King, supposedly the noblest of the noble and the bravest of the brave, fleeing in terror, would have taken the will to fight out of every Persian on the field the moment he knew. Why should he stay on the field and risk getting a sarissa through the guts, if his king was running? What would it accomplish?
Another factor: a soldier whose attention is divided cannot fight as effectively as one with a single focus. In other words, if on the one hand you are supposed to look at a phalanx approaching you straight on, but you also want to look off to your left, say, to see what's become of your king after a very aggressive enemy cavalry charge at his position, you aren't going to be as effective against the phalanx. Even if your eyes are locked on them, part of your mind is going to be on that cavalry engagement. In your heart there's going to be worry mixed with your resolve, instead of the pure resolve which should be there. I think Alexander understood the importance of this attention factor very well, in addition to his understanding of morale, because he repeatedly seemed to use it.
Anyway, the fleeing must have spread very fast. As soon as enough Persians had broken formation to run, our endpoint -- the outcome made clear and irreversible -- was reached. I think that the only reason it was an hour instead of minutes was the size of the battle; it took the news of Darius's flight some time to travel through the whole Persian army.
Love & peace (really )
Karen
P.S. Thanks for the kudos, Dean.

[nick]

Thanks Karen - I was ready to explain why I had written "probably less than one hour", but you have done all the work for me. I remember Michael Wood interviewing a military history researcher as well in his documentary, who explained exactly the same thing to a television audience.(Minor detail: Plutarch writes that the Hydaspes battle lasted for eight hours, because the Indians kept rallying their forces. If Plutarch is correct, that is exceptionally long.)Regards -
Nick

[jan]

Very interesting discussion that Karen has presented. I just read that young Alexander had successfully participated in four battles before he is even twenty while his father is still alive to appreciate his future chances. (Unfortunately, I have had to check the book in, but will try to retrieve when next available.) His early successes truly make one believe in his ability and talent, possibly giving credence to his belief in his having been Achilles reborn. He is incredible!The discussion by Weigall of Philip's jealousy and resentment coupled with his pride and admiration is fascinating to me. Alexander must have been something for not only Philip but Olympias to rear.Just thoughts expounding...Jan

[dean]

Hello,
Thanks Karen for the analysis- I found it very interesting.I guess that Alexander knew what to do and relied more on tactical intuition than huge numbers of troops plus he knew how to hit where it hurt the most- ie going straight for the Great King. I mean once he was set to flight the game was over as you say.I just imagined that with such immense numbers of troops that things would have gone on longer.By the way Nick, thanks for your recent encouragement regarding my studies into the Persian Empire- I just finished the book we were talking about and in spite of the immense detail thought that it had certain merit.Thanks also for recommending to me the page on Darius III.Best wishes,
Dean.

[marcus]

Yeah, I was going to write pretty much the same as Karen, at least about when the battle is considered to start and finish.Thanks, Karen! Could you also write my responses to the other posts on the forum, 'cos we're obviously of a similar mind on a number of subjects :-)All the bestMarcus

[Linda]

I suppose another consideration is the make-up of the armies - they weren't national armies, but made up of chiefs with their own destinies to consider. Some may have had strong family loyalties to Darius, but others wished to live another day and see how the cookie crumbled, powerwise. At Granicus the mercenaries fought to the end - preumably this was because they were "professional" soldiers, but also because they did not have a homeland to run to? Incidentally, I looked up Culloden (Jacobite and British government forces) and Little Big Horn. Both of those took "less than an hour" as well.Linda

[marcus]

Hi Linda,Yes, Culloden was over pretty quickly. Of course, there were other factors to consider - artillery, much smaller numbers of troops, and the rather unsatisfactory tactics of the Jacobite army, which involved running pell-mell through a patch of marshy ground in the face of withering artillery fire.The battle was over before it began, really! What took considerably longer than an hour was the systematic butchering of Jacobite partisans over the following weeks, by the Duke of Cumberland.All the bestMarcus

[jan]

One thing that I noticed in the book by Valerio is that whenever Alexander would try to send his soldiers back to Greece they would not go back for they did not want to miss anything, and seemed to want to stay in the army rather than return to their families. They were a part of the army due to their circumstances of having nothing better to do. While this appears to be fiction, it is probably quite true. It occurs to me that that is the problem with the members of al qaeda as well, that they are very much imitative of Alexander and his troops. Has anyone but me noticed that?