Quote:Sure - this is a claim. But based on what proofs / sources exactly? :twisted:

You know this from what? From... sure, from those Ancient sources which always claim that the winner lost like "10 killed 5 wounded" and the loser "100000000000 killed, 30000000000000 captured and 2232235023542323 wounded" :?: Exactly. :mrgreen:

Or maybe you examined some battlefield and counted skeletons?

Surely not because such well-preserved battlefields do not exist.

Quote:We have more (and more of reliable ones, first of all) contemporary evidences regarding casualties in Medieval battles - which were relatively similar in style to Ancient battles (well, much more similar than battles from any other historical era which came later - after Medieval).

Quote:Arrian was a historian - not a military commander. And historians often now nothing what is realistic and what is not in warfare. This is true also in our modern times. That some guy considered something as realistic doesn't mean that it was indded.

Quote:This is not true.

At least not for Medieval or Early Modern Era battles (more similar to Ancient battles than anything later - because battles from both these eras consisted of many casualties suffered from melee weapons or pre-gunpowder missile weapons). The ratio of wounded to killed was like 1:1 or at most 2:1.

Quote:"Many times more" wounded than killed is something typical for 19th century battles (as well as WW1 of 1914 - 1918). But in battles where close combat was the main killer usually the number of wounded was not much bigger than the number of killed.

Of course among casualties from arrows this proportion was more in favour of wounded, since wounds inflicted by arrows were typically not so lethal (unless we are talking about some more advanced types of bows - for example the "great bows" which were used by some Persian units at Gaugamela - for example by Mardian archers - those bows were reported in those ancient sources to be capable of piercing shields and armour - another fact which disproves Arrian casualty number of 100 Macedonians killed).

Quote:No - I don't think that the Companions suffered only a small portion of total casualties.

But you missed one important fact apparently - that they suffered those 60 killed just in one engagement, not in entire battle. Both before that clash and after that clash they were involved in other fightings. So 60 killed refers just to one fight, not to entire battle - both before that fight and after that fight there must have been further killed among the Companions.

Quote:I know this mate.

But when I read description of a battle, I get some picture of how many casualties could be sustained in that battle by each side. And in case of Gaugamela in all existing original (Ancient) descriptions of this battle, there are mentioned various "episodes" of this battle, in which some Macedonian units must have suffered considerable casualties. Just to mention Greek mercenary / allied cavalry being defeated on both flanks by enemy cavalry, or to mention Macedonian baggage train being attacked and largely slaughtered by Persian cavalry which before that broke through Macedonian lines (Arrian, III, 14). And many other similar episodes. It did not went completely smoothly for the Macedonians and many Persian units fought to the last man and did not collapse like their king and many other units.

Quote:But who is throwing the whole Greek historiography out of the window?

I am not for sure. I am basing my claims on Grek historiography - namely on descriptions of the battle from Greek historiography, which describe this battle in such a way that clearly disproves the casualty claims made by the same historiography (again it contradicts itself) - because we can see many episodes in the battle of Gaugamela, which must have produced considerable casualties on the Macedonian side.

Some of them were mentioned above.

Apart from that Greek historiography also tells us that some of Persian archers were armed in "great bows" - as they are called there - which could pierce Macedonian shields and armours. For example Mardian archers had such weapons at their disposal.

Quote:Any proofs for this claim? That Ancient armies had casualty reporting systems?

By the way - if numbers were from casualty reports, they would not be so round - but detailed (for example 112 not 100 killed) and they would not contradict each other so much (Arrian - 100, Curtius - 300, Diodorus - 500, etc., etc.).

Quote:Please don't apply modern standards to Ancient historians.

Quote:I think accounts are much more frequently wrong than actual written reports / documents (but again I don't think that Ancient armies had something like casualty reports - considering that the main purpose of reporting casualties is to check how many reinforcements are necessary for each unit, and Alexander was incorporating to his army any reinforcements he could get, without paying much attention how many are "necessary" and how many are not "necessary" - IMO).

So maybe they had those casualty info from accounts of so called "witnesses".

Quote:Did I ever write such thing?

Actually if you read my post above you can see that I wrote that Arrian most likely had no freaking idea how big were Macedonian casualties.

If he had no freaking idea about a truth, he could not deliberately hid it.

Quote:I think you are wrong here.

But if you aren't wrong then it means that Persian casualties must have been relatively low as well.[quote]

Nope.. yet I agree.. Persian casualties during the battle itself would have been low too. It is during the hours after they broke that all hell broke...

