Battle Report #13 - Battle of Jhelum/Hydaspes 326 BC

[AUSTERLITZ]

As a student of history, per my observation, real reason for the success of Alexander also of the Roman legions against superior numbers boils down to 2 main factors.

1. Professional Army.

In earlier times, professionally trained soldiers were few and limited to the aristocracy and may be a company or so of the royal guards. Rest were yeoman/free citizens hastily conscripted into the service poorly armed and with little arms training. Most learnt the art of soldiering by actually fighting it.

In Greece Sparta was exceptions to this rule but Spartans were restricted by their small numbers. Phillip of Macedonia or Philip the Barbarian as Greeks called him, created one the best professional armies of the world. Alexander inherited this well trained well-disciplined army along with some very competent generals such as Parmenio. Alexander had about 40 to 50,000 well-armed professional soldiers.

Opposing armies of Porus & of Darius were larger in number but battle hardened professional soldiers probably numbered no more than one half of the Alexander’s forces. The same was true of the Roman Army. It is said that Augustus had 44 trained legions. That means 44 brigades at the time when few countries could afford even quarter this number.

2. At the time when many war leaders could barely read or write; Alexander and some of his generals had been taught by the great Aristotle; arguably the most leaned man of his time. Similarly , Julius Caesar, in addition to being a military leader served as Quaestor, Aedile, Consul, and elected Pontifex Maximus. He wrote commentaries on the wars he fought in Gaul between 58 and 52 B.C., in seven books, one for each year.

In my humble opinion natural ability honed by scholarship is a deadly combination and therein lays the secret of these two greatest generals of the human history.

Spot on about the professional army.Though alexander did outnumber porus.In Sparta's case she lacked any reliable cavalry and minimal siege equipment which rendered her strength moot largely in terms of ability to achieve and exploit success.Augustus had 28 legions[around 140,000 crack legionaries],but this excludes perhaps 200,000 auxillaries supporting those legions and then the cavalry.And all these were regularly trained and drilled.Thus u can imagine the military power of the roman empire.Each roman legion also ahd an artillery corps of 130 odd machines[scorpions and ballista].

Apart from their education,they also inherited 2 perfected military formation systems unmatched in their day-the phalanx and the legion.These 2 alos contributed to their success.

 

[Mighty Caty]

Couple of point on this battle regarding both side.

The key reason why Alexander win is the deception. Porus knows if Alexander troops cross the mainstream without any mutual support, their force would be slaughter, however, Alexander knows that too, without a deception with a feign crossing with the Craterus group, there are no way Alexander can fight the battle with any form of organization.

The second key things is how Alexander fixes Porus War elephant in place. The wild card here is the elephant, while the Indian cavalry are of no match of Alexander's own heavy companion cavalry. That's where Alexander gamble pays off, he initiate attack toward the Indian, thus exposing their own flank, but by doing so, they also took out the Indian Left flank, that would give the Roman troop times and space to move in to fix the elephant in place. If by any mean either Indian cavalry, chariot or elephant break free before Alexander phalanx in place, they would be hitting where the phalanx, the exposing flank.

But in fact, this gamble is a calculated one, as Alexander know the Indian cavalry would not move well against the mushy ground, and with the first sweep, most Indian cavalry was already out of the way, and with the phalanx was protected by an elevated ground on one side and the attack cavalry charge on the other side. Alexander phalanx got into position without much of a hindrance.

Then come second part of this attack, after the companion cavalry routed the indian cavalry and chariot, it's important for the companion to turn around and attack the Indian Infantry. otherwise the infantry would be engaging the phalanx formation and free the war elephant.

This does well too as they are surprised with the speed of the attack, and here come the surprise, the Coenus cavalry group flanking the indian from the rear. This move confused the Indian and now the indian rank broke into chaos

In the front, the Phalanx is pinning the elephant, and the companion cavalry is eating the Indian infantry left flank, while the Coenus cavalry is eating the Indian Infantry from behind. It is at this point Indian force ceased to be an battle effective force, and the battle was lost right then and there.

All 3 things have to be done almost in sync, so that the battlefield for alexander is mutually supported. Alexander read the situation exceptionally well, and act almost immediately on it. Which is the major key of success of this particular battle.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Couple of point on this battle regarding both side.

The key reason why Alexander win is the deception. Porus knows if Alexander troops cross the mainstream without any mutual support, their force would be slaughter, however, Alexander knows that too, without a deception with a feign crossing with the Craterus group, there are no way Alexander can fight the battle with any form of organization.

The second key things is how Alexander fixes Porus War elephant in place. The wild card here is the elephant, while the Indian cavalry are of no match of Alexander's own heavy companion cavalry. That's where Alexander gamble pays off, he initiate attack toward the Indian, thus exposing their own flank, but by doing so, they also took out the Indian Left flank, that would give the Roman troop times and space to move in to fix the elephant in place. If by any mean either Indian cavalry, chariot or elephant break free before Alexander phalanx in place, they would be hitting where the phalanx, the exposing flank.

