Who is tactically superior, Caesar or Alexander?

[crazyorc]

.Both are tactically offensive, but who is better at winning a battle?

[Manco]

With my limited knowledge I'd say tactically Alexander was superior. His battles were fought extremely ingenious and against a powerful enemy. It seems to me his entire conquests were based on his military achievements
Caesar on the other hand seems to have been the strategical genius more. He embodied the Divide et Impera-strategy, and his enemies were practically defeated before he delivered the last military blow.

[Visna]

Alexander might win this imaginary battle, but I think Caesar would win the war.

[Romios]

Alexander might win this imaginary battle, but I think Caesar would win the war.

Excellent point mate, i couldn't agree more.

[Phoebus]

Alexander might win this imaginary battle, but I think Caesar would win the war.

Debatable, but ultimately irrelevant where this topic is concerned.

If you're looking for who would be more likely to win a war I'd pick Caesar any day over Alexander. For while Alexander was a good general he was also overly suicidal in his methods by always being in the front charge, ...

Let's be fair here. With the exception of his admittedly suicidal leap into the Mali citadel during his Indian conquests (and there's some heavy context behind this), Alexander's charges were not haphazard, and were generally part of what was intended to be the decisive engagement. Furthermore, Alexander was accompanied by his own royal squadron of cavalrymen and, contrary to popular belief, his unit was not the one inflicting the initial shock. He was surrounded by, literally, hundreds of the best soldiers in his army... and almost always on horse. I'm not advocating that he was never in danger... but I question whether it would be by any means easy to even get close to him.

You'll notice, of course, that I don't mention Granicus. That's largely because I don't even consider Granicus to have been all that decisive a battle to begin with--perhaps not even a pitched battle, at that. I can elaborate further if someone wants, but I'm trying to stay on topic.

Politically Caesar was far superior to pretty much any man, ...

Debatable, but, again, hardly relevant to the topic at hand.

I think Ceaser, Alexanders army (phalanx and long pikes i think was the winner) which if i am correct was started by his father Philip.... he just put it into mass production with a huge army

Alexander's phalanx, 9,000 men strong, was about 20% of his initial total force. While he later recruited more phalangites to replace losses and such, he hardly put such formations into "mass production". If anything, as his campaigns progressed, Macedonian soldiers became a smaller and smaller minority in his ranks.

By the time he arrived in India, Alexander's army was, I would wager, the most multi-faceted and exotic in the world. From Agrianian skirmishers to Bactrian heavy cavalry and far-eastern horse archers, he used each part of his army masterfully.

Absolutely Caesar. A great deal of Alexander's success rested not on his tactical ability but on the military reforms and successes of his father and his diplomatic awareness.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree on several points. Phillip was an excellent leader and did, indeed introduce a number of reforms in Macedon (military and otherwise), but this hardly takes away from Alexander's own achievements.

Where military reforms are concerned, Phillip, though certainly a very good tactician by Greek standards, hardly faced the situations Alexander did and was frustrated and beaten by situations and engagement types lesser to those that his son prevailed over. Sieges, for example, were hardly Phillip's forte. Alexander took an army designed to defeat Greeks in battle and used it, always successfully, against foes Phillip probably never dreamed of fighting.

Diplomatically speaking, none of Phillip's successes had anything to do with Alexander did once he arrived in Asia. Furthermore, one could even argue the meaningfulness of said successes, when Alexander had to put his father's "allies" back in line--militarily and diplomatically--right after Phillip died.

I say Caesar.

Caesar went into battle outnumbered 3:1 but still managed to come out victorius and with little losses.

What does that say about Alexander's victories, then?

Romans tends to do badly against a strong combined arms approach - something favoured by Alexander. Assuming the armies were more or less equal I suspect that Caesar would outmanouvre Alexander before hand.

Roman and Hellenistic armies (to say nothing of Alexander's) were so dissimilar, I suspect we'd have a very hard time gauging any sort of parity or equality. Rather, as we do today, we'd simply be debating the inherent superiority of the victor versus any extenuating circumstances that may have tipped the scale on one case or another.

