pothos.org

I was passing the time between meetings today by reading through the various articles the website has on Alexander's army, its campaigns, etc.

Something caught my eye:
"Indian Army
At the battle of the Hydaspes King Porus' army, significantly smaller than its enemy, forced Alexander's Macedonians to fight their most difficult battle ever. Porus may have fielded up to 200 war elephants; they disrupted the Macedonian phalanx, claiming a toll of almost 75% in killed and wounded Foot Companions according to Diodorus."

The bold part should read "750", not 75%, right? That's what I remember from my Diodorus... otherwise, poor Coenus' and Cleitus' commands would have been effectively destroyed. Of course considering that each Taxis by this point was decidedly less than the initial 1500-man force (Arrian says the infantry force--including two Taxeis of Pezhetairoi, the shield-bearing Guards, the Agrianians and the archers--numbered a little under 6,000, when the nominal strength should have been 8,000 or so), 750 dead and wounded would still have been a frighful casualty rate for the phalanx (30%???)...

Phoebus wrote:I was passing the time between meetings today by reading through the various articles the website has on Alexander's army, its campaigns, etc.

Something caught my eye:
"Indian Army
At the battle of the Hydaspes King Porus' army, significantly smaller than its enemy, forced Alexander's Macedonians to fight their most difficult battle ever. Porus may have fielded up to 200 war elephants; they disrupted the Macedonian phalanx, claiming a toll of almost 75% in killed and wounded Foot Companions according to Diodorus."

The bold part should read "750", not 75%, right? That's what I remember from my Diodorus... otherwise, poor Coenus' and Cleitus' commands would have been effectively destroyed. Of course considering that each Taxis by this point was decidedly less than the initial 1500-man force (Arrian says the infantry force--including two Taxeis of Pezhetairoi, the shield-bearing Guards, the Agrianians and the archers--numbered a little under 6,000, when the nominal strength should have been 8,000 or so), 750 dead and wounded would still have been a frighful casualty rate for the phalanx (30%???)...

Hmmm, that does sound rather suspect, doesn't it? Well, it is fairly easily changed, once I've checked my super-secure-batcave-wire-mesh-surrounded-triple-locked-and-on-a-timer folder for my editorial password. Which article is it in?

ATB

http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php?page=army

Under "Indian Army". A batcave, eh? Color me envious.

Phoebus wrote:http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php?page=army

Under "Indian Army". A batcave, eh? Color me envious.

Thanks - I'll have a look at it. I couldn't find the reference before - and although I did find a reference the Macedonian casualties at the Hydaspes, it was the correct number (at least, as recorded by Diodorus).

Batcave is perhaps a bit hyperbolic - but you get the picture.

ATB

The only reference I recall that approximates that number is, indeed, Diodorus':

"[3] On the Macedonian side, the losses were two hundred and eighty cavalry and more than seven hundred infantry. The king buried the dead, rewarded those who had distinguished themselves in accordance with their deserts, and sacrificed to Helius who had given him the eastern regions to conquer."

Since the website said 75%, I assumed that the intent was to round off the Macedonian infantry losses to 750, with the % being a typo.

The disparity in the casualty numbers between the various sources is also interesting to me. Arrian only has eighty infantry casualties, but a similar number of cavalry losses (230 to Diodorus' 280). I've always wondered if the difference might be attributed to how they describe the fight. Arrian, for example, goes into more detail regarding Alexander's maneuvers before the battle--he describes him bringing only a fraction of his force across, and leaving two different detachments (adding up to about 2/3 of his overall army) behind with instructions on when to join him. Diodorus, on the other hand, simply describes the battle, and mentions none of those divisions.

Could it be that Diodorus offers the total casualty figures, whereas Arrian simply gives the losses for the spearhead force that followed Alexander? As the king brought majority of the horse with him, it might follow that 250 of his cavalry died in those initial actions, while the smaller, follow-on cavalry squadrons only lost 30 men. Could the same logic stand for the infantry? Alexander brought less than 6,000 with him (according to Arrian), while the follow-on forces had considerably more. Moreover, it might be argued that a good proportion of his force was elite--Hypaspistai and Agrianians--and thus probably more survivable under difficult conditions.

Ah Phoebus, numbers, numbers. A can of worms you have opened.

