Alexander V Caeser

[Durandal]

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]

 

 

This is an urban legend born here on tanknet.

 

A phalanx is extremely hard to break, Legionnaires only hope is to exploit phalanx weak mobility by exploiting hole in the line (cynocephale) or difficult ground (pydna)

 

At cynocephale the phalanx are wiped only because a big gap appeared in their line and imediately exploited by the Romans.

If you have no one behind to fill the gap your phalanx are doomed.

 

Battle of Pydna the Legionaires are retreating against unstopable greenphalanxs. The phalanx are then pushing the legionaires too far in a difficult ground and so are disordered and so attacked on their flanks and routed.

 

But Alexander is not a fool. and his phalanxs are not green.

Edited June 17, 2005 by Durandal

[jaro]

This is an urban legend born here on tanknet.

 

A phalanx is extremely hard to break, Legionnaires  only hope is to exploit phalanx weak mobility by exploiting hole in the line (cynocephale) or difficult ground (pydna)

 

At cynocephale the phalanx are wiped only because a big gap appeared in their line and imediately exploited by the Romans.

If you have no one behind to fill the gap your phalanx are doomed.

 

Battle of Pydna the Legionaires are retreating against unstopable greenphalanxs. The phalanx are then pushing the legionaires too far in a difficult ground and so are disordered and so attacked on their flanks and routed.

 

But Alexander is not a fool. and his phalanxs are not green.

185241[/snapback]

 

Phalanx is much more vulnerable from one side, than Legionary Cohort,Ceasar Legions are not a Legions what had a problems with phalanx.Alexander never fought battles against west barbarians as gauls or germans, You supose that they will not so hard enemy than Persians, but they were. Persian army was concentrated around one man, and this dissadvantage Alexander used many times, Barbarians many times fought to death. It is simple, Legions were far more operational than Phalanx.They may be unbeatable at flat terrain (i dont believe they will,if they fight Ceasar legions), but there isnt flat terain everywhere.So if Ceasar invade Macedonia he could go and pilage country, but macedon army will not be able to stop him everywhere as they could fight only at flat lands, not in moutains,forests etc.. (by the way with this tactic were Romans effective against Pyrrhus). Why should Ceasar fight at a place suitable to enemy, when all other terain suits Legion far far better?I dont think Ceasar was such a fool.

[bad-dice]

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

183580[/snapback]

Those of an enquiring disposition might like to try all of the proposed theories out by trying this:

 

http://www.phil-barker.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DBMM.doc

 

Have Fun

 

Rob

[Durandal]

Phalanx is much more vulnerable from one side, than Legionary Cohort,Ceasar Legions  are not a Legions what had a problems with phalanx.Alexander never fought battles against west barbarians as gauls or germans, You supose that they will not so hard enemy than Persians, but they were. Persian army was concentrated around one man, and this dissadvantage Alexander used many times, Barbarians many times fought to death. It is simple, Legions were far more operational than Phalanx.They may be unbeatable at flat terrain (i dont believe they will,if they fight Ceasar legions), but there isnt flat terain everywhere.So if Ceasar invade Macedonia he could go and pilage country, but macedon army will not be able to stop him everywhere as they could fight only at flat lands, not in moutains,forests etc.. (by the way with this tactic were Romans effective against Pyrrhus). Why should Ceasar fight at a place suitable to enemy, when all other terain suits Legion far far better?I dont think Ceasar was such a fool.

185248[/snapback]

 

I agree with you, this harder to find a suitable ground for a Macedonian army.

And this question is not accurate enough as you know not the conditions ,goals, who is attacking, where etc.

Edited June 20, 2005 by Durandal

[Sardaukar]

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.

185120[/snapback]

 

Problem for Gauls, Britons and Germans was that they had no true military organization like Roman legion with it's training and discipline. While many of them were as good or even better fighters individually, Roman tactics, training and above all discipline did render them ineffective.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

[Durandal]

Problem for Gauls, Britons and Germans was that they had no true military organization like Roman legion with it's training and discipline. While many of them were as good or even better fighters individually, Roman tactics, training and above all discipline did render them ineffective.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

186010[/snapback]

 

 

I am 101% agree.

[Sardaukar]

One thing that JFC Fuller says in his book about Caesar is that he might not have been totally sane during his last years. His actions were sometimes so irrational that it makes one wonder..."absolute power corrupts absolutely", maybe?

 

He does still compete well among the "best combat leaders of antiquity", though.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

[Sardaukar]

My personal favourite among Roman generals is this guy:

 

Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

[Stevely]

One thing that JFC Fuller says in his book about Caesar is that he might not have been totally sane during his last years. His actions were sometimes so irrational that it makes one wonder..."absolute power corrupts absolutely", maybe?

 

He does still compete well among the "best combat leaders of antiquity", though.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

186021[/snapback]

 

Maybe also the result of a little too much vino from leaden vessels?

[DaveDash]

Agrippa was great. An excellent leader of men, a military and logistical genius, and an excellent organizer. He was exactly what the Romans needed to pacify the Britons.

 

Personally, I also think Scipio was one of the greatest Roman generals.

 

What about Scipio vs Alexander?

Edited June 20, 2005 by DaveDash

[pikachu]

One thing that JFC Fuller says in his book about Caesar is that he might not have been totally sane during his last years.

 

Well, that settles it. So, out of all the Julio-Claudians only Augustus was actually sane? Sad family, that.

[DougRichards]

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]

 

It could also be argued that Hannibal at Cannae, using his phalanx forces on the wings, with the allied infantry in the centre fighting more man to man, used the strength of the phalanx against the compressed Roman troops trapped in the centre, the phalanx literally rolling over the Roman centre.

[Sardaukar]

Well, that settles it. So, out of all the Julio-Claudians only Augustus was actually sane? Sad family, that.

186196[/snapback]

 

Well, I'd not class Tiberius as mad either. History has just given him bad name, much of it is undeserved. He was very good military commander in Germania..and wasn't too bad Emperor either. His impoliteness and being bit of a hermit gave him very bad public image though.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

[Ken Estes]

Well, I'd not class Tiberius as mad either. History has just given him bad name, much of it is undeserved. He was very good military commander in Germania..and wasn't too bad Emperor either. His impoliteness and being bit of a hermit gave him very bad public image though.

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

186640[/snapback]

 

Had Germanicus lived, he would have been as great an emperor as general.

[Sardaukar]

Had Germanicus lived, he would have been as great an emperor as general.

186642[/snapback]

 

Definitely. Roman public preferred him too.

 

On the other hand, even Claudius was quite efficient emperor too. His choise of wives (and son) was quite bad, though. As it was rumoured that he was poisoned by his wife feeding him poisonous mushrooms, Nero commented that "mushrooms are food for gods"....probably referring to fact that emperors were deified (declared to be god) after death...quite eerie statement...

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.