Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet
Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Alexander the Great vs The Roman Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 23:39 |
If I was Alexander, I might go for different question... how can he make the Romans to join him? Alexander leading Roman armies would be pretty interesting army...
|
Join us.
|
|
Brainstorm
Baron
Joined: 21-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 407
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 09:02 |
Alexander's phalanx was much different than those of the hellenistic armies ar.200 BC. when Romans faced them.
It was divided in small taxeis and chiliarchiai of 1000 men. On the other hand later phalanxes were divided into 2 keras ("horns") .
Macedonian spear- sarissa- grew as time was passing from 4,5-6m at Alexanders time to 6,5-7 m ,so it was heavier.
Alexander's men were well trained ,as they could quickly perform manoeuvres ,even to reverse their front. Later phalanxes could move only forward,or hardly backward.
All these made phalanx less mobile,easy to crack and so to be crushed.
Additionally Hetairoi were a huge plus for Alexander-since Roman cavalry was inferior.
|
http://protostrator.blogspot.com
|
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 18:03 |
Of course I was implicitly assuming that the question was about Alexander facing a later day Rome. If the question was about Alexander going after Rome instead of or before going east, then we're not talking about the same 'Rome'.
|
|
Kamikaze 738
Baron
Joined: 26-Mar-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 463
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 17:48 |
Originally posted by deadkenny
I still believe that Alexander was capable of it but in that sense Rome would have been a 'tougher nut to crack' than anything Alexander faced in the east.
|
But you must know that during the time Alexander was alive, Rome was still very small and nothing like it was later, the Greeks still control some colonies in southern Italy and Sicily. But if you look at an accurate historical scenario, before Alexander would even consider taken Rome, he was to capture Carthage and defeat the Carthaginians. If that happens then Rome is basically surrounded by Alexander's forces and it doesnt look like Rome could withstand Alexander's might for that long.
|
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 09:27 |
One thing to consider is what exactly is meant by 'defeat Roman'? If by 'defeat' you mean on the battle field, then I agree with previous comments that with his disciplined heavy cav Alexander 'owns' the Romans. Alexander's forces would have been capable of inflicting a crushing battlefield defeat on the Romans as Hannibal did at Cannae. Now, if you're talking about a entire campaign to conquer Italy, that might be a different story. I still believe that Alexander was capable of it but in that sense Rome would have been a 'tougher nut to crack' than anything Alexander faced in the east.
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 18:20 |
I really wouldn't be suprised if he did - Porus lent him some men after the battle of the Hypasties river in India, which could have been horse archers, and his visits to Afghanistan could have resulting in a few auxilaries
|
|
Kamikaze 738
Baron
Joined: 26-Mar-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 463
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 22:06 |
Originally posted by Challenger2
Originally posted by Kamikaze 738
Originally posted by Justinian
I don't think it has been addressed before but would alexander have mercenary cavalry like steppe archers? |
Well you have to say what time period you are using for Alexander's fight against the Romans. If you say before the conquest of the Persian Empire than its more likely no, but if you say after the conquest of the Persian Empire then it could be a possibility that some kind of steppe horseman mercenary could be used since Alexander did encounter alot of those kind of people fighting on horseback. And of course if you say after India then Alexander would have elephants in his disposal to use against the Romans... but then again weather that would be devastating to the Romans we have to find a date for the Romans too like before or after their encounter with Hannibal (their first experience against elephants) or the Marius Reforms etc...
|
Curtius and Polyainos both state he used 1000 Scythian mounted archers shortly after Gaugamela. By the time he invadedIndia he had recruited Bactrian, Sogdian, Saka and Dahai mounted archers.
|
Was there any battle that the mounted archers were used during Alexander's campaign?
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 06:56 |
Yes, but still no Balistae, which is the main piece that I was talking about. I think that much of this is based on our stereotypes - we have been brought up hearing of "Alexander the Great's" seemingly endless power. Although he was historically a brilliant general, some people seem to forget that he could occasionally make mistakes .
