who would of won a battle between roman legionaries@50B.C. and a macedonian phalanx army@ 330B.c. under caesar and alexander. the romans won 3 out of 5 encounters with the phalanx with both loses due to elephants not the phalanx. who was the better general caeser or alexander?
who would of won
- Thread starter pawpaw
- Start date
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
Three things we should remember about Alexander:-
------------------------------------------------------
1) He inherited the best army in the world at that time from his father Philip II, and didn't invent any new weapons, tactics or drill, but simply used what was available to the best of his abilities (which he did with almost perfect skill).
2) He led this army against the largest, but also one of the worst armies in the world at that time.
(Certainly the many various horse contingents of the Persian army, composed of individually brave and skilled aristocratic nobles, were a force to be reckoned with. But the foot troops, with the exception of the Mercenary Hoplites and the few Persian Foot Guards, were little more than a vast sea of peasant levies, with no training, drill, or decent weapons)
3) He always tried to use the same tactic in all of his set-piece battles, namely the "advance in echelon, with the right flank led by himself and the Companions leading, and refuse or defend with the left". This he learnt from Philip, who learnt it from the Theban general Epaminondas.
(Although against an enemy holding a narrow pass or defile, he always tried to outflank them with his faster lighter troops, so as to fall on their flank or rear)
In short, Alexander was a military adventurer, who loved fighting battles, and craved fame and glory.
(But once he had conquered a region, he was also a good administrator.
He began to adopt Persian customs, and forced his senior Macedonian commanders to marry Persian wives in order to merge the two cultures into something new....but this failed, as after his death they all abandoned their new wives while they fought each other to gain as much of the empire as they could for themselves)
Three things we should remember about Julius Caesar:-
---------------------------------------------------------
1) He inherited the best army in the world at that time from the Roman Senate, and didn't invent any new weapons, tactics or drill, but simply used what was available to the best of his abilities (which he did with almost perfect skill).
2) He led this army against the largest, but also one of the worst armies in the world at that time; i.e the individually skilled and brave Celtic army of Gaul, which had no training, drill, or decent weapons.
But in addition, he also had to fight against the BEST army in the world; i.e. his own fellow Romans during the Civil War.
(Alexander never had to fight against another Macedonian army)
3) Caesar doesn't seem to have a 'set-piece' tactic in his battles....they were all handled differently. In fact, it is said that he used the spade as much as the sword, as can be seen in the siege and battles around Alesia in Gaul, and the trench & field works around Dyrrhachium in Greece against Pompey.
In short, Caesar was a shrewd politician, who used victory on the battlefields in Gaul as a way of gaining support and political power back in Rome, then used that support and power to crush his political rivals in the civil war.
He never created an empire....he just fought to gain control of one.
What would have happened if they had both lived longer?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Caesar, who was 56 years old, was planning a campaign against the Parthians when he was assassinated in 44 BC. Had he lived, then no doubt he would have conquered the east as well....but the emperor Trajan did actually conquer them in 117 AD, only to have the next emperor, Hadrian, give up these eastern lands because they couldn't be held.
So if Caesar had lived longer and died of old age, then I doubt if the history of the world would have been much different.
Alexander on the other hand, had he not died at the age of 33, would no doubt have gone on seeking glory by conquering Italy and the west.....so the history of Europe, and thus the world, would have been very different.
What if they had fought against each other?
---------------------------------------------------
Obviously this is an impossible question to answer.
But, assuming that their armies were equal in size and training (and ignoring the limitations of the Macedonian pike phalanx), then I'd say it would all be down to who made the first mistake.
And I think that it would be the fiery, impatient, impetuous, glory seeker rather than the shrewd, cold, calculating, politician who would make the first error.
------------------------------------------------------
1) He inherited the best army in the world at that time from his father Philip II, and didn't invent any new weapons, tactics or drill, but simply used what was available to the best of his abilities (which he did with almost perfect skill).
2) He led this army against the largest, but also one of the worst armies in the world at that time.
