Alexander V Caeser

[WRW]

Last night my son (9) came up with the following question - he plays Rise of Nation a lot:

 

How would Alexanders army compare with the legions of Julius Caeser.

 

I figure that for sieges the Romans would have no problem but that in a set piece fight it would be closer but the Romans would still win - I figure Alexanders infantry formations were weak against flank attacks.

 

Your opinions please.

 

WRW

[Yama]

Last night my son (9) came up with the following question - he plays Rise of Nation a lot:

 

How would Alexanders army compare with the legions of Julius Caeser.

 

I figure that for sieges the Romans would have no problem but that in a set piece fight it would be closer but the Romans would still win - I figure Alexanders infantry formations were weak against flank attacks.

 

Your opinions please.

183580[/snapback]

 

It would depend who was in charge - Romans did defeat all of the Diadochi empires, though OTOH they were only a shadow of Alexander's military might. It would also depend on circumstances.

 

IMO, if we assume pitched battle, Alexander vs Caesar, then Alexander wins on the grounds that he had more balanced army and he was greater tactician and strategian than Caesar. Longer, drawn-out campaign, and result would be uncertain. Macedonian army would be more vulnerable to bad leadership than Roman army, whose sub-commanders often worked miracles to save disasters caused by inept high command.

 

Reportedly, Scipio once met Hannibal long after 2nd Punic war was over, and asked him who he considered greatest general? Hannibal's list was

1) Alexander

2) Pyrrhus of Epeirus

3) Himself.

 

Probably Scipio was somewhat dissatisfied with Hannibals' all-time list...

[Sardaukar]

Maj.Gen. J.F.C. Fuller in his book "Caesar-Man, Soldier and Tyrant" has opinion that Alexander the Great's army would eat Caesar's army alive when generalled by equal generals. That is because while Roman legion is the best heavy infantry of antiquity, it's not combined arms army like Alexander's. Romans did lack 2 essential parts of it...that is reliable and competent light infantry and efficient cavalry.

 

Romans were lucky that they never had to go against the army that Alexander's father created..or what was still in effect with Alexander's immediate successors. Instead they only had to fight degenerated phalanx with no mobility due to lengthened "sarissa" pike and mediocre training.

 

While I'm great fan of classical legions (that is from Marius to start of 3rd century AD), I'm amazed that during whole of that time they never created truly efficient light infantry and cavalry, instead having to rely on unreliable allies and mercenaries.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

[Guest aevans]

I'm always ammused by these apples and oranges comparisons. The Roman armies were composed in accordance with the threats they had to face. Who knows what an actual Roman army facing Alexander's would have even looked like, much less how it would have been used on the field.

[Sardaukar]

I'm always ammused by these apples and oranges comparisons. The Roman armies were composed in accordance with the threats they had to face. Who knows what an actual Roman army facing Alexander's would have even looked like, much less how it would have been used on the field.

183630[/snapback]

 

Not totally true. Roman armies faced cavalry/combined arms threats long before Caesar was born. And in many occasions, Romans went down badly. Even Scipio Africanus had to resort to Numidian cavalry against Hannibal because of that, and thus having cavalry superiority in Battle of Zama.

 

Caesar himself had great trouble against Numidians in his African Campaign during Civil War, who were mainly light infantry and cavalry...much like his uncle Marius had trouble against Jugurtha. And Pompeius was unable to destroy Sertorius in Spain because legionary heavy infantry was unable to fight in loose order...thus ineffective agains "guerilla" tactics. And we don't really have to go into what happened to Crassus vs. Parthians.

 

Against infanty opposition Roman legions had few if no counterparts in their time. But I'm still amazed why they had to resort to foreign auxiliaries to fill the gap. They were not averse to horses even, since Romans were quite fans of horse racing.

 

Situation with effective light infantry was remedies with Augustus forming true standing army with integrated auxiliary. But only emperor Gallienus formed truly effective Roman cavalry when faced multiple mounted adversaries.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

[Gregory]

Alexander wins the skirmish part of the battle, but the Ceasar outflanks his pike phalanx when the legions close in and destroys them.

[toysoldier]

Alexander wins the skirmish part of the battle, but the Ceasar outflanks his pike phalanx when the legions close in and destroys them.

183652[/snapback]

 

was everyman in Alexander´s army a macedonian? why wouldn´t the romans be allowed auxiliaries?