The cavalry archers would be a decisive blow to the Romans indeed, Challenger 2, but the Romans overall would have in this battle much better heavy infantry than the Spartans. It doesn't matter who commands it at this stage - the Phalanx was inherantly an outdated system. Alexander would give it a bit of a kick, but these two periods which were are comparing are vasting different in technological and strategic development, despite who's commanding them.
|
|
Challenger2
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 13:44 |
Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator
I'm trying to remember if Alexander had any kind of mobile artillery, I'm tempted to say no. |
He had large and cumbersome siege engines which he used most memorabily to besige Helicarnassos which was then under control of Memnon of Rhodes, a Persian vassal, but nothing light and anti-infantry, like the Roman ballistae and light catapults. Naturally, the Hypaspist formations will be another feather in Alexander's cap, but they can hardly compare with the excellence and professional standard of the multi-role legionaries. I think that some missile cavalry from the Roman commander could probably do some damage to those. |
He also used artillery in the field. Catapults were recorded twice; on both occasions it was to cover river crossings in Illyria and Scythia. In a what if scenario, there's nothing to stop him using them against the Romans.
|
|
Challenger2
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 13:35 |
Originally posted by Kamikaze 738
Originally posted by Justinian
I don't think it has been addressed before but would alexander have mercenary cavalry like steppe archers? |
Well you have to say what time period you are using for Alexander's fight against the Romans. If you say before the conquest of the Persian Empire than its more likely no, but if you say after the conquest of the Persian Empire then it could be a possibility that some kind of steppe horseman mercenary could be used since Alexander did encounter alot of those kind of people fighting on horseback. And of course if you say after India then Alexander would have elephants in his disposal to use against the Romans... but then again weather that would be devastating to the Romans we have to find a date for the Romans too like before or after their encounter with Hannibal (their first experience against elephants) or the Marius Reforms etc...
|
Curtius and Polyainos both state he used 1000 Scythian mounted archers shortly after Gaugamela. By the time he invadedIndia he had recruited Bactrian, Sogdian, Saka and Dahai mounted archers.
|
|
conon394
Pretorian
Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 165
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 11:03 |
He had large and cumbersome siege engines which he
used most memorabily to besige Helicarnassos which was then under control of
Memnon of Rhodes, a Persian vassal, but nothing light and anti-infantry, like
the Roman ballistae and light catapults. |
I dont think the case for Rome is as strong as you assume.
First, you seem to assuming that all Roman armies of every
era had the artillery kit of the legions from the height of the Imperial era. (Say
0 -100 AD) which is simply incorrect. Rome was
not a significant produce or innovator of artillery until the very late
Republic and in reality only during the Imperial period did Rome
produce any significant improvements in artillery before than the Hellenistic
world was clearly far superior to Rome
in terms of Artillery use.
Given that the original post seems to post a Roman legions from
the era of Marius I see no reason why Alexander would have equal at worst and
in reality far superior Artillery.
In particular Alexander did have light artillery and used it
in the field on several occasions in Scythia
(Arrian 4.4 for example) and in his early campaigns in the Balkans. Indeed the
ideal was well establish in Greece seeing as his father suffered one of his
worst defeats at the hands of Greeks when the Phocians used light artillery against
him.
Alexander's heavy phalanxes to the point of defeat
as long as they have good cavalry cover surrounding them - and horse archers
could do very nicely! |
It seems a bit silly to posit that the Romans would win on
account of superior cavalry Alexander always maintained a robust mix of
cavalry and in far more numbers than a typical Roman force. If you are going to
give the Romans a cavalry advantage by suggesting they would have allied
cavalry from Macedonian or Greek successor states, it seems only fair to
suggest Alexander, a better general by far than Pyrrhuss would not also use Italian
infantry to counter the supposed flexibility advantage of the Romans.
the Romans would have no problem whatsover with
slaughtering the Phalanx - provided that they were not on completely flat
ground and that the Romans had both light and heavy infantry (heavy to attack
the Phalanx from the front and light (Hastatii and other Assault troops) to go
around the side and flank them, sandwiching them between both lines of Romans. |
Problem is that sounds good, but against a competent commander
neither of the typical CW legion better ideals worked: At Zama for example head
to head the legions neither flanked nor used the pilum to break Hannibal phalanx.
On a general note I think your allowing the brittle late
successor kingdoms with there tiny armies to color the much more dynamic, professional
force of Philip and Alexanders day. You are ignoring for example the numerous
occasions when Alexander phalanx infantry demonstrated that it could operate in
rough terrain or showed that it could march quickly and deploy effectively (or
night assaults, river crossing in the face of infantry resistance, city assaults)
with several different weapons short spears, sword or javelins etc. In
Curtius description of the duel between Coragus and Dioxippus the Macedonian
is noted as bringing all his usual weapons javelin/short spear, sarissa and
sword, not just a sarissa.
