Napoleon and alexander

ah yes, ditka plays god in football, and wins 72 - 17

Alexander conquered an already falling apart Persian Empire that had already been soundly defeated by the Greeks at Marathon and Salamis. Alexander had a better army with the phalanx, and his troops were well trained, while the Persian troops were hastily gathered soldiers raised by hiring them for money on the spot–- eg. levies.  Â

And Caesar had a better army with heavey armor and reliable weapons with cohorts made up into legions against naked untrained barbarians. I don’t see much of a difference here.

Caesar on the other hand, fought against huge Gallic and German peoples who had never been conquered by the Romans. The people of Gaul were brave and brutal. At the battle of Alesia against Vercingetorix, Caesar, while besieging the Gallic leader, was surrounded by a huge Gallic army, which some accounts place at as large as 180,000-200,000 men. Caesar, with his force of 30,000, fought off both the surrounding army and the large force that he was besieging. In a great battle, Caesar annihilated the surrounding force and sacked Alesia, ending the war. Although against the Gauls he had superior troops with the legionaries, in the Roman Civil War he completely annihilated a Roman force which outnumbered him three to one and was led by Pompey the Great, one of Romes greatest generals. This shows that Caesar was greater than Alexander.

I don’t see that it does. So, Caesar defeats a 200 000 man army. Alexander defeats a 250 000 army at Gaugamela with 40 000.

The tactic of the phalanx is sometimes credited to Alexander but It was Alexander’s father, Phillip, who developed that tactic of a phalanx.

Â

Well, the Greeks with their hoplite infantry fought in a Phalanx long before Phillip came along. Phillip developed the Macedonian phalanx, which was far larger. The 
Macedonian phalanx had as many as 32 ranks compared with the 8 of the Greeks and their spears  were 19ft-23ft. The back ranks of Phillip’s phalanx were usually not in armor which saved money. The sure weight from this form of attack would be very difficult for the smaller Greek phalanx to withstand regardless of how well they were trained.

Conclusion: The Romans were constantly upgrading their legionaries until the late western empire. They kept adding new tactics and new training to keep them up to date. The greeGreeks the other hand, rarely upgraded the phalanx, and it remained largely unchanged  hundreds of years after its  invention. So Alexander didnt didn’t anything to strategy in this respect. Secondly, Ceaser was perhaps the greatest strategist in the tactic of seige siegeidenced by Alesia. again the master of this tactic goes to Ceasar.

What kind of new tactics did Caesar implement? I’m curious. And yes, the Greeks changed there tactics when a Greek Phalanx was destroyed by Skirmishers, the Greeks move toward lighter armour and longer spears so it was easier to engage light troops. I don’t know much about Caesar’s seiges. He may well have been the good at it but it doesn’t make him the best general.

Also, you have to Remember the armies of Caesars time were a lot bigger than in Alexander’s time, so they were more difficult to manage. This is a credit to ceaserceasets also a credit to Napoleon.Alexander worked with comparatively smaller forces so it was an easier project to manage.

Well, so far I haven’t read or have seen you post an example of Caesar commanding any army larger than anything Alexander did. I will  say that Caesar’s supply line was no where near as far reaching as Alexander’s

Just FYI, ther eis a History Channel special coming up in the near future on Alexander, and apparently on his role in the development of the Catapult for seige warfare.

If that link is true (and I am out of my element, going off show promor and the titel of it), then Alexander had a MASSIVE impact on warfare until the Age of Gunpowder was well advanced.

And Caesar had a better army with heavey armor and reliable weapons with cohorts made up into legions against naked untrained barbarians. I don’t see much of a difference here.

The difference was the conquest of Gaul against a trained army while the army of Persians were made up primarily people who were raised on the spot… hardly a trained experienced army. The "naked’ Barbarians in Europe as you put it fought much harder than Persians. Ceasar conquered all of Gaul (including spain and France and invaded Britain and latter Ceasar crossed the rhine and fought against the best "naked’ savages with clothes that the world had seen up to that time. Plus Vercingetorix was by far a better adversary than say the riff raff Alexander had to go against.

I don’t see that it does. So, Caesar defeats a 200 000 man army. Alexander defeats a 250 000 army at Gaugamela with 40 000.

