Alexander V Caeser

[Durandal]

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

184331[/snapback]

 

 

GERGOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DaveDash]

It is worth noting that the Romans didnt ALWAYS have problems with cavalry.

 

Ceasar hired Germanic cavalry in his campaigns in Gaul.

Scipio got the excellent Numidian cavalry against Carthage, etc.

 

I don't see why in a battle against Alexander, any competent Roman general such as Caesar, wouldn't get some decent cavalry from any one of their conquered lands, many of whom had excellent cavalry.

Edited June 15, 2005 by DaveDash

[Yama]

It is worth noting that the Romans didnt ALWAYS have problems with cavalry.

 

Ceasar hired Germanic cavalry in his campaigns in Gaul.

Scipio got the excellent Numidian cavalry against Carthage, etc.

 

I don't see why in a battle against Alexander, any competent Roman general such as Caesar, wouldn't get some decent cavalry from any one of their conquered lands, many of whom had excellent cavalry.

184559[/snapback]

 

True, Romans were indeed quite successful employing their allies and conquered people in their campaigns. It should be noted that Alexander had also quite a bit allies in his army, so did the Mongols, Hannibal had nothing but allies...it's not like this was some uniquely Roman trait. Still, I agree that integral Roman cavalry arm would have been mighty useful.

 

I think answer why Romans until very late didn't estabilish large cavalry force of their own is quite complex. First of all, they were doing just fine with their force structure as it was for a very long time, even if there were occasional problems. I stress again that how Romans performed in pitched battles was made less relevant by their skillful and through campaigning. They had competent sub-commanders, usually there was fortified camp which to retreat...it was difficult to inflict decisive defeat on them. Often those 'phalanx vs legion' discussion are somewhat moot, since strength of the Roman army went beyond what happened in battlefield.

 

Secondly, historically it was not the cavalry but infantry and resilience of ordinary Roman citizens which had brought them victory over their deadlies opponents. That was the backbone of Rome and her army. Nobles (equites) were not always terribly respected by a common man; horses were for knights, and being a knight just wasn't cool.

 

Much later, in Byzantine Empire, roles were reversed. Not surprisingly, there were some who criticized reliance to cavalry and archers and wished for the return of good old days of spearmen on foot.

[swerve]

Hannibal had nothing but allies...

 

Never completely true. He always had some Carthaginian troops, although always outnumbered by allies, & tending to diminish the longer he spent in Italy. The Cathaginian empire was as successful as the British in recruiting subjects to its armies.

[DaveDash]

I think thats a pretty good assesment Yama.

 

The terrain would be decisive, I dont have much faith in the Phalanx formations in uneven or unforgiving terrain or weather conditions, as proven at Cynoscephale.

 

Something must be said for the Roman legions under Ceasar. I can't remember the name of the battle, but I read about one where his troops were attacked while in North Eastern Gaul - while they were setting up camp.

Not only did his 9th and 10th Cohort defeat the attackers from such a hugely disadvantageous position, they drove them back and captured THEIR camp.

Of course these are words from Caesar himself, so they may be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Im not sure if I could express full confidence in the Phalanx system, even with combined arms. On flat even terrain, the Romans may be in trouble. Those are the conditions that the Phalanx excelled in. Anything apart from that though, and the flexibility of the legion would most likely carry the day.

 

Also Yama has pointed out one of the greatest Roman strengths: Alexander might win a battle, but he probably wouldn't win the war.

[Matt L.]

Just how effective was Alexander's cavalry? This is *way* before shock cavalry became feasable. The Romans should have enough discipline to not get shaken when their flanks are being harrassed. A competent general like Ceasar will fight with one flank screened by a terrain feature and keep a reserve of light infantry backed by heavy on his other flank to counter any cavalry attack. That might waste some manpower, but the troops in the middle should be able to break the phalanx even if outnumbered. It's what they were designed for.

 

Regards,

 

Matt

[DaveDash]

Just how effective was Alexander's cavalry? This is *way* before shock cavalry became feasable. The Romans should have enough discipline to not get shaken when their flanks are being harrassed. A competent general like Ceasar will fight with one flank screened by a terrain feature and keep a reserve of light infantry backed by heavy on his other flank to counter any cavalry attack. That might waste some manpower, but the troops in the middle should be able to break the phalanx even if outnumbered. It's what they were designed for.

