About the invasion force of Punjab.

[aleksandros]

Some say it was 100.000 others 120.000 others 135.000 and i wonder why the size of the army that took part in Hydaspes was much smaller.

And i also wonder why there was any ground for the generals to say that 'you send your men unarmed against those beasts' since Alexander had all the gold he needed to support his troops with the best equipment available and all the elephants of the punjab were now in macedonian hands.

[Fiona]

Some say it was 100.000 others 120.000 others 135.000 and i wonder why the size of the army that took part in Hydaspes was much smaller.

And i also wonder why there was any ground for the generals to say that 'you send your men unarmed against those beasts' since Alexander had all the gold he needed to support his troops with the best equipment available and all the elephants of the punjab were now in macedonian hands.

I don't know about the numbers, but one thing that strikes me is that the supply lines must have been getting perilously thin by the Punjab. True, Alexander had plenty of gold, but where was it? Back in Ecbatana and Babylon, most of it. But even if he had plenty with him, he still had to source supplies. You can't spend your money if there's nothing to spend it on, so I'm guessing that stuff had to be requested, sourced back in Persia, and then sent out to the 'front'. Engels has done a cracking job in explaining the logistics of food and fodder, but what about other materials? Metal for weapons - wood, even - you can't just use any old wood for a new sarissa. Did they have to send for new cornel wood from Macedonia? How long would that have taken? Fabric for clothing - where did that come from? I think it was about this time that the Silver Shields actually got their silver shields, but how long ago had they been ordered?
So when it came to elephants, they may quickly have realised that axes, or whatever, would be just the job, but getting hold of enough axes of sufficient quality would surely have taken quite some time.
Fiona

[Paralus]

True, Alexander had plenty of gold, but where was it? Back in Ecbatana and Babylon, most of it. But even if he had plenty with him, he still had to source supplies. You can't spend your money if there's nothing to spend it on, so I'm guessing that stuff had to be requested, sourced back in Persia, and then sent out to the 'front'.

Quite. Alexander was reduced to borrowing money as the bullion - that which was with him - was exhausted. The sources differ about reinforcements and such. Diodorus has damn near an entire army meeting Alexander in India along with armament, etc.

On the numbers, the intriguing indicator is the numbers of forces actaully engaged in operations. I can't add them up at the ofice but nowhere, from memory, do we have anything like 100 -120,000 operating. The single largest batle (Jhelum) is fought with a typically "Alexanderian" force of around 35,000 or more. Of that, only some 14-16,000 odd (or less ? - don't have the info in front of me) took part in the opening battle. This has prompted much hypothesisng as to where the rst of the supposedly huge army is - perhaps further down river or on "detachment" elswhere etc. Nevertheless, what are described are the seven taxeis of phalanx, hypaspists and the various cavary contingents (Saca, Dahae and Indian as well as Companion) and "light-armed". These hardly amount to 120,000 men at arms.

Metal for weapons - wood, even - you can't just use any old wood for a new sarissa. Did they have to send for new cornel wood from Macedonia? How long would that have taken? Fabric for clothing - where did that come from? I think it was about this time that the Silver Shields actually got their silver shields, but how long ago had they been ordered?

Interesting question. The Macedonians were rather attached to their cornel wood sarisae and spears. They could, at a pinch, be made form some other reasonable hardwood I suppose. And yes, it is in the re-arming in India that the hypaspist corps received its silver "arms".

I've noted this before but RL Fox stated, as he introduced the invasion force moving into India, that the infantry dispensed with the sarisa and "never again used it under Alexander". I've no idea the rationale behind this sweeping statement and he supplies none in the text or the notes. It is flatly contradicted by Diodorus who notes at the Jhelum that the Macedonians had succes against the elephants due to the use of their "long spears". These are hardly hoplite spears lengthened a foot or two and so must be sarsae.

[amyntoros]

I've had a very busy couple of days so I only have time for a short response on this thread tonight.

Fabric for clothing - where did that come from? I think it was about this time that the Silver Shields actually got their silver shields, but how long ago had they been ordered?

