Battle of Guagamela

[sksvlad]

I have problems believing very low Greek infantry casualty numbers, even though they have won the battle. I am looking for a bigger historian than me to explain how a battlefield with close to quarter of a million people can generate 100 casualties for a force outnumbered by between 1:2 to 1:4. Infantry was not as mobile as cavalry and would be a great target for archers. Statistically it looks impossible.

Sorry for misspelling Gaugamela.

 

[Dreamk]

I just fell on this old post while ,looking for info on Greek pre-ww2 armament. As it has remained unanswered, let's try to give a short and simple manswer.

Gaugameles was a in far a very short battle in 3 phases in short succession (phase 2 and 3 may in fact have been simultaneous)

1) It opened with a short Persian cavalry attack to test the weak point the Greek defenses - and therefore reported as "easily contained" by the Greek infantry as the aim was not to crush through teh Greek lines but to check were to lead the second phase of the attack, intended to pierce these lines: this was the the scythed chariots attack that would open the gap to teh main

2) However, when the Persian chariot attacked the Greek infantry, the Macedonian phalanxes opened ranks to let them pass and.... get stuck in mud - putting the Persian attack at a hold (improvisation when the plan did not go along the intended lines was not a strong points of the Persian commanders)

3) In the meantime Greek scouts spotted the position of Darius and Alexander led a cavalry directed at killing Darius, who after a close miss by a javelin (thrown by Alexander) fled the fiuled....and caused a general panick in the Persian ranks that fled the field.

In such a situation the Greek casualties must have been indeed very few, while the Persian casualties in the pursuit may have been horrendous (not to speak of the Persian charioteers that became sitting ducks targets for the Greek light infantry bowmen and slingers that rushed through the gaps of the phalanx to deal with them at lengths....taking captives was not an usual practice)

In short a battle where the role of the reconaissance forces on both side played the critical role. It well seem that the Greeks planned a trap, deploying a "weak" infantry front to lure the Persian chariot attack , known to be the main opening dreaded Persian tactic on a point of the field that was extremely muddy and would effectively bog this attack. The fact thatb it was a thin screen of infantry would also explain the facility with which this infantry opened ranks to let pass the chariots et get them stuck in mud before these could modify their trajectory.

Sounds logical?

(and I'm still looking for info on Greek interwar / early ww2 bombs - besides the US M series clone made by Pyrkal company :tinysmile_fatgrin_t and Turkish bombs)