Who do you think was greater, Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great? My vote goes to Caesar. Although most people would place Alexander above him, I disagree. Alexander conquered an already falling apart Persian Empire that had already been soundly defeated by the Greeks at Marathon and Salamis. Alexander had a better army with the phalanx, and his troops were well trained, while the Persian troops (except the Immortals) were hastily raised levies. Caesar on the other hand, fought against huge Gallic and German peoples who had never been conquered by the Romans. The people of Gaul were brave and brutal. At the battle of Alesia against Vercingetorix, Caesar, while besieging the Gallic leader, was surrounded by a huge Gallic army, which some accounts place at as large as 100,000 men. Caesar, with his force of 50,000, fought off both the surrounding army and the large force that he was besieging. In a great battle, Caesar annihilated the surrounding force and sacked Alesia, ending the war. Although against the Gauls he had superior troops with the legionaries, in the Roman Civil War he completely annihilated a Roman force which outnumbered him three to one and was led by Pompey the Great, one of Romes greatest generals. This shows that Caesar was greater than Alexander.
Greatest General: Caesar or Alexander
- Thread starter Gandalf13
- Start date
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
You largely ignore the fact that Caesar was up against, for the most part, a rag-bag of savages, whilst he had a well trained and disciplined army.
Stefan Haertel
Title
I will not enter the discussion wether Alexander or Caesar was the better general, but I would like to clarify the causes of Alexander's success.
[Q]Alexander conquered an already falling apart Persian Empire that had already been soundly defeated by the Greeks at Marathon and Salamis.[/Q]
This is simply wrong. The Persian Empire was not falling apart because of some military defeats one and a half centuries earlier.
Let me explain why Darius III. lost the battles of Issus and Gaugamela (forget Granicus for a while).
The Macedonian army consisted of Greek and Macedonian hoplites, and Macedonian and Thessalian cavalry, as well as a large variety of lightly armed forces from all parts of the Agean territory.
The Persian army was made up of well-trained cavalry units under the command of able generals. Apart from that, a large number of cavalry and infantry units from all over the empire played supportive roles.
The Persian army was subdivided into sepparate units in the ethnic frames, which means Egyptians fought in an Egyptian unit, Armenians in an Armenian unit etc.
The soldiers have been trained in the traditional way of their country (i.e. province). They were not at all hastily raised levies. They were well-trained soldiers in a well-organized army. The only problem was that the army hadn't been re-organized since the times of Darius the Great (522-486 BC) and was thus slightly, very slightly antiquated. The problem was that both armies used different strategies. The last major battle between Greek and Persian armies was at Plataeae (well, perhaps at the Eurymedon in 466 BC). The Persians never, ever, played with the thought of conquering Greece, no doubt what the Greeks said. They had enough with the control over the Greek cities of Asia Minor and Cyprus. This has been manifestated in the treaty of Antialkidas in 386 BC.
Thus, the Persians did not train their army to face Greek armies. They hadn't in the Persian Wars. This was a tactical mistake, but the lesson learned was not that they re-organized their armies, but not to attempt to invade Greece, which wasn't really worth all this trouble.
The Persian army in general was trained and built the traditional middle eastern way. It was more necessary to contain inner revolts and outer threats, mostly from Central Asia.
The Persian tactic was that archers and slinges opened their battle, and the mounted archers in support of the close-combat cavalry striked into the enemy's army.
This tactic was no good against Greek armies.
But, the Persians were actually winning the battle of Gaugamela, when Darius fled the battlefield. The Persian army was entirely focussed on it's leader. If he died or fled, the army surrendered. This was Alexander's luck, both at Issus and Gaugamela.
I would like to confirm here, that the Persian Empire was not falling apart in 334 BC because of military defeats in 490 and 479 BC. Claiming such a thing is silly. Marathon and Plataeae halted the expansion of Persia, but did not introduce its downfall.
[Q]Alexander conquered an already falling apart Persian Empire that had already been soundly defeated by the Greeks at Marathon and Salamis.[/Q]
This is simply wrong. The Persian Empire was not falling apart because of some military defeats one and a half centuries earlier.
Let me explain why Darius III. lost the battles of Issus and Gaugamela (forget Granicus for a while).
The Macedonian army consisted of Greek and Macedonian hoplites, and Macedonian and Thessalian cavalry, as well as a large variety of lightly armed forces from all parts of the Agean territory.
The Persian army was made up of well-trained cavalry units under the command of able generals. Apart from that, a large number of cavalry and infantry units from all over the empire played supportive roles.
