Reply to Topic
Hi Folks,
Yes, after a long hiatus, I'm back. Some of you probably remember me as a stubborn, frank, yet eloquently spoken neo-Conservative whom was able to arrowse attention by making softies raise their eyebrows.
I was in the army for a while then came back to help one of my kindred spirits run his business. Long story, short- it didn'y work with him so I'm pursuing a county job but anyway...
The topic I have here today is basically a comparison of the Grand old Conquerors when men were men and brute force ruled the world and not economic brain power. This in itself is a whole other post but I pose several questions to you, my colleagues.
The first one, being the more liberal of the two and probably more attractive is your choice and argument over who was the greatest General in Ancient History.
My second Question for all my Brethren of Roman Dissent is Who was the Greater General: Rome's finest- Julius Caesar or Greece's- ALexander The Great (Let it be Known I am well aware he was from Macedon. I have yet to meet anyone who knows more about Alexander of Macedon than yours truly does. [Moreover, that would probably lead you to guess that I'm leaning my opinion on the latter]).
This is However a much more difficult debate than one would think because, realistically, what we're REALLY trying to figure out was not who's record was the greatest or who was the greatest considering the environment from which he sprung, we're trying to interpret the all important question of which Ancient General was Mentally Superior in Strategy to all others. Let me mention also here that Genghis Khan cannot be admitted because he's unfortunately too relatively recent, furthermore it cannot be determined with any considerably certainty how well of a General he was with Foot soldiers. Yes, Time doesn't matter in this post but such a different wavelength of strategy makes it undoubtedly impossible to sort his mental capacity with ye olde-time sword thrusters.
So, moving right along Gentlemen, I'm going to Propose my argument Between Alexander and Julius Caesar's Armies.
Withstanding that many have argued that the Persian Standing Army in his day was without a doubt inferior and backward compared to ALexander's Phalangist's and Companion's as well As Caesar's Legions, we have to assume (to not make this study any more complicated than it is) that both generals with their armies, even equipped from the Resources of the day with the same size armies could both kick out the legs of The Mighty Persian Empire.
Both inherited their Armies and both had their idols for strength and direction. Caesar's, Ironically was Alexander Himself. They were both almost incomprehenensibly stong mental Giants of Strategy. It just occured to me there's no way to determine this battle unless I study more Closely Caesar's Strategies and Battles. I hope his tactics at the time were considered unconventional because it was would make this debate easier, because he's then not tied down but Routine Strategy he had gathered in the Officer Academy He attended, moroever, easily exposing the contrast and ultimately his plain strategic genuis. Not knowing this, the post will have to be updated later but for now, I'll illustrate Philip II's Army Under Alexander and perhaps lay out several things I'm factually aware of discussing the contmporary Legion.
I'll Start with the Units, Then work up The Great's gift for Strategy. Alexander's Army was arguably Based on the Greek Style of warfare, shown most easily in the Thrusting walled phalanx which made up eighty percent of his Heavy Infantry.
The Phalanx was a Superb Military pracitce which even the Romans and Carthaginians both used for their Standard Heavy Infanty at this time. The Reason that made the Phalanx so Brilliant a formation was it simply could not be defeated by a frontal assault. It was so precice at repelling frontal assault, it was undoubtedly mathematically formulated to figure out exactly how many ranks deep the phalanx required to repel a certain number of infantry or cavalry at a defense. This made it understandably economical as well, giving the commander more knowlege of how many committed companies or battalions he really had to commit. It was an actual science! Ofcourse, the thing one would need to know or guess accurately at would be the number attacking and from where.
Alexander's Infanty was also the best trained Infantry ever (Most likely physically better trained than any land infantyman today and at the very least the drilling par of the Legion in its best time-frame. They were without a doubt better harderned than even today's United States Marine Cops.) That is not to say ofcourse the Phalanx did not have its flaws. Oh yes, it did. The Phalanx served as a somehat structural formation meaning it was not hip to change formation and tactics involving an unsurprised attack, say from the flank. Also, If the structural integrity of a large portion of the phalanx was comprimised (Which in history it again and again was) The Phalanx could and would be in serious peril without sufficient time for its officers to redress them. The Phalanx also surprisingly was awful even at a frontal assault out of formation. The eightenn foot long sarissa was "worse than useless" in close fighting and whether His heavy infantry uniformly carried swords is uncertain. So the weaknesses are, if you can engage a Greek army by attacking it at close quarters, catching them in a stage of recovery, their frontline can be broken or at the very least divided considering the need for another company to engage, potentially leaving a gap. And They're able to be outmaneuvered. SO now that we all understand the Phalanx, lets move on to his cavalry. Alexandder also posessed the best cavalry of the day, The Companion Cavalry. Thesallian Cavalry has also been argued as its equal also which made up his left flank. They were the most elite cavalry of theur time, also brutally trained and drilled, practicing tacitcs that revolutionized the use of Cavalry as a weapon. (The wedge formation being the most widely known) The Cavalry was however smaller than Caesar's Roman and Praetorian Cavalry because cavalry such as these had been bred and studied to be the biggest finest Cavalry. For these faults, We're going to consider Both Armies had the same Horses and the same amount of dicipline as the other. Comparing the actual units not excluding faults as these is not sound for deciding who is the better General.
