Were Arrians Numbers Exagerated Propoganda?

[agesilaos]

A salient point seems to be being missed here; the limiting factor in army size is supply; not much point levying a million if you only have two loaves and a fish to feed them. Prior to Ipsos 301BC both parties seem to have formed two manoeuvre groups of c.60,000 although they united to fight the battle they wintered separately. There seems no reason to think that Darius was better versed in logistics than Alexander's veterans so 80,000 must represent an absolute maximum and accords well with the troops left with Mardonios once Salamis had denied the Persians the option of supply by sea.As to Alexander's numbers it is important to remember that the sources are incomplete on the subject of reinforcements and recruiting.Even the number of Greek mercenaries at Issos can be demonstrated to be impossible so figures for natives can only be arrived at on the balance of logistical possibility. On which topic I hope to produce something soon.Arguments from nomenclature sound good but pre-suppose a sound Persian source; I think it more likely that the Greeks just acted as Herodotos had and made the numbers up.

[Paralus]

A most cogent point Agesilaos (and I guess a Spartan king who led more armies to war that any other would know!).Indeed among the many reforms of the Macedonian army under Philip, the reduction in portage per soldier enabled the army to make those lightning marches that Alexander became famous for. This as opposed to Greek hoplite armies with typically anything from one to three porters per hoplite, one of the reasons (apart from population) these tended to 10,000 GÇô 20,000).Nevertheless, there appears to be an upper GÇô or lower GÇô limit to everything, including portage. Alexander (even after Issus when money was no problem) continued to Gaugamela with a combat force of roughly 47,000. Why would that be? He had as much time as Darius to bolster his forces. A lot to with the logistics of being encumbered with larger numbers possibly played a major part (as well as not denuding one of the "mice" GÇô Antipater GÇô of too many of his troops). But why not the Ionian Greeks? I suppose as subject states, he didn't trust them.As you pointed out, Hellenistic monarchs fielded sixty (and up to eighty) thousand. Again money for the large part not being the problem. One needs to bear in mind that these sorts of armies were rarely routinely marched around Asia and the Middle East (as Alexander did) but assembled for "decisive" pitched set pieces GÇô Ipsus and Raphia being two good examples GÇô and often sent to "winter camps" as you say (that were "scattered" cf: the skirmishes between Antigonus and Eumenes).The nightmare of arranging, feeding, moving and commanding an army of 250,000 GÇô 500,000 puts these figures into the realm they belong: fiction. I believe the Persians mounted (key word) something in the order of a Hellenistic nature: 60,000 GÇô 80,000.
Also, as most historians have noted, the greater part of this (30,000 GÇô 40,000) being mounted. If you then add the average of three or so per combatant for logistics and camp followers you'd get something in the order of 180,000 GÇô 240,000.Alexander, like his father, kept that to what was required. This suited hist style of engagement and the manner in which he liked to travel: fast.Paralus.

[Efstathios]

And how do you know that the assumption that the persian army was smaller isn't anti-greek propaganda? yes anti-greek propaganda exists too, even now. We only have the numbers given to us by the sources.I think the 1 million persians is a number uncluding all the helpers and palakids e.t.c e.t.c.The main army must have been around 500.000.Then add another 300.000 helpers,carriers, and all these people men and women that followed the army and you would have around 800.000. It's not that exxagerated.The persian empire was huge and the King would force everyone into battle. If Rome had around 300.000 soldiers,gathered around from all the empire then surely the persians must have had more.

[Paralus]

