Ancient army numbers

[Paralus]

I once wrote I would not go here. I'm a bad boy, bad boy, very bad boy...

Where exactly do you see any melee here that does not have to do with the Companions, oh great interpreter of sources? I think you are quoting Arrian as you see fit instead of reading what he says and trying to match it with what I write. None of the bolded or unbolded quotes says anything that refutes anything I wrote.

Arrian writes that the "Macedonians" assaulted by ile. I woyuld, though, agree he refers to those on the Macedonian side rather than Macedonians. More of Alexander's men fell clearly means the Persians were doing and killing well. Arrian gives a thousand Meacedonian horses as dead. Whilst he syays this is due to wounds and the chase (half belonging to the Hetairoi), that should stand as a warning to accepting that only sixty Hetairoi died.

As well, Coenus, Perdiccas and Hephaestion are wounded. I fully concur with Heckel that Hephaestion is wounded leading the agema of the hypaspists (referred to as somatophylakes by Arrian on several occasions and directly attested here by Diodorus) and the other two are unarguably leading infantry who must, therefore, have attacked. In fact Arrian states this baldly at 3.14.2-3 which is worth quoting in full for a number of reasons:

For a time Alexander himself led his men in column, but when the cavalry, charging the Persians who were trying to surround the Macedonian's right wing, first breached the barbarian phalanx, Alexander wheeled about opposite the gap, arrayed the Companion cavalry and the nearby portion of the phalanx in a wedge formation and led them at full speed and with a war cry at Darius himself. For a breif period the fighting was hand to hand, but when Alexander and his horsemen pressed the enemy hard, shoving the Persians and striking at their faces with spears (xustois), and the Macedonian phalanx, tightly arrayed and bristling with sarisae, was already upon them, Darius, who had long been in a state of dread, now saw terrors all around him; he wheeled about - the first to do so - and fled.

There are a number of points to take from this. We can reject the portrait of a terrified, fleeing Darius as this is contradicted by all other sources (Curtius 4.15.29-31; Diod.17.60.2-3; Plut. Alex.33.4-6)) and represents a tradition in Arrian's sources of portraying Alexander's opposite as a craven coward reliant on massive numbers to achieve anything (see also the Astronomical diaries which clearly describe Darius' army deserting him rather than the reverse).

Arrian clearly claims that Alexander led his army in column. It was, then, not in battle formation. This column began a rightward advance, commencing with Alexander opposite Darius in the centre. When Alexander turns to attack he is opposite the Persian left advance guard where the hetairoi are assailed by the chariots of that left wing advance guard. His right flank guard is occupied with the Persian left flank cavalry. Though Arrian does not describe it, the army must have deployed from column at the moment of, or just prior to, attack unless "his men" only refers to the cavalry 9which makes little sense to me).

Also, Arrian twice refers to the Persian array as a "phalanx". This is an odd term to use of cavalry.

At the moment of attack Alexander assaults with the cavalry and "the nearby portion of the phalanx" which attacks bristling with sarisae. This is clearly a concerted attack by the infantry (along with the cavalry) and we can be sure, given the wounded Perdiccas and Coenus, that their taxeis were involved. I cannot see this as a "skirmish" and, given the break in the line, more of the phalanx was likely involved. Peter has misinterpreted the action to the left. The break was not made by the Persians, rather it was made by Alexander's attack. Here the phalanx advances and Simmias, pinned by the Persian counter charge on the Macedonian left, is unable to follow.

Lastly the tradition in Arrian that Alexander drove for Darius and then chased him is likely wrong. Plutarch, for once, preserves a pertinentpiece of battle description when (at Alex 33.3) he describes "Alexander driving the conquered foe towards the centre of their array, where Dareius was". If the Macedonians advanced at hear a 45 degree angle, this is precisely what Alexander will have done: from just right of the Persian left (point of impact) to the centre.

I think it is clearly described by Arrian. Skirmish does not mean psiloi hurling some stones or javelins. A skirmish is a combat action in which one or both parts do not come in hand to hand combat but use missiles whether in dense or dispersed formations. This has nothing to do with any "Alexandro-centric" description but with good sense on the part of Darius. His infantry was no match for the Macedonians and he very well knew that. This is why he chose not to engage with it but keep it out of harm's way. I am amazed Michael, that you understand so little about such tactics. Fighting with only one wing (which is anyways not the case here, I sincerely think you should have understood that) was a very valid and not unusual option for any general.

I well understand fighting in loxe taxis (Paraetecene and Gaza for example). In fact that is exactly how Diodorus describes Alexander's line here (17.57.6) I also well understand what a skirmish is. But, your assertion that this battle is a skirmish is contradicted by Arrian and Diodorus (17.59.1-4) based on your own definition. Arrian clearly describes the battle - after the phalanx engages - as hand to hand.

On the notion of "light" and "heavy" cavalry (or shock and skirmishing), you are correct. The terminology is not, of necessity, related to arms and armour. it is a matter of the tactical use of cavalry. Those employed in "wheeling action" (Antigonus left at Paraetecene for example) are being utilised as "light" cavalry. Those under Demetrius, Ptolemy and Seleucus (xystophoroi) at Gaza are being utilised as "heavy" cavalry.

I am very aware of the Badianic comments on Arrian and I choose to not accept them. It is always easy to explain what one does not understand or agree with with unbased attacks against the source's credibility. In my opinion, Badian has anyways only limited understanding of both the ancient Greek language and ancient military tactics being more of a more broad historian as displayed by these ludicrous comments of his, as if the term somatophylacae should only have one meaning or as if Arrian ever says that the archers he used alongside the cavalry at Hydaspes was some kind of super-weapon that would crush the Indians...

I do not think that Badian's understanding of the ancient Greek was "limited". I believe that to be unfounded criticism. The point he is making is that Arrian is not the military historian that modern writers would have you believe. Arrian's Anabasis Alexandrou should not be read as a technical treatise for it does not use terms in a technical fashion. If it did we would have to assume that the Macedonian infantry were "hoplites". What Badian is saying is that if Arian were the expert military historian many would make out then he would utilise technical nom encalture consistently. Instead we have the agema of the hypaspists called somatophylakes, hetairoi, hypaspistae basilikoi to name a few.

Badian is not claiming that the archers are any super weapon. He is saying that Arrian does not realise what he has written, that is that Alexander seriously though to defeat the entire Indian army with cavalry and archers (5.14.1-2):

[Alexander] took only his horse-soldiers, who were 5,000 in number, and led them forward with speed. He also instructed Tauron, the comnunder of the archers, to lead them on also with speed to back up the cavalry. He had come to the conclusion that if Porus should engage him with all his forces, he would easily be able to overcome him by attacking with his cavalry

Also that he can't have the horse archers in two places at once (6.5.5;6.6.1)

Alexander then transported the elephants, the brigade of Polysperchon, the horse-archers, and Philip with his army, across the river Hydaspes, and instructed Craterus to lead them. He sent Nearchus with the fleet with orders to set sail three days before the army started [...] HE then took the shield-bearing guards, the bowmen, the Agrianians, Peithon’s brigade of men, from those who were called foot Companions, all the horse bowmen and half the cavalry Companions...

No writer is free of error (and, yes, I have Bosworth's paper) and Badian's point is that Arrian is not the military historian that modern commentators hold him to be. Arrian likely did not set out to write a technical treatise on Alexander's campaign and so it should not be read as such (unlike his Tactica).

I agree with the comments on Polybius (re Callisthenes). It is a pity that this work has not survived. A full description of of those evolutions would be nice.