Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Caesar vs Alexander Roman Victory?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by VaudinCaesar (U8374567) on Wednesday, 16th May 2007
We all now that the Romans remained a powerful empire for much longer than the Macedonians but in straight line battle who would come out on top. On one hand you have Caesar and his tenth, veterans of Gaul and some from Britain and Germania imploying the solid formations and testudo. On the other hand you have Alexander and his phalanx formations, round shields and his shield bearers guards. But who would win? Please let me know i would love to here other peoples opinions.
thanks
VaudinCaesar -
Message 2
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 16th May 2007
I suspect the legions would have stopped the phalanx but once the Macedonian cavalry had got stuck in it would probably have gone Alexander's way.
-
Message 3
Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Wednesday, 16th May 2007
On the other hand you have Alexander and his phalanx formations, round shieldsÌý
Round shields don't seem a very good shape for a shield in close combat. They let thrusting enemy swords come in at your body around the curving sides.
Whereas, shields with straight sides,like in a rectangle, block your body better.
So what ancient Greek "Q" thought round shields good equipment for the troops. -
Message 4
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 16th May 2007
I could have completely wandered off the beaten track here, but IIRC, the Romans evolved (evolved in this case is pronounced 'stole from the Samnites') the manipular legion because phalanxes had proved obsolete.
-
Message 5
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 17th May 2007
Hi VaudinCaesar,
I don't know if you're aware of it, but the Roman historian Livy wrote a "What if..." along similar lines to your question. It's in Book IX, Sections 17-19. I've copied section 17 below from Project Gutenberg as it's in the public domain and not copyrighted, and I'll post sections 18 and 19 separately in a few minutes:
Nothing can be found farther from my intention, since the commencement of this history, than to digress, more than necessity required, from the course of narration; and, by embellishing my work with variety, to seek pleasing resting-places, as it were, for my readers, and relaxation for my own mind: nevertheless, the mention of so great a king and commander, now calls forth to public view those silent reflections, whom Alexander must have fought. Manlius Torquatus, had he met him in the field, might, perhaps, have yielded to Alexander in discharging military duties in battle (for these also render him no less illustrious); and so might Valerius Corvus; men who were distinguished soldiers, before they became commanders. The same, too, might have been the case with the Decii, who, after devoting their persons, rushed upon the enemy; or of Papirius Cursor, though possessed of such powers, both of body and mind. By the counsels of one youth, it is possible the wisdom of a whole senate, not to mention individuals, might have been baffled, [consisting of such members,] that he alone, who declared that "it consisted of kings," conceived a correct idea of a Roman senate. But then the danger was, that with more judgment than any one of those whom I have named he might choose ground for an encampment, provide supplies, guard against stratagems,
distinguish the season for fighting, form his line of battle, or strengthen it properly with reserves. He would have owned that he was not dealing with Darius, who drew after him a train of women and eunuchs; saw nothing about him but gold and purple; was encumbered with the trappings of his state, and should be called his prey, rather than his antagonist; whom therefore he vanquished without loss of blood and had no other merit, on the occasion, than that of showing a proper spirit in despising empty show. The aspect of Italy would have appeared to him of a quite different nature from that of India, which he traversed in the guise of a traveller, at the head of a crew of drunkards, if he had seen the forests of Apulia, and the mountains of Lucania, with the vestiges of the disasters of his house, and where his uncle Alexander, king of Epirus, had been lately cut off.Ìý
SOURCE : Livy Book IX, Section 17.
Project Gutenberg
Cheers,
RF -
Message 6
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 17th May 2007
SECTION 18
We are now speaking of Alexander not yet intoxicated by prosperity, the seductions of which no man was less capable of
withstanding. But, if he is to be judged from the tenor of his conduct in the new state of his fortune, and from the new disposition, as I may say, which he put on after his successes, he would have entered Italy more like Darius than Alexander; and would have brought thither an army that had forgotten Macedonia, and were degenerating into the manners of the Persians. It is painful, in speaking of so great a king, to recite his ostentatious change of dress; of requiring that people should address him with adulation, prostrating themselves on the ground, a practice insupportable to the Macedonians, had they even
been conquered, much more so when they were victorious; the shocking cruelty of his punishments; his murdering his friends in the midst of feasting and wine; with the folly of his fiction respecting his birth. What must have been the consequence, if his love of wine had daily become more intense? if his fierce and uncontrollable anger? And as I mention not any one circumstance of which there is a doubt among writers, do we consider these as no disparagements to the qualifications of a commander? But then, as is frequently repeated by the silliest of the Greeks, who are fond of exalting the reputation,
even of the Parthians, at the expense of the Roman name, the danger was that the Roman people would not have had resolution to bear up against the splendour of Alexander's name, who, however, in my opinion, was not known to them even by common fame; and while, in Athens, a state reduced to weakness by the Macedonian arms, which at the very time saw the ruins of Thebes smoking in its neighbourhood, men had spirit enough to declaim with freedom against him, as is manifest from the copies of their speeches, which have been preserved; [we are to be told] that out of such a number of Roman chiefs, no one would have freely uttered his sentiments. How great soever our idea of this man's greatness may be, still it is the greatness of an