Yes but caeasar was laying seige to a city while outnumbered and also fighting yet another force at his back again at huge odds. A seige is by far the hardest tactic to employ in ancient times as it leads to major loses but Ceaser accomplished this feat greater than any other including alexander who was considered an excellent master himself of the seige. Thats what makes caeaser better. But to Alexanders credit he also fought and won battles of great odds. The difference was the situation surrounding the two battles rather than the odds.

Well, the Greeks with their hoplite infantry fought in a Phalanx long before Phillip came along. Phillip developed the Macedonian phalanx, which was far larger. The
Macedonian phalanx had as many as 32 ranks compared with the 8 of the Greeks and their spears  were 19ft-23ft. The back ranks of Phillip’s phalanx were usually not in armor which saved money. The sure weight from this form of attack would be very difficult for the smaller Greek phalanx to withstand regardless of how well they were trained.

Right then you agree with me that Alexander really didnt bring anything new to the scene in terms of major military developments. he rested on what was allready in use before. Ceaser on the other hand made improvements in how the legions were deployed and tactics. he also created the last word on ancient art of seige warfare… an often attributed skill to alexander. However, ceaser won the greatest battle of this type at Alesia.

What kind of new tactics did Caesar implement? I’m curious. And yes, the Greeks changed there tactics when a Greek Phalanx was destroyed by Skirmishers, the Greeks move toward lighter armour and longer spears so it was easier to engage light troops. I don’t know much about Caesar’s seiges. He may well have been the good at it but it doesn’t make him the best general.

Read up on Alesia its one of the most important battles of the ancient world

Well, so far I haven’t read or have seen you post an example of Caesar commanding any army larger than anything Alexander did. I will  say that Caesar’s supply line was no where near as far reaching as Alexander’s

Here you go:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr0009.htm

Key portion:

“Philip of Macedon could field a combat army of 32,000 men organized in four divisions of 8,192 men each, and the army of Alexander sometimes exceeded 60,000 men. Roman military forces, which at the end of the empire totaled 350,000 men, could routinely field armies upward of 40,000. At the Battle of Cannae the Roman force arrayed against Hannibal was 80,000 men strong. Of these, 70,000 were destroyed in a single day! The one exception to the ability of Iron Age states to deploy large armies was the armies of classical Greece. Being products of relatively small city-states, classical armies were unusually small even for the Bronze Age. Ahab, for example, at the Battle of Ai could field 30,000 men, while at the Battle of Marathon the Greeks were able to field only 10,000 men against the Persian force of 50,000.”

BTW Cannae was before Ceasar… he had no part in that debacle.

his role in the development of the Catapult for seige warfare.

Yes thats what i am pointing out… namely Alexander is known for his ability to conduct the art of seige. But Caesar has by far a greater accomplishment of this tactic at Alesia. What i am saying is how ideass that these men were credited with were used to advance the method of how war was fought. Caesar has a better account of what Alexander is often credited with as “his” own signature military tactic invention. The other being the improvements related to the phalanx which remained unchanged, and the structure of the Legions which had seen many improvements under Caesar.

BTW:
Alexander developed the torsion ballista which is kinda like a crossbow but bigger. It was also a  devise that was also used by the Romans. The Romans improved it by casting the major stress parts in metals to improve durability.

IL, you are not supporting your argument here…

Caeser only IMPROVED what Alexander had already done.

It is a lot easier to modify, than to create…

The point is not:

“Caesar only IMPROVED what Alexander had already done”

The phalanx is nothing like the structure of the legion….

The point was to demonstrate that Caesar made changes to his strategy and adapted them to the degree of his adversary. This is a trait of a superior general. Alexander used the same ideas that he learned from his father and never made improvements in the evolution of tactics. of course he was a great general but to the extend of which he added something to how

Alexander invented the torsion ballista but that hardly is a major contribution to military strategy.

Caesar developed the modified Cohortal Legion which was an improvement of the Manipular Legion. Alexander mearly used the EXACT formation that his father Philip had created before him and made NO IMPROVEMENTS. A modification was probably necessary when facing those persian Elephants. As pointed out earlier Ceasar allways made improvements in how his armies would fight to allways improve to minimize loses.

