How realistic are the number of battle deaths in the Anabasis?

Upvote:2

Death ratios such as 1:100 are possible and whats more, are typical when there is a technological superiority gap. Think bronze weapons against iron weapons; tanks against cavalry; Spanish conquistadores spades and armor against mesoamerican macuahuitls.

That said, it is well known that the ancient writers figures for battles (participants, deaths, loot, etc) have a general tendency to really overestimate. Yet, what they wanted to transmit is often considered correct: the narrator wants you to know that there's was a technological superiority gap, and a Greek soldier could realistically kill 170 enemies.

That the added total numbers actually happened for the battle is a secondary issue for the narrator. They were lenient on the truth numbers to help the narration stress the superiority gap. After all, most ancient historians tell stories.

Upvote:4

Ancient battles were very different from modern ones. When looking at battles today, we think of Verdun or Stalingrad as typical of big battles, with horrific losses on both sides being the norm. But in ancient times, most battles had relatively few casualties in the early phase. Both sides would fight against one another with little losses, until one side broke. When the victor pursued, losses for the loser could be horrific.

Most ancient states, such as Rome or Macedon, retained detailed casualty lists. Dead soldiers were honored, given memorials, and their families rewarded. Thus, you can almost always be confident in the numbers of their dead. On the other hand, enemy death tolls are somewhat harder to calculate, but still generally reliable.

Source: Casualties and Reinforcements of Citizen Soldiers in Greece and Macedonia

More post

Search Posts

Related post