As
I write this, American soldiers are involved in the fighting to retake the
Iraqi city of Mosul from ISIS. This is
the second time American troops have fought in a major engagement here: just a
dozen years ago, the Marines maintained a large helicopter base there.
The
city, normally home to two million people, is located along the Tigris River in
northern Iraq, is situated on the key transportation routes connecting Syria,
Turkey, and Iraq, and it is very close to Iraq’s northern oil fields. Beyond all that, the city has a rich history—a
history that includes one of the most important battles in history and one that
decided the future of Western Civilization—the Battle of Gaugamela.
Philip
II of Macedon trained a magnificent army, but was killed before he could put it
to work on its greatest challenge—the planned invasion of Persia. His son, Alexander, took the army and marched
east to confront Persia, a far larger and more powerful nation, that was
threatening to invade Greece and expand its territory into what is present-day
Europe.
As
Alexander left Greece, he left half of his army behind to secure his base
there. There would be no revolts while he was busy conquering the world.
Alexander’s
opponent in Asia was Darius III, who had ascended to the throne of Persia in
336 B.C.—the very same year that Alexander himself had become king in Macedon.
As with most Persian successions, Darius had faced challenges—mostly from his
own family—but by the end of 335 B.C. he was secure on his throne and could
devote his full attention to the threat from the west and his dream of
expansion.
That
threat materialized when Alexander crossed into Asia in the spring of 334 B.C.
The reported size of Alexander’s expeditionary force varies among ancient
sources, but he probably had a fighting force of about 35,000 men. Of these, the best were the 1,800 Macedonian
cavalry, called The Companions, who were fiercely loyal to the young
king.
Alexander’s
army was a formidable, flexible, integrated force, and was already
well-practiced in the art of slaughtering its opponents. The Persians did not
realize it yet, but they were in serious trouble.
When
Alexander crossed into Asia in the spring 334 B.C., he jumped from his
boat and speared the ground in a symbolic act of claim by conquest. He also
visited Troy and honored his legendary ancestor, Achilles. Now that the
religious matters had been seen to, Alexander took his army inland: the
great adventure had begun.
Some
of the Persian leaders urged Darius to not confront Alexander immediately, but
to retreat eastward to draw Alexander away from the coast, while simultaneously
destroying the farmlands and the food warehouses in front of the Macedonian
army. Had Darius employed this strategy,
a few history books would have a small footnote about an obscure military
leader named, "Alexander the Schmuck". However...
The
two armies met at Granicus, beside the Mediterranean, in what today would be
northern Syria. Despite being
outnumbered, Alexander was quickly victorious, slaughtering the Persian
force. The Persians had relied on
mercenaries for the battle and had badly underestimated Alexander's abilities. Darius would not make the same mistake twice.
The
exact size of the Persian army is not known, since every writer in the last two
millennia has (in the interest of a good story, of course), exaggerated the
size of the losing army while minimizing the size of the victors. One source—probably the distant ancestor of
Baghdad Bob—put the size of the Persian Army at 600,000. A more credible number is about 100,000
(including many tens of thousands of Persian cavalry).
Darius
decided to refight the battle of Granicus at Issus, but even with a larger
force, this was a foolish mistake. (In
all fairness, Darius had not been present at Granicus, so we cannot judge him
quite so harshly.) He maneuvered his
large army onto a narrow strip of land that was bordered by the sea on one side
and mountains of the other. The overly
confident Darius waited for Alexander, who once again used his superior cavalry
to cut through the Persian Army, sending the Persians into flight.
So
complete was Alexander’s victory that he even captured Darius’ baggage train
with its huge sums of money, Darius’ wife and son, and the Royal Mother! The Battle of Issus handed the entire western
half of the Persian Empire to Alexander, but the big battle for the whole of
Persia was still ahead.
In
the months after Issus, Darius sent a series of letters and embassies to
Alexander seeking some sort of a negotiated settlement on increasingly generous
terms. The story goes that when he finally offered to cede Persian holdings
west of the Euphrates, along with a vast ransom for his still-captive family,
Alexander’s closest confident and commander of the remainder of the cavalry,
Parmenio, commented, “If I were Alexander, I would accept that offer,” to which
Alexander replied, “If I were Parmenio, I would too. But I am Alexander.” So the king responded to Darius in the most
arrogant terms. He already owned the
territories west of the Euphrates and he’d be coming for the rest soon enough.
For
two years, Alexander busied himself subduing today's Syria and Egypt, while
Darius raised yet another army. Denied
the resources of his western empire, Darius had assembled an army from the
eastern sectors of his realm. Once
again, we aren’t certain of the size—one contemporary reported it as an even million
infantry with almost half that many cavalry—but
there can be no doubt that it was at least as big as the army at the
previous battle, if not larger.
Hazarding a conservative guess, we may imagine it as over 100,000 strong,
with perhaps 40,000 of that total being cavalry.
In
addition, Darius had 200 scythed chariots, a most mysterious but evidently
fearsome-looking contraption—we aren’t sure what they looked like—and probably
very effective against peasant armies. However, these vehicles were far less
effective against disciplined ranks of infantry.
