Ancient army numbers

[Paralus]

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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":

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.

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.

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...