Ofcourse, Alexander also used Peltasts, Slingers and Archers but another Famous Regiment which he himself favored much was he Elite Hypaspists. They were Alexander's Special Forced Unit in Spit of what the People of the Creative Assembly have printed. (creative Asslembly Developed the PC Game, Rome: Total War as well as an Alexander add-on which was slightly less than par even considering they couldn't recreate the Seige of Tyre because the Game did not encompass naval Battles of any sort.) The Hypaspists were proabably picked from his phalanx Divisions and were equipped with different weapons given the task. They had a special uniform as well. Most of the time, when not in a large-scale pitched battle, they carried 6-foot spears as well as swords. In large-scale battles, they were equipped with sarissas like the regular heavy infantry. How much better did they fight in phalanx formation than the rest, no one knows but my best guess would be their drilling, although more pleasing to the eye because of its asethetic efficiency, would matter little in deployment since they probably manuevered or were held back to maneuver the same as the bulk of Alexander's Heavy Phalanx. They probably however has a little more punch in their thrust forward while engaging an army and could also probably withstand a doubt flank attack somewhat longer if not able to overcome it. Nothing is certain, so we'll just consider them to be slightly superior. To not would be unfair because Caesar also had a Special Force Unit, The Praetorians from which we will do just the same not excluding ofcourse the difference in fighting style between the two.
The Tricky part about this battle is the Roman legion is perhaps coincidentally designed to be the Nemesis of the Phalanx. The Legion is basically your standard foot-soldier. He's a got a bigger shield than the shoulder-worn Round Greek shield of the phalangists (Note: Do not confuse Phalangist with Hoplite. Phalangist or Phalangite is the name that Scholars and historians prefer to use when they are referring specifically to Alexander's phalanx. It has also been used to encompass all phalanx infantrymen but that here is obviously irrelevant to our case but not to you, the reader)
that's made as a half cylinder shape, approximately three and a half to four feet in length. This was purposely designed that way to encorporate their own special Drill tactics which the Macedonian Army has more or less no tactical reflection besides their fomation of the half circle of sarissas in formation to absorve the energy and deflect oncomming arrow fire. I have no idea how useful this was but it can't be argued it's anywhere near as good of protection as a four by One and a half foot shield!
The true reason I say the Legions were the Nemesis of Phalangists is because unlike the Phalangists who's premise was hot you strike, the Legionaries was where you strike. Moving on, The Legion was drilled as to outmaneuver making them more of offensive infantrymen rather than the strong, antagonising defensive Infantrymen Alexander cherished. Legions were equipped with swords naturally.
However, it really comes down to leadership because it is obvious even when considering History that even Precice Maneuverability on top of unmatched training of the Legion can be overcome by the Phalanx. This in itself is a small disadvantage to Caesar because Caesar's Battle Strategy would thus have to be almost totally based on strategy and have no real luxury of overpowering force man for man. And alexander would ofcourse be the one man out of anyone to be able to strategically counterbalance this strength.
I'm Sure the Romans also used Peltasts and such but they had an admirable fiendishly aggressive special Forces Unit known as the Praetorians. They were basically the same reflection to their army as the Hypaspes. They used the same tactics as the rest of the army only they would do special missions, have a wider armament and were significantly better fighters than their subordinates. There is hardly a unit in the Roman army that held such pride as the Praetorians.
Now On To The Generals-
Alexander the Great was a born fighter. Had the best education anyone could have and was taught to fight from a little kid. Few Generals had such a role-model as Alexander did in his father who was trained in Thebes. He was also a remarkably fast runner and was invited to participate in the Olympic Marathon but didn't accept. He never showed weakness although did time to time become discouraged and frustrated. His idol was a God (Achilles) and is the only person I can think of who actually surpassed his/her own Idol.
