#battle of gaugamela | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

jeannereames · 1 year

Note

I forgot who it was, but I always found it so curious that it was recorded that Hephaistion was “wounded in the arm” during one of the battles. I know only the important things tended to be recorded, and of course, war and injury go hand-in-hand. I’m guessing that was pointed out because it was a really, really bad injury. Right? Not sure how that mention would’ve been relevant otherwise.

Arrian recorded Hephaistion’s injury.

In general, Arrian records a lot of military details that the other sources ignore or lack an interest in. Even so, with rare exceptions, his focus remains the army elite. And yes, Hephaistion is certainly among the elite, both owing to his importance to Alexander, but also, here, his role in the battle.

Diodoros tells us he fought first among the somatophylakes, or bodyguard. This has sometimes been misunderstood due to Diodoros’s tendency to mix-and-match terms. Diodoros doesn’t mean the 7-man unit of Somatophylakes, who didn’t fight together anyway. Their role as bodyguards was OFF the field. And I don’t think Hephaistion was a member of that unit yet anyway.

So what does he mean? The agema, or Royal squadron, of the Hypaspists. There were “regular” Hypaspists, and “royal” Hypaspists. Under Philip, this unit (then called Pezhetairoi) was the personal guard of the king in combat. When the unit itself came to be is a more involved discussion, but Philip made a significant change: he picked men for their size and fighting skill, not their high birth. Yet that was for the “regular” Hypaspists only, and it became one of the first pathways to advancement on skill alone in the Macedonian army. The royal unit, however, was another matter. Both Philip and Alexander made their military changes gradually.

Even under Philip, the Hypaspists were a stepping stone to higher commands for the sons of Hetairoi (Macedonian aristocrats). The whole unit was under the command of Nikanor, son of Parmenion. It was second only to the Companion Cavalry in prestige (which was commanded by Nikanor’s elder brother Philotas).

Yet overall command was different from unit command. E.g., Philotas commanded the Companions as a whole, but Kleitos Melas (Black Kleitos) commanded the Companion agema (royal unit) of Companion Cavalry. The king might lead that unit in battle, but he didn’t have time for the day-to-day duties of unit command, so Kleitos was their commander.

Similarly, by Gaugamela, Hephaistion had been advanced to command the Hypaspist agema. This may be why, later, Alexander advanced both him and Kleitos to joint command of the Companion Cavalry, after Philotas’s arrest and execution. Each had commanded the two most prestigious individual units in the army.

If Heckel is right (and I think he is), the Hypaspist agema at Gaugamela served as hammippoi, an elite form of hoplite who, literally, ran with the cavalry. (Keep in mind the horses would be mostly trotting or cantering, not galloping for long.) The job of the hammippoi was to help protect the horses and any cavalryman who was unhorsed, as the cavalry were much more lightly armed. But it’s a demanding job, to be sure.

At Gaugamela, Arrian tells us specifically of an encounter as Alexander returned with his Companion agema, after breaking off pursuit of Darius. They accidentally collided with some fleeing Persians and Indians (et al.), and it became the hardest fighting in the entire battle, as the fleeing men were desperate. I suspect this is where Hephaistion was wounded, as we’re told something like 60 Companions died in that engagement alone. It was brutal.

All that may help contextualize why Arrian names Hephaistion’s wounding. along with a couple others. He was the commander of a very important unit in the army.

#asks #Hephaistion #Hephaestion #Hypaspists #Hammippoi #Battle of Gaugamela #Alexander the Great #ancient Greece #ancient military history #Arrian #Classics #tagamemnon

14 notes · View notes

dejahisashmom · 14 days

Text

Achaemenid Religion: Lighting the Spirit of Ancient Persia | Ancient Origins

https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/achaemenid-religion-0012716

View On WordPress

0 notes

liberty1776 · 7 months

Video

Alexander 2004 - Battle of Gaugamela 1 - Movie Clip HD

Today and Yesterday I watched both Movie versions of Alexander The Great. neither one lives up to the potential of telling the epic story of the great conqueror. In my opinion the acting and plot of the 1956 version with Richard Burton as Alexander is far superior. But the set design and costumes in 2004 film is better, especially in showing the armor and weapons of the armies. In my opinion the Battle of Gaugamela scene shown above is the best depection of an ancient battle in any movie. It is also the best thing about the entire film. The 1956 film of the same story aside from the battle scenes is in my opinion a better telling of Alexander’s story.

