THE STRENGTH OF THE PERSIAN ARMY AT ISSOS

[Paralus]

Now if only we could get someone who speaks Dutch to read Lendering's "Alexander the Great" and see why he says the Persians were outnumbered at Issos and why they ran away without a fight at Gaugamela.

Jona's view and exposition of the latter can be found here.

[Hando]

Now if only we could get someone who speaks Dutch to read Lendering's "Alexander the Great" and see why he says the Persians were outnumbered at Issos and why they ran away without a fight at Gaugamela.

Jona's view and exposition of the latter can be found here.

Thank you Paralus, but I've already seen that page. A lot of it seems contradictory to me however, because Jona says the Persians at Gaugamela ran away without a fight, but he also clearly states that the Persians did fight and in fact fought well enough under Mazeus to give Parmenion a very hard time.

Jona also says "If you exaggerate a bit, there was no battle at all." and "Alexander merely attacked a group of people that were only too willing to flee." and that "the battle of Gaugamela amounted to an attack on a large group of deserters." But then he also says "We simply have no idea what happened." So how can on the one hand the Persians fight and fight well enough under Mazeus, but then on the other hand flee without a fight? In addition how can he make conlcusions about what exactly happened during the battle if "We simply have no idea what happened."?

And if the omens were demoralizing, then as Jona himself says, this was also true for the Macedonians who "panicked" and instead of breaking camp for battle, erected palisades around their camps instead? The demoralization from the omens worked both ways and seems to have had the same effect on both parties and not just on the Persians. So how can he conclude that it was due to the omens that the Persians lost? I have tried to ask Jona this but apart from short answers without much elaboration, he has so far not replied. I wish he would clarify this.

[Paralus]

Well Hando, you asked just what was in Jona's book on Alexander about Gaugamela and that is it. It is a lift straight from the book. While it isn't the whole exposition it is the relevant section.

I do not understand your claim that the Macedonians "'panicked' and instead of breaking camp for battle, erected palisades around their camps instead". As far as I can see, this can only come from Curtius' somewhat confused narrative. He has Alexander encamp "the more cumbersome appendages to his army in the fortified camp under a small garrison" whilst the army marches on Darius (4.12.2). He then has the Macedonians panic at the Persian host (which he has just described) whereupon Alexander puts them into another entrenched camp. That the Macedonians hadn't seen this host is confirmed by the following passage where the Macedonians occupy the hill affording them a view of the battlefield where they see the Persian host which "flooded the plains, and the noise from the myriads of soldiers had filled the ears even of those a long way off". At this even Alexander has second thoughts and "thought it preferable to fortify his camp there on the hill, and ordered a rampart to be built". So we now have three entrenched, palisaded or 'ramparted' Macedonain camps. This will not do at all.

Arrian, near certainly, has it almost correct. One camp is palisaded where he left the unfit and the baggage train (Curtius' more cumbersome appendages) and advanced on the enemy. When about 6.5 kilometres away, descending a hill, he caught sight of the enemy he stopped so as to reconnoiter the enemy's position and ground. He made camp but he did so in line of battle (καταστρατοπεδεύουσιν αὐτοῦ ὅπως τεταγμένοι ἔμελλον ἰέναι ἐς τὴν μάχην). This is no fearful entrenched and palisaded encampment.

[Hando]

Well Hando, you asked just what was in Jona's book on Alexander about Gaugamela and that is it. It is a lift straight from the book. While it isn't the whole exposition it is the relevant section.