individual, constituted by the successes of a little more than ten years; and those who give it pre-eminence on account that the Roman people have been defeated, though not in any entire war, yet in several battles, whereas Alexander was never once unsuccessful in a single fight, do not consider that they are comparing the actions of one man, and that a young man, with the exploits of a nation waging wars now eight hundred years. Can we wonder if, when on the one side more ages are numbered than years on the other, fortune varied more in so long a lapse of time than in the short term of thirteen years? [Footnote: The duration of Alexander's military career.] But why not compare the success of one general with that of another? How many Roman commanders might I name who never lost a battle? In the annals of the magistrates, and the records, we may run over whole pages of consuls and dictators, with whose bravery, and successes also, the Roman people never once had reason to be dissatisfied. And what renders them more deserving of admiration than Alexander, or any king, is, that some of these acted in the office of dictator, which lasted only ten, or it might be twenty days, none, in a charge of longer duration than the consulship of a year; their levies obstructed by plebeian tribunes; often late in taking the field; recalled, before the time, on account of elections; amidst the very busiest efforts of the campaign, their year of office expired; sometimes the rashness, sometimes the perverseness of a colleague, proving an impediment or detriment; and finally succeeding to the unfortunate administration of a predecessor, with an army of raw or ill-disciplined men. But, on the other hand, kings, being not only free from every kind of impediment, but masters of circumstances and seasons, control all things in subserviency to their designs, themselves uncontrolled by any. So that Alexander, unconquered, would have encountered unconquered commanders; and would have had stakes of equal consequence pledged on the issue. Nay, the hazard had been greater on his side; because the Macedonians would have had but one Alexander, who was not only liable, but fond of exposing himself to casualties; the Romans would have had many equal to Alexander, both in renown, and in the greatness of their exploits; any one of whom might live or die according to his destiny, without any material consequence to the public.Ìý
SOURCE : Livy Book IX, Section 18
Project Gutenberg -
Message 7
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 17th May 2007
SECTION 19
It remains that the forces be compared together, with respect to their numbers, the quality of the men, and the supplies of auxiliaries. Now, in the general surveys of the age, there were rated two hundred and fifty thousand men, so that, on every revolt of the Latin confederates, ten legions were enlisted almost entirely in the city levy. It often happened during those years, that four or five armies were employed at a time, in Etruria, in Umbria, the Gauls too being at war, in Samnium, in Lucania. Then as to all Latium, with the Sabines, and Volscians, the Aequans, and all Campania; half of Umbria, Etruria, and the Picentians, Marsians, Pelignians, Vestinians, and Apulians; to whom may add, the whole coast of the lower sea, possessed by the Greeks, from Thurii to Neapolis and Cumae; and the Samnites from thence as far as Antium and Ostia: all these he would have found either powerful allies to the Romans or deprived of power by their arms. He would have crossed the sea with his veteran Macedonians, amounting to no more than thirty thousand infantry and four thousand horse, these mostly Thessalians. This was the whole of his strength. Had he brought with him Persians and Indians, and those other nations, it would be dragging after him an encumbrance other than a support. Add to this, that the Romans, being at home, would have had recruits at hand: Alexander, waging war in a foreign country, would have found his army worn out with long service, as happened afterwards to Hannibal. As to arms, theirs were a buckler and long spears; those of the Romans, a shield, which covered the body more effectually, and a javelin, a much more forcible weapon than the spear, either in throwing or striking. The soldiers, on both sides, were used to steady combat, and to preserve their ranks. But the Macedonian phalanx was unapt for motion, and composed of similar parts throughout: the Roman line less compact, consisting of several various parts, was easily divided as occasion required, and as easily conjoined. Then what soldier is comparable to the Roman in the throwing up of works? who better calculated to endure fatigue? Alexander, if overcome in one battle, would have been overcome in war. The Roman, whom Claudium, whom Cannae, did not crush, what line of battle could crush? In truth, even should events have been favourable to him at first, he would have often wished for the Persians, the Indians, and the effeminate tribes of Asia, as opponents; and would have acknowledged, that his wars had been waged with women, as we are told was said by Alexander, king of Epirus, after receiving his mortal wound, when comparing the wars waged in Asia by this very youth, with those in which himself had been engaged. Indeed, when I reflect that, in the first Punic war, a contest was maintained by the Romans with the Carthaginians, at sea, for twenty-four years, I can scarcely suppose that the life of Alexander would have been long enough for the finishing of one war [with either of those nations]. And perhaps, as both the Punic state was united to the Roman by ancient treaties, and as similar apprehensions might arm against a common foe those two nations the most potent of the time in arms and in men, he might have been overwhelmed in a Punic and a Roman war at once. The Romans have had experience of the boasted prowess of the Macedonians in arms, not indeed under Alexander as their general, or when their power was at the height, but in the wars against Antiochus, Philip, and Perses; and not only not with any losses, but not even with any danger to themselves. Let not my assertion give offence, nor our civil wars be brought into mention; never were we worsted by an enemy's cavalry, never by their infantry, never in open fight, never on equal ground, much less when the ground was favourable. Our soldiers, heavy laden with arms, may reasonably fear a body of cavalry, or arrows; defiles of difficult passage, and places impassable to convoys. But they have defeated, and will defeat a thousand armies, more formidable than those of Alexander and the Macedonians, provided that the same love of peace and solicitude about domestic harmony, in which we now live, continue permanent.Ìý
SOURCE : Livy Book IX, Section 19
Project Gutenberg -
Message 8
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Thursday, 17th May 2007
Were the Romans still using the phalanx in 323bc when Alexander died? I don't think they had fully developed their manipular legions by then.
As an aside Goldsworthy mentions that the Roman legions, even in imperial times still practiced phalanx formation as a defence against cavalry and the 'shield wall' formation used in the late empire and medieval times was essentially a developement of the phalanx. -
Message 9
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 17th May 2007
Were the Romans still using the phalanx in 323bc when Alexander died?Ìý
Colquhoun
I think the original question was - what would happen if Julius Caesar & his army fought Alexander and his (presumably with the help of a a time machine?)
