Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Greeks always fought outnumbered?
#61
By the way, one could of course question the numbers given by Diodorus, but according to him, from Artaxerxes 400,000 men (this is his account), 15,000 were killed, mainly by the Greeks, while from the 83,000 men of Cyrus only 3,000 were slain, since Cyrus' men are mainly attested to have fled quite quickly, their master having been slain almost as soon as the engagement began.

Thus, according to Diodorus too, there was no chance of any retreat stratagem played on the part of the Persians.

As for Xenophon's account, the Greek perspective is clearly given when the Greeks set up a trophy before returning to their camp. As far as they were concerned they won the battle, Cyrus had lost his life and the campaign with it. And when the emissaries of the King arrive and demand their surrender, they proclaim themselves winners and challenge him to meet them in battle. So, as Paul says, it was a tactical victory for Cyrus, since victory in battle is only defined as conquering the field but a strategical defeat, since the campaign was over and won by Artaxeres. This is no strange thing to happen. Didn't the Americans win all battles at 'Nam and then "lost" the war?
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#62
Quote:... This is no strange thing to happen. Didn't the Americans win all battles at 'Nam and then "lost" the war?

Some wars just cannot be won. At least not by civilised nations. If you are, however, prepared to go down the route of 'total' war (no holds barred) then that is a different matter. Fortunately that hasn't happened too often.

Viet Nam couldn't be won. Afghanistan probably can't. Some issues and opposition are just too entrenched in every sense to really be defeated - short of wiping every living thing off the face of the theatre or war. Total destruction is not an option for decent societies that find themselves involved in difficult conflicts. That is when we remember what it is to be a human being rather than a warring faction on one side or another. That is when we retreat having made some kind of point which rapidly loses its meaning for all concerned.

For example, the British Army has only ever lost one major conflict. And that was what really amounted to a colonial civil war - the American War of Independence. Again, she won most of the battles but lost a couple of key ones. Ultimately, a whole raft of other reasons necessitated the departure from the 13 colonies - not least the huge unpopularity of the war at home. With many British officers (of all ranks) refusing to serve in America and recruitment at an all-time low; without the willingness of mercenary German troops being brought across in sizeable numbers, I seriously doubt the British army would have bothered at all. The King had some extremely crazy and punitive ideas, but most politicians didn't.

Despite the rubbish you may have seen in films like The Patriot, the British army's behaviour in the North American colonial theatre was generally very good. The majority of its supplies came from outside and supply chains were long. The war wasn't really prosecuted with anything like the vigour necessary to subdue the opponent - for fairly obvious reasons.

Some wars just can't be won and some wars don't even really have the full and undiluted determination and effort of the belligerents in the first place. Which is perhaps just as well.
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
#63
Quote:For example, the British Army has only ever lost one major conflict. And that was what really amounted to a colonial civil war - the American War of Independence.
Not wanting to stray into 'Gurkhas' again :oops: but what about the British campaigns in Afghanistan? I'd compare it to Rome's wars with Parthia and Persia over Armenia. Both mountainous terrain, both strategically important. Perhaps the British would have eventually gained a foothold if they'd been there for 200 years? Rome always lost Armenia when the Persians invaded in earnest.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#64
Quote:
Ghostmojo post=306697 Wrote:For example, the British Army has only ever lost one major conflict. And that was what really amounted to a colonial civil war - the American War of Independence.
Not wanting to stray into 'Gurkhas' again :oops: but what about the British campaigns in Afghanistan? I'd compare it to Rome's wars with Parthia and Persia over Armenia. Both mountainous terrain, both strategically important. Perhaps the British would have eventually gained a foothold if they'd been there for 200 years? Rome always lost Armenia when the Persians invaded in earnest.

Not a major conflict though Robert. Less clear and disorganised imperial sideshows. Like the War of 1812.
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
#65
Quote:By the way, one could of course question the numbers given by Diodorus, but according to him, from Artaxerxes 400,000 men (this is his account), 15,000 were killed, mainly by the Greeks,
And thus the account can immediately be dismissed as useless. The only eye witness, Xenophon, is 100% clear that there was no killing by the Greeks at all, because they never engaged.
Reply
#66
Xenophon said that the Greeks pursued the enemy. He never says that there was no killing, which may or may have not been the case. When I am talking of respecting the sources I do not mean (why do I feel obliged to keep repeating that?) blindly accepting them but not that easily proclaiming how "thus the account can immediately be dismissed". Especially when that would mean that you completely trust Xenophon's account who of course could also easily distinguish between what would be 30,000 and 300,000 enemy. The theory you advocate is one that has nothing to do with the sources. Like Hammond's theory of how Alexander surged against the Sacred Band in Chaeroneia at the head of the Companions, it is just an educated guess voiced, a hypothesis and as such it should not be used as "the norm".
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#67
Quote:Xenophon said that the Greeks pursued the enemy. He never says that there was no killing, which may or may have not been the case. When I am talking of respecting the sources I do not mean (why do I feel obliged to keep repeating that?) blindly accepting them but not that easily proclaiming how "thus the account can immediately be dismissed". Especially when that would mean that you completely trust Xenophon's account who of course could also easily distinguish between what would be 30,000 and 300,000 enemy. The theory you advocate is one that has nothing to do with the sources. Like Hammond's theory of how Alexander surged against the Sacred Band in Chaeroneia at the head of the Companions, it is just an educated guess voiced, a hypothesis and as such it should not be used as "the norm".