"And how do you know that the assumption that the persian army was smaller isn't anti-greek propaganda? yes anti-greek propaganda exists too, even now."I can only assume that as the sources (main ones Arrian/Plutarch) working from Ptolemy (I "Soter") and Aristobulos GÇô who, I guess, have absolutely nothing to gain from inflating the numbers (or in the case of the former, the magnitude of his role) GÇô tend to the massive end of the number scale, the propaganda here is of my own making?If so, I am not interested in any "anti-Greek" propaganda current or past. Nor do I practise it. Should such a claim be levelled only at the ancient Persians, then please explain to what end? They lost all three major engagements GÇô indeed had the "floor wiped" from under them one could say. For any propaganda to have done any good the Persians would needed to have totally reversed the entire equation. Impossible to do, especially as the victor writes the history.Efstathios, propaganda exists in all wars. Alexander used it to effect as did many before and after him. No one knows the real numbers, but you can rest assured the figures of half a million are pie in the sky. The contention that Roman Empire might have put in excess of three hundred thousand into the field may well be true. Never at the one time and certainly never in the one place. That would have necessitated pulling legions from the German/Gaulic frontiers, fragmentation would follow. Ditto Persia.This is not a "pick on the Greeks thing"; it's an attempt to get at the reality of the numbers. Why is it so difficult to accept that Alexander wiped the floor with a force twice his size and outnumbered in cavalry by something in the order of five to one? That nets you a Persian army of eighty thousand.Utter insistence in the numerical (and otherwise) total accuracy of our sources would see us taking their description of the Granicus as read. For mine, there is no way the Persians were so absolutely stupid or incompetent as to not ever make use of some fifteen thousand Greek mercenaries (who would not have come cheap) Not even Thucydides is accorded that.

[Efstathios]

"This is not a "pick on the Greeks thing"; it's an attempt to get at the reality of the numbers. Why is it so difficult to accept that Alexander wiped the floor with a force twice his size and outnumbered in cavalry by something in the order of five to one? That nets you a Persian army of eighty thousand." Alexander's army was somewhere around 40-45.000 troops along with the southern greeks.If the Persian army was like double as you say it would have been around 90.000 and if triple then around 120.000.Excuse me but saying that the persian army was not 1 million is one thing but saying that it was 100.000 ,meaning 10 times less than the sources indicate is another thing. An army of 100.000 men would be nothing compared to Alexander's war machine.They would be toothpaste before Darius could count to 10.We all know that the light armor and innexperience that the persians had compairing to the greeks and the phallanx would make them the easiest target if they were just 100.000. And we all know that Alexander was victorius mainly because of his decision to hunt down Darius in order to break the spirit of the persians (which was not high anyway).That was the only to defeat such a huge army.If the army was 100.000 persians such an action wouldnt even be needed and ALexander wouldnt have to risk his life chasing around Darius in the battlefield. So the army must have been way more than 100.000. We really dont know, it could have been 300.000 or 500.000.The argument that such a huge army could not move easily and fast is true,but Darius army (or Xerxes' when he invaded greece) was not moving fast anyway.Remember how much time it took Xerxes to reach Marathon since he invaded Macedonia?And Darius needed several months to gather an army again and to move it inside his own empire to confront Alexander again in gaugamela.

[kenny]

Efs HailI really gotta agree mostly with your points its fair to say Million outragious. But for such a massive empire etc of Persia 300 000 dont sound idiotidc to me. Nor the numbers to one.Caesar was outnumbered and trapped in Alexandria by Egyptian forces of 5 to 1. Battles and victories were and never have been about numbers. Unless you are Moghol hoards. Those boys fielded in excess of 100 000 horseman alone. They went from Mongolia to Hungary unbeaten. And to say a Persian host could not sustain such huge numbers is silly.The Mongols must have been supplied by the lands the walked over. I am one of those that argues Arrians numbers not vastly exagerated I mean why. Romans never exagerated there victories against vast numbers they didnt have to. So why exagerate Alexander.?Darius had nation upon nation to call on all the way to India. And if indeed its possible the Persians ruled fairly and moderately I have no reason to doubt these provinces would willingly contribute to see off the Greek agressor as history shows not many of the eastern provinces liked nor accepted Alexander.Kenny

[amyntoros]

****We only have the numbers given to us by the sources.I think the 1 million persians is a number uncluding all the helpers and palakids e.t.c e.t.c.The main army must have been around 500.000.Then add another 300.000 helpers,carriers, and all these people men and women that followed the army and you would have around 800.000.****Forgive a short reply as I'm stuck on dial-up for a while. I don't usually get involved with discussions of battles - not normally my area of interest - but I've become intrigued by the following thought If the above figures are to be believed credible, what did Alexander DO with all these people? I mean, even if 300,000 Persians were killed, as I think Arrian says of the one battle (although it's hard to believe), what happened to the other 200,000 soldiers and the 300,000 "helpers"? That's a hell of a lot of men to be allowed to escape and possibly fight again, and it's difficult to comprehend that many people fleeing the battlefield anyway when they still seriously outnumbered the enemy. If the majority were captured they'd be too dangerous to keep with the Macedonians as slaves as they would considerably outnumber Alexander's soldiers and the logistics of feeding them would be ridiculous. If the soldiers amongst them were absorbed into Alexander's army, why didn't we hear about it? Seems too large a number of men not to be recorded. And if kept as prisoners, where did they put them all? Even if a third of the number escaped, using your figures above still leaves around 370,000 wounded and captured. How many men would have to be left behind to guard and treat so many captives? No matter how I juggle these figures, I can't come up with a likely scenario.Just my thoughts . . . :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