Example: Thomas Edison's Idol was Leonardo Davinci (Arguably the most brilliant man who ever lived in his own right) who he never out-did even though he had the advantage of being able to keep an accurate tally to direct his own accomplishments.
Alexander's tactics were not as simple as many make out. You can't make an exact theory to his strategy because Alexander also had a brilliant mind for deception and foresight snd changed his strategy accordingly.
To give someone an idea of his strategy is however easy and quite obvious. He used the Hammer and Vice Strategy. He would have the enemy depoly their infantry against his than use his supreme cavalry as the hammer, attacking a flank or in the rear, causing a route. I think it's stupid to use this expression specifically for Alexander because that's really how ever General fought. It's the only way you really can effectively. Nobody uses thei cavalry defensively. It's not their purpose. (Some did but it was unconventional and was most of the time exploited, proclaiming the event a blunder [IE: Granicus]).
His favorite way however to use the Phalanx was in an Echelon formation with his left flank refused. In lamans terms, instead of a parallel line to the enemy, he deployed in a slash front-line with the left the furthest away. This tactic was first used by the Thebans which brought for the first time is surviving History the defeat of the considered invincible Spartans. The idea was based a little on deception as well as foresight. The shape from the enemy's point of view gave them a large triangular shape of open ground that made them want to use it for a change since it would appear to be irresistable because of the speed you could accumulate before the army would smash into the flank (as opposed to Alexander's right flank which would be substantially closer to the the enemie's line at this point.). It also made it more easier to attack an enemy units flank if it decided to or mistankenly took the flank of not the last phanalx regiment of the line. While the cavalry would be engaged, the regiments behind the attacked regiments would be drawing towards the enemy's flank already engaged. It's a superb strategy even to stereotype. Don't try it on Rome: Total War though friends, No matter how hard you put the difficulty, the computer is too stupid to deploy a really battle plan. The units fight almost individually (giving you ample flank to attack) with concievably no bit of strategic coherence whatsoever. it takes the fun out of the game more than considerably.
This is all I'm going to Write for the Study of Alexander's Strategy. Julius Caesar's will have to wait until I know more about his. It's absolutely ludicrous and innacurate then to say from any perspective which General would have been the Victor in a Pitched Battle. I'll Post his later.
"Veni, Vide, Vice." 'Came, Saw, Conquered.' Julius Caesar.
Yes, after a long hiatus, I'm back. Some of you probably remember me as a stubborn, frank, yet eloquently spoken neo-Conservative whom was able to arrowse attention by making softies raise their eyebrows.
I was in the army for a while then came back to help one of my kindred spirits run his business. Long story, short- it didn'y work with him so I'm pursuing a county job but anyway...
The topic I have here today is basically a comparison of the Grand old Conquerors when men were men and brute force ruled the world and not economic brain power. This in itself is a whole other post but I pose several questions to you, my colleagues.
The first one, being the more liberal of the two and probably more attractive is your choice and argument over who was the greatest General in Ancient History.
My second Question for all my Brethren of Roman Dissent is Who was the Greater General: Rome's finest- Julius Caesar or Greece's- ALexander The Great (Let it be Known I am well aware he was from Macedon. I have yet to meet anyone who knows more about Alexander of Macedon than yours truly does. [Moreover, that would probably lead you to guess that I'm leaning my opinion on the latter]).
This is However a much more difficult debate than one would think because, realistically, what we're REALLY trying to figure out was not who's record was the greatest or who was the greatest considering the environment from which he sprung, we're trying to interpret the all important question of which Ancient General was Mentally Superior in Strategy to all others. Let me mention also here that Genghis Khan cannot be admitted because he's unfortunately too relatively recent, furthermore it cannot be determined with any considerably certainty how well of a General he was with Foot soldiers. Yes, Time doesn't matter in this post but such a different wavelength of strategy makes it undoubtedly impossible to sort his mental capacity with ye olde-time sword thrusters.
So, moving right along Gentlemen, I'm going to Propose my argument Between Alexander and Julius Caesar's Armies.
Withstanding that many have argued that the Persian Standing Army in his day was without a doubt inferior and backward compared to ALexander's Phalangist's and Companion's as well As Caesar's Legions, we have to assume (to not make this study any more complicated than it is) that both generals with their armies, even equipped from the Resources of the day with the same size armies could both kick out the legs of The Mighty Persian Empire.
Both inherited their Armies and both had their idols for strength and direction. Caesar's, Ironically was Alexander Himself. They were both almost incomprehenensibly stong mental Giants of Strategy. It just occured to me there's no way to determine this battle unless I study more Closely Caesar's Strategies and Battles. I hope his tactics at the time were considered unconventional because it was would make this debate easier, because he's then not tied down but Routine Strategy he had gathered in the Officer Academy He attended, moroever, easily exposing the contrast and ultimately his plain strategic genuis. Not knowing this, the post will have to be updated later but for now, I'll illustrate Philip II's Army Under Alexander and perhaps lay out several things I'm factually aware of discussing the contmporary Legion.
I'll Start with the Units, Then work up The Great's gift for Strategy. Alexander's Army was arguably Based on the Greek Style of warfare, shown most easily in the Thrusting walled phalanx which made up eighty percent of his Heavy Infantry.
The Phalanx was a Superb Military pracitce which even the Romans and Carthaginians both used for their Standard Heavy Infanty at this time. The Reason that made the Phalanx so Brilliant a formation was it simply could not be defeated by a frontal assault. It was so precice at repelling frontal assault, it was undoubtedly mathematically formulated to figure out exactly how many ranks deep the phalanx required to repel a certain number of infantry or cavalry at a defense. This made it understandably economical as well, giving the commander more knowlege of how many committed companies or battalions he really had to commit. It was an actual science! Ofcourse, the thing one would need to know or guess accurately at would be the number attacking and from where.
Alexander's Infanty was also the best trained Infantry ever (Most likely physically better trained than any land infantyman today and at the very least the drilling par of the Legion in its best time-frame. They were without a doubt better harderned than even today's United States Marine Cops.) That is not to say ofcourse the Phalanx did not have its flaws. Oh yes, it did. The Phalanx served as a somehat structural formation meaning it was not hip to change formation and tactics involving an unsurprised attack, say from the flank. Also, If the structural integrity of a large portion of the phalanx was comprimised (Which in history it again and again was) The Phalanx could and would be in serious peril without sufficient time for its officers to redress them. The Phalanx also surprisingly was awful even at a frontal assault out of formation. The eightenn foot long sarissa was "worse than useless" in close fighting and whether His heavy infantry uniformly carried swords is uncertain. So the weaknesses are, if you can engage a Greek army by attacking it at close quarters, catching them in a stage of recovery, their frontline can be broken or at the very least divided considering the need for another company to engage, potentially leaving a gap. And They're able to be outmaneuvered. SO now that we all understand the Phalanx, lets move on to his cavalry. Alexandder also posessed the best cavalry of the day, The Companion Cavalry. Thesallian Cavalry has also been argued as its equal also which made up his left flank. They were the most elite cavalry of theur time, also brutally trained and drilled, practicing tacitcs that revolutionized the use of Cavalry as a weapon. (The wedge formation being the most widely known) The Cavalry was however smaller than Caesar's Roman and Praetorian Cavalry because cavalry such as these had been bred and studied to be the biggest finest Cavalry. For these faults, We're going to consider Both Armies had the same Horses and the same amount of dicipline as the other. Comparing the actual units not excluding faults as these is not sound for deciding who is the better General.
Ofcourse, Alexander also used Peltasts, Slingers and Archers but another Famous Regiment which he himself favored much was he Elite Hypaspists. They were Alexander's Special Forced Unit in Spit of what the People of the Creative Assembly have printed. (creative Asslembly Developed the PC Game, Rome: Total War as well as an Alexander add-on which was slightly less than par even considering they couldn't recreate the Seige of Tyre because the Game did not encompass naval Battles of any sort.) The Hypaspists were proabably picked from his phalanx Divisions and were equipped with different weapons given the task. They had a special uniform as well. Most of the time, when not in a large-scale pitched battle, they carried 6-foot spears as well as swords. In large-scale battles, they were equipped with sarissas like the regular heavy infantry. How much better did they fight in phalanx formation than the rest, no one knows but my best guess would be their drilling, although more pleasing to the eye because of its asethetic efficiency, would matter little in deployment since they probably manuevered or were held back to maneuver the same as the bulk of Alexander's Heavy Phalanx. They probably however has a little more punch in their thrust forward while engaging an army and could also probably withstand a doubt flank attack somewhat longer if not able to overcome it. Nothing is certain, so we'll just consider them to be slightly superior. To not would be unfair because Caesar also had a Special Force Unit, The Praetorians from which we will do just the same not excluding ofcourse the difference in fighting style between the two.
