+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: References & Reviews (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Osprey - Granicus 334 BC (/showthread.php?tid=11218)
Pages:
1
2
Osprey - Granicus 334 BC - Aryaman2 - 12-10-2007
Osprey Campaign 182, Granicus 334 BC, by Michael Thompson (Illustrated by Richard Hook)
I found the book a good reading overall. Unlike other Osprey titles, the author backs every affirmation with references not only to ancient sources, but also to a good selection of works by modern scholars.
The book is divided in the usual chapters in the serie. There is a brief introduction of the raising of Macedonia under Phillippos II as a great power. Then, opposing commanders (besides Alexander, Parmenion and Black Cleitos in the Macedonian side, Memnon in the Persian side). Opposing plans and campaign, with a small discussion on the ancient sources, battle and aftermath to the siege of Halicarnassus.
Points of note.
1)The author dismiss the presence of Persian infantry at all in the battle. The numbers he gives for the Persian army are c.10.000 cavalry and 5.000 Greek mercenary infantry, so that the Persians would be actually outnumbered by the c.18.000 Macedonians.
2) Cavalry from Media, Bactria, and Hyrcania: there is no need
to believe that these were brought to the region specifically to face
Alexander. Rather, they would have been raised locally from colonists
of these regions who had long ago settled in Asia Minor in return for
their services to the Great King in this area
3) The battlefield: The Persians naturally chose to make their stand at the River Granicus as it provided the only defensive advantage in an otherwise flat, featureless plain, that was a good terrain for cavalry.
4) The narrative of the Battle discrads Diodorus and follows Arrian version of an early attack the same day.
5) The battlefield: that the present topography little resembles the accounts of visitors of 30 years ago who describe the river as mostly easily fordable and the banks accessible to cavalry at virtually all points of the battlefield
In all an enjoyable reading with a good level of scholarship.
Re: Osprey - Granicus 334 BC - Sean Manning - 12-10-2007
Hi Aryaman,
Thanks for the review. Two questions: Does he have any rationale for dismissing the Persian infantry? Both Plutarch and Diodorus mention Persian foot who fled, and Arrian is ambiguous and clearly plays up the Greek mercenaries who Alexander massacred. The satraps of western Asia clearly commanded some native infantry. Also, is his reason for following Arrian/Plutarch rather than Diodorus anything interesting?
Granicus book - Paullus Scipio - 12-10-2007
...I'd like to second Sean's questions here, Inaki ! You can see that Arrian is relying on Callisthenes ( Alexander's Goebbels-like propagandist ). I posted a short part of the aftermath on the 'Hellenistic Surrender' thread, and even in those few sentences the 'propaganda' comes through....the Greek mercenaries make their stand..."not indeed, from any deliberate intention of proving their courage, but simply because the suddenness of the disaster had deprived them of their wits."
Diodorus clearly had sources with knowledge of the Persian side, and on the whole, his account makes the best sense......I'm surprised anyone would follow Arrian's account here, since it is mostly propaganda and easily the least reliant of the sources.Does the author give his reason for preferring Arrian's account?
And I take it his numbers for the Persian side are pure guesswork?
BTW, Sean, I think that the 'massacre' is another piece of Callisthenes propaganda.....that thousands of armed Greek Hoplites were "butchered to a man" while fewer than a dozen Makedone Infantry died is simply too incredible for belief ! :roll: .....see Hellenistic surrender thread for what I believe is more likely to have occurred, taking into account all the sources...
Re: Osprey - Granicus 334 BC - Aryaman2 - 12-11-2007
The author says:
The view adopted in this book is that Diodorus' account is confused,
perhaps because he thought that Parmenion's suggestion (he is talking about the suggestion to delay battle until the next day) was actually
accepted by Alexander, and should be disregarded (Badian [1977J,
272-4, Hammond [1980J 74-6, Davis, 40-2).