Peter post=316328 Wrote:Actually you are wrong - Arrian and also others describe cavalry charging into each other and even into infantry and baggage train. For example:

[quote=Arrian, Anabasis, III, 14](...) Simmias and his brigade were not yet able to start with Alexander in pursuit, but causing the phalanx to halt there, he took part in the struggle, because the left wing of the Macedonians was reported to be hard pressed. In this part of the field, their line being broken, some of the Indians and of the Persian cavalry burst through the gap towards the baggage of the Macedonians; and there the action became desperate. For the Persians fell boldly on the men, who were most of them unarmed, and never expected that any men would cut through the double phalanx and break through upon them. When the Persians made this attack, the foreign prisoners also assisted them by falling upon the Macedonians in the midst of the action. But the commanders of the men who had been posted as a reserve to the first phalanx, learning what was taking place, quickly moved from the position which they had been ordered to take, and coming upon the Persians in the rear, killed many of them there collected round the baggage. But the rest of them gave way and fled. The Persians on the right wing, who had not yet become aware of the flight of Darius, rode round Alexander's left wing and attacked Parmenio in flank. (...)

Quote:Another fragment is already above (the one when he mentions sixty killed Companions).

And there are other fragments too.

Quote:Only light cavalry fought like this, while heavy & medium cavalry - and both sides had numerous heavy & medium cavalry at Gaugamela - fought in a completely different way (well, medium cavalry sometimes carried both javelins and sidearms + shields - so they could fight both ways).

And by the way even light cavalry sometimes fought "unlike normally".

Quote:While describing the battle at the outskirts of Zama (a much later one, against Jugurtha) in 108 B.C., Sallustius (59.) writes:

"(...) during the fight Numidian cavalrymen, self-confident (...) contrary to the usually applied tactics consisting of attacking and retreating*, were directly knocking against the enemy, breaking their battle array and sowing confusion into their ranks; hereby (...) almost achieving victory over Romans."

*So called skirmishing.

So here Sallustius gives an example of light cavalry (Numidians) fighting like heavy cavalry.

Quote:And for example Macedonian sarissophoroi lancers - although being lightly armoured (light cavalry) - also fought like heavy cavalry, using their lances. Especially they fought like this after being incorporated to Companions (before that they played mainly the role of scouts, IIRC, but sometimes also charged enemy lines).

Sarissophoroi weren't the only lightly armoured, but still shock lance-armed cavalry formation in history. For example in Medieval times and Early Modern Era there were also such cavalry formations in Europe, which were very lightly armoured (sometimes had no armour except of shields - which sarissophoroi also most likely had, as well as helmets) but armed in very long lances and fought as shock cavalry - not skirmish cavalry.

Quote: And it is important that Arrian did think that these casualties were substantial, not average, for a melee action that involved 2,500 Hetairoi among others.

Quote:Arrian 3.15.2:
...and Hephaestion himself, as well as Coenus and Menidas, was wounded.

Diod.17.61.3:
Hephaestion was wounded with a spear thrust in the arm; he had commanded the bodyguards. Perdiccas and Coenus, of the general's group, were also wounded, so also Menidas and others of the higher commanders.

Quote:Nope.. yet I agree.. Persian casualties during the battle itself would have been low too. It is during the hours after they broke that all hell broke...

Quote:Yep... what is this describing? Can it be that it is talking about the action in the Greek camp, when the unruly "Persians" were caught pants down, carrying off loot and slaves?

Quote:Whatever your approach, this is what all accounts suggest.

Quote:It is your disagreement that should be explained, not my agreement with them.

Quote:We have actually very few reliable medieval reports,

Quote:even the Byzantines were unfortunately not as meticulous as the ancients in that department.

Quote:Reliable accounts arise later, in the pike and musket period.

Quote:In no place did the Persians break the enemy, there was a gap that is reported to have formed but that was not a break per se.

Quote:Where exactly is such a thing said about Mardian bows? Can it be that you mistake them for the Carduchians? Or the Scythian bows used against Crassus?

Quote:Anyways, archery, especially when from horseback was never especially effective as to cause deaths.

Quote:Not in a single action. A series of actions that was in fact the whole melee action of the battle.

Quote:You are probably counting among the dead those that died from their wounds. What you claim is wrong according to the sources. What is a fact is that a good many of the wounded actually lost their lives from conditions relative to their wounds.

