pothos.org

agesilaos wrote:You cannot decide which I think more propagandist for a very good reason; I can't decide myself! Pushed to it i would probably credit the Babylonian version on the grounds that Dareios had already been defeated and was not in the area when it was written.

I agree with you when you say that if pushed you would think the Babylonian version of Gaugamela was the truthful and reliable one. There was no longer a Darius to answer for if he found out he was deserted. So the Greek version of Darius running away at Gaugamela could be mere propaganda.

I'd like to know how and when it transpired that the Persians deserted Darius? Which fighting force deserted Darius and was this before any battle took place or during?

That month, the equivalent for 1 shekel of silver was: barley [lacuna] kur; mustard, 3 kur, at the end of the month [lacuna]; sesame, 1 p�n, 5 minas.
At that time, Jupiter was in Scorpio; Venus was in Leo, at the end of the month in Virgo; Saturn was in Pisces; Mercury and Mars, which had set, were not visible.
That month, the river level was [lacuna].
On the 11th of that month, panic occurred in the camp before the king. The Macedonians encamped in front of the king.
On the 24th [1 October], in the morning, the king of the world [Alexander] erected his standard and attacked. Opposite each other they fought and a heavy defeat of the troops of the king [Darius] he [Alexander] inflicted. The king [Darius], his troops deserted him and to their cities they went. They fled to the east.

This is a translation of the rerlevant diary entry, from Livius.org, which is Jona's massive site, the desertion took place once battle had been joined. 'Desertion' is probably the wrong word, they simply broke; the point being that the troops broke and then dareios withdrew, rather than his loss of nerve leading to him leading the 'advance to the rear'.

agesilaos wrote:

That month, the equivalent for 1 shekel of silver was: barley [lacuna] kur; mustard, 3 kur, at the end of the month [lacuna]; sesame, 1 p�n, 5 minas.
At that time, Jupiter was in Scorpio; Venus was in Leo, at the end of the month in Virgo; Saturn was in Pisces; Mercury and Mars, which had set, were not visible.
That month, the river level was [lacuna].
On the 11th of that month, panic occurred in the camp before the king. The Macedonians encamped in front of the king.
On the 24th [1 October], in the morning, the king of the world [Alexander] erected his standard and attacked. Opposite each other they fought and a heavy defeat of the troops of the king [Darius] he [Alexander] inflicted. The king [Darius], his troops deserted him and to their cities they went. They fled to the east.

This is a translation of the rerlevant diary entry, from Livius.org, which is Jona's massive site, the desertion took place once battle had been joined. 'Desertion' is probably the wrong word, they simply broke; the point being that the troops broke and then dareios withdrew, rather than his loss of nerve leading to him leading the 'advance to the rear'.

Thanks for the answer and diary entry of Gaugamela.

1)From the diary, it appears that the two sides fought it out for some time at Gaugamela. At least enough time for a "heavy defeat" of the Persians to take place. Only after which the Persians fled the field. At least that's what it sounds like. I do not know if you agree?
Too bad we cannot get more detailed info about how the battle at Gaugamela was fought out.

2)Also, what number of troops do you think both Darius and Alexander had at Gaugamela? Not Issus, but Gaugamela?

agesilaos wrote:

That month, the equivalent for 1 shekel of silver was: barley [lacuna] kur; mustard, 3 kur, at the end of the month [lacuna]; sesame, 1 p�n, 5 minas.
At that time, Jupiter was in Scorpio; Venus was in Leo, at the end of the month in Virgo; Saturn was in Pisces; Mercury and Mars, which had set, were not visible.
That month, the river level was [lacuna].
On the 11th of that month, panic occurred in the camp before the king. The Macedonians encamped in front of the king.
On the 24th [1 October], in the morning, the king of the world [Alexander] erected his standard and attacked. Opposite each other they fought and a heavy defeat of the troops of the king [Darius] he [Alexander] inflicted. The king [Darius], his troops deserted him and to their cities they went. They fled to the east.

This is a translation of the rerlevant diary entry, from Livius.org, which is Jona's massive site, the desertion took place once battle had been joined. 'Desertion' is probably the wrong word, they simply broke; the point being that the troops broke and then dareios withdrew, rather than his loss of nerve leading to him leading the 'advance to the rear'.