The references are:
Badian, E., 'The Battle of the Granicus: A New Look' in Ancient Macedonia
Thessaloniki, Institute for Balkan Studies, 2, pp.271-93 (1977)
Hammond, N.G. L., 'The Battle of the Granicus River', in Journal of Hellenic
Studies 100, pp.73-88 (1980)
Davis, E.W., 'The Persian Battle Plan at the Granicus', in The James Sprunt
Studies in History and Political Science, Chapel Hill, NC. 46, pp.34-44 (1964)
Re: Osprey - Granicus 334 BC - Aryaman2 - 12-11-2007
About Persian Infantry he says
Modern historians have often placed Persian or
'native' Asian infantry at the battle and this may be
an attempt to account for the incredibly high
infantry figure given by Diodorus ('100,000',
17.19.5, cf. Justin's [11.6] absurd '600,000'!).
However, there is no need to account for what is
certainly an erroneously high number of 'Persian'
infantry by postulating native infantry in addition
to the Greek mercenaries.
As there is no backing by references to modern sources, it should be the author´s assumption
It is however an idea I like, as I thought of it myself a long time ago, just reading Diodorus (XVII,19) description of the Persian army. About the cavalry he says
they posted their mass of horsemen all along the front of the Macedonians since they had decided to press the battle with these.Memnon of Rhodes and the satrap Arsamenes held the left wing each with his own cavalry; Arsites was stationed next with the horsemen from Paphlagonia; then came Spithrobates satrap of Ionia at the head of the Hyrcanian cavalry. The right wing was held by a thousand Medes and two thousand horse with Rheomithres as well as Bactrians of like number.Other national contingents occupied the centre, numerous and picked for their valour. In all, the cavalry amounted to more than ten thousand.
But about the infantry he only says
The Persian foot soldiers were not fewer than one hundred thousand, but they were posted behind the line and did not advance since the cavalry was thought to be sufficient to crush the Macedonians.
No description of different nations, not a single name of a commander given. The Persian Infantry is like a ghost. It takes no part in the fight and it is only mentioned as numbers and casualties. You can indeed let outside of the narrative the Persian infantry and nothing changes. IMO those Persians, if really existed, could be just the mass of servants and camp followers left behind in the camp.
Re: Osprey - Granicus 334 BC - Gaius Julius Caesar - 12-11-2007
I have the book too, and would not rate it either as beter or worse, than say, the Osprey book on Pharsalus. Both a good narrative of the events and overviews of the battle's!
Re: Osprey - Granicus 334 BC - Sean Manning - 12-11-2007
I strongly disagree there, Aryman. Permit me qo quote me own writing:
Quote: Neglect of the Persian heavy infantry at Issus raises the larger question of Greek bias in the description of Persian military affairs. Greek writers had a natural tendency to emphasize the importance of Greek mercenaries to the Achaemenids.1 Many modern accounts have retained this emphasis. Yet, if we carefully examine accounts of the Battle of the Granicus River, for example, it seems that some of the Persian infantry usually described as Greek mercenaries were easterners. Arrian refers to them as "foreign mercenary infantry" under a Persian officer, and uses this term elsewhere to mean Greeks in Persian service.2 [Arr. 1.16, cp. Arr 2.11] But Plutarch states that after Alexander fought his way across the river "the foot on each side advanced to fight. But the enemy, hardly sustaining the first onset, soon gave ground and fled, all but the mercenary Greeks."3 [Plut. Alexander] This clearly implies that there were some enemy infantry who were not Greeks. Diodorus refers to countless (100,000) Persian infantry4 [Diodorus 17.9.5], never mentions Greeks in Persian service at all, and says that after a short fight the Persian infantry were quick to flee.5 [17.21.5] Pierre Briant has noted that Greek sources tend systematically to exaggerate the importance of Greeks in Persian and Egyptian service for ideological reasons.6
Never underestimate our Greek sources' willingness to ignore or dismiss eastern troops. For example, in the Anabasis Xenophon gives no details of the non-Greek troops in Cyrus' army except one unit of cavalry and Cyrus' bodyguards, and he has Cyrus fret that if Artaxerxes' army outflanks his own they will destroy the Greeks ... but it would be himself and his non-Greek left wing who any flankers would smash first!
