Joined Mar 2011
5,772 Posts | 497+
Library of Alexandria
Last edited:
Some comments
I think that I should add that we know virtually nothing about the military capabilities in the ancient Indian kingdoms.
We know only that Alexander fought that battle and won, though details are hard to come by (literary evidence tells us that Alexander's army had 30 to 60 times the casualty infliction capability, but those numbers are hardly reliable). We know that there was Greek expansion into the Indian subcontinent well after Alexander in the Indo Greek kingdom and etc. But we know virtually nothing about the actual military systems of these kingdoms.
We know, however, that the Macedonian army at the time was the most effective documented military force in existence until that point and that it had defeated EASILY all enemies it fought. By the time in the OP Macedonia had conquered most of the world know to the Hellenes:
Also note that there was significant Indian territories between the Nanda and the Macedonian Empire in 323 BC according to this map.
Some brief description of the Macedonian army:
Of course, we don't any remotely the same degree of information regarding any ancient Indian army. Though, in all probably, considering all other pre-modern armies, they were not comparable to the army of Alexander: what pre-modern army would? In Western history up to 1500 AD the only army that could compare with Alexander's army in terms of effectiveness was the Roman. Only in the Early Modern Period that armies became as organized and effective as they were under Macedon and Rome.
Also, Alexander conquered a quite large part of India. He conquered the areas corresponding to Pakistan, that's 800,000 square kilometers, the rest of India is 4 times larger, therefore, in terms of area Alexander had already conquered 20% of India, with a population of perhaps 6-9 million. The area of the Nanda Empire was not much larger, perhaps about 1 - 1.5 million square kilometers, according to the map. This territory probably had about 10-15 million people, a large number of people but nothing impossibly large.
And also, Alexander didn't stop conquering Indian territory after the mutiny, however he changed the direction of conquest from eastward to the south.
I think that I should add that we know virtually nothing about the military capabilities in the ancient Indian kingdoms.
We know only that Alexander fought that battle and won, though details are hard to come by (literary evidence tells us that Alexander's army had 30 to 60 times the casualty infliction capability, but those numbers are hardly reliable). We know that there was Greek expansion into the Indian subcontinent well after Alexander in the Indo Greek kingdom and etc. But we know virtually nothing about the actual military systems of these kingdoms.
We know, however, that the Macedonian army at the time was the most effective documented military force in existence until that point and that it had defeated EASILY all enemies it fought. By the time in the OP Macedonia had conquered most of the world know to the Hellenes:
Also note that there was significant Indian territories between the Nanda and the Macedonian Empire in 323 BC according to this map.
Some brief description of the Macedonian army:
Caracalla said:MACEDONIAN MILITARY SYSTEM, 350 – 320 BC
Philip, as soon as he came to power, completely reorganised the Macedonian army. The result was the finest fighting force the world had yet seen; a national army, combining the disciplined skill of Greek mercenaries with the patriotic devotion of Greek citizen soldiers. For the first time in history, scientific design – based on exhaustive analysis of the capabilities and limitations of the men, weapons, and equipment of the time – evolved into a clear concept of the coordinated tactical action of the combined arms. Careful organisation and training programs welded the mass into a military machine, which under the personal command of Philip (or later Alexander) probably could have been successful against any army raised during the next 18 centuries – in other words, until gunpowder weapons became predominant.
The backbone of the army was its infantry. The Macedonian phalanx was based on the Greek model, but 16 men deep, instead of 8 to 12, and with a small interval between men, instead of the shoulder-to-shoulder mass of the Greek phalanx. There were two types of hoplites: pezetaeri and hypaspists. The more numerous pezetaeri carried sarissas, or spears more then 13 feet long.* (For training purposes, a heavier, longer, sarissa was used.) In addition, each man carried, slung over his shoulder, a shield large enough to cover his body when kneeling, with a short sword worn on a belt, plus helmet, ......plate, and greaves. The sarissa was held 3 to 6 feet from its butt, so that the points of the first 4 or 5 ranks protruded in front of the phalanx line in battle. Despite the heavier armament, constant training made pezetaeri units more manoeuvrable than the normal Greek phalanx. They were capable of performing a variety of movements and manoeuvres in perfect formation.
More adaptable to any form of combat, however, was the hypaspist, cream of the Macedonian infantry. He was distinguished from the pezetaeri only by his shorter pike, probably 8 to 10 feet in length, and possibly by slightly lighter armour. Formations and evolutions of the hypaspist phalangial units were identical to those of the pezetaeri. The hypaspists were, if possible, better trained, more highly motivated, faster, and more agile. Since Alexander usually used an oblique order of battle, echeloned back from the right-flank cavalry spearhead, the hypaspists were usually on the right flank of the phalanx, to provide a flexible hinge between the fast-moving cavalry and the relatively slow pezetaeri.
Although Philip designed this heavy infantry formation as a base of manoeuvre for the shock action of his cavalry, the phalanx was a highly mobile base, which, completing a perfectly aligned charge at a dead run, would add its powerful impact upon an enemy not yet recovered from a cavalry blow. To exploit these tactics, Philip and Alexander tried to choose flat battlefields; but the concept was applicable, and was applied, on rough terrain.
To protect the flanks and rear of the phalanx, and to maintain contact with the cavalry on the battlefield, the Macedonian army of Philip and Alexander included light infantry. Generally referred to as peltasts, a term borrowed from contemporary Greek usage, these troops were unarmoured or lightly armoured, and equipped with bows and arrows, slings, or javelins. The peltasts would also cover the advance of the phalanx, and retire to the flanks or rear before the moment of impact. Additionally, armed servants and camp followers, called psiloi, usually guarded the camp and baggage trains. Sometimes they also served as foragers and scouts.
