>"Ha! I got now you now Prince of Makedon. Surely in this flatland, where I can use my numerically superior force, with a larger amount of cavalry along with chariots and elephants, I will finally defeat you and end this madness"
what happens next will SHOCK you
Issus was the decisive battle of that war. Gaugamela was the Achmaenids scraping the bottom of the barrel for anything they could hope to find to hold back the Makedonians.
That movie was godawful. Somewhat historically accurate but boring as all hell.
hm cant say i agree with you. gaugamela is the most well known one for a reason.
true but the battle was probably one of the best pre gun war scenes.
That reason would be this fat fuck put it in his "15 decisive battles" along with a bunch of other retarded picks, like Marathon, Tours, and Metaurus, and Chalons (Catalaunian fields).
From the thumbnail I was sure that was Charlie Day
Issus opened up Egypt and Syria.
Gaugamela opened up Mesopotamia and Persia.
He wasn't fighting the Wgyptian or Syrian Empire.
Issus defeated the actual pre-existing Persian army, heavily reinforced with Greek mercenaries, which at the very least since the time of Xenophon, were the primary striking arm of the Achmaenids.
Gaugamela defeated a bunch of shitty conscripts and hastily levied troops of client kings, slapped together into a horde that had numbers going for it and not much else. The Persian military had already been defeated two years prior, the corpse just hadn't stopped twitching yet.
>waterloo is more decisive than austerlitz,borodino or leipzig
Oh nononoo
The weird thing is, his book is MASSIVELY influential when it comes to low-tier popular military history. I have no idea why. Creasy has this amazing talent of picking unimportant battles in important conflicts.
kek I thought the same thing
>95 reasons the Catholic Church needs to be reexamined
You wont BELIEVE number 30!
Wrong.
The Bactrians were not present at Issus, for instance. They were regarded as amongst the best horsemen the Persians could muster.
There were also war elepehants and chariots at Gaugamela, again, not present at Issus. Were they efficient? No, but they were not the "bottom of the barrel". In fact, charioteers were Persian aristocracy and one of the three warrior classes of persian society - NOT the bottom of the barrel.
As for the army being a conglomerating of armies levied by client kings - Welcome to the Persian empire. Any persian army would consist of five things;
Persian cavalry of high quality
Persian archers of high quality
Persian charioteers of high quality
Mercenaries of usually high quality
Levied troops of various client kingdoms of extremely varied quality.
The latter would include everything from Bactrian horsemen, mentioned above, Scythian horsearchers (also present at Gaugamela) of extremely high quality or just poor peasants levied from their lands with nothing but a large shield and short spear. They were crap.
At Gaugamela Darius amassed a larger army than at Issus, which in itself was already quite large. Gaugamela was the "spare no expense" army, whereas the Issus army was the reasoned response filled mostly with mercenaries.
On both occasions the Persians picked the battlefield. On both occasions, Alexander was greatly outnumbered. On both occasions Alexander kicked their ass. Based Alexander.
They did that after they shot themselves in the foot according to Arrian.
>be camped out with vastly numericly superior force
>waiting for Alexander to come
>doesn't come and faffs about sorting conquested cities out
>Darius gets bored, his troops get antsy and worries that Alexander is making him look like a bitch for not marching on him despite outnumbering him so massively
>asks advisors whether he should march
>yes men say yes what a great idea Darius
>ends up fighting trapped up against cliffs next to the sea
> loses Persia
>The Bactrians were not present at Issus, for instance. They were regarded as amongst the best horsemen the Persians could muster.
The Bactrians were a subject people. The PERSIAN army, of PERSIANS was the one at Issus.
>There were also war elepehants and chariots at Gaugamela, again, not present at Issus. Were they efficient? No, but they were not the "bottom of the barrel".
They were entirely bottom of the barrel. War elephants were generally ineffective except as a terror weapon, and chariots were inferior to cavalry in literally every regard. That they were occupied by people of high social station doesn't lessen the fact that they're largely useless.
>High quality
They sure showed it, collapsing almost immediately with even the barest hint of pressure.
>At Gaugamela Darius amassed a larger army than at Issus, which in itself was already quite large. Gaugamela was the "spare no expense" army, whereas the Issus army was the reasoned response filled mostly with mercenaries.
A "reasoned response" doesn't bring the royal family along for a risky expedition where it can be captured by Macedonian upstarts. Furthermore, those Greek mercenaries were the best troops that the Persians had, and had been for decades. That doesn't strike me as a "sparing of expense".
