Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Battle of Gaugamela

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599
  Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Battle of Gaugamela
    Posted: 31-Mar-2008 at 02:56
Originally posted by Justinian

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

Originally posted by Justinian

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

1 out of every 5 people were from the Persian Empire. 1 million men is incorrect. There were 100,000 at most, though I myself think the Persian army was around 50,000-70,000.
Perhaps I simply missed it, not tracking well today, but what do you mean 1 in 5 people?
 
The Persian Empire covered nearly 3 million square miles and contained about 20 million people. With the estimated popualtion in 500 B.C of only about 100 million, the Persian Empire held perhaps one-fifth of the people on the planet. Most of the people within the Persian Empire were working citizens. The army would only be a small portion of the population. To have an army assembled of 1 million warriors at one location, simply does not make sense.
Ah, okay.  Thats what I thought, thanks for putting up with my dumb questions.Wink 
 
I think anyone that reads about the battle/Alexanders campaigns etc. would agree there was no way Darius had 1 million men in the field.  Concievably the persians could have had that number of potential soldiers to call up, (2 million if one uses the guide of 10% of their total population as a maximum using the total population figure you provided; which is the most common strategy I've come across) but again there is a difference between the amount of soldiers a state can potentially call up and the number it can support.  This often comes up in Punic war discussion and roman manpower. 
 
The population of the Persian Empire in 500 B.C was 20 million. By the time Alexander arrived at Guagamela, he already had a large portion of what used to be the Achaemenid Persian Empire under his control. Darius obviously could not obtain troops from these regions.
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599
  Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 01:17
I always found that weird to say the least. I agree.
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 23:15
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

Originally posted by Penelope

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

Using your estimates as a base, I have calculated how much of a difference 1,000 men can affect two battles between 30,000 Macedonians and 100,000 Persians and 31,000 Macedonians and 100,000 Persians. If there are 30,000 men, 1 Macedonian would have to kill 3.333 Persian men. If there are 31,000 Macedonians, each man would need to bring death upon 3.226 enemies. This is quite a large difference considering the circumstances of life or death. It also depends on how Alexander uses the 1,000 troops. If he decided to use the troops as sheep fodder for example, the outcome would be much different.

 

 
Thats not true at all, when taking into consideration that most of the Persian army fled when Darius did. The fleeing army still outnumbered the Macedonians 10 to 1 but was in complete disarray. Not to mention the 15 elephants that Darius fielded ended up killing Persians instead of Macedonians. It definately would not have made a difference. And Keep in mind that almost all of the Persian casualties happened while the Macedonians were in pursuit of them. Guagamela was in effect, the mirror image of Issus.
 
One thousand men have turned the side in battles in some instances. Furthermore, the example was not an example of Guagamela, but rather between 31,000 Macedonians and 100,000 Persians. Your estimates are all over the place. 31,000 vs 100,000 is NOT 10 to 1. There is nothing depicting the role of the Persian war elephants at Guagamela, or how many casualties they inflicted.
 
You obviously have not done your homework mr. darius. Since there is no way that we will ever agree on anything, or even except opinions, i suggest that we refrain from acknowledging one another.Sleepy
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599
  Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 22:56
Originally posted by Penelope

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

Using your estimates as a base, I have calculated how much of a difference 1,000 men can affect two battles between 30,000 Macedonians and 100,000 Persians and 31,000 Macedonians and 100,000 Persians. If there are 30,000 men, 1 Macedonian would have to kill 3.333 Persian men. If there are 31,000 Macedonians, each man would need to bring death upon 3.226 enemies. This is quite a large difference considering the circumstances of life or death. It also depends on how Alexander uses the 1,000 troops. If he decided to use the troops as sheep fodder for example, the outcome would be much different.

 

 
Thats not true at all, when taking into consideration that most of the Persian army fled when Darius did. The fleeing army still outnumbered the Macedonians 10 to 1 but was in complete disarray. Not to mention the 15 elephants that Darius fielded ended up killing Persians instead of Macedonians. It definately would not have made a difference. And Keep in mind that almost all of the Persian casualties happened while the Macedonians were in pursuit of them. Guagamela was in effect, the mirror image of Issus.
 
One thousand men have turned the side in battles in some instances. Furthermore, the example was not an example of Guagamela, but rather between 31,000 Macedonians and 100,000 Persians. Your estimates are all over the place. 31,000 vs 100,000 is NOT 10 to 1. There is nothing depicting the role of the Persian war elephants at Guagamela, or how many casualties they inflicted.
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
Julius Augustus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 274
  Quote Julius Augustus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 18:16
Originally posted by Penelope

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

Using your estimates as a base, I have calculated how much of a difference 1,000 men can affect two battles between 30,000 Macedonians and 100,000 Persians and 31,000 Macedonians and 100,000 Persians. If there are 30,000 men, 1 Macedonian would have to kill 3.333 Persian men. If there are 31,000 Macedonians, each man would need to bring death upon 3.226 enemies. This is quite a large difference considering the circumstances of life or death. It also depends on how Alexander uses the 1,000 troops. If he decided to use the troops as sheep fodder for example, the outcome would be much different.