The organisation of the hoplites, or pezetaeri, under Philip (apparently retained by Alexander, and probably by the Successors too) was based on the file (dekas) of 16 men. Four files composed a tetrarchy of 64 men, and 4 tetrarchies comprised a syntagma or speira of 256 men. The largest standard unit, the taxis of about 1,500 men, was a territorially based unit containing 6 syntagmata. There were apparently 12 taxeis. When he invaded Asia, Alexander probably took 8 taxeis with him and left the other 4 behind in Macedon. The taxeis apparently did not long survive Alexander's death, and the armies of the Successors apparently contained chiliarchies ( a Greek term approximating the modern “regiment”of 4 syntagmata, totalling about 1,000 men in place of the earlier taxis.
Like the modern division, the simple phalanx was a self-contained fighting unit of combined arms; in addition to the heavy infantry, it included (at theorectical full strength) 2,048 peltasts, 1,024 psiloi, and a cavalry regiment (epihipparchy) of 1,024, for a total of 8,192 men. The grand phalanx, composed of four simple pahalanxes, could be likened to a small modern field army, and had a strength of about 32,000 men.
Cavalry was a decisive arm of the Macedonian army, as well trained and as well equipped as the infantry. The elite were the Macedonian aristocrats of the Companion cavalry, so called because Philip, and later Alexander, habitually led them personally in battle. Hardly less skilled, and also relying upon shock action, were the mercenary Thessalian horsemen. The Companions usually were on the right of the infantry phalanx, the Thessalians on the left. The principal weapon of these heavy cavalrymen was a pike about 10 feet long, light enough to be thrown, heavy enough to be used as a lance to unhorse an opposing cavalryman or to skewer an infantry foe. They were equally adept at using the short swords carried at their belts. They wore a scale-armour ......plate, plus shield, helmet, and greaves. Their horses also ahd scale-armour headpieces and ......plates.
There were other, intermediate, cavalry formations; some organised as lancers, others – prototypes of dragoons – capable of fighting on horse or on foot; both varieties carried lighter weapons and armour. Finally, there were the light cavalrymen, mounted equivalents of the psiloi, who carried a variety of weapons: javelins, lances, bows. These light horsemen rarely wore armour, save for a helmet. Their functions were screening, reconnaissance, and flank protection.
The stirrup had not yet been invented; the horseman was seated on a pad, or saddle blanket of some sort (though the light cavalrymen sometimes rode bareback), with bridle and headstall comparable to those of out times. To become effective in combat, long training and practice were essential for both men and beasts.
The Macedonian army was the first to use prototypes of field artillery. Philip devised lightweight catapults and ballistae to accompany his siege-train; it is not clear whether he actually used them in field operations. Alexander, however, habitually used these weapons in battle, particularly in mountain and river-crossing operations. Philip designed these engines so that the essential parts could be carried on a mule or pack horse; the bulky wooden elements would be hewn on the spot from tree trunks. This, of course, would delay their employment in field operations, so Alexander carried a number of the assembled weapons in wagons.
As noted earlier, Philip, Alexander, and their engineers introduced several innovations in siege warfare, and were far more successful in their sieges than their Greek predecessors. The highly organised Macedonian corps of engineers was responsible not only for the siege train but also for a bridge train for river crossing. As in the case of the artillery, the essential manufactured components of the specialised equipment were packed on animals or in wagons; these were then assembled with lumber hewn on the spot.
The details of the Macedonian staff system are not clear, though obviously well developed. Command was exercised by voice, by trumpet, and by spear movements. Long-range communication was accomplished by smoke signals in the daytime, by fire beacons at night. For battlefield messages Alexander used his seven camp assistants, or one of a more numerous corps of youthful pages. This latter corps was an officer-training unit, with programs of instructions and development comparable to those of modern military academies.
The most thorough administrative and logistical organisation yet seen was developed by Philip of Macedon. Surgeons were attached to the Macedonian army, and there is even some evidence of something like a medical field hospital service. There was also an efficient engineer corps, whose major function was to perform the technical tasks of siege operations and river crossings.
This was the compact, competent, smoothly organised, scientific instrument which Philip bequeathed to his son, Alexander the Great.
*Some authorities assert that the war sarissa was 21 feet long, the training sarissa 24 feet long. This is not totally unreasonable (as other authorities insist) since medieval Swiss pikemen wielded spears of comparable length.
Of course, we don't any remotely the same degree of information regarding any ancient Indian army. Though, in all probably, considering all other pre-modern armies, they were not comparable to the army of Alexander: what pre-modern army would? In Western history up to 1500 AD the only army that could compare with Alexander's army in terms of effectiveness was the Roman. Only in the Early Modern Period that armies became as organized and effective as they were under Macedon and Rome.
Also, Alexander conquered a quite large part of India. He conquered the areas corresponding to Pakistan, that's 800,000 square kilometers, the rest of India is 4 times larger, therefore, in terms of area Alexander had already conquered 20% of India, with a population of perhaps 6-9 million. The area of the Nanda Empire was not much larger, perhaps about 1 - 1.5 million square kilometers, according to the map. This territory probably had about 10-15 million people, a large number of people but nothing impossibly large.
And also, Alexander didn't stop conquering Indian territory after the mutiny, however he changed the direction of conquest from eastward to the south.