[Sardaukar]

Alexander wins the skirmish part of the battle, but the Ceasar outflanks his pike phalanx when the legions close in and destroys them.

183652[/snapback]

 

Problem is that they cannot outflank the phalanx if they cannot defeat Alexander's cavalry first. Heavy infantry can rarely advance if it's threatened by cavalry from flanks. Alexander's phalanx was not decisive arm of his army..his cavalry was. Phalanx had function of pinning the enemy infantry so they could be flanked and destroyed by cavalry. Bit like in Cannae.

 

Caesar did tackle the problem by using fortifications to secure the flanks, ditches etc, if he couldn't have cavalry superiority..either in quantity or quality. So competent Roman general would resort to sort of "mobile siege warfare", since that'd be their forte too..that and quality and organization of heavy infantry. Spade would dominate Roman tactics in that case, just like in Alesia.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

[Guest aevans]

Sardaukar:

 

You're missing the point -- the Romans weren't one-dimensional in their military thinking. You yourself gave some classical examples. For example, if the enemy has cavalry superiority, bribe his cavalry to come over to your side. Or, to step outside of of your examples in a sideways direction, the answer to the Parthians was eventually not to bother with them, because they didn't represent a real threat to the Empire, just a local nuisance. The same can be said for numerous guerilla factions that were largely ignored.

[Sardaukar]

Sardaukar:

 

You're missing the point -- the Romans weren't one-dimensional in their military thinking. You yourself gave some classical examples. For example, if the enemy has cavalry superiority, bribe his cavalry to come over to your side. Or, to step outside of of your examples in a sideways direction, the answer to the Parthians was eventually not to bother with them, because they didn't represent a real threat to the Empire, just a local nuisance. The same can be said for numerous guerilla factions that were largely ignored.

183678[/snapback]

 

I don't think Romans were one-dimensional in thinking, but their lack of "home-brewed" light and cavalry units did put them into grave danger many times. And Rome did fight Parthia multiple times, so ignoring opposition was never Roman way. Caesar himself was departing to campaign against Parthia but was assasinated. Marcus Antonius fought a campaign against Parthians too. Trajanus finally did conquer the Mesopotamia. So the "ignoring" doesn't wash. Rome never ignored any military threat. That's apparent from number of campaigns they fought. Augustus did try to limit expansion, especially after disaster in Germania, but some of his successors were very expansionist.

 

In all but Trajan's campaign the Roman army had to rely extensively to non-Roman light units and cavalry. During Trajan times the auxilia was already very Romanized, but still wasn't "Roman".

 

Numerous guerilla factions were not ignored either. Campaign against Sertorius was pushed to the end by means of attrition and annihilation. Same was done by Scipio Aemilianus against Numantia. Not to mention Jewish rebellions 69-73 AD and 132-135 AD. Not counting big number of other insurrections. All of them were answered with force. It's just that if Roman army itself had posessed integral, as well-trained light infantry and cavalry as their legionary infantry, they'd have made life lot easier for themselves in war. Time and time again it was shown that Roman legions were not well-suited for other than pitched battles, but very few Roman generals took any measures to remedy situation.

 

It's really like fighting one-armed, how good that arm may be.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

[pikachu]

I have a question about this. At the time of the Hunnic invasion, both the Western and Eastern empires had to fight with Legions aided by auxillia cavalry. As late as the fall of Rome, the Lombards, Franks, Goths, and others essentially triumphed on the battlefield by using heavy cavalry against the then cavalry-less Western Legions, their auxillia having (wisely) thrown in their lot with the invaders. Yet, a mere few years later, Belisarius retook Rome with a force made up primarily of heavy cavalry. How did the Eastern Empire convert from Roman heavy infantry to Byzantine cataphract in such a short period?

 

They were not averse to horses even, since Romans were quite fans of horse racing.

 

I thought the Romans raced chariots, not horses? Then again, I got that impression from Hollywood...

[vardulli]

I have a question about this. At the time of the Hunnic invasion, both the Western and Eastern empires had to fight with Legions aided by auxillia cavalry. As late as the fall of Rome, the Lombards, Franks, Goths, and others essentially triumphed on the battlefield by using heavy cavalry against the then cavalry-less Western Legions, their auxillia having (wisely) thrown in their lot with the invaders. Yet, a mere few years later, Belisarius retook Rome with a force made up primarily of heavy cavalry. How did the Eastern Empire convert from Roman heavy infantry to Byzantine cataphract in such a short period?