The
real strength of Darius’ army lay in its cavalry. Darius sent scouts ahead to
find suitable ground and a site was chosen at Gaugamela, not far from modem
Mosul in Northern Iraq. Darius deployed his troops with hills behind him and a
plain in front of him, and made sure the plain was perfect for his
chariots. Entrenched, the Great King
waited for Alexander to accept his challenge and while he waited, he had his
forces smooth out the ground of the plain for those chariots.
Alexander
made his way into Northern Mesopotamia and, since it was no secret where Darius
and his huge army were located, directed his army to meet the Great King and
his troops without too much trouble. The
march from Egypt took the best part of four months. At 9:00 a.m. the twentieth
of September 331 B.C., there was an eclipse of the moon, which was noted by the
Macedonians the night before they left the banks of the Tigris to meet Darius.
Since it is recorded that eleven days elapsed between the eclipse and the
battle, we can date Gaugamela precisely to the first of October 331 B.C. On
that single and remarkable day, the fate of the largest land empire yet seen on
earth was decided.
For
an ancient battle, while Gaugamela is exceptionally well documented, we still
wish there were more detail of exactly what happened. Four different writers recorded what
happened, but they were limited to reporting what happened in their individual
area of the battle. Partly because of
the huge dust cloud generated, and partly because of the natural fog of war,
their accounts are limited, but the general course of the battle is known.
Alexander
drew up his army in the standard formation with his Greek phalanxes and the
infantry in the center, with Parmenio and the allied cavalry on the left, and
with Alexander, himself, at the head of his Companions on the right. However, there were two changes to this
standard formation: first, a second phalanx of Greek allies and mercenaries was
drawn up behind and parallel to the main phalanx. Second, light-armed and
cavalry detachments were stationed on the extreme left and right of the forward
formation, but moved back slightly to guard the flanks and cover the gap
between the two phalanxes. These troops were positioned for defense, since
Alexander expected the larger Persian force to flank his force on both sides—ordinarily
a sure sign of an imminent military disaster.
As
it advanced, Alexander’s army moved toward the right, where the Persian overlap
was most pronounced. Now this may have been an intentional move, intended to
generate uncertainty among the Persians and a probe for weaknesses, or it could
have been an error. Whatever the case, the rightward shift worked wonders for
Alexander. Darius opened by sending his scythed chariots and some of the
cavalry units into action, but these had no
real effect. The skirmishers on Alexander's side handled the chariots
easily enough, mostly by killing their horses. (You never see this in the
movies, but if you really want to stop that stagecoach—shoot the lead horse. The whole contraption will go ass over
teacups—a technical term, of course.)
In
the face of the rightward shift of the Macedonian army, a gap opened between
the Persian center and its left wing, which was wheeling around in the
anticipated flanking movement. Alexander and his Companions were perfectly
placed on the right to take advantage of this gap, and wedged the cavalry
relentlessly into this gap, assailing the wings of the Persian center and left
and pushing to get to the rear to reach Darius himself, who retreated. The phalanx now engaged the Persian
center and began its terrifying work of butchery. Gaugamela was, in the end, a classic
hammer-and-anvil battle, with the Persians pinned by the phalanx while the
cavalry drove to the rear.
On
the left, Parmenio’s job was merely to hold his command and prevent the
Persians from getting in behind the Macedonian line. But he was under immense
pressure. Pinned down, a gap appeared in the Macedonian line to the right of
Parmenio’s position as the phalanx moved up to engage the Persians—a gap, in
fact, almost identical to the one that had appeared in the Persian line.
Indeed, some Persian cavalry drove through this gap, but uselessly attacked the
Macedonian camp, before the reserve phalanx moved up to neutralize them.
Darius
fled in fear for his life, only to be murdered by one of his own generals the
following summer. Alexander went on, of
course, to conquer the rest of the Persian Empire.
Alexander’s
victory at Gaugamela gave him the Persian throne. The two main sources of that
victory were his driving charge into the gap on the Persian right and Parmenio’s
superb holding action on the left. Had
either failed, the outcome of the day would have been very different.
This
was clearly a turning point in history: had Darius won, he undoubtedly would
have expanded his empire into present day Europe, well before the rise of the
Roman Empire. The modern world might
have looked very different had he succeeded.
Alexander
probably should have stopped and consolidated his gains, but he continued
eastward. A less powerful Persian Empire
would eventually rise after his death, but by then the Roman Empire would have
replaced the Macedonians as the great power in the West.
Once
again, we are at Mosul, and once again, we are fighting an eastern force
threatening to overrun Europe. I leave it to you whether we have anyone even
faintly resembling modern-day equivalents of either Darius or Alexander--and
who that might be.
Our current commander-in-chief has laid off any troublesome warriors in our current military and is trying to replace them with feminists, gay people and public relations specialists. Col David Hackworth used to call those guys "perfumed princes". I fear that if we do have an Alexander in the ranks, he'll probably be retired before he makes general. That's what happens to warriors when our leaders are more interested in a political legacy than they are in protecting our nation. It's amazing how ideology interfere's with one's ability to learn lessons and retain them.
ReplyDelete