A good general has allways left a mark of improvement of military tactics and their is simply no evidence that Alexander has done anything to advance the evolution of military tactics. In the ancient world the improvements that were made under Caesars ideas were the established benchmark for how warfare was conducted. Thats an important quality of a Superior general IMO.

Also,
The largest amphibious invasion ever conducted until 1944 (overlord) occurred under Caesars watch when he invaded Britain. No prior campaign of this scale was attempted before.

Alexander also has conducted this operation but not even close to the extent of Caesar.

@Imperious:

Yamamoto vs. fletcher or Nimitz

Ill go with the Yamamoto vs Nimitz here.  Yamamoto was a very good naval tactician and strategist.  However at the Battle of Midway he received a major defeat against the naval force of Nimitz.  Nimitz had very good leadership qualities, which are necessary in a commander, but in the end Yamamoto was perhaps the better tactician/strategist.  His defeat at Midway was due to two things.  1) Nimitzs great intelligence department which was able to know what the IJN intentions were.  2) Just plain old luck.  Luck that the recon planes were able to find the Japanese carriers first.  Luck that the US Dive Bombers attacked the Jap carriers during the crucial transicion from bombs to torpedos on the fighter planes (and also tons of fuel on the decks.)  This is not to say that the American forces didnt fight with skill, because they did, as well as the Japanese.  In the end however, it was the US that edged the Japs, with luck and skill.  To me this would be a tough decision, so ill just let you guys decide.  :wink:

Yamamoto had the correct idea about trying to get the americans involved into a huge battle to finally destroy them but he allowed Nagumo to screw up the finer points of the attack. I do not favor the idea of barely escorted carriers attacking for in advance of the other elements of what appears an overly complicated plan. I would have favored using a minimum of 6 front line carriers ( including  CV SHOKAKU and ZUIKAKU) and probably that junyo which was basically wasted in support of  the diversion at Dutch Harbor.

At Hawaii they used 6 Carriers, while against American carriers they use 4? what kind of plan is that?  They should have had 3 independent carrier groups complete with proper escorts of heavy cruisers. The main body was too far in the real to make any difference in the battle.

Also, they placed too much emphasis on destroying the midway installation. That could have been bombed by the battleships and rendered useless. The plan tried to accomplish too many things at once: destroy the US carriers, invade midway, invade dutch harbor… i mean come on what where they thinking?

Based on only this battle i would be inclined to favor Nimitz. Yamamoto’s only deserved victory was all those islands they took in a few months following Dec 7th. Thats was well planned except the victory itself rested in the hands of other generals namely Yamashita who wiped out the Brits at Singapore and the Philippines.

The "naked’ Barbarians in Europe as you put it fought much harder than Persians

You have no way of backing up that statement.

Plus Vercingetorix was by far a better adversary than say the riff raff Alexander had to go against.

Again, what proof do you have here beyond your opinion.

Yes but caeasar was laying seige to a city while outnumbered and also fighting yet another force at his back again at huge odds. A seige is by far the hardest tactic to employ in ancient times as it leads to major loses but Ceaser accomplished this feat greater than any other including alexander who was considered an excellent master himself of the seige. Thats what makes caeaser better. But to Alexanders credit he also fought and won battles of great odds. The difference was the situation surrounding the two battles rather than the odds.

I’m not trying to argue that Alexander’s victory was any more impressive then Caesar’s. They are both outstanding. However, if you’re saying that Caesar’s victory, and you clearing are, is worthy of more credit because he was conducting a siege at the time. I disagree. As far as I read Caesar was constructing  a massive trench works around the town 28k or 17.4 miles, which is pretty wild. So, we have Caesar’s army “dug in” around this fort. That makes his withstanding a massive barbarian assault a little less dynamic then if he was in a open feild attacking a force 6 six times, or whatever, his size, like Alexander.

Right then you agree with me that Alexander really didnt bring anything new to the scene in terms of major military developments. he rested on what was allready in use before.

Why change what works. He never lost a battle.