But in fact, this gamble is a calculated one, as Alexander know the Indian cavalry would not move well against the mushy ground, and with the first sweep, most Indian cavalry was already out of the way, and with the phalanx was protected by an elevated ground on one side and the attack cavalry charge on the other side. Alexander phalanx got into position without much of a hindrance.

Then come second part of this attack, after the companion cavalry routed the indian cavalry and chariot, it's important for the companion to turn around and attack the Indian Infantry. otherwise the infantry would be engaging the phalanx formation and free the war elephant.

This does well too as they are surprised with the speed of the attack, and here come the surprise, the Coenus cavalry group flanking the indian from the rear. This move confused the Indian and now the indian rank broke into chaos

In the front, the Phalanx is pinning the elephant, and the companion cavalry is eating the Indian infantry left flank, while the Coenus cavalry is eating the Indian Infantry from behind. It is at this point Indian force ceased to be an battle effective force, and the battle was lost right then and there.

All 3 things have to be done almost in sync, so that the battlefield for alexander is mutually supported. Alexander read the situation exceptionally well, and act almost immediately on it. Which is the major key of success of this particular battle.

Extremely well put.Alexander succeeded in immobilizing porus's war elephants within a small battlespace preventing them from rampagimg all over the battlefield and after that used his mobility advantage in his heavy cav to dictate terms of engagement.Thanks.

 

[asad71]

1.Some discussion may be relevant on the use of war elephants. Except Hannibal and the Persian Xeirus, we do not know of these beasts used anywhere outside Asia. In Asia too except SA, their use seems to have been limited to Siam-Indo China. But the classic use definitely has been in SA.

2. In modern times military use of these beasts are limited to ceremonials and odd logistic support.

3. In the Assalong/Lakhsipur Op EPR (later BDR and now BGB), elephants were used for logistics. This op has become historic because Maj Tofayel had earned his Nishan e Haider here.

4. In successive battles that we have studied here the elephants in fact proved disastrous for the owning side. But they continued to be use none-the-less. Like the modern tank the sight of a charging elephant would terrorize anyone. With good mahout guiding the beast could ram through obstacles and stout defensive line.

 

[SMStealth]

@AUSTERLITZ Sir, Thanks for an interesting lesson in History . A nice read, great effort. Sir, don't you think that some of the Kings whose kingdom were on the banks of river Acesines & Hydractis should have fought along side King Porus. Their combined effort may have led to the defeat of Emperor Alexander. Just a thought "What if".

Also if possible & if time permits you, can you make a similar battle report on the rise of Gupta Empire? Thanks in advance

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

1.Some discussion may be relevant on the use of war elephants. Except Hannibal and the Persian Xeirus, we do not know of these beasts used anywhere outside Asia. In Asia too except SA, their use seems to have been limited to Siam-Indo China. But the classic use definitely has been in SA.

2. In modern times military use of these beasts are limited to ceremonials and odd logistic support.

3. In the Assalong/Lakhsipur Op EPR (later BDR and now BGB), elephants were used for logistics. This op has become historic because Maj Tofayel had earned his Nishan e Haider here.

4. In successive battles that we have studied here the elephants in fact proved disastrous for the owning side. But they continued to be use none-the-less. Like the modern tank the sight of a charging elephant would terrorize anyone. With good mahout guiding the beast could ram through obstacles and stout defensive line.

Wrong.Alexander's succesors used them regularly.Rome used them early on.Timur used them.Mahmud used them in his central asian campaigns too.The key thing is training of elephants.Hastily trained elephants[like at zama] panic quickly and are difficult to manuever,veteran battle elephants well trained are deadly weapons.[this is why diadochi elephants usually used imported indian mahouts]Especially if they are mildly intoxicated and provided battle armour.Xerxes didn't use elephants in any quantity.

@AUSTERLITZ Sir, Thanks for an interesting lesson in History . A nice read, great effort. Sir, don't you think that some of the Kings whose kingdom were on the banks of river Acesines & Hydractis should have fought along side King Porus. Their combined effort may have led to the defeat of Emperor Alexander. Just a thought "What if".

Also if possible & if time permits you, can you make a similar battle report on the rise of Gupta Empire? Thanks in advance

There is no concrete data on rise of guptas,no battles mentioned in detail.Just a list of conquests from inscriptions.As for tribes aiding porus,political disunity has long been major problem in history of subcontinent.Though one must remember alexander's whole army wasn't present at hydaspes.If he faced much larger opposition he may have waited for reinforcements.

Glad u liked it btw.And people stop calling me sir plz.I'm not really too old.

One of the lesser reknowned but very effective elephant corps in history are the war elephant corps of king antiochus the great.It almost won him most of his battles,and yet the man somehow found ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Also sassanid persia used them.They were the greatest challenge and rustam's secret weapon against the arabs in the battle of al qadisah.