 

Regards,

 

Matt

184614[/snapback]

 

The Roman legion around Ceasar's time put the most experianced troops on the flanks by default. The right flank (unshielded one) always held the veterin troops, who would have to be very hard pressed before routing - especially knowing what happens to Romans who rout.

 

These are professional soldiers we're talking about - extremely disciplined with officers who are in the army for life.

Not a hog wash of Persians.

Edited June 16, 2005 by DaveDash

[larrikin]

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 cataphractii were enlarged by settling large areas of Thrace and Asia Minor with soldier/settlers on farms. Rather than paying taxes these farms provided cataphracts, complete with horse, arms, & armour. The decline of the Byzantine army began when various magnate families began acquiring these farms as parts of their estates, thus reducing the numbeer of cataphractii available. Several Emperors attempted to halt this, or even return to the farm system by removing the large estates, but this generally led to lots of political infighting, revolts, assassinations, etc.

[Ken Estes]

The Roman legion around Ceasar's time put the most experianced troops on the flanks by default. The right flank (unshielded one) always held the veterin troops, who would have to be very hard pressed before routing - especially knowing what happens to Romans who rout.

 

These are professional soldiers we're talking about - extremely disciplined with officers who are in the army for life.

Not a hog wash of Persians.

184631[/snapback]

Sounds right to me. You really get something impressive with a 20 year enlistment in the X Legion, etc. Would not a legion in a deliberate battle or a meeting engagement seek to settle the issue quickly between infantry formations before the cavalry clash could upset the day? That is, the Roman or auxiliary cavalry could be counted upon to at least hold off the opposing cav for a decent interval. The legion would attack, after sending the volley of javelins, seeking to break the phalangial mass. For years, West Point's museum had a nice diorama depicting how maniples or cohorts could break the phalanx with techniques... individually working under the lines of sarissa/pikes by stooping/blocking upward with the small shields, using the excellent short stabbing sword to effect once close enough to the feet/legs of the first line. The phalanx was pretty helpless once the first few lines were penetrated in this manner. The Romans had plenty of practice against such opponents in the early days of the republic. The legionary deployment of maniples in lines in effect represented a tactical/doctrinal response to the problem of handling phalangial order.

[Durandal]

Casear, Casear ,Casear What Casear did? Conquering Gaul? they are the perfect enemy for a Roman Army. and everything we know how about his war was written by Casear himself... And he still managed to loose at the battle of Gergovie.

 

 

Now compare with battles won by Alexander and the enmies Alexander defeated.

[toysoldier]

Now compare with battles won by Alexander and the enmies Alexander defeated.

184685[/snapback]

 

a hogwash of Persians, someone said.

[Durandal]

a hogwash of Persians, someone said.

184698[/snapback]

 

 

LOL, Persian army is way more powerful than a Gallic army maybe fearless but made of poorly equiped naked to half naked warriors, i know the cavalry is good with an above average equipment but they have no discipline and poor organisation with simple tactics.

 

And what about Porus Army?

[Ken Estes]

And what about Porus Army?

184718[/snapback]

Well, Durandel, they caused Alex's death after a fashion, but one could argue that the Macedonians were off their peak performance by then, ready to mutiny, etc. Better yet are the Sythians [guess where?] against whom Al and the boys could not make any inroads. Ken

[gnocci]

Ceasar hired Germanic cavalry in his campaigns in Gaul.

184559[/snapback]

I already knew that out of Asterix & Obelix.

[pikachu]

Just how effective was Alexander's cavalry? This is *way* before shock cavalry became feasable.

 

I think this is another misconception. Alexander's Companions were definitely shock cavalry, used in charges to break enemy lines. The idea that shock cavalry was impossible in ancient times came primarily because modern riders can't envision charging without stirrups. However, historical records from Asian nations clearly describe the frequent use of cavalry shock tactics by nomadic armies, long before stirrups came into frequent use. If we consider that the emergence of stirrups was first recorded among Asiatic horse archers, it's quite possible that it was originally developed to aid in horse archery instead of shock tactics. Mongol horse archers today use their stirrups to allow them to stand while mounted, keeping their upper torso stable by canceling out the horse's rocking movement using their knees. This allows them to shoot their arrows with great precision.

