pothos.org

agesilaos wrote: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.

Do you think this steady stream of marched out lights arriving through the day had any involvement in the actual battle or were they simply too late or demoralised to participate?

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.

It's hard to understand why Jona would think that only the Persians were unable to fully deploy all their troops. Wouldn't the Macedonians also have had difficulty fully deploying all their troops for the battle?

The steady stream were in no fit state to fight and were thus useless. The Macedonians line was thinner than usual at eight deep rather than sixteen so they had plenty of room, The Persians also had room enough to deploy their effective troops.

agesilaos wrote:The steady stream were in no fit state to fight and were thus useless. The Macedonians line was thinner than usual at eight deep rather than sixteen so they had plenty of room, The Persians also had room enough to deploy their effective troops.

This statement is partially incorrect.The Macedonian phalanx did not "usually" fight 16 deep, and I have seen no persuasive evidence that it did. The evidence of Polybius and of the three versions of the technical tactical manuals is quite definite that when the phalanx stood in 16 deep files, they were in 'open', or normal order with each man occupying 6 feet of frontage. Our sources are equally firm that fighting usually took place in 'close' order/pyknosis, with each man occupying 3 feet of frontage.

The manuals refer to two methods of achieving this, the traditional method going back to the hoplite phalanx of marching up the rear half-file into the intervals, or the later Hellenistic method of every second man stepping out and forward. In Alexander's day the half-file method was the most likely.

In either method, the result was to produce a depth of 8, whilst occupying the same frontage, but with each man now occupying 3 feet rather than 6 feet. This was the more "usual" depth, although other depths could and were occasionally used in special circumstances.At Issus we have the evidence of Callisthenes ( Alexander's official historian at the time), transmitted via Polybius, that Alexander's phalanx fought 8 deep, and this was most assuredly not "thinner than usual".

For further discussion, see the "Tactike theoriai - manuals or philosophy" thread.

As to the question of numbers of Persians, since these were in effect unknown, one can only gain a rough idea. Another way of "guesstimating" is from the size of the ground that we are told the Persians occupied. This would give them somewhere between, say, 25-50,000 men. In other words, broadly the same order of magnitude as Alexander's roughly 40,000 men. Numbers such as Arrian and Plutarch's 600,000, or Diodorus and Justin's 400,000, or Curtius' 250,000 are really quite fanciful, as has been pointed out early on in the thread ( see e.g. Paralus' post of Jan 2010, which contains a great deal of sense ).

Logistic reasons would also restrict Persian numbers ( or anyone else's for that matter) to an army of this order of magnitude.

I am a little skeptical of the 'rate of march' method of Engels and Agesilaos, if only because it does not take much account of the totally unknown number of non-combatants. ( Did the Persians restrict their numbers, as Philip of Macedon did? It does not appear so.) This would reduce the numbers of actual troops estimated by the 'rate of march' method. Servants etc often provided skirmishers/light troops armed with missile weapons ( bows, slings,javelins) in ancient armies, and almost certainly did so for the Persians at Issos.

On the subject of wagons, these generally required roads, and were also restricted to the slower speed of oxen, but of course could carry much more than a pack animal or mule cart. Armies could and did 'outmarch' wagons. A good example is provided in Xenophon's 'Anabasis', where Cyrus' army would typically march around 17-25 miles or so a day for 4 or 5 days, then halt for several days while the wagons of the 'market' which provided his logistics caught up.

There also seems to be some confusion regarding TV Westerns. "Rowdy Yates" ( played by Clint Eatwood) was in "Rawhide', a series about cattle driving, and it only ever had one wagon - the 'chuckwagon' or cook's wagon. "Wagon Train" is the western you want, with the wagons under Major Seth Adams (Ward Bond) and scout Flint McCullough ( Robert Horton) crossing the prairie.....

edited to include "Westerns" !

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?

Hando, you are clearly a student, so beware of Xenophon's assertions, the general view is that the Macedonian phalanx fought sixteen deep; you should consider the alternative and the alleged evidence independently, however, and read the Taktike and Kynoskephalai threads if you have not already; the case is not clear cut but involves more special pleading on one side than the other in my opinion, but other opinions are available; the important thing is to know why you hold that opinion, but be open to new or fuller evidence.

Xenophon wrote:As to the question of numbers of Persians, since these were in effect unknown, one can only gain a rough idea. Another way of "guesstimating" is from the size of the ground that we are told the Persians occupied. This would give them somewhere between, say, 25-50,000 men. In other words, broadly the same order of magnitude as Alexander's roughly 40,000 men.