There's actually a reference to clothing in Diodorus:

Diodorus 17.94.1-4 [1] Alexander observed that his soldiers were exhausted with their constant campaigns. They had spent almost eight years among toils and dangers, and it was necessary to raise their spirits by an effective appeal if they were to undertake the expedition against the Gandaridae. [2] There had been many losses among the soldiers, and no relief from fighting was in sight. The hooves of the horses had been worn thin by steady marching. The arms and armour were wearing out, and Greek clothing was quite gone. They had to clothe themselves in foreign materials, recutting the garments of the Indians. [3] This was the season also, as luck would have it, of the heavy rains. These had been going on for seventy days, to the accompaniment of continuous thunder and lightning. All this he accounted adverse to his project, and he saw only one hope of gaining his wish, if he might gain the soldiers' great goodwill through gratitude. [4] Accordingly he allowed them to ravage the enemy's country, which was full of every good thing. During these days when the army was busy foraging, he called together the wives of the soldiers and their children; to the wives he undertook to give a monthly ration, to the children he distributed a service bonus in proportion to the military records of their fathers.

The above, and other sources, seems to indicate that although Alexander equipped his men with arms (and presumably food) they were not provided with personal essentials - meaning that they were responsible for their own clothing, plus clothing and food for their women and children along with whatever else they might need or desire. (Alexander’s decision here to provide rations for the families is mentioned just before the so-called mutiny in India.) I'd guess that the traders amongst the camp followers grew quite rich during the campaigns as it would explain how a great number of Alexander's soldiers were in considerable debt by the time they returned to the east. I doubt that even the traders, however, had supply lines running all the way back from India, as evidenced by the army's need to recut Indian clothing.

I've noted this before but RL Fox stated, as he introduced the invasion force moving into India, that the infantry dispensed with the sarisa and "never again used it under Alexander". I've no idea the rationale behind this sweeping statement and he supplies none in the text or the notes. It is flatly contradicted by Diodorus who notes at the Jhelum that the Macedonians had succes against the elephants due to the use of their "long spears". These are hardly hoplite spears lengthened a foot or two and so must be sarsae.

However, Bosworth in The Legacy of Alexander (yes, I'm still reading it ) notes on page 167 that:

The Silver Shields had experience with vicious sickle-shaped knives which had been singularly effective at the Hydaspes, and if they had the same weaponry in Iran, they could have made the enemy elephants totally uncontrollable by slashing at their trunks.

I wondered about this when I first read it. As in; which source tells us the above information about the Hydaspes? I confess though that I haven't yet looked it up. If they did indeed use such weapons in the battle then this would indicate that the Macedonians also appropriated weapons from their enemies when needed, or if it was advantageous.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

However, Bosworth in The Legacy of Alexander (yes, I'm still reading it :wink: ) notes on page 167 that:

The Silver Shields had experience with vicious sickle-shaped knives which had been singularly effective at the Hydaspes, and if they had the same weaponry in Iran, they could have made the enemy elephants totally uncontrollable by slashing at their trunks.

I wondered about this when I first read it. As in; which source tells us the above information about the Hydaspes? I confess though that I haven't yet looked it up. If they did indeed use such weapons in the battle then this would indicate that the Macedonians also appropriated weapons from their enemies when needed, or if it was advantageous

Good to see you broadening those horizons: keep it up and a virtual star stamp for the back of your hand.

I'd a quick squiz last night and came up empty handed. I can't find Curtius anywhere (perhaps he is on loan from the Paralus mini Library of Congress and, in any case, it is well known he is unreliable) and so it might be mentioned there. It does sound like something that would titillate his attention. It might also be found in one of the minor sources (Strabo, Polyaenus or such). Either way what I have found is that RL Fox writes it up; Bosworth too and Green as well. It must, therefore, be somewhere.

It makes sense in a way - to appropriate local weaponry. It is likely those the Indians now in Alexander's army provided the intelligence on how to deal with the beasts: they had the experience. Still, our most lucid source, Arrian, describes the Macedonians giving ground and rushing all the while stabbing at the creatures with their "javelins".

As always, the detail is frustratingly fleeting. We know Alexander took his most important footmen: the hypaspists and the Agrianes. When combined with Diodorus clear description of the Macedonians utilising their long spears, I'd assumed that the phalanx brigades were sarisa armed, the hypaspists with something resembling the hoplite spear as well as the Indian weaponry and the Agrianes armed with multiple javelins as per usual. Thus we have the mahouts shot down with javelin or "missile" fire and the phalanx making use of their long spears. All the while the hypaspists are falling back and alternately charging with spear and, probably, insinuating themselves amongst the elephants wielding machetes at their trunks and legs.

My imagined scene anyhow.

[Fiona]

I'd a quick squiz last night and came up empty handed. I can't find Curtius anywhere (perhaps he is on loan from the Paralus mini Library of Congress and, in any case, it is well known he is unreliable) and so it might be mentioned there. It does sound like something that would titillate his attention. It might also be found in one of the minor sources (Strabo, Polyaenus or such). Either way what I have found is that RL Fox writes it up; Bosworth too and Green as well. It must, therefore, be somewhere.