The Persian army was subdivided into sepparate units in the ethnic frames, which means Egyptians fought in an Egyptian unit, Armenians in an Armenian unit etc.
The soldiers have been trained in the traditional way of their country (i.e. province). They were not at all hastily raised levies. They were well-trained soldiers in a well-organized army. The only problem was that the army hadn't been re-organized since the times of Darius the Great (522-486 BC) and was thus slightly, very slightly antiquated. The problem was that both armies used different strategies. The last major battle between Greek and Persian armies was at Plataeae (well, perhaps at the Eurymedon in 466 BC). The Persians never, ever, played with the thought of conquering Greece, no doubt what the Greeks said. They had enough with the control over the Greek cities of Asia Minor and Cyprus. This has been manifestated in the treaty of Antialkidas in 386 BC.
Thus, the Persians did not train their army to face Greek armies. They hadn't in the Persian Wars. This was a tactical mistake, but the lesson learned was not that they re-organized their armies, but not to attempt to invade Greece, which wasn't really worth all this trouble.
The Persian army in general was trained and built the traditional middle eastern way. It was more necessary to contain inner revolts and outer threats, mostly from Central Asia.
The Persian tactic was that archers and slinges opened their battle, and the mounted archers in support of the close-combat cavalry striked into the enemy's army.
This tactic was no good against Greek armies.
But, the Persians were actually winning the battle of Gaugamela, when Darius fled the battlefield. The Persian army was entirely focussed on it's leader. If he died or fled, the army surrendered. This was Alexander's luck, both at Issus and Gaugamela.
I would like to confirm here, that the Persian Empire was not falling apart in 334 BC because of military defeats in 490 and 479 BC. Claiming such a thing is silly. Marathon and Plataeae halted the expansion of Persia, but did not introduce its downfall.
Magnus
Diplocat
Alexander was an amazing general, Julius Caesar was an amazing politician. Alexnder conquered the world's most powerful empire by far with a relatively small force, in a span of a few years. Caesar defeated the Celts in Gaul, who were hardly a dominating or united or even somewhat advanced force. I think there were other Roman generals who were better than caesar, Scipio Africanus for one and Marius for another.
I did not say that the Persian Empire was falling apart BECAUSE of their defeat by the Greeks. The Persian Empire was falling apart internally through revolts and weak leaders. I noted the Greek victories over them to show that they were easily defeated by the superior hoplite troops. King Darius of the Persians was an incompetent ruler, while Alexander was a great leader. Caesar, however, fought against Pompey, who, as I said before, was one of Rome's greatest generals. Much smaller Greek armies had defeated the massive Persian army before, such as at the battle of Marathon, and it was not a great accomplishment by Alexander in defeating them again. Your statement that Persian troops were well trained is contradicted by the battle of Plataea.
" Mardonius, (the Persian commander) rallying his men on horseback in the center of the battle, was killed by a well aimed boulder. His death led to the disintegration of the Persian forces. Their reserves did not even stay to engage in battle but made straight home for Asia, outstripping the news of the defeat that followed them." I got this quote from the book The Greek Achievment, by Charles Freeman.
" Mardonius, (the Persian commander) rallying his men on horseback in the center of the battle, was killed by a well aimed boulder. His death led to the disintegration of the Persian forces. Their reserves did not even stay to engage in battle but made straight home for Asia, outstripping the news of the defeat that followed them." I got this quote from the book The Greek Achievment, by Charles Freeman.
Stefan Haertel
Title
OK, I misunderstood your statement about the Greek victories. I am still strictly opposing the opinion that the Persian Empire was falling apart through internal revolts and weak rulers.
The first thesis is, that there was a "Great Satrapal Revolt" between 360 and 350 BC. Some historians like to describe this as a widespread conspiracy of most of the satraps (governors) of the satrapies west of the Euphrates (mostly in Asia Minor) against the Great King. This is pure nonsense. Although the satraps posessed a great number of liberties, varying from province to province, there was never a great satrapal confederation. For one, the satraps mostly lacked the diplomatic skill to bring about such a confederation. Furthermore, they most propably also lacked the interest. It is most likely that each satrap who revolted revolted for himself to fulfil his own goals, mostly at different times. And in the end, the Great King was always able to surpress these revolts and punish the initiator. This is, to be realistic, more a sign of power than of weakness.
