pothos.org

Hello all,While pondering Alexander's tactics (again) at Guagamela, the thought occured to me just how well Alexander kept to Epaminondas' maneuver...all the way to the end. As I understand it, beyond the slanted line, and after full engagement, the right is supposed to overextend the enemies left a bit to turn the flank, while the left retards to draw the enemy in, causing them to overextend their line, and create gaps. At which point, the right slams their flank and charges the gaps, in a sweeping maneuver towards their right. Creating a large pincer movement and encircling their entire force, arriving behind their right. With your left facing their right frontally, and your right either in their rights left flank, or behind. If you were able to keep up with all that right-left verbage, congratulations, you need to get a life even more than me! Just kidding of course...Looking at the outcome of Alexander's overall course of action at Guagamela, it appears that this is exactly what he did, with the exception of flanking the Persian left, he did a head fake of flanking their left, to get them to extend their line and thus create the needed gap(s). Everything else, including turning around and coming to Parmenion's resuce fits the mold of the well known maneuver. He probably attempted to collect Darius, and whence he realized the impossibility of the task, turned about and proceeded with the pincer movement against Mazaeus on the Persian right flank. I'd, of course, like to hear some thoughts on this.later Nicator

Hello,This area of study in Alexander's life to me is something I have yet to come to grips with. I found that the books that I have read have not invested too many pages in details and just recently the last book- I read on Alexander simply said, regarding Gaugamela, that the sources are lean on detail and leave practically everything to speculation.What books have you found particularly useful with regards tactics and strategies used by Alexander?I have to confess that academic books and papers from the departments of classical philology have yet to grace my bookshelf.Would I be right in thinking that Tarn, Bosworth etc etc would be the best modern texts on such matters? What sources for this have you used?Just as an afterthought, was it not in Gaugamela where each Macedonian soldier, statistically speaking, had to kill 20 of the enemy to even have a chance of winning the day?I guess that Alexander was fortunate in that once Darius did his favorite turn about manoeuvre and fled the battlefield, all his men were like headless chickens.Regards, and sorry I can't discuss with you any further your hypothesis on this "big daddy" of all battles.Dean.

Hi Dean -"Just as an afterthought, was it not in Gaugamela where each Macedonian soldier, statistically speaking, had to kill 20 of the enemy to even have a chance of winning the day?"My answer is not intended as a correction, but just as a suggestion for further 'contemplation'. :-)Military historians have concluded that during (!) an ancient battle the number of casualties (killed) was always in the vicinity of some 5.5% maximum for each army - quite often both for the winner as well as the loser.As the casualty numbers approached this 'natural' limit, one of the armies would soon start to panic, rout and fall into a state of disorder. The victor would pursue and hunt down the fleeing enemy and at this stage the numbers of casualties in the defeated army would always rise up to an avarage level of 37,7% killed.So - the slaughter happened after the battle proper, not during the battle.Of course, really good armies and leaders managed to keep their losses below the 5.5% limit. Ceasar averaged around 1.4% or 2% during his best battles. Alexander's well trained army lost only 1% or 1.5% percent killed at Issus and Gaugamela, but is believed to have lost 6% up to 7% killed at the Hydaspes (which is well beyond the limit that would have caused any other 'normal' army to rout).Regards -
Nick

"What books have you found particularly useful with regards tactics and strategies used by Alexander?"As I mentioned on an earlier post, I found Hammond, Fuller, and Green to be the best sources of information on Guagamela. Each book adds a complementative viewpoint and enhances the overall picture.
Just as an afterthought, was it not in Gaugamela where each Macedonian soldier, statistically speaking, had to kill 20 of the enemy to even have a chance of winning the day?I believe that was Issus, but the numbers given by the sources are not reliable...so pick your favorite and weigh it against the possibility. You can be sure, that each soldier did NOT kill 20 enemy soldiers at Issus or Guagamela. Most casualties were caused by the stampede to escape, i.e...soldiers were trampled to death by their own soldiers. Alexander was all too ready to accept the reputation of being capable of such mass slaughter if for nothing else than to prevent further battles in the future. Nick C

Hello,I must admit that when you cite the figures in terms of percentages; the losses seem unbelievably low when talking about Alexander's battles(that is not to say that they are incorrect); especially when you consider the amount of troops involved in both Issus or Gaugamela. I mean without much knowledge of tactical warfare and just using a layman's common sense I would have thought that with even the greatest military genius on the battlefield, a higher figure would have been inevitable- it just shows you what a good plan could do in terms of saving human lives at such engagements.I think your closing remark is interesting and highlights the nature of the battle at Hydaspes that it was an absolute bloodbath on both sides and in view of this, Alexander's extraordinarily gallant behaviour towards the defeated King Porus dumbfounds me considerably.As you say, the Macedonians certainly wouldn't have killed 20 of the enemy that figure is just used I think to spotlight the enormous difference in numbers between the two armies.Best regards,
Dean.

Hi Dean -The 'relatively' low rates of casualties during (not after) battles has to do with the comparatively limited damage weapons like swords, spears, slings and arrows could do. I mean: compared to modern weaponry like fire arms. Especially when the enemy wore good armor (a Greek hoplite or so) it was quite difficult to deal a mortal blow...To add one more explanation: I recently read a study on the web explaining that hand-to-hand combat during ancient battles lasted 5 minutes maximum. By that time the ancient soldiers would have been totally exhausted (carrying heavy weapons, body armor etc.). After each 5 minute clash we need to picture a sort of 15-20 minutes rest period before the soldiers were recovered to engage again. So a battle would have had a few short 'waves' of heavy fighting, with longer 'peaceful' lulls in between. (I must admit that have difficulties myself picturing a battle in that way.)Best regards -
Nick

Hi Nick -I just wondered: have you ever checked livius.org on Gaugamela? Maybe you know this site already, maybe you don't. Anyway, here is the link:http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/a ... tmlRegards -
Nick

Not aware of this site, but from the looks of it, I'll be spending some quality time digging into it. Many thanks Nicklater Nicator

Hello,
Looked on this site some time ago- way back and yes found it very good- certainly to be recommended.All the best.
Dean.