Gregory P who asked me the question and gave this response.
Many toy soldier collectors go with Caesar. I go with Alexander. General opinion is literally split in half. Many go with Alexander and many go with Caesar. The late Hellenistic phalanx lacked adequate phalanx flank protection. Almost every military officer and pundit I’ve talked to or read their commentaries on goes with Alexander. Some of these pundits are Major General JFC Fuller, General Montgomery, Tarn, Brian Todd Carey, Dupoy(A Dictionary of Battles) and Nik Sekunda.Philip II and Alexander had a more flexible phalanx than the late successor one’s and far better cavalry arm and light troops to protect it’s flanks, and be the decisive arm attacking the enemies infantry. Look at what Hannibal, Pyrrhus and Xanthippus the Spartan(1st Punic war) did to Rome’s armies(although Pyrrhus and Xanthippus had some help from their elephants), their cavalry had the final word. Hannibal often defeated them with and without elephants, but his infantry and cavalry worked together to finish off countless Roamsn armies. Both hannibal and Pyrrhus recognized the value of Rome’s infantry, but their use of a combined systems approach gave them victory over Rome’s armies many times. Although Rome partially adopted the Macedonian style of warfare, and contrary to what the historian Archer Jones claims, they never really perfected it.
All of those conflicts involved Rome’s older Triplex Axis formations. After Marius, that was done away with and adopted the more flexible system that Caesar would have used. Also, I disregard the shock effect of elephants. It’ll work once or twice, but as Rome proved, after you’ve had a bit of the to figure them out, they can be turned into a liability to you enemies. True about the cavalry and I had considered that, but this is not the Persians he’d be facing. The Roman Phalanx could turn, form squares, sub-divide. This was possible to a lesser extend with the Triplex Axis, but with so many specialized types of infantry, it could become a confused mass is they are forced to quickly change formation for anything but pre-planned (not battle drill type stuff if you’re familiar with the term) maneuvers. Far from not perfecting the Phalanx, they modernized it.
Rome most certainly did have cavalry and Romans who were cavalrymen, but they felt that recon jobs were beneath them, so the Auxiliary system was a good fix. At any rate, masses of horsemen would not likely be able to scatter a disciplined Roman Phalanx unless under extremely unfortunate (for the Romans) circumstances.
Well as I said this will and can on for centuries too. The question or bet was between Alexander and Caesar not Hannibal mentioned.
I use Pyrrhus as a Macedonian and using the later Macedonian center phalanx formation plus what I said already the typical(expected classical Macedonian tactic) the cavalry do the maneuver to do the victory but “Never” with out the complete strength and support of the phalanx do their expected work(hold the line-hold the legions at far distance as possible.
Hannibal and Phyrros time roman cavalry were poor trained and actually in many cases of same former enemies allied people too plus other conquered region. Not very professional,neither very trusted. Macedonian cavalry was made of heavy and light(most Greece) ,numidian and iberos soldiers ,very well trained and heavy armed than Romans counter part.
Now this way before Caesar.
Caesar legions were very different from those before(here is one important part not take in consideration).The Romans of this period were divided in many semi unit with extremely and much better cohesion than those before in the early and mid republic.
The legions Hannibal-Pyrrhus faced were far different than those of Caesar era. First their armor was lighter,different sword ,more round and oval shield and they fight in a mix Greece style very similar to those of Hannibal’s light and heavy infantry formation with exception of heavy Macedonian phalanx ,not used often by Hannibal but much more by Pyrrhus.
Those legion were formed of by leves,hastatti,prinipes and triarii in a much complex and hard to direct formation with many .This often create confusion and issues because of the wealth status of each force withing same unit(legion).
The much later legions were by far more simple, better coordinated and easy to manage with out many of old problem. They carry pure iron plate still flexible front plate armor,rectangular wood strong and same time light shields,were able to fight with spears, fire pilum and same time push with out brake wall formation with swords in hand.(None of these were able to done by standard Macedonian Phalanx) with sarissa long spears. As long they drop it they have to brake formation to fight with their swords voiding any advantage of the wall front formation and become victim of any opposing same type close formation.
The early Roman legions and later did not at all copy the phalanx Macedonian.
They had their roots in the much early classical Hellenic greeck hoplites phalanx formation compose .
But Romans developed a much better formation that distinct a lot from Phalanx. Many historians had already explain and mention the huge difference between both tactic formation.
The Roman legions never were complete perfect of course; NON had been any formation of military history what so ever. Yet their reputation last till today as the most and best human war front machine formation in history ,surpassing all others as history proved .
