help with battle line up at Gaugamela

[chris_taylor]

Dear all,

I usually come here for balanced views on Alexander the Great, but never posted before. Now I'm hoping to draw on the collective expertise gathered here:

we want to build a scale model of Alexander's army at the start of the battle of Gaugamela, using 6mm wargames-style figures. For sources, we decided to go with Arrian's numbers of 40,000 infantry & 7000 cavalry (scaled down 1:16, ie about 3000 figures)

We would like the model to be as historically accurate as possible and we read lots of accounts to get a clearer idea of the functionally and ethnically diverse groups in that army. The numbers for the cavallry look about right now, but we're struggling with the infantry:

1) we're 7000 men short and we can't figure out who they were or how they got to Gaugamela

2) we don't know the locations for some units we think were there

3) there must have been grooms & horses behind the cavalry lines, but we can't find any estimates of how many there may have been.

4) Arrian deals with the socalled "reserve formation" in a few lines, but any which way we calculate it, that reserve formation must have been over 10,000 strong. It makes no sense to keep 20% of the army at the rear - unless Arrian's one-liner "...the officers had instructions to turn-about" means a much more sophisticated setup, ie they were intended as the 4th side of a defensive square formed between phalanx at the front, the old mercenaries on the right wing and Parmenio's cavalry on the left.

If that's correct, then how would they have been deployed? All the diagrams we've seen just represent them as a rectangular blob somewe behind the phalanx.

Here is the link to our (growing) spreadsheet that lists what we think we know.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... n_GB#gid=0

Any suggestions and corrections would be very appreciated.

Many thanks in advance,

Chris.

PS: I've never used Google Documents before and if anyone has problems opening it, please let me know.

[marcus]

Hi Chris,

Sounds fantastic!

I'd be more than willing to have a good look at the numbers and see if I can help you out, but I'm about to go away for a few days so won't have access to the materials I need.

I'll certainly see what I can do once I get back, at the weekend; but in the meantime I'm sure others can make their suggestions.

All the best

[Paralus]

Right wing:

Refused, advanced right - Menidas' cavalry; Ariston (Paeoninan) Cavalry; Aretes' 'scouts'; Cleander's "old mercenary infantry"; Brison's Archers (500) and 500 Agrianians.

Right wing - Companion Cavalry (1,800). To their front: 500 Agrianians, 500Cretan archers, 1,000 javelin men (Balacrus).

Centre infantry - Agema of the hypaspsists, regular hypaspists (3,000); six taxeis phalanx (9,000)

Left wing:

Greek allied cavalry, Thessalian cavalry including the Pharsalian squadron (likely Parmenion's "agema").

Refused left: Thracians under Siltalkes; the allied cavalry under Koiranos; Odrysian cavalry. In their van the "foreign mercenary" cavalry.

A second phalanx is posted behind the Macedonian line (Greek Corintian League troops). Marsden (The Campaign of Gaugamela, Liverpool, 1964) assumes some 2,000 Macedonians in this line. This is an error in my view. Alexander fought every "major" battle with his national troops front and centre. Any reinforcements (that Marsden adduces) will have filled the ranks of the "ethnic" phalanxes as Arrian states. That perhaps means slightly larger numbers per taxis but all depends upon the predations of battle, siege, disease and retirement to garrison in the meantime.

Marsden also assumes a depth of 16 for the Greeks of the Corinthian League. If the Macedonian heavy infantry line (12,000 or more) is 16 deep it is some 750 metres long. Were the Greeks to take their "normal" depth of 8 they are some 875 yards long. There is no need for some 2,000 Macedonians.

The numbers of each unit (aside from those I can recall and noted above) are really a matter of guesswork. The "Old mercenaries" of Cleander may well be reasonably numerous: this wing had to take the brunt of the "false" fighting to draw the Persian left out and around.

[spitamenes]

Chris, would it be possible to take some pictures of this when your done and post em up here?
I've wanted to do something like that for quite awhile. The movie "ronin" with Robert DeNero has a pretty cool scene where a guy is building a really big set of the Ronin warriors defending a village or something. I'd definitely like to see yours when it's done.
All the best,
Spitamenes

[chris_taylor]

of course I'll send you photos, but it'll be months before we have anything to show for. we're still in the planning stage and it'll be disappointingly small: only about 180cm * 60cm.

also, I think we've answered question (4), at least in part: Fuller, "in his Generalship of Alexander" gives a very good analysis of the tactics at Gaugamela. It looks as if the reserves where indeed the 4th side of "a hollow square" as a defensive formation in case of encirclement. I thought that had been an invention of the Romans, but apparently it's described in Xenophon - which of course, Alexander would have known off by heart.