 

Shock cavalry, by comparison, need only to hold on to their horses and follow the momentum of the horse's charge. IIRC, many European cavalry commands in the 17th and 18th centuries even made it a point in their manuals for riders not to try to control their horses' charge but instead to rely on the horses' instinct and follow up their charge with saber work. If we consider also that the huge destriers and Arab warhorses only emerged in the past two millenia, the smaller horses used by Thessalian and Macedonian cavalry in Alexander's times must have been much easier to ride than today's horses. The riders just needed to grip the horses' bellies more tightly with their legs. Looking at bas reliefs of cavalry charges as envisioned by the Greeks, we clearly see them doing just that and more, lowering their bodies level with the horses' necks and essentially hugging the necks to make man and horse move as one. Come to think of it, Sarmatians and Parthians already had heavily armored horsemen (and horse) long before they had stirrups, so clearly cavaly shock action had been possible even then.

[Colin]

Wouldn’t the formation of a large cavalry arm put a strain on the logistical side of the Romans? Considering that they already had quite the baggage train. The horses would have required a lot of fodder.

 

Just to make it more interesting how would Caesars legions do against a European army just prior to the introductions of firearms?

[Yama]

Sounds right to me. You really get something impressive with a 20 year enlistment in the X Legion, etc. Would not a legion in a deliberate battle or a meeting engagement seek to settle the issue quickly between infantry formations before the cavalry clash could upset the day? That is, the Roman or auxiliary cavalry could be counted upon to at least hold off the opposing cav for a decent interval. The legion would attack, after sending the volley of javelins, seeking to break the phalangial mass. For years, West Point's museum had a nice diorama depicting how maniples or cohorts could break the phalanx with techniques... individually working under the lines of sarissa/pikes by stooping/blocking upward with the small shields, using the excellent short stabbing sword to effect once close enough to the feet/legs of the first line. The phalanx was pretty helpless once the first few lines were penetrated in this manner. The Romans had plenty of practice against such opponents in the early days of the republic. The legionary deployment of maniples in lines in effect represented a tactical/doctrinal response to the problem of handling phalangial order.

184676[/snapback]

 

But Alexander's army was not a phalanx army, it was army with a phalanx. How the legion phalanx would do against a Macedonian phalanx was not terribly relevant, since it was the hypaspists, cavalry and light infantry which would decide the battle on Alexanders' side. Hannibal's army had composition somewhat similar to Alexanders' army, and as long as Romans did not have enough cavalry, they were throughly massacred.

 

Of course, late Republic or Imperial Roman army was quite a bit different and better equipped compared to Punic wars Roman army. Late Republic army with auxilia cavalry and Balearic slingers might be better hypothetical match to Alexanders' army, preferably with Scipio in charge rather than Caesar.

 

In my opinion, Macedonian army was a superior battlefield tool to just about any pre-Byzantine Roman army if there was a military genius in charge. In the long term, Roman military system was superior since it was less dependent from finely tuned combined arms tactics which required very competent supreme leadership to be really effective. Romans never waged as brilliantly successful single campaign as Alexander, but in the end their empire was much stronger and more resilient.

Edited June 16, 2005 by Yama

[DaveDash]

LOL, Persian army is way more powerful than a Gallic army maybe fearless but made of poorly equiped naked to half naked warriors, i know the cavalry is good with an above average equipment but they have no discipline and poor organisation with simple tactics.

 

And what about Porus Army?

184718[/snapback]

 

The Gauls under Vercingetorix showed tactical competence on more than one occasionl - often luring Ceasar into unfavourable positions.

 

It is testimony to the strength of the Legions, Ceasars great confidence in himself, and his mens confidence in him, that managed to get them out of some of those situations.

[DaveDash]

But Alexander's army was not a phalanx army, it was army with a phalanx. How the legion phalanx would do against a Macedonian phalanx was not terribly relevant, since it was the hypaspists, cavalry and light infantry which would decide the battle on Alexanders' side. Hannibal's army had composition somewhat similar to Alexanders' army, and as long as Romans did not have enough cavalry, they were throughly massacred.