I'd personally guess 5,000 to 10,000 Persian cavalry and 8,000-10,000 infantry at the Granicus, about half Greek hoplites and half non-Greek troops.
Paulus, why do you think the massacre comes from Callisthenes? It is odd that Arrian plays it up while the 'vulgate' tradition plays it down, in a reversal of their usual pattern.
Re: Osprey - Granicus 334 BC - Aryaman2 - 12-11-2007
I agree that Greek sources tend to dismiss Eastern troops, but the usual way they do that is by exagerating their numbers, not by ignoring them, the topos of the Greek heroes fighting limitless hordes of barbarians.
As for the particular case of Granicus, how do you explain the detailed description of the Persian cavalry in Diodorus in contrast with the infantry? why was only Persian infantry ignored and not Persian cavalry?
Re: Osprey - Granicus 334 BC - Gaius Julius Caesar - 12-11-2007
Because the aristocratic ideals were the calvery?
They were perhaps more interested in their 'peers' rather then the army of 'serfs'?
Perhaps not a shining indictment of my ancesters, but a possiblity!
The persian infantry would have been considered 'cannon fodder' by the writers of the victorius side, not worth of the same billing of the great phalanx's of Alexander and his superior companion calvery?
Just some shots in the dark.... :wink:
Re: Osprey - Granicus 334 BC - Sean Manning - 12-12-2007
Quote:I agree that Greek sources tend to dismiss Eastern troops, but the usual way they do that is by exagerating their numbers, not by ignoring them, the topos of the Greek heroes fighting limitless hordes of barbarians.As our (biased) sources clearly state, the battle with the Persian infantry was very short and easily won (whereas the cavalry fight was longer and harder and involved Alexander himself). Naturally it got less attention, especially since it was followed by the defeat of the Greek mercenaries and Alexander's harsh punishment for them. Moreover, most Greeks accepted that barbarian cavalry could be dangerous, so they were willing to hear about barbarian cavalry fighting hard.
As for the particular case of Granicus, how do you explain the detailed description of the Persian cavalry in Diodorus in contrast with the infantry? why was only Persian infantry ignored and not Persian cavalry?
Greek historians often both inflate barbarian numbers by a factor of 10 or more and ignore or play down barbarian infantry in battle. This heightened the "heroic Greeks easily beating swarms of cowardly/stupid barbarians" theme.
Re: Osprey - Granicus 334 BC - Aryaman2 - 12-13-2007
Quote:As our (biased) sources clearly state, the battle with the Persian infantry was very short and easily won (whereas the cavalry fight was longer and harder and involved Alexander himself). Naturally it got less attention, especially since it was followed by the defeat of the Greek mercenaries and Alexander's harsh punishment for them. Moreover, most Greeks accepted that barbarian cavalry could be dangerous, so they were willing to hear about barbarian cavalry fighting hard.Ok, it is a reasonable explanation. I would add that Diodorus gives as commander of the mercenaries one Omares, while Memnon was commanding his own cavalry detachment (Greek, maybe a Persian personal retinue?). It would make more sense to have a Persian commanding the infantry if some Persian infantry was present. I wonder, why do you think the Persian Infantry could number 5.000? and what type of infantry would be it? I guess it would be Eastern mercenaries in Persian service rather than real Persians?
Granicus 334 B.C. - Paullus Scipio - 12-15-2007
Sean wrote:-
Quote:Paulus, why do you think the massacre comes from Callisthenes? It is odd that Arrian plays it up while the 'vulgate' tradition plays it down, in a reversal of their usual pattern.That's a very complex question to answer ! Not least because there are a lot of gaps, contradictory information and hence guesswork.There are also a number of preliminary questions.......