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 15:41 |
Well, when we consider that the Scythians (who were people famous for their horse archery and related skills) were also present in Iran and Afghanistan (their homelands sweep around Geographically from Bulgaria, through central Asia to Iran), it's certainly quite possible.
|
|
Kamikaze 738
Baron
Joined: 26-Mar-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 463
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 14:59 |
Originally posted by Justinian
I don't think it has been addressed before but would alexander have mercenary cavalry like steppe archers? |
Well you have to say what time period you are using for Alexander's fight against the Romans. If you say before the conquest of the Persian Empire than its more likely no, but if you say after the conquest of the Persian Empire then it could be a possibility that some kind of steppe horseman mercenary could be used since Alexander did encounter alot of those kind of people fighting on horseback. And of course if you say after India then Alexander would have elephants in his disposal to use against the Romans... but then again weather that would be devastating to the Romans we have to find a date for the Romans too like before or after their encounter with Hannibal (their first experience against elephants) or the Marius Reforms etc...
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 06:10 |
I reckon so- I mean, when he invaded India and beat Porus, Porus gave him Indian units, and earlier, in Afghanistan, he must have recruited some auxiliaries - any good general with ambitions like Alexanders' must have.
|
|
Justinian
Chieftain
King of Númenor
Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 13:32 |
I don't think it has been addressed before but would alexander have mercenary cavalry like steppe archers?
|
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 09:45 |
I'm trying to remember if Alexander had any kind of mobile artillery, I'm tempted to say no. |
He had large and cumbersome siege engines which he used most memorabily to besige Helicarnassos which was then under control of Memnon of Rhodes, a Persian vassal, but nothing light and anti-infantry, like the Roman ballistae and light catapults. Naturally, the Hypaspist formations will be another feather in Alexander's cap, but they can hardly compare with the excellence and professional standard of the multi-role legionaries. I think that some missile cavalry from the Roman commander could probably do some damage to those.
|
|
Justinian
Chieftain
King of Númenor
Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 22:05 |
Actually Alexander did have an elite corps of infantry that were somewhat similar to legionaries, the various hypaspist formations. He used them for attacking cities the first over the walls. I agree that the ballistae would be unpleasant to say the least. I'm trying to remember if Alexander had any kind of mobile artillery, I'm tempted to say no. So you're right that will be a problem. I think we can agree that like the romans versus hannibal it comes down to what happens to the cavalry encounters. I think who wins the cavalry duel and more important still if they are able to control their cavalry after victory and hit the flank or rear of the enemy, well we know what usually happens then.
Perhaps we should come up with the compositions of each army; the number of troops, the different types etc. That would be helpful to this discussion I think.
|
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 18:18 |
Also, the use of legionaries' pilae and the engineer corps' ballistae could be a serious threat to a slow moving phalanx. Alexander has nothing like legionaries, who are fairly fast and can perform multiple roles (except perhaps peltasts, but in hand-to-hand combat, they couldn't stand up to a legionary), nor does he have anything remotely like Ballistae- the Roman commander, provided that he has ballistae, can turn those hypatasts and hopites into - literally - kebabs with a few well-aimed bolts! Also, the legionaries can harrass Alexander's heavy phalanxes to the point of defeat as long as they have good cavalry cover surrounding them - and horse archers could do very nicely!
|
|
Justinian
Chieftain
King of Númenor
Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 14:44 |
Originally posted by Earl Aster
Paul and Gundamor are right on the money, Alexander adopted tactics that would win, he would find the romans weaknesses before battle and exploit them. |
I see where you're coming from, Justinian, but frankly, Alexander would have faced nothing like the Romans before, so it's really a pretty pointless comparison. He couldn't have exploited their weaknesses because he wouldn't have faced anyone like them before. Also, all of the military unit types that you mentioned before can be easily defeated with a Phalanx and none of them are heavy infantry - doesn't that say something when you consider that ultimatley the Greek armies were beaten by the Roman's adaptable heavy infantry? |
You're right that he wouldn't have faced anything like the romans before, though he did face heavy infantry against persia. Darius had greek mercenaries who fought as hoplites I don't remember their number at the moment. (2,000-10,000 men?) Also a phallanx would not have an easy time defeating horse archers. But, overall you bring up good points.
|
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 19:37 |
In the battle's with Hannibal the Romans annihilated Hannibal's phalanx. |
Yes, but the Carthagianians also had some excellent troops which were similar in ability and function to the Romans - so the Romans weren't exactly fighting a neo-Greek style army- it did have some developments as far as units go.
Also, about the cavalry- some of the Roman auxiliary cavalary (such as the Attalid cavalry which they used in the Syrian and Mithradic wars) was some pretty good stuff. The esquetarian cavalry were not bad, either, although there weren't a lot of them...
|
|