Originally posted by Triple C
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Julius Caesar vs Alexander the Great
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by jlvfr View PostQuestion from someone who doesn't know much about the epoch: didn't Ceaser employ field artillery? If so, those packed phalanxs would provide a very nice target...
''The Macedonians were also lancers, were the Germans? ''
Caesar liked the Germans for their mixed Cavalry-light infantry formations.Each horseman had an infantryman near him to pepper the enemy with missile or stab enemy horses.The Macedonians used shock tactics that weren't seen in W. Europe till Charlemagne.Oriental cavalry developed shock tactics of their own after the Hellenistic experience.In Europe in the time of Caesar only the nomad Sarmatians had anything remotely like the Macedonian cavalry in the age of Phillip and Alexander.Those who know don't speak
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36
Comment
-
i don't believe the macedonian that the Romans defeated were the same as Alexanders Macedonians so a comparison there wouldn't really work. i would really put it to close to call. what i think would really decide the battle is if the Romans can envelop and turn a flank, of if macedonian heavy calvary can successfully execute the hammer and anvil with the phalanx.
1. can roman cavalry stop the macedonian sweep. if not i believe Alexander takes it.
2. can roman infantry envelop and then successfully roll up the macedonian line. or will the hypatists (sp) and other flank guards hold.
3. will the phalanx simply run over the legions?
4. how effective will phila be? can they disrupt a phalanx enough for the legion to close to gladius range?
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostThe Macedonians were also lancers, were the Germans?All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
-Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostWhich begs a question ... why didn't the Indian subcontinent conquer Persia?
Of all the reasons quoted by Zraver and Cactus, I think the 2 most important reasons are -
1. The Indians didn't know that Persia would be brimming with oil few thousand years later.
2. Persian women were actually beautiful.:))sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Deltacamelately View PostSir,
Of all the reasons quoted by Zraver and Cactus, I think the 2 most important reasons are -
1. The Indians didn't know that Persia would be brimming with oil few thousand years later.
2. Persian women were actually beautiful.:))
Number two sounds more like a reason to conquer them, or at very least, visit them a lot. :)
Comment
-
Need to be able to conquer them first...Last edited by troung; 10 Jun 09,, 21:01.To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
Comment
-
Originally posted by Johnny W View PostNumber two sounds more like a reason to conquer them, or at very least, visit them a lot. :)
Yes it is hell of a good reason, to want to conquer.;)
However, it seems the Indians either didn't know this or even worse, were hen-pegged those days.sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mihais View PostCaesar liked the Germans for their mixed Cavalry-light infantry formations.Each horseman had an infantryman near him to pepper the enemy with missile or stab enemy horses.The Macedonians used shock tactics that weren't seen in W. Europe till Charlemagne.Oriental cavalry developed shock tactics of their own after the Hellenistic experience.In Europe in the time of Caesar only the nomad Sarmatians had anything remotely like the Macedonian cavalry in the age of Phillip and Alexander.All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
-Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.
Comment
-
Comparing the two is pretty difficult for one who has read much more about Alexander than Caesar.
Whichever way it would have gone, it would have been a spectacular battle.
What's not clear in the question is whether the battle takes place in Alexander's time or 400 years later in Caesar's time.
It might be safe to say that Caesar would have out-generaled Alexander on battlefield strategy but not on tactics. Alexander's use of cavalry to outflank his foes was nothing short of brilliant, and equipping his infantry with long lances was inspired. He also led from the front and fought hand-to-hand combat to inspire his troops. I don't think Caesar went that far, perhaps wisely so.
Apparently the horses Alexander's cavalry used were formidable. Here's a modern day descendent, the Akhai Teke breed, quite rare now.
Last edited by JAD_333; 21 Apr 10,, 17:37.To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
Comment
-
As I recall from my reading, Alexander was pretty good at walls, but no doubt his cavalry would have been useless against Alesia, except for countering the relieving forces who came at Caesar's rear. But Alesia was 400 years after Alexander's time. Question is would he have used the same seige tactics as Caesar? No telling. His usual practice of circumventing cities and moving on certainly wouldn't have worked since Alesia was the last holdout of the Gauls and had to be taken to end the Gallic wars.To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
Comment
Comment