>Alexander
>Somewhat historically accurate
Don't make me fucking laugh. Oliver Stone had 99% of the Persians played by literal Arabs, who you can hear early in the movie screaming and yelling very obvious Islamic battle chants and quotes, had Roxanne, the Persian/Bactarian beauty famed for her fair skin by a literal African-American/black woman, pushed Alexander being bisexual, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
No it was not even "somewhat" historically accurate outside of the most loose of connections to the real history.
Not that I agree with that other user but the best troops were the Persian and Scythian cavalry along side said Greek mercenary heavy infantrymen. Persian horsemen were a definite match for the Companions in every campaign they fought against the Greek/Macedonian invasion. Either way I agree, after Issus, the Persians were reeling and constant heavy losses of professional calvary and infantry men in their military shows Darius III was scrapping the bottom of the barrel for any manpower.
Charioteers were never a major or decisive factor in any Persian or Iranian military force. It was just a symbol of social status and really nothing else. The most important military units in the Achaemenid forces were a) their cavalry composed of really good horsemen like Persians, Medians, and Scythians and b) their archers and infantry who were decked out in full scale armor.
Yes Greek mercenaries were also important but levied troops constantly proved constantly unreliable, prone to collapse and routing, and generally an issue. You can even see at Marathon, the Persian center was able to hold its own and match heavier armored Greeks until shitty levies and conscripts from non-Iranian peoples routed and their wings collapsed and were flanked in turn.
>Marathon, Tours, and the Catalaunian fields weren't some of the most important battles in the history of Europe (and as such, the world)
I'll admit Metaurus probably shouldn't be on that list, but come on m80.
>Tours was important
They're all ridiculous.
Marathon was a relatively small punitive expedition with no mention of siege equipment attached. Even if the Persians somehow won, the Athenians retreat behind their walls, and then what? Even in the context of the Greco-Persian wars, battles like Salamis and Platea are way more important.
Tours, at best, was Martel recovering from the instability he himself created after stabbing Odo in the back. Tolouse 11 years earlier was a much bigger battle and did far more to halt the Umayyid advance into what's now France. In all likelihood, owing to the bypassing of fortified strongholds instead of attempting to take them, it was a large raid. And in any case, the real main front if you want to portray an Islamic-Christendom war was in Byzantium, not France.
Chalons had already seen Attila give up on his attempts to take Orleans. And even if he wins, so what? A good chunk of the troops committed were Visigoths, primarily because the Roman military system of the 5th century was deeply dysfunctional and it was enormously difficult to raise troops in one area and move them somewhere else. These aren't the Mongols, and Attila's Huns on their own aren't that dangerous; what truly made them a threat was the confederation that formed with the other Germanic tribes. That coalition would fall apart as soon as he dies, and it's hard to see how winning a battle at Chalons and plundering more of the French countryside would change this.
>Wgyptian
Is that what you call it when /pol/ tries to say ancient Egypt was white?
>The Bactrians were a subject people. The PERSIAN army, of PERSIANS was the one at Issus.
So?
>They were entirely bottom of the barrel. War elephants were generally ineffective except as a terror weapon, and chariots were inferior to cavalry in literally every regard. That they were occupied by people of high social station doesn't lessen the fact that they're largely useless.
None of this is true, except for the chariots part. But this is the time period in warfare when Chariots would be abandoned - partly due to battles like Gaugamela.
>They sure showed it, collapsing almost immediately with even the barest hint of pressure.
This is absolute bullshit and not true. The Persians almost crushed the Macedonian left flank at Gaugamela and only routed after Alexanders companions.
>A "reasoned response" doesn't bring the royal family along for a risky expedition where it can be captured by Macedonian upstarts. Furthermore, those Greek mercenaries were the best troops that the Persians had, and had been for decades. That doesn't strike me as a "sparing of expense".
The Greek mercenaries would be a mainstay of any Persian army. Both armies were well equipped. But Gaugamela was by no means the bottom of the barrell, and there's nothing to suggest it was.
>So?
So arming the subject peoples of a multiethnic empire is always the last desperate act of a failing power. You have one, very short step from them being independently armed and militarily organized to them being independent de jure.
>None of this is true, except for the chariots part.
It is entirely true. War elephants were very much meme-tier one trick ponies, striking terror into people and useless when they did not. Not to mention that only Arrian's account even puts them there, other ancient authors make no mention of them. And even Arrian's account makes no mention of them having any effectiveness whatsoever; they're only mentioned 3 times, that they were part of the overall host, that they were in front of Darius's squadron with some chariots (interesting that they couldn't stop the Hetaroi, no?) and that Parmenion seized the elephants in the camp, killing a few of them.
