Were Arrians Numbers Exagerated Propoganda?

[kenny]

Comanions I read Military analasists Concerning Alexanders largest Battles and Many Scholars argue the Numbers Hugely Exagerated for the Alexander Propogadists.But I wouldnt nessesarily discard that. And figures of Half a million are not too overegaturated. Fair enough moslrt were levies Etc but I would argue the Figures Correct.Ive just looked at Hannibals Campaigns through Italy and through about 10to 12 years. The Romans fielded well over 400 000 legionaries and armies. Proper Roman soldiers. Therefore If a country and perninsular as small as Italy can call to arms these Kind of numners then is int not fare to assume the the huge wealthy Persian Empire can pay and muster much larger armies. Indeed only twice but I would say that the numbers were not that much exagerated.Romans didnt exagerate there own victories nor defeats. So why would a Roman writer Exagerate Alexanders.Kenny

[marcus]

Hi Kenny,I think there is no doubt that the numbers of Persians given for both Issus and Gaugamela *are* exaggerated. There is no question that Alexander was outnumbered in both battles, of course, but not by as much as Arrian suggests.There's a very good article on Persian army numbers, which (typically) I can't lay my hands on right now ... if I can find it, I'll come back to this post.As far as the Romans were concerned, I don't think they ever fielded 400,000 in one go (during the Second Punic War, anyway); and if one considers the massive depopulation that 20-odd years of warfare, including such numbers (over time), caused, then it is hardly surprising that it didn't happen very often.I'll see if I can find that article.ATBMarcus

[kenny]

Marcus hailSorry for misinterpretations. I know the Romans never fielded 400 000 at one go but adding the Numbers etc over the Period hannibal was in Italy. Altogether the Romans pooled over 400 000 they lost 80 000 at canea alone.According to the Article on the Lost 3 Legions. It was said at its hiegt at any one tome Rome had 28 legions. Those Lost to the germans were 3 Legions consisting of 16000 men so that amounts at its peak to a standing army of. 144 000. Or there abouts apparently it went down to 25 legiond Augustus could never revover those 3 lost legions.Ok these many Romans over a decade. But surely the Persian king Of Kings could muster at least 300.000 for Issus and even more at Gaugamella. From All his nations satraps and levies. Fair enough only a fraction would be what we call credible soldiers but I would say the overall numbers could have been massive.Kenny

[Paralus]

G'day Kenny.You need to be very careful with Roman numbers GÇô especially over a dozen or some year period. Rome "conscripted" soldiers where necessary GÇô such soldiers not always being "citizen" levies in the true sense.As mentioned in a previous thread, the "Italian" and Samnite revolt of the early first century BCE was about just that: these "levies" were sick and tired of being pressed into Roman service at Rome's patrician will. Too, they were fed up of being treated as a second class citizenry: the citizen you have when you're not naturalised.The Italian peninsular is a fertile land and supports a generous population GÇô unlike the scratch and hope arable lands of Greece. The early Greek colonists of "Magna Grecia" GÇô as rich as any Greeks could wish to be GÇô attest to it.The fact that Hannibal felt himself not equipped, nor in a position to enforce a blockade on Rome goes a long way to explaining why he lost the war but won all the battles and GÇô but for fortune (or Tyche as the Greeks would call it) GÇô could have triumphed at the end in Africa at Zama.The real difference though, was political. Rome had more than a simple hegemony over Italy. It dominated the peninsular in a way that no single Greek city state GÇô or Macedon GÇô ever did Greece. Even at its azimuth Macedon could never trust the Greeks. Alexander simply refused to put Greek levies (sorry, "League" levies) in a position that in any way was crucial GÇô he couldn't (wouldn't) trust them. The Romans simply pressed into service Samnites and Italians with the promise of pay and being looked after (Marius, as I stated earlier, fully enfranchised whole cohorts of "Italians" who'd fought well) and simply eliminated those that refused.As always, the subject comes down to what you consider a "Roman" legionary.Also Kenny, a great general was Hannibal. Cannae was a masterpiece of butchery GÇô both of his own men sacrificed for the strategic initiative and of the Romans killed. In fact, it is very much Salamis played out on land (with not a little Marathon blended in). The man obviously studied history. As should we all.