It is also a very adventurous claim to say that Darius III. was an incompetent ruler. As a matter of fact, I'd go as far and say that he was very much a competent ruler. Yes, he was influenced by his court, but then, who wasn't? With so many intrigues going on, eunuchs and harem ladies squabbling about, at such a court it was more difficult to execute something than in a modern democracy (and thus, nearly impossible). Darius showed strength. He contained these intrigues by making clear to most of this personell, in which threat Persia actually was. He rose two imperial bodies within less than three years, and this with a plundering and ravaging horde cutting off the entire west. He united the persian satraps in most of his empire against the Macedonian threat. In other cases, they'd have turned their back on him much earlier than they did in reality (and in the end, it was only a single one, but this turned out to be fatal). Darius had some tough luck. His opponent was stubborn and naïve. Darius was also very human, he propably had more personality than most of his predecessors. Well, this came out the bad way (cold feet in the battle). This isn't a sign of weakness or incompetentness. A ruler simply isn't a supernatural hero either.
The main weakness of Persian battle tactic was, that the army did not continue to fight after their leader fled or died. This has always been so, and many open battles were decided this way: Cunaxa, Issus, Gaugamela, Plataeae. This is no sign of poor training of the army. It is a state of mind. It has always been so in middle eastern warfare. Claiming this to be a weakness comes close to a comparrison of Greece vs. Persia, an unjustified and ridiculous thing. I could write pages on this here, but I won't, unless somebody asks for this.
The first thesis is, that there was a "Great Satrapal Revolt" between 360 and 350 BC. Some historians like to describe this as a widespread conspiracy of most of the satraps (governors) of the satrapies west of the Euphrates (mostly in Asia Minor) against the Great King. This is pure nonsense. Although the satraps posessed a great number of liberties, varying from province to province, there was never a great satrapal confederation. For one, the satraps mostly lacked the diplomatic skill to bring about such a confederation. Furthermore, they most propably also lacked the interest. It is most likely that each satrap who revolted revolted for himself to fulfil his own goals, mostly at different times. And in the end, the Great King was always able to surpress these revolts and punish the initiator. This is, to be realistic, more a sign of power than of weakness.
It is also a very adventurous claim to say that Darius III. was an incompetent ruler. As a matter of fact, I'd go as far and say that he was very much a competent ruler. Yes, he was influenced by his court, but then, who wasn't? With so many intrigues going on, eunuchs and harem ladies squabbling about, at such a court it was more difficult to execute something than in a modern democracy (and thus, nearly impossible). Darius showed strength. He contained these intrigues by making clear to most of this personell, in which threat Persia actually was. He rose two imperial bodies within less than three years, and this with a plundering and ravaging horde cutting off the entire west. He united the persian satraps in most of his empire against the Macedonian threat. In other cases, they'd have turned their back on him much earlier than they did in reality (and in the end, it was only a single one, but this turned out to be fatal). Darius had some tough luck. His opponent was stubborn and naïve. Darius was also very human, he propably had more personality than most of his predecessors. Well, this came out the bad way (cold feet in the battle). This isn't a sign of weakness or incompetentness. A ruler simply isn't a supernatural hero either.
The main weakness of Persian battle tactic was, that the army did not continue to fight after their leader fled or died. This has always been so, and many open battles were decided this way: Cunaxa, Issus, Gaugamela, Plataeae. This is no sign of poor training of the army. It is a state of mind. It has always been so in middle eastern warfare. Claiming this to be a weakness comes close to a comparrison of Greece vs. Persia, an unjustified and ridiculous thing. I could write pages on this here, but I won't, unless somebody asks for this.
Parmenion
Warlord
Whilst I am unaware as to the Persian governmental situation, I do know that Caesar fought mainly against unorganised barbarians (with the exception of Pompey) whilst Alexander was against the largest civilisation in the world, Caesar stuck with tried and tested tactics that were used througout his homogenised army (thus all his generals knew what to expect) whilst Alexander revolutionised the way his wars were fought, away from the Greek template which was getting a bit dated. Alexander's 3 main alterations to the traditional Greek style of warfare were thus:
1 - his refusal to limit his activities to daylight hours, something the more 'civilised' Greeks were insistent upon.
2 - his acceptance of the siege as a valid tactic against strongholds and towns, rather than a mass attack against the walls.
3 - his use of the phalanx as an attacking rather than a defensive unit, granting the ability to split the enemy's ranks with their massed advance.
