who would of won

Moderator Action: Punkymonkey, pawpaw, pls do not go into personal chat mode while posting in a thread. You shld use PM for that purpose. Thanks - XIII
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Ah....but Alexander wasn't a Greek, he was a Macedonian.
(Calling Macedonians 'Greek' is like calling Scotsmen or Welshmen 'English'.... they may have adopted the same
language, but their culture comes from different roots. And this is from an Englishman. )

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, I know, I just wanted to take examples people have use for. Most people agree on the fact that Alexander fought for Greece and it's culture, so I think that's fair.

* 10 years to capture Troy! = hardly a success, they only succeeded by a trick.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The trojan horse has been identified by some historians as a huge battering ram.

* The 27 year 'Peloponnesian War' = every year the Spartans would invade Attica, burn a few crops around the
city walls of Athens, then march home again. They had absolutely no idea of how to besiege the place.

Click to expand...

The Spartans had laid a successful siege on Athens in the late 6th century BC. They propably thought that this tactic didn't bear as many risks and was more effective in the long run.

and even mountain
fortresses such as the Sogdian Rock

Click to expand...

This was hardly a siege. Alexander selected 300 soldiers who had some mountain-climbing expertise (not a surprise for Macedonians) and let them climb the rock. This was enough to convince Oxyartes of giving up. They propably wouldn't have survived a battle for the fortress.

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
Ah, yes, I know, I just wanted to take examples people have use for. Most people agree on the fact that Alexander fought for Greece and it's culture, so I think that's fair.

Click to expand...

Agreed. (it's just me splitting hairs)

Not necessarily. The trojan horse has been identified by some historians as a huge battering ram.

Click to expand...

Shame they didn't think of it 9 years earlier!

The Spartans had laid a successful siege on Athens in the late 6th century BC. They propably thought that this tactic didn't bear as many risks and was more effective in the long run.

Click to expand...

For 27 years!
Good grief....some of the Spartan soldiers who saw Athens fall were not even born when the war started!
(Old Philip of Macedon would have used his siege train to take the city in the FIRST YEAR)

This was hardly a siege. Alexander selected 300 soldiers who had some mountain-climbing expertise (not a surprise for Macedonians) and let them climb the rock. This was enough to convince Oxyartes of giving up. They propably wouldn't have survived a battle for the fortress.

Click to expand...

Look at it from Oxyartes' point of view....
"Ye Gods!. If they can get blokes up there, then it won't be long before they cart up catapults as well! We'd better surrender now....while we can still get good terms".
And he was right....Alexander would NEVER give up (look at Tyre.... ).

Shame they didn't think of it 9 years earlier!

Click to expand...

Ah, be fair, they weren't fast thinkers

For 27 years!

Click to expand...

I was referring to a siege in, I believe, 510 BC. I'm not 100%ly sure it was a siege, but they did successfully take Athens.
The tactic I meant afterwards was the one in the Pelopponesian war.

Look at it from Oxyartes' point of view....
"Ye Gods!. If they can get blokes up there, then it won't be long before they cart up catapults as well! We'd
better surrender now....while we can still get good terms".

Click to expand...

It was, in any case, a successful bluff, IMHO.

Alexander would NEVER give up (look at Tyre.... ).

Click to expand...

That was Oxyartes' mistake... challenging Alexander. And it was Alexander's mistake to let people challenge him. It didn't turn out quite as well at Aornos or the city of the Malli...

I have been doing a quick bit of research.

510 BC -- Hippias, tyrant of Athens, was expelled by his people, with the assistance of Cleomenes, King of Sparta.
(The tyrant and his friends were blockaded in the Acropolis, and agreed to become exiles, ending up in the court of the Persian King)

None of the Greeks, not even the great Spartans, knew how to storm a city or fortress effectively. All they did was to plonk themselves outside and tried to starve the defenders.
This of course wouldn't work against Athens, who could ship in food with their superior fleet....thus the Peloponnesian War lasted for 27 years.
All this changed after Philip of Macedon organised a proper siege train.

What has all this to do with Caesar & Alexander?
Well, Alexander had a siege train, and knew how to use it.
The Romans on the other hand, carried the tools within each Legion to build any siege engines when required.
All in all....I'd say they were equal.

First of all the seige of troy took place, according to the archaeological record, around 1250 BC. At this point we have a civ called the Myceaneans not the ancient greeks who came from the north and were called Dorians. Troy should not be an issue in this discussion.

XIII-sorry for the chatting. You from Singapore? My mom grew up there and i still visit my Grandparents there. They live in Katong by the ECP. Amber Road. You heard of it? It's a pretty small country.

OK, I didn't remember correctly. Maybe I should have thought about the fact that Athens didn't even have city walls at that time

First of all the seige of troy took place, according to the archaeological record, around 1250 BC.

Click to expand...

That is the traditional date. It's true though, that the battering ram was used by the Myceneans, and this technique got lost in the Aegean area after their downfall.

I know that the Myceneans weren't Greeks in the sense of Dorians or Ionians. I apologize for throwing in the example of Troy, but it is the earliest known siege (at least of my knowledge) in the Aegean area.

Hey man, it's cool. The technique wasn't really lost but instead not used because of the collapse of the Bronze age economy and it's subsequent reversal into small cites and collapse of empires. The no longer needed to use siege

The big question to me is: were those who besieged Troy really Myceneans?
Some historians think they were pirates or people in hope of a good loot.

No they were Myceneans because of the pottery types found in the layers after troy was destroyed in the 1250 BC layer, this shows that they actually took over the settlement of troy after burning it to the ground. In fact mycenean pottery can be found all over turkey and down the coast into egypt. You know what the egyptians called them? Akayawasha, sounds similar to the Achaens which is their own name for them and you guys are already familiar with the israeli name-the Philistines.