I've read Jona Lindering's opinion of what happened at Gaugamela. Here it is.
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z7.html
Sorry for discussing Gaugamela here, I know this thread was originally about Issos...
Lendering bases his opinion on the following entry from the Babylonian astronomical diary which he quotes.
The diary states
"On the morning of the twenty-fourth of the month of Ul�lu, the king of the world [Alexander] raised his standard [lacuna]. The armies engaged each other and the king’s soldiers suffered a heavy defeat. The troops abandoned their king [Darius] and headed back to their cities. They fled to the lands in the east.
[Astronomical Diaries, -330, obv.15-18; 4]"

Lendering interprets the Babylonian astronomical diary entry as listed above by concluding "His Persian opponents were demoralized, and Alexander merely attacked a group of people that were only too willing to flee. This is what really happened at Gaugamela."

and also,

"Despite Darius' meticulous preparations and the fact that his enemy behaved like a puppet in his hands, his soldiers, many of whom had no combat experience at all, were demoralised and ran away. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the battle of Gaugamela amounted to an attack on a large group of deserters."
Lendering claims that a series of bad celestial events were interpreted by the Persian troops as omens of doom and heavily demoralized them before the battle of Gaugamela even though they were numerically superior to the Macedonians.

Lendering's interpretation of the Babylonian diary entry seems to imply that the Persians simply ran away without putting up much of a fight. At least that's my interpretation. Am I right? How can he suggest this when the Babylonian diary states that "the armies engaged each other and the king's soldiers suffered a heavy defeat." First of all, the diary makes clear that the two armies engaged each other and fought each other. So clearly the Persians did not simply run away at the sight of the oncoming Macedonians. Furthermore, the Persians "suffered a heavy defeat." Only after suffering this heavy defeat did they run away. So clearly, they fought for long enough to have "suffered a heavy defeat."
In addition, Lendering himself states "There is also firm evidence that at some point Mazaeus' Babylonian horsemen broke through the Macedonian lines, only to take the Macedonian camp instead of attacking the enemy from the rear." So again, the Persians not only fought for an extended period of time, they in fact charged at the Macedonians and even broke through the Macedonian lines. The Persians did not simply run away or "desert." Lendering seems to be contradicting himself.
Lendering also contradicts his suggestion that the Persians were only too willing to flee when he states "Our detailed knowledge of events leading up to the battle is mirrored by a lack of information about the engagement itself. We simply have no idea what happened."

So how can he conclude that the Persians did not put up much of a fight but were eager to run away without a fight? Any thoughts about Lendering's renderings? I do not mean to sound disrespectful towards Lendering. He is a renown scholar and I am not. I'm just trying to get to make sense of the Babylonian diary entries and his interpretation of it. I tried to contact him, but to no avail.
PS. Has anyone read Jona Lendering's Alexander the Great? I tried but it's not available.

i don't follow the carte rase school which says the numbers are wrong so we cannot believe anything; Jona prefers to remain sceptical of the Greek sources and place his faith in the little cuneiform evidence we have. Personally I do not see anything irreconcilable between Arrian and the Diary, other than the timing of Dareios' flight. Nor would I put too much value on the demoralising influence of omens, far more germane was Dareios having his army stand to all night.

agesilaos wrote:Personally I do not see anything irreconcilable between Arrian and the Diary, other than the timing of Dareios' flight.

Yes, in my opinion the account of the battle of Gaugemela are similar between the diary and Arrian.The impression from the diary is that the battle took long enough for "a heavy defeat of the troops of the king [Darius]" to have taken place. And it also says "The armies engaged each other and the king’s soldiers suffered a heavy defeat." Only after this "heavy defeat" does the diary say the Persians ran away. They fought long enough to have incurred a defeat only after which they ran away.
So it seems the diary is saying the Persians were willing enough to fight and did fight. It does not say anywhere that they simply ran away without much of a fight, which seems to me to be what Lendering is claiming when he says "his soldiers, many of whom had no combat experience at all, were demoralised and ran away. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the battle of Gaugamela amounted to an attack on a large group of deserters."

I'm not concerned with whether Darius fled first or his troops did. I'm more interested in knowing whether the Persians fought willingly enough at least for a while until they felt the battle was lost anyway, or simply fled without putting up much of a fight whether or not they thought they had a chance. Any thoughts on this particular issue?

In Arrian they definitely fight and put Parmenion under enough pressure to call for help, as well as breaking through in the centre.

agesilaos wrote:In Arrian they definitely fight and put Parmenion under enough pressure to call for help, as well as breaking through in the centre.