#Battle of Gaugamela Alexander The Great 2004 History Movie

0 notes

educationaldm · 1 year

Link

Historian Dan Snow (on @HistoryHit) takes us through some of his favourite depictions of #Historican #Battle scenes in #Movies and the accuracy portrayed.

#Military Historian #Dan Snow #History Hit #History #Battle Scenes #Movies #Film #Gaugamela #Alexander #Loudoun Hill #Outlaw King #Native American #Ambush #Last of the Mohicans #Battle of the Crater #Cold Mountain #All Quiet on the Western Front #D-Day landing #Saving Private Ryan

1 note · View note

barbariankingdom · 9 months

Photo

Babylonian Cuneiform Tablet; accounts of Alexander's victory over the last Achaemenid king Darius III at the battle of Gaugamela on 1 October 331 BC, and his triumphant entry into Babylon (modern, Iraq)

336 notes · View notes

whencyclopedia · 12 days

Photo

Pezhetairoi

The pezhetairoi (foot companions) were part of the imposing army that accompanied the Macedonian commander Alexander the Great (r. 336-323 BCE) when he crossed the Hellespont to face the Persian king Darius III in 334 BCE. Armed with long pikes (sarissas), the pezhetairoi fought in a Greek phalanx formation and played an important role in the battles of the Granicus, Issus, and Gaugamela.

Origin

Like with the hypaspist, the origin and evolution of the pezhetairos (plural: pezhetairoi) are shrouded in mystery. Except for references to them in discussions of Philip II and Alexander, the term pezhetairoi is hardly found in ancient literature. In his The Army of Alexander the Great, historian Stephen English wrote that, at some inexact point, the peasantry was recruited territorially and organized into infantry, and, according to the historian Anaximenes, it was given the name pezhetairoi. He added that the pezhetairoi were "essentially an evolution of the standard phalanx" (3).

However, disagreements still persist: some scholars refer to all of the Macedonian infantry as pezhetairoi while others believe they were not front-line infantry but bodyguards to the king. English contends that the pezhetairoi may have been created as a select, elite infantry acting as royal bodyguards under the Macedonian king Alexander I (498-454 BCE). It is claimed by some that this elite infantry eventually became the hypaspists. It was Alexander III (the Great) who would extend the term pezhetairoi to include all of the heavy phalanx infantry with the exception of the hypaspists.

#History #Pezhetairoi #Macedon #AlexanderTheGreat

47 notes · View notes

mycoffeisblue · 2 years

Text

Battle of gaugamela 331 b.C (colorized)

#history memes #meme history #history jokes #funny history #history #memes #ancient greece #alexander the great #battle #alejandro magno

99 notes · View notes

gemsofgreece · 2 years

Note

Okay thanks to movies and series many foreigners are aware of the Trojan and the Thermopylae war (with the 300 Spartnas). But i believe not many know other important battles that happened during ancient Greece.

Which ones do you think are also worth mentioning?

Just some clarifications for interested people who might not know:

While the Trojan War (sometime in c. 1299 BCE - c. 1100) did happen, we have no idea how accurate any realistic event in the Iliad is. The only thing we know is that the consequences of the war were terrible for both sides. The aftermath is believed to have led to a period of deep regression even in victorious Greece, which is known as the Dark Ages.

The Battle of Thermopylae (not war) (480 BC) is a very real battle, part of the ongoing Persian Wars, meaning the attempts of the Persian Empire to conquer the Greek city-states. While the battle was a defeat stained by treason, the conscious sacrifice of the tiny Greek army caused an uprise of pride and resistance from the Greek people, who up to that point were torn as to whether they should fight or not risk opposing to the massive empire. This is why this battle is considered so important.