Ceaser on the other hand made improvements in how the legions were deployed and tactics

Can you give some examples. As far I as know Marius made the reforms. And any general who has ever commanded an army has made adjustments to how he may have deployed his army based on terrian, whether he is attacking or defending, what he is fighting against and so on. Caesar does not deserve extra credit.

he also created the last word on ancient art of seige warfare

Read up on Alesia its one of the most important battles of the ancient world

I did just that.  I have read, not study, Adrian Goldworthy’s book “Roman Warfare” and “Fighting techniques of the Ancient World” by four or five different authors…I don’t recall their names right now. Both of those books indicate that Romans did nothing different, as far the sieges are concerned, then the greeks did. Like you mentioned they did modify seige engines. But, there is not a single word in those books that mention Caesar being the mastermind behind siege warfare. Romans in general developed trench works not Caesar himself althought the example at Alesia is certainly a highlight.

Here you go:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr0009.htm

Key portion:

“Philip of Macedon could field a combat army of 32,000 men organized in four divisions of 8,192 men each, and the army of Alexander sometimes exceeded 60,000 men. Roman military forces, which at the end of the empire totaled 350,000 men, could routinely field armies upward of 40,000. At the Battle of Cannae the Roman force arrayed against Hannibal was 80,000 men strong. Of these, 70,000 were destroyed in a single day! The one exception to the ability of Iron Age states to deploy large armies was the armies of classical Greece. Being products of relatively small city-states, classical armies were unusually small even for the Bronze Age. Ahab, for example, at the Battle of Ai could field 30,000 men, while at the Battle of Marathon the Greeks were able to field only 10,000 men against the Persian force of 50,000.”

BTW Cannae was before Ceasar… he had no part in that debacle.

Thanks for the link. However, it does not really prove anything here. Caesar did not command an 350 000 men army and Caeser did not, himself, develope the impressive Roman logistic system.

Caesar developed the modified Cohortal Legion which was an improvement of the Manipular Legion. Alexander mearly used the EXACT formation that his father Philip had created before him and made NO IMPROVEMENTS. A modification was probably necessary when facing those persian Elephants. As pointed out earlier Ceasar allways made improvements in how his armies would fight to allways improve to minimize loses.

Again, what modifications did he make. Marius was the developer of the Imperial Roman legions as far I as know, but I’ll read into that tonight.
One could argue that no one used cavalry to such a decisive and davastating degree as Alexander.
At both the battles of Gaugemala and Hypadus? Alexander’s loses were minimal. I belive 280 men and 330 respectively.

You have no way of backing up that statement.

I just did when i compared your Persian “levied” army against people who were fighting for their very existence. In a battle would you take guys who never picked up a sword but got 2 dollars to fight for Darius or would you pick people fighting like hell for their mothers and fathers and very homes. You know what Caesar did to conquered peoples and so they too knew the result of failure.

What evidence do you have that they were naked?

Again, what proof do you have here beyond your opinion

I offer the same proof that you offered which is far more lacking in terms of actually posting links and facts to back up his own points but merely attacking mine and NOT offering any counterargument. basically I’m doing all the work. its not enought to basically have a take where you say " thats your opinion… but alexander is better but i am not going to the trouble to support that statement"

Can you give some examples

did you not read the comments regarding the result at Alesia and the creation of Cohortal legion. In both cases they illustrate how Caesar excelled at the same two ideas that Alexander was supposed to have excelled at… only Caesar produced a greater siege victory and secondly had a superior organization with his Legion.

If a Legion with 10,000 men fought a Phalanx with 10,000 men the Legion would win because it was a more flexible deployment. It evolved after the experience of fighting many different enemies that Alexander had to face. Thus it was adaptable. Alexander didn’t invent any new ideas in tactics but he used what had been done before. If he met other races/empires he may have been defeated. Cesar fought basically everybody and won. Greeks, Africans, Persians, Egyptians, Gauls, German tribes, British tribes, hispania, etc… he probably learned more about warfare fighting so many different peoples he could have wrote the book in ancient military strategy. Alexander only fought Persians and in India.

Why change what works. He never lost a battle.

Yes and he died at like 33… if he had more time he would have faced defeat… Cesar had a full lifetime of victory. His track record demonstrates a greater proven ability to maintain control his victories long after he left the scene. Again Alexander left his empire to his brother or something and it went into the handbasket faster than watermelon in Atlanta.