Yes, Lendering himself agrees with Arrian on this because he states "There is also firm evidence that at some point Mazaeus' Babylonian horsemen broke through the Macedonian lines, only to take the Macedonian camp instead of attacking the enemy from the rear."
So Lendering is most assured ("firm evidence...") that Arrian was reliable about the Persian troops fighting effectively, which is all the more confusing since he then contradicts himself by discarding Arrian as a reliable source by saying the Persians simply ran away without much of a fight.
And then once again he contradicts this assessment by stating "Our detailed knowledge of events leading up to the battle is mirrored by a lack of information about the engagement itself. We simply have no idea what happened."
Why use Arrian when it suits him and discarding Arrian when it doesn't?
Anyone else find him confusing and contradictory?

Hando, I have just obtained Delbruck's book and will post soon on his interpretation of the battle; it seriously flawed, have do do my duty on other threads first though.

agesilaos wrote:Hando, I have just obtained Delbruck's book and will post soon on his interpretation of the battle; it seriously flawed, have do do my duty on other threads first though.

Thank you Agesilaos!! I really look forward to what you find out about Issos and Gaugamela according to Delbruck, although Jona Lendering who also claims the Macedonians outnumbered Persians at Issos arrived at his conclusions without reading Delbruck. He never read Delbruck.

PS. If there are any members who have read Lendering's "Alexander the Great" in Dutch I'd appreciate why Lendering says Persians were outnumbered at Issos and ran away at Gaugamela. I've tried contacting Lendering for an explanation but no success. Nor does his publisher reply.
Thank you

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander06.html

This is a link to Jona's website, Livius, where he states 80-100,000 for the Persians; I have contacted Jona before and he was quite prompt in replying but do bear in mind that he is a busy man and it might take him some time to answer all your queries. Sadly my Dutch is limited to ordering beer.

agesilaos wrote:http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander06.html

This is a link to Jona's website, Livius, where he states 80-100,000 for the Persians; I have contacted Jona before and he was quite prompt in replying but do bear in mind that he is a busy man and it might take him some time to answer all your queries. Sadly my Dutch is limited to ordering beer.

Thanks for the link. Yes, Lendering says the Persian troops numbered around 80,000 - 100,000 at Issus in the link.
But then he says the opposite on RomanArmytalk.com He says "I did not read Delbruck, but in my own book on Alexander, I have reached more or less the same conclusion [that the Persians were outnumbered]: not all Persian could be deployed."
So I assume that although he said 80,000-100,000 on Livius compared to 47,000 Macedonians/Greeks, in his book he says the Persians were outnumbered? Why the contradiction? Which one's correct? Which one does he back up? That's a question I'd like to ask him. Here's the link.
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/19-greek-m ... ander.html

PS. I sent you a private message.

Jona, in that link, is claiming something in the order of 80-100,000 in the Persian army at Issos. He is not claiming that the Macedonians outnumbered the Persian force outright but that it did so effectively. This he indicates by saying that not all the Persians could be deployed. So I read it as the Persians being effectively outnumbered. Whether he still holds to that view I do not know.

Personally I do not think there was anything like 100,000 in the Persian force at Issos. If Alexander was outnumbered it was likely not by any huge amount. Let an army have as many in it as you'd like it must still march in column. That column might be four or six abreast - the former one would think negotiating ancient passes in the Taurus range. If we accept 100k then we've a column extending 30 kilometres six abreast or 23 kilometeres eight abreast. Reduced to four abreast through a pass we've a 45 kilometre column. This without supply train and I've yet to consult Rowdy Yates.

I made it possible for about fifty thousand to actually gain the battlefield (6,000 cav, 12,000 Greeks, 24,000 Kardakes and 8,000 lights) which would be only a 5:4 advantage in men, but with a steady stream of marched out lights arriving through the day.

I cannot agree with Jona that not being able to deploy all his men would leave Dareios outnumbered, the frontage to be occupied would be equal so the forces would be unless one deployed deeper which Dareios probably did with his Greeks whose formation did benefit from fighting in depth and possibly with the Kardakes.

Paralus wrote:Jona, in that link, is claiming something in the order of 80-100,000 in the Persian army at Issos. He is not claiming that the Macedonians outnumbered the Persian force outright but that it did so effectively. This he indicates by saying that not all the Persians could be deployed. So I read it as the Persians being effectively outnumbered. Whether he still holds to that view I do not know.

So in your opinion how many Persians were deployed effectively at Issos and how many Macedonians were deployed?