The Tricky part about this battle is the Roman legion is perhaps coincidentally designed to be the Nemesis of the Phalanx. The Legion is basically your standard foot-soldier. He's a got a bigger shield than the shoulder-worn Round Greek shield of the phalangists (Note: Do not confuse Phalangist with Hoplite. Phalangist or Phalangite is the name that Scholars and historians prefer to use when they are referring specifically to Alexander's phalanx. It has also been used to encompass all phalanx infantrymen but that here is obviously irrelevant to our case but not to you, the reader)
that's made as a half cylinder shape, approximately three and a half to four feet in length. This was purposely designed that way to encorporate their own special Drill tactics which the Macedonian Army has more or less no tactical reflection besides their fomation of the half circle of sarissas in formation to absorve the energy and deflect oncomming arrow fire. I have no idea how useful this was but it can't be argued it's anywhere near as good of protection as a four by One and a half foot shield!
The true reason I say the Legions were the Nemesis of Phalangists is because unlike the Phalangists who's premise was hot you strike, the Legionaries was where you strike. Moving on, The Legion was drilled as to outmaneuver making them more of offensive infantrymen rather than the strong, antagonising defensive Infantrymen Alexander cherished. Legions were equipped with swords naturally.
However, it really comes down to leadership because it is obvious even when considering History that even Precice Maneuverability on top of unmatched training of the Legion can be overcome by the Phalanx. This in itself is a small disadvantage to Caesar because Caesar's Battle Strategy would thus have to be almost totally based on strategy and have no real luxury of overpowering force man for man. And alexander would ofcourse be the one man out of anyone to be able to strategically counterbalance this strength.
I'm Sure the Romans also used Peltasts and such but they had an admirable fiendishly aggressive special Forces Unit known as the Praetorians. They were basically the same reflection to their army as the Hypaspes. They used the same tactics as the rest of the army only they would do special missions, have a wider armament and were significantly better fighters than their subordinates. There is hardly a unit in the Roman army that held such pride as the Praetorians.
Now On To The Generals-
Alexander the Great was a born fighter. Had the best education anyone could have and was taught to fight from a little kid. Few Generals had such a role-model as Alexander did in his father who was trained in Thebes. He was also a remarkably fast runner and was invited to participate in the Olympic Marathon but didn't accept. He never showed weakness although did time to time become discouraged and frustrated. His idol was a God (Achilles) and is the only person I can think of who actually surpassed his/her own Idol.
Example: Thomas Edison's Idol was Leonardo Davinci (Arguably the most brilliant man who ever lived in his own right) who he never out-did even though he had the advantage of being able to keep an accurate tally to direct his own accomplishments.
Alexander's tactics were not as simple as many make out. You can't make an exact theory to his strategy because Alexander also had a brilliant mind for deception and foresight snd changed his strategy accordingly.
To give someone an idea of his strategy is however easy and quite obvious. He used the Hammer and Vice Strategy. He would have the enemy depoly their infantry against his than use his supreme cavalry as the hammer, attacking a flank or in the rear, causing a route. I think it's stupid to use this expression specifically for Alexander because that's really how ever General fought. It's the only way you really can effectively. Nobody uses thei cavalry defensively. It's not their purpose. (Some did but it was unconventional and was most of the time exploited, proclaiming the event a blunder [IE: Granicus]).
His favorite way however to use the Phalanx was in an Echelon formation with his left flank refused. In lamans terms, instead of a parallel line to the enemy, he deployed in a slash front-line with the left the furthest away. This tactic was first used by the Thebans which brought for the first time is surviving History the defeat of the considered invincible Spartans. The idea was based a little on deception as well as foresight. The shape from the enemy's point of view gave them a large triangular shape of open ground that made them want to use it for a change since it would appear to be irresistable because of the speed you could accumulate before the army would smash into the flank (as opposed to Alexander's right flank which would be substantially closer to the the enemie's line at this point.). It also made it more easier to attack an enemy units flank if it decided to or mistankenly took the flank of not the last phanalx regiment of the line. While the cavalry would be engaged, the regiments behind the attacked regiments would be drawing towards the enemy's flank already engaged. It's a superb strategy even to stereotype. Don't try it on Rome: Total War though friends, No matter how hard you put the difficulty, the computer is too stupid to deploy a really battle plan. The units fight almost individually (giving you ample flank to attack) with concievably no bit of strategic coherence whatsoever. it takes the fun out of the game more than considerably.
This is all I'm going to Write for the Study of Alexander's Strategy. Julius Caesar's will have to wait until I know more about his. It's absolutely ludicrous and innacurate then to say from any perspective which General would have been the Victor in a Pitched Battle. I'll Post his later.
"Veni, Vide, Vice." 'Came, Saw, Conquered.' Julius Caesar.
__________________
"You need people like me..."
"You need people like me..."
Last edited by Krackalackin; 08-16-06 at 10:59 PM.