THE STRENGTH OF THE PERSIAN ARMY AT ISSOS

[agesilaos]

For the Persians, 6,000 cavalry,12,000 Greeks, 24,000 Kardaces, and 64,000 levies/armed servants; maximum with the first three contingents being the minimum to be counted as an army, i,e,42,000 to 106,000.

Alexander had 3,000 hypaspists, 9,000 phalangites, 1,800 Companion cavalry, 1,800 Thessalian cavalry, 750 Prodromoi, 600 allied cavalry, 1,000 archers, 500 Agrianes, 2,000 Thracians, and 3,000 mercenaries (peltasts) 18,500 foot and 4,950 cavalry of the top of my head, the allied hoplites do not appear in the narrative.

Dareios had more men Alexander more soldiers.

[Hando]

So that's 42,000 soldiers for the Persians at Issos compared to 47,950 Greeks under Alexander. So Alexander had a 5,950 numerical advantage, meaning his "victory" at Issos was not as glorious as touted by the average historian throughout the ages. Why do so many scholars still suggest that the Persians had more combatants than the Macedonians at Issos?

2)Regarding the other 64,000 levies/armed servants that Darius had at Issos, how well armed and useful would they have been?

[Hando]

3) And did all the 106,000 Persians under Darius participate in the battle at Issos?

[Hando]

For the Persians, 6,000 cavalry,12,000 Greeks, 24,000 Kardaces, and 64,000 levies/armed servants; maximum with the first three contingents being the minimum to be counted as an army, i,e,42,000 to 106,000.

Alexander had 3,000 hypaspists, 9,000 phalangites, 1,800 Companion cavalry, 1,800 Thessalian cavalry, 750 Prodromoi, 600 allied cavalry, 1,000 archers, 500 Agrianes, 2,000 Thracians, and 3,000 mercenaries (peltasts) 18,500 foot and 4,950 cavalry of the top of my head, the allied hoplites do not appear in the narrative.

Dareios had more men Alexander more soldiers.

Since the Persians were outnumbered by the Macedonians in terms of soldiers, doesn't this suggest that Alexander's "victory" was not as great as has been vaunted all these millenia?

[Hando]

I'm also even further confused that this very site Pothos states "Persian army: from 25,000 (Delbrück) or 108,000 (Warry) up to 600,000 (Arrian/Sekunda)"
http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php ... or-battles

25,000 is significantly lower than your 42,000 and less than a quarter of 106,000 if levies are included.
Why the discrepancy?

[agesilaos]

Delbruck was an early twentieth century historian with an agenda, he believed that the figures given for all ancient battles were incorrect and that the victors always outnumbered the losers, hence the Athenians outnumbered the Persians at Marathon, and Alexander did at Issos and Gaugamela; on what grounds he alleged this I cannot say, but agenda driven revisionism is never safe.

Yes the levies took part, they ran away very well, (and were posted on Alexander's right on the mountain, which gave him pause but ultimately no trouble) and yes it is not a subtle battle but attacking successfully across a defended river is a difficult operation as is luring an opponent onto ground more favourable to ones own forces.

Delbruck is quite right that the Persian numbers are grossly exaggerated but his revision down is far too drastic, I suspect it stemmed from underestimating the logistical organisation of what was considered a 'barbarian' nation.

We cannot be certain about the numbers but we can make a good guess as both armies had to traverse a narrow pass allowing a time-numbers assessment (Donald Engels did this for Alexander in 'Logistics of the Macedonian Army', I merely applied the method to Dareios. It has to be emphasised that the result is a maximum but accords well with other data, cf 'The Road to Damascus' thread

[Hando]

Thank you for the answers. It's sobering to think that all my life I assumed Alexander's victory over the numerically superior Persians at Issos was due to his brilliant tactics. Now I have learned that this was not at all the case, but that he won due to his OWN numerical superiority over the Persians. How deflating.

2)And it's also mind boggling how the great Persian empire which conquered so much couldn't even muster numerically superior forces within it's own borders to deal with an invader who'd been inside their borders for over a year and half after Granicus.

