In November 333 BC, the Macedonian army of Alexander the Great met with the army of the Persian king Darius III at the city of Iss in southern Asia Minor. As a result, one of the bloodiest battles of antiquity took place, which ended with the defeat of the 120-thousandth Persian horde and the victory of Macedonia. Having hacked and punctured countless hordes of eastern barbarians, the Greeks lost only a few hundred people, proving their absolute superiority. Too pretentious? Then let's figure out how this is possible in principle.
When it comes to any major battle, the main question is not "how is this possible", but "was it like that in principle." The Battle of Issus really took place. And apparently, it really was very large by ancient standards. You just need to ask: did the Persians have that very 120-thousandth "horde"? And here is the time to quote the classic that "the Lord God loves the big battalions."
Very often people who are poorly versed in military affairs, talking about battles like the Battle of Issus, love appeal to the good fortune of the commander, the dramatic difference in the quality of soldiers and even the divine intervention! But all this has very little to do with reality. No matter how well trained the army is, the enemy's superiority over you is even 1.5 times - this is actually a guaranteed defeat. In the battle of Issus, the advantage is 3 times. And such a difference in people is not countered by any skill, luck and tactics. The simplest example is the Battle of Thermopylae. The Persians outnumbered the Greeks, but the coalition forces of Hellas were not helped by the unprofitable position, nor "the best training" (the Persians also had everything in order with her), nor even the fact that the Greeks were there far from 300. It all ended as soon as the Persians were able to outflank the troops from the rear.
So, if in the battle of Issus there were 40 thousand Greeks and 120 thousand Persians, the latter would simply surround their opponents from at least two sides and systematically kill every single one. Moreover, the Persians could not have had any 100 thousand. Why not 600 then? Or not 2 million and the Red Army armored corps from the time portal to help? The Persian Empire was great and well-organized, but still not nearly as well-organized as, for example, Ancient Rome. For comparison, the largest and most bloody battles of the Civil War during the time of Caesar rarely exceed the mark of 25-30 thousand participants on both sides.
The Persians would be happy to gather such a horde, but in the days of antiquity, no one could do this due to the poorly developed economy and, more importantly, logistics. It was extremely difficult to supply an army of even 5 thousand. The same Romans were often forced to send whole legions by march to the gathering place, dividing them into several parts so that they could simply feed themselves. And this is Rome, with its well-developed slave economy and well-built roads everywhere.
Another important point is the actual number of formations. Those who served in the army know this better than others. Alexander in Asia Minor was not out for a walk. He fought, stormed cities and plundered the area. His army was constantly losing people (reinforcements, of course, also received, but still between losses and the complete set was a time lag): losses in skirmishes and battles, losses from wounds and diseases, desertion, rotation. Finally, in the captured cities it was necessary to leave garrisons. All the same can be said about the army of Darius. The simplest example from the same Roman history for a better understanding. During the civil war, legions of 1/5 of the normal strength often fought in battles. The same thing happened during the campaigns of the Macedonians.
The third point is apologetics. Most of the sources of information about Alexander's campaigns are from the Greek side. And they are naturally inclined, as in all other eras - to reduce their losses, to exaggerate those of the enemy. Moreover, the Persians for the Greeks were naturally barbarians (although they were not such and close). This did not change in that era, even despite the aspirations of Alexander himself to forge one "people" within the framework of one empire.
>>>>Ideas for life | NOVATE.RU<<<<
So most likely the number of Persians under Issus was really higher - in the end, Darius would hardly have gone on a campaign without good preparation, not being sure of at least partial success. However, the Persians were not dramatically larger. Moreover, the army of Alexander was much thinner than the figure of 40 thousand. It would be good if he had at his constant disposal plus or minus 10 thousand soldiers. And even so, they hardly acted with one fist. But the difference in losses could really be very strong. And there are two reasons: the first is that while the infantry is fighting as part of the line, both formations suffer extremely low (most often) irreplaceable losses. This is dictated by the peculiarities of combat and equipment. The second - almost 70% of the losses were borne by the ancient and medieval troops when one army began to flee from the field and the victors began to cut the fleeing ones.
And here we smoothly move on to the question of how Alexander won. Apparently, his favorite technique: cavalry flanking and strikes into the vulnerable spot of the army the enemy, who forced the infantry formation to crumble, and then caused panic and flight among those who violated the order fighters. Actually, this trick was practiced not only by Alexander the Great, but obviously he knew how to use it very well, being an extremely experienced tactician and strategist.
Continuing the topic, read about 5 large-scale buildings on the planet, from one glance at which will take your breath away.
Write in the comments what do you think about this?
Source: https://novate.ru/blogs/051220/56997/
IT IS INTERESTING:
1. 5 huge ships of our time, in comparison with which the Titanic looks like a lifeboat
2. Why do American cops hide behind car doors when they don't protect from bullets
3. Summer resident coated the house with 5 thousand bottles and reduced heating costs