Alexander also brought the Hellenic civilisation to a massive portion of the meditteranean and the East, whilst Caesar was simply Romanising some backward barbarians, and the Roman civilisation was mostly based on that of the Hellenic world anyway.
Final note - was Caesar ever given the title, "The Great"? I think not.
1 - his refusal to limit his activities to daylight hours, something the more 'civilised' Greeks were insistent upon.
2 - his acceptance of the siege as a valid tactic against strongholds and towns, rather than a mass attack against the walls.
3 - his use of the phalanx as an attacking rather than a defensive unit, granting the ability to split the enemy's ranks with their massed advance.
Alexander also brought the Hellenic civilisation to a massive portion of the meditteranean and the East, whilst Caesar was simply Romanising some backward barbarians, and the Roman civilisation was mostly based on that of the Hellenic world anyway.
Final note - was Caesar ever given the title, "The Great"? I think not.
I did not say there was a "Great Satrapal Revolt", I just said that their were revolts. These individual revolts weakened the empire by expending manpower and resources. I see your point in saying that the Persian army fled when their leader died or ran away as a Middle Eastern mindset. Still, this made it much easier for Alexander to be victorious. Instead of fighting prolonged battles where all the Persian forces could have been used, Darius's fleeing gave Alexander a complete victory without facing the bulk of the Persian troops. I think that if Darius had not retreated, the far larger Persian army would have crushed the Greek force. I still think that Darius was a weak leader. To have cold feet in battle can not just be said to be just being human. A leader is supposed to LEAD his men in battle, not flee. Fleeing shows him to be a weak leader. Although he may have been competent in the domestic policy of the empire, that is not the entire basis for saying he was a competent overall leader. When a country is at war, that is when the country's leader shows his true qualities or defects. In the invasion by Alexander, Darius could have shined and be considered a great leader, or he could have failed, and he failed.
TheDuckOfFlanders
the fish collecter
I won't say darius was a bad leader ,neither a very good one but rather a moderate leader ,especialy when it come's to the battlefield.Alexander though was just a almost "godly" leader.Alexander knew more than anybody else in his time to make himself mythical.His "vision" in Egypt ,his krowning to Farao ,he was almost carried on the hands of the people he conquered.he knew how to make himself popular.Add to this that he was a very intelligent person ,highly educated by the Best Philosopher of his time.Son of a great leader that had conquered the Greek's city states,wich the persian's didn't managed to do (granted after the peloponesian war's the greek city states were somewhat weakend ,and Macedonia was quite closer ,but still) ,that left Alexander with an army Veteran's of the best kind that that existed in that time.Surely Alexander was convinced that he would become a legend ,he surely did everything to achieve it.
when it came to the battlefield ,Alexander achieved most of the time's to arrange a quick victory ,by totally smashing the flank's with his fast unit's ,and demorilazing his opponent's troops.
Why has Caesar become a legend? well partly by his millitary achievement's ,wich i believe are not to underastemate ,and his political career in the time of te first Triumvirat ,his rose to the position of "caesar" ,a title that was named after him ,and his eventual tragical death ,stabbed down by a bunch of senator's and his own adopted son ,and caesar's last word's towards him.It make's such a good legend.
There is some luck involved in how to become a myth ,and you have to die on the right moment and way.The story's of these 2 people have become myth's through writer's (In Caesar's case himself) ,poët's and dramatist ,movies and theater's made these people famous.If the Legend of Alexander died not long after his own death ,the only way how we may have known about him was trough archeoligy ,and alexander would have been looked upon from another point of view.But trough time artists have made those people legend's ,therefore we still see them as legendary people.
when it came to the battlefield ,Alexander achieved most of the time's to arrange a quick victory ,by totally smashing the flank's with his fast unit's ,and demorilazing his opponent's troops.
Why has Caesar become a legend? well partly by his millitary achievement's ,wich i believe are not to underastemate ,and his political career in the time of te first Triumvirat ,his rose to the position of "caesar" ,a title that was named after him ,and his eventual tragical death ,stabbed down by a bunch of senator's and his own adopted son ,and caesar's last word's towards him.It make's such a good legend.
There is some luck involved in how to become a myth ,and you have to die on the right moment and way.The story's of these 2 people have become myth's through writer's (In Caesar's case himself) ,poët's and dramatist ,movies and theater's made these people famous.If the Legend of Alexander died not long after his own death ,the only way how we may have known about him was trough archeoligy ,and alexander would have been looked upon from another point of view.But trough time artists have made those people legend's ,therefore we still see them as legendary people.