[agesilaos]

You still seem confused, the Persians WERE numerically superior but qualitatively inferior. The Macedonians would also be incentivised to fight once they saw what Dareios had done to the wounded left at Issos; atrocities are rarely a good idea; he tactical triumph was Gaugamela.

[Hando]

You still seem confused, the Persians WERE numerically superior but qualitatively inferior.

Thanks for your reply. The reason why I said that the Macedonians were numerically superior with 47,950 troops, while the Persians only had 42,000 troops is because you said the 64,000 Persian armed levies did not fight in the battle but merely ran away and that they were "posted on Alexander's right on the mountain, which gave him pause but ultimately no trouble." By " gave him pause, but ultimately no trouble" I assume you mean they did not contribute to the fighting but simply ran away?

[agesilaos]

I see, we normally count everyone on the field, though; nor did the levies have much option, with the front rank units breaking and running through them flight was the only thing open to them; the flanking force was very easily contained but drew off some troops. I would not quote numbers down to 50 (though I recognise that is the total of the contingents I listed ), it is best to round up or down to the nearest hundred (normally down) simply to avoid a false sense of precision, armies are never at paper strength as troops can be absent from the standards for any number of reasons and there are variables, such as the strength of garissons which we can only guess at, we cannot be sure that all such are even listed.

[Hando]

I see, we normally count everyone on the field, though; nor did the levies have much option, with the front rank units breaking and running through them flight was the only thing open to them; the flanking force was very easily contained but drew off some troops.

Thank you again.
1)When you say "with the front rank units breaking and running through them..." by front rank I assume you mean the front rank of the armed levies? If so, I assume that the front ranks of the armed levies participated in the battle but then ran away causing the ranks behind them to also run.

2)Can you also recommend an account of the battle of Issos so that I can get a better sense of how the armed levies behaved at Issos?

[Hando]

the flanking force was very easily contained but drew off some troops.

By flanking force do you mean the Macedonian cavalry which attacked the armed levies?
And who "contained" the flanking force?

[Paralus]

I believe the 'flanking force' is the Persian left wing flank 'guard'. This was thrown up and across the hills to Alexander's far right and was part of the left wing (all 20,000!! Arr 2.8.7). Alexander checked this with some cavalry, the Agrianians and archers who chased them off.

The descriptions we have are of incontinent Persian numbers. Arrian tells us that Darius put some 110,000 infantry into his front line and that the rest (some 400,000+!!) were stacked up uselessly behind this line where they could not take part in the fight. Polybios (12.19-21) criticises Kallisthenes' description of Alexander's army in this battle on the grounds that there wasn't room for it to fit. No matter the incorrect assumptions in that critique, the bald facts apply just as well to Darius. It's neither here nor there though; these numbers are a topos and find their way into all Greek/Persian battles (900,000 at Cunaxa and that discounts the 300,000 tardy late comers who didn't make it). And it is not the only tops. Arrian regales us with other standard literary topoi: the Persians and Medes as people long given over to luxury and vice; their imperial levies "slaves" and the "laziest and softest" of those in Asia (2.7.4-5).

Darius most likely had the advantage in numbers - he was fighting on 'home turf'. That he had 600,000 or 300,000 is not at all likely. Just how long would such a column take to clear the Armanic Gates?? The rear would be several post codes from the van. The numbers he had are lost to us in the exaggeration that sees one Macedonian (or Greek) the equal of 15 Persians, Medes and others. Having shown their Greco-Macedonian valaour, Arian will have them the equal of some 21 Asians by Gaugamela.

[Hando]

I believe the 'flanking force' is the Persian left wing flank 'guard'. This was thrown up and across the hills to Alexander's far right and was part of the left wing (all 20,000!! Arr 2.8.7). Alexander checked this with some cavalry, the Agrianians and archers who chased them off.

Thank you Paralus. Is this "Persian left wing flank guard" the armed levies that Agesilaos is talking about?
Where can I read this account?

[Hando]

.