[nickw]

Hi Marcus ---The Romans fielded 80.000 infantry and 6.000 cavalry at Cannae and that was the largest army they ever fielded in one go.Antigonus' army was the largest with a reliable record in Antiquity: 88.000.Delbruck argues that Darius, not Alexander, was outnumbered at Issus. It is reasonably accepted that the Persians were outnumbered at Granicus anyway.Regards ---Nick

[Paralus]

I doubt that Darius fielded anything like 300,000 at Gaugemela. As I've written a number of times, one needs to be very wary of Greek propaganda. At its hight, the Achaemenid Empire invaded Greece. At this time I've no problem with Xerxes fielding an army of some120, 000 GÇô 170,000 and a commensurate fleet of say 500-650 triremes (not counting support vessels). By the time Alexander invaded this empire, it had been in disarray for some seventy or more years. There were provinces which no longer answered (in any meaningful fashion) to Persepolis (as Alexander would find out). That the western satraps eventually mounted some sort of an army at the Granicus is testimony to the state of the Empire: Philip had GÇô in Hellespontine Phrygia GÇô an army of some 10,000 to 14,000 that had been operating for more than a year by the time Alexander paid homage to "Achilles tomb".I've no doubt that the "Great King's" army at Issus was not much, if any larger than the Macedonian. This due to the fact that it was assembled quickly GÇô as well as marched and deployed adroitly. Yes, Darius had more time to assemble the Gaugemela host. Whilst he did that, Alexander journeyed to Siwah. Think about what that means. No Egyptian levies, no Phrygian, Paphlagonian, Cilician, Pisidian or Carian levies. No troops from Lydia and Cappadocia. No levies from Coele-Syria. Darius was reduced to his Iranian - Medean heartland and the more unreliable "upper satrapies" of Parthia,Bactria, Sogdiana and Arachosia to supply the host he required.Three hundred thousand or more? In the words of an endearing Aussie movie character ("The Castle") "He's dreamin'". Were Darius to have fielded a force of such numbers, we'd all be speaking Parsi today GÇô trust me. No matter Alexander's undoubted genius as a military leader, sixty to seventy odd thousand goes into three hundred thousand a few times. He'd (by sheer weight of numbers) have been swept off the field GÇô particularly (as he almost was) by the Irannian cavalry host.Don't believe the propaganda. Outnumbered? Certainly. Outnumbered five or ten to one? Not on your nelly.

[kenny]

Nick You Know your stuffGranicus Id say evens steven. But how on earth was darius outnumbered at Issus. Darius was that Confidennt in victory He turned up with his whole Family to watch the show.I dont know if your model for 80.000 plus soldiers the highest in antiquite. Maybe bc. But Ad the Romans fought some armies ov ever a hundred thousand. At Alesia the Two forces facing Caesar must have been over that. And Boudica it was claimed lead over a 100.000 Britains that were slaughtered by 20 thousand Romans.If you ever saw the programe apparently the Romans formed in line to form like the teeth of a saw. I never saw that formation before.And the Britains charged on mass against this formation. They couldnt get through and were anhailated.kenny

[jan]

I suppose that the payrolls indicate the real numbers as each soldier was accounted for, so that the Greeks propaganda machine would not be able to exaggerate much about that, now would it? And the truth is that no other general in history has Alexander's record of undefeated in battle. That is a very important thing to remember, that Alexander wins it all, no doubt, with all the help of the Greek gods and goddesses.

[kenny]

With Emphasis On the Persian Numbers been Exagerated.I think its fair to assume that Alexander had at maximum of even 30 000 reliable trooops at both major battles.He set off with we are told 35000 troops including 7000 Greeks?He Must have lost soldiers at Granicus. And the other sieges. He left garrisons at each taken Strongpoint. And numerous wounded were left at Sochi. Its fair to say Antipitar couldnt send too many Macedonian Rienforcements without undermining Alexanders back.So just working on minimal garrisons. A few Hundred Lost at Tyre. a hundred maybe at Gaza. Quite a few at halicarnasus . No way could Alexander have still had 40000 troops at Issus or Gaugamela and the 7000 greeks were as reliable as a chocholate kettle.So were only talking 30000 tops.Kenny

[Paralus]

G'day Nick,No argument from me there. It's agreed Alexander had the numbers at the Granicus: the difficulties he had related to the terrain (river).There is a reasonable consensus that Darius was at best on level or, at most, slightly better terms at Issus. This time Alexander's problem was two-fold: the terrain (river and riverside brush upsetting the order of the phalanx) and the fact that Darius (through quick decisive "Alexander-like" action) had got in behind him.The numbers of 500,000 or more at Gauganela (post below) don't add up.
Paralus.