 

 
Thats not true at all, when taking into consideration that most of the Persian army fled when Darius did. The fleeing army still outnumbered the Macedonians 10 to 1 but was in complete disarray. Not to mention the 15 elephants that Darius fielded ended up killing Persians instead of Macedonians. It definately would not have made a difference. And Keep in mind that almost all of the Persian casualties happened while the Macedonians were in pursuit of them. Guagamela was in effect, the mirror image of Issus.


good points Penelope, do you think Darius III could have won the battle if he stayed fighting?
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 18:03
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

Using your estimates as a base, I have calculated how much of a difference 1,000 men can affect two battles between 30,000 Macedonians and 100,000 Persians and 31,000 Macedonians and 100,000 Persians. If there are 30,000 men, 1 Macedonian would have to kill 3.333 Persian men. If there are 31,000 Macedonians, each man would need to bring death upon 3.226 enemies. This is quite a large difference considering the circumstances of life or death. It also depends on how Alexander uses the 1,000 troops. If he decided to use the troops as sheep fodder for example, the outcome would be much different.

 

 
Thats not true at all, when taking into consideration that most of the Persian army fled when Darius did. The fleeing army still outnumbered the Macedonians 10 to 1 but was in complete disarray. Not to mention the 15 elephants that Darius fielded ended up killing Persians instead of Macedonians. It definately would not have made a difference. And Keep in mind that almost all of the Persian casualties happened while the Macedonians were in pursuit of them. Guagamela was in effect, the mirror image of Issus.
Back to Top
Julius Augustus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 274
  Quote Julius Augustus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 02:00
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

Originally posted by JUliusAugustus

the problem with such battles is that the history concerning it is bias, it is mainly a Greek source, no Persian source to place a rebuttal same goes with battles wherein Persian forces where engage with Greek forces, might be one of the underlying reasons why Alex burned down Persepolis. 
 
One of the explanations for why Alexander burned down Persepolis was to "pay back" the Persians for burning the city of Athens during Persia's second invasion of Greece. I doubt Alexander burned down Persepolis because there were Persian documents concerning pervious battles.


there are numerous reasons why the burning took place, Alexkhan pointed out in another thread about the Greek captives, other sources say a prostitute coerce him, a few Iranian writers attribute it as an erasure of Persia's greatest legacy plus a few documents concerning the events. there are many reasons for this and its reasoning can only be speculated, Alexander does not give a direct quote to why he does it.
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599
  Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 01:53
Originally posted by JUliusAugustus

the problem with such battles is that the history concerning it is bias, it is mainly a Greek source, no Persian source to place a rebuttal same goes with battles wherein Persian forces where engage with Greek forces, might be one of the underlying reasons why Alex burned down Persepolis. 
 
One of the explanations for why Alexander burned down Persepolis was to "pay back" the Persians for burning the city of Athens during Persia's second invasion of Greece. I doubt Alexander burned down Persepolis because there were Persian documents concerning pervious battles.


Edited by Darius of Parsa - 27-Mar-2008 at 01:53
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
Julius Augustus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 274
  Quote Julius Augustus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 01:47
the problem with such battles is that the history concerning it is bias, it is mainly a Greek source, no Persian source to place a rebuttal same goes with battles wherein Persian forces where engage with Greek forces, might be one of the underlying reasons why Alex burned down Persepolis. 
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599
  Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 01:40

Using your estimates as a base, I have calculated how much of a difference 1,000 men can affect two battles between 30,000 Macedonians and 100,000 Persians and 31,000 Macedonians and 100,000 Persians. If there are 30,000 men, 1 Macedonian would have to kill 3.333 Persian men. If there are 31,000 Macedonians, each man would need to bring death upon 3.226 enemies. This is quite a large difference considering the circumstances of life or death. It also depends on how Alexander uses the 1,000 troops. If he decided to use the troops as sheep fodder for example, the outcome would be much different.

 



Edited by Darius of Parsa - 27-Mar-2008 at 01:42
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 00:16

30,000 to 31,000 isnt much of a difference. In fact, in all actuality, there is no difference.

Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599
  Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 00:06
In the 2nd estimate you said Alexander's army was "no more than 30,000".
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 23:52

Actually, each of my post are exactly the same, with the exception of deciding to bring the army down from 200,000 to 100,000. And yes, the Macedonian army was more than likely 30-31,000 strong.

Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599
  Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 19:41
Originally posted by Penelope

There is no way that Alexander could have had 40,000 at Gaugamela. He entered Asia with 40,000 ofcourse, but after liberating the Greek cities of Western Asia, he had to leave numerous garrisons to be able to keep them under control, in fact...he left garrisons everywhere he went, especially Egypt, since Egypt was a very large country with a very large population of people who would definately revolt. The reinforcements he recieved after the Siege of Tyre were not many at all. So the best estimate will have to be no more than 30,000.
 
Every post is different from the previous one. 


Edited by Darius of Parsa - 26-Mar-2008 at 19:43
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599
  Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 19:35
Originally posted by Penelope

Alexander's army is said to have been 40,000 strong allthough it is more than likely that his army was much smaller than that. The Persian force could not have been more than 250,000 deep. 200,000 would be the closest figure.

 
Quite a large jump, Penelope. Wink
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 18:13

A more reasonable estimate would be around 100,000 Persians, and close to 31,000 Macedonians. Even if Darius had wanted to muster an army of 1 million, he wouldnt have had enough time to do so, when taking into consideration the speed at which Alexander force marched his army. 

Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599
  Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 20:01

I am not saying Alexander was not a great tactician, or that the Macedonian was not a great commander, he was. The logistics of fielding an army over 80,000 in 331 B.C would have been very difficult. You have to feed your army, you have to provide water, there must be forms of entertainment, there must be shelter, and there must be serivces, such as medical services. A waste-cleaning service would have to be present as well(at least 35,000 people going to the john each day at one location, without a john). On top of the original 80,000 there would be thousands more to fill in the elements of fielding an army.



Edited by Darius of Parsa - 25-Mar-2008 at 20:02
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
Jonathan4290 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185
  Quote Jonathan4290 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 18:45
Do you think that if all these troop esimates are that much lower as this thread suggests, then Alexander may not have been so great tactically? When I first read about the Battle of Guagamela years ago I was like "Whoa he beat 120,000 Persians?!" but if it was only 50,000, I'd be like "Ehn."
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599
  Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 01:59

The Persian army, or in this case every army needs food/water, entertainment/services, and shelter. An army of one million soldiers would need a tremendous number of caravans, pack animals, concubines, entertainers (singers, dancers, etc), doctors, waiters, guards, etc. This adds to the total amount of the previous one million. Each man would roughly recieve 1.85 gallons of water a day. The total amount of water per day to sustain an army of that size would cost 1,850,000 gallons or 7,705.25 tons of water each day. A comfortable cargo weight for a camel is 330 pounds, but can carry as much as 990 pounds. If each camel carried 990 pounds, the Persians would need a total of 15,567 camels. If each camel carried 330 pounds, Darius would need 46,699 camels. The camels would also have to take a day's break every 3 days or so to rest. The Perians would need extra camels to fill in for the resting camels if they wanted water each day. These are the amounts without deducting the water taken in by the staff and animals. Remember, this is for one day only, if the army intended to remain together for one week, the amount of water would add up to 12,950,000 gallons or 53,936.75 tons of water. This is leaving out the food as well, which would be substantial if the men were to remain ready and tough for the battle. This would be nearly impossible to accomplish, expecialy if the army were to stay for a long period of time.

 
An army of 30,000 to 50,000 seems much more resonable. The Persians would take in 91,500 gallons of water each day (still a large amount) and would need a round the clock' pack animal service of 770 camels (each carrying 990 pounds, or 2,310 camels carrying 330 pounds of water).
 
Not a dumb question at all Justinian, it was better to clear that up for other members who thought the same thing. Approve


Edited by Darius of Parsa - 17-Jul-2008 at 02:37
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 03:54
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

Originally posted by Justinian

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

1 out of every 5 people were from the Persian Empire. 1 million men is incorrect. There were 100,000 at most, though I myself think the Persian army was around 50,000-70,000.
Perhaps I simply missed it, not tracking well today, but what do you mean 1 in 5 people?
 
The Persian Empire covered nearly 3 million square miles and contained about 20 million people. With the estimated popualtion in 500 B.C of only about 100 million, the Persian Empire held perhaps one-fifth of the people on the planet. Most of the people within the Persian Empire were working citizens. The army would only be a small portion of the population. To have an army assembled of 1 million warriors at one location, simply does not make sense.
Ah, okay.  Thats what I thought, thanks for putting up with my dumb questions.Wink 
 
I think anyone that reads about the battle/Alexanders campaigns etc. would agree there was no way Darius had 1 million men in the field.  Concievably the persians could have had that number of potential soldiers to call up, (2 million if one uses the guide of 10% of their total population as a maximum using the total population figure you provided; which is the most common strategy I've come across) but again there is a difference between the amount of soldiers a state can potentially call up and the number it can support.  This often comes up in Punic war discussion and roman manpower. 


Edited by Justinian - 22-Mar-2008 at 03:55
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.