1. Try catching a man with 200m lead on you, in relatively heavy equipment and trying to maintain a tight formation at the same time.
2. It is easy to confuse 30 thousand with 300 thousand - simply because without reference, a human brain has trouble distinguishing any numbers more than 4. What any human would see would simply be a lot of troops. Unless you start counting them from a properly elevated position you have no idea how large the force is. Even WWII had many mis-estimations, even with aerial reconnaissance. Plus any source is prone to exaggerating enemy numbers, especially if that source was directly involved and defeated.
Reply
#68
If these men are packed and in panic I will certainly be catching a lot... Plus, my peltasts are lighter than their enemies, even if my supporting cavalry does not also for some reason pursue, which is not attested as many details are not in the text. Isn't it more probable that they did pursue as Cyrus was tempted to do? In all, a pursue is a pursue and for some reasons, even without much cavalry, the pursuers slaughtered a good amount of the enemy while any single enemy would move more quickly in the open against any single pursuer who still was fully armed and kept sure to keep a certain (even) loose cohesion. The reason is that crowds of people are not as fast as their single opponents. And keep in mind that the troops posted against the Greeks were no light infantry, they were infantry of the line.

Without saying that Artaxerxes was not there with more than 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000 men, arguments such as that are rarely helpful. You cannot possibly dismiss given numbers because in your opinion it is easy to mix up 30,000 with 300,000 or 900,000 men. Xenophon might be willing to exaggerate for his own reasons, but claiming that we dismiss his numbers not because of some scientific/rational argumentation but because he might be mistaken is not the way. the same applies to how prone sources are to exaggeration "especially when they were defeated", which of course seems to be your own opinion, again totally unsupported by any factual evidence.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#69
Quote:And thus the account can immediately be dismissed as useless. The only eye witness, Xenophon, is 100% clear that there was no killing by the Greeks at all, because they never engaged.

If no men were killed after their phalanx broke, hoplite battles would for the most part be quite bloodless. But we know in fact it was after one side broke that most casualties occurred. I don't know where you are getting a "200m" lead from. The Persians did not break the instant the Greeks advanced, but only "before an arrow reached them", which can mean many distances.

I've consolidated the following comments from the other thread onto this one because we were having parallel discussions:

The single Greek casualty occurred in the first clash. Even though we are told that the Persians broke before an arrow reached the Greeks, a man was wounded by an arrow on the left wing of the Greeks. Thus, either the reference was a euphomism for "about a bowshot away", and not literal, or fighting, including missile attack, contunued after the Persians broke- which is likely.

Quote:
Quote:Their chariotry did not retire well if that was the plan! It would be odd for Tissaphernes to charge through the peltasts if the plan of the persians was to give way. Far more likely is that he charged through the peltasts opposite him as part of the general advance, and then did what so many cavalry forces did- thus he went for the baggage.
Not really, considering he was in command of the infantry as well. What general advance are you speaking of? The imperial forces didn't advance at all, the rebels started off the battle.

Tissaphernes was on the Persian left, opposite the peltasts between the hoplites and the river. He charged through them, Xen 1.10.7:

Quote:For Tissaphernes had not taken to flight in the first encounter, but had charged along the river through the Greek peltasts2; he did not kill anyone in his passage, but the Greeks, after opening a gap for his men, proceeded to deal blows and throw javelins upon them as they went through. The commander of the Greek peltasts was Episthenes of Amphipolis, and it was said that he proved himself a sagacious man. [8] At any rate, after Tissaphernes had thus come off with the worst of it, he did not wheel round again, but went on to the camp of the Greeks and there fell in with the King; so it was that, after forming their lines once more, they were proceeding together. [9]

As for the Persians being particularly "light", Some of them were heavy enough to be "hoplites".

Quote:1.8.9] There were horsemen in white cuirasses on the left wing of the enemy, under the command, it was reported, of Tissaphernes; next to them were troops with wicker shields and, farther on, hoplites with wooden shields which reached to their feet, these latter being Egyptians, people said; and then more horsemen and more bowmen. All these troops were marching in national divisions, each nation in a solid square.

As for a general advance, it is unlikely that the egyptians planned to meet the charge flat footed.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Persians were outnumbered by the army of Alexander Aryaman2 10 3,312 03-20-2006, 12:58 PM
Last Post: Aryaman2

Forum Jump: