Alexander x Ceasar

[diogenes1]

Hello everybody!

I would like to ask you comments about a comparison between ATG and Ceasar in order to help me,because I am writtng a essay for a master degree here in Brazil and this matter is one I am going through. If you can I also would like to get new opinions about ATG's cause of death incluiding the matter of poisoning.

Thanks a lot

[kennyxx]

Hail Just

Briefly. In my opinion Caesar Is the Only General in the Ancient world to be worthy of any comparison and the only Roman Commander up to Alexanders Military Genius. We have some Porthonians that feel Alexander would have met his match with the Roman legions. I have Always said it would take a Roman army with a Julius Caesar to even cause Alexander a little worry even to pass up on supper.

The death theory will run forevewr. But I hold Alexander didnt just drop off. The man was 32 strong as a lion and taken out by those with more to lose with Alexander been king.

Kenny

[Paralus]

We have some Porthonians that feel Alexander would have met his match with the Roman legions.

Ouch! I wouldn't be one now would I Kenny!?

I should say, I didn't quite say that Alex would be done over by a consular army. There existed the distinct possibility though.

And, it was much more fun to poke the discussion along, occasionally throwing lighter fluid upon it when it seemed it may go out. I'm a bugger like that.

Wonder what might have happened had Alexander met and fought that mythical "Macedonian legion" formed up of Macedonians?

Kidding....kidding.

[marcus]

Hi, diogenes,

I would like to ask you comments about a comparison between ATG and Ceasar in order to help me ...

A good starting point would be to read Plutarch's Lives of Caesar and Alexander. That would give a good ancient perspective on the two men - it's a shame we don't have Plutarch's own comparison of the two, but such are the vagaries of ancient sources. I would suggest picking two or three comparable incidents, or characteristics, from the Lives and comparing those, rather than trying to do the whole lot.

ATB

[Efstathios]

Alexander defeated by roman legions???

let me lagh.

When Macedonia fell to the romans, it was already in some form of military decay,but if Perseus had used his cavalry in that last battle and had maybe planned the battle better,and was a strong morale support for his troops during the battle then he may have defeated the roman legions.Alexander in his peak would have never lost a batytle like this.Not even with Julius Casear as an opponent.

Casear was a very good General and had a very good strategical mind, but Alexander was unique.He adapted well in guerilla warfare and the narrow asian crossings fights,so doing a large open battle again would be easy.Of course in the time of Alexander the Roman Empire was unexistent anyway.And if Alexander hadnt been murdered (because that was what probably happened) he would have easily conquered all of western europe.Dont forget that Alexander was not going to battle with only his macedonian troops, but with many thousands of persians and bactrians e.t.c too.When Alexander was in india he had 120.000 troops in total, most of which were persians,well trained in phallanx warfare.If he would add another 20-30.000 macedonians from the homeland he could go and fight any Roman army.

[kennyxx]

Hail Brother

You hit the nail on the head and the idea that the Romans at that time could stop Alexander is rediculous.

Last night on the BBC was a very good documentary on Hannibal Barca. And what was clear by the time of Hannibal even then the Romans were very early in there power in fact the Carthaginians were the dominant power at that time. It became clear that the Romans and the Romans strategists learned a great deal about military strategy fronm Hannibal. The Carthaginain more or less had the Romansbeaten st Canea and all he had to do was march on Rome for game set and match. But for some strange reason he didnt he spent 12 years messing about in Italy. Thisd gave the Romans time to regroup retrain and to finaly copy Hannibals tactics and take him out at Zama.

As you say Alexander was the all rounder and unlike Hannibal not only won battles but knew how to use a victory. I have argued had Alexander crushed the Romans as did Hannibal at Canea . He would have been striaght on Rome and down the Romans throats. We know Alexanders |Blitcrieg and the speed and momentum he had. Many people acll Hannibal a great Commander itd fair to say that the Romans learned quite a bit from the Carthaginian. People often underestmate Alexanders Miltary brilliance as to say he would have struggled with the Romans at the time of his death. I am sure Alexander would have made mincemeat of those pesky Romans and only a Caesar would have cdaused any problems.

Kenny

[Paralus]

Dont forget that Alexander was not going to battle with only his macedonian troops, but with many thousands of persians and bactrians e.t.c too.When Alexander was in india he had 120.000 troops in total, most of which were persians,well trained in phallanx warfare.If he would add another 20-30.000 macedonians from the homeland he could go and fight any Roman army.

G'day Efstathios.

Yes indeed, Alexander was very adaptable in his tactics GÇô and he would have needed to be. In Italy he would not be facing wicker shielded Asian levies. On the other side, as Kenny has pointed out, the Roman cavalry of the time was no match for Alexander's.

Don't presume too much on the numbers. The 120,000 that crossed over the Hindu Kush in no more that ten days is a fable. The advanced guard maybe, but not the entire army. It is most likely that figures of that magnitude include the veritable mobile city of hangers-on that follwed these armies (wives, mistresses, muleteers, cooks, snake oil salesmen, knights who say "nhi!", etc). The number of "Macedonians" that crossed most likely numbered some 15,000 - a number inclusive of cavalry.

As to the size of armament he may have taken to Italy, this would have been sea borne and as such needed to be GÇô in some sense GÇô limited (he did not have Ike's resources at Normandy). Unless, of course, he did a Hannibal. Even then, 20-30,000 Macedonians from the "home army" was not a possibility. Alexander had already removed some 30,000 Macedonian soldiers from that army during the entire period of his Asian conquest GÇô of which some 21,500 were left (after Bosworth: The Legacy of Alexander). To have removed a number anything like that from Macedonia (even given the remote possibility those numbers were available) will have left the home army denuded.

The royal army heading off to Arabia was nothing near those numbers to judge by what was left to Perdiccas in Babylon. Removing so large an armament from the Asian empire was literally courting rebellion. Indeed, as I've mentioned elsewhere, that process ( which picked up pace after Alexander's death) was already under way.

Any army taken to Italy will have very much resembled the Diadochoi armies. The Macedonian component will have closely matched that of the Spartan homoioi in Peloponnesian armies of second half of the fifth century.

[Paralus]

Just a note on numbers GÇô something IGÇÖd no time for this morning before heading off to the office.

The numbers mentioned at the Jhelum give no indication of the 120,000 that is said to have crossed the Hindu Kush in ten days. There is debate over the size of Macedonian infantry GÇ£battalionsGÇ¥ and the two debated figures would appear to be 1,500 or 2,000. If we use the usual figure and ArrianGÇÖs description of the splitting up of the army for the engagement we have the following:

Craterus with two battalions (Alcetas and Polyperchon); the five thousand Indians; his cavalry regiment and those from Arachtia and Parapamisadae. We might say 8,000 infantry plus his two to three hundred cavalry and an unnamed number of allied cavalry.

Between the ford and the main camp (CraterusGÇÖ position) there are Meleager, Attalus and Gorgias with their battalions as well as the mercenary infantry and cavalry. Again, we may postulate 4,500 Macedonian infantry plus an unnamed number of mercenary infantry and cavalry.

At the ford, Alexander himself led the GÇ£Silver ShieldsGÇ¥; the regiments of Coenus and Clietus (as well as the GÇ£archersGÇ¥ and the Agrianes); the cavalry of the Agema, Hepahaestion, Perdiccas and Demetrius; the Bactrian, Sogdian and Scythian squadrons as well as the mounted archers from Daae. A total of 6,000 Macedonian infantry plus an unnamed number of allies and 1,000 Macedonian cavalry (plus allies at an unknown number).

Which together gives: 13,500 (Macedonian) infantry; 5,000 (attested) Indian infantry; about 1,300 Macedonian cavalry? This is not to say that ArrianGÇÖs listing is absolute and exhaustive, but, his listing of the phalanx regiments seems fairly clear. There may well have been more Macedonian cavalry but itGÇÖs not listed. If we assume some 7-10,000 mercenary infantry that gives us somewhere near to 30,000. One would assume the other allied units (light infantry/skirmishers and cavalry) will brought that total somewhere to 40,000 maybe? Sounds close to AlexanderGÇÖs usual operational numbers GÇô especially if the 2,000 figure per battalion is correct. ItGÇÖs a hell of a long way from 120,000 though.

Alexander operated best when he was able to move quickly and decisively GÇô when his army was GÇ£manoeuvrableGÇ¥ and malleable. He demonstrated it often and split his forces more that once to achieve objectives. All that is lost when one countenances ponderous figures like 120,000.

[kennyxx]

I know weve been here before. But you really do overestimate the Romans and Underestimate Alexander.

Going by the Punic wars its fair to say that Roman tactics and armies were predictable and rigid. I mean at Canea 80 000 Romans with the basic Idea they were going to steam roller the Carthaginbians on mass. As you say at that time the Roman cavalry were useless. Once any anemy had driven them of then as Hannibals Cavalry it became easy to to come up on the rear of The Romans.

You foreget just how clever and tactically brilliant Alexander was and forever go on about the Macedonian Armies and exploits following Alexander. No way on Earth can you Compare a Greek or Macedonian army with an army led by Alexander.

Alexanders Cavalry ere as good as Hannibals and his infantry were better. If Hannibal could box up the Romans then Alexander would. But the question was about Caesar.

Caesar was generations and steps above the Romans at the Time of Alexander. He was a genius a strategist of the highest quality and really would play the tactical and mind game with Alexaner. Its close for anyone to Call Alexander at his peak and Caesar of Alesie. I guess its a long and even sided arguement but Id say Alexander without any real surety.

Comparing Xaesras Roman armies to those Romans at the Time OF Alexander is like Comparing The Britias SAS to Cromwells new Model Army.

kenny

[Paralus]

I know weve been here before. But you really do overestimate the Romans and Underestimate Alexander.