Your statement that Alexander developed the system of using the phalanx as an offensive unit is not true. It was Alexander's father, Phillip, who developed that tactic.
Also, you saying that Alexander first used the siege as a valid tactic is completely untrue. The siege had been used for centuries, such as in the Assyrian Empire, where they have found remains of siege weapons and accounts of prolonged sieges.
Also, Caesar did not stick with tried and tested tactics. His tactic against the Optimate Cavalry at Pharsulus was the turning point of the battle. He told his men to not throw their javelins first, as was usual with legionaries. He told them to wait until the Cavalry got close, and then to jab at their faces. This tactic proved decisive and won the battle. Also, to say that the Celts and Germans were unorganized is untrue. In the uprising of Vercingetorix, every Celtic tribe, except the Remi and Lingones, who remained loyal to Rome, accepted Vercingetorix as their King and joined together against Caesar. Also, the barbarians you mention eventually brought about the downfall of Rome, so they were not exactly an easy enemy to defeat.
Also, you saying that Alexander first used the siege as a valid tactic is completely untrue. The siege had been used for centuries, such as in the Assyrian Empire, where they have found remains of siege weapons and accounts of prolonged sieges.
Also, Caesar did not stick with tried and tested tactics. His tactic against the Optimate Cavalry at Pharsulus was the turning point of the battle. He told his men to not throw their javelins first, as was usual with legionaries. He told them to wait until the Cavalry got close, and then to jab at their faces. This tactic proved decisive and won the battle. Also, to say that the Celts and Germans were unorganized is untrue. In the uprising of Vercingetorix, every Celtic tribe, except the Remi and Lingones, who remained loyal to Rome, accepted Vercingetorix as their King and joined together against Caesar. Also, the barbarians you mention eventually brought about the downfall of Rome, so they were not exactly an easy enemy to defeat.
Stefan Haertel
Title
Gandalf13:
I think we have indeed reached a point of agreement by saying that the Persian army's surrender after the flight of Darius made it easier for Alexander. As with the other points, I don't entirely agree, but I think those are points not as appropriate to be discussed here.
Gandalf13&Parmenion:
I agree with Gandalf that Alexander didn't introduce the siege and phalanx tactics. Siege tactics are more ancient, as already pointed out, documented for Assyria, and even archaic Greece. The Trojan horse, for example, is thought to be a poet's interpretation of a large-sized battering ram.
As for the battle tactics, I think it is important to mention that the Macedonian-used tactic of the aggressive phalanx was neither invented or introduced by Alexander or Philipp II., but by Epameinodas of Thebes in the battle of Leuktra in 371 BC. It is also very simple to understand why: Before, Greek armies were phalanxed hoplite formations fighting in blocks, against each other, both sides usually being equally strong, with the same formation, thus mostly reaching stalemate battles. The victory was decided when one force requested to bury their dead, thus admitting the defeat. At Leuktra, the Thebans faced a Spartan army using this tactic. There was a center and two wings, right and left. Epameinodas restructurized this by strengthening one wing, and making it move differently, encircling the opposite wing of the spartans, thus pressing one side very hard. It was an entire success.
Epameinodas used infantry units for this. The Macedonians used cavalry, which proved to be more effective, as the Macedonian cavalry proved to be able to route the Athenian and Theban hoplites, and later the Persian defense systems.
Parmenion:
Your statement that the Celts of Gaul were backward Barbarians is simply untrue, and follows the simple black-white system of the powers of Rome and Greece. I will not go so far to claim this is rascistic, because it isn't really. It's a prejudice, nothing more.
In ancient Europe, there were three major cultural civilizations: Greece, Rome, and the Celts. Believe it or not, remnants of a well-structurized economical and social system have been found from Austria to Spain and from northern Italy to Britain which wasn't Roman, but Celtic. It was a different civlization, yes, with druids and bloody deities, but this doesen't mean it was primitive. The Romans liked to put it this way out of propagandical reasons, and unfortunately, this mind simply has succeeded until our times.
The title "the Great" has very little to say. There were outstanding leaders throughout history who haven't received this title, like Hammurabi, Vespasianus, Philipp II. (of Macedonia and of Spain)... others however were granted this title for lesser achievements, like Antiochos III., Constantinus, Reza Shah Pahlavi I. ... this, because those people who gave them these titles needed someone to measure with, to look up to.
Finally, a word about the great and glorious Hellen(ist)ic culture: If all the negative, and/or four our mind barely understandable things were carried together in comparrison to the great achievements, quite a lot of people would reconsider their thoughts and ask themselves wether this culture was really that great.