So some other turning points in Ancient Greek war history were:

The Battle of Marathon (490 BC). First victory of the Greeks against the Persian King Darius I, despite his much larger forces. The Athenian general was Miltiades. Darius wouldn't return but his son Xerxes attempted to materialize his father's dream 10 years later. Western scholars deem this one of the most significant battles in world history.

Naval battle of Salamís (480 BC), Battle of Mycale (479 BC) and the Battle of Plataea (479 BC). Greek victories. In the Battle of Plataea, the Greeks finally manage to create a big army (for Greek standards). This was the final battle that ended the Persian ambitions over Greek territory once and for all.

Many important battles took place during the Peloponnesian War (431 - 404 BCE) but since this was just something that we nowadays would call a hell of a civil war, I don't think it matters a lot to analyze it here. Just imagine literally everyone fighting literally everyone.

Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC). While this is a battle belonging to the great sphere of the violent infighting started and perpetuated after the Peloponnesian War, I'm gonna mention this one because it did change history forever. King Philip II of Macedon alongside the Epirotes, Thessalians, Aetolians, Phoceans and Locrians defeat the usual elites of the Athenians, Thebans, Corinthians, Achaeans, the Chalcidians of Euboea and the Epidaurians. This begins the Macedonian hegemony over Greece, that will lead towards the dissolution of the Greek city-states, the disempowerment of mighty Athens and Sparta, but also the rise of the Macedonian Empire and a more unified sense of Greek identity, in the grand scheme of things.

We talking great battles, right? Not just “side of the angels”... Greeks have given historically significant battles where they were on the offensive, too.

Battle of Issus (333 BC). The Hellenic League led by Alexander the Great defeats the Persian Empire and acquires Asia Minor.

Battle of Gaugamela (331 BC). Under Alexander, Greeks take full control of the Persian Empire.

Battle of the Hydaspes (326 BC). Alexander marches against what is modern-day Pakistan and reaches the outskirts of India.

And we should mention the history-changing defeats:

Pyrrhic War (280–275 BC). The Greek King Pyrrhus of Epirus was asked by the Greeks of South Italy to help them against the rising and expanding Roman Republic. Pyrrhus indeed gave great and demanding fights on their behalf, nearly all of them victories, however these victories were so costly that in the end they turned against the exhausted Greek populations. His victories were soon overturned by the Romans, making famous the phrase “Pyrric victory”, which roughly means “winning the battle and losing the war”.

Battle of Pydna (168 BC). After an initial Greek advantage, Romans eventually defeat the Macedonians and take control of the northern Greek lands.

Battle of Corinth (146 BC). Romans utterly destroy the city of Corinth in the Greek South and assume power over the entirety of Greece, which becomes part of the Roman Empire.

War of Actium (32-30 BC). Long story short, the Romans acquire more and more of the lands once taken by the Greeks. The Ptolemaic Dynasty of Egypt has been going through civil wars, harbored by the Romans. In the War of Actium taking place in Greece and Egypt, Cleopatra and her Roman ally Mark Anthony are defeated by the Roman Emperor Octavian. This is a defeat of the Egyptian people but also the last nail in the coffin of Greek hegemony in the ancient world.

#greece #history #ancient greece #ancient greek history #battles #war history #greek history #anon #ask

22 notes · View notes

jeannereames · 3 months

Note

Shows or movies based on historic figures and events are hard to pull off if the goals are to be both entertaining and somewhat true to history. If we accept that some inaccuracies can't be avoided in order to appeal to audiences what would you consider cornerstones and pillars about Alexander and his history that can't/shouldn't be touched in order to paint a somewhat realistic picture in media based on him and his life?

I saved this to answer around the time of the Netflix release. For me, there are four crucial areas, so I’ll break it down that way. Also. I recognize that the LENGTH of a production has somewhat to do with what can be covered.