As for outmaneuvering, though... Alexander was quite the marcher, and there's more than one example of his employing impressive tricks to gain the terrain he needed from his foes.

[Nakharar]

I think Ceaser, Alexanders army (phalanx and long pikes i think was the winner) which if i am correct was started by his father Philip.... he just put it into mass production with a huge army

[dogukan]

I don't know how one can compare great generals...you never know whose mind works better at that point....what are the armies...who is attacking/defending...advisors....etc
There sooooo many factors that it is pretty much impossible to compare.

[imb39]

Romans tends to do badly against a strong combined arms approach - something favoured by Alexander. Assuming the armies were more or less equal I suspect that Caesar would outmanouvre Alexander before hand.

[Starlightman]

The roman legionary infantry was superior to the Macedonian soldiers, but the question was who was the tactically superior.
Not who had the better army.
Besides, Caesar did not create that fighting style, nor did Alexander create his. Both used the armys they were given, and in that aspect Alexander was clearly superior.
If there were parameters set up then you could really make this a great discussion.
Are we setting this battle up in the mountains of Greece (perhaps in the Thermopylae pass?) or is this on the plains or what.

If you're talking Greece then Alexander gets the advantage fighting a battle where the two armies are forced to go head-to-head with little to no maneuvering then Alexander's phalanx wins the day.

Many of you are also forgetting that Alexander redefined much of Ancient warfare.
When Alexander faced Darius III at the Battle of Issus, and up until that time, having chariots on the field was the equivalent of having muskets against native tribes. Alexander virtually made them obsolete by creating the 'mouse trap' tactics which are still studied today.

In my opinion if Alexander can figure out several new techniques to wage warfare in a single campaign or battle then I think he would have found a way to beat Caesar's legionnaires.

Alexander was a brilliant tactician, Caesar much the greater strategist. Also, the economic and logistical system of Rome was an order of magnitude better than that of Greeks.

Alexander's force was large (30-40000), but he was outnumbered in pretty much every battle. At Gaugamela, he was outnumbered by 200000-35000, and he used brilliant deceptive tactics to overcome those odds. And that is only one battle, there are many more (All of which are decisive victories).

Secondly, Alexander usually ignored his officers tactical advice, and in the case of Parmenion, he basically took his opinion as what a conservative commander would do, and used it as a basis of what not to do.

[conon394]

When Alexander faced Darius III at the Battle of Issus, and up until that time, having chariots on the field was the equivalent of having muskets against native tribes. Alexander virtually made them obsolete by creating the 'mouse trap' tactics which are still studied today.

Well hardly his innovation, the Greeks did the same at Cunuxa 75 or so years earlier.

The roman legionary infantry was superior to the Macedonian soldiers

That’s debatable.

[Holger Danske]

Pretty much impossible to tell. It would largely depend on the battlefield chosen, the weather conditions at the day(s) of battle, the overall moral pre-battle, number of troops available, their composition, and in the end; a good dose of pure luck.

If you're looking for who would be more likely to win a war I'd pick Caesar any day over Alexander. For while Alexander was a good general he was also overly suicidal in his methods by always being in the front charge, and to be honest he a large dose of luck on his side given all the opportunities his enemies might have had to kill him. Politically Caesar was far superior to pretty much any man, and while Alexander won some epic battles I think one shouldn't ignore the Battle of Alesia.

[removeduser_487563287433]

.Both are tactically offensive, but who is better at winning a battle?

Absolutely Caesar. A great deal of Alexander's success rested not on his tactical ability but on the military reforms and successes of his father and his diplomatic awareness.

[IrishHitman]

Absolutely Caesar. A great deal of Alexander's success rested not on his tactical ability but on the military reforms and successes of his father and his diplomatic awareness.

His military victories were a key part of his diplomatic success.

How many cities would have surrendered to Alexander had he been beaten at the first hurdle of the Granicus?

Philip was a more conservative commander than Alexander, and Alexander himself built on Philip's reforms.... Philip didn't do any grave telepathy either.

[Akrotatos]

The roman legionary infantry was superior to the Macedonian soldiers, but the question was who was the tactically superior.