In other words who had the better military machine - Rome in 55BC or Macedonia in 323BC?
Some people try to answer this kind of question by playing war games but of course there's a limit to how realistic a war game can be -
Message 10
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Thursday, 17th May 2007
I would say that since Rome conquered Macedonia and therefore must have faced the phalanx in battle (even if Alex III wasn't incharge) it stands to reason that Ceasars army would have been more than up to the jpob of taking on the Macedonians. It would be more down to who was the better or more intuitive general, and I would have to favour Caesar in that. I don't think Alexander really ever faced a challenge to his battlefield generalship which Caesar faced and came out on top of.
But I think the Caesar/Alexander argument tends to be a bit TomaRto/ToeMato -
Message 11
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 17th May 2007
Persians: most underrated ancient army (they had conquered all of Asia, they were not exactly low quality! They had also innovated tactics by employing technological solutions and some serious siege machinery, they certainly taught among others, Greeks some new tricks. It is just that Alexander's army had been the most incredible thing in ancient warfare thus made Persians look stupid which they were not! I think Alexander's army led by Parmenion would make Ceasar look just as stupid.
PS: How many times we need to repeat that Alexander was not a general and never claimed himself to be a general, he only claimed to be a God. However, any general would had stopped in Mesopotamia but Alexander continued to take up all of the Persian Empire in no time. And Afganis were no Gauls exactly while their land was not exactly flat like that of France.
Romans: most overrated army - worse than Persians, they won only through their infinite recruitment capabilities. On Ceasar leadership... well he gained reputation for fighting against... Gauls and I do not think anyone seriously believe that Gauls were any serious army apart when raiding in armies above 300,000 people, size of armies that Ceasar anyway never met in battle. He met divided and endo-phyletic war-torn tribes on separate steps. Alexander had met massive armies at close periods of time. Ceasar fought the same and same over again, Alex and his company had fought the most diffentiated armies (from tactical to guerilla, from planes to high mountains, snow and dessert, horses and elephants, phalanxes and, mounted archers)... sorry no comparison.
Still he was great but not just as Great as Alexander, not even as Cyrus the Great.
Of course the phalanx was not an obsolete formation as it was not a particular battle-formation but a style of war (dense formations protected by shields and/or long spears) that in various ways continued up to the Renaissance (Roman testudo, Byzantine combined phalanx, and its derivative the spanish tercio that instead of arrowmen had musketeers). Of course the only solution against it that Romans found was treason and internal stife as in all battles they had made no particular strategic move that gave them the victory.
It always amazes me that people will opt for Rome just because it is Rome that prevailed in the end. It was not their army but their superior politics and diplomacy. End of story! -
Message 12
Posted by TattooedThug (U7867377) on Friday, 18th May 2007
Alexander was an amazing General ( God ) and no one disputes that, but to say Rome only won its Wars because of a superior politacal system I think is a bit harsh. I would back Rome over Alexander for one simple reason, the copy cat tactic.
Scipio and Hannibal. Hannibal is the superior General, hammers Rome. It all looks over for the Republic until someone, Scipio, has the brilliant idea of just copying the tactics, then using Romes superior forces and will to win, victory.
Why wouldn't Rome have just used the same tactics against Alexander? -
Message 13
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 18th May 2007
ide have to agree with nik (and not just for my bias t'ward the greeks) because the roman ethos of warfare was attritional. so long as their enemies had a technological disadvantage the romans could just throw army after army at them.
an example being their wars againt barca. he beat every roman army he had to fight, but the romans always threw more men at carthage. of course this style of warfare was unfamiliar to the carthaginians, who typically fought wars for short term gains rather than annhialation.
if the romans won, it would be for a genocidal mindset, rather than tactics. they would as a nation throw army after army at alexander. in a ceasar vs argead battle the argeads would win. -
Message 14
Posted by TattooedThug (U7867377) on Friday, 18th May 2007
if the romans won, it would be for a genocidal mindset, rather than tactics.Ìý
Could/would Alexander have been any more abled to deal with this tactic then? If it were a straight fight, Alex wins. A week later a Roman army just as big comes in for round two, and the Commander has picked up a few of Alexander's little 'tricks'.
The strengh of Rome was to adapt to your enemy. You don't conquer the known World by luck alone.
Mind you, against the Persians they met their match... -
Message 15
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 18th May 2007
the sttregnth of rome was politics and the mental capability to morally justify genocide.
against ceasars army alexander would win, against ceasars rome he wouldnt is what im saying -
Message 16
Posted by TattooedThug (U7867377) on Friday, 18th May 2007
against ceasars army alexander would win, against ceasars rome he wouldnt is what im sayingÌý
Sorry mate, I agree. Caesar was a tough little fella though so I don't think it would be a push over, and his boys weren't too bad either. -
Message 17
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Friday, 18th May 2007
OK then obviously Caeser's army - Caeser would have the benefit of 268 years of technological and tactical progress.
Pretty sure that Caeser and his contempories would have studied Alexander's tactics would have known all the strengths and weaknesses of the Macedonian tactics whereas Alexander obviously knew nothing of Caeser.
It is meaningless to compare armies of differeng time periods a much better question would have been could Alexander have taken Rome if he had lived long enough and I think the answer to that would be yes. -
Message 18
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 18th May 2007
a much better question would have been could Alexander have taken Rome if he had lived long enough and I think the answer to that would be yes.Ìý
In a straight fight the Macedonians would almost certainly win because at this time the Romans were still using outdated hoplite tactics & they had no cavalry to speak of.