But, first of all…what story is one telling? The story arc determines where the focus lies. Even documentaries have a story. It’s what provides coherence. Is it a political tale? A military one? Or personal? Also, what interpretation to take, not only for Alexander but those around him. Alexander is hugely controversial. It’s impossible to make everyone happy. So don't try. Pick an audience; aim for that audience.

MILITARY:

Alexander had preternatural tactical skills. His strategy wasn’t as good, however, especially when younger. Tactics can be a genius gift (seeing patterns), but strategy requires experience and knowledge of the opposition. The further into his campaign, the more experience he gained, but the cultures became increasingly unfamiliar. He had ups and downs. He was able to get out of Baktria finally by marrying Roxana. That was strategy, not tactics. He beat Poros, then made a friend of him; that’s strategy. Yet he failed to understand the depth of the commitment to freedom among the autonomous tribes south along the Indus, which resulted in a bloody trek south. And his earlier decision to burn Persepolis meant he’d never fully reconcile the Persian elite.

So, it’s super important to emphasize his crazy-mad tactical gifts in all forms of combat, from pitched battles to skirmishes to sieges. Nobody in history ever equaled him except maybe Subatai, Genghis Khan’s leading general. In the end, I think that’s a lot of Alexander’s eternal fascination. He fought somewhere north of 250 battles, and lost none (where he was physically present).

But HOW to show that? What battles to put on screen? Oliver Stone combined three into one + Hydaspes because he had only 2-3.5 hours (depending on which cut you watch). The Netflix series is going to show all four of the major pitched battles…or at least all 3 for the 6-episode first part. They had circa 4.5 hours to play with, but they cut out other things, like Tyre.

Another issue, from the filming/storytelling point-of-view is how to distinguish Issos from Gaugamela for the casual viewer. They’re virtually identical in tactics (and players on the field). So it made a fair bit of sense to me for Stone to conflate them. In a documentary, it’s more important to separate them, largely to discuss the fall-out.

Some v. important clashes weren’t the Big Four. Among these, the sieges of Halikarnassos and Tyre are probably the most impressive. But the Aornos Rock in India was another amazing piece. I’d also include the bridging of the Indus River to illustrate the astonishing engineering employed. Again, if I had to pick between Halikarnassos and Tyre, I’d pick Tyre. I was a bit baffled by Netflix’s decision to show Halikarnassos instead, but I think it owed to an early error in the scripts, where they had Memnon die there. I corrected that, but they’d already mapped out the beats of the episodes, so they just kept Halikarnassos. That’s fine; it was a major operation, just not his most famous siege.

Last, I really wish somebody, someday, will do something with his Balkan campaigns. What he did in Thrace and Illyria, at just 21, showed his iron backbone and quick thinking. It’d make a great “and the military genius is born” set-up, drama wise. But you could use the Sogdian Rock to show the clever streak, at least (“Find men who can fly” … “I did; look up.” Ha) Plus it has the advantage of being where he (maybe) found Roxana.

Last, he fought extremely well--wasn't just good at tactics. Being a good general doesn’t necessarily mean one’s a good fighter. He was. Almost frighteningly brave, so show that too.

RELIGIOUS:

Ya gotta deal with the “Did he really think he was a god?” thing, and the whole trip to Siwah. I obviously don’t think he believed he was a god; it’s one of the things I disliked about the Netflix show’s approach, but they were dead-set on it. I DO think he came to believe he was somehow of divine descent, but of course, that’s not the same as most moderns understand it, as I’ve explained elsewhere. It made him a hero, not a god on a level with Zeus, and to ME, that’s an important distinction that Netflix (and to some degree Stone) rode roughshod over.

But I’d like to see more inclusion of sacrifice and/or omen-reading—religion in general. Cutting the Gordion Knot (omens!). His visit to Troy (Netflix tackled that one). A really cool thing would be to make more of the lunar eclipse before Gaugamela. Again, Netflix touched on that, but it’s one of those chance events that might actually have affected a battle’s outcome, given how seriously the ancient near east took sky omens. (A solar eclipse once halted a battle.) The Persians were freaked out. Even his massacre of the Branchidai in Sogdiana was driven by religion, not military goals. Pick a couple and underscore them.

