Login

10-26-2004, 04:31 PM

Here is a topic to chew on. Caesar and his veteran Legions of Gaul against the veteran army of Alexander the Great. Not too mountainous terrain and moderate forest. who would be the victor?

10-26-2004, 09:28 PM

Alexander's battle style was to attack the strongest point of his enemy's army (per Keegan's leadership analysis), even, and sometimes particularly, under disadvantaged conditions. When that broke, the rest of the army would crumble. That worked well against the Persians. I don't think it would get very far against Caesar's army. 
 
Now: Alien vs Predator. Who wins? 
 
Rich K.

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus · 10-26-2004, 11:29 PM

An important aspect of that battle that would be very important would be the companion cavalry vs. the germanic mercanary cavalry used by Caesar in Gaul. Sure the companian was better trained and better armored, but the germanic would be more numerous by far. O xein angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti tede keimetha tois keinon rhemasi peithomenoi - 
 
Simonides

10-27-2004, 12:56 AM

I have not seen themovie, but Predator by far. more intelligant and better equipted.

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus · 10-27-2004, 02:51 AM

I saw the movie and my advise is don't waste your money. O xein angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti tede keimetha tois keinon rhemasi peithomenoi - 
 
Simonides

**Robert Vermaat** · 10-27-2004, 04:45 AM

Mwah. Predator is superior in intelligence and equipment, but aren't there more of the aliens around? 
 
Back to the topic, I'd say Caesar, his legions should be more flexible in manouvring than the Macedonian foot. But I could not tell what difference Alexander's cavalry would make. 
 
Now: Knight vs. Samurai. Who wins? OK, forget that one, it's been chewed on too many times. How about this: 
Trajan's legion vs. Constantine's legion? 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

Los456 · 10-27-2004, 12:53 PM

"I saw the movie and my advise is don't waste your money." 
 
I advise renting the DVD and skipping past all the annoying human stuff right to the AvP fight scenes. Those were well done. 
 
Los

10-27-2004, 09:41 PM

Anyone has an idea how that German cavalry of Caesar would look like? were they lancers? did they use national equipment or roman equipment?

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus · 10-27-2004, 09:50 PM

Im not quite sure, I would guess they used the typical barbaric weapons such as axes but don't quote me on that. What I do know is the Gallic army was scared to death of the germanic people. O xein angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti tede keimetha tois keinon rhemasi peithomenoi - 
 
Simonides

10-28-2004, 09:54 AM

Under the same conditions - aperto or publico marte, as it was called (cf. Vegetius) - I guess Caesar would win. At least I think he would not loose. 
Thats not soo much because his troops were superior. Although the cohort tactic was more flexible than anything else before. But much more because Caesar (and other Roman generals too) had learned to use them in a way that was much superior to Alexanders leadership. 
The difference: 
Alexander positioned his troops, then charged at the head of his companions into the enemy. He could not lead his army from that on. 
Caesar positioned his troops, and always had some second line or reserve troops under his immediate command. So he could react even after the battle had started, something that Alexander couldnt.

Crispvs · 10-28-2004, 07:25 PM

I would have thought that the Germanic cavalry would mostly have used spears, either with iron heads or, for the poorer ones, no heads as such but with fire hardened sharpened wooden points. If I recall correctly Caesar comments that Germanic cavalry was particularly effective due it being mixed with infantry. The cavalry would ride into battle with the infantry hanging onto the horses' manes in order to be carried along at the same speed as the cavalry. When they contacted with their opponents the infantry would jump off and fight alongside the cavalry, thus reducing the effectiveness of practiced anti-cavalry tactics and giving the cavalry freedom to use their height and speed to best advantage. I think that it was this practice which was the reason Caesar recruited Germanic cavalry and why Germanic cavalry tactics so bothered the Gauls who presumably fought in a completely different way. Certainly Caesar makes no mention of Gallic mixed cavalry. The Germanic mixed cavalry may well have been the origin of the later cohotes equitatae and if so must have remained an effective type of unit for some time. 
 
Crispvs

10-28-2004, 08:50 PM

Hi Crispus 
I vaguely recall something about german horses being bigger, is there some true? So in general terms German cavalry would be mainly used for defensive and counterattack to take advantage of their infantry support I presume, and they were equiped in their national fashion, not roman equipment, right?

Q Rutilius · 10-31-2004, 08:43 PM

Caesar. The Romans understood the use of reserves far better than the Greeks ever did. More flexible formation (cohorts). The cavalry fight would be close I think, Persian cavalry was good, and had archers, javelin men, and as I recall something like cataphracts. 
 
Now the real question: Muhammed Ali or Joe Louis?

11-01-2004, 11:50 PM

oh come now. Alexander vs Caesar or AVP we can argue about, if only briefly. Louis vs Ali? Louis, and not even close. Both in their prime, of course. 
 
Rich K.

11-02-2004, 02:27 PM

I didn't see much of Joe Louis' boxing, but Muhammad Ali sure could fly like a butterfly and sting like a bee... 
As for the Divine Julius Vs. the no less Divine Alexander, it is a difficult question. 
But however much I love Caesar I'd think Alexander would win the day. 
Strategy: Caesar was very, very good. However, Alexander did not challenge Gaul, or another Macedonian competitor. He challenged what was at the time a superpower, with a puny army of 50,000 at the beginning of his campaigns. Alexander had a vision that developed as he conquered new territories. Only days away from his death he was still planning grandiose conquest and development projects. 
Caesar's vision was to become the first man in Rome. 
Alexander's vision was to be the master of a united world. 
Logistics: The organisation of Alexander's logistics is absolutely awesome. It is obvious that it is far more difficult to take an army from Greece all the way to India, than to Gaul, or even Britain or Germany, from Italy. 
Tactics: Alexander's army is often described as an army made of the phalanx and the horse companions. But it is too easily forgotten that Alexander won not only set piece battles like Issos or Gaugameles, but was also successful in guerilla warfare and mountain warfare. The number of hilltop fortresses he reduced in Afghanistan dwarfes what Caesar achieved during his conquests. The successful siege of Tyre demonstrates that he was also good at siege operations. 
Besides the heavily armed foot and horse companions he had at his disposal a vast array of lighter troops, both foot and horse, who played a part as important as the heavies. And he certainly knew how to use them. 
Two of my favorite ancient battles are Pharsalus and Gaugameles. They were both strokes of genius. But Gaugameles is first, with Pharsalus a very close second.. 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 11/2/04 3:44 pm

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me