The trouble is, how many 'straight fights' ever happened in history? Everything that happens depends on all kinds of unknown political factors that can't really be accounted for. Which means that all these 'What if' questions are ultimately a waste of time. -
Message 19
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Friday, 18th May 2007
could Alexander have taken Rome if he had lived long enough and I think the answer to that would be yes.
Ìý
Agree entirely. Since Rome at that time was largely just the city state it would have lacked the resources to withstand an assult from the worlds remaining superpower.
However, an invasion of Greeks would beg the question what would the Italian states do? Would the Etrsucans, the Samites etc form a league to help defend Rome against the Greek south? -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 19th May 2007
Of course I am not too harsh on Romans and Ceasar just to belittle them, I just do it in purpose to drag the rope a bit on the other side. Roman army even in the earlier times had never been a rubbish one while their losses against Etruscans and Gauls were of course due to the fact that they were fewer - a lesson they understood really early on. There circulated a lot of overrated armies in those ancient times with the Spartan one as the best example. Ok, maybe it had not the required numbers to do campaigns far away but then even when it presented larger numbers in battle it never offered any results more spectacular than say Athenian armies had to present! In the battle of Plataies it was again the Athenians that faced the most dangerous part of Mardonius' army, that was the local Thebas of course (so Pericles himself had noticed how 40 years of Spartan training was equivalent to 2 of Athenian!!!).
Now an interesting question is this: given the fact that Romans had no tradition in the army and no pride of tradition like Greeks who for example would dismiss the archers as a secondary unit of support (during Plataies Athenians called Spartans for help saying "Send us at least one phalanx! If not possible send us at least some light ones (helmet, shield and spear), if not possible again at least send us some archers for god's shake!). Romans would just take anything that worked on battle copy it and produce if possible something better. Hence it is certain that if they met at once Alexander's army irrespective of the result they would try to take whatever they judged as effective. No doubt on that! Especially with army leaders like Ceasar they would had done that in the most profficient way and it is certain that in the following battles Alexander's army would had to face a brand new Roman army.
However, the question is the following: "Would the Romans have the time to adapt?" My answer is "most possibly no". Alexander was harsh on that... he went straight to the forehead, never waited for long. Romans on the other hand waited to study, organise, built support, find allies - Rome was not built in one day of course not even in 50 years. It is known that during Rome's heyday that was Traianus reign, it took 10 years for Romans to subdue the tribes in modern day Roumania. Ok, I know Dacians were a rich tribe and very capable in war and knew the terrain but the same thing can be claimed for pretty much half of the tribes from Mesopotamia to India. 10 years, a lot of large scale defeats, 100 to 150,000 men (unknown number of diseased) plus the cost of building a huge bridge over danube to pass all the army on the other side. Alexander however used the same amount of time to conquer a space 10s of times more large and populated and 100s of times more rich while passed equally large rivers and crossed more uncharted territories.
Hence, I think Alexander would not had given the chance to Romans to adapt and react, by the time they would had digested information and understood their legions would be already a provencial auxiliary army.
Still to be just I would give a 60-40% cos Romans had good preparation and information gathering (not that Alex had not an equally effective one but then those times one could find more easily traitors among Greeks than others). -
Message 21
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 19th May 2007
Also I really do not see how military things had progressed a lot from 4 B.C. century to 1 B.C. and to 1 A.D. century since as far as I know armies in 1 A.D. century were still on spears, swords, arrows, shields, helmets etc. I do not think that there was anything new... Quite the opposite it is well known that Romans used only a small fraction of the hellenistc complex (and very expensive) military machines (steam cannons, multi storey semi-automatic siege towers etc.) since they had to face mainly semi-armed barbarians, thus in a sense tachnology went back.
Now even if talking 1 on 1 on weaponry I do not see how the Roman rectangular shield was any better from the greek round one - shapes were accustomed to the style of fighting but talking about quality I am not sure whether the mass produced roman one would be better than the greek custom ones (though there were middle-scale productions there also). It is known that even late 3 B.C. (time of Punic Wars, Rome was not exactly poor and little) Roman imitations of Greek weapons were of a much inferior quality.
Perhaps the choice bronze/iron? These are thougts of the 19th century - you know, Dorians using iron winning over Achaians using bronze!!! Iron back in those days was usually cheaper than bronze (unless there was some problem in supply chain). Hence to equip a larger army one would choose certainly iron. If one wanted quality weapons he would had chosen bronze. Bronze had a more standard quality and known yield strength and elasticity points. Iron quality however was largely dependent on the mine, on the furnace and on the technician thus it is true that more than 60% of iron weapons would had dubious quality and often let down soldiers in war - no matter if occasionally due to the coal treatment certain smiths could get iron with an overcoating of steel (oldest example a 13th century B.C. Cypriot iron knife). If Greeks used bronze it was because each citizen paid for his weaponry thus he would get the best quality weapons that could pass on to his son also while if Romans seemed to prefer iron that was because with the same money they could equip more men.
If you do not believe the above argument then please accept the following: Blast furnaces that produced real cast iron, the pre-requisite for steal were developed in China. Despite the fact that Chinese that were very concerned on quality (and less on money that never seem to lack from the area!) insisted in using bronze considering iron good only for farming tools and other such utilities. First steel-like irons were produced in India from where Arabs were importing to produced their famous Damascus swords (though arguably Byzantines probably had also stole the secret as they had their own stories abotu swords cutting armours like bread) and only in the very late Middle Ages iron really surpassed bronze in quality.