I give Stone big props for the sacrifice before the Granikos/Issos/Gaugamela battle. It was so well-done, I’ve actually shown it in my classes to demonstrate what a battlefield sphagia sacrifice would look like.

Alexander was deeply religious. Show it.

POLITICAL:

Ah, for ME the most interesting stuff surrounding Alexander occurs at the political level. Here’s where the triumph story of his military victories all went south. He knew how to win battles. He was less good at managing what he’d conquered.

In terms of a story arc, the whole period up to Gaugamela is really the “rise” of the story. Post-Gaugamela, things began to collapse. And I would pin the turn on PERSEPOLIS. Yes, burning it sent home a message of “Mission accomplished.” But he was selective about it. Areas built by Darius I were spared, Xerxes’ were destroyed: a damnio memoriae.

Problem: Persepolis embodied Persia, and ATG essentially shat on it. Not a good look for the man who wanted to replace Darius III. That he also failed to capture and/or kill Darius created an additional problem for him. Finally, his lack of understanding of how politics worked in Baktria-Sogdiana resulted in an insurgency. Bessos was going to rebel, regardless. But Spitamanes might not have. Alexander created his own mess up there.

Another matter to look at is why he created a new title—King of Asia—instead of adopting the Persian title (King-of-Kings). I don’t think that was a “mistake.” He knew perfectly well the proper Persian title (Kshāyathiya)…and rejected it. He adopted some Persian protocol, but not all of it. After the summer of 330, he was essentially running two parallel courts, which seemed to satisfy neither the Persians nor his own men. (Kinda like docudramas are a hybrid that seems to annoy perhaps more than satisfy.)

So I’d like to see this handled with some nuance, but it’s intrinsically difficult to do—even while, if done well, it would be the most interesting part of an Alexander story, imo.

So, what events, what events…3-4 leap out after Alexander’s adoption of some Persian dress. The Philotas Affair, the Pages Conspiracy, the Death of Kleitos, the marriage to Roxana. I’d show it all, although I could also understand reducing the two conspiracies to one, for time, in which case, the Philotas Affair because it resulted in the fall of Parmenion. But the fact there were two, not just one, tells a story itself.

What about the proskynesis thing with Kallisthenes? I’ve come to disbelieve it ever happened, even though it’s symbolic of the whole problem. So, weirdly, I’m of two minds about showing it. OTOH, it won’t be in my own novels. But OTOH, I could easily see why a showrunner or director might want to include it. And it certainly appears in several of the histories, including Arrian.

Then we have the two indisciplines (mutinies)…one in India that made ATG turn around, and another at Opis. They’re really two different things as one was an officer’s rebellion, the other the soldiers themselves. But will viewers be able to distinguish between them? It’s like the Issos/Gaugamela problem, or for that matter, the two conspiracies. They’re similar enough to confuse the casual viewer. “Didn’t we already see that?”

But if they were narrowed to one, how to choose? The mutiny on the Hyphasis provides an explanation for why he turned back. But the Opis event was more dramatic. The man jumped down into the middle of a rioting crowd and started (essentially) knocking heads together! So if I had to pick…Opis. The other might could be mentioned in retrospect.

PERSONAL:

Here are five things I think really OUGHT to be shown, or that I have yet to be pleased by.

1) Philip isn’t an idiot and should get more than 10 minutes of screentime. Oh, and show Alexander did learn things from him. Stone had to make his movie a Daddy-Issues flick, and the Netflix thing did very little with Philip as they wanted to get to the Alexander-Darius face off (which was the meat of their story). But there’s a very interesting love/competition story there.

2) Olympias is not a bitch and was not involved in Phil’s murder, although I can see why that is catnip to most writers. She did kill Eurydike’s baby and (by extension) Eurydike. One of the historians in the Netflix story (Carolyn, unless I misremember) talked about the rivalry between the two wives, at least. But I think ATG planned to marry the widow and Olympias got rid of her to prevent it. Now THAT’S a story, no? But they were in too much of a hurry to get to Persia.