I do not understand your claim that the Macedonians "'panicked' and instead of breaking camp for battle, erected palisades around their camps instead". As far as I can see, this can only come from Curtius' somewhat confused narrative. He has Alexander encamp "the more cumbersome appendages to his army in the fortified camp under a small garrison" whilst the army marches on Darius (4.12.2). He then has the Macedonians panic at the Persian host (which he has just described) whereupon Alexander puts them into another entrenched camp. That the Macedonians hadn't seen this host is confirmed by the following passage where the Macedonians occupy the hill affording them a view of the battlefield where they see the Persian host which "flooded the plains, and the noise from the myriads of soldiers had filled the ears even of those a long way off". At this even Alexander has second thoughts and "thought it preferable to fortify his camp there on the hill, and ordered a rampart to be built". So we now have three entrenched, palisaded or 'ramparted' Macedonain camps. This will not do at all.

Arrian, near certainly, has it almost correct. One camp is palisaded where he left the unfit and the baggage train (Curtius' more cumbersome appendages) and advanced on the enemy. When about 6.5 kilometres away, descending a hill, he caught sight of the enemy he stopped so as to reconnoiter the enemy's position and ground. He made camp but he did so in line of battle (καταστρατοπεδεύουσιν αὐτοῦ ὅπως τεταγμένοι ἔμελλον ἰέναι ἐς τὴν μάχην). This is no fearful entrenched and palisaded encampment.

Yes, I realise it's lifted straight from Jona's book and I appreciate that you posted it here. I didn't mean to sound ungrateful if that was your impression. I simply meant that I was confused at Jona's claims that the Persians ran away without a fight.

Thanks for explaining to me about the panic among the Macedonians. I see now that I misunderstood the erecting of palisades.
Cheers

[Paralus]

No, no. Just to point out that I don't think there's anymore light to shine on Jona's thesis other than what he has to say in that 'lift'.

On the flight/fight of the Achaemenid army, I think he's largely correct. The Babylonian 'astronomers' certainly knew their stuff and the omens read in the astronomical events will have had some wide circulation. This was, at the time and to several of the peoples forming the King's levies, akin to something like our weather reports. The Greeks were not immune: remember the vacillation of the wretched Nikias before Syracuse over an eclipse. There will have been those only too prepared to conceive the worst and to scarper at the first opportunity for the heavens predicted defeat if not disaster - worse than the near thing of Issos. The core of that army - the Persians and Medes for example - will have fought while others prepared to down tools and strike... out in any direction other than the advancing Macedonians'. I disagree with Jona's claim that we have really no idea of what happened. I think that the accounts preserve detail that reflects reality - especially that of Arrian. Curtius has his moments but his narrative is a confused mish-mash that has people commanding units they were never associated with and doing things they clearly could not have done without the entire Macedonian attack falling to pieces. Thus we have detail that doesn't really occur in other battles: the heavy assault on the Macedonian left is described far better than the cursory line or so of Issos; the formation of the infantry and cavalry of the right into a 'wedge-like' ( ὥσπερ ἔμβολον) formation and the bitter cavalry struggle near the Persian centre as Alexander attempts envelopment of Darius.

This is not to say that far less disciplined (to choose a word) units or levies did not abandon the King as the armies met: they very likely did. The Babylonian sources are clear that they did and there is no easy reason why such would feel the need to invent this as the King had fallen (and likely died) when it was written.

[Hando]

On the flight/fight of the Achaemenid army, I think he's largely correct. There will have been those only too prepared to conceive the worst and to scarper at the first opportunity for the heavens predicted defeat if not disaster..... The core of that army will have fought while others prepared to down tools and strike out in any direction other than the advancing Macedonians'.....
This is not to say that far less disciplined (to choose a word) units or levies did not abandon the King as the armies met: they very likely did. The Babylonian sources are clear that they did and there is no easy reason why such would feel the need to invent this as the King had fallen (and likely died) when it was written.

But do you agree with Jona that the Persians who did run away ran away without fighting at all at the sight of the oncoming Macedonians or do you think they did fight for a while? Jona seems to be suggesting that the wings, if not the centre of the Persians ran away without offering any resistance.

[Hando]

The core of that army - the Persians and Medes for example - will have fought...

