Which won the empire for ATG. Infantry or Cavalry ?

[Yauna]

Yesterday I was talking to a friend about this....

I told him it was the phalanx because I believe it was Greek war tech which won, the one Philip learned in Tebas and improved a lot. Of course ATG, the great commander, was necessary but the undergrounds were there. Maybe I believe this because I´m spanish and our modern empire was based in this infantry deploy, copied from greeks, which won many battles against heavy knights which was the main used war unit at this time.

My friend told me instead that ATG found the cavalry as a knew valuable war formation, but I did´nt believe him. However thinking about it afterwords, maybe he´s right. Persians had many horse units, and that´s because I thought he was wrong, but maybe ATG used cavalry in a new way. I think e.g. in the Rohirim charge in the film LOTR, which was in a perfect triangular formation. This can be the difference. Perhaps he used cavalry as Hitler did in WWII (history always repeats) with his tanks deploied in mass formation getting the Blitzkrieg very successfull in Europe mainland. However persians perhaps used cavalry units as a single unit and that´s was their mistake.

I still think it was a phalanx success, because Xenophon, Agesilaos, and maybe others, but what do you think about this?

Regards to all pothosians.

[jasonxx]

Thats very Interesting you mention Blitzcrieg. Im not sure but a fellow Porthonian informed me that JFC Fuller. The author of The Generalship of Alexander was in some way the inventor of Blitcrieg. Based solely on Alexander military tactics.

I think Blitcrieg is about the idea of massed consontrated forces amassed and consontrated at one point, Something like that. Alexander was in my opinion head and heel over anything before. He knew the uses of both Cavalry and Phalanx which realistically have to be given equal importance for Alexander particular war machine. and the pre eminent factor is the way a commander uses them.

Your reference with the use of Cavalry in LOTR. Is relevent also. The cavalry charge looke brilliant but in real terms folly. It looked good for the movie. For a cavalry force to charge against masses of infantry as did The Rohan Riders. All the Orks had to do was drop the spears to shoulder height. The Cavalry would have gradualy ground to a halt.

Cavalry are the steed misiles to hit at gaps and hit and run. As Alexander proved seeking gaps. Secondly he used his infantry to hold the enemy. Whilst his cavalry rolled them up from behind. With only Infantry the Macedonians become one dimensional and ridid. Cavalry gave an already fantastic infantry force an equal cutting edge. Something the Romans never had.

Kenny

[jasonxx]

People try to rate armies. I would rate the Macedonian Infantry equal to Any Infantry before or After particullay the various types and ellements. I would go further and say the Macedonian Cavalry were the best Ever some say the Monghols.

The Monghols didnt have to ride without stirrups.

Kenny

[karen]

What makes water? The hydrogen or the oxygen?

[amyntoros]

Your reference with the use of Cavalry in LOTR. Is relevent also. The cavalry charge looke brilliant but in real terms folly. It looked good for the movie. For a cavalry force to charge against masses of infantry as did The Rohan Riders. All the Orks had to do was drop the spears to shoulder height. The Cavalry would have gradually ground to a halt.

So you noticed that too, Kenny? Imagine me, in the movie house, talking to the screen: "Lower the spears! Lower the darn spears! Oh dammit, why do you think you are carrying the weapons in the first place?" "Decoration?" My son, for the record, thought I'd lost my mind.

This reminds me of our debate on whether Alexander commanded cavalry or infantry at Chaeronea. In this instance, we know that the Thebans would have lowered their spears. Of course, they wouldn't have been as long as the Macedonian sarissa, nor the weapons of the Orks. But they weren't exactly penknives ...

Best regards,

[aleksandros]

Cavalry or infantry?

It is like asking for a soccer team: Offence or Defence?

Both of course but always the strikers were more famous....

[Yauna]

What makes water? The hydrogen or the oxygen?
It is like asking for a soccer team: Offence or Defence?

Maybe I have explained the question bad.

Of course ATG needed infantry and cavalry, but maybe one of them made a big difference.

Surely if I ask you which save UK in WWII aircraft or navy, you will answer aircraft because of battle of Britain. Navy was very important and without having it germans would have got to the island for sure, but what made the difference was the Royal air force stopping the Luftwaffe.

In this way of thinking I told my friend that the macedonian infantry was far superior to persian one because phalanx formation and so could stand a high numeric disadvantage. But him was for cavalry because the way ATG used it was new and made the difference.

I hope my question is clearer now.

Regards

[aleksandros]

I feel too that the cavalry made the diffrence because as we can see at the battles of Gaugamela and Hydaspes the infantry had many difficulties and can't remember a single time the companion cavalry facing a chalenging opponent.

[jasonxx]

Simlistic. The Macedonian army was the Hammer and Anvil.

The Phalanx the Anvil and the Cavalry the hammer.

Amyntros I couldnt help notice the folleys of the Cavalry in LOTR. I thought what followed was just as Rediculous. The Reformed the lline to Charge those massive Elephants shear suicide. Even Alexander didnt really charge head on against much smaller Indian Elephants. The battle scened in LOTR are absolutely fanatastic and made great cinema, but totally un workable. Or it made the ORK war machine look very stupid and inept.

With reference to WW11. The Navy or the Airforce. The RAF held a very gallant and futile rear guard action. It was inevitable that the RAF would be beated. It was one of those military desisions that will never be able to explain why England was saved. Hitlers desision to break off and head for Russia learning nothing from Napoleons Catastrophe. How many generals if any would have made that fundamental stupid mistake. England was on its knees and he let them off.

Kenny

[jasonxx]

With Alexanders Combination of the Cavalry and Infantry. Ive often wondered if Alexander could have coped against Ghenghis Khan and his nemerous hoards.

Ive maintained a solely Cavalry Engagement from Alexander would have been disasterous and the Macedonians would have been swamped. But the Combination in Alexanders forces would I believe have helt the Monghuls with the Long pikes I dont think the Khans numbers would have counted.

I dont think enough emphasis can be put on the equal importance of the Cavalry and Infantry. Together they were the complete force and with a driver and commander like Alexander. No time in ancient history up to the invention of gunpowder could that combination be beaten.

Kenny