Of all Alexander’s set pieces the transmittal of Hydaspes is possibly (leaving aside Diodorus’ version of Granicus) the most muddled. What is clear is the fact that there were three staging points: Craterus, Meleagher et al in the middle and Alexander at the crossing point. What is also clear is that Alexander left clear instructions that neither of these two move until the battle was clearly in Alexander’s favour.

That leaves just who Alexander took with him to make the assault on the army of Porus. This too is a relatively straightforward in Arrian's text (nothing is ever straightforward with numbers):

He then picked the select body-guard called the Companions, as well as the cavalry regiments of Hephaestion, Perdiccas, and Demetrius, the cavalry from Bactria, Sogdiana, and Scythia, and the Daan horse-archers; and from the phalanx of infantry the shield-bearing guards, the brigades of Clitus and Coenus, with the archers and Agrianians.

This would amount to some 13,000 infantry and cavalry: 3,000 “hoplites” of the line, 3,000 (or more) “Guards”, 2,000 Agrianes and Archers and 5,000 cavalry. With this force Alexander would take on Porus. A rather eloquent comment on the size of Porus’ army one might think in passing. Demonstrably Alexander was not facing 200 elephants spaced “at about 100 feet” with infantry filling the spaces and extending beyond – a line some six or more kilometres long.

Anyway, Alexander crosses with half the royal hypaspists (in one boat?!) and the rest follow. Arrian, making clear what forces Alexander took into battle, then lists them again (pardon my presumption in correcting Arrian’s error in transmission):

[…] he selected the choice guard of cavalry, and the best men from the other cavalry regiments, and brought them up from column into line on the right wing. In front of all the cavalry he posted the horse-archers, and placed next to the cavalry in front of the other infantry the royal shield-bearing guards under the command of Seleucus. Near these he placed the [royal foot-guard, and next to these] the other shield-bearing guards (regular hypaspists) and the two regiments of the phalanx, as each happened at the time to have the right of precedence. On each side, at the extremities of the phalanx, his archers, Agrianians and javelin-throwers were posted.

It is this force that the following battle narrative – in all sources – has engage the entire army of Porus. Arrian is clear, at the close, that the losses (aside possibly from the “200 other horsemen”) he enumerates are from this force:

Of Alexander’s forces, about 8o of the 6,ooo foot-soldiers who were engaged in the first attack were killed…

This, palpably, is pap. Diodorus might well be closer to the truth if one reads the narrative of all three sources: 750 represents a little shy of 10% of the “infantry” (some 8,000 or so).

Again, the other units did not cross until the battle was decided and only participated in the follow on slaughter “round up” after Alexander’s original slaughter cordon was breached. Another comment on the size of Porus’ army: it was cordoned off and surrounded by 13,000 combatants.

Paralus,

I am in agreement with the way you outlined everything--your thoughts match my own on this subject. Well, with one (possible) exception: I don't know how I feel about how Arrian presents the Indian army. Sometimes I feel it should be smaller than described, other times I feel only certain elements are exaggerated (elephants?), etc.

Thanks for the response!

Phoebus wrote:Paralus,

I don't know how I feel about how Arrian presents the Indian army. Sometimes I feel it should be smaller than described, other times I feel only certain elements are exaggerated (elephants?), etc.

Well, and therein lies the nub. The elephants in Arrian's description are critical. There is no good reason to doubt the essential description: elephants out front on the battle line and that battle line drawn up between and behind them in "maniples" so as they looked like "towers" amid the line. This is much like the only decent description we have of the use of elephants in the Diadochoi armies immediately after Alexander's death (the difference being light armed are placed "in the spaces").

The problem is that if we let stand Arrians 200 at 100 foot intervals we have a line of over 6 km. Patently absurd and even more absurd that Alexander takes such on with an army of about 13,000. Such a line - if we allow 25m (82') between beasts - represents a front infantry line of 5km (16,400'). If the Indians drew up an infantry phalanx in the Greek fashion and were spaced in the pyknosis or compact fashion, we arrive at a front line of 5,466 odd individuals. This does not count the “bodies of infantry standing beyond the elephants on the wings”. If they were eight deep we have 43,700. Were they in a synaspismos (shield to shield) arrangement the figures are 10,933 and 87,466.

The former is the more likely and it is unlikely in the extreme that Alexander, having just made an extremely difficult crossing, would take on a force at least five and a half times that of his soaked infantry – as well as elephants.