Thanks also to Paralus for the reference to E Marsden, which we hadn't come across.

It's available in the British Library, so I'll try to order a copy.

Chris.

[Paralus]

It looks as if the reserves where indeed the 4th side of "a hollow square" as a defensive formation in case of encirclement. I thought that had been an invention of the Romans, but apparently it's described in Xenophon - which of course, Alexander would have known off by heart.

.

More like a loose, hollow rectangle with the right and left ends not "square".

The Macedonian phalanx certainly knew and used the "tactical square" or oblong. One classic example from history would be Gabiene:

Diod.19.43.4-5:
...but the other he gave to Pithon and ordered him to attack the Silver Shields now that they had been cut off from their cavalry support. When Pithon promptly carried out his orders, the Macedonians formed themselves into a square and withdrew safely to the river...

The "Macedonian" phalanx of Antiochus III did precisely the same thing at Magnesia. The result there was not so good: the elephants, within the square, pannicked and occasioned a rout.

Thanks also to Paralus for the reference to E Marsden, which we hadn't come across.

It's available in the British Library, so I'll try to order a copy.

Glad to help. The Landmark Arrian (Anabasis) would also be invaluable. Ignore the "light armed" agema of the hypaspists though...

[Alexias]

Is this any use? Alexander the great and the Hellenistic Empire by A R Burn (1947)

IMGa_0002.jpg (204.35 KiB) Viewed 6983 times

IMGa_0003.jpg (213.46 KiB) Viewed 6983 times

IMGa_0001.jpg (241.69 KiB) Viewed 6983 times

Alexander would surely not have brought his whole baggage train, including women and other non-combatants, treasure etc, onto the battlefield (they must have been at least some miles off - with forces to guard them), so the baggage train which the Persians broke through to (Arrian mentions pack mules and unarmed men) must have contained a campaign version of the baggage train - armourers, grooms, medical staff, cooks and bottle washers etc. Presumably these were positioned somewhere behind the Thracian infantry.

[chris_taylor]

Yes, it does help - thank you.

We're still examining the roles, and therefore most likely *exact* place of each unit. Seeing how others tried to solve the same puzzle helps think outside the box.

The most striking difference (to our current layout) is that we positioned "Javelin men, Agrianes & Archers" in front of the cavalry groupings on the flanks.

Burn positions them across the full length of the phalanx.

That raises the question: why would Alexander protect a phalanx of 12000 sarissa-wielding infantry with a row of archers & javellin throwers?

The threat of "scythed chariots" isn't enough to explain it: everybody on that battle field knew you can't make a horse run into a wall, whether it's made of brick or men with spears. They will swerve at the last moment.

So while the phalanx was closed, it had nothing to fear from them from the front - and if a gap appeared, the phalanx had a simple and effective way of dealing with it: make the gap bigger, let the horse through into the inner square, where the light infantry can attack them from the sides.

So what were those archers & javelin men doing in front of it?

And if that was their normal position, where on earth did they go once the phalanx became the anvil of the hammer/anvil formation? They'd either risk getting skewered by their own comrades, or those in the centre needed to run 400 m parallel to the phalax to get round to the back.

Chris.

[Alexias]

I'm guessing they were comparatively thinly spread and being lightly armoured, mobile enough to slip between the phalanx units. Oliver Stone has them doing just this and conducting an opening aerial assault of javelins and slingshot.

[chris_taylor]

I'm keeping questions related to the project to this thread.

We're building a 1:1000 scale model of Alexanders army during his approach to the battle of Gaugamela.

We've started to paint a few companion cavalry unit.

We assumed they wore an ivory-coloured linen cuirass, dark purple cloak and leather boots, but we're no longer sure that they would all have been dressed alike. Did Philip & Alexander issue uniform-style clothes and armour, or was it up to each nobleman to provide their own gear?

Thanks for your time.

PS:

For those curious about the project, below is a link to a photo of the cardboard template.

The big white square in the top Right corner is a mockup for the sandy area taken up by the compaion cavalry, its grooms, the archers & javelin units that shielded it during approach.