Arghhh...I am tempted to respond (I love ths debate) but don't want to turn this to yet another phalanx vs legion thread

[crazyorc]

When you referred to 'mouse trap' tactics, what's that?

[Celsius]

I say Caesar.

Caesar went into battle outnumbered 3:1 but still managed to come out victorius and with little losses.

[Nikos]

I say Caesar.

Caesar went into battle outnumbered 3:1 but still managed to come out victorius and with little losses.

Alexander faced numerically superior foes at almost every battle he led and won them with superficial losses as well. I would have to say Alexander was the better tactician. Guagamela being the prime example. Leading the Persian cavalry into an ambush by his skirmishers and exploiting the gap left in the Persian center was a masterful move. Caesar was no lightweight though. Both were outstanding generals, but I think Alexander takes the prize for best tactician.

[Akrotatos]

Both wer great, comparisons are just a matter of personal opinion, because there can't be any. They lived two centuries apart....Ceasar had even studied Alexander for the love of God

[Starlightman]

Well hardly his innovation, the Greeks did the same at Cunuxa 75 or so years earlier.

You compare Greek mercenaries at Cunuxa with Alexander's army...?

At Cunuxa,Cyrus and his Army with 10,000 Greek Mercenaries attempt to overthrow his brother Ataxerxes. The Mercenaries, their tactics hardened by 30 years of civil war, carried all before them during the campaign right up to the final battle at Cunuxa, just outside Babylon, not too far from the current site of Bagdad. At Cunuxa they again proved unstopable and came close to defeating an army many times their own size, however Cyrus insisted on leading a final charge and was killed by his brother’s standard bearer. The Greeks were of course abandoned and Ataxerxes attempted to have them destroyed but in the end about half to two thirds made it out. Alexander carried a selection of the Greek accounts with him when he marched into Asia. all the info I’ve ever read came from Greek sources.

That’s debatable.

no,it isn't,it has to do with different time,different size of Army's,different quality of men...and basically,different leadership.Like i wrote above:

If there were parameters set up then you could really make this a great discussion.

My friend conon,the evolution of the legion was my point.
The Maniple legion evolved to fight the phalanx and was admirably suited for it. When the Romans went up the Cimbri and Teutons they had to change the formation resulting in the cohort legion in two or three lines of cohorts with small gaps between cohorts (as opposed to manciple sized gaps in the previous legion). Caesar’s descriptions of using rested troops do not necessarily mean line feed, the statements are just not that specific. Polybius’s description is more specific and describes how the Hastati and Principes could relieve each other in the front line (though you’ll notice from the discussions on the other sites that the theory that the lines did not have gaps and the principes moved through the open files of the Hastati is well presented). I do believe that the cohort legion did relieve lines with rear lines, I’m just saying we don’t know how they did it and I’m also acknowledging the input of the experts who have debated this topic .

Alexander’s phalanx would face an unknown weapon (to them) the shortsword, but it is also true that Caesar’s legions had never faced the phalanx either. Historically troops unfamiliar with the phalanx have a morale disadvantage, the sight of the imposing phalanx degrading the morale of the opposition. Also the pilum never proved decisive over the sarrissa in front to front, it was always the lay of the ground or being attacked in the flank that proved decisive.
---------------------------------
@Akrotatos

see above
-----------------------------------
but

The Phalanxes of 16 ranks of soldiers with their new innovative long spears/pikes would be nearly invulnerable to frontal assaults or cavalry charges.
Caesar would have to use his legions advantage of higher mobility to outmaneuver the phalanxes and strike their flanks. But of course this would be difficult considering Alexander's cavalry.

The Phalanxes mobility was slow because they don't need it, Alexander's cavalry was the army's mobile strike arm. The legions would have to prevent being surrounded by the phalanx on one side and Alexander's cavalry on the other, it would be like being in between a hammer and an anvil.

Caesar's advantage is his cohorts and their maneuverability. His legions' short swords wouldn't be able to survive a frontal assault on the phalanxes but they could do damage if they were able to flank them. His main concern would be with the fast cavalry, how would he counter this?