Quote:Most of those wounded would have fallen in their blood and would not instantly die. It is not that easy to outright kill a man with an axe, sword or spear.

Quote:Once a man of the line was wounded by a stone, an arrow, a dagger, a spear-point etc, he would be dragged or just walked behind unless he was that valorous and hardy that he would just keep on.

Quote:is in the Macedonian camp, if the few guards left put up resistance.

Quote:There is no flight of Greeks.

Quote:Apart from the issue of the reliability of these records, the thing is that they were not open to the public. Some historians wrote that they used them, at least what had survived... Do not forget that we have absolutely no first hand account of Alexander's exploits. Ptolemy's and Callisthenes' accounts do not survive...

Quote:? Where exactly do we have the Prodromoi hippeis fight? And where is their manner of combat discussed? Nowhere does Arrian use them in battle. At Issus they just stood behind the battle-line making it sure to keep the Persian light infantry on the mountain.

Quote:As far as I am concerned, Arrian says 100, Diodorus says 500, Curtius I simply do not like...

Quote:Rode between the gaps in formations, created by mounted manouver elemnets was exactly what Alexander cav did in many of its engagements

Quote:You abused the primary text that only states persian cav moved between the fragemented Macedonian Lines

Quote:Falsfing history to augemnt your flawed posistion is not the way to go.

Quote:Not what Arrian was explaining to have happened.Page 169 you quoted, 2nd Para starts with: But the formation under Simmias was unable to link up with Alexander to join the pursuit, was fourced to stand its ground and continue the struggle on the spot, a report comming in that the Macedonian left was in trouble.At this point the Macedonian line was broken, and some of the Indian and Persian cavalry burst through the gap and penetrated right through to the rear where the pack animals were.

Quote:not least beacase they were two deep here

Quote:No, no, no.

The Persian time at that time was different than 100 years earlier. You are talking about earlier times (more or less times of the battle of Marathon) when even the heaviest Persian cavalry looked like this:



But by the time of Gaugamela the Persians already had units of heavy cavalry designed to carry out shock charges - very similar tactics to that of Companions. For example, they had cataphracts in their army. But also other types of heavy cavalry.

And regarding the "spear-bearing" cavalry on the Macedonian side - apart from Companions, also Thessalian cavalry was a "spear-bearing" heavy cavalry unit. Then we had Thracian, Odrysian and Paeonian cavalry - they can be classified as "medium cavalry" - they had both javelins and weapons intended for meelee combat, so they were dual purpose cavalry, but of course they wore less armour than Companion and Thessalian cavalry. And there were also already mentioned sarissophoroi (also called prodromoi) - lightly armoured, but also "spear-bearing" and capable of shock charges.

Only mercenary and allied Greek cavalry of Alexander were typical light skirmish cavalry armed with javelins. And maybe some Syrian horse archers, if he had them at Gaugamela.

Quote:Regarding Persian cavalry:

But by the time of Gaugamela the Persians already had units of heavy cavalry designed to carry out shock charges - very similar tactics to that of Companions. For example, they had cataphracts in their army. But also other types of heavy cavalry.

For example Sakae / Saca cavalry and Barkan (not sure if I translate this to English correctly) cavalry was armed in double-edged war axes called bipennis - clearly a weapon intended for use in close-combat. They were also armed in swords called akinakes and single-edged, smaller than bipennis, axes called sagaris.

Then they had very well armoured Persian, Bactrian and Indian cavalry.

As well as Scythian (Saca) cataphracts. Also Bactrians, Armenians and Cappadocians fielded some very well armoured, cataphract and other heavy cavalry.

Persian and Indian heavy cavalry units were armed with long spears.

Quote:Oh dear George. There's nothing like ignoring the sources:

Quote:Arrian 3.12.3-4: Alexander ordered the cavalry of the Grecian mercenaries under the command of Menidas to attack them. But the Scythian cavalry and the Bactrians, who had been drawn up with them, sallied forth against them, and being much more numerous they put the small body of Greeks to rout. Alexander then ordered Aristo at the head of the Paeonians and Grecian auxiliaries to attack the Scythians; and the barbarians gave way. But the rest of the Bactrians, drawing near to the Paeonians and Grecian auxiliaries, caused their own comrades who were already in flight to turn and renew the battle; and thus they brought about a general cavalry engagement, in which more of Alexander’s men fell, not only being overwhelmed by the multitude of the barbarians, but also because the Scythians themselves and their horses were much more completely protected with armour for guarding their bodies. Notwithstanding this, the Macedonians sustained their assaults, and assailing them violently squadron by squadron, they succeeded in pushing them out of rank.