Do you think this Persian core who did fight outnumbered the entire Macedonian/Greek troops or were they outnumbered? I suppose this "core" should not only include the Persians and Medes, but also others like the Babylonian horsemen under Mazeus who gave Parmenion a hard time.

[Hando]

I received a reply from Jona Lendering about his opinion on the Persian troop strength at Issos.
First I asked him "How many Persian troops fought at the battle of Issos and how many Macedonian troops fought there?

I ask this because most scholars think Persians outnumbered the Macedonians, but you said the opposite. I refer to your statement in this link.
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/19-greek-m ... ander.html"

To this, he replied "That is not what I am saying. I am saying that not all Persian soldiers could be deployed, which gave the Macedonians an advantage, as they were better protected. At Issus, there is only about two kilometers of land; the Macedonians could put all their soldiers in the field and had some people as a reserve. The Persians could field just as many soldiers on the same area, and had to leave tens of thousands in the rear. They never fought or pushed the Persian soldiers in the front towards their death."
and...
"Nobody can offer accurate estimates. We ought to have a large scale experiment to check whether the numbers in our sources are plausible. That being said: the battlefield was the same for both sides, so the number of soldiers that could be placed between the sea and the mountains was the same. Inferior Persians versus superior Macedonians; the Persians incapable of retreat, because they were obstructed by the extra soldiers. That's basically what caused the Persian distaster."

Regarding the battle at Gaugamela I asked him "Regarding the battle of Gaugamela, are you suggesting that the Persians simply ran away without a fight? You seem to be suggesting this unless I am wrongly interpreting your comments on
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z7.html"
He replied "More or less. I am saying that the omens were very bad and that this was, for the many recruits at Gaugamela, an excuse for not staying with the king. The issue I am addressing is which source is reliable: Arrian or Diodorus. I think we must prefer the latter."
and...
"Certainly, the army as a whole fought, and the number of Macedonian wounded indicates that there was a lot of fighting."

I then asked him again "Gaugamela- I'm still confused about the Persian's combat effectiveness/role at the battle of Gaugamela. You answered me by saying that the Persians more or less ran away without a fight at Gaugamela. But then at the same time you said "Certainly, the [Persian] army as a whole [willingly] fought, and the number of Macedonian wounded indicates that there was a lot of fighting."

To this he replied "Well, as Diodorus says: the wings started to run away, the center remained."

I was still not fully satisfied and asked him the following two questions but he hasn't replied. So I wonder what you guys thought? Here are my two unanswered questions.

Gaugamela
1)Roughly, how many Persian troops fought in the center at Gaugamela according to Diodorus or in your estimate? Did the Persian center outnumber the total number of Macedonians who were fighting on the battlefield?

2) -The Persian wings.
You say the Persian wings started to run away at Gaugamela. I'm interested in when the Persians wings started to run away. I'm really confused about this one. On the one hand in your first reply, you suggest the Persians (especially the wings) ran away without even fighting at all, but then on Livius.org you also say the Persians, including their wings under Mazeus fought and fought well. In fact Mazeus' wing gave Parmenion and his cavalry a hard time. This to me implies that the Persian wings may have run away eventually, but only after fighting for a while and not as soon as the battle was joined or early on in the battle. Is this a correct assessment or did the Persian wings run away early on in the battle and without fighting at all?

[agesilaos]

Well, I cannot agree with Jona on this one; I think he means that the infantry levies fled without a fight which would be right enough, but the cavalry in whom Dareios had placed his faith certainly fought and rather than the wings breaking, as per Diodoros, the left wing and centre broke but the Persian right was pressing Parmeion hard and the right centre had penetrated the Macedonian line; these men do not seem to be overly influenced by the adverse omens.

As to numbers one can only go by the length of the Macedonian line, which was about 3375 yards long which translates into 1125 files of cavalry,@10 deep 11,250 but the left was overlapped so adding 50% would give about 18,000 cavalry, infantry would be upto 60,000 but of limited combat value. But this is only my guess.