(Certainly the many various horse contingents of the Persian army, composed of individually brave and skilled aristocratic nobles, were a force to be reckoned with. But the foot troops, with the exception of the Mercenary Hoplites and the few Persian Foot Guards, were little more than a vast sea of peasant levies, with no training, drill, or decent weapons)
3) He always tried to use the same tactic in all of his set-piece battles, namely the "advance in echelon, with the right flank led by himself and the Companions leading, and refuse or defend with the left". This he learnt from Philip, who learnt it from the Theban general Epaminondas.
(Although against an enemy holding a narrow pass or defile, he always tried to outflank them with his faster lighter troops, so as to fall on their flank or rear)
In short, Alexander was a military adventurer, who loved fighting battles, and craved fame and glory.
(But once he had conquered a region, he was also a good administrator.
He began to adopt Persian customs, and forced his senior Macedonian commanders to marry Persian wives in order to merge the two cultures into something new....but this failed, as after his death they all abandoned their new wives while they fought each other to gain as much of the empire as they could for themselves)
Three things we should remember about Julius Caesar:-
---------------------------------------------------------
1) He inherited the best army in the world at that time from the Roman Senate, and didn't invent any new weapons, tactics or drill, but simply used what was available to the best of his abilities (which he did with almost perfect skill).
2) He led this army against the largest, but also one of the worst armies in the world at that time; i.e the individually skilled and brave Celtic army of Gaul, which had no training, drill, or decent weapons.
But in addition, he also had to fight against the BEST army in the world; i.e. his own fellow Romans during the Civil War.
(Alexander never had to fight against another Macedonian army)
3) Caesar doesn't seem to have a 'set-piece' tactic in his battles....they were all handled differently. In fact, it is said that he used the spade as much as the sword, as can be seen in the siege and battles around Alesia in Gaul, and the trench & field works around Dyrrhachium in Greece against Pompey.
In short, Caesar was a shrewd politician, who used victory on the battlefields in Gaul as a way of gaining support and political power back in Rome, then used that support and power to crush his political rivals in the civil war.
He never created an empire....he just fought to gain control of one.
What would have happened if they had both lived longer?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Caesar, who was 56 years old, was planning a campaign against the Parthians when he was assassinated in 44 BC. Had he lived, then no doubt he would have conquered the east as well....but the emperor Trajan did actually conquer them in 117 AD, only to have the next emperor, Hadrian, give up these eastern lands because they couldn't be held.
So if Caesar had lived longer and died of old age, then I doubt if the history of the world would have been much different.
Alexander on the other hand, had he not died at the age of 33, would no doubt have gone on seeking glory by conquering Italy and the west.....so the history of Europe, and thus the world, would have been very different.
What if they had fought against each other?
---------------------------------------------------
Obviously this is an impossible question to answer.
But, assuming that their armies were equal in size and training (and ignoring the limitations of the Macedonian pike phalanx), then I'd say it would all be down to who made the first mistake.
And I think that it would be the fiery, impatient, impetuous, glory seeker rather than the shrewd, cold, calculating, politician who would make the first error.
Legion alone would beat phalax alone. Each of them intergated into the stadard army would be a differnet question. The macedoneon army under under Alexander was a combined arms force of many parts. The roman legion army was legions with a few supporting skirmishers and cavalry, although ceasar did tend to have more cavalry and make more use of it than other Roman commanders of his time.
Note that in most of alexanders battles, the decisive struck was made by the companion cavalry with the hypaspes infantry covering its left rear and a cavalry unit covering its right rear.
One big mystery is what tyoe of infantry the elite hypaspes (foot guards) were. Nor record of how they were armed. Speculation goes all the way from them being a phalanx like unit (but more mobile) to something like peltasts.
One big mystery is what tyoe of infantry the elite hypaspes (foot guards) were. Nor record of how they were armed. Speculation goes all the way from them being a phalanx like unit (but more mobile) to something like peltasts.
the hypaspists # 3000 and aways fought on the right flank as phalnex tended to drift left ( their shield side ) . the only know picture is on alexanders sarcophagus with leather armour and a short spear, this makes them neither hoplites or peltasts. nobody is really sure how they were used as sources are very vague on them
Their position was right of the Phalanx and left of the Companion cavarly. IIRC the tomb picture in not very useful because that is the guarding gear, not their battlefield gear.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Caesar's legions would have massacred Alexander's army because of their technological and tactical superiority.