Also, Alexander had a balanced force of heavy (Companion/Thessalian) and light (Paenonian) cavalry, heavy infantry (Phalangites), medium infanty (hypastists) and light infantry (archers, slingers, peltasts). The army was capable of DECISIVE action.
The reason so many Roman victories are not decisive was they were an unbalanced organization for much of their history so tactically they were usually unable to achieve decisive results (Zama a notable exception due to the presence of Numidan cavalry).

Alexander’s key ability was his battlefield sense of the decisive moment.
His well timed Companion Cavalry charges were they key to most of his victories (the phalanx while important was not decisive).

Other great leaders may have had a similar ability but many of them were without the means of acting, i.e. Caesar had no Companion cavalry to be launched at the decisive moment (that doesn’t mean he didn’t achieve decisive victories it means he has less means to carry them out).
Alexander faced a numerous types of enemies because of the diversity of the people of the Persian empire and those on the peripheries (Scythians and Indians).
He fought in desert, mountains, plains, sieges (he fought and won in more varied terrain than anyone) and defeated his opponents. He defeated the Scythians (a tremendous achievement).

Caesar’s counterpart battle was Ruspina and in that he was tactically defeated, barely being able to bring his army out from the battle with the Numidan light cavalry (though Ruspina was a great achievement, one of Caesar’s finest, it was a loss).
Alexander won a mountain campaign (Bactrians) another great achievement that distinguishes him from Napoleon or Caesar (no the Twelfth Legion campaign against the Alpine tribe during the Gallic War was not commanded by Caesar).

A little known fact was that he was a superb logistician (something that puts him well above Napoleon and Caesar)—(see Alexander the Great and Logistic in the Macedonian Army by Donald Engels.

Caesar had less a sense of the decisive moment in battle because his arm of decision was his infantry. Launching cavalry takes a greater skill of timing because of it’s greater speed like a wave. Launching an infantry attack is like unleashing t high tide in comparison so the exact moment matters less.

Caesar’s cavalry was incapable of handling either the Companions or the Thessalians both of whom fought in controlled, disciplined formations. Gallic, Spanish and German cavalry have been described as operating like mounted brigands. Formation fighting was foreign to them (Hannibal had to have Marhabal train them to do it). These loose formations would have been decimated by the tightly disciplined Macedonian cavalry.

Another reason is the proportion of their armies. Caesar’s army was unbalanced due to the proportions. His cavalry was a much smaller percentage of his army than Alexander’s. In an army of 45,000 for both, about 1/5 of Alexander’s would be cavalry and only about 1/10 of Caesars so even if their cavalries were of equal ability (which in fact they were not) Alexander’s would have prevailed.

Caesar had no velites.
The Marian legion consisted of only heavy infantry still distinguished by titles of principes, hastati and triarii, but no longer distinguished by equipment. There were antesignani, a small number of elite infantry, but their distinguishing equipment is unknown since they fulfilled at times both heavy and light infantry roles.

Velites and Citizen cavalry last appear in the Jugurthan War and disappeared after the reforms of Marius (see L. Keppie's Making of the Roman Army and P. Connolly's The Roman Army).

Disciplined heavy cavalry like the Companians and Thessalians could and did take on seemingly overwhelming numbers of loose order cavalry as they did the Persians (some of whom were also heavy cavalry).
Caesar's legions were definitely the type his uncle Marius developed, and were no longer the Polybius-described-legion of 300 Equestrians, 1200 Hastati, 1200 Principes, 600 Triarii and 1200 Velites divided into maniples. They were the 4,800 man, 10 cohort, 60 century, 80 man per century heavy infantry formations that Marius created in making the professional Roman Army.

Finally,I think ALL LOGIC PEOPLE HERE agree that Alexander was the superior commander but disagree on just what advantage the cohort legion has over the phalanx.

I believe that the superior organization (better balance of all arms) in Alexander’s Army would be the most decisive advantage he would have (over the typical Caesarian army overweighted with heavy infantry and too small a proportion of light troops and cavalry).