3) Alexander was not an only child! He had sisters (and a brother) with whom he was apparently close…and a cousin who was his real rival. To me, missing that cousin rivalry overlooks a juicy personal/political story! Too often all the focus winds up on Alexander-Olympias-Philip-Eurydike-Attalos, but man, a more subtle showrunner could do a lot with the Alexander-Amyntas rivalry. But he’s constantly cut out. I can’t think of a documentary that actually addresses Amyntas except in passing (if at all)l

4) Hephaistion’s importance is a must, but I’d like to see him treated as someone with a personality and authority of his own, besides just as ATG’s lover. At least Netflix Went There onscreen with the love-story part, but otherwise, the writers couldn’t figure out what to do with him. Neither Stone nor Netflix really portrayed him as his own person. I do understand why they can’t show the whole cast of characters. I had to do weeding myself in the novels, but I’m annoyed Netflix showed only Hephaistion and Ptolemy. Where’s Perdikkas (so important all along really, but certainly later)? Or Philotas, Kleitos, Krateros, Leonnatos, Lysimachos (later king of Thrace)? I think viewers could probably have handled at least another 5 people, especially if introduced gradually, not all at the beginning.

This brings me to….

5) Alexander’s apparently very real affection for the people in his orbit, from personal physician (Philip) to childhood pedagogue (Lysimachos [not same as above]) to Aristotle to various other philosophers. He was so loyal to his friends, in fact, he initially jailed the people who brought word of Harpalos’ first flight.

He needed to be loved/appreciated and wanted to give back to people. Yes, generosity was expected of kings, and as a king (THE king), his generosity had to excel that of anybody else. But he seemed to genuinely enjoy giving presents. I think of him like that one friend who heard you say you liked that cute pair of “Hello, Kitty” socks…then 6 months later they’re your Christmas present from them. Some of his gifts were grandiose, but not always. I love the dish of little fish (probably smelts) that he sent to Hephaistion, presumably just because his friend liked smelts!

To me, point #5 would be easy to get in with a skilled scriptwriter, tucked into the corners of other scenes. It’d be fun to highlight the personal side. If we can believe Plutarch, he was a PRODIGIOUS letter-writer. Also, he loved to hunt, so that’s another thing. And he loved the theatre, and to watch sport. These would all be very humanizing details.

I think the biggest issue is that most of these documentaries/docudramas are done by people who don’t know squat about Alexander aside from a few things, before deciding to make a documentary/movie about him, or write a book. Their research is shallow, and even if they bring on the experts, they don’t always listen. Stone DID at least have a long fascination with ATG, but it caused him to try to throw in everything but the kitchen sink. It wasn't as bad of a film as some have made it out to be, just horribly bloated and for all his reading, he never understood the WORLDVIEW. I wrote about that some while back in my review.

The best documentary/movie would be told by an actual specialist who knew enough at the outset to craft a better, more complex story arc.

Or maybe I’m just biased because I tried to do that myself in my novels. 😂😂😂😂

#asks #alexander the great #oliver stone alexander the great #netflix alexander the great #telling the story of alexander the great is intrinsically difficult #docudramas #historical movies #historical documentaries

89 notes · View notes

dejahisashmom · 3 months

Text

Achaemenid Religion: Lighting the Spirit of Ancient Persia | Ancient Origins

https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/achaemenid-religion-0012716

View On WordPress

0 notes

dan6085 · 8 months

Text

The 20 greatest battles in history:

1. Battle of Marathon (490 BC) - A decisive Athenian victory against Persian invaders, known for the marathon run.

2. Battle of Gaugamela (331 BC) - Alexander the Great's victory over the Persian Empire's King Darius III.

3. Battle of Cannae (216 BC) - A stunning Roman defeat by Hannibal's Carthaginian forces in the Second Punic War.

4. Battle of Tours (732) - Charles Martel's victory over the Umayyad Caliphate, halting Muslim expansion into Europe.

5. Battle of Agincourt (1415) - Henry V of England's triumph over the French during the Hundred Years' War.

6. Battle of Lepanto (1571) - A naval clash where the Holy League defeated the Ottoman Empire's fleet.

7. Battle of Blenheim (1704) - A pivotal battle in the War of Spanish Succession, led by the Duke of Marlborough.

8. Battle of Saratoga (1777) - A turning point in the American Revolution, where the British army surrendered to American forces.