I think we have indeed reached a point of agreement by saying that the Persian army's surrender after the flight of Darius made it easier for Alexander. As with the other points, I don't entirely agree, but I think those are points not as appropriate to be discussed here.
Gandalf13&Parmenion:
I agree with Gandalf that Alexander didn't introduce the siege and phalanx tactics. Siege tactics are more ancient, as already pointed out, documented for Assyria, and even archaic Greece. The Trojan horse, for example, is thought to be a poet's interpretation of a large-sized battering ram.
As for the battle tactics, I think it is important to mention that the Macedonian-used tactic of the aggressive phalanx was neither invented or introduced by Alexander or Philipp II., but by Epameinodas of Thebes in the battle of Leuktra in 371 BC. It is also very simple to understand why: Before, Greek armies were phalanxed hoplite formations fighting in blocks, against each other, both sides usually being equally strong, with the same formation, thus mostly reaching stalemate battles. The victory was decided when one force requested to bury their dead, thus admitting the defeat. At Leuktra, the Thebans faced a Spartan army using this tactic. There was a center and two wings, right and left. Epameinodas restructurized this by strengthening one wing, and making it move differently, encircling the opposite wing of the spartans, thus pressing one side very hard. It was an entire success.
Epameinodas used infantry units for this. The Macedonians used cavalry, which proved to be more effective, as the Macedonian cavalry proved to be able to route the Athenian and Theban hoplites, and later the Persian defense systems.
Parmenion:
Your statement that the Celts of Gaul were backward Barbarians is simply untrue, and follows the simple black-white system of the powers of Rome and Greece. I will not go so far to claim this is rascistic, because it isn't really. It's a prejudice, nothing more.
In ancient Europe, there were three major cultural civilizations: Greece, Rome, and the Celts. Believe it or not, remnants of a well-structurized economical and social system have been found from Austria to Spain and from northern Italy to Britain which wasn't Roman, but Celtic. It was a different civlization, yes, with druids and bloody deities, but this doesen't mean it was primitive. The Romans liked to put it this way out of propagandical reasons, and unfortunately, this mind simply has succeeded until our times.
The title "the Great" has very little to say. There were outstanding leaders throughout history who haven't received this title, like Hammurabi, Vespasianus, Philipp II. (of Macedonia and of Spain)... others however were granted this title for lesser achievements, like Antiochos III., Constantinus, Reza Shah Pahlavi I. ... this, because those people who gave them these titles needed someone to measure with, to look up to.
Finally, a word about the great and glorious Hellen(ist)ic culture: If all the negative, and/or four our mind barely understandable things were carried together in comparrison to the great achievements, quite a lot of people would reconsider their thoughts and ask themselves wether this culture was really that great.
Magnus
Diplocat
True, but Caesar did get a month named after him!
Thanks for the info that Phillip didn't first use the aggresive phalanx, Stefan. Also, DuckofFlanders, Caesar too got an excellent education, and he was considered to be second in oratory only to Cicero. Plutarch says that if Caesar had taken more time to study oratory, he could have been a better speaker than Cicero. I think Caesar was much more of an intellectual than Alexander. Caesar made important reforms after his conquests, such as his Agrarian Law and his solution of the debt problem at the end of the Civil War. He created a stable government that, with help from his nephew Octavian, lasted for 400 years. Alexander on the other hand, never seemed to look beyond his conquests. He conquered the Persians, and then never provided a stable government. Also, Octavian did not take part in the attack on Caesar. Another thanks to you Stefan, for stating the fact that the Celts were not just a hodge podge of barbarians.
Parmenion
Warlord
I guess that's me shot down then....
I agree with the points you guys made with regards to the battle tactics, but my point was that no one else was using these tactics at the time, not that Alexander invented them. The Greeks certainly weren't that's why they were forced to agree to a Pan-Hellenic pact (okay, so I guess it was Phillip that did most of the work on that one and not the young lad Alex).