Quote:It would appear you have misread your Arrian. He clearly describes only the Macedonians as assaulting squadron by squadron. Are you claiming the Macedonians rode in and hurled their "javelins" and retreated?

Quote:Tell that to Parmenion. I'm afraid that is not sustained by the source material. You would have it that the only battle occurred on the far right of the Macedonian line. This is clearly a result of the hero-king, Alexander-centric nature of the source material - something you seem oblivious to. Do you really suggest that Darius only intended to fight the Macedonian right?

Quote:And so we come to source criticism. Badian ("Orientals in Alexander's Army"; The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 85 1965, pp. 160-161) long ago observed the following about the "Roman general/governor of Greek nationality":

Quote:For one thing, accurate reporting of military matters is not one of Arrian's virtues. The man who - to cite only a few obvious examples - can use the word somatophylake in three different senses (iv 3.2 et al.: the foot agema; vi 27.2: a governor's bodyguard; and the proper technical use for the elite of great nobles, passim); who can contradict himself within a few lines on who led the mounted archers to the junction of Acesines and Hydraotes (vi 5-5; 6.I); and who seriously thought that Alexander meant to defeat Porus' forces with cavalry and archers (v 14.I f.-cf. Hamilton, PACA i (1961) 9)--this man was far from the great military historian of conventional modern encomia.

Arrian does not, necessarily, propagandise. He does, though, reproduce the propagandist figures of his sources. As we know (from Arrian), a king should not lie. What then of Callisthenes or Aristoboulos? These figures reek of court "approved" material.

Quote:What, then , happens when "the Great" is dead? What of the wars after? The greatest army we hear of is that of Antigonus. This is entirely understandable and tops at some 80,000. The silly notion that it is only made up of mostly Greco-Macedonians is just that: silly. Here we have - even if via an intermediary - the "sober" historian Hieronymus as a source. It is alarming how the numbers then shrink.

Quote:In any case George, let Arrian's (non-propagandising!) figure of 300,000 be killed by the Macedonians at the "skirmish" of Gaugamela. How then can you describe it as such? If you allow the battle to have taken six hours (oh dear, more than a "skirmish") then that amounts to some 834 Persians killed per minute.

As they say out west in the US, you'll have to excuse me all to hell George...

Quote:And that Persian and Indian heavy cavalry armed with long spears even managed to break through the line of Macedonian phalangites (pezhetairoi) at the point of contact of taxis (one taxis = "paper strength" of 2048 phalangites - according to: http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/GranicusNotes.html) under command of Simmias and taxis under command of Polysperchon:

Arrian, Anabasis, III, 14 Wrote:(...) Simmias and his brigade were not yet able to start with Alexander in pursuit, but causing the phalanx to halt there, he took part in the struggle, because the left wing of the Macedonians was reported to be hard pressed. In this part of the field, their line being broken, some of the Indians and of the Persian cavalry burst through the gap towards the baggage of the Macedonians; and there the action became desperate. For the Persians fell boldly on the men, who were most of them unarmed, and never expected that any men would cut through the double phalanx and break through upon them. When the Persians made this attack, the foreign prisoners also assisted them by falling upon the Macedonians in the midst of the action. But the commanders of the men who had been posted as a reserve to the first phalanx, learning what was taking place, quickly moved from the position which they had been ordered to take, and coming upon the Persians in the rear, killed many of them there collected round the baggage. But the rest of them gave way and fled. The Persians on the right wing, who had not yet become aware of the flight of Darius, rode round Alexander's left wing and attacked Parmenio in flank. (...)

A quite extraordinary and valiant achievement.

Quote:And you forgot that Alexander's infantry practically didn't take part in that "skirmish" (according to George) and that supposedly all his cavalry except of 1800 Companions didn't charge but at best did some skirmishing (which typically doesn't inflict many casualties unless continuing for a very long time).

So we are left with 1800 Companion cavalrymen killing 834 Persians per minute (or 1668 per 2 minutes) for 6 hours (360 minutes) without any rest. I think they must have been robots.

And don't forget about another "non-propagandistic" figure - over 300,000 captured. So apart from killing 1668 per minute (or roughly one killed per 2 minutes by each of Macedonian Companions - and average Macedonian Companion killed 167 during entire battle), they also captured a similar number.