[Hando]

Well, I cannot agree with Jona on this one; I think he means that the infantry levies fled without a fight which would be right enough, but the cavalry in whom Dareios had placed his faith certainly fought and rather than the wings breaking, as per Diodoros, the left wing and centre broke but the Persian right was pressing Parmeion hard and the right centre had penetrated the Macedonian line; these men do not seem to be overly influenced by the adverse omens.

As to numbers one can only go by the length of the Macedonian line, which was about 3375 yards long which translates into 1125 files of cavalry,@10 deep 11,250 but the left was overlapped so adding 50% would give about 18,000 cavalry, infantry would be upto 60,000 but of limited combat value. But this is only my guess.

Agesilaos, thank you for answering. Your answers are very helpful and much appreciated. I am grateful that I have your expertise, as well as generosity to help me along with my research. I do have a few questions regarding your reply though.

1) Above, you said "the infantry levies fled without a fight which would be right enough." Later you said "infantry would be upto 60,000 but of limited combat value." Are you saying all 60,000 Persian infantry "fled without a fight"?

2)Were all these "60,000 infantry" considered to be infantry levies, or were the infantry levies only a part of the 60,000 infantry? If so, what other infantry were part of this 60,000?

3) Above, you said " [this] would give about 18,000 cavalry, infantry would be upto 60,000." I assume these are Persian troop numbers, not Macedonian?

4) Above, you said "[the Persian cavalry] certainly fought and rather than the wings breaking, as per Diodoros, the left wing and centre broke but the Persian right was pressing Parmeion hard and the right centre had penetrated the Macedonian line..." Am I correct in assuming that you disagree with Diodorus who says that both Persian wings broke? If so, why do you think so? I assume the Persian right wing and Persian right centre were both cavalry?

Thank you

[agesilaos]

The whole Persian front line was cavalry; Macedonian numbers were 7,000 cavalryu and 40,000 foot (Arrian III 13); there were about 3,000 Greek mercenaries among the Persian foot but these do not seem to have come into combat. You read of 10,000 Immortals being present but this corps seems not to have been in existence, there were 1,000 kinsmen but they were cavalry and commanded by the chiliarch, Nabarzanes in the case of Gaugamela.

We don't hear of any Persian infantry fighting, though since a cavalry pursuit followed the collapse of the Persian left many will have been cut down as they fled. Once Bessos had been lured into stretching the line Alexander struck and penetrated towards Dareios precipitating a collapse which spread along the line as Alexander turned on the more successful Persian right (Dareios ought to have been in the centre), it would seem that Parmenion had gained the upper hand on his own, probably due to the disintegration of the Persian left, he had the harder fight of it but again probably only with cavalry, as the right withdrew it was still in good order as the Indian cavalry charged Alexander as he came to Parmenion's assistance.

Diodoros is not the sort of source one should accept over Arrian as a rule, he was epitomising a popularist and sensational writer of dubious intent, whilst Arrian's sources exculpate Alexander we still get to hear of his 'crimes' and need not drag details from Diodoros in to illuminate matters, his battles are especially stylised.

[Hando]

The whole Persian front line was cavalry; Macedonian numbers were 7,000 cavalryu and 40,000 foot (Arrian III 13); there were about 3,000 Greek mercenaries among the Persian foot but these do not seem to have come into combat. You read of 10,000 Immortals being present but this corps seems not to have been in existence, there were 1,000 kinsmen but they were cavalry and commanded by the chiliarch, Nabarzanes in the case of Gaugamela.

We don't hear of any Persian infantry fighting, though since a cavalry pursuit followed the collapse of the Persian left many will have been cut down as they fled. Once Bessos had been lured into stretching the line Alexander struck and penetrated towards Dareios precipitating a collapse which spread along the line as Alexander turned on the more successful Persian right (Dareios ought to have been in the centre), it would seem that Parmenion had gained the upper hand on his own, probably due to the disintegration of the Persian left, he had the harder fight of it but again probably only with cavalry, as the right withdrew it was still in good order as the Indian cavalry charged Alexander as he came to Parmenion's assistance.