My opinion regarding the 'backward barbarians' wasn't intended to be a sweeping generalisation of most of Europe, but rather an indication that in comparison to Rome, the Gauls were relatively less advanced, both culturally and scientifically, and were not unified into a single fighting force. Despite Roman propaganda, I find it very hard to believe that Celtic Europe was in any way 'civilised' by the standards of Rome or Greece. I would quote the Python sketch about "What have the Romans ever done for us?" to highlight the differences between the Roman way of life and the rest of Europe's, but it's too long to type here. I cannot believe that the Gauls had huge cities with proper sanitation, roads, an organised military force and a centralised government to organise it's activities. They may have had some excellent bards, unique beliefs and fearsome warriors, but that doesn't constitute much of a challenge for Caesar and his well-trained professional legions. I'm not denying that he had some fantastic victories and was an excellent leader, but he wasn't in any way a comparison to Alexander. Conquering the world before you're 30 just tops the list in the 'Best Leaders' category for me.
Also, I don't think Caesar's idea at the battle of Vercingetorix qualifies him for the most radical-minded tactician ever award. Sure it was an excellent idea, but the Roman tactics were still the same ones used for many years previous to (and after) Caesar's time.
In response to the statement by Stefan that the Hellenic civilisation(s) weren't that great really, I think that could be the subject of a poll. Whether history is taught differently in different parts of the world or not is possible, but I always assumed that it was a fairly universal belief that the Greeks had a massive influence on the world and brought about several reforms in government that are still in use today (Democracy for example).
Finally, Caesar may have a month named after him, but it's not a very good month......erm.... it's July isn't it? We-eell, I guess that's an okay month. Some sunshine and ice-cream, and beaches, swimming pools and hot-pants - not bad really....... I think i'm just being argumentative for the sake of it - like I said, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that's what I have at the moment regarding Caesar and Alexander. Oh well, you win some, you lose some.
I agree with the points you guys made with regards to the battle tactics, but my point was that no one else was using these tactics at the time, not that Alexander invented them. The Greeks certainly weren't that's why they were forced to agree to a Pan-Hellenic pact (okay, so I guess it was Phillip that did most of the work on that one and not the young lad Alex).
My opinion regarding the 'backward barbarians' wasn't intended to be a sweeping generalisation of most of Europe, but rather an indication that in comparison to Rome, the Gauls were relatively less advanced, both culturally and scientifically, and were not unified into a single fighting force. Despite Roman propaganda, I find it very hard to believe that Celtic Europe was in any way 'civilised' by the standards of Rome or Greece. I would quote the Python sketch about "What have the Romans ever done for us?" to highlight the differences between the Roman way of life and the rest of Europe's, but it's too long to type here. I cannot believe that the Gauls had huge cities with proper sanitation, roads, an organised military force and a centralised government to organise it's activities. They may have had some excellent bards, unique beliefs and fearsome warriors, but that doesn't constitute much of a challenge for Caesar and his well-trained professional legions. I'm not denying that he had some fantastic victories and was an excellent leader, but he wasn't in any way a comparison to Alexander. Conquering the world before you're 30 just tops the list in the 'Best Leaders' category for me.
Also, I don't think Caesar's idea at the battle of Vercingetorix qualifies him for the most radical-minded tactician ever award. Sure it was an excellent idea, but the Roman tactics were still the same ones used for many years previous to (and after) Caesar's time.
In response to the statement by Stefan that the Hellenic civilisation(s) weren't that great really, I think that could be the subject of a poll. Whether history is taught differently in different parts of the world or not is possible, but I always assumed that it was a fairly universal belief that the Greeks had a massive influence on the world and brought about several reforms in government that are still in use today (Democracy for example).
Finally, Caesar may have a month named after him, but it's not a very good month......erm.... it's July isn't it? We-eell, I guess that's an okay month. Some sunshine and ice-cream, and beaches, swimming pools and hot-pants - not bad really....... I think i'm just being argumentative for the sake of it - like I said, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that's what I have at the moment regarding Caesar and Alexander. Oh well, you win some, you lose some.
Stefan Haertel: I completely agree with your statement that if we looked at the many negative aspects of Hellinistic culture, they would not be so great. I think the Romans were a far greater civilization, in part because of their unparalleld military achievments (except by the British), and also their architecture, the Pax Romana, which romanized conquered nations (something the Greeks never even attempted to do.) and how long their empire lasted. The eastern half of the Empire didn't fall until 1453 a.d., so the Roman Empire lasted for 2000 years.