Quote:I'd personally guess 5,000 to 10,000 Persian cavalry and 8,000-10,000 infantry at the Granicus, about half Greek hoplites and half non-Greek troops.......so let's begin with numbers. I shall ignore for the purposes of this post, the Macedonian numbers - though they are worthy of discussion in themselves.
For the Persians:-
Arrian says'about' 20,000 horse and 'nearly the same numbers of foreign mercenaries fighting on foot' (1.14.4)
Justingives the impossible total of 600,000...
hock: ...'nuff said!Diodorus gives 10,000 horse and an incredible 100,000 infantry (17.19.5)
Leaving aside the impossibility of raising and feeding such numbers in the time available, or the intrinsic impossibility of ancient armies of such a size, Arrian tells us (at 1.13.3) that “the enemy (Persian) infantry is heavily outnumbered by oursâ€
Granicus - Macedonian numbers - Paullus Scipio - 12-15-2007
Inaki wrote:-
Quote:1)The author dismiss the presence of Persian infantry at all in the battle. The numbers he gives for the Persian army are c.10.000 cavalry and 5.000 Greek mercenary infantry, so that the Persians would be actually outnumbered by the c.18.000 Macedonians....went back to try and see why the author dismissed Persian Infantry, and did a double take at this little gem !
Plutarch ( life of Alexander15, and Moralia327D) records ancient estimates of Alexander's force that crossed into Asia varied from 30-43,000 foot and 4-5,500 Horse (Aristobulus,Ptolemy and Anaximenes).Justin has 32,000 Foot and 4,500 Horse;Polybius mentions that Callisthenes recorded 40,000 Foot and 4,500 Horse; Diodorus ( the only source to give a breakdown ) has 32,000 Foot and 5,100 Horse.
Long ago Brunt, and others since, have argued convincingly that the discrepancies disappear if we appreciate that some are including Philip's advance force and others are not. (Arrian and Diodorus are careful to say their figures are before crossing the Hellespont.) Polyainos records Parmenio and Attalus as having over 10,000 men when attacked by Memnon.Diodorus(17.7.10) and Polyainos (5.44.5) record another Macedonian force under Kalas..... Without going further into breakdowns, it is clear that Alexander's army was WAY larger than 18,000......and no way was an army of 10,000 horse and just 5,000 Infantry going to offer battle to it.
hock: :roll: So where does "18,000" come from? :? ?
Re: Osprey - Granicus 334 BC - Sean Manning - 12-15-2007
Hi Aryaman,
Its exam season so I'm trying to cut back on my forum participation. I'm also about half dead with stress and overwork after a very hard term, so this may be a bit rough. I know I've been less courteous than usual lately.
Quote:Ok, it is a reasonable explanation. I would add that Diodorus gives as commander of the mercenaries one Omares, while Memnon was commanding his own cavalry detachment (Greek, maybe a Persian personal retinue?). It would make more sense to have a Persian commanding the infantry if some Persian infantry was present. I wonder, why do you think the Persian Infantry could number 5.000? and what type of infantry would be it? I guess it would be Eastern mercenaries in Persian service rather than real Persians?
Its basically a complete guess. More than 10,000 infantry doesn't seem reasonably for a hastily raised force which (in Arrian/Plutarch) defended a riverbank with cavalry and definitely put its infantry in reserve. On the other hand, I'd be surprised if any Achaemenid army had less infantry than cavalry, and the satraps were willing to face Alexander so must have had a substantial force. Since 2,000 Greek mercenaries survived the alleged massacre, I doubt there were more than 4,000 or 5,000 in the beginning (if Paullus is right that number goes down even further). So that leaves about 5,000 non-Greek troops, or a few thousand more if there were only 2,000 or so Greeks. The non-Greek troops would probably be a mix of locals (Carians/Lydians/Phrygians/...), military colonists, and non-Greek mercenaries, and would probably be a mix of javelin-men, slingers, archers, and light spearmen. (Some satraps kept their own regiment of Spearbearers, and just possibly some of those were of Persian descent). Maybe the infantry were supposed to provide a rallying point for their cavalry, but that clearly failed.