Of course Romans used a lot more bronze in weapons that we might thing. It is not accidental also that Roman officers tended to prefer bronze helmets and armour (perhaps swords also). It is just that bronze weapons since did not suffer so much by rust they tended to be melted to be reused in weapons or other products while iron one were discarded as rubbish and found in greater numbers.
Now, one on one I really cannot see how the Roman legionaire was more prepared to meet the Greek adversary be it from a typical phalanx or one from Philip's phalanx. Not that the 1st A.D. century legionaire was far less equipped (however Roman armies till 100 B.C. were certainly less equiped! - body armour was for generals and above!) but certainly the 1 A.D. legionaire was not better equipped in any sense. -
Message 22
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 19th May 2007
Legionaries certainly did have body armour prior to 100BC - depending on the date, pectoral plates, muscle cuirasses, linen cuirasses or, certainly by the late 3rd century BC but probably earlier, mail. If we're talking about Caesar, of course, mail over padded fabric was standard, and possibly even early 'Kalkries' pattern lorica segmentata.
-
Message 23
Posted by mickeymay (U3600416) on Saturday, 19th May 2007
The phalanx is all well and good against amateur armies, but against a fleet footed, highly mobile, professional army, like the romans at the height of their power? I think their can be only one answer.
-
Message 24
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Saturday, 19th May 2007
the romans arent invincible for crying out loud!
which tactics survived into the middle ages? the phalanx-spears pointint out of a shieldwall, or the legion???
indeed-if anything the phalanx outlasted even the middle ages! the spanish used a formation of swordsmen with shields in the front rank and pikes behind! thats for all intents a phalanx! the swiss are famous as pikemen! tehy formed a phalanx!
and technology??? dyou really think a "fully armed and equipped" roman has any advantage over a fully armed and equipped phalangite or hoplite???
and your thinking of the phalanx as immobile-thats wrong!
under teh hands of a general of experience (not necessarily any real ability!) it could encircle, feign retreat and a plethora of other tactics.
so i ask you. dyou really think the romans could stand against alexander at the height of his power? with the hundreds of thousands of phalangites he could put into the field? with all teh resources of asia at his disposal? if he had lived longer he wouldve moulded "the thousand nations of the persian empire" into a phalangite army of disgusting power!
so again i ask-could ceasar have won against alexander at his height? -
Message 25
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Sunday, 20th May 2007
'dyou really think a "fully armed and equipped" roman has any advantage over a fully armed and equipped phalangite or hoplite???'Ìý
Er... yes actually. A man with a big tall shield and a short spear against a guy with a tiny shield and 16 foot pole that he has to use both hands to hold - no contest.
If the phaanx holds its formation it is very hard to beat but if the enemy can disrupt their formation (eg with rough terrain) and get it down to individual man-to-man combats they should be able to break it -
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 20th May 2007
Anglo Norman, Roman armies intruduced body protection as a standard feature of the legion as late as during 1 A.D. century thus long after conquest of the east. In earlier days it must had been more their Greek allies that presented the better protected, more heavy infantry units in battle since Roman troops would have maximum a pectoral plate that is a 10x10cm bronze/iron plate that consisted more of a decoration tha real body protection. On the opposite they had rather large wooden shields that compensated for protection but then how these contributed to the famous Roman 'agility' I cannot see!!! Also Roman helmets had been of a very basic design offering only up to descent protection but not anything exceptional. Roman pilum also had been an innovation of the 1 A.D. century but I am not sure how good would be against plate armour clad phalanxes.
-
Message 27
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 20th May 2007
Correction, not 1 A.D. century but 1 B.C. for body armour as standard feature of the legion.
-
Message 28
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Sunday, 20th May 2007
and of course the phalangite would not have a short sword of his won would he idamante?
if anything a single legionaire would be at a disadvantage due to his large shield, not an advantage! -
Message 29
Posted by mickeymay (U3600416) on Sunday, 20th May 2007
Alright Marduk,
I think history has already answered the question, the Macedonians were beaten by the Romans. -
Message 30
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Sunday, 20th May 2007
the romans where the rising star and the greeks where at their nadir.
that is not what im asking. what i was asking is dyou think that the romans could beat the greeks at their height i.e under alexander.
this is in response to your message 23 mikeymay.
you put forward the idea-"The phalanx is all well and good against amateur armies, but against a fleet footed, highly mobile, professional army, like the romans at the height of their power? I think their can be only one answer. "
i put forward a counter-you havent answered it yet. -
Message 31
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 20th May 2007
Re: Messages 26/27,
I really think we are going to have to agree to differ on the use of body armour, but in any case we are talking about the middle of the 1st century BC when the lorica hamata was pretty much standard issue. Pila seem to have been an innovation of the Samnites (them again!), which the Romans adopted during/just after the Samnite Wars (4th C BC). The Romans were not great innovators by and large, but they had perfected the art of adopting their opponents' tactics and beating them at their own game. -
Message 32
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 23rd May 2007
Anglo-Norman thanx for the correction on the pillum.
Pillum, about which I wonder, what good a 1,80m light spear with a long thin point could do against a 6,00m spear? Pillums (whose nature of course was strictly spear-like and not javelin-like) would be only capable to aid the legionaire hitting the wood of the sarissas more or less in the same way children play sword fighting with sticks! Hence, the legionaires would have to drop their pillum and take out their swords hoping that they would grab and break some of the sarissas from the wall facing them. But then holding in the one hand an average length sword (even a longer one like those Praetorians used later) and in the other a large oval-shaped shield? It is not exactly a vision of agility!!! Not to mention that using sword to break the sarissas is easier to say than actually do: if it was so easy Persians would had already done it, or they would not even need to do so cause other phalanx men from southern states (or probably thraecian peltasts) would had done it thus maintaining Macedonians around their birthplace, mountain Olympus!
