Ancient army numbers

[Macedon]

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.

I guess from the same sources that make you claim otherwise... You sound like a man who has read ancient/medieval authors even if from translations. The safest way to reach conclusions is to make a list of accounts and compare them, then find some averages. Alternatively, one could just embark on the actual mechanics of pre-gunpowder (and early gun-powder) battles but that would be too engaging and open to too many own opinions. Whatever your approach, this is what all accounts suggest. It is your disagreement that should be explained, not my agreement with them.

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).

We have actually very few reliable medieval reports, even the Byzantines were unfortunately not as meticulous as the ancients in that department. Furthermore, the conditions of western/northern European medieval battles (or battles where western/northern European medieval armies took part) are not similar to that of ancient battles. Even those of the eastern states are quite, yet not that, different. Reliable accounts arise later, in the pike and musket period.

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.

Now you make me wonder... Arrian was also a governor and a military commander. His Ektaxis kat' Alanon is one of the most valuable texts of the period militarywise. You could have looked it up before commenting. Plus, I have been very clear in that what is realistic is not necessarily true. Yet, when something sounds realistic to someone who knows about things, then one should not wonder about the possibility. The possibility existed. Whether Dareius did amass such numbers is practically impossible to say, yet, according to Arrian, he could have.

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.

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.

"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).

You probably have a "medieval" or "homeric" view of close combat. Fighting in line has nothing to do with single combat. 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. 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. I doubt you or I can instantly kill a man with an axe or sword if we only hit him on his arms or legs as would be the majority of wounds.

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? Anyways, archery, especially when from horseback was never especially effective as to cause deaths. I doubt that such a claim disproves Arrian... Should you be right then 1,000 Mardian archers whose arrows only 10% of the time pierced armor and shield, should cause something like 500 wounds/deaths per minute... Let's say half that... 250 (5% success, not that much, hey?). In just 10 minutes 2,500... in an hour 15,000... there goes the Macedonian infantry, victim of just 1,000 archers... No Peter, bows were not that effective in such battles.

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.

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