Punkymonkey, Stefan Haertel, I've looked at the evidence and come to differnt conclusion;
The groups known as Mycenaeans and Ionians are one in the same, as Athens, bieng established well into Mycenaen era greece, is identified, by the Athenien themselves as ionians, its also noted in the old histories that the dorians, whos descendents were known to be then, as now to be spartans, came in and displaced the origional Ionian inhabitants of the peloponessus, now as the Mycenaens were displaced by the dorians in peloponessus, and not what Archeology calls a differnt group, known as the Ionians, it seems to me that "Ionian", like "hellene" is the greek word greek, is the "mycenaen" word for "mycenaean"

It should also be noted that the mycenaean language is an early form of classical greek

I'm quite surprised at the voting landside for Ceasar.(I voted for him too, but I'm still surprised)

One thing that the Greeks were very good at was defense and a united Greek/Macedonian army, would have put up a very tough fight against the Romans. Unfortunately the Greeks were hardly ever fully united when it came to anything.

I'd say Alexander.

But with the extinsive information provided for both sides, I'm intimidated as to "why" I say so. ;-)

You know what the egyptians
called them? Akayawasha, sounds similar to the Achaens

Click to expand...

Yes, in Asia Minor there was a culture called Ahijava, which is also likely to be Achaean.

It is true that the Ionians and the Myceneans lived alongside (at least for a while). But they weren't the same. The Myceneans were, as Punkymonkey pointed out, Achaeans (also Aeolians or Arcado-Cyprians). The Ionians spoke a totally different dialect (though both propably spoke some type of proto-Greek).
For quick reference, the Ionians lived in Attica and Euboea, and later expanded to the Cyclades and the southern shore of Asia Minor which was later known as Ionia.
The Achaeans lived in most of the Pelopponesus, though their central point was Arcadia. Achaean was also spoken in Thessalia, Boeotia and in later times even Crete. The Achaeans later expanded to Cyprus, Panphylia and Israel. while the Aeolians settled in northern Asia Minor.

If I get the picture correctly, the Achaeans belonged to the Sea Peoples who migrated for unknown causes (in case of the Achaeans, the Dorian migration seems likely).

Hmm... a thread about the Sea Peoples would be quite interesting, you know (can't open it though -will be away till Saturday).

Stefan Haertel is completely right. Most of my facts come from when i was doing a 12 page research paper on the Greeks and instead of focusing on my paper i started reading other sections in the book concerning the sea peoples. Doing research on hoplite warfare but couldn't resist looking back to the myceneans. The rest of my info comes from my Greek art history class and my Great Archaeological discoveries class.

My bet is with the Swiss. They'll sit on their front porches watching Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great fight to the death and clean up afterwards.

But if there was a fight between Caesar and Alexander, it really would boil down to luck. If Alex invaded Rome, a battle would likely take place in the Alps, limiting the effectiveness of his cavalry and light infantry, and the Legions under Caesar would have the upper hand. I don't know what would happen if Caesar invaded Macedonia.

A) I've got news for you; there is, literally, a diffent dilect of greek per-region, spartas(laceadaemon) dilect differd from Argos(the Argolid), and Argos's differd from the Theban, and so on

B)Athens is an established Mycenaean(Achaean) city center, accroding to severale(recent) histories

C)Athens identifies itself as Ionain

D)the root "Achea" is used in in the name of diffent regions in greece from Elis all the way up to vale of tempe, just north of thessally;

such region include-
Achaea, in the northern peloposse
Echinades, i island chain near the ulf of corinth
Trachis, the region in which Thermopylae is located
Achaea Orphthiotis, on the gulf of Pagasae, near iolcus
Acharinia, on the adriatic sea

now the point of this information- first off, i contest that the Mycenaean were descendents of the sea people, i think they WERE the sea people, raiding only after some sort of theorized economic collaps forced them to, and mapping the region names on a map of greece shows, or at least what can be itterpereted as, a generale "migration" from the north adriatic sea region, a region which, i might add, has no historic connection with sea people, or major piraticle activity during this time

Also, when you look at gracian mythology, the slaying of the minotaur, by theseus of Athens, seems an allusion to the Myceanean conquest of Crete, or perhaps in paticular the slaying of the priest-king, whom, it is thought (but i have seen no evidence for or against this) that the priest-king may have worn a bull mask, which could of coarse over time be exaggerated into a bull-man

now what dose that say- that A) Athens historiclly "conquerd", or sacked knossos, the defact creteian capitle

and we that the Myceaneans did the same, so, since regions all around Attica were settled by the Acheans, and Acheans are now identified as the Mycenaens, and Mycenaen activity seem to have been the same as Athenian activity during this time, then is it not possible for Athens, if not all MAINLAND greek ionians to be one in the same?

I should also add that, in those histories i read, the Acheans were a seperate group from the Myceaneans


***sorry for the crap spelling, i did not have much time to write***

Xen-there's no argument with the fact that the Myceneans were the sea peoples but the name for themselves were the Achaeans. Mycenae was just an important city in which the name group modern historians give is the Mycenaeans. Just the best preserved bronze age city. Achaean is a historical term that applies to all of the Hellenic cities in Greece. Later greeks called themselves Hellenes while the bronze age civ called themselves Achaeans

Exactlly, thus there is no diffence in ionians and acheans, and achean was a term that survived as a unified name for the greeks well into Roman times, after all, Rome had to have had a reason besides the Achean league(which capitalized of the name...) to have named the area Achea, of coarse, i still have yet to find any specific anythings that have traditional Ionian areas refering to themselvs as achean, and likewise, i never heard of any evidence where the mycenaeans referd to themselves as Achean