Of course one will ask "why Roman legionaires beat the Macedonians" and will jump in to say 'if Romans won it must had something to do with legionaires being better than sarissa-phalanx men", perhaps some problem in flexibility etc. That view omits the obvious, i.e. that the long-spear phalanx was meant to be used only in conjunction with other units such as archers, slingers and above all a substantial number of cavalry which remained to the sides and a bit behind ready to fall on any enemy unit that tried to side-hit the phalanx. What happened in Cynoscephalae was that without orders a lower ranking officer - who if am not mistaken led light infantry men and not legionaires) - took the initiative to attack the back side of the phalanxes who were pushing the legionaires out of the battlefield (actually legionaires backstepped in order not to be touched) seeing of course that Macedonian cavalry was still sitting in the hills.
Normally that situation was a simple one to manage: you whistle and the horses jump in falling on the enemy unit and dispercing it (20 maniples, that was piece of cake). It worked 100s of times like that, i do not see what these light infantry men had special to withstand the cavalry attack. On the other side the phalanx even if working alone would had continued to push back the legionaires (who were unable to give any reponse) till the point they would give up, drop shields and run away (the legionaires were no Sacred Band phalanx men to sit and die till the last!). But, what happened was different. In the beginning, phalanx men did not bother much as they expected the cavalry to come and disperce that minor threat (and the men of that lower officer must had been rather cautious looking up to the hills!). However the cavalry stood immobile on the hill watching as the few Roman men started gaining more courage piercing into the lines. Phalanx men, puzzled by the absense of aid dropped their spears to fight in close quarters something they were not expected to do, that fact seen by legionaires who took the offensive, now without the threat of spears. At that point the cavalry left the battlefield, a fact that made the large majority of the phalanx men understand that there was some short of big-time treason, the battle was "sold", thus they found no point in sitting down to fight sword in swword and hence left the battle. In all the aforementioned procedure the Roman general(the one who suffered anxiety and nightmares even long after the battle) and his higer officers had minimum or down the basics no control - they had pure luck, it had been Macedonian aristocrats opposing their king that gave them victory.
Second battle was pretty much a remake. Again the phalanx men had pushed back legionaires but this time it was not the random movement of a lower ranking officer but Romans finding refuge by withdrawing up on a hill. Marching up the hill is not exactly what just any type of phalanx (short spear or long spear), for that reason you had the light infantry (or cavalry, preferrably light one if it could arrive sideways)! Hence, phalanx men naturally momentarily hesitated and waited for the natural arrival of reinforcements which did not come, nor did come new orders thus on the uneven ground their lines started getting uneven and Romans now could enter inbetween and reach through the wall of spears. No catastrophe still as that was the time to attack with cavalry and isolate those parts of enemy units. However the cavalry for once more sit and stood (this time with the king's presence) and left the battle - once more soldiers felt "sold" and thus quit the battle. This time the king left with the cavalry (i.e. the aristocrats) but then it is more or less obvious that he had no choice as aristocrat disobeyance meant that soon he would go as far as to surrender to the Romans that paraded him in digrace back in Rome. That fact in conjunction with the fact that the same year started purges of "anti-Romans" all over Macedonia (what means "anti-Romans"?, obviously anti-certain-aristocrat-families!) with 1000S of citizens murdered in their houses and in conjunction with the fact that still 2 decades later a random usuperper had found the army to humiliate twice the Romans in battle (Romans enraged by the fact that "Macedonians did not fight for two kings but fought for 1 usurper!).... well...
...well they prove the obvious: that Roman legion never beat the phalanx in battle... it was good-old Greek internal strife and treason that made the job for them.
PS: note down that Publius like his predecessor Flaminius was also reported being shocked in the sight of the phalanxes - a general is most probably an experienced in war, hence if he gets shocked is only when he feels he can't think of an answer! -
Message 33
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 23rd May 2007
For the knowledgeable tactician it is common sense that the Roman legion was not an answer against the long-spear phalanx. Not that it was a really bad military formation but down to the basics, the main point of legions is that... you needed massive numbers of them to have an effective army! Numbers not presented all in one battle of course but thrown in as hordes time after time. Defeat after defeat you throw in continuously armies so in the end the opponent is left without army to fight. Carthagenians lost by winning most battles and losing in the end a few because they had no more army to throw in. King of Epirus Pyrrhus went to Italy with a decent army of 25,000 (generally large for Greek standards) won the battles against considerably larger armies but found out that Romans had the magic ability to find out and throw in many 10,000s more against him.