Parmenion: It's completely untrue to say that the Greeks were not using the aggresive phalanx tactics at the time. It was Phillip who was using the phalanx time and again first, so I don't think you can call Alexander brilliant for one of his (and Epemeinodas) fathers achievments. Also, to say that the Greeks constituted no challenge for Caesar is completely wrong. The Celts, as I said earlier, eventually brought the Roman Empire to its knees, and they had some of the best troops in the world at the time. The Celts were a different culture, which developed differently that Rome or Greece. That does NOT mean that they were not as great. They developed a more militaristic, tribe based society, and to say they were not trained is also not true. Although they had no formal training, the constant inter-tribe fighting produced fearless, skilled fighters who were definitely a match for Caesar's legions. Most of Caesars troops were levies he had raised in Gaul because he was only provided two legions by the Senate for his Proconsulship, so you can't say they were well trained. Caesar trained them himself through example and by the examples of his two trained legions.
Parmenion
Warlord
Gandalf - yes but how much of the Roman civilisation was copied from the Greeks? Art, poetry, architecture, religious worship, military organisation, cuisine, human ethics, governance and a desire to propagate these ideals to one's neighbours.
I think it is easy to be negative about Greece, as it is about any nation, empire or whatever, but we will be arguing semantics forever. The point is that Alexander was a better general than Caesar (just maybe, but better nonetheless), not whether Rome was a better civ than Greece.
And if we're talking about lasting the test of time, then how about the currency used by the ancient Greeks, which was still in use until last year when the Euro made it obselete?
Some people may look at my user name and icon and think that I'm biased towards the Greeks, but I do respect the Roman civilisation - honestly I do. I just have it branded into my brain what my Classical Civ lecturer taught me at Uni, and that was that the Romans copied most of their ideas about civilisation from the Greeks. One man's biased opinion? Perhaps.
I think it is easy to be negative about Greece, as it is about any nation, empire or whatever, but we will be arguing semantics forever. The point is that Alexander was a better general than Caesar (just maybe, but better nonetheless), not whether Rome was a better civ than Greece.
And if we're talking about lasting the test of time, then how about the currency used by the ancient Greeks, which was still in use until last year when the Euro made it obselete?
Some people may look at my user name and icon and think that I'm biased towards the Greeks, but I do respect the Roman civilisation - honestly I do. I just have it branded into my brain what my Classical Civ lecturer taught me at Uni, and that was that the Romans copied most of their ideas about civilisation from the Greeks. One man's biased opinion? Perhaps.
Parmenion, I'm reading a book about the Greeks right now as a matter of fact, and one chapter talks of Greek influence on Rome. It says that Rome adopted the aspects of Greece that it liked, but still kept it's own identity. Also, the Romans developed their own poetry, theater, and architecture. The Roman building program was far grander than anything of the Greeks, and the greeks never built triumphal arches, domes, or coleseums. The Romans are also credited with the invention of concrete. Rome was really much different from Greece, and far more advanced. Another thing is that the Greeks also borrowed heavily from Middle Eastern civilization (sometimes known as the Orientalizing Period) and the Minoans. Any civilization is influenced by others, but this usually just adds to their own culture, it does not dominate it.
Parmenion
Warlord
Hmmm, after much thought on the matter, I am willing to concede the point regarding the Gauls/Celts. Thanks for enlightening me on that guys. I had forgotten that the Romans levied lots of their troops from local sources. Still, I don't recall many history lectures about the Gaul civilisation, and lots about the Roman one. The Gauls managed to destroy Rome, but the Roman civ went on for several hundred years in the form of Byzantium.
It is hardly fair to credit the Gauls with this feat by themselves. They certainly contributed to the downfall of Rome but there were many factors involved that caused it - again my Classics prof's opinion was that one of the major causes was the acceptance of Christianity and the abolition of slavery - the Gauls had very little part in the fall into obscurity, they were merely the end game in a long, slippery slide.
It is hardly fair to credit the Gauls with this feat by themselves. They certainly contributed to the downfall of Rome but there were many factors involved that caused it - again my Classics prof's opinion was that one of the major causes was the acceptance of Christianity and the abolition of slavery - the Gauls had very little part in the fall into obscurity, they were merely the end game in a long, slippery slide.
True Parmion, I have read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and you are right in saying that the celts only contributed to Romes downfall. Also, Rome did not at all copy Greek military organization. They developed the Roman Legions, which were completely different than Greek phalanxes, and also far superior, in that they were more flexible and adaptable. They were good on any terrain, while Phalanxes could only fight on flat land, or else the formation would be broken up. The Roman Legions also had more advanced attack strategies, such as the turtle strategy when under arrow fire. They also used a variety of different weapons, such as a pilum, (a form of javelin that broke when it hit the enemy so it could not be thrown back) short sword, and dagger (which was rarely used.)
Similar threads