 

183760[/snapback]

 

the Roman army consisted of varied units including cataphracts (from late 1st century AD)

there wasn't a conversion of troops as such

simply that certain arms gradually take precedence after a period of time.

[pikachu]

the Roman army consisted of varied units including cataphracts (from late 1st century AD)

 

That's the thing. AFAIK, even Roman clibinarii heavies were auxillia, but Belisarius' cataphracts were "real" Romans, insofar as they had full citizenship and were actually recruited from the thematic patrician/equisterian classes. Where did all the true Roman horsemen come from? Did the Eastern Empire simply settle the old auxillia as Romans or did they actually take the time to teach their citizens to ride? I basically have this big gap in my understanding between the clibinarii and the cataphract. The former were auxillia, the latter citizens. Where did the pool for Byzantine cavalry come from?

[Xonitex]

Forgive this basic question: What constitutes "heavy" and "light" infantry?

 

EDIT: Never mind, I looked it up. Sorry for bothering you guys. Now I have another question:

 

How were light infantry employed? (As auxiliary units? As scouts? On the flanks?)

Edited June 13, 2005 by Xonitex

[Matt L.]

Forgive this basic question: What constitutes "heavy" and "light" infantry?

183816[/snapback]

 

Heavy infantry fights in a tight formation and light does not. Being in tight formation requires more armor (pre-gunpowder) as you become a much more juicy target for missile fire. It also slows you down in order to maintain formation (in addition to the extra armor). The benefit is increased shock power since you are maximizing the number of weapons for length of frontage.

 

Note: this is my definition - others may disagree.

 

Regards,

 

Matt

[Xonitex]

Note: this is my definition - others may disagree.

183822[/snapback]

I looked up the difference right after I posted (should have done it before) and the definition I got from Wikipedia, as well as some other sources, matches yours. I'm assuming that the phalanx, then, would be composed of heavy infantry (hoplites).

[oldsoak]

Heavy infantry fights in a tight formation and light does not. Being in tight formation requires more armor (pre-gunpowder) as you become a much more juicy target for missile fire. It also slows you down in order to maintain formation (in addition to the extra armor). The benefit is increased shock power since you are maximizing the number of weapons for length of frontage.

 

Note: this is my definition - others may disagree.

 

Regards,

 

Matt

183822[/snapback]

 

I was under the impression that light infantry were lightly armed and employed in skirmishing type tactics because they could leg it in and out action easily , and heavy infantry were heavily armed/armoured and employed in blocks because you couldnt hit and run with them. learn summat new every day.

[vardulli]

That's the thing. AFAIK, even Roman clibinarii heavies were auxillia, but Belisarius' cataphracts were "real" Romans, insofar as they had full citizenship and were actually recruited from the thematic patrician/equisterian classes. Where did all the true Roman horsemen come from? Did the Eastern Empire simply settle the old auxillia as Romans or did they actually take the time to teach their citizens to ride? I basically have this big gap in my understanding between the clibinarii and the cataphract. The former were auxillia, the latter citizens. Where did the pool for Byzantine cavalry come from?

183815[/snapback]

the idea of 'Roman' doesnt work

 

citizens joined the auxilia

IIRC in 212 AD all free born peoples of the Empire were granted citizenship. but even before that citizens were recruited into the auxilia

indeed there is the record of at least one soldier transfering from the legion to auxilia cavalry-- because he could ride instead of walk

 

the idea that by the latter first century AD auxilia were less reliable troops is a myth--- the major rebellions/struggles for the throne were invariably led by the legions

 

whilst the auxilia guarded the empire

[Sardaukar]

Some thoughts about various issues:

 

Difference between light and heavy infantry... There are many definitions, even during ancient times. But heavy infantry is usually wielding heavy armour and weaponry, fighting in tight formation. Greek phalanx, Roman legion style. Light infantry tends to be..well, lighter armed and armoured. Thus, they are more mobile. Lot of the light infantry during ancient times were archers and slingers, relying on mobility and missile weapons.

 

One has to remember that related to topic, Roman army pre-Scipio Africanus was very different from army that won in Zama. And that army was very different from what Marious, Caesar and Pompeius commanded. Augustus modified the system even further, with true standing army and integrated auxilia.

