Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Julius Caesar vs Alexander the Great

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

  • Julius Caesar vs Alexander the Great

    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?

    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?
    Last edited by HoratioNelson; 04 Jun 09,, 15:46.

  • #2
    The one with more money and larger navy.Otherwise Alexander has better recon and more secured LOC's thanks to larger and better cavalry.
    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


    • #3
      Well, I believe I made it clear. If I haven't: We are speaking about a single engagement between Caesar and Alexander, not a long campaign. I could develop a longer and more detailed scenario, but right now I have neither the time nor the inclination to plot that out. So, we are speaking about just one battle, on a flat plain with a few hills and a small creek in the centre, between Caesar's army from Alesia and Alexander's army from Gaugamela.

      Comment


      • #4
        Both are able tacticians who could see and feel how the battle is flowing and where to deliver the decisive blow or where to stem the tide.

        Given this, then it is a battle of the armies which means that the Roman Legion is superior to the Macedonian Phalanx.

        Comment


        • #5
          The battle being fought on a flat plain seals the deal. The Macedonian Phalanx could and did beat the manipulative legion on such ground. I think Alexander was also a better military mind than Caesar and had better military experiences to draw on. Caesar has not yet fought Pompey so his experience is limited to facing disorganized mobs with inferior requipment. Alexander while not having faced Romans, has faced highly disciplined and well equipped Greek, Asiatic Greek and Greek Mercenary forces either via rebellion or under Persian control.

          Comment


          • #6
            Zraver: Flat plain with some hills and a creek in the centre. And I actually think the flat plain better suits the legion than the phalanx. The legions of Rome were developed because traditional hoplite tactics weren't suited to Italy's plains and open areas like they were to rocky, mountainous Greece. The legions therefore evolved with flexibility and mobility in mind, two elements that phalanxes lack in a big way. However, Alexander's superior cavalry might counter this.

            Also, Caesar isn't commanding a manipular legion. The manipular legions that defeated the phalanx at Cynocephalae, Pydna and Magnesia was a very different army than the one that Caesar used to fight the Gauls. The manipular legion were volunteer citizen-soldiers who usually fought for the duration of a campaign and then retired. Caesar's soldiers came after the reforms of Marius, and were well-trained, battle-hardened professionals, many of whom had been fighting for most of their lives. On the whole, this 'Marian' legion was a more efficient and more professional fighting force than the old legions. And in the hands of Caesar, one of the military greats, it could be a very potent army indeed. Heck, the Marian legion was such an efficient fighting force that, for most of the history of the Roman Empire, Rome didn't even need military geniuses like Scipio or Caesar. An competent commander was all the legion needed to defeat most foes, and Caesar is most definetely more than just competent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by HoratioNelson View Post
              Zraver: Flat plain with some hills and a creek in the centre. And I actually think the flat plain better suits the legion than the phalanx. The legions of Rome were developed because traditional hoplite tactics weren't suited to Italy's plains and open areas like they were to rocky, mountainous Greece. The legions therefore evolved with flexibility and mobility in mind, two elements that phalanxes lack in a big way. However, Alexander's superior cavalry might counter this.
              Historically however, the Romans did best against the Macedonian phalanx on broken ground. On a plain the Phalanx was in its best environment. The Phalanx was also surprisingly maneuverable on open ground with good commanders, at least until the lines locked. Look at what they did to the Persian Chariots.

              Also, Caesar isn't commanding a manipular legion. The manipular legions that defeated the phalanx at Cynocephalae, Pydna and Magnesia was a very different army than the one that Caesar used to fight the Gauls. The manipular legion were volunteer citizen-soldiers who usually fought for the duration of a campaign and then retired. Caesar's soldiers came after the reforms of Marius, and were well-trained, battle-hardened professionals, many of whom had been fighting for most of their lives. On the whole, this 'Marian' legion was a more efficient and more professional fighting force than the old legions. And in the hands of Caesar, one of the military greats, it could be a very potent army indeed. Heck, the Marian legion was such an efficient fighting force that, for most of the history of the Roman Empire, Rome didn't even need military geniuses like Scipio or Caesar. An competent commander was all the legion needed to defeat most foes, and Caesar is most definetely more than just competent.
              Quality of the troops and sub commanders is about the same on both sides. But I think Alexander has the better military mind and more of the right type of experiences as compared to Caesar.

              Comment


              • #8
                other meetings of great military minds in antiquity.

                Caesar v Pompey

                Octavian v Antony

                Comment


                • #9
                  I do sometimes wonder if Alexander was truly the genius that he is thought to be, or the persian competition he faced was just not up to snuff. Caesar fought against a variety of opponents, and won, while Alexander mainly fought against Persians. He had a much harder time when he entered India.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Johnny W View Post
                    I do sometimes wonder if Alexander was truly the genius that he is thought to be, or the persian competition he faced was just not up to snuff. Caesar fought against a variety of opponents, and won, while Alexander mainly fought against Persians. He had a much harder time when he entered India.
                    Alexander faced Greeks as well as Persians. Of the Persians he faced fighting formations of all types from light infantry, elite cavalry and chariots, heavy infantry, the best ancient archers and Greek hoplites.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The history would suggest otherwise. Alexander spent ten years fighting the Synthians. Obviously, he faced defeats that was not recorded. You don't spent ten years fighting tribes that took Genghis Khan less than 2 to conquer.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Alexander didn't enter Indian mainland and did dessist from offering battle to the Mauryans, I wouldn't know if the Roman Legions would have done the same. They would have probably taken the opportunity.
                        sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Deltacamelately View Post
                          I wouldn't know if the Roman Legions would have done the same. They would have probably taken the opportunity.
                          Only if the Romans reaches something like numeric parity. Alexander was outnumbered by a factor of at least 20 to 1 when he retreated.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Which begs a question ... why didn't the Indian subcontinent conquer Persia?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              OoE reply

                              Logistics??? Moving several hundreds(thousands?)elephants+ tens of thousands horse+half a million men was impractical if not impossible.If they went with less it would mean certain defeat.
                              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

                              Working...
                              X