MadScot
Brandy's back!
Ah, the beauty of wargaming, as opposed to that which masquerades in civ.
Several designers have produced games which cover the ancient period in one rules system, covering the periods required for this comparison. One could easily either run some tests, or simply compare the analysis represented by the various game systems.
Unfortunately I'm not home, or I could look up some of the examples. Not that these are other than guesses or estimates either...
Several designers have produced games which cover the ancient period in one rules system, covering the periods required for this comparison. One could easily either run some tests, or simply compare the analysis represented by the various game systems.
Unfortunately I'm not home, or I could look up some of the examples. Not that these are other than guesses or estimates either...
JJP
Great Player
Roman legionaries.
TheStinger
Warlord
They fought in a very similar manner. Ceasar or Alexander could have commanded any army in history up until the 16 th century without any additionl experiance. when muskets became important tactics changed. So it would come down to who was the better general and who had the better troops.
It is perfectly possible that the outcome would depend on luck.
It is perfectly possible that the outcome would depend on luck.
thedirk
Master of Stealth
My vote was for the Leigons. On level terrain they would have been closely matched, but a phalanx depends on tight unwavering formation even more than leigons do, which becomes all the more difficult the worse the terrain gets.
Overall I think the leigons were more versatile, and Ceaser was the better general.
Overall I think the leigons were more versatile, and Ceaser was the better general.
Stefan Haertel
Title
I can't really give an answer to that question, but I'll give some facts.
Macedonian Army
The army that invaded Persia in 334 BC consisted of following units:
Pezhetairoi (9,000)
Hypaspists (3,000)
Greek ally hoplites (7,000)
Allies, including Cretan archers
Balkan warrirors, including Thracians, Illyrians, Agrians, Triballians and even Celts (6,000), serving as light troops
Hetairoi cavalry (1,200)
Prodromoi (scouts) (600)
Thessalian cavalry (1,200)
Greek ally cavalry (1,000)
Mercenary cavalry (600)
Thracian and Paionian cavalry (900)
Pioneers and siege engineers.
A small who's who:
Pezhetairoi:
Classic phalanx. Renamed into pezhetairoi by the Macedonians, meaning as much as "infantry companions". Theiy carried 5m long lances, so-called sarissa, and marched in phalanxed formation, each man almost touching the next one by the shoulder. They carried heavy armour for protection.
Hypaspists:
Light infantry, actually "royal shieldbearers". An elite corps, meant for quick attack, aka as the "best infantry of antiquity". They carried lances, swords and shields.
Greek allies:
Classic hoplites. Armed similarly to the pezhetairoi, but not in a heavy phalanx formation and shorter sarissa, but carrying shields. They were not to be trusted, and thus not used offensively.
Cretans, allies and mercenaries:
The Cretans were best archers of the Greek world, meaning nothing. The Greeks weren't very keen archers. But, like all allies and mercenaries, keen on battle. Thracians, Thessalians, Illyrians, Celts etc. were great warriors, but in inferior numbers.
Hetairoi:
Macedonian knights, if you want it that way. Heavily armed horsemen. Armed with short lances and sabre. Armoured with helmets, leather armour and all that fancy stuff. The elite cavalry, even superiour to the regular Persian cavalry.
Prodromoi:
Scouts, on fast horses. Moved fast on the excellent Persian road network, but no value in combat.
Thessalians:
The strongest and best cavalrymen south of Macedonia, again, meaning little. The Greeks weren't that keen of horsemanship until Philipp of Macedon introduced the cavalry to regular Macedonian warfare. Since these were more of Greek allies, they weren't to be trusted either.
The Macedonians faced an army which consisted of fierce warriors, but wasn't very effective against the Greek "art" of war. The oriental army was ligthly armoured, and didn't rely that much on infantry. Iranian archers and slingers were indeed the most skilled of this part of the world at that time, but their impact on the heavily armoured Greek infantry was close to zero.