Yes, it's Curtius - he has (8.14.29)

Then the Macedonians began to use axes - they had equipped themselves with such implements in advance - to hack off the elephants' feet and they also chopped at the trunks of the animals with gently-curving, sickle-like swords called kopides.

If this is the mention of sickle-like swords to which Lane Fox, Bosworth and Green are referring, then can we be sure it's local weapons and not just cavalry swords?
Curtius also mentions scythes and axes later on, in Alexander's speech - suggesting agricultural implements, or anything they could lay their hands on.
Fiona

[Phoebus]

I think the cavalry swords used by the soldiers in Alexander's army are qualified by other names, though...

[Paralus]

Yes: the kopis. Perhaps this is what Curtius refers to. In which case, if the hypaspists used the kopis, what did the cavalry wield? Unless, of course, more were manufactured.

This sounds like something planned at the time for this battle though: for the elephants. It might be easier to assume that local curved blades were used. After all, the Indians will have had the experience in the disabling of elephants and the weapons utilised. A combined assault by the "missile" troops (Agrianes and others); spear, curved sword and axe armed hypaspists and sarisa armed phalanx troops.

A very nasty piece of work in any case.

You finished the campaign of Iran yet Amyntoros? What did you think of the Macedonian numbers chapter?

[Phoebus]

I'll admit I'm out of my depth here, but I always identified the cavalry sword with the machaira (μαχαιρα) that Xenophon talks about.

I guess that either would work well; both being curved blades and all.

[Paralus]

Perhaps this might help. Use the magnifying glass to expand the shot and text. It's from the tumulus at Aegae. As one can see: gently curving blade, single edge and "bird" shaped grip. The perfect cavalry "chopper". Likely that which saved Alexander's neck - literally - at Granicus. With a well honed edge, one can imagine it doing exactly what Arrian describes it as doing. Ouch!

It's from a book produced for an "Alexander the Great" exhibition at the Onassis Centre ( NYC, 2004-5) that Amyntoros was so very kind to give me. (much effusive thanks).

[agesilaos]

24 Iam fugae circumspiciebant locum paulo ante victores, cum Alexander Agrianos et Thracas leviter armatos, meliorem concursatione quam comminus militem, emisit in beluas. 25 Ingentem hi vim telorum iniecere et elephantis et regentibus eos: phalanx quoque instare constanter territis coepit. 26 Sed quidam avidius persecuti beluas in semet inritavere vulneribus. Obtriti ergo pedibus earum ceteris, ut parcius instarent, fuere documentum. 27 Praecipue terribilis illa facies erat, cum manu arma virosque corriperent et super se regentibus traderent. 28 Anceps ergo pugna nunc sequentium nunc fugientium elephantos in multum diei varium certamen extraxit: donec securibus — id namque genus auxilii praeparatum erat — pedes amputare coeperunt. 29 Copidas vocabant gladios leviter curvatos, falcibus similes, quis adpetebant beluarum manus. Nec quicquam inexpertum non mortis modo, sed etiam in ipsa morte novi supplicii timor omittebat.


Curtius, or his source at least, is discussing the armament of the Thracians and the Agrianes rather than that of the hypaspists and whilst the axes are probably local the copides are probably not, Curtius is merely explaining the features of an unfamiliar weapon to his Roman audience who would have been used to straight swords. That local produce was used goes without saying as Engels shows lines longer than fourteen days are counter productive. This is why the submission of Taxiles is a necessary precursor to the campaign against Poros

[Paralus]

Curtius, or his source at least, is discussing the armament of the Thracians and the Agrianes rather than that of the hypaspists and whilst the axes are probably local the copides are probably not, Curtius is merely explaining the features of an unfamiliar weapon to his Roman audience who would have been used to straight swords. That local produce was used goes without saying as Engels shows lines longer than fourteen days are counter productive. This is why the submission of Taxiles is a necessary precursor to the campaign against Poros

And, on that last, you will get no argument from me. As well the appointing of Porus allowed the continuance of the invasion. Not by 120,000 troops though - by anyone's count.

Now then, why is it that modern historians, from Lane Fox to Bosworth, have assumed the hypaspists armed to deal with elephants? I, personally, have always assumed them armed something similar to a hoplite in this battle. That is, charging in and thrusting, then withdrawing; always in contact with the cavalry and moving in the leftward sweep to contain the Indian lines.

I have always seen the Agrianes in the fashion you describe: "light" armed troops operating amongst the cavalry after engagement with javelin and sword. It is no stretch to see them adopting "axes" or machetes on Indian advice for this battle.

