Ancient army numbers

[Tomenable]

Nope.. yet I agree.. Persian casualties during the battle itself would have been low too. It is during the hours after they broke that all hell broke...

This would require them being chased - if nobody was chasing them (or very few men were chasing them) - then they could not suffer heavy losses also after the battle.

And who would chase them? Phalanx? Surely not. If the number of those who chase is much smaller than the number of those who run away, it is also not possible for those few who chase to kill / capture large part of those running away. So Persian casualties must have been relatively small too, if your point of view on what happened at Gaugamela is correct.

Yep... what is this describing? Can it be that it is talking about the action in the Greek camp, when the unruly "Persians" were caught pants down, carrying off loot and slaves?

It is describing also how prior to attacking the Macedonian camp, those Persians attacked and broke through the double phalanx (I guess by double he means the Macedonian phalanx in front and the mercenary Greek phalanx behind in reserve)...

A clear indication of very ferocious fight taking place...

It is not easy to break through phalanx formation in a frontal attack - only several other examples are known from Ancient sources. And one of them at Gaugamela - which according to you was a "skirmish" after which Persian army ran away, rather than a battle... :roll:

Whatever your approach, this is what all accounts suggest.

And even the earliest of these accounts has been written many generations after the battle... :roll:

It is your disagreement that should be explained, not my agreement with them.

You sound like you don't know that 99% of modern scholars also disagree - just like me.

We have actually very few reliable medieval reports,

Certainly more than Ancient. As well as more contemporary sources in general.

even the Byzantines were unfortunately not as meticulous as the ancients in that department.

This must be just your "wishful" opinion.

And actually why you write "even the Byzantines" - why should the Byzantines be more meticulous than others? I start thinking that you are just a Greek nationalist, to be honest... :roll: :-|

Reliable accounts arise later, in the pike and musket period.

Actually in the "pike and musket" period of 16th - 17th century most of battlefield casualties were still inflicted and suffered in hand-to-hand combat, rather than by gunpowder.

Musket fire had relatively low efficiency - visual effect of a musket volley was much bigger than real impact on enemy forces. And all sources confirm this.

In no place did the Persians break the enemy, there was a gap that is reported to have formed but that was not a break per se.

Nope - Arrian clearly writes that a gap emerged as the result of Persians breaking enemy line...

Arrian - who is such an undisputed authority for you - clearly writes about the Macedonian line being broken - and only as the result of phalanx being broken, that gap emerged in the Macedonian line. It did not emerge "by itself", but as the result of Persians "chopping" their way through phalangites.

So it seems that you accept that what Arrian writes is true only when it fits to your view. On the other hand, when Arrian writes something which doesn't fit to your view, you ignore it... :roll:

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

Where exactly is such a thing said about Mardian bows? Can it be that you mistake them for the Carduchians? Or the Scythian bows used against Crassus?

Both Mardians and the Carduchians used these bows.

By the way - both of these formations fought at Gaugamela.

Xen., Anab., IV, 2, 28; IV, 1, 18

Anyways, archery, especially when from horseback was never especially effective as to cause deaths.

Tell this to the Mongols or to the Parthians... Or to their enemies.

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

Not in a single action. A series of actions that was in fact the whole melee action of the battle.

I have no idea how you could draw such a conclusion / interpret in such a way a fragment which clearly says that those 60 killed died in just one small part of the battlefield and in just one engagement or even one fight (as clearly the words "here fell 60" - emphasis on "here" - suggest):

"(...) 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. (...)"

:?

You are probably counting among the dead those that died from their wounds. What you claim is wrong according to the sources. What is a fact is that a good many of the wounded actually lost their lives from conditions relative to their wounds.

Even if it is counting among the dead those that died from their wounds - then only those who died of wounds during or shortly (up to maybe 1 day) after the battle. Can you tell me what sources do you mean? What sources contradict my claim? Because my claim is based on sources - for example actual casualty reports from the Early Modern Era.

Most of those wounded would have fallen in their blood and would not instantly die. It is not that easy to outright kill a man with an axe, sword or spear.

Of course they would not die instantly but vast majority would die before the end of the battle - some of them being actually trampled either by enemies or friends after falling on the ground wounded. And these guys count as killed - not as wounded.

As wounded count those who survived the battle or perhaps still lived a few days after the battle - since counting casualties takes time...

Once a man of the line was wounded by a stone, an arrow, a dagger, a spear-point etc, he would be dragged or just walked behind unless he was that valorous and hardy that he would just keep on.

He would rather fall on the ground and be trampled by men behind him or by enemies (depends who is pushing forward and who is giving their ground), rather than "be dragged or just walked behind"... :roll: Who would supposedly drag him? - there were no any medical units responsible for evacuation of wounded from the battlefield... When it comes to walking behind on your own:

In a phalanx formation that is densely packed and is 8 to 16 ranks deep a wounded men from the first or second line has no any chance to just "walk behind" - because there are several more ranks of soldiers behind him, and there is simply no space to go behind... :roll:

is in the Macedonian camp, if the few guards left put up resistance.

... "few guards" - :!: :?: :|

What about thousands of Macedonian camp followers :?: :!: :roll:

There is no flight of Greeks.

To break enemy line doesn't require forcing them to fly away - you can just push them back and in the process gradually on both sides (as the result, a gap will emerge) or "chop" your way through them - of course in reality chopping and pushing back and on sides always goes together (as some of them die and some just give their ground).

You also forgot about the Greek mercenary light cavalry being defeated on both flanks (which was the reason why Alexander did not want to use them in his further battles - especially not give them any important tasks to accomplish, like at Gaugamela where they were supposed to protect the flanks together with other cavalry):

http://books.google.pl/books?id=nTmXOFX-...ry&f=false

Apart from the issue of the reliability of these records, the thing is that they were not open to the public. Some historians wrote that they used them, at least what had survived... Do not forget that we have absolutely no first hand account of Alexander's exploits. Ptolemy's and Callisthenes' accounts do not survive...

I am well aware of this. All surviving accounts are much later than the battle.

? Where exactly do we have the Prodromoi hippeis fight? And where is their manner of combat discussed? Nowhere does Arrian use them in battle. At Issus they just stood behind the battle-line making it sure to keep the Persian light infantry on the mountain.

Read:

http://books.google.pl/books?id=nTmXOFX-...ry&f=false



If you want to check references - use the link given above (or buy this book).