Julius Caesar vs Alexander the Great

[Mihais]

Woa, sorry I missed your post there. Can you cite a source? I would love to check some primary literature out.

See Caesar's ''Gallic Wars'' ;also Tacitus and Arrianus as ancient sources.
More recent one-''Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World'' by Robert E. Gaebel.There are also some interesting papers written by US Army CGSC students,but I don't have them at hand right now and I don't remember the authors names.

[Mihais]

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

Sir,no doubt the engineers are worth their weight in gold.But then it turns into a game of logistics.If the attackers are able to get enough supplies,the besieged are toast.If not they are forced to retreat and Caesar wins the field by default,but nothing else.There are however cases where engineering skills were decisive on the field,but they were invariably a surprise for the attackers(caltrops,trenches outside enemy LOS,etc..).Poor buggers stumbled upon them and got slaughtered as result.

[HoratioNelson]

Apparently the horses Alexander's cavalry used were formidable. Here's a modern day descendent, the Akhai Teke breed, quite rare now.

There's no doubt that the horses of northern Greece were very fine warhorses. However, I'm sure Caesar's Gallic and Germanic auxilaries had very fine horses as well. Some of the finest modern warmblood breeds, like the Hanoverian and Frisian, are from that vicinity of northern Europe, and I don't doubt that their ancestors would've served as excellent warhorses for the people of Gaul and Germania.

[zraver]

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

Sir, Tyre had walls and was on an island- Alexanders Engineers were elite by any standard. The mole they built to Tyre was 200 yards wide and half a mile long and is still in use today. The mole changed the currents this caused silt deposits and today that whole area is land.

[Officer of Engineers]

In which case, the one edge that Alexander had, his calvary is negated. My point is that Alexander's calvary can be neutralized by other means other than an opposing calvary.

[pate]

It is a rare occurance in history that two truly great military minds face off on the battlefield. Grant and Lee, Patton and Rommel, Napoleon and Wellington. In the days of far Antiquity, there is only one time I can think of off the top of my head that two of the all time greats fought, and that would be Scipio and Hannibal at Zama. No, the truly great Trinity of ancient military minds is, of course, Hannibal, Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great, and none of them ever fought each other.

But what if two of them had? What, through some twist of time and space, we pluck Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great, and their respective armies, from their respective time periods and place them on one battlefield: A flat plain with a small creek and some hills in the middle. And, for whatever reason, they decided they would fight each other. Who would emerge victorious from such a situation??

In that situation, I'd give Ceasar the advantage. Steel.

Which armies will they be commanding? We shall take Caesar's legions from the Battle of Alesia. Roughly 60,000 Romans, around 12 legions, with cavalry and auxilaries. I can't find an exact order of battle, unfortunately. For Alexander? His army from Gaugamela, around 47,000 men (31,000 phalangites, 9,000 peltasts and 7,000 cavalry).

Now, of these two masters of war, who would defeat the other?

Ceasar's Alesian legions are little different from any other legion post-Marian reform. I suppose the question is can a Roman legion (post-Marian) defeat the antique Greek phalanxes? Not sure if that was ever attempted, but I am sure that the future refinements of the phalanx formation were soundly defeated time and time again by the Romans.

I have to easily give this to Ceasar (I assume you refer to Julius) Roman cavalry vs Greek cavalry of the respective eras had different goals and objectives in battle. The Greek would be more of a heavy type in order to force a decisive victory in the rigid battle lines they would see in their era due to the phlanx's relative inability to respond to flanking threats. The post-Marian Roman legion had more flexibility than it's ancient Greek counterpart, and thus the supporting cavalry needed to be less heavy. The Roman cavalry was more to harrass and hasten the retreat of routing soldiers than it was to force a decisive moment in the line of battle.

All in all I believe it comes down to as it always has and always will; what is the quality of your line soldier, and in that I believe the Romans had it. More mobile, less dependent on formation (compared with the Greek).

Interesting situation, but I don't think Antony and Cleo would have had their moment if this battle had happened....

[zraver]

In that situation, I'd give Ceasar the advantage. Steel.