The Persians relied more heavily on cavalry. The backbone of the cavalry consisted of mounted archers, scythed chariots and cameleers. Elephants were also used, but not so extensively.
Alexander was at best a moderate strategist, but an able commander and an excellent leader. He wasn't much of a general, but he knew how to motivate his troops. In his battles against Persia, he had more able generals and commanders at his side: Parmenion and Krateros most of all.
The Persian army was not as organized. At the battle at the Granicus, it was a mere satrapal force, as was used in the preceeding two centuries to fight revolts and occasional invaders. The troops were well-trained, but light at best, and consisted mostly of mercenaries.
At Issus and Gaugamela, the Persians used their "imperial body", an army consisting of conscripts, mercenaries and other troops from all over the empire. Such armies were previously used by Darius the Great (522-486 BC) in 512 BC, against Scythia, and 490 BC, against Athens, by Xerxes I (486-465 BC) against Athens in 480 BC, and propably again in 466/65 BC, and by Artaxerxes II (404-359 BC) against his revolting brother, Cyrus, in 401 BC; though it is likely that similar bodies were used to fight other serious revolts.
Darius III (336-330 BC) lead the army himself, which was propably intended as a moral boost for the troops, but ended in disaster. The death or flight of the commander automatically meant the loss of the battle for the Persians, as in 479 BC, or 401 BC (death of Cyrus). Had Alexander not chased for Darius, the Persians might have won the battles of Issus and Gaugamela, due to the massive use of heavy cavalry, and the sheer number of soldiers (Greek sources claim that the Persian troops were about 1 million at the battle of Gaugamela, but they were more likely to be about 240,000, which is still a huge number).
A quick word on the Macedonian battle tactic: Philipp of Macedon introduced the Theban tactic, courtesy of Epameinodas, to his army. Epameinodas changed the standart Greek tactic, of frontal clash between two equal phalanges by adding a corps which was supposed to encircle the enemy. This could be an extra phalanx, or cavalry (Epameinodas used infantry, the Macedonians used cavalry). Of course, this didn't quite work with the huge Persian army, so Alexander decided to attack the centre of the Persian army with his cavalry, in order to chase away the Great King, while his infantry fought off the Persian cavalry. Alexander took the risk of the Persians encircling him (at Gaugamela, they even started looting his camp), because he knew that the Persians wouldn't keep fighting without their commander.
After the conquest of Persia itself (which was, in fact, not more than the region around Persepolis, Pasargadae, Seraz (Shiraz) and Tauka), and central Iran, Alexander was forced to change tactics. Macedonian troops were defeated by the Sakan tribes of central Asia, who were fierce horsemen, and made no prisoners. In the mountain war against Spitamenes and his successors, the Macedonian troops replaced their sarissa by simple short swords. The effect wasn't staggering, but it was, in the end successful. By the time the Macedonians reached India, the Macedonian troops were weary, tired, wounded and reduced, although Iranian conscripts, trained in Macedonian way, kept reinforcing; these were also the ones to die first.
The battle against Porus was very, very bloody, and it is even doubted that the Macedonians actually won; the positive result is propably the effect of diplomacy.
This was a short military rundown (by a pacifist) of the Macedonian army under Alexander. Sources were Hans-Joachim Gerhke, "Alexander der Grosse", S. Fischer-Fabian, "Der Traum vom Frieden der Völker, Alexander der Grosse", and my own memory. [advert] For further information on Alexander and the Persians, I'd like to invite German speakers to visit my site at: http://www.alexanderthegreat.de[/advert]
My knowledge about the Roman army is not as comprehensive (though I do not dare to call my knowledge on the Macedonian/Greek army "comprehensive", but this is a comparisson). It'd be interesting to see a similar rundown on Caesar's army at such battlesites as Alesia or Pharsalos.
Macedonian Army
The army that invaded Persia in 334 BC consisted of following units:
Pezhetairoi (9,000)
Hypaspists (3,000)
Greek ally hoplites (7,000)
Allies, including Cretan archers
Balkan warrirors, including Thracians, Illyrians, Agrians, Triballians and even Celts (6,000), serving as light troops
Hetairoi cavalry (1,200)
Prodromoi (scouts) (600)
Thessalian cavalry (1,200)
Greek ally cavalry (1,000)
Mercenary cavalry (600)
Thracian and Paionian cavalry (900)
Pioneers and siege engineers.