Perhaps during that campaign of Pyrrhus in Italy it was the only true occasion when legions (well, the early ones) must had fought without some treason taking place against the whatever short of phalanx-types Pyrrhus used (it is known that he used sarissa-phalanxes but these were not the central part of his army always, hene he used traditional ones plus of course archers, slingers and the by then traditional peltasts!). Well Phyrrus came with most of his kingdom's army, around 25,000, thus in battle he must had presented around 23,000 (few here and there as garissons) while Romans "sent a force" of 50,000 (all of them present in battle). Romans fought hard, tried to break the lines, tried to bring the battle down to hand-to-hand combat (a style of battle where practically both opponents lose many men) but lost. They had lost 8000 men, Pyrrhus had lost 4000 men. Normally that was not a catapstrophie but then another battle like that (a repeat!) where Romans lost by losing 6000 men and Pyrrhus 3000 men. The losses are understandable as 1) Romans were by no means bad in war 2) Romans necessarily pushed for hand to hand battle since arrogant Roman commanders rarely cared for the number of casualties (arrogant Persian king Xerxis actually had showed more respect to the lifes of his soldiers!) and these losses are by no means tragic apart the fact that Romans had lost 14000 men when just one task force of theirs was up to 50,000 men while Pyrrhus had lost 7000 men when his whole army in Italy was no more than 25,000 and when he could not count on his southern allies (that due to incessant wars had practically no serious armies left to fight). Even in the third battle branded as Roman victory, it was far from victory as nobody won the battle which remained a draw. At the end Pyrrhus realised he was just losing time there and left signing the fate of southern Italic tribes (like Lucanians) and Greek allies in the south.
Now in this early example like in the later examples (Romans keep losing repeatedly by rebel forces of a usurper till throwing more armies to bring down the revolt) legions seemed to work only if there were enough numbers to throw in to cover the blank of the first battle that was almost certain lost... unbelievable these guys had lost almost all first-contact battles they had! That tradition continued well into the A.D. times with greater example the expendition in Danube against Dacians (10 years, numerous and painfull defeats, construction of a huge bridge and more than 100,000 soldiers to conquer a relatively small area that others would bring down in 5-6 months and an army of 30,000 soldiers).
Sorry but I am still searching for the advantages of legions and I can find pretty much nothing! The Legionaire system had been abandoned as quickly as in early 3 A.D. times and never copied again obviously because the Empire could not anymore give the same numbers of soldiers to face the numerous enemies. Just compare the average of 60,000 to 80,000 standing army for the later Eastern Empire (that faced 10 times more enemies and enemies equally times more dangerous!) to the 700,000 standing army that had Romans for the whole Empire to understand the ineffectiveness and waste of the legionaire system.
It is also obvious that the long spear phalanx remained in use during middle-ages and early Enlightment, i.e. up to early 18th century(Byzantine combined arms phalanx, Flemish pikemen, Spanish tercio etc.)!
Lesson of tonight? Do not just be impressed by nice shiny helmets and loricas segmentatas (an obsolete armour design abandoned in Mycenean times!)!! Stick to the facts. -
Message 34
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Wednesday, 23rd May 2007
The Romans also beat phalanx troops supported by cataphracts at Magnesia, and at Magnesia the cataphracts did fight. You can put one vicory down to luck, two to carelessness but three looks like a trend...
-
Message 35
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 24th May 2007
and you can also put down the fact that the phalanx outlasted the legionary style of combat by about 1300 years down to how good a formation it is.
saxon and danish shieldwalls worked on the same principle, scots schiltroms worked on a similar principle, the byzantines army (for much of its history) worked on the combined macedonian system, the famous swiss pikemen worked on a very similar principle, as did the spanish pike walls. hell-as late as the english civil war we where using pike formations-not very dissimilar from the phalanx really. and the square formation used by infantry in the peninsular and napoleonic wars? several bayonet points pointing out in every direction to deter cavalry? sounds like a pretty similar principle to me! -
Message 36
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 24th May 2007
Magnesia and earlier the battle of Thermopylae (not the first one 300 years earlier) are merely a sign of incapacity of one Antioch to run properly a campaign (see not all Greek generals were Parmenion and not all leaders were Alexander! Antioch while not incapable or somethign was merely out of scope in the whole affair. Otherwise we would talk about tribes of geniouses here, what we have a try on here is to comment the practical effectiveness and versatility of a military formation in comparison to another, in our case phalanx (short-spear and long-spear) versus the legionaire style.
In that Seleucid-Roman war, Antioch having seen the way the Macedonian kingdom was disintegrating and that Greek states tired from the incessant wars had not the power (and mostly not the will anymore) to fight with Romans that seemed to find friends everywhere, he decided that if this land should be ruled by someone that should be him, a Greek and a Diadochos of Alexander the Great.
However that decision of him was more based on "sentimentalism" and had no strategic background as the Greek mainland (that was never a rich area of the world) would not offer his Empire much more than incessant civil-strife. His Empire was centered around Babylon and it was Mesopotamia its financial heartland. 2nd to rule that land one had to have the strongest navy possible and at least control the Eastern Mediterranean - his Empire was not up to that point and 3rd he might had been Greek but it was true that most Greeks would rather ally with a non Greek rather than with a Greek as it is known that the worst enemy of a Greek is another Greek (that big time true in all times!). Last, he underestimated the whole affair and saw it more as a game... he took a ridiculously small army of some 10,000 men, more like a task force, found himself in southern Greece in Thermopylae without much help from any serious ally apart a small unit from Achaians or Aitolians (I do not remember, I think the latter as they were allies of the Macedonian kings). Piece of cake for Romans that had numerous friends and of course the mighty nave of Rhodes that gave them supremacy in the east (irrelevant! I remembered now I have the records of the Olympic winners, Rhodes just beat all records in the 2nd B.C. century! wonder why!). Rhodians had already beat (or after? certainly about then) the Seleucid army and it was easy even for a bunch of knife-armed villagers to kick out the losers of Antioch. Antioch realised that and took the remaining force back to Minor Asia, a land he had recently conquered and not consolidated proven by the ease of Romans wandering through it having full support of Rhodians and of course the best ally and friend king of Pergamos who I think led the battle for them. In the battle of Magnesia it was mainly the Greek captains spirit that took the Roman cavalry to disperse the opposite forces and isolate and break the lines of the phalanxes (that were not so many as some might think).