Paulus, your post is fascinating and I'll re-read it properly after the last exam on the 21st. Parenthecally, I wish we knew who Diodorus/Curtius' source (sources?) on the Persian side for events up to Issus was (were?).
I think someone suggested that Alexander fought the Granicus with a medium-sized advanced force based on the Macedonian units mentioned in the battle. But if the author doesn't explain and defend that he is sloppy. If Alexander did have his whole army at the Granicus I might increase my guesses for troops on the Persian side to say 10,000 horse and 10-15,000 foot.
Granicus 334 B.C. - Paullus Scipio - 12-15-2007
Sean wrote:-
Quote:More than 10,000 infantry doesn't seem reasonably for a hastily raised force...'hastily raised' must be thought of in relative terms.Philip had sent his advance force into Asia in 336. In the Autumn of 335 Alexander recalled Parmenio to prepare the Main Force, who crossed the Dardanelles in the Spring of 334.......so two years warning then, in fact more because Memnon had been an exile at Philip's court earlier and knew of his intentions. Having said that though, Darius seems to have been lulled into a false sense of security by Memnon's successes ( though crucially the Macedonians retained their bridgehead at Abydos) and Parmenio's recall.....he did not mobilise his fleet for example, or appoint a commander-in-chief until after Granicus ( when he appointed Memnon). Arsites army contained troops from as far away as Cappadocia, and it does not seem unreasonable, indeed easy, for Arsites to raise 10-20,000 Infantry from Phrygia alone.( Indeed, for Memnon to succeed against Parmenio's 10-12,000 advance force, Memnon must have had a Persian force as well as his 5,000 Greek Mercenaries - so the core of Arsites army was already raised). Incidently, if this core force of the 5,000 Greeks plus, say, 5-7000 (a guess) Persian Cavalry and light infantry had such great success against the Macedonian Advance force, this will have given Arsites and his men confidence when the stakes were raised, and the armies quadrupled in size......
Quote:On the other hand, I'd be surprised if any Achaemenid army had less infantry than cavalry, and the satraps were willing to face Alexander so must have had a substantial force.....I certainly agree with this !
Quote:Since 2,000 Greek mercenaries survived the alleged massacreArrian doesn't say this, but rather that All the Greek mercenaries were killed ( 'butchered to a man'). He then immediately says there were 2,000 prisoners taken, while speaking of Persian losses, so may mean 'overall' prisoners, none of whom can be Greek because he has just told us they are all dead. A pragraph or two later, however, he speaks of 'Greek prisoners he sent in chains to hard labour in Macedonia' ( without specifying a number)
Later still, Arrian contradicts himself again about the massacre. When Alexander is at Gordium he is visited by an Athenian delegation(1.29.5-6) who ask for the release of Athenian prisoners taken at Granicus, who are there together "with the other ( non-Athenian) 2,000 prisoners".....so now we have many more than 2,000 Greeks taken at Granicus.
Another 'straw in the wind' as a clue, is that as well as giving proper rites of burial to to the dead Persian commanders, he did the same for for the Greek mercenary dead.......hardly likely if there were thousands of them ( a mass grave would be their best hope), but plausible if there were at most a few hundred Greek dead.
Reading past the propaganda then, of the massacre'to a man', we have the mercenary force at 5,000 or perhaps more (I'd plump for 5,000), of whom probably only a few hundred are killed ( Possibly 300, if the panoplia of those killed are what is sent to Athens - the armour captured from prisoners would be useful, but perhaps the armour of the dead would be considered 'unlucky' - who would wear a dead man's armour?). These Greek dead are given honourable burial, and many more than 2,000 prisoners are sent to Macedonia in chains, of whom ultimately the Athenians are released (in 331 B.C. when Alexander is in Egypt -Arrian 3.6 ) Any discrepancy in numbers will be those who fled/escaped.