Ceasar's Alesian legions are little different from any other legion post-Marian reform. I suppose the question is can a Roman legion (post-Marian) defeat the antique Greek phalanxes? Not sure if that was ever attempted, but I am sure that the future refinements of the phalanx formation were soundly defeated time and time again by the Romans.

I have to easily give this to Ceasar (I assume you refer to Julius) Roman cavalry vs Greek cavalry of the respective eras had different goals and objectives in battle. The Greek would be more of a heavy type in order to force a decisive victory in the rigid battle lines they would see in their era due to the phlanx's relative inability to respond to flanking threats. The post-Marian Roman legion had more flexibility than it's ancient Greek counterpart, and thus the supporting cavalry needed to be less heavy. The Roman cavalry was more to harrass and hasten the retreat of routing soldiers than it was to force a decisive moment in the line of battle.

All in all I believe it comes down to as it always has and always will; what is the quality of your line soldier, and in that I believe the Romans had it. More mobile, less dependent on formation (compared with the Greek).

Interesting situation, but I don't think Antony and Cleo would have had their moment if this battle had happened....

Rome did not go undefeated in its conquest of the Hellenistic world, the term Pyrrhic victory stems from the Legion/phalanx debate. Like most battles/wars it comes down to the commander and the quality of the troops. Caesar for all his ability never had to face the number and type of opponents that Alexander did. Troop wise both are leading veteran formations used to winning with no inbuilt fear of the other. I also think you underestimate the value of the Macedonian Companions, Rome at this point has not been subjected to a heavy cavalry charge by lancers.

[astralis]

question- did greek cavalry use stirrups?

[Mihais]

question- did greek cavalry use stirrups?

No,but due to training it didn't stop them from charging.We are talking about the best of them,the Thessalians and Macedonians.

[astralis]

without stirrups, cavalry is no longer the killing force- foot is.

[zraver]

without stirrups, cavalry is no longer the killing force- foot is.

In correct, with out stirrups the cavalry cannot deliver a classic medieval charge of the heavy lance to the front of a formation, but it can still move faster tactically than even the legions and thus get at the exposed flanks and rear deliver brutal overhand stabbing attacks with their lances, or nasty strikes with their swords. All ancient infantry formations suffered from an exposed left side and rear where the infantry could not bring weapons to bear or an exposed right side where they were shieldless. All they could do was refuse the flank, but this only slightly extended the distance the enemy had to travel to get to those exposed sections once the covering light infantry troops are driven off.

This flank vulnerability for example let Hannibal Barca smash the Romans at Cannae where he hit both flanks and squeezed. The bulk of the Roman army was simply chopped down, locked in formation and unable to protect themselves. Rome itself would do this to others. The Companions gave Alexander the ability to get on the flank quickly.

[astralis]

zraver,

i'd say that after the marian reforms it becomes a lot harder for an army to outmanuever the romans like hannibal did at cannae. not only did the roman army become more professional, the development of cohorts made the roman legion much less vulnerable to flank attacks as they were more manueverable. heck, even the old manipular system pre-Marius was more flexible than the phalanx.

also, the relief system of having rotations every ten minutes would be a huge plus against alexander's army. i really don't know if the phalanx could hang on long enough for do the hammer-anvil thing alexander liked to do with the companions.

[Officer of Engineers]

There's another thing to consider. Who would be the one to offer battle? Caesar had a knack for refusing battle on the enemy's terms.

[zraver]

There's another thing to consider. Who would be the one to offer battle? Caesar had a knack for refusing battle on the enemy's terms.

And Alexander had the knack for forcing it. We have two very able commanders with two elite armies each with its own advantages and weaknesses. Probably the only way to figure out who would most likely win is get the 10 best miniatures gamers in the world, set up the geohex and let them round robin each other each fighting as both and see who won the most at the end.

Do the Romans get into gladius range before they get hit by the Companions? I think that is probably the central question. So if the Velites other aux light infantry and German cavalry can hold off the Macedonian light infantry and cavalry the Romans probably win. If they can't either by being forced back or out manuvered then the Macedonians probably win.

[Officer of Engineers]

And Alexander had the knack for forcing it.

Very astute counter.