And what was Seleucid army other than a United Colours of Mesopotamia (not in itself a bad thing but there was no consolidation). He had only 10,000 proper phalanx men (perhaps the only unit of proven value), the other 15,000 were... termed as settlers-fighters (ok! but they found no place for them thus why fight hard?), and all the other 25,000 were cavalry, light, heavy, cataphracts, camels, elephants, chariots (i.e. everything the phalanx had rendered obsolete!) and if there were other animals I am sure he would had used them - but all that was just thrown into the battle without much of consideration, not to mention that he did not bother to change his bad side of the river that made his infantry weak and his numerous cavalry less effective, nor did he bother when romans crossed the river and took the good side and camped a breath away from him. Not to mention that during the battle while his cataphracts successfully chased legionaires back to their camp his own scythed chariots and elephants brought such confusion to his own lines thus hindering the efforts of the remaining worthy units - Romans on the other hand were dragged by the successful attempt of the cavalry led by the Pergamontian guy , and legionaires followed (as usual, perhaps that was the idea) after (but it could had been any type of soldier, a peltast, a guy with an axe, that would do the same job!).
Certainly Thermopylae II and Magnesia are not examples of legionaire system superiority over the phalanx system.
I think Marduk with a few words epitomised the comparison:
Very different armies from very different nations of very different economics facing very different enemies using often different weaponry actually ended up with techniques that are more similar to the phalanx (short/long spear) rather than that of the legions which is something surprising as the name of Rome means power itself and everyone traditionally would imagine that it should be due to their supreme tactics that should be emulated but no, they opted for phalanx-like formations. Most (apart Byzantines who studied all that in military academies) ended up on such a choice out of pure experience in battle. Simply phalanx-style seemed to work better. -
Message 37
Posted by VaudinCaesar (U8374567) on Monday, 18th June 2007
Thanks for all your comments they are much apreciated! Will be hoping to start new forums soon as soon as exams finish!!!!
Thanks again
VaudinCaesar -
Message 38
Posted by dugfromthearth (U8723213) on Tuesday, 19th June 2007
the legion was a homogenous force which could be easily adapted to any terrain or enemy. Being homogenous force it excelled at nothing.
the macedonian army was a highly specialized force with pinning infantry and striking cavalry. Each was very good at what it did but could do little else.
The legion was good for maintaining a large, far-flung empire with generals of dubious quality. It could try almost anything general thought of, and it did not require clever tactics or coordination.
The macedonian army lived or died by generalship. Each element of the army when not supported properly by the other was almost surely doomed. But in coordinated action it was almost unbeatable.
Alexander was an amazing general. Under his command his army was at its best, and its best was truly awesome.
Caesar was an adequate general who wrote his own press releases. Scipio Africanus was a far, far better general. His experiences show how flexible the legion was in various battles, taking cities, etc. He also readily called on allies to provide much needed cavalry support. Scipio's legion without allied cavalry would not have won at Zama.
In conclusion, under a fair to competent commander the Legion would be a match for the macedonian army and would stand a good chance of beating it. Under excellent commanders the macedonian army would win consistently. -
Message 39
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Sunday, 24th June 2007
Consider the possibility that Alexander, instead of continuing to march eastward after conquering Persia, returned to Greece and the Mediterranean world. Rome was just beginning to emerge as a real power, and would undoubtedly have come into conflict with Alexander and his phalanx. You wouldn’t need a time machine to imagine what might have happened. Forget Caesar. The Romans had built a powerful war machine using their manipular formation and their legions and we have history to show us that a well-handled phalanx was still a deadly fighting formation. Rome won the battle of Magnesia years later, true. But they came very close to losing it, and at Magnesia it was phalanx against legions. What’s more, there was crucial factor missing at Magnesia that the Greek phalanx would have had if Alexander had returned to Greece...he, himself, and his general staff.
I doubt if there was a general anywhere in the Roman Republic who could match the military genius of Alexander (or Parmenion, if some modern critics of Alexander are correct), and considering how very nearly equal the two fighting techniques were, I would have to say that IMO Alexander and his phalanx would have come out on top. What might have happened then to the Ancient world in the Mediterranean if Alexander had defeated Rome and annexed Italy to his empire is anyone’s guess.
Obviously, the phalanx had a disadvantage. It was cumbersome, particularly on rough terrain, and if the flanks were in the air it could be attacked effectively (a mile-long line takes considerable time to change its front). But when used properly, it was a potent formation.
The phalanx was designed for a specific purpose, namely to freeze the opponent’s infantry or main battle line, holding them in one spot, thus allowing the light infantry or (more often) the cavalry to hammer the stationary enemy from the flanks or rear. Obviously it would be extremely important to guard the flanks of the phalanx, which was the job of the light infantry, slingers, and archers. When used on open ground (which could usually be found without difficulty in the middle eastern areas where Alexander fought most of his battles) it was almost invulnerable. The Roman legions could move more freely in broken ground and had a definite advantage in such terrain, therefore it was extremely important for the commander of an army dependent on a phalanx to take great care in selecting the battlefield.
When properly handled, I don’t see the manipular formations being, in all instances, superior to the phalanx, nor do I believe that the phalanx was obsolete by Caesar’s time. Spanish armies of the 15th and 16th centuries used a type of phalanx formation frequently, depending on the circumstances, and they were the genuine superpower in Europe of the late Middle Ages
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.