The template is to scale 1 cm = 10 meters and the photo was taken from 4 meters away (from a high mezzanine, looking down on it). So the outlines you see are what you would have been able to make out, flying across the battle field at 12000 feet.

https://picasaweb.google.com/christaylo ... 7384167458

[agesilaos]

Opinions differ but as the cavalry were rich enough to equip themselves I would expect them to be as varied as Greek hoplites; issues of clothing are noted but after Gaugamela and it is Persian equipment given to his Guards( in Metz, at least). Nick Secunda (Osprey 'The Army of Alexander the Great') posits a great degree of uniformity, but the evidence seems strained to me and too much trust put in the 'Alexander Sarcophagus' which I, personally, think does not even portray Macedonian equipment correctly; all the shields are HOPLITE shields not a Macedonian phalangite one anywhere. Even the phalanx probably had different coloured tunics rather than the standard red commonly seen, allegedly the state provided the arms but clothing would be individual, especially after three years in the field. 'Salammbo' by Gustave Flaubert is historically flawed to say the least but in the final battle he describes the mercenaries' armour patched with bone and household utensils, just as their equipment had deteriorated, that of the victorious Macedonians would have been augmented with the spoils of the East.

To be honest I cannot remember the ANCIENT authority for Philip issuing his men with arms, DOH!

[Paralus]

To be honest I cannot remember the ANCIENT authority for Philip issuing his men with arms, DOH!

The only ancient authority is Diodorus 16.3.1-2:

...having improved the organization of his forces and equipped the men suitably with weapons of war, he held constant manoeuvres of the men under arms and competitive drills. Indeed he devised the compact order and the equipment of the phalanx, imitating the close order fighting with overlapping shields of the warriors at Troy, and was the first to organize the Macedonian phalanx.

Although there is debate over the exact meaning, the import is clear that Philip created a fighting force that was not previously available as such. That it happened in one fell swoop or over some time is yet another debate. That the phalanx was fitted out with weapons by the state would be logical in a phalanx where homogeneous nature of weaponry was critical to the formation's effectiveness.

Alexander is noted (Diod.17.95.4) as having organised 25,000 "panoplies" for his infantry (πεζοῖς). It is unarguable, though, that Alexander could well afford such.

Opinions differ but as the cavalry were rich enough to equip themselves I would expect them to be as varied as Greek hoplites; issues of clothing are noted but after Gaugamela and it is Persian equipment given to his Guards( in Metz, at least).

Diodorus notes the adoption of Persian court protocol and clothing at 17.77.4-5:

First he installed ushers of Asiatic race in his court, and then he ordered the most distinguished persons to act as his guards; among these was Dareius's brother Oxathres. Then he put on the Persian diadem and dressed himself in the white robe and the Persian sash and everything else except the trousers and the long-sleeved upper garment. He distributed to his companions (ἑταίροις) cloaks with purple borders and dressed the horses in Persian harness.

This is squarely in the middle of the uprising of the "usurper" Bessus and so the propaganda benefits of the changes are clear. The fact is confirmed by Arrian in a summary aside (4.7.4) after his description of the execution of Bessus. It is clear that Arrian has described an adoption of such Persian ways prior to the execution. The distribution of purple to "the companions" and "the horses" would, to my mind, mean distributed to the Companion cavalry as the similar notation in Curtius (6.6.7) explicitly states

He had also forced Persian clothing on his friends and on the cavalry, the elite of the troops. They found it distasteful, but did not dare refuse to wear it.

If any subset is meant it may be the Royal ile or agema. Thus the rendition of Macedonian cavalrymen on the "Alexander Sarcophagus" in long sleeved Persian garments.

Nick Secunda (Osprey 'The Army of Alexander the Great') posits a great degree of uniformity, but the evidence seems strained to me and too much trust put in the 'Alexander Sarcophagus' which I, personally, think does not even portray Macedonian equipment correctly; all the shields are HOPLITE shields not a Macedonian phalangite one anywhere. Even the phalanx probably had different coloured tunics rather than the standard red commonly seen, allegedly the state provided the arms but clothing would be individual, especially after three years in the field.

Dress uniformity of troops - especially phalanx - is a stretch at this time. Argument continues even over the issue of battalion or syntagma "standards". Secunda is strained as are the arguments of Juhel (Regulation Helmet of the Phalanx and the Uniform in the Macedonian Army Klio 91 2009 2 342–355). Here Juhel relies on the Hellenistic interpretation of stolas as meaning "uniform". Whilst he acknowledges that it had, in antiquity, various meanings (including a leather "jerkin"), he settles on the context as indicating some form of uniform. Personally I'd think that it refers to the Macedonian accoutrement. In Alexander's time and that of his successor kingdoms, this would clearly be armed and fitted in the "Macedonian manner".