167 Persians captured by each 1 of Macedonian Companions! :mrgreen:

And further 167 killed by each 1 of Macedonian Companions! :mrgreen:

Quote:

Quote:He clearly describes only the Macedonians as assaulting squadron by squadron. Are you claiming the Macedonians rode in and hurled their "javelins" and retreated?

And mighty javelins killed more per minute than German machine guns at the 1st day of the Somme! :mrgreen:

Quote:To you guys, "to break" means both to create a gap in the enemy line AND to put them to flight.

Quote:There is no melee described again.

Quote:It only talks of the opening being created.

Quote:Why would the phalanx not advance to trample those poor lines of footmen trapped, commanded to stay, falling on one another...

Quote:A pursue is no battle, it is pure slaughter, especially on a terrain where the throngs of unhappy men cannot find any safety, like that around Arbela...

Quote:You can grin all you want, since you like finding parallels in WWII, you will be thrilled to know that capturing such numbers of men is nothing really that difficult.

Quote:but then you do not read ancient Greek

Quote:First, a skirmish remains a skirmish even when it lasts more than 6 hours... How would you basically describe Carrhae?

Quote:His infantry was no match for the Macedonians and he very well knew that. This is why he chose not to engage with it but keep it out of harm's way.

Quote:Why would the phalanx not advance to trample those poor lines of footmen trapped, commanded to stay, falling on one another...

Quote:Second, the 300,000 dead, certainly an incredible number if the Persians had the chance to make a somewhat effective retreat could be made :

1.if in their panic they trampled each other

Quote:3.if orders were given and actually obeyed to even some troops to prohibit the retreat of lines in front of them

Quote:4.if the men in flight retreated into their respective camps and there were trapped or engaged in looting of their own possessions.

Quote:etc.

The actual terrain being relatively level and without thick vegetation would actually hamper flight.

Quote:Were there so many dead? Most probably not... Is it possible? Yes, I think it is.

Quote:Where exactly do you see any melee here that does not have to do with the Companions, oh great interpreter of sources? I think you are quoting Arrian as you see fit instead of reading what he says and trying to match it with what I write. None of the bolded or unbolded quotes says anything that refutes anything I wrote.

Quote:For a time Alexander himself led his men in column, but when the cavalry, charging the Persians who were trying to surround the Macedonian's right wing, first breached the barbarian phalanx, Alexander wheeled about opposite the gap, arrayed the Companion cavalry and the nearby portion of the phalanx in a wedge formation and led them at full speed and with a war cry at Darius himself. For a breif period the fighting was hand to hand, but when Alexander and his horsemen pressed the enemy hard, shoving the Persians and striking at their faces with spears (xustois), and the Macedonian phalanx, tightly arrayed and bristling with sarisae, was already upon them, Darius, who had long been in a state of dread, now saw terrors all around him; he wheeled about - the first to do so - and fled.

Quote:I think it is clearly described by Arrian. Skirmish does not mean psiloi hurling some stones or javelins. A skirmish is a combat action in which one or both parts do not come in hand to hand combat but use missiles whether in dense or dispersed formations. This has nothing to do with any "Alexandro-centric" description but with good sense on the part of Darius. His infantry was no match for the Macedonians and he very well knew that. This is why he chose not to engage with it but keep it out of harm's way. I am amazed Michael, that you understand so little about such tactics. Fighting with only one wing (which is anyways not the case here, I sincerely think you should have understood that) was a very valid and not unusual option for any general.

Quote:I am very aware of the Badianic comments on Arrian and I choose to not accept them. It is always easy to explain what one does not understand or agree with with unbased attacks against the source's credibility. In my opinion, Badian has anyways only limited understanding of both the ancient Greek language and ancient military tactics being more of a more broad historian as displayed by these ludicrous comments of his, as if the term somatophylacae should only have one meaning or as if Arrian ever says that the archers he used alongside the cavalry at Hydaspes was some kind of super-weapon that would crush the Indians...

Quote:[Alexander] took only his horse-soldiers, who were 5,000 in number, and led them forward with speed. He also instructed Tauron, the comnunder of the archers, to lead them on also with speed to back up the cavalry. He had come to the conclusion that if Porus should engage him with all his forces, he would easily be able to overcome him by attacking with his cavalry

Quote:Alexander then transported the elephants, the brigade of Polysperchon, the horse-archers, and Philip with his army, across the river Hydaspes, and instructed Craterus to lead them. He sent Nearchus with the fleet with orders to set sail three days before the army started [...] HE then took the shield-bearing guards, the bowmen, the Agrianians, Peithon’s brigade of men, from those who were called foot Companions, all the horse bowmen and half the cavalry Companions...