9. Battle of Trafalgar (1805) - Admiral Nelson's British fleet defeated Napoleon's combined French and Spanish fleets.

10. Battle of Gettysburg (1863) - A significant battle during the American Civil War, with a Union victory over the Confederacy.

11. Battle of Stalingrad (1942-1943) - A brutal and decisive battle in WWII, with the Soviet Union defeating Nazi Germany.

12. D-Day (1944) - Allied forces' invasion of Normandy, a critical step in liberating Western Europe from Nazi occupation.

13. Battle of Midway (1942) - A pivotal naval battle in the Pacific theater of WWII, where the U.S. Navy defeated Japan.

14. Battle of Marathon (1918) - A major battle in WWI, marking the beginning of the end for the Central Powers.

15. Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC) - Famous for the last stand of 300 Spartans against the Persian Empire.

16. Battle of Hastings (1066) - William the Conqueror's Norman forces defeated King Harold II of England.

17. Battle of Jena-Auerstedt (1806) - Napoleon's victory over the Prussian and Saxon armies in the Napoleonic Wars.

18. Battle of Guadalcanal (1942-1943) - A crucial WWII battle in the Pacific, where the U.S. gained control of the island.

19. Battle of Actium (31 BC) - Octavian's (Augustus) victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra, leading to the end of the Roman Republic.

20. Battle of Panipat (1526) - Babur's Mughal forces defeated the Sultanate of Delhi, establishing the Mughal Empire in India.

Here is a brief overview of the battles mentioned earlier, highlighting the protagonists, approximate number of soldiers on each side, casualties, and the victors:

1. Battle of Marathon (490 BC)

- Protagonist: Athenians

- Approx. Soldiers: Athens (10,000), Persians (20,000+)

- Deaths and Injuries: Athens (192 dead), Persians (6,400+ dead)

- Winner: Athenians

2. Battle of Gaugamela (331 BC)

- Protagonist: Alexander the Great (Macedonians)

- Approx. Soldiers: Alexander's forces (47,000), Persians (100,000+)

- Deaths and Injuries: Exact figures unknown, but heavy casualties for the Persians.

- Winner: Macedonians

3. Battle of Cannae (216 BC)

- Protagonist: Hannibal (Carthaginians)

- Approx. Soldiers: Rome (70,000+), Carthage (40,000+)

- Deaths and Injuries: Rome (approximately 50,000 dead), Carthage (around 5,700 dead)

- Winner: Carthaginians

4. Battle of Tours (732)

- Protagonist: Charles Martel (Franks)

- Approx. Soldiers: Franks (possibly 30,000), Umayyad Caliphate (possibly 80,000+)

- Deaths and Injuries: Estimated heavy casualties for the Umayyad Caliphate.

- Winner: Franks

5. Battle of Agincourt (1415)

- Protagonist: Henry V of England

- Approx. Soldiers: England (around 6,000), France (possibly 20,000+)

- Deaths and Injuries: England (fewer than 1,000 dead), France (approximately 6,000 dead)

- Winner: England

6. Battle of Lepanto (1571)

- Protagonist: Holy League (Spain, Papal States, others)

- Approx. Ships: Holy League (about 200 galleys), Ottoman Empire (around 250 galleys)

- Deaths and Injuries: Thousands on both sides, exact numbers vary.