>The Persians almost crushed the Macedonian left flank at Gaugamela and only routed after Alexanders companions.
Now who is spouting bullshit? Alexander gets a message that the left flank was in trouble, abandons his pursuit of Darius to shore it up, only to find that the Persians who had slipped around to the rear and were attacking the baggage train had been defeated by the reserves before he got there.
iranchamber.com
> And now Alexander had nearly come into conflict with the enemy's right wing; but in the meantime the Thessalian cavalry in a splendid struggle, were not falling short of Alexander's suc cess in the engagement. For the foreigners on the right wing were already beginning to fly when he came on the scene of conflict; so that he wheeled round again and started off in pursuit of Darius once more, keeping up the chase as long as there was daylight.
>The Greek mercenaries would be a mainstay of any Persian army.
Then why is there no mention of them at Gaugamela?
> Both armies were well equipped. But Gaugamela was by no means the bottom of the barrell, and there's nothing to suggest it was.
You know, other than the fact that it falls apart quickly despite outnumbering Alexander by a massive degree. Or that Darius had zero confidence in their abilities and tried to buy Alexander off before the battle. Or that compared to the previous engagement, you have a much higher number of subject troops compared to Persians. Or the fact that they are in fact using meme-tier chariots. Or that if we believe Arrian, the most difficult fight of the battle was the press as Alexander abandoned pursuit of Darius and plowed through half the Persian army. He lost an entire 60 men doing that, out of a cavalry contingent of about 7,000.
>So arming the subject peoples of a multiethnic empire is always the last desperate act of a failing power.
Bactrians were the second most prominent region in the Persian Empire. There were armed nobility there, even if not a standing army. Amassing their military strength for a battle fought in central persia is not scraping the bottom of the barrell.
>It is entirely true.
No.
>Now who is spouting bullshit? Alexander gets a message that the left flank was in trouble, abandons his pursuit of Darius to shore it up, only to find that the Persians who had slipped around to the rear and were attacking the baggage train had been defeated by the reserves before he got there.
No.
>Then why is there no mention of them at Gaugamela?
There were greek mercenaries at Gaugamela, or what remained of them.
>You know, other than the fact that it falls apart quickly despite outnumbering Alexander by a massive degree
It did not fall apart quickly, see above. The Persians buckled the Macedonian left flank.
>Bactrians were the second most prominent region in the Persian Empire.
Please provide evidence for this.
>No.
Then why does Arrian, the only source mentioning them, give a grand total of zero mentions of any activity they perform in battle?
>No.
I literally quoted the battle account of it. The Persian right broke before Alexander was able to engage them.
>There were greek mercenaries at Gaugamela, or what remained of them.
So, in other words, the actual elite troops were whittled down to almost nothing.
>It did not fall apart quickly, see above. The Persians buckled the Macedonian left flank.
And the center and the left collapsed immediately. Then the right fled before Alexander could even wheel around to reinforce his own left, while the troops that slipped around Parmenion were defeated by the guys holding down the camp. That is falling apart quickly.
>Please provide evidence for this.
Cleitus was given the Satrapy of Bactria as a reward. Much discussion is given to this in amongst other Robin Lane Fox' biography on Alexander.
>Then why does Arrian, the only source mentioning them, give a grand total of zero mentions of any activity they perform in battle?
Because they weren't that many and probably didn't really effect the battle that much.
>I literally quoted the battle account of it. The Persian right broke before Alexander was able to engage them.
Read Robin Lane Fox for a more indepth analysis of the battle. There are more sources than Arrian.
>So, in other words, the actual elite troops were whittled down to almost nothing.
The Greek mercenaries were certainly much fewer at Gaugamela, yes. However I wouldn't really sign off on them being the Persians only elite forces - even though they were highly regarded. There are mentions of troops called Kardakes, which are theorized to be essentially persian knock offs of hoplites.
>And the center and the left collapsed immediately.
No.
>Cleitus was given the Satrapy of Bactria as a reward. Much discussion is given to this in amongst other Robin Lane Fox' biography on Alexander.
That does not in any way prove that it was the "second most prominent region in the Persian empire". Giving a loyal retainer an opportunistic governorship. Not to mention that Alexander rescinded that the next time he got drunk and sent the guy off to a campaign in the ass-end of nowhere.
>Because they weren't that many and probably didn't really effect the battle that much.
So, in other words, they were meme-tier. Thank you for agreeing with me.
>Read Robin Lane Fox for a more indepth analysis of the battle. There are more sources than Arrian.