[Efstathios]

Quite the opposite i would say Kennyxx.The persians did not care exactly about these battles.They were dragged there.And they didnt have a choice.The bactrians or indians for example were too far away from all this so they wouldnt willingly go to help Darius.And they didnt think that Alexander could one day reach their territories. We can see how willingly the persians fought from the fact that once their leader fled they scattered around running away even though they were still outnumbering the greeks. If a greek leader fled during a battle, any battle, he would be killed on the spot by his soldiers and they would carry on with the battle. The persians didnt love Darius.They did not love any of their Kings enough to go and fight for them willingly(except the royal guard).That's my oppinion of course.

[Paralus]

Pardon the tardiness of the reply GÇô Christmas, New Years and all that. As well, it managed forty-five degrees centigrade in Sydney today. I thought it a much better idea to sit in the pool. Even better: holidays in the GÇ£Snowy MountainsGÇ¥ from Tuesday. AlexanderGÇÖs army was some 47,000 (he had sent for and obtained some fourteen thousand reinforcements by this time). This is a figure on which most seem agreed. Of this, the phalanx was some ten thousand and the cavalry between seven and seven ad a half. The rest, including GÇ£shied bearersGÇ¥ (some three thousand) mercenaries, the Agrianians, light armed troops formed up the total.DariusGÇÖ army is described variously as half to a million depending on source. No-one would bother to count such a figure and I must say that it would have been impossible to put together and control such a beast. Look at the GÇ£support crewGÇ¥ it takes to run an American force of some 100,000 or so (combat troops) in Mesopotamia. To quote Paul Cartledge (GÇ£Alexander The GreatGÇ¥):GÇ£Greek sources always tended to inflate the size of Persian armaments, to make their own victories over them seem greater.GÇ¥One thing that comes out of the sources is AlexanderGÇÖs reaction on sighting the Persian host: surprise and concern. Not so much at the numbers as at its make up: the majority were cavalry, not just cavalry but heavy cavalry. In this area he finds himself outnumbered at least five to one. As an absolute top figure, IGÇÖd go with Peter GreenGÇÖs 125,000.GÇ£An army of 100.000 men would be nothing compared to Alexander's war machine.They would be toothpaste before Darius could count to 10.We all know that the light armor and innexperience that the persians had compairing to the greeks and the phallanx would make them the easiest target if they were just 100.000.GÇ¥An army of much less than that ran Alexander to a very near thing at Issus. Certainly, AlexanderGÇÖs initial charge (on the right) was a resounding success, but the left (Thessalians) were under extreme pressure. In the centre, the phalanx was suffering severely (having made no ground since the commencement of proceedings) under the assault of the mercenary infantry. Only quick and decisive action by Alexander resued the phalanx and relieived the left (as did the GÇ£incontinentGÇ¥ flight of Darius).GÇ£If the army was 100.000 persians such an action wouldnt even be needed and ALexander wouldnt have to risk his life chasing around Darius in the battlefield.GÇ¥If the army was twent

[Paralus]