Caesar cavalry was made of well paid (most auxiliary Germanic and Celts) plus others with very good skills in skirmish and attack and run off tactics. He clearly used too as advantage. Many of Caesar victories were done by his cavalry wile the legion hold the ground. Same way as Macedonian did.
Centuries before Caesar. Hannibal did defeat the Romans in many battles,yet in many cases the cavalry create the havoc ;but that after the phalanx DID their job and in other the elephant create confusion and danger in center on Romans. Then Hannibal’ cavalry attacked from the rears and side the legions.
At Cannae he not only had a much experience cavalry but also superiority in numbers 10 000 versus 4000-5000 max in Romans. Still the light infantry and front long spear man phalanx did their job to keep tide and pressure and outflank their opponent till the Carthaginian cavalry come and attack the rear. Indeed a great maneuver and use of his enemy weakness(cavalry,not infantry)
Also in many cases the Romans legion were comprised of hastily formed forces not well train,paid either as must experience forces were in Iberia,Africa and Macedonia/Greece fighting the other war.
Once the best legion were call back the tide turn,Hannibal brother and generals was defeated,(Battles of Dertosa , Metaurus and Campi Magni),so were his allied too and he was ultimate defeated by the Romans experienced forces in Africa,even after using elephants again(ZAMA) ,the Romans manage to beat them back to their own ranks. The cavalry attack as the front Hannibal’s phalanx and infantry broke and the Romans legions were better prepared by the cavalry attacking too. This time roman cavalry was made of many experience forces(included same people used by Carthaginians) were able to keep at bay Hannibal’ cavalry.
Later Roman Caesar’s legions were much better to stand their ground against cavalry charges as they often did and won/beat in many battles,yet they were defeat too. No army is undefeated ,not military formation could survived with out need of other(infantry with out cavalry or the other way around).
Yet it was the phalanx in Alexanders that held the brunt of their enemies in every battle till cavalry could deploy and do theirs best. With out it Alexander would not be able to use at all his cavalry against any army in battle. And it was the infantry the one that did kill more enemies in battle,same in most roman battles.
The much later legions were by far more simple ,better coordinated and easy to manage with out many of old problem. The roman legions never were complete perfect of course;NON had been any formation of military history what so ever. Yet their reputation last till today as the most and best human war front machine formation in history ,surpassing all others as history proved .
I myself would have gone with Julius Caesar, but it does give one pause to hear that Fuller, Montgomery, and Dupoy went with Alexander. It’s like, “Do you prefer the brilliance of Lee (for Alexander the Great), or the dogged, disciplined competence of Grant (for Julius Caesar)?”
For what it’s worth, Alexander Hamilton (our first Sec. of the Treasury, adorning our $10.00 bill) once declared to Thomas Jefferson that Julius Caesar was the greatest figure in history.
Good point Don. To some point I agree; but not too much saying and understand your comment. Still in few words a valid view in my opinion..
On the other hand; historians are the most in disagreement at all time, as they always will claim one know more than other; there countless others will go for other side.
The fact that two complete eras are trying to get in to battle with different tactic formation, one the old -obsoleted by late 2BC phalanx and never ever used again till the coming of fire arms w the square long spear formation as Spaniard famous tercios(‘Spanish square’ ) plus others, against other more modern roman legion/cohort formation is to me a very hard to understand match.
I really like to see more closely historical bet.
Ironic base in book and game I hear a new movie is being made as of now. It is about a tactical modern marine unit deployed and transfer in time to combat against Roman legion of mid empire era. Base on the book they decimate the first Roman units as using massive fire power, helicopter and even armor car(ridicules comparative) not chance at all of course, yet they are defeated at the end!!.
A similar Japanese movie was the first done in 1976 about post ww2 Japanese soldiers fighting samurai era forces when transported to medieval japan era using a time machine or something. In this one they got killed little by little when they start running out of ammo, in ambush and with ninja attack. I will Google and give you the title. I saw it twice. Another Korean more cheap movie was done 2001 literally about same thing just with more modern soldiers equipment.
And to be honest I won’t waste a penny in see this new one as is just way too much difference there to even try enjoy action. Too absurd to even admire the obvious wining side in battle. Not fun for me.
Here .Both Japanese.
Sengoku Jieitai(time slip)- 1979 version)-Also known as GI Samurai.
and later version same name was done in 2005.
Both are in Netflix. I consider the first much better, the second was done with more digital effect and less extras.
The other Korean/Chinese film is a bit different and comedian style.