The "Alexander Sarcophagus" is a vexed source. It clearly contains classic Greek forms (such as the "heroic nudity") and as such might just as easily contain classical Greek arming (hoplites). I've held the opinion that if the Macedonian arming (infantry) is historically accurate, it likely depicts the agema of the hypaspists: sons of the nobility (per Heckel) who likely could afford to style themselves after the "upper" class Greek military forms. That it is accurate, though, is somewhat damaged by the Persians who also bear the definitive hoplite aspis.

The most striking difference (to our current layout) is that we positioned "Javelin men, Agrianes & Archers" in front of the cavalry groupings on the flanks.

Burn positions them across the full length of the phalanx.

That raises the question: why would Alexander protect a phalanx of 12000 sarissa-wielding infantry with a row of archers & javellin throwers?

The answer is that he did not.

Curtius, Diodorus and Arrian provide descriptions of the battle lines of both forces. Arrian , even given confusion over a battalion commander, is by far the clearest. Curtius, in his endeavour to picture Alexander’s battle “rhomboid”, becomes almightily confused and places the Argyraspids (hypaspists) in the rear phalanx and Craterus in command of the Peloponnesian cavalry!

Arrian (3.11.8-10) enumerates the right wing to centre of the Macedonians:

The Companion cavalry held the right wing. The royal ile under Kleitos son of Dropides had been posted in front of the Companion cavalry and next to Klietos' ile stood the squadrons of Glaukias, Ariston, Sopolis son of Hermodorus, Heraclides son of Antiokhos Demetrius, son of Althaemenes, Meleagros and Hegelokhos, son of Hippostratos in that order. The entire Comapnion cavalry was led by Philotas son of Parmenion. In the Macedonian phalanx , the agema of the hypaspists was posted right beside the cavalry; beside them stood the rest of the hypaspists under Parmenion's son Nikanor. Beside the hypaspists stood the battalions of Perdikkas son of Orontes, Meleagros son of Neoptolemos, Polyperkhon son of Simmias...

Arrian also lists the troops forming the extended right wing which are angled back:

...half the Agrianians , under Attalos, had been posted next to the Royal Ile on the right wing but at an angle to it, with the Macedonian archers under Brison and beside the archers the so-called old mercenaries under Kleandros. In front of the Agrianians and the archers stood the mounted scouts and Paeonians, led by Aretes and Ariston. Posted in front of all these contingents was the mercenary cavalry under Menidas. Half the Agrianians and archers had been posted with with Balakros' javelin men in front of the Royal ile and the other Companions...

The javelin men - half the Agrianians included - were thus posted in front of the Companion cavalry including the Royla ile. The other half, archers and old mercenaries were angled toward the rear and were hidden by the cavalry units (Scouts and Paeonians) who were similarly deployed across their front forming the extended flank guard.

This is eminently sensible in that Alexander advanced in loxe taxis (obliquely with a leading wing - the right - and a refused wing, the left) and to his right. The cavalry of the extended right flank guard deployed angled to the rear would deal with the flanking Persians and their support infantry would be largely hidden from the Persians. The javelin men (Agrianians and Balacrus' men) posted in front of the Companion cavalry would then protect those horsemen from Darius' chariots as the battle narrative bears out (3.5.5-6):

For just as the chariots were approaching, the Agrianians and Balakros' javelin men (both contingents were posted in front of the Companion cavalry) hurled their javelins; seizing the chariot's reigns, they pulled down the drivers, then stood around the horses and stabbed at them. Some of the chariots passed right through the Macedonian lines; for they separated ranks, as they had been instructed to do, at the points the chariots charged [...] These chariots, too, were seized by the grooms of Alexander's army and the royal hypaspists.

Here, then, the chariots are met by the javelin men posted in front of the Companion cavalry. That which pass through the phalanx - and this can only mean the hypaspists here - were destroyed by the rear ranks of same as well as the cavalry grooms.

The javelin men (Agrianians and Balakros' men) are not posted across the phalanx; they are posted on the right wing and its refused extension.

[chris_taylor]

So the consensus is "no dress code prior to Gaugamela". it's going to look a lot more monochrome than I thought.

As to the arrangements of Agrianians, archers & Balacrus javelin men around the cavalry, I'm increasingly confused:

do we agree that there were 5 groups

2* half of the Agrianians
2* half of Macedonian Archers
1* Balacrus Javelin men

if so, then only the position of Balacrus Javelin men is in dispute

Arrian (3.11.8-10) enumerates the right wing to centre of the Macedonians:

The Companion cavalry held the right wing. The royal ile under Kleitos son of Dropides had been posted in front of the Companion cavalry and next to Klietos' ile stood the squadrons of Glaukias, Ariston, Sopolis son of Hermodorus, Heraclides son of Antiokhos Demetrius, son of Althaemenes, Meleagros and Hegelokhos, son of Hippostratos in that order. The entire Comapnion cavalry was led by Philotas son of Parmenion. In the Macedonian phalanx , the agema of the hypaspists was posted right beside the cavalry; beside them stood the rest of the hypaspists under Parmenion's son Nikanor. Beside the hypaspists stood the battalions of Perdikkas son of Orontes, Meleagros son of Neoptolemos, Polyperkhon son of Simmias...