Pardon the tardiness of the reply GÇô Christmas, New Years and all that. As well, it managed forty-five degrees centigrade in Sydney today. I thought it a much better idea to sit in the pool. Even better: holidays in the GÇ£Snowy MountainsGÇ¥ from Tuesday.
AlexanderGÇÖs army was some 47,000 (he had sent for and obtained some fourteen thousand reinforcements by this time). This is a figure on which most seem agreed. Of this, the phalanx was some ten thousand and the cavalry between seven and seven ad a half. The rest, including GÇ£shied bearersGÇ¥ (some three thousand) mercenaries, the Agrianians, light armed troops formed up the total.DariusGÇÖ army is described variously as a million or more depending on source. No-one would bother to count such a figure and I must say that it would have been impossible to put together and control such a beast. Look at the GÇ£support crewGÇ¥ it takes to run an American force of some 100,000 or so (combat troops) in Mesopotamia. To quote Paul Cartledge (GÇ£Alexander The GreatGÇ¥):GÇ£Greek sources always tended to inflate the size of Persian armaments, to make their own victories over them seem greater.GÇ¥One thing that comes out of the sources is AlexanderGÇÖs reaction on sighting the Persian host: surprise and concern. Not so much at the numbers as at its make up: the majority (that he could see) were cavalry, not just cavalry but heavy cavalry in the order of 35 - 40,000. In this area he finds himself outnumbered at least five to one. As an absolute top figure, IGÇÖd go with Peter GreenGÇÖs 125,000. Ian Scott Kilvert's annotation (in relation to the million figure) in Plutarch's "Alexander" is instructive:"A propagandist figure. Modern estimates put the Persian strength at a maximunm of 100,000 and 34,000 cavalry" (Plutarch, Alex. 31).Continued...

[Paralus]

GÇ£An army of 100.000 men would be nothing compared to Alexander's war machine.They would be toothpaste before Darius could count to 10.We all know that the light armor and innexperience that the persians had compairing to the greeks and the phallanx would make them the easiest target if they were just 100.000.GÇ¥An army of much less than that ran Alexander to a very near thing at Issus. Certainly, AlexanderGÇÖs initial charge (on the right) was a resounding success, but the left (Thessalians) were under extreme pressure. In the centre, the phalanx was suffering severely (having made no ground since the commencement of proceedings) under the assault of the mercenary infantry. Only quick and decisive action by Alexander rescued the phalanx and relieived the left (as did the GÇ£incontinentGÇ¥ flight of Darius).GÇ£If the army was 100.000 persians such an action wouldnt even be needed and ALexander wouldnt have to risk his life chasing around Darius in the battlefield.GÇ¥If the army was twenty thousand, Alexander would still have lead the charge and the Macedonians from the front. Darius had very little to do with that decision. All Greek generals of his day (and before) had lead their armies into battle. Aside from the Homeric ar+¬te pretensions, there was an even more pressing need for his capturing/killing of Darius: the legitimate Achaemenid King had to be in AlexanderGÇÖs custody (or killed on the field of battle) so as he could become GÇ£Great KingGÇ¥.It is the reason Alexander pursued him with such single-minded determination.Paralus.

[agesilaos]

Another way to dispense with this nonsense is to consider the space these men would occupy on the field. Alexander's army would have a frontage at Gaugamela of about 1650 yds but lets make it 2000. 1,000,000 infantry in close order stretch for 100,000 yd ten deep, 50,000yds 20 deep etc assuming Darius' line was about twice hell lets make it three times as long as Alexander's or 6,000 these troops are going to be about 200 deep! This is nonsense. 35,000 cavalry occupy 7,000 yds ten deep and the Itinerary does say that Darius had as many cavalry as Alexander had foot, but this is still too many for me since a horse requires more feed than a man and it has to be of a certain type for the animal to remain servicable over 35,000 horses and riders are going to be the equivalent of about 175,000 men and that is without the infantry at all.

[Paralus]

Commonsense again Agesilaos!Of course these numbers are ridiculous. The facilities to feed and see to such numbers rarely exist today (and then at large set pieces: sporting arenas which never move).Fact of the matter is that Alexander was faced with a force about twice (or a little more) his number and certainly near enough to five times his numbers of cavalry. This was the forte of the provinces Darius was reduced to recruiting from. As well, Darius was not about to repeat Issus: take on the Macedonian phalanx. This would be a battle won by the fish scaled cavalry.Read the sources. The entire engagement is mostly cavalry, both on the wings and in the centre left. Darius' line is described as cavalry "intermingled with" infantry GÇô and some elephants.Arrian, writing some four hundred years after the events repeats the court propaganda and the exaggerations of a marshal keen to press his own claims (Ptolemy). Alexander won a crushing victory at Gaugamela against the odds. Not only outnumbered in total armament, he was outnumbered five to one where it really mattered on that plain: the cavalry. He was not ever outnumbered ten or twenty to one. As I've said before, we'd be having this discussion in Parsi were that the case.