Diodoros is not the sort of source one should accept over Arrian as a rule, he was epitomising a popularist and sensational writer of dubious intent, whilst Arrian's sources exculpate Alexander we still get to hear of his 'crimes' and need not drag details from Diodoros in to illuminate matters, his battles are especially stylised.

OK, so Persian cavalry at Gaugamela totaled 18,000 while Persian infantry totaled 60,000. (Still not sure if all 60,000 were levies...) These are Persian troop numbers and not Macedonian. I had been confused as to which side you were referring these numbers to, because you had been talking about the Macedonian lines, when you suddenly brought in these 18,000 and 60,000 numbers. I realise now that you only brought in the Macedonian lines to explain how we could estimate the opposing Persian numbers.

Agesilaos, I appreciate your quick answers to questions 3 and 4. But could you please help me with answers 1 and 2? I can't seem to find answers to them in your reply. Here they are again. Thanks.

1) In your first reply to my Jona Lendering feedback post, you said that Gaugamela "the infantry levies fled without a fight which would be right enough." Later you said "infantry would be upto 60,000 but of limited combat value." Are you saying all 60,000 Persian infantry "fled without a fight"?

2)Were all these "60,000 infantry" considered to be infantry levies, or were the infantry levies only a part of the 60,000 infantry? If so, what other infantry were part of this 60,000?

It seems to me that if you are indeed saying that all 60,000 Persian infantry fled without a fight, it would have been better if they had not been deployed at Gaugamela at all, since every single one of them were of absolutely no use/help at all, and instead got slaughtered as they fled.

[agesilaos]

There were about 3,000 Greeks the rest were levies, but don't forget they doubled as servants so they will have carried the fodder for the horses and fetched water not to mention literally 'levelling the playing field' for the chariots, once they were there Dareios had little choice but to arm them and position them in the rear; a solid infantry block can afford cavalry a place to rally.

Since we have better numbers for the Macedonians and an idea of the frontage and depth a Persian force might fight in the best way to estimate the Persian force is by reference to the length of the Macedonian line. And yes the infantry do not appear to have engaged the enemy.

[Hando]

There were about 3,000 Greeks the rest were levies, but don't forget they doubled as servants so they will have carried the fodder for the horses and fetched water not to mention literally 'levelling the playing field' for the chariots, once they were there Dareios had little choice but to arm them and position them in the rear; a solid infantry block can afford cavalry a place to rally.

Since we have better numbers for the Macedonians and an idea of the frontage and depth a Persian force might fight in the best way to estimate the Persian force is by reference to the length of the Macedonian line. And yes the infantry do not appear to have engaged the enemy.

Since, all 60,000 Persian infantry were armed levies and since all these armed levies did not appear to have engaged the Macedonians, but fled without a flight, it seems to me that Gaugamela was a battle between 47,000 Macedonians and 21,000 Persians (18,000 cavalry + 3,000 Greek mercenaries). Does this not appear to be the case?

[agesilaos]

It is not usual to discount troops simply because they are useless, or rather not used sensibly; it is worth doing when computing the kill ratio, see the Leuktra sub-argument on the Taktike thread! Further we are guessing at numbers, it would be fair to say that the Macedonians were outnumbered (other than at Graneikos and possibly Hydaspes), but the opposition were out-classed. In line with Jona one needs to remember that 'the moral is to the physical as ten is to one', Alexander had morale in spades and the Persians lacked any killer punch (much like the current English Cricket team, Alistair Cook would make a good Dareios!). One also has to consider cultural factors which prevented Dareios from utilising his best strategy, which would have been schorched earth and constant harrassment by mounted archers supported by combat cavalry. The tactics that won Carrhae could have defeated Alexander but it would be unthinkable for The Great King to resort to the ways of nomads.