Quote:Where exactly do you see any melee here that does not have to do with the Companions, oh great interpreter of sources? I think you are quoting Arrian as you see fit instead of reading what he says and trying to match it with what I write. None of the bolded or unbolded quotes says anything that refutes anything I wrote.

Quote:For a time Alexander himself led his men in column, but when the cavalry, charging the Persians who were trying to surround the Macedonian's right wing, first breached the barbarian phalanx, Alexander wheeled about opposite the gap, arrayed the Companion cavalry and the nearby portion of the phalanx in a wedge formation and led them at full speed and with a war cry at Darius himself. For a breif period the fighting was hand to hand, but when Alexander and his horsemen pressed the enemy hard, shoving the Persians and striking at their faces with spears (xustois), and the Macedonian phalanx, tightly arrayed and bristling with sarisae, was already upon them, Darius, who had long been in a state of dread, now saw terrors all around him; he wheeled about - the first to do so - and fled.

Quote:I think it is clearly described by Arrian. Skirmish does not mean psiloi hurling some stones or javelins. A skirmish is a combat action in which one or both parts do not come in hand to hand combat but use missiles whether in dense or dispersed formations. This has nothing to do with any "Alexandro-centric" description but with good sense on the part of Darius. His infantry was no match for the Macedonians and he very well knew that. This is why he chose not to engage with it but keep it out of harm's way. I am amazed Michael, that you understand so little about such tactics. Fighting with only one wing (which is anyways not the case here, I sincerely think you should have understood that) was a very valid and not unusual option for any general.

Quote:I am very aware of the Badianic comments on Arrian and I choose to not accept them. It is always easy to explain what one does not understand or agree with with unbased attacks against the source's credibility. In my opinion, Badian has anyways only limited understanding of both the ancient Greek language and ancient military tactics being more of a more broad historian as displayed by these ludicrous comments of his, as if the term somatophylacae should only have one meaning or as if Arrian ever says that the archers he used alongside the cavalry at Hydaspes was some kind of super-weapon that would crush the Indians...

Quote:[Alexander] took only his horse-soldiers, who were 5,000 in number, and led them forward with speed. He also instructed Tauron, the comnunder of the archers, to lead them on also with speed to back up the cavalry. He had come to the conclusion that if Porus should engage him with all his forces, he would easily be able to overcome him by attacking with his cavalry

Quote:Alexander then transported the elephants, the brigade of Polysperchon, the horse-archers, and Philip with his army, across the river Hydaspes, and instructed Craterus to lead them. He sent Nearchus with the fleet with orders to set sail three days before the army started [...] HE then took the shield-bearing guards, the bowmen, the Agrianians, Peithon’s brigade of men, from those who were called foot Companions, all the horse bowmen and half the cavalry Companions...

Quote:First, about Gaza... the casualties reported are "more than 500 men, most of whom were cavalry"... This probably means some 300-350 men. These are the casualties that the defeated side sustained, the side that broke and fled.... Fortunately, the cavalry soon regrouped and covered the retreat, else the casualties would be much more.

Quote:The cavalry that took part in the fight (along with the rest of the wing, elephants, light infantry etc) is adequately described and mainly are lancers. Also, the "pantodapoi" are not cavalry of all sorts, but cavalry of other "places", more like allied cavalry, but this is a small detail.

Quote:Now, Demetrius has at least 1,500 lancers in his numbers and hid enemies array against him the strongest 3,000 of their own cavalry. Diodorus clearly says how the first attack was with the xyston lance and then with drawn swords. The battle is described as particularly vigorous and still... the side that breaks into flight only loses the most part of the 500+ casualties...

Quote:Now, about Hephaesteon... the text actually reads :

"Ἡφαιστίων μὲν εἰς τὸν βραχίονα ξυστῷ βληθεὶς ἐτρώθη", which is translated as :

"Hephaestion was wounded by a xyston spear that was hurled on his arm." The text is very clear. It was no hand to hand thrust, it was a xyston that was thrown at him...

Quote: Moreover, the somatophylacae are not counted among the hypaspistae. They are a small group of men that are supposed to be closest to Alexander and protect him always. In battle, they were not always beside him. They could even lead other units.