Thanks for the link. However, it does not really prove anything here

The proof was who commanded a larger army. Nothing more. The link satisfied that.

remember this is what you posted:

Well, so far I haven’t read or have seen you post an example of Caesar commanding any army larger than anything Alexander did.

I found this illuminating essay on the differences of Phalanz vs. Legion. It is also true that under the marius reforms the Cohortal legion was formed which coincided with the time of caesar.

The Phalanx Legion: The early Roman legion was very little in terms of organization than its Greek counter-parts. It was a massive, deep formation of soldiers with interlocking shields, armed predominately with spears. The spears were pointed outwards in front of the formation, ready to mow down any soldiers who dared oppose it. The phalanx is essentially a mountain, extremely slow but nothing can withstand it. The core of the formation are the rich landowners, as in ancient societies often they were the only ones who could afford the armor and equipment required to fight in the phalanx. The majority of phalanx-using populations fought as skirmishers rather than heavy infantry. However it has major downfalls. The phalanx is solely designed for attacking the enemy from the front of the formation, the disadvantage is the tight formation restricts movement heavily, it takes a very long time to wheel around to face new directions, making it suspectible to flanking manouvers. In bronze age times often times two large forces at war would agree on a place and time to battle, and both sides would line up on either side of the battlefield and advance. For this the phalanx was perfect, however the Romans often times in the early Republic did not fight organized enemies with whom they had a predefined battle site. Largely because of this purpose, a new form of organization was required, which most believe was introduced gradually over a long period of time.

Manipular Legion: Throughout most of the Republic period this was the force used by Rome. It consisted largely of a three-line checkerboard formation, designed to give their enemies a two-punch killing blow on the field of battle. The primary unit of organization was the maniple, the amount of soldiers in which has often been debated, as some historians believe roman numbers fail to include cooks, blacksmiths and other essential personel which might be attached to the unit, but this summary is based on that a maniple consists of around 160 fighting men on the field. The maniple is then divided into two centuries, each of which consisted of 80 men. When deployed on the field, the legion consists of three main lines, around which the plan of battle is constructed. This organization appears to almost entirely have been based on age. In the front were the hastati, the most inexperienced regular soldiers of the army. They were generally equipped with body armor covering the upper body, a large square shield, a javelin, an iron helmet, and the gladius shortsword. Behind the hastati were the principes, who were similarily equipped only with weapons of slightly better quality. Also, the principes were slightly older and had more experience. Behind them were the triarii, the oldest veterans and the last remnants in the legion of the Greek phalanx. They were equipped differently than the others, having heavier armor and a different primary weapon, a large spear called the hasta. Also the triarii maniples might have been slightly smaller in size, having about 130 men per maniple rather than 160. In addition to this, there would be about 300 horsemen and a large assortment of velites (skirmishers). The formation would be arranged much like the following, with the hastati in front, principes second, and triarii third, with each - signifying a space between maniples. Each [ signifies a century.

[]–[]–[]–[]–[]–[]–[]–[]–[]–[]
–[]–[]–[]–[]–[]–[]–[]–[]–[]–[]
[]–[]–[]–[]–[]–[]–[]–[]–[]–[]

The velites would be out front in a loose formation, armed with javelins, and would usually skirmish with the enemy before the main battle. After the skirmish was over, the hastati would attack first, throwing their javelins and then charging to meet the enemy. Next, the principes would attack, throwing their own javelins and filling the gaps in the formation. The triarii would remain in the rear, if the hastati and principes were thrown back they would cover their retreat, if not, they could be used to prevent flanking maneuvers by the enemy or launch some of their own. All in all, excluding velites, the legion had about 4800 men.