Now,whats next...Napoleon vs Hannibal...?

[Phoebus]

The Maniple legion evolved to fight the phalanx and was admirably suited for it.

I'm not sure that this is the case... Romans, among others, shifted from a hoplite phalanx to the manipular formation, but I think that was a combination of recognizing something that worked better for the place and time; and adopting a mode that was already in use by one's allies.

Furthermore, I don't think the Italian hoplite phalanx was as cut and dry as the Greek one, either. IIRC, Italian hoplites were also divided by age and social status (meaning, equipment)... just like the legionnaires that were to follow.

Alexander’s phalanx would face an unknown weapon (to them) the shortsword, ...

I'm not sure about this. Alexander's Pezhetairoi had been involved in probably dozens of sieges by the time they returned to Babylon--and fighting of this sort does not lend itself to spear-combat on either side. Furthermore, Arrian's Anabasis shows there were quite a few times when the Pezhetairoi almost certainly had to leave their sarissae behind to accomplish their missions.

The Phalanxes of 16 ranks of soldiers with their new innovative long spears/pikes would be nearly invulnerable to frontal assaults or cavalry charges.
Caesar would have to use his legions advantage of higher mobility to outmaneuver the phalanxes and strike their flanks. But of course this would be difficult considering Alexander's cavalry.

Not to mention his Hypaspists, light infantry, and more conventional, hoplite-armed soldiery.

Some also propose that the new phalanx Alexander designed (3 ranks of Pezhetairoi at the fore, 12 ranks of missile-armed light infantry in the middle, 1 rank of Pezhetairoi at the rear) may have been designed to tackle Italian-style formations. The prospect of continuous fire whittling down infantry opposition while the Pezhetairoi kept them pinned via sarissa would have been interesting at the very least, I suppose.

Finally, and, personally, I don't really buy into the whole "greater mobility" thing. If you're talking about being able to advance or withdraw from combat, as needed, with greater speed while still maintaining formation cohesion, then I agree 100%. But that sort of mobility historically didn't make much difference in this sort of battle. I honestly think most people are thinking of a sort of lateral movement that would allow the legions to envelop the slower-moving phalanx... but that never really happened, either.

A little known fact was that he was a superb logistician (something that puts him well above Napoleon and Caesar)—(see Alexander the Great and Logistic in the Macedonian Army by Donald Engels.

That is such a great book!

It's sad that more academics haven't flipped through it, because I honestly feel that Engels, with his analytical look at the effect an army has on the landscape and agriculture it goes through, does away with the idea that Alexander marched through Gedrosia for no reason other than vanity.

[Caesar's] cavalry was a much smaller percentage of his army than Alexander’s. In an army of 45,000 for both, about 1/5 of Alexander’s would be cavalry and only about 1/10 of Caesars so even if their cavalries were of equal ability (which in fact they were not) Alexander’s would have prevailed.

By the time Alexander's campaigns had ended, the proportion of his cavalry forces was even greater--and the variety of effects it could bring on the battlefield likewise so.

Disciplined heavy cavalry like the Companians and Thessalians could and did take on seemingly overwhelming numbers of loose order cavalry as they did the Persians (some of whom were also heavy cavalry).

The thing is, the Thessalians could and did face quite solid cavalry forces both at Issus and Gaugamela. The fact that Alexander reinforced his cavalry ranks with both Persian and Bactrian cavalry shows that they were no strangers to solid formations and disciplined fighting.

In terms of tactics I'd give it to Caesar. Alexander had many great battles where he showed his natural martial prowess by coming up with the right solutions to immediate challenges, but he never had a Pharsalus. The way Caesar had the insight to use a reserve line to thwart Pompey's more numerous cavalry and win the battle can only be conceived by a man of outstanding tactical genius.

I would consider reading Alexander's handling of Gaugamela. Half of that battle was Alexander feeding reserve forces to prevent a double envelopment by superior cavalry forces while using maneuver to create a gap in Dareius' lines.

I don't believe there is a similar example of such tactical excellence to be found in the BCE time period... and I might wager the same for a good part of the ACE as well.