(Heaven’s Soldiers )2013 or 2014 I guess
Now, let’s add another dimension t this. Let’s not forget Caesar’s Army were builders. They built fortresses and bridges and built them fast. I won’t go into what they did in beating Vercingetorix. I’ll briefly point out – they built a wall around a city to keep one army in, then another wall outside of that to stop a numerically superior relief force out and did it with surprisingly little warning. Alexander’s forces have nothing like that on their CV.
And to leave the door open – Really what it would come down to, is not a clash over ‘who has better…’ but who is the more clever strategist. I’m certain that meeting Caesar’s Army force on force with no mitigating factors is not what Alexander would do, nor would Caesar blunder headlong into Alexander’s forces. It would come down to who understood their limitations and strengths and those of their enemy best, not who had the best trained Army. There is where Fuller took sides with Alexander. Both fell prey to their egos later on in life, so this is a tough call.
I thought this was an interesting exercise. Years ago, I tried to get several friends, some toy soldier collectors, some military history enthusiasts, interested in a similar exercise; comparing different martial units that never actually engaged one another (say Plains Indians horsemen v Huns) and arguing over which group might emerge victorious were they to engage one another. Couldn’t get it off the ground. Probably not a topic for this site for extensive debate, but an interesting one, none-the-less. Anyone know of any sites where this kind of discussion takes place?
There used to be a on cable that did comparisons of fighters from different ages, like gladiator versus Apache, Ninja versus Viking and things like that. Don’t remember the name of it, but I saw a couple shows.
I saw a few of those episodes on streaming video and more or less agree with the other comments, not real interesting. Guess I’ll just have to wonder to myself which army might have triumphed over another.
I remember that show. It was idiotic.
I agree Greg.after few seen it was clearly edited and decided who would win plus very wrong history info.
It went even further than that. Single combat is not a way to gauge how a unit or its leader would perform. It was suitable for first year college drinking parties.
While I’m here, I’ll add this: The question that British general officers at Sandhurst pondered, was regarding the commander’s Strategic abilities, not the tactical abilities of the troops involved. The statement that the Romans somehow performed a lesser version of Greek tactics is for armchair generals. Not only did it miss the point of the question, it’s blatantly incorrect. Imagine a tightly packed group of men, with a 9 to 12 foot poles facing forwards, woven between the rows of men, each row ahead of the other. Now picture them having to change direction of attack in reaction to a flanking movement. Now picture it if the commander only wanted a portion of them to turn to face the new threat, with no clear subdivision having been discussed. It’s loud, there are rocks and arrows dropping into the formation, men yelling, dying. This move is not expected, or anticipated at all. What you get is a panicked rout. The Romans used a shorter weapon and has many subdivisions inside their huge formations down to what we would call a squad today (a Contubernium (sp?)). Sub-unit commanders were trained for such maneuvers and they worked. A lot happened between 300 BC and 30 AD. This is taught here at FT Benning when we teach the value of combined arms, battle drills, and troop leading procedures. In fact, one class, History of Combined Arms, explains these differences and advancements. The question would have been better phrased as: Who is the more clever / skilled strategist? It has nothing to do with what the average soldier was armed with or how their drills and tactics played out.
Right, Major. From WIKI: ”The contubernium was the smallest organized unit of soldiers in the Roman Army and was composed of eight legionaries, the equivalent of a modern squad. The men within the contubernium were known as contubernales.[1] Ten contubernia were grouped into a centuria. Soldiers of a contubernium shared a tent, and could be rewarded or punished together as a unit.
”It was led by a Decanus, the equivalent of a junior non-commissioned officer. They were appointed from within the contubernium and were most likely the longest serving legionary. Their duties would include organising the erection of the marching tent and keeping discipline.
”Two auxiliary “servants”, comparable to modern support troops, were assigned to each contubernium. They were responsible for the care of the contubernium’s pack mule, making sure that the legionaries had water during the march, and often had special skills like blacksmithing or carpentry.”
Yes there was a show on the military channel (now american heroes channel) that did leader vs leader competition. They did Hannibal vs Alexander and they chose Hannibal. I personally disagree but I am biased towards Alexander. Also he as I understand and may be wrong continued with the same core of forces of Greeks/Macedonians for his entire conquest. I would take Alexander over any even Caesar. Modern day I would take Erich von Manstein, Gotthard Heinrici (on the defense), or George Patton.
My “Mount Rushmore” of generals is Alexander, Robert E. Lee, George Patton, Norman Schwarzkopf. Erwin Rommel was no slouch either. Probably not “PC” to include him, although he did IGNORE orders to kill Jewish soldiers & civilians.
Just MY opinion. Hard to compare one vs. the other from different times & philosophies; like Ali vs. Joe Louis. Good food for thought, Stad.