07-13-2012, 10:20 AM
There is no reason at all for Arrian to "propagandize". He was a Roman general/governor of Greek nationality living in a world 5 centuries after Alexander's exploits. Arrian reported the numbers of his sources, numbers that his considerable experience made him view as realistic. Ancient battles and especially those fought with the spear or pike by armored soldiers, very seldom meant high death rates for the winner. Casualties in general is another thing and usually the wounded were many times more than the dead.Some would eventually die, some would be saved by the doctors that followed the train. There is absolutely no rule that says that when you are facing x enemies you have to sustain x/y deaths and in order to push an argument that Alexander could not have suffered that few casualties one has to just throw the whole Greek historiography out of the window. An Arrian that would wish to hide Alexander's shortcomings or casualties would not have him fail at Gedrosia, sustain disproportionately higher casualties at Hydaspes etc. As far as Arrian is concerned, this is what he believed to be the truth, this is what the sources that he himself trusted in wrote. One can always prefer to believe Diodorus who reports 500 dead at the battle for Alexander. As for the "symbolic" part I totally disagree. There were reports at hand, however trustworthy and these were quoted by the Greek historians. There was nothing "symbolic". Whenever they wanted to say "a few" or "a lot" they would write so. Many times they (Arrian too) would not give numbers, other times, they would criticize them as improbable, impossible, conflicting etc. If by symbolic you mean "plainly wrong" then yes, reports historians got and still get often were and are wrong, so he of course could be wrong. The thing is that he did not think he was wrong, which to me is most important.
It is wrong to take for granted that Arrian or anyone else deliberately hid a truth which was known to him. It is as wrong as always accepting the lowest numbers of troops present and the highest of casualties as more realistic. To me, there are as many chances for Diodorus to be correct as are for Arrian. It could also be that none is.
As for the casualties reported for the Companions, you are making a mistake that I see very often. You think that whatever casualties they sustained have to be but a small part of the total because they numbered but a small part of the total. This is not so. The battle of Gaugamela was more of a skirmish than a battle. There was absolutely no infantry clash and only the Companions actually engaged in any kind of melee as long as the battle was undecided. The Persian and Greek cavalry did not charge into each other as Arrian (and not only him) very clearly describes. They fought like horsemen normally fought at the time, that is attack in squadrons, hurl their javelins and then retreat as other squadrons did the same. Of all the cavalry present only the Companions would according to plan and training engage in melee, since they were the only "spear-bearing" (doratophoroi) horsemen present. Even the heaviest of the Persians were mounted javelineers at the time. As that, there was little fight at Gaugamela anyways, so low casualties (whatever one calls low) on the part of the Greeks, to me, should not be surprising.
It is wrong to take for granted that Arrian or anyone else deliberately hid a truth which was known to him. It is as wrong as always accepting the lowest numbers of troops present and the highest of casualties as more realistic. To me, there are as many chances for Diodorus to be correct as are for Arrian. It could also be that none is.
As for the casualties reported for the Companions, you are making a mistake that I see very often. You think that whatever casualties they sustained have to be but a small part of the total because they numbered but a small part of the total. This is not so. The battle of Gaugamela was more of a skirmish than a battle. There was absolutely no infantry clash and only the Companions actually engaged in any kind of melee as long as the battle was undecided. The Persian and Greek cavalry did not charge into each other as Arrian (and not only him) very clearly describes. They fought like horsemen normally fought at the time, that is attack in squadrons, hurl their javelins and then retreat as other squadrons did the same. Of all the cavalry present only the Companions would according to plan and training engage in melee, since they were the only "spear-bearing" (doratophoroi) horsemen present. Even the heaviest of the Persians were mounted javelineers at the time. As that, there was little fight at Gaugamela anyways, so low casualties (whatever one calls low) on the part of the Greeks, to me, should not be surprising.
