The Battle of Gaugamela

The Battle of Gaugamela, fought on October 1, 331 BC, was a decisive confrontation between Alexander the Great of Macedon and Darius III of Persia. This epic clash marked the end of the Persian Empire and solidified Alexander’s status as one of history’s greatest military commanders.

Gaugamela: Alexander’s Genius

Introduction

What are the qualities that make an outstanding general? Intelligence? Creativity? Daring? Calculation? Charisma? Luck? The key figure at Gaugamela amply possessed all of these and is often regarded as one of the greatest generals of all time. He conquered most of the known world, was victorious in four major battles, conducted several successful sieges, and held together a multinational army during an epic march across much of Europe and Asia. His name, of course, was Alexander, more commonly known as Alexander the Great.

Background to Gaugamela

• (i) The Battle of Gaugamela, perhaps Alexander’s greatest victory, demonstrates that one of the keys to his success as a general was his unusual combination of cautious preparation before battle and quick-thinking boldness once engaged.
• (ii) The golden age of the Greeks had ended with the long, destructive Peloponnesian War, in which the Greeks again turned against one another. Although Sparta was the nominal victor, all participants were exhausted and impoverished by the struggle.
• (iii) Over the next half century, a new power arose to the north: Macedonia, a minor, disunited state, weakly controlled by a hereditary king. Between 359 B.C., when Philip II came to the throne, and 339 B.C., he transformed Macedonia into a first-rate power. Most notably, he reconstructed the army, which he then used to conquer his neighbors and create a Macedonian empire.
• (iv) When Philip was assassinated in 336 B.C., Alexander succeeded to the throne at the age of 20. The young king quickly secured his position, getting the army to swear an oath of loyalty to him personally, killing anyone who might be potential rivals, and suppressing several revolts.

The Opponents

• (i) At the time of his death, Philip had been planning an expedition against Persia’s westernmost regions, ostensibly in revenge for Persia’s invasions of Greece more than 100 years earlier. Alexander now took up this plan, and in the spring of 334 B.C., he crossed the Hellespont into Asia at the head of a Macedonian-Greek army of approximately 45,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry.
• (ii) The Persian Empire, at the time of Alexander, unquestionably remained the superpower of the region. The current king of kings was Darius III, who had come to the throne in 336 B.C. The ancient sources (all of which, admittedly, are Greek) offer conflicting portraits of Darius, with most depicting him as weak and indecisive. However, in the first year of his reign, he successfully put down a rebellion in Egypt.

The Macedonian Army and Its Technology

• (i) In revamping the Macedonian army, Philip made a number of innovations to the successful model of the Greek hoplite phalanx:
• (a) He equipped the Macedonian phalanx with an extra-long spear called a sarissa, rather than the shorter spear of the hoplite.
• (b) He lightened the soldiers’ armor, particularly reducing the size and weight of the shield.
• (ii) Maintaining order in wielding these weapons required considerable drilling and discipline; thus, Philip made his army a permanent, professional one. He also included contingents of other types of troops:
• (a) He added archers and slingers to harass the enemy from a distance. There were swift, agile, lightly armed troops to act as skirmishers.
• (b) There were sizable cavalry units, some of which were light cavalry used as scouts, while others were heavy cavalry who could break an enemy line.
• (iii) Such a force, known as a mixed army, had two significant effects:
• (a) It made the new Macedonian army much more flexible, able to fight against a range of enemies and to react to a variety of circumstances and conditions.
• (b) It put greater emphasis on good generalship. A clever general might give separate missions to different parts of his army or send units in different directions. Used creatively, it was an army with great potential.

The Persian Army and Its Technology

• (i) The Persian army was much the same as that which the Greeks had faced at Plataea. Its elite infantry were the 10,000 Immortals.
• (ii) The strength of the Persian army was its numerous and well-trained cavalry, and a favored weapon among both infantry and horsemen was the bow, although a wide array of swords, spears, and axes were also employed.

Precipitating Events

• (i) After crossing into Asia and visiting Troy, Alexander began his invasion of the Persian Empire. The governor of the region organized the local forces, including a number of Greek hoplite mercenaries, and marched out to confront him. At the Battle of the Granicus, Alexander led a charge and won the victory. He then proceeded deep into Asia Minor, conquering cities as he went.
• (ii) Recognizing Alexander as a serious threat, Darius is determined to take the field himself and gather a large army to intercept the Macedonians. They met in 333 B.C. at the Battle of Issus, and although outnumbered, Alexander again prevailed, personally leading the charge.
• (iii) Rather than immediately pursuing Darius, Alexander spent several years subduing the Persian fleet and capturing all of its bases. Darius spent this time preparing for their next confrontation. Both knew that the next time they met, it would be the decisive battle to determine which was to rule the Persian Empire.