- Winner: Holy League

7. Battle of Blenheim (1704)

- Protagonist: Duke of Marlborough (Grand Alliance)

- Approx. Soldiers: Grand Alliance (about 52,000), Franco-Bavarian forces (around 56,000)

- Deaths and Injuries: Grand Alliance (around 13,000 dead and wounded), Franco-Bavarian forces (around 38,000)

- Winner: Grand Alliance

8. Battle of Saratoga (1777)

- Protagonist: American Continental Army

- Approx. Soldiers: American (around 8,000), British (around 6,000)

- Deaths and Injuries: American (fewer than 500 dead), British (around 600 dead, over 6,000 captured)

- Winner: American Continental Army

9. Battle of Trafalgar (1805)

- Protagonist: Admiral Nelson (British)

- Approx. Ships: British (around 27 ships), French and Spanish (around 33 ships)

- Deaths and Injuries: Thousands on both sides, exact numbers vary.

- Winner: British

10. Battle of Gettysburg (1863)

- Protagonist: Union Army (United States)

- Approx. Soldiers: Union (around 93,000), Confederate (around 71,000)

- Deaths and Injuries: Union (around 23,000 casualties), Confederate (around 28,000 casualties)

- Winner: Union Army

11. Battle of Stalingrad (1942-1943)

- Protagonist: Soviet Red Army

- Approx. Soldiers: Soviet Union (possibly over a million), Nazi Germany (around 800,000)

- Deaths and Injuries: Exact figures vary, but millions of casualties on both sides.

- Winner: Soviet Red Army

12. D-Day (1944)

- Protagonist: Allied Forces (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and others)

- Approx. Soldiers: Allies (over 156,000 on D-Day), German defenders (approximately 50,000)

- Deaths and Injuries: Thousands on both sides, exact numbers vary.

- Winner: Allies

13. Battle of Midway (1942)

- Protagonist: United States Navy

- Approx. Ships: United States (3 aircraft carriers, various ships), Japan (4 aircraft carriers, various ships)

- Deaths and Injuries: United States (around 300 dead), Japan (around 3,000 dead)

- Winner: United States

14. Battle of Marathon (1918)

- Protagonist: Allied Forces (World War I)

- Approx. Soldiers: Allied Forces (varied by nation), Central Powers (varied by nation)

- Deaths and Injuries: Millions of casualties on both sides.

- Winner: Allied Forces

15. Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC)

- Protagonist: King Leonidas I (Sparta)

- Approx. Soldiers: Spartan-led Greek force (around 7,000), Persian Empire (possibly hundreds of thousands)

- Deaths and Injuries: Spartan-led Greeks (300+ dead), Persians (tens of thousands dead)

- Winner: Persians

16. Battle of Hastings (1066)

- Protagonist: William the Conqueror (Normans)

- Approx. Soldiers: Normans (estimated 7,000-12,000), Anglo-Saxons (estimated 5,000-7,000)

- Deaths and Injuries: Hundreds, exact numbers vary.

- Winner: Normans

17. Battle of Jena-Auerstedt (1806)

- Protagonist: Napoleon Bonaparte (French)

- Approx. Soldiers: French (around 96,000), Prussian and Saxon forces (around 76,000)

- Deaths and Injuries: Thousands on both sides, exact numbers vary.

- Winner: French

18. Battle of Guadalcanal (1942-1943)

- Protagonist: United States Marine Corps

- Approx. Soldiers: United States (around 60,000), Japanese (around 36,000)

- Deaths and Injuries: Thousands on both sides, exact numbers vary.

- Winner: United States

19. Battle of Actium (31 BC)

- Protagonist: Octavian (Augustus) (Roman forces)

- Approx. Ships: Octavian's fleet (around 400 ships), Mark Antony and Cleopatra's fleet (around 500 ships)

- Deaths and Injuries: Thousands on both sides, exact numbers vary.

- Winner: Octavian (Augustus)

20. Battle of Panipat (1526)

- Protagonist: Babur (Mughal Empire)

- Approx. Soldiers: Mughal forces (around 20,000), Sultanate of Delhi (possibly 100,000+)

- Deaths and Injuries: Thousands on both sides, exact numbers vary.

- Winner: Mughal Empire (Babur)

These battles played pivotal roles in shaping history, and the provided casualty figures are estimates, as exact numbers often vary in historical accounts.

2 notes · View notes