Ancient army numbers

[Tomenable]

As far as I am concerned, Arrian says 100, Diodorus says 500, Curtius I simply do not like...

Wow - now you showed us how "objective" is your approach. :roll:

"I simply don't like"... Well, that's a very wrong approach to a source.

Especially such a detailed and full of useful info source as Curtius.

His account is actually more detailed than that of Diodorus.

You can't just ignore Curtius' account.

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

Regarding that episode of breaking through the Macedonian phalanx at Gaugamela:

I will quote my conversation about that episdoe from another forum:

-----------------------------

I wrote:

Rode between the gaps in formations, created by mounted manouver elemnets was exactly what Alexander cav did in many of its engagements

The primary source - Arrian - writes that the gap in formation was first chopped / cut by Persians.

Let me quote it again:

"(...) the left wing of the Macedonians was reported to be hard pressed. In this part of the field, their line being broken, some of the Indians and of the Persian cavalry burst through the gap towards the baggage of the Macedonians; and there the action became desperate. For the Persians fell boldly on the men, who were most of them unarmed, and never expected that any men would cut through the double phalanx and break through upon them. (...)"

So Arrian clearly writes that:

1) The Persians broke the Macedonian line of phalangites in a ferocious attack ("hard pressed")
2) They also broke the line of Greek hoplites deployed in reserve behind those phalangites (see below)
2) Then the Persians burst through the gap that they themselves chopped / cut before
3) Then they attacked the Macedonian baggage train which was left behind their lines
4) Those who guarded the baggage were surprised as they never expected that the Persians would cut through the double phalanx (Macedonian phalanx and phalanx of Greek mercenary hoplites deployed behind)

This is the only valid interpretation - suggesting that the gap in Macedonian lines "emerged by itself" instead of being cut by attacking Persian soldiers is simply ignoring what Arrian wrote in his account of the battle.

Instead, Arrian at least twice confirms that the gap was created by Persian soldiers cutting through Macedonian lines, rather than "appeared" when Macedonian units "became detached" - 1st time when he writes that Macedonian line was broken under hard pressure of the enemy (I presume the same enemy who, as the result of breaking it, burst through it and attacked the Macedonian baggage behind it) and 2nd time when he explicitly writes that those who guarded the baggage did not expect that the Persians would cut through the double phalanx.

You abused the primary text that only states persian cav moved between the fragemented Macedonian Lines

I abused it? It is you who abused it - and those historians who claim that Arrian doesn't write about Macedonian line being broken by Persian attack, and instead try to claim that the gap emerged there "by itself".

Arrian doesn't say this. He clearly writes that the formation was broken by Persian soldiers (whether it was cavalry alone or cavalry + infantry is the only controversy here - as those "Indians" mentioned by Arrian could be infantry soldiers, since sources apart from Indian cavalry mention also Indian hillmen in this battle).

Falsfing history to augemnt your flawed posistion is not the way to go.

Who is falsyfing history here? Certainly not me.

You should read Arrian's text again and try the proper art of interpretation of what you read.

Not what Arrian was explaining to have happened.Page 169 you quoted, 2nd Para starts with: But the formation under Simmias was unable to link up with Alexander to join the pursuit, was fourced to stand its ground and continue the struggle on the spot, a report comming in that the Macedonian left was in trouble.At this point the Macedonian line was broken, and some of the Indian and Persian cavalry burst through the gap and penetrated right through to the rear where the pack animals were.

This is not what Arrian wrote. Arrian is a primary source. Your book is not.

What you quote now - "page 169" of some website - is from a book - from a secondary source.

Apparently a book written by somehow who decided not to believe in primary Ancient sources and decided to invent his own version of what happened. But this is pure "fantasy" of the author of this book. While Arrian clearly writes that Persians attacked and broke the Macedonian line - not that "formations were unable to link".

Show me a primary source which supports the "formation was unable to link" theory, please.

not least beacase they were two deep here

You don't think they were two deep there, do you? No phalanx was ever being deployed in such a thin line by their commanders. What Arrian writes is "double" phalanx - not "two deep" phalanx.

I.e. there was Macedonian phalanx and that of Greek mercenary hoplites behind.