07-12-2012, 12:03 AM
By the way - did the Persian army still use decimal organization system at the times of the Alexander's invasion? If yes, then they should divide into units of 1000 and bigger units of 10,000 (and of course units smaller than 1000 - 100 and 10 - but we don't have to take these into consideration here). The fact that those of the "formations" of the Persian army at Gaugamela listed above, for which numbers were given either by Arrian or by Curtius Rufus, usually number 1000 (or can be divided by a factor of 1000 - for example 8000 Bactrian cavalry), it seems that this organization was still in effect. And 40,000 cavalry in total at Gaugamela indicates that there were 4 units of 10,000 and 40 units of 1,000 - probably 20,000 cavalry on each wing of the Persian army (Curtius and Arrian give much more detailed numbers for the Persian left wing cavalry force than for the right wing force - and from the size of those numbers on Persian left wing it seems like they had a dozen or so thousands cavalry there - but a few cavalry units are listed without info what was their strength - so I guess it is possible that the total cavalry force on the left wing numbered 20,000 - or at least that "paper strength" of that force was supposed to be 20,000, while of all Persian cavalry in the battle - between 40,000 and 45,000 - even if the actual number of soldiers was lower than "paper strength", which is very likely).
But 94 thousand troops require further +/- 94 thousand non-combatants.
This is the usual proportion (1 non-combatant per each 1 soldier).
Which gives us 200,000 - a figure already close to that of Curtius Rufus.
Of course the Macedonian army also had non-combatants - in adittion to its 47,000 actual soldiers. The Ancient historians most likely distorted the proportion by counting only actual soldiers on the Greek side, while all men on the Persian side. Of course this still doesn't explain where did Arrian take his figure of 1,000,000 Persian infantry at Gaugamela - perhaps he multiplied 100,000 (infantry soldiers - without non-combatants) by a factor of 10, or 200,000 (soldiers + servants) by a factor of 5.
But again - these are also speculations.
Quote:Even the highest modern estimates don't go over 94 thousand troops at Gaugamela, and that's based on speculation rather than hsrd logistics.
But 94 thousand troops require further +/- 94 thousand non-combatants.
This is the usual proportion (1 non-combatant per each 1 soldier).
Which gives us 200,000 - a figure already close to that of Curtius Rufus.
Of course the Macedonian army also had non-combatants - in adittion to its 47,000 actual soldiers. The Ancient historians most likely distorted the proportion by counting only actual soldiers on the Greek side, while all men on the Persian side. Of course this still doesn't explain where did Arrian take his figure of 1,000,000 Persian infantry at Gaugamela - perhaps he multiplied 100,000 (infantry soldiers - without non-combatants) by a factor of 10, or 200,000 (soldiers + servants) by a factor of 5.
But again - these are also speculations.