 

Good overview is:

 

Roman Army

 

In context of topic, it's interesting to see what difficulties Romans had against Pyrrus, whose army was trained according to Macedonian principles. But it wasn't true combined arms army like Alexander's either. It just shows that Roman military system had it's weaknesses.

 

Some quotes from above page:

 

Between the reigns of Augustus and Trajan the Roman Army perhaps reached its pinnacle. It is the army of this time which is generally understood as the 'classical' Roman army. However, contrary to popular belief, this was not the army which was eventually defeated by the northern barbarians.

 

A whole host of new cavalry and infantry units had been created in desperate times of civil war and barbarian invasions.

One of the most significant differences between the old army system was that Caracalla in AD 212 had bestowed Roman citizenship on all the provinces. With this the ancient distinction between the legionaries and the auxiliary forces had been swept aside, each now being equal in their status.

So provincial inhabitants might have become Romans, but this didn't mean the end to non-Romans being part of the Roman army.

 

In their desperation the embattled emperors of the third century had recruited any military forces which came to hand. Germans Sarmatians, Arabs, Armenians, Persians, Moors; all were not subjects of the empire and now stood to the Roman army in the same relation as once the auxiliaries had done.

These new barbarian imperial forces might have grown larger as the third century went on, but their numbers did not pose a threat to the legions of the empire.

Ever from emperor Gallienus onward the tendency of increasing the proportion of cavalry and light infantry and relying less on the heavy infantry legionary grew more apparent.

The legions gradually were ceasing to be the preferred imperial troops.

 

Also against contrary belief, Legions didn't guard borders per se during "classical time". That was the job of auxilia. Legions were garrisoned some distance from border, working as response units against border incursions. Function of border fortifications, "limitanei", was to slow down the advance of enemy so legions had time to respond and then enemy would be squashed between legions and limitanei. Weakness of the system was lack of central reserve. If reinforcements were needed, Romans had to strip them off from other borders, creating dangerous gaps.

 

But I got carried away again .

 

Tactical use of legion that Alexander might have met was called "manipular tactics". It was basicly a phalanx with joints, more flexible phalanx. Scipio Africanus introduced so called "echelon tactics"..or rather that Hannibal had introduced that to Romans in various previous battles. Only after Marius and Caesar legion's tactical manouver unit was cohort. Before that it was phalanx, then echelon.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

Edited June 14, 2005 by Sardaukar

[WRW]

all inputs much appreciated

 

WRW

[Hard Ball]

Actually the experiment was tried twice. In the First and Seconf Macedonian Wars Macedonian armies armed and trained like Alexander's army fought Roman Republican armies in the battles of Pynda and Cynoscephalae. In both battles the Romans defeated the phalanx and won decisive victories.

[DaveDash]

It is also worthy to note that Phyruss was fighting an infant Roman republic at that time, and cannot be compared to the legions under Ceasar.

Phyruss's forces also consisted of war elephants - something that devistated the Roman infantry forces right up till Zama.

 

My opinion: Alexander > Ceasar, but 1st century BC Romans >>>>> Alexander's Macedonians.

 

Alexander vs Ceasar leading two random armies? Alexander

 

Alexander and his Macedonians and Ceasar with his legions? Ceasar

 

Romans vs Alexanderian Macedonians? Romans.

[Durandal]

This thread again?????

 

 

Still the same answer

Alexander > Ceasar.

 

why? always for the same reason, romans are always in troubles Vs Cavalry armies. so one supported by Phalanx/Peltasts.

Breaking phalanx is not an easy task so expect the legionnaires to be stuck against the macedonians center and so their flanks extremely exposed by Macedonians Companions, Prodromoï and Thessalien cavalry.

[Durandal]

Actually the experiment was tried twice.  In the First and Seconf Macedonian Wars Macedonian armies armed and trained like Alexander's army fought Roman Republican armies in the battles of Pynda and Cynoscephalae. In both battles the Romans defeated the phalanx and won decisive victories.

184104[/snapback]

 

 

At Cynoscephale this only due to a terrible tactical mistake immediately exploited by the Romans.

[Sardaukar]

Well...for heavy infantry for their time..I'd take Roman legion. Alesia, Durandal ? Sorry, couldn't resist