Arrian also lists the troops forming the extended right wing which are angled back:

...half the Agrianians , under Attalos, had been posted next to the Royal Ile on the right wing but at an angle to it, with the Macedonian archers under Brison and beside the archers the so-called old mercenaries under Kleandros. In front of the Agrianians and the archers stood the mounted scouts and Paeonians, led by Aretes and Ariston. Posted in front of all these contingents was the mercenary cavalry under Menidas. Half the Agrianians and archers had been posted with with Balakros' javelin men in front of the Royal ile and the other Companions...

... because my translation of Arrian reads

" ... and in front of the royal squadron of cavalry and the other Companions had been posted half of the Agrianians and archers, and the javelin-men of Balacrus who had been ranged opposite the scythe-bearing chariots.

I interpreted that to mean that the Agrains & archers were posted in front of the cavalry (which we agree on), but that the javelin men were posted further to the left, ie in front of the phalanx opposite the chariots.

[Paralus]

do we agree that there were 5 groups

2* half of the Agrianians
2* half of Macedonian Archers
1* Balacrus Javelin men

Indeed we do!

...if so, then only the position of Balacrus Javelin men is in dispute [...] because my translation of Arrian reads

" ... and in front of the royal squadron of cavalry and the other Companions had been posted half of the Agrianians and archers, and the javelin-men of Balacrus who had been ranged opposite the scythe-bearing chariots.

I interpreted that to mean that the Agrains & archers were posted in front of the cavalry (which we agree on), but that the javelin men were posted further to the left, ie in front of the phalanx opposite the chariots.

Now that would be due to my editing (why type more than necessary?!). The line in question in Pamela Mensch's excellent translation (Landmark) is "these contingents (half Agrianians, archers and Balakros' javelin men) had been stationed opposite the scythe-bearing chariots". The chariots in question are those of Darius' left wing (3.11.3 & 6):

The left wing was held by the Bactrian cavalry, the Dahae and the Arachosians; the Persians were posted next (their cavalry and infantry mixed together) [...] In front of the left wing facing Alexander's right stood the Scythian cavalry, nearly a thousand Bactrians and a hundred scythe-bearing chariots.

Thus these latter enumerated troops - including the chariots - were an advance force or guard of Darius' left wing. This is the wing that Alexander advanced "crabwise" towards so as to move away from the "leveled" area for the Chariots. Darius launched these at the Companion cavalry before they could move too far right; already having pushed his advance guard cavalry into a flanking move to halt the Macedonian drift (Scythians and Bactrians 3.13ff).

[chris_taylor]

{quote]The left wing was held by the Bactrian cavalry, the Dahae and the Arachosians; the Persians were posted next (their cavalry and infantry mixed together) [...] In front of the left wing facing Alexander's right stood the Scythian cavalry, nearly a thousand Bactrians and a hundred scythe-bearing chariots.

Thus these latter enumerated troops - including the chariots - were an advance force or guard of Darius' left wing. This is the wing that Alexander advanced "crabwise" towards so as to move away from the "leveled" area for the Chariots. Darius launched these at the Companion cavalry before they could move too far right; already having pushed his advance guard cavalry into a flanking move to halt the Macedonian drift (Scythians and Bactrians 3.13ff).

that makes perfect sense now and explains Marsden's diagram in "The campaign of Gaugamela" in a functional way - thanks.

it does however raise the question of how these were arranged? Our original assumption spread these groups over 2 km. They are now bunched up into a much shorter space.

our assumptions:

1000 Balacrus Javelin men (from Waldemar Heckel)
500 Agrians (= Javeliners)
250 Macedonian Archers
front line from: Royal Companions -> end of Hydaspists = approximately 1 km (taken from Marsden The Campaign at Gaugamela)

how you distribute 1500 javelin throwers over 1 km?

That's an average density of 1.5 men per m front line. Even if they worked in groups, that's still dangerously dense.

And just as important: Alexander needed to be able to see through that forest of javelins in front of him, to watch the Persian front line for the gap.

Chris.