A Historical Question

6 Responses to A Historical Question

1. erwin says:

   October 24, 2015 at 11:29 PM

   My answer is Caesar=Winner
   In my opinion is not historical but anachronism.Because of difference between them of hundred years,even that both are belong what is call ancient period in general;one is more older and other much after when Romans had acquired all the goods from Greece and developed in a to better system ,included the military.
   Both were great tactician and generals,both brave, smart and also good politician. Still I considered Caesar better in politic.
   Back to Battle:If was a single battle the roman had the advantage because all mention before.If would be a war is different talking.
   Caesar’s roman legion had already pass the modernism introduced by G Marius with the more complex and perfect army corp formation and one of the best till today in history. The flexibility and manipulative way the legions move in battlefield give the strategist a better advantage against the classic front and one side formation of Macedonia/late period Greece phalanx formation. On top of that IF the roman army confronted had the machinery usually carry by them in large quantity it would be a devastating missile power over Alexander’s army. Unless Alexander have a clear overwhelming advantage in terrain that prevent the Romans use the more diversity forces Alexander would face defeat. Even IF he had use elephants as later Pyrrhus of Epirus did against Romans with some success again Roman allied cavalry but not legions and to no much use or result in history proved with the so called Pyrrhic victory .
   At Battle of Beneventum.the Romans were able to scare Pyrrhus’s war elephants (presumably with fire arrows) and send them crashing back to the Epirote ranks

   Roman developed many anti elephant and anti chariot tactics in the fields and were successfully employed in most battles. Also Romans used the elephant too to fight off the heavy Macedonian phalanx armed with so long sarissa that was a very hard to brake formation in frontal battle as far terrain was not to hill or uneven(another of Macedonian phalanx)
   Macedonian typical tactics were:The phalanx was used as an anvil in center to maintain control force push of battle as much possible mean wile the cavalry heavy and light attack from both side attack and do the maneuver,wile the light infantry and hypaspist spposeley should defend the flacks of exposed Phalanx(the weakest point) and in last cases were used as support of cavalry too.In general a more premiditated and static way of battle that depend 50% in the terrain to favour the phalanx movement.

   The Roman start using more diverse tactic and changing the way legions moved and organized during period. Their army was and moved in more diverse way to adhere better to the battlefield situation wherever it would be. The Roman legions divided in cohorts and other unites could move much better in hard terrain with out loose cohesion or communication still be a formidable front line force in great order. Giving the commander a better way to improve as needed.

   This was demonstrated in the battle of Cynoscephalae 197 BC and Pydna 168 BC as Macedonian used the heavy phalanx proteted in the side by their heavy cavalry and light infantry. Both battles were early during the period of roman republic before the Caesar new and more moden roman legions that eventually will be the core of Roma Empire were used. Still both battles demostrated that roman legions have a better extructure and command from low to high command that give a more faster disipline and line of command change as needed/recuire, versus less officer commanding the macedonians unit formation.
   Romans were able to implement faster in case of mistake any counter measure much better than greecks/macedonian that still used a more complex state divided command organization .
   I could go on back and for; but I think it was demostrated alreay in history because of the 4 macedonains wars against Roma and their end how the rommas back them ultimate and in the middle of another war with Carthage were able to defeat the same army formation Alexander had used in many battles.
   Unless Alexander would used a different army tactic developed or same as Romans I will say he will never defeat Caesar

   Reply
2. peter evans says:

   October 25, 2015 at 5:57 AM

   I would put my money on Caesar but would have a side bet on Hadrian !

   Reply
3. Greg Liska says:

   October 25, 2015 at 9:44 AM

   I agree with Erwin. Stated more succinctly: The Romans had improved the Phalanx and permitted it to maneuver by dividing it into sub-units where the Maniple became the unit of maneuver. Read about Cynoscephalae. The Romans met the Greeks on unfavorable terrain, with numbers of missile troops and others, about the same. The ability of the Roman version of the Phalanx to subdivide and change direction is what won the day. Alexander would not have this ability at the tactical level.

   I don’t get why Hadrian would even be a contender. He was not a field commander. He just culled back the Empire and built some walls to keep back Barbarians. Rome’s position was made more defensible, but it freely gave up a load of hard won land that may have been kept through shrewd diplomacy.

   Reply
4. erwin says:

   October 25, 2015 at 12:30 PM

   With all respect and my opinion base on what I had red .Adrian was a good military administrator, not tactician or strategist. Even before he become emperor he was not in the army and avoid been in any war by staying more in politics, during his reign most minor wars were rebellion and not great large battlefield campaign. He was a much better cultural administrator emperor, he increase and did many public works innovation/addition and was a great orator and versed. He was a good politician and secured many peace negotiation avoiding wars and saving a lot money life to the empire. During his reign he abandon some conquered land as hard to keep to avoid conflict. He never direct any large battle or even any combat action against any major power or army. I doubt he will ever be any challenge to Alexander, Caesar or even less important generals in the field.
   He was a great emperor not doubt but his motto policy(“Peace through strength”) say all about his way to wage war in complete defensive ideological way .
   Now that do not take off the always 10% factor in what could, may had happen as once again Adrian’s Legion were more updated yet than those of Caesar and with many auxiliary bowman mounted eastern archers , not available in Caesar’s army with most Germanic/Celt cavalry auxiliary not armed with bows. So there could be a good point to consider regarding his army ,specially if he had used his best generals talent.

   Reply
5. Greg Liska says:

   October 25, 2015 at 12:43 PM

   Agreed. Hadrian took time out from conquering, built up the borders and had a lot of marvelous projects built in Rome, best known of which is the Pantheon, but there were many more. That said, he was no military commander, never took to the field.

   Reply
6. denitz says:

   October 26, 2015 at 10:38 AM

   Caesar

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.