The Battle

• (i) Darius’s most obvious advantage was numerical, and he used the interval to gather a vast army from every corner of his empire.
• (ii) Darius then chose his battlefield carefully: a large, flat, featureless expanse along the Tigris River near Gaugamela, where no topographical features could anchor Alexander’s flanks and where the Persian numerical superiority could be used to full effect.
• (iii) Finally, Darius created a special weapon of 200 chariots with blades attached to their wheels. These would be launched against the Macedonian phalanx; the blades would literally carve openings in the formations, into which the cavalry could pour.
• (iv) Alexander’s advisors, frightened by the size of the Persian army, urged him to attack at night to mask their inferior numbers. Refusing this advice, Alexander went to bed. Darius, fearing just such an assault, kept his army standing ready for battle all night. By morning, Alexander had already scored an advantage: his troops were well rested in contrast to the sleepless Persians.
• (v) Alexander’s most pressing problem was the lack of a geographic anchor to prevent encirclement.
• (a) His solution was to stagger his forces at an angle on the left and right sides of the phalanx so that they could face an enemy encircling movement head-on.
• (b) At a distance behind the main phalanx, he positioned a second line made up of allies and mercenaries.
• (c) His forces were arranged so that if the Persians did outflank them and surround his army, it could form a hollow rectangle with men facing outward in all directions.
• (vi) As the battle began, Alexander led his cavalry to the right. Darius ordered his cavalry to mirror Alexander’s movements, with the result that the lines were stretched out and the center of gravity began to shift away from the ground that Darius had so carefully prepared.
• (vii) Darius therefore ordered his scythed chariots to charge, but the Macedonian skirmishers and javeliners picked off the charioteers. When the remainder reached the phalanx, the Macedonians opened lanes for the chariots to pass harmlessly. As they slowed to turn, lightly armed troops killed the rest of the charioteers.
• (viii) Determined to contain Alexander’s sweep, Darius dispatched more Persian cavalry to block him, and an intense cavalry battle ensued. Meanwhile, on the left, the Macedonian phalanx was hard-pressed and in danger of losing contact with Alexander and the Macedonian right.
• (ix) A gap developed in the Macedonian line, into which a group of Persian cavalry poured. Had they wheeled to the right and struck the main phalanx from behind, they might well have broken the phalanx and won the battle. But the Persian cavalry began looting the Macedonian baggage train; thus, elements of the second line of the Macedonian phalanx had time to confront and contain them.
• (x) Meanwhile, Alexander had decided to take advantage of the parallel
  stretching of the Persian lines, and he now led a bold charge, cutting back from the right flank toward the center of the Persian formation, where Darius stood in his chariot. The Companion cavalry, formed into a wedge with Alexander himself at its head, crashed into the Persian ranks.
• (xi) Darius apparently took fright and, just as he had at the earlier Battle of Issus, turned his chariot and fled from the field, abandoning his army. Upon his desertion, the Persians in that section of the field lost heart, and after some tough fighting, Alexander and his cavalry routed them.
• (xii) Alexander had won the battle and, with it, the Persian Empire. Although Darius escaped and would manage to evade capture for another year or so, until mortally wounded by his own men, from the moment that he fled Gaugamela, he effectively forfeited his throne; Alexander became the new king of kings of Persia.

Outcomes

• (i) Gaugamela was Alexander’s finest achievement as a general. It was a battle in which his enemy seemed to have significant advantages: superiority in numbers, choice of battlefield, and a secret weapon. But through a combination of carefully preparing and training his army and skillfully and boldly using them during the battle, Alexander nullified these Persian advantages one by one.
• (ii) Alexander is sometimes accused of impulsiveness, but he showed calculation after Issus in not pursuing Darius and, instead, neutralizing the Persian navy to secure his flank and protect his supply lines. Even in the heat of combat at Gaugamela, he demonstrated sound judgment in curtailing his charge and going to the aid of his phalanx.
• (iii) After Gaugamela, Alexander went on to capture the royal cities of Persia. Even though his united empire did not survive beyond his own lifetime, his real legacy was the spread of Greek culture throughout the empire. Indeed, the next period of Mediterranean history is termed the Hellenistic era because of the dominance of Greek, or Hellenic, culture.

Conclusion

If not for Alexander’s victory at Gaugamela, Greek civilization might never have spread beyond the boundaries of Greece and, thus, would not have exerted its pivotal influence on the course of Western civilization.

FAQ about the Battle of Gaugamela?