Cohortal Legion: The Cohortal Legion is called so because of the same reason as the Manipular, the main unit of organization was the Cohort. This legion, like the previous, was a result of a large number of reforms over the army, however those for the Cohortal legion took place in a much shorter period of time and many them were instituted by the same man, Marius. The process of creating a Cohortal legion had already began some time before, however, and legions with a Cohortal level of organization had already been used before Marius. The main difference was the form of recruitment. The Cohortal legion was one of the the first professional armies in history, all of its soldiers having been recruited, trained, and equipped by the state rather than their own means, negating the importance of the nobility in the military. The Cohort was a unit of organization larger than the maniple, consisting of about 600 heavy infantry soldiers, divided further into 6 centuries each led by a centurion. The legion all in all had about 6000 soldiers, around 10 cohorts. Each cohort was a small army in and of itself and could break off and perform military manouvers without the rest of the army, which was one of the greatest advantage of the legion. For instance, if the main force was engaged, a cohort could break off and perform a flanking manouver, an action previously impossible with a phalanx and difficult with the Manipular legion. Like the maniple, the Cohortal legion was organized into a checkerboard pattern, to allow the filling of gaps but also for each line to form together in a single front if need be. This time a + signifies a gap between lines. A set of -'s signifies a cohort.

–----++±-----++±-----++±-----
++±-----+++±-----+++±-----
+±-----+++±-----+++±-----

Generally, each cohort would be about 100 ranks wide and 6 ranks deep, with each century forming a line. Usually the first cohort in the formation (the one on the front left I believe) was the most experienced and being placed in the first cohort was much like being placed along the right side of a phalanx, it was a position of honor. The soldiers themselves were armed much like the hastati and principes of the earlier legion, with a javelin (or pilum), a large square shield, a gladius, and armor covering the upper body. Auxileries (cavalry and missile units) were generally not included in the legion count.

Conclusion: The Marian reforms helped create one of the best fighting forces in the world by the end of the Republic. However, as cavalry of all sorts began to once again dominate the field as they had in Alexander’s time during the Imperial phase, the heavy Roman infantry gradually began to evaporate into a lighter style of sloldier armed with a small spear and shield. The infantry had to become lighter in order to keep up and cope with the cavalry, and by the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the legionary soldier was almost in no way identifyable with the Cohortal soldiers at the end of the Republic.[/quote]

This esssy does illustrate how the legion especially the Cohortal Legion was vastly superior to the phalanx and secondly the concept of a professionally trained army raised by the state and did not recoqnize the importance of nobility which is a problem that plauged armies of both sides during Alexanders time. I understand that this does not have any bearing on how Caesar was better than Alexander other than to say that his armies organization was better in many ways.

But you cannot dismiss Alexander as the one who largely CREATED organized warfare, who basically INTRODUCED tactics to the battlefield.  Hel also integrated infantry and calvary for joint actions such as had not previously occured.  And at the age of 20, he may have demosntrated one of the BEST exmaples of understanding military action ever known when he bnullified the Persian Fleet without a signle ship of his own, jsut by wiping out their ports.  THAT is knowledge of logistics and how to exploit an enemy’s weakness!

Who voted other? would that be Ditka?

IP, I am not saying that Alexander is a far greater general that Caesar. I give him a edge, just a slight one.  You, however, are giving Caeser credit for things he did not create and discrediting Alexander unfairly but calling his opponents “levies”, saying he only fought two seperate nations and dismissing the leader/generals he fought against.
Darius’s army had Greek hoplite mercenaries in it. He had the elite “Immortals” with him. He had Elephants, tons of cavalry and scythe chariots. Alexander also fought in Egypt, he fought Greeks, northern barbarian tribes, Scythians, Thracians, Persians and Indians.

The Celtic tribes in Gaul that Caesar battled were  certainly not all naked. In general they were poorly armed, not usually in armor, poorly lead and were not a well organized army in large scale battles. I’m not trying to take anything away from Caesar here I’m sure the barbarians he fought against were fierce. If anything I’m trying to draw
similarities between the two, Caeser and Alexander.

As far as the Corhort vs Phalanx is concerned, I never claimed the Phalanx was better
That was a nice post about the two formations.

Ok but i have to add that i retracted the achievements under Caesar because they were actually part of the  Marian reforms. Secondly, i dont think you can dismiss both Vercingetorix and Commius the latter of which was a a former ally of Caesar and Rome. I doubt that Caesar would allow some ‘naked savage’ the opportunity to fight alongside Caesar and share in his victories.

Also Vercingetorix was capable of his own victories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gergovia

Anyone know of any medieval age generals we can compare?

William the Conqueror vs. Joan of Arc?