A small who's who:
Pezhetairoi:
Classic phalanx. Renamed into pezhetairoi by the Macedonians, meaning as much as "infantry companions". Theiy carried 5m long lances, so-called sarissa, and marched in phalanxed formation, each man almost touching the next one by the shoulder. They carried heavy armour for protection.
Hypaspists:
Light infantry, actually "royal shieldbearers". An elite corps, meant for quick attack, aka as the "best infantry of antiquity". They carried lances, swords and shields.
Greek allies:
Classic hoplites. Armed similarly to the pezhetairoi, but not in a heavy phalanx formation and shorter sarissa, but carrying shields. They were not to be trusted, and thus not used offensively.
Cretans, allies and mercenaries:
The Cretans were best archers of the Greek world, meaning nothing. The Greeks weren't very keen archers. But, like all allies and mercenaries, keen on battle. Thracians, Thessalians, Illyrians, Celts etc. were great warriors, but in inferior numbers.
Hetairoi:
Macedonian knights, if you want it that way. Heavily armed horsemen. Armed with short lances and sabre. Armoured with helmets, leather armour and all that fancy stuff. The elite cavalry, even superiour to the regular Persian cavalry.
Prodromoi:
Scouts, on fast horses. Moved fast on the excellent Persian road network, but no value in combat.
Thessalians:
The strongest and best cavalrymen south of Macedonia, again, meaning little. The Greeks weren't that keen of horsemanship until Philipp of Macedon introduced the cavalry to regular Macedonian warfare. Since these were more of Greek allies, they weren't to be trusted either.
The Macedonians faced an army which consisted of fierce warriors, but wasn't very effective against the Greek "art" of war. The oriental army was ligthly armoured, and didn't rely that much on infantry. Iranian archers and slingers were indeed the most skilled of this part of the world at that time, but their impact on the heavily armoured Greek infantry was close to zero.
The Persians relied more heavily on cavalry. The backbone of the cavalry consisted of mounted archers, scythed chariots and cameleers. Elephants were also used, but not so extensively.
Alexander was at best a moderate strategist, but an able commander and an excellent leader. He wasn't much of a general, but he knew how to motivate his troops. In his battles against Persia, he had more able generals and commanders at his side: Parmenion and Krateros most of all.
The Persian army was not as organized. At the battle at the Granicus, it was a mere satrapal force, as was used in the preceeding two centuries to fight revolts and occasional invaders. The troops were well-trained, but light at best, and consisted mostly of mercenaries.
At Issus and Gaugamela, the Persians used their "imperial body", an army consisting of conscripts, mercenaries and other troops from all over the empire. Such armies were previously used by Darius the Great (522-486 BC) in 512 BC, against Scythia, and 490 BC, against Athens, by Xerxes I (486-465 BC) against Athens in 480 BC, and propably again in 466/65 BC, and by Artaxerxes II (404-359 BC) against his revolting brother, Cyrus, in 401 BC; though it is likely that similar bodies were used to fight other serious revolts.
Darius III (336-330 BC) lead the army himself, which was propably intended as a moral boost for the troops, but ended in disaster. The death or flight of the commander automatically meant the loss of the battle for the Persians, as in 479 BC, or 401 BC (death of Cyrus). Had Alexander not chased for Darius, the Persians might have won the battles of Issus and Gaugamela, due to the massive use of heavy cavalry, and the sheer number of soldiers (Greek sources claim that the Persian troops were about 1 million at the battle of Gaugamela, but they were more likely to be about 240,000, which is still a huge number).
A quick word on the Macedonian battle tactic: Philipp of Macedon introduced the Theban tactic, courtesy of Epameinodas, to his army. Epameinodas changed the standart Greek tactic, of frontal clash between two equal phalanges by adding a corps which was supposed to encircle the enemy. This could be an extra phalanx, or cavalry (Epameinodas used infantry, the Macedonians used cavalry). Of course, this didn't quite work with the huge Persian army, so Alexander decided to attack the centre of the Persian army with his cavalry, in order to chase away the Great King, while his infantry fought off the Persian cavalry. Alexander took the risk of the Persians encircling him (at Gaugamela, they even started looting his camp), because he knew that the Persians wouldn't keep fighting without their commander.
