who would of won

[Punkymonkey]

The question itself is flawed because all armies after Alexander emulated his tactics and therefore Caesar would have been familiar with them. I voted for Roman.

 

[stormbind]

I abstain. I learned a whole lot from your discussion though!

 

[Moss]

Well, this is kind of unfair for Alexander's sake. Ceasar was around 250 or so years later. So the Roman Army was more advanced. So you have to give this one to Ceasar, but, even if they were around at the same time, I would still give the edge to Ceasar.

 

[Punkymonkey]

Alexander's army was not mobile enough to deal with Caesar. The Romans had more cavalry and better tactics. Macedonian phalanxes had to wield 18 foot spears. It was a maily anti-cavalry tactic which most of the Asian civs used. Thats why Alexander went into Asia. He only defeated the Greeks cause they weren't united not cause of better tactics. He only had a slight edge with that. The legionaries would have decimated them. They had plated armor that gave em more protection too than hypanists

 

[pawpaw]

several people have mentioned that ceasar came after alexander and his army was more advanced- the height of seige craft in the anceint world was during the greek era, infantry in 50 b.c. was still in bronze or leather armor with swords and spears, cavalry still had no striups- not a whole lot of advancement- i think the only roman advantage was in logistic's

 

[Punkymonkey]

Romans really brought siege into it's own not the Greeks. Romans were perhaps best known for their siege weapons after the legionary. In both times they used iron weapons and romans had iron and leather armor and the greeks had bronze and leather armor but still, even if the romans fought the greeks they would win because it really happend. battle of actium in 31 BC, greeks were defeated and they were using more advanced tactics than alexander

 

[pawpaw]

the romans borrowed all their seige craft from the greeks, they didn't invent anything- there is no doubt the romans were great enginers. roman use of iron armor was more in the 1st and 2nd century a.d. the battle of actium was between octavian and anthony- both romans

 

[Punkymonkey]

tes but it was considered the end of the hellenistic era and hence the end of Greek influence. They may have got the siege craft from the greeks but they had differenvt employment tactics. The Greeks themselves got their siege craft primarily from the Mid-east. Romans still defeated the Greeks even though the GReeks had better weapons and tactics than Alexander's time. In fact they beat the Greeks four times. The Antigonid greeks, Macedonia, The Pergamon Greeks, forgot name but in Western Turkey, the selecuid greeks, syria and jordan, and the ptolemic greeks, egypt

 

[pawpaw]

i agree that the greeks borrowed from the assayrians and others just as the romans built on the greek models.

 

[Punkymonkey]

Yes, but it still doesn't change the fact that they lost to the Romans.

 

[pawpaw]

you cheated , you edited your first post! yes by the time rome took one the greek civilizations they were paper giants reling on mercanaries and levies- no match for the romans

 

[Punkymonkey]

SPQR!!!!!

BTW-Archaeology student with classics minor, excavating at Pompeii starting June 27th. I can't wait :>

 

[pawpaw]

btw- history major, basicly we agree, just from differant angles. what are you digging at, a historial site or the volcano covered city?

 

[Punkymonkey]

actual pompeii. Digiing at insula V.I. i believe. Examining social trends through changes in architecture and behavioral residues from the second century BC on

 

[pawpaw]

sounds like a cool way to spend a summer

 

[Punkymonkey]

Yeah and i' lving in a tent for 5 weeks. Have to get up at 6:30 every day and work from 8am to 6pm but have an 1 hour break inbetween

 

[pawpaw]

yeah but after you are done it will of been better than sitting at home watching t.v. all summer- most americans don't leave their state in their life more less their county-enjoy it

 

[Punkymonkey]

I'm not saying i'm not going to enjoy it. Thats my kind of fun, just helping some people see it's not all fun and games but serious archaeology

 

[Stefan Haertel]

Erm... a comment on siege warfare.
Propably the Greeks were influenced by Assyrian siege tactics, but as major sieges prove, the Greeks did posess some expertise in siege engineering. Troy would be an arguable example, but Thebes, Halicarnassus, Tyrus, Gaza, or the sieges in Central Asia (all under Alexander) show that Alexander very well knew what he was doing.

BTW, Punkymonkey, I envy you

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
Propably the Greeks were influenced by Assyrian siege tactics, but as major sieges prove, the Greeks did posess some expertise in siege engineering. Troy would be an arguable example, but Thebes, Halicarnassus, Tyrus, Gaza, or the sieges in Central Asia (all under Alexander) show that Alexander very well knew what he was doing.

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. )

Let us look at the true Greek record for siege warfare.
* 10 years to capture Troy! = hardly a success, they only succeeded by a trick.
* 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.
* The Athenian siege of Syracuse = an utter disaster, which cost them the war.

Philip of Macedon on the other hand looked at all things military, and realised the need to capture cities quickly. So he created a very effective siege train using all the latest technology at that time. And as Stefan Haertel said, his son Alexander used this siege train to capture Thebes, Halicarnassus, Tyre, Gaza, and even mountain fortresses such as the Sogdian Rock and Aornos in the upper Indus valley.