[Paralus]

G'day all!Having done a little more ferreting, the numbers at Gaugamela don't quite add up.The Macedonian army numbers are seemingly universally agreed upon at roughly 47,000 GÇô give or take a few. Of these there seems universal agreement on some 7,200 or so cavalry. The core phalanx is mostly put at 10,000.No real hard numbers are available for the Persians. Again we need to bear in mind that this army is drawn from the empire's heart (Medes, Iranians) and the "upper satraps" (Bactria, Sogdiana etc). The troops contributed by these provinces lean heavily towards the mounted end of the scale (leaving aside the Persian infantry GÇô Immortals etc). The strength of these provinces lay in cavalry.Now, it is fair to say that there is wide agreement both in the sources and by historians that this fact is reflected in the battle array of the Persian line. Alexander himself is reported as being quite taken aback at the amount of cavalry GÇô particularly the heavy horse GÇô a virtual mounted infantry ensconced in fish scale armour. It is here that some numbers can be gleaned. Green puts the mounted forces at least 34,000; Cartledge a similar thirty odd thousand. The Great King had determined on a mounted victory both because that's where his numbers lay and a desire not to necessarily engage the clear Macedonian superiority: the sarissa laden phalanx. Darius is reported to have had only some seven thousand Greek heavy infantry (hoplites).This last is interesting. In both previous battles the core of the Persian infantry and that which was to play the greatest part (aside from Granicus where it was left like shag on a rock) was the Mercenary heavy infantry. At Gaugamela that had been reduced mightily. I would not expect (given the obvious Persian intent of a mass cavalry battle) that they'd necessarily been replaced by Iranian infantry. If there were say five times the number of Persian infantry as there was Greek, we still get a figure of 35,000 and a total of say 65,000 GÇô 70,000.How many chariots were there? One would think think such expensive (and by now seriously outdated) machines would have been no greater than Alexander's cavalry of 7,200? Hard to say.Cont'd....

[Paralus]

In any case, the part of the story which seems to indicate numbers in the half million range is the descriptions of the length of the Persian line. Again, when it is remembered that line was mostly mounted on horse, it is obviously going to stretch some considerable distance more that a similar number of close infantry.If we are to believe that the Persian host at Gaugamela was an overwhelmingly mounted force, and that the figures of say 35,000 for the mounted part are near to the mark, then the entire force can only have been some 50,000 GÇô 60,000. Then again, I may well be missing something. Marcus' article on Persian army numbers would be most welcome.The descriptions of the battle lend the "ten times" idea strength. There were obviously areas of the engagement where the Macedonians were indeed outnumbered ten to one GÇô especially the Macedonian cavalry holding things together on the extended right whilst the brilliant Alexander waited for Darius to commit the act of thinning his line by extension. Which of course he did and the rest GÇô as they sayGǪ
Paralus.

[marcus]

Well, I've found details of the article:Guthrie, "Persian Army Strengths in Arrian-Ptolemy", The Ancient World 30.2 (1999), pp.129-132.One of the key points of the article, it seems, is that the Persian army was organised into units of 1,000 (chiliarchies) - nothing higher (hence, no 10,000 Immortals). However, ancient historians do not distinguish a full-strength unit from an under-strength unit ... so the terms "a chiliarchy" and "a thousand horse" are synonymous. If, however, Darius had 5 half-strength chiliarchies, then he only had 2,500 men ... but Arrian might easy say that, as it was 5 chiliarchies, it was 5,000 men.You get the drift? It certainly makes good sense to me, and would explain quite well how the "million" men at Gaugamela could quite easily be half that number, if not even fewer.All the bestMarcus

[kenny]

Sorry MichaelI cant agree Alexander fielded anywhere near 47 000 troops at Issus or Gaugamella.As before he set off with only 35000. Had various Battles and sieges and must have lost hundreds or a few thousand especially at Tyye and Halicarnasus wasnt cheap. And in every place he went He left a garrison. He didnt just pull these extram men from his pocket. And the Greeks were only thew as hastage for Greek good behaviour he never ised them in any big role.If Alexander had 30000 men he could trust I would say Closer.As part of trust It always amaizes me just how loyal and brilliant the Thracian horse equal even to the Companions. Why could these people be so loyal yet the Southern Greeks not?
Kenny

[jan]

Hi Kenny, et al, I was just watching Rossen's version of Alexander starring Richard Burton, and a key point that Alexander makes is the importance of cutting off the head (making me think of Shakespeare and Caesar) and he says repeatedly, Kill Darius, Kill Darius, Kill Darius, and then proceeds to kill Darius's bodyguard which changes the whole equation, as Darius then breaks and runs.But the other factor is that the many forces in King Darius's army are not as emotionally tied to King Darius. They do not have the same drive, the same impetus that the Macedonians had had, and as a result, they just simply split and run, especially since the Head had decided to save himself after all, running the same as he had done at Issus.