The hypaspists are heavy infantry - no matter the raging modern argument over their panoply – and they likely performed their usual job: killing close to the king. As I’ve written before, the detail is frustratingly fleeting. That said, later descriptions of Alexander’s hypaspists – the Silver Shields – show them operating to deadly effect as phalanx brigades. That these blokes can still be as effective in their fifties and sixties says much about the style of the fighting: phalanx, drill and a care-less attitude to killing. These were not – generally – open field soldiers; they were “close order” fighters who followed the king into the enemy ranks as part of his “wedge”.

I’d contend they were armed – for this battle – in something approximating the hoplite panoply: Iphicratean spear (some ten to twelve feet); rimless shield (not an aspis) of some 75 cm diameter) and possibly a cuirass. I could well be wrong. I have been before.

[agesilaos]

I should think they get the hypaspists dealing with the elephants from Arrian none of my copies are to hand. Curtius' version with the light armed taking them on seems fair to me, I see the hypaspists as armed as phalangites in this battle otherwise Alexander would be precious short of phalanx, with only two taxeis (or was it four?). I think the limit of any re-arming would be swapping sarissai for javelins when on mobile ops.

I agree 120,000 is far too large a figure, although it does represent the largest force we have record of, Julian's Persian expedition I think, so is just possible theoretically, although I doubt the logistic parameters of the Indian river valleys are truly comparable to the Mesopotamian plain with its intensive cultivation and developed canal system.

[Paralus]

I should think they get the hypaspists dealing with the elephants from Arrian none of my copies are to hand. Curtius' version with the light armed taking them on seems fair to me…

I think this has become an “accepted assumption”. Alexander’s dispositions are nothing out of the ordinary: the hypaspists are placed alongside the king and his companion cavalry. Arrian has them immediately behind the Companion Cavalry in column from the river. Hence, I believe, it is taken as read that they will have “charged” in concert with the king (as per usual) and thus have been dealing with the elephants as the Indian cavalry “fell back in confusion upon their elephants”. Apart from the naming of units, the hypaspists are no longer singled out. Arrian utilises “Macedonian heavy infantry”.

My Curtius is yet to re-surface and I believe I must shell out for another. Most annoying. I’d agree that Agrianes suit this somewhat better.

…I see the hypaspists as armed as phalangites in this battle otherwise Alexander would be precious short of phalanx, with only two taxeis (or was it four?). I think the limit of any re-arming would be swapping sarissai for javelins when on mobile ops.

Yes: the brigades of Coenus and Clietus. I, along with Heckel, doubt that these were all though. In the somewhat confused account we have of the battle from Arrian we know of Alexander’s troops and their actions (surprise, surprise sergeant!). We know also of Craterus’ actions along with the troops allocated him. Signally, we are left ignorant of the actions of the battalions of Meleagher, Attalus and Gorgias as well as the mercenary cavalry and infantry. I believe they have become lost in the description prior to battle when Alexander halted his advance and allowed his infantry to “come up with him”. Arrian describes them as arriving “regiment by regiment”. It is possible that the three battalions were on the way after Alexander had engaged the advance Indian force and whilst Porus was preparing to engage Alexander. As well as resting that with him, Alexander allowed time for the “middle force” to cross and make their appearance as the main dance was to get underway. Either that or the 3,000 hypaspists, two taxeis of phalanx, the Agrianes and cavalry – altogether numbering some 12,000 – took on the Raja’s force seriously outnumbered. Rather an odd thing for the commander of 120,000(!) to do.

Yes javelins are a distinct possibility. Arrian mentions them as being among the hail of missiles poured upon the elephants and their drivers. The archers – mounted and otherwise – will too have been part of this. I remain open on the issue of the armament of the Hypaspists in this engagement. I am on the record in stating that they were sarisa armed when stationed alongside the phalanx in pitched battle. It is also just possible they were armed for the difficulties presented by the elephants here. This was a somewhat “different” battle.

The attack on Tyre – where the hypaspists and Coenus’ (?) brigade assaulted the city walls from the tower bearing triremes was obviously carried out sans sarisa. I just doubt that the shield used will have been a two foot standard phalangite issue. Particularly for the royal hypaspists. I think there’s evidence of a “rimless” Macedonian shield of some 75cm or so that is a “light” version of a standard aspis. This possibly is what is used by the “biggest and most powerful” of the Macedonians (Philip’s pezhetairoi; Alexander’s hypaspists)

Be wonderful to find something incontrovertible though….

[aleksandros]

I am so sick of the fact that the most critical questions will never be answered from the historical sources.