You foreget just how clever and tactically brilliant Alexander was and forever go on about the Macedonian Armies and exploits following Alexander. No way on Earth can you Compare a Greek or Macedonian army with an army led by Alexander.

Four assertions: no, no and no. W'ell come to the last later.

I have - most recently in the "four sentences" thread - described Alexander as a commander and tactician par excellence. No doubting his tactical and command acuity in the slightest - a reading of the events at the Jhelum reinforces that. Similar military gymnastics will have been needed in Italy. As I say, these will be no wicker shielded Persian infantry and tactics will have - of neccessity - needed to be re-defined. I also doubt that Alexander will have drawn up a plan that sacrificed as many of his troops to the victory as did Hannibal's. As well, the dual Roman consulship or generalship of the army which faced Hannibal was - and turned out to be - a disaster.

To my forever going on about Macedonian armies post Alexander. By the hypothesised time of an invasion of Italy by forces led by Alexander, we are dealing with Macedonian armies "post Alexander". Many of the troops he led into and through Asia will have been retired. Directly related to this conjecture is the number of such that he would have at his disposal to bring to Italy. To that end, it is directly pertinent to examine the numbers availble to the Diadochoi armies in the ten years post Alexander. Those numbers are not large - hence the Spartan homoioi similie. The view that some 20 - 30,000 would be added to a huge armament from Asia in no way reflects reality. Alexander, waiting in Italy for his 30,000 fresh Macedonians from home, would resemble nothing so much as Hitler playing with imaginary armies in1944/45. They weren't to be had. The entire Macedonian levy will have been lucky to have numbered 30 - 40,000 or so if assembled in the one spot.

And again, taking large numbers out of the Asian empire was inviting rebellion.

The master tactician will have operated as he always did: with an army of some 40-50,000 that was as swift on the march as it was stragetically spry.

[Paralus]

You're a quiet bugger these days Kenny! Given no return bite, I'll fill the void - if only to hear the sound of my fingers across my own keyboard.

There's an age old saying: infantry win wars. It's as true today as ever - something the rediculously unruffled Rumsfeld might be able to attest to one might think. Now, not to simplify Alexander's tactics, this also applied to the Macedonian's voctories.

Alexander inhereited a thoroughly professional army from his father Phlilip. One well trained in dealing with "Greek" warfare. There is no doubt that Alexander refined and built on these tactics. He also changed them for individual circumstance. The one "classic Philip" feature remained though throughout: the cavalry drove the enemy onto the sarissas of the phalnx. The anvil and the hammer.

That hammer has no relevance without the infantry anvil. This is, of course, leading somewhere and that somewhere is the Argyraspids. That royal foot guard that I'm sure started with Philip (his Agema) and which was perpetuated by Alexander. That still comprised three thousand at campaign's end due to the fact that the best and most experienced phalangites were chosen to fill the departed Macedonian's hats.

I've found their theme music:

Proudly we bear the name of the Infantry,
Knowing we share the fame of the Army Infantry,
Where-ever Argaed's battle must be won,
The Infantry has gone and so it shall go on.
Where there's a job to be done is where we'll be,
For we are the fighting men of the Infantry.

Now, come on, there must be others out there who grew up with Vic Morrow and Sgt Saunders?

Then again, it might be ...just me.....

[kennyxx]

Sorry mate no offence.But we both pitched our tents here and here we remain.

Hammers Anvils. Cavalry and Infantry. A general Can have all these in his kit bag. But a lot of a battle does rely on the way the craftsmen uses these tools. A bad craftsmen will always blame his tools. With Alexander as a war craftsmen were talking un equaled.

Hannibal. Caesar. Napoleon and of coerse Alexander made a massive influence on the battles they fought. You name me one Roman General Prior to Scipio Africanus to measure equally against Alexander. If you can Michael I guess I have to laugh.

Maybe a solid Infantry is the base but a good cavalry under the right commander is a bloody handy piece of kit. Imagine Canea Alexander routing the Roman Cavalry even if his formation was different to Hannibal. He wouldnt have to box the Romans in he would have the Heavy Phalanx holdinfg and would hit the Romans in re rear From both flanks. Once done he would go straight for the jugular and Rome and the Roman Empire wouldnt get of the ground. Later better Roman tactics were due quite a lot fronm the lessons learned fighting Hannibal.

Frior Scipio Africanus it would be a walk in the park.

Kenny

[marcus]

There's an age old saying: infantry win wars. It's as true today as ever - something the rediculously unruffled Rumsfeld might be able to attest to one might think.

There was something about this sentence that reminded me of a very funny (to me) exchange I heard on the radio earlier this week. Radio 4, that fine British radio station, is running a comedy series set during the American War of Independence, with lots of topical references to the modern world. In Tuesday's episode, the following exchange took place:

Cynical British sergeant: Off you go, Captain. You'll have to find General Washington and threaten him with shock and awe.
Rather stupid British captain: Shock and/or what?



Well, it tickled me ...

ATB