There are four sources for the battle. Arrian, Plutarch, Didorus Siculus, and Curtius Rufus. Robin Lane Fox is a modern academic who writes about Alexander, and is not a particularly prominent one. He is in no way a source, he is a compiler and analyst of sources. None of the actual sources claim that Alexander, upon turning back, made contact with the Persian right wing.
>The Greek mercenaries were certainly much fewer at Gaugamela, yes. However I wouldn't really sign off on them being the Persians only elite forces - even though they were highly regarded. There are mentions of troops called Kardakes, which are theorized to be essentially persian knock offs of hoplites.
I would. You ever read a little thing called the Anabasis by Xenophon? The Greek soldiers by the 4th century B.C. were colossally better than anything the Persians had "domestically". The Macedonian professional troops were high quality still.
>No.
Yes. They couldn't even close with Alexander's force without ripping a hole open in their line. Completely untrained hoplites of Archaic Age Greece could manage that. (most of the time, anyway) By 333 B.C., that level of performance was well and truly shit-tier.
>That does not in any way prove that it was the "second most prominent region in the Persian empire".
There's more to it, of course idiot.
>So, in other words, they were meme-tier. Thank you for agreeing with me
I'm not saying they were great, I'm just saying they weren't the bottom of the barrel.
>He is in no way a source, he is a compiler and analyst of sources.
He is a way more reliable and competent aggregator and analysor of sources than either you or me.
>I would
So?
>Yes.
No.
>There's more to it, of course idiot.
Then actually back up your statements instead of talking how a post-Persian retianer almost but actually didn't end up with a governorship.
>I'm not saying they were great, I'm just saying they weren't the bottom of the barrel.
I don't really care what you say.
>He is a way more reliable and competent aggregator and analysor of sources than either you or me.
But he ultimately has to work with the same sources. NONE of them mention Alexander actually engaging the Persian right flank. If RLF does, he is literally inventing it.
>So?
So you should actually try reading the rest of that line. It would help you understand.
>No
Great rebuttal there. Tell me how exactly not even being able to march in a straight line and keep your formation cohesive before the melee even starts doesn't constitute falling apart immediately.
>Then actually back up your statements
Why? I'm not trying to convince you. Only an idiot would try that. This is Veeky Forums.
>I don't really care what you say.
That makes two of us.
>But he ultimately has to work with the same sources.
Interesting how different conclusions you have drawn from the same sources, mr armchair general.
>So you should actually try reading the rest of that line.
So?
>Tell me how exactly not even being able to march in a straight line and keep your formation cohesive before the melee even starts doesn't constitute falling apart immediately.
Are you using the film Alexander as a source?
>Interesting how different conclusions you have drawn from the same sources, mr armchair general.
I haven't drawn any conclusions. I made a factual claim, that the Persian right broke before Alexander actually engaged them. You claim that RLF dissents on that. If so, what is the basis for his invention of such?
>So?
Then you would come to understand what is actually being said. It helps when discussing things.
>Are you using the film Alexander as a source?
No, I'm using Arrian and Plutarch as sources.
>I made a factual claim
Wrong.
>Then you would come to understand what is actually being said.
You're making claims as if your opinion matters. It doesn't. It's just bulshit.
>No, I'm using Arrian and Plutarch as sources.
No, you're not.
>Wrong.
Learn to read. You mention, here, that
> The Persians almost crushed the Macedonian left flank at Gaugamela and only routed after Alexanders companions.
I then proceeded to demonstrate precisely how that claim was untrue
You then start bringing up Robin Lane Fox, as if he has any relevance whatsoever.
>You're making claims as if your opinion matters. It doesn't. It's just bulshit.
No, I"m making claims that are backed up by the overwhelming majority of military scholarship, and the people of the time.
>No, you're not.
Yes, I am. You should actually read them instead of mediocre academics.
iranchamber.com
penelope.uchicago.edu
It's a phoneposter typo. W and E are right next to each other.
>I then proceeded to demonstrate precisely how that claim was untrue
Wrong.
>No, I"m making claims that are backed up by the overwhelming majority of military scholarship, and the people of the time.
Wrong.
>Yes, I am. You should actually read them instead of mediocre academics.
I trust said academics more than you.
>For the foreigners on the right wing were already beginning to fly when he came on the scene of conflict; so that he wheeled round again and started off in pursuit of Darius once more, keeping up the chase as long as there was daylight.
What exactly do you think that means, shitposter-kun? Go along and cuddle up to your Robin Lane Fox book to see if he has an answer that isn't grounded in making shit up, then come back and tell me how I'm wrong.
Wrong.
Heh. Nice.
>gets screwed by the BMP (Big Macedonian Penis)