 

Of course, late Republic or Imperial Roman army was quite a bit different and better equipped compared to Punic wars Roman army. Late Republic army with auxilia cavalry and Balearic slingers might be better hypothetical match to Alexanders' army, preferably with Scipio in charge rather than Caesar.

 

184959[/snapback]

 

I have bolded the important part.

 

In many of the battles against Hannibal, the Romans infantry was used to using their superiority and smashing through the enemy lines - they had no idea of pin/flank tactics.

Hannibal taught them the value of cavalry and such tactics (at quite a cost), I seriously doubt this would be a lesson that they would have forgotten come Ceasars time.

 

Scipios campaign against Carthage can prove that when the Romans finally learnt tactics and had some competent leadership, they themselves could be devistating.

Scipio used some brilliant manouvers during this time, showing what a well trained and disciplined force could do.

Ultimately Zama was a still a close thing, but the Romans did defeat Hannibal there, some who consider to be one of the greatest generals along side Alexander.

[Durandal]

The Gauls under Vercingetorix showed tactical competence on more than one occasionl -

184962[/snapback]

 

 

Like?

[Durandal]

Lets be serious a second you can't compare what Alexander and Caesar did.

Oh Germans, Gallics, and Bretons are all brave but they are pilum's fooder.

Not to mention Roman diplomacy.

[Sardaukar]

The Gauls under Vercingetorix showed tactical competence on more than one occasionl - often luring Ceasar into unfavourable positions.

 

It is testimony to the strength of the Legions, Ceasars great confidence in himself, and his mens confidence in him, that managed to get them out of some of those situations.

184962[/snapback]

 

Many times Caesar's impatience got him into situations that he could have avoided. That he usually was able to get himself and his army out of those with his brilliance doesn't take away the fact that he himself got them into difficult situations in first place. At least twice, in landing to Africa during Civil War and then same in Egypt (one that became Alexandrian War), he landed with really meager and insufficient forces and having to resort to frantic calls for reinforcements. In both of the cases his army was in grave danger to be annihilated.

 

Even though I don't agree with all what JFC Fuller says about Caesar, he did tend to have a habit to try to tackle a problems head on, no matter the odds. That he succeeded in that was because of his brilliance as combat commander and the complete trust his troops had towards him.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

[swerve]

Many times Caesar's impatience got him into situations that he could have avoided. That he usually was able to get himself and his army out of those with his brilliance doesn't take away the fact that he himself got them into difficult situations in first place.  <snip>

 

.. he did tend to have a habit to try to tackle a problems head on, no matter the odds. That he succeeded in that was because of his brilliance as combat commander and the complete trust his troops had towards him.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

 

Substitute "Napoleon" for "Caesar" in the above . . . . . right, yes?

[jaro]

You are forgeting one basic thing. Cesars legions were far modern weapon than Alexander phalanxs. You are comparing uncomparable. Same thing is to compare German Wehrmacht with Israeli army in 1973.Who will win?Israeli,becouse they have far modern weapons than WW2 Germans, same with Legions against Phalanx, Roman Heavy infantry was perfectly armed for fight in close fights,gladius was a stabing sword,scutum could block sarrisas easily, pilum volley will make holes in Macedoni line.Legionaries, especially experienced ones will crush phalangities frontally.They are able to stop Macedoni cavalry,they had shield formations (with pillum) to repell cavalry.Romans were masters in tactical formations.Yes, Ceasar will defeat Alexander army.

[Stevely]

You are forgeting one basic thing. Cesars legions were far modern weapon than Alexander phalanxs. You are comparing uncomparable. Same thing is to compare German Wehrmacht with Israeli army in 1973.Who will win?Israeli,becouse they have far modern weapons than WW2 Germans, same with Legions against Phalanx, Roman Heavy infantry was perfectly armed for fight in close fights,gladius was a stabing sword,scutum could block sarrisas easily, pilum volley will make holes in Macedoni line.Legionaries, especially experienced ones will crush phalangities frontally.They are able to stop Macedoni cavalry,they had shield formations (with pillum) to repell cavalry.Romans were masters in tactical formations.Yes, Ceasar will defeat Alexander army.

185214[/snapback]

 

I take your point, but I don't think that the qualitative difference between 1st Century BC weaponry and 4th Century BC weaponry was as great as between 1940's weaponry and 1970's weaponry/