Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Julius Caesar vs Alexander the Great

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Triple C View Post
    Ceasar relied on his German auxilliaries for heavy cavalry. They were of good quality and discipline. He trusted them enough to lead them in person into battle in what became the charge that broke the resolve of the Gauls in the Battle of Alessia. I don't know if they were anywhere nearly as good as the Macedonian Companions who were handpicked elites, however.
    The Macedonians were also lancers, were the Germans?

    Comment


    • #32
      Question from someone who doesn't know much about the epoch: didn't Ceasar employ field artillery? If so, those packed phalanxs would provide a very nice target...
      Last edited by jlvfr; 08 Jun 09,, 16:16.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
        Question 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...
        They had time for 2-3 salvos at best,while the missiles weren't exactly guided by GPS.Besides,they were mostly used to either defend fortifications,or to provide cover fire while assaulting troops approached enemy walls.


        ''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


        • #34
          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


          • #35
            Originally posted by zraver View Post
            The Macedonians were also lancers, were the Germans?
            I really have no idea--but since the German cavalry were used as shock troops and were not equipped with any missile weapon, it would be a reasonable assumption that they used some kind of lance.
            All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
            -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              Which begs a question ... why didn't the Indian subcontinent conquer Persia?
              Sir,
              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


              • #37
                Originally posted by troung View Post
                Sounds like you are broke or/and one liner challenged...

                Mughals, Timur, Durrani, Nadir Shah, Ghori...
                Ignorant post alert.
                sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Deltacamelately View Post
                  Sir,
                  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


                  • #39
                    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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by troung View Post
                      Need to be able to conquer them first...
                      If you are responding to me, then all I can say is I conquered one. Or perhaps she conquered me. :)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Johnny W View Post
                        Number two sounds more like a reason to conquer them, or at very least, visit them a lot. :)
                        Johnny,

                        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


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                          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.
                          Woa, sorry I missed your post there. Can you cite a source? I would love to check some primary literature out.
                          All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                          -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            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


                            • #44
                              The walls around Alesia would have negated Alexander's advantage. Hence, superior engineering negated the calvary ... and not for the last time in history.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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

                                Working...
                                X