After the conquest of Persia itself (which was, in fact, not more than the region around Persepolis, Pasargadae, Seraz (Shiraz) and Tauka), and central Iran, Alexander was forced to change tactics. Macedonian troops were defeated by the Sakan tribes of central Asia, who were fierce horsemen, and made no prisoners. In the mountain war against Spitamenes and his successors, the Macedonian troops replaced their sarissa by simple short swords. The effect wasn't staggering, but it was, in the end successful. By the time the Macedonians reached India, the Macedonian troops were weary, tired, wounded and reduced, although Iranian conscripts, trained in Macedonian way, kept reinforcing; these were also the ones to die first.
The battle against Porus was very, very bloody, and it is even doubted that the Macedonians actually won; the positive result is propably the effect of diplomacy.
This was a short military rundown (by a pacifist) of the Macedonian army under Alexander. Sources were Hans-Joachim Gerhke, "Alexander der Grosse", S. Fischer-Fabian, "Der Traum vom Frieden der Völker, Alexander der Grosse", and my own memory. [advert] For further information on Alexander and the Persians, I'd like to invite German speakers to visit my site at: http://www.alexanderthegreat.de[/advert]
My knowledge about the Roman army is not as comprehensive (though I do not dare to call my knowledge on the Macedonian/Greek army "comprehensive", but this is a comparisson). It'd be interesting to see a similar rundown on Caesar's army at such battlesites as Alesia or Pharsalos.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Without doubt, both were excellent generals and the troops were the best in the world for their time.
Caesar had a little bit of an advantage, since his legions were designed after the phalanx was - he had a chance to see what did and did not work.
Both had great track records, so it's hard to say.
I'll have to agree with Kryten somewhat that who makes the first mistake would drastically affect the consequences.
But I'll throw in another factor:
Motivation.
Alexander's troops were sick of the mountains toward India, and Alexander could not convince them to fight farther east.
Caesar's troops were loyal to him over their countrymen (Pompey and/or other Roman troops).
Overall, I'd give this one to Caesar and the Roman legions.
But it would be a great battle, and sheer numbers might also be the deciding factor.
Caesar had a little bit of an advantage, since his legions were designed after the phalanx was - he had a chance to see what did and did not work.
Both had great track records, so it's hard to say.
I'll have to agree with Kryten somewhat that who makes the first mistake would drastically affect the consequences.
But I'll throw in another factor:
Motivation.
Alexander's troops were sick of the mountains toward India, and Alexander could not convince them to fight farther east.
Caesar's troops were loyal to him over their countrymen (Pompey and/or other Roman troops).
Overall, I'd give this one to Caesar and the Roman legions.
But it would be a great battle, and sheer numbers might also be the deciding factor.
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
That is an excellent article Stefan Haertel.
I dont know if you are aware of it, but several others and I are currently putting together an Alexander the Great scenario for Civ3.
I would very much like to hear your observations, comments and suggestions.
Here is the link.....
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53093&pagenumber=5
I doubt that I can do such a good job of describing the Roman army of the 1st century BC, but Ill have a go....
Each Legion was made up of 10 Cohorts, 9 of which were officially 480 strong, while the senior 1st Cohort had 800 men. Each Cohort except the most senior consisted of 6 Centuries which....strangely enough....had 80 men each, not a hundred.
This gave a theoretical total of some 5,120 men, but in practice 4,000 was more usual, dropping to as low as 3,000 after a long hard campaign.
On the battlefield each Cohort in the front rank would deploy 8 men deep while the reserve Cohorts would be deeper, thus leaving gaps through which the front units could withdraw and be relieved by fresh ones.
This was the main advantage of the Legionary system; whereas Greeks & Macedonians formed up in one long deep line, the Romans almost always deployed into 3 lines of Cohorts, allowing for greater tactical flexibility.
