Ancient army numbers

[Tomenable]

So Arrian, 3.15.6. That's exceptional killing for a modern industrial army let alone a force of some 47,000 Greco-Macedonians; killing at a rate on 300 to one. It's also palpable nonsense.

Of course, but Arrian actually self-proves that his number (100 dead) is wrong, as he contradicts himself regarding casualties. In one place he states that Macedonian losses in entire battle were only 100 men killed, while in another place he writes that just in one engagement, in the very final phase of the battle, just one unit - Companion cavalry under personal command of Alexander - lost 60 killed and numerous wounded (and after that engagement it was again involved in further combats):

(...) 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. At this juncture, the Macedonians being at first in a state of confusion from being attacked on all sides, Parmenio sent a messenger to Alexander in haste, to tell him that their side was in a critical position and that he must send him aid. When this news was brought to Alexander, he turned back again from further pursuit, and wheeling round with the Companion cavalry, led them with great speed against the right wing of the foreigners. In the first place he assaulted the fleeing cavalry of the enemy, the Parthians, some of the Indians, and the most numerous and the bravest division of the Persians. Then ensued the most obstinately contested cavalry fight in the whole engagement. For being drawn up by squadrons, the foreigners wheeled round in deep columns, and falling on Alexander's men face to face, they no longer relied on the hurling of javelins or the dexterous deploying of horses, as is the common practice in cavalry battles, but every one of his own account strove eagerly to break through what stood in his way, as their only means of safety. They struck and were struck without quarter, as they were no longer struggling to secure the victory for another, but were contending for their own personal safety. Here about sixty of Alexander's Companions fell; and Hephaestion himself, as well as Coenus and Menidas, was wounded. But these troops also were overcome by Alexander; and as many of them as could forced their way through his ranks and fled with all their might. And now Alexander had nearly come into conflict with the enemy's right wing; but in the meantime the Thessalian cavalry in a splendid struggle, were not falling short of Alexander's suc cess in the engagement. For the foreigners on the right wing were already beginning to fly when he came on the scene of conflict; so that he wheeled round again and started off in pursuit of Darius once more, keeping up the chase as long as there was daylight. Parmenio's brigade also followed in pursuit of those who were opposed to them. (...)

And of course of the wounded surely many died of their wounds after the battle - especially considering how "advanced" was medicine at that time (even in WW2 many soldiers were later dying of their wounds - sometimes days, sometimes months after being wounded).

=================================================

It seems that this practice to give both propaganda and actual numbers in one account was not so uncommon in the past (of course in this case Arrian gave actual numbers for just one engagement and one unit - Alexander's Companions).

We can track this down using example from a battle (in this case Medieval) for which actual casualties are known from a rather reliable source - account of a bishop who was responsible for burial of the dead after the battle. It was the battle of Plowce in year 1331 between Teutonic Order and Poland. Polish bishop who buried the dead of both sides (except some 73 - 80 bodies of the fallen Brother Knights of the Order - who were taken from the battlefield when the Order's army marched away - so they could not be included in this count) wrote about 4187 bodies buried after the battle - he didn't say how many of them Poles, how many Teutonic men (but historians generally assume that Teutons suffered higher losses, especially in the first phase of the battle when their rear guard was ambushed and almost completely destroyed they must have lost a lot of men).

Some of those 4187 could also be peasants from neighbouring villages who died as "collateral damage".

Anyway - another Polish source - Rocznik Traski chronicle - claims that Teutonic losses were 20,000 dead (twenty thousand!). But in another place, the same source contradicts itself, mentioning the number of dead "knights", "heavily armed troops" and "auxiliaries" on the Teutonic side - the sum of these 3 groups is 2000, which is very close to the real scale of Teutonic losses (probably in fact they lost rather 2200 or more dead - anyway, clearly a number which can be rounded to 2000).

So it seems that Arrian does the same thing - in one place he gives a clearly propagandistic number of allegedly just 100 Macedonians dead (while in fact he probably had no freaking idea how many died in reality), in another place he provided a figure of 60 dead (and clearly many wounded - including Coenus and Menidas) in just one clash (relatively "minor" compared to the scale of entire battle) and of just one unit (Alexander's Companions) who took part in that engagement (while maybe other Macedonian units also participated in that clash against that Persian cavalry).

Or instead of "propagandistic", maybe I should rather say "symbolic". Arrian's overall casualty numbers are "symbolic" - they are intended to show the disproportion between Macedonian and Persian casualties. Instead of giving these numbers, he could have as well just written "very heavy" and "relatively small" - but probably he wanted to be perceived as more competent / more credible, so instead of admitting that he simply doesn't know the detailed numbers, he did what he did.

In Rocznik Traski 20,000 is also "symbolic" - a symbol of a battle which stopped the Teutonic onslaught and their invasion was halted there - exactly due to huge losses (but of course not 20 thousand - their army was much smaller than 20,000, so they couldn't lose more than they had).

The number of dead Persians according to Arrian is also like that "20,000" from Rocznik Traski.

======================================

But when it comes to army strength figures:

Regarding the probable origins of those very high numbers, I wrote something here:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?fu...673#316129