I'm sorry, but how can 25,000 men be "in the same order of magnitude" as 40,000? It's almost double the number in my opinion. And how did you get the figure of 25,000 for the Persians? From Delbruck?

agesilaos wrote:Hando, you are clearly a student, so beware of Xenophon's assertions, the general view is that the Macedonian phalanx fought sixteen deep; you should consider the alternative and the alleged evidence independently, however, and read the Taktike and Kynoskephalai threads if you have not already; the case is not clear cut but involves more special pleading on one side than the other in my opinion, but other opinions are available; the important thing is to know why you hold that opinion, but be open to new or fuller evidence.

Thank you for the advice Agesilaos. I appreciate it and will read the threads regarding the Macedonian phalanx.

.

.

Hando wrote:

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?

Best read here and here. In essence, somewhere in the vicinity of 60,000 or so. Much of the infantry will have been lighter armed troops. I'm happy enough with Agesilaos' numbers for the Greeks: this is about a large city state levy and notions of 30,000 (Arrian) are, to me, silly. This was the number the 'allies' managed to raise in their fight for 'freedom' at Chaeronaea. As well, the Ionian Greeks, or the 'Greeks of Asia', had been comfortably at peace under Persian suzerainty ever since Sparta sold them down the Halys in 387; the mercenaries will, in huge part, have come from the mainland (to whence the escapees returned). In short, I do not think the main Persian battle line to have been significantly larger that the Macedonian. Larger, yes, but not by the inflated figures we receive.

Hando, I would echo Agesilaos' words above for there are in fact three methods for compacting the phalanx. This third is described by Asklepiodotos (4.3-4) and Aelian (11.1-6). Aelian further describes this compacting at 33.1-4.

Paralus wrote:

Hando wrote:

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?

Best read here and here. In essence, somewhere in the vicinity of 60,000 or so. Much of the infantry will have been lighter armed troops. I'm happy enough with Agesilaos' numbers for the Greeks: this is about a large city state levy and notions of 30,000 (Arrian) are, to me, silly. This was the number the 'allies' managed to raise in their fight for 'freedom' at Chaeronaea. As well, the Ionian Greeks, or the 'Greeks of Asia', had been comfortably at peace under Persian suzerainty ever since Sparta sold them down the Halys in 387; the mercenaries will, in huge part, have come from the mainland (to whence the escapees returned). In short, I do not think the main Persian battle line to have been significantly larger that the Macedonian. Larger, yes, but not by the inflated figures we receive.

Thanks for your opinion that there were 60,000 Persians deployed in battle lines against 47,000 Macedonians/Persians at Issos. There seems to be some agreement between you and Agesiliaos who says there were 50,000 Persians deployed in battle lines. So both of you think the Persians had somewhat higher numbers than the Macedonians/Greeks at Issos. I also like your quote " the Ionian Greeks, or the 'Greeks of Asia', had been comfortably at peace under Persian suzerainty ever since Sparta sold them down the Halys..."

Paralus wrote:Hando, I would echo Agesilaos' words above for there are in fact three methods for compacting the phalanx. This third is described by Asklepiodotos (4.3-4) and Aelian (11.1-6). Aelian further describes this compacting at 33.1-4.

Thanks. I'm going to tackle that thread as suggested.

agesilaos wrote: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.

Previously, (first reply on page 2 of this thread) you mentioned that at Issos the Persians had "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....Dareios had more men Alexander more soldiers."

1)Are the "8,000 lights" you mention in the first quote above drawn from the pool of 64,000 levies/armed servants/spear wielding porters you mentioned previously on page 2 of this thread?
If so, the actual number of Persians who were deployed and therefore able to fight at Issos is 50,000 compared to the 47,000 Macedonians/Greeks.

2)You also said "Dareios had more men Alexander more soldiers." but since there were only 8,000 lights who you consider to be "men" rather than real soldiers, doesn't that mean there wasn't such a significant difference between the number of real Persian soldiers (42,000 minus the 8,000 lights/armed levies/spear wielding porters) and the number of Macedonian/Greek soldiers?

I'd love to see a battle plan map of Issos showing the position of all deployed troops by sections and their probable numbers, just to see how those who were actually deployed and able to fight were arranged. I know there are several maps, but none show numbers.