However, good as the Legions undoubtedly were, the Romans did have some serious disadvantages.
The first of these were their commanders.
Roman armies were not led by generals as such, but by politicians!
Senators who had never fought a battle in their life, but had bribed and wormed their way to being voted one of the two Consuls for the current year, were then expected to lead the army in the field.
Of course, some of these politician-generals turned out to be quite good, such as Marius, Sulla, Lucullus, Caesar, Mark Anthony, and so.
As for most Roman commanders....well, it has been said that the Romans won their battles in spite of their commanders rather than because of them!
The second big disadvantage the Romans had was that in the 1st century BC they were not a combined arms army.
The Macedonians had heavy cavalry Companions, light cavalry mercenaries, heavy infantry Phalangites, light infantry skirmishers armed with slings/bows/javelins, and last of all medium infantry Hypaspists and Peltasts.
These medium infantry troops were capable of fighting hand-to-hand (although not as well as the heavy infantry), and were as fast as the light infantry skirmishers, who they could catch and cut to pieces (the skirmishers only defence was their speed which they used to run away and outdistance the heavies).
Also, medium infantry were ideal troops to use in difficult terrain such as dense woods and rough mountainous regions, where cavalry and heavy infantry would be disordered and at a serious disadvantage.
The Roman armies on the other hand were composed of heavy infantry, heavy infantry, heavy infantry, some mercenary hired cavalry (usually Gauls), and a few hired skirmishers with slings/bows/javelins.
They had no medium infantry.
Clever enemies would often exploit this deficiency and inflict humiliating defeats on the Legions, as did Sertorious (a rebellious Roman general) in Spain, and Spartacus (the famous rebellious slave) in Italy.
Also, as the hired cavalry never made up more than 10% of a Roman army, they were at a serious disadvantage when fighting Parthian Horse Archers, as both Crassus and Anthony discovered.
Nonetheless, if well led by a thoughtful commander who understood their limitations, the Roman Legions were a formidable force.
It wasnt until the Imperial period in the 1st century AD that the Romans realised that they needed general purpose medium infantry to perform the tasks that the heavy slow legionary was not suited for, so they created the famous Imperial Auxiliaries armed with helmets, mail armour, shields and javelins, who eventually made up half of all the soldiers in the empire.
Stefan Haertel
Title
That is an excellent article Stefan Haertel.
Thanks
In the dephts of this board, there was a similar discussion which I participated in, IIRC. I think this was the first post on Alexander I've written since then.
I dont know if you are aware of it, but several others and I are currently putting together an Alexander the Great
scenario for Civ3.
I would very much like to hear your observations, comments and suggestions.
I'm not very much into Civ3 (I don't even have PTW), but from what I can judge, the scenario seems to be very accurate.
I'm still into Civ2 scenario designing. A while ago, I made an Alexander scenario, which was very detailed, but a little buggy, unfortunately.
If you have any questions, I'll be happy to help you out, though.
BTW, Your article on Rome is great also!
I've only two minor comments:
1. While the backbone of Rome's army, especially offensively, was no doubt the legion, Rome relied on more than half a million mercenaries and other troops to defend the borders later on. And this was still far to little, it has been estimated that at least three million would have been necessary.
2. Rome was not without an adequate adversary. Macedonia, arguably was, as most will tell you (I don't really agree). The Parthian army, as you pointed out correctly, was actually the only one to defeat the Romans constantly (actually, the Arsacid Parthians, and later the Sasanid Persians, gave hell to the Romans at several occasions), though advantage often shifted. In the "early" years, Parthia was able to withstand the Romans, but there were several partially successful Roman invasions into the Parthian empire, most noteably those of Trajanus and Lucius Varus (most forgettably that of Caracalla
).What would be interesting now would be to see someone compare these two army descriptions and tactics and develop a possible scenario of these two armies encountering each other.
Of course, there is no actual point in it, but hell, why not play some games?
JonathanValjean
Porschephile
My vote went to Roman Legionaries, but I suppose it would depend upon the terrain involved, whether or not one was attacking from across a river, etc.
Similar threads
