Alexander versus Caesar

[Chris]

The answer is for several groups to try this one on the tabletop.

I would be interested in reading about how these experiments turned out.
At the accepted risk of starting a related topic (probably best reserved for another thread), I wonder if others have toyed with the idea of pitting historical personalities against each other who did not actually meet on the field of battle.
It's not historical, of course, but it might prove entertaining and interesting.

Chris

[Mark G]

The problem with settling it on various tabletops is that the rules of each will largely determine the winner before it starts, and will certainly remove any strategic manoevers leading up to the battle.

Not to mention, inappropriately levelling the field to an even points system that completely misses the point of roman command and control and mobilisation advantages.

But I would emphasise again, Caesar has nothing to gain by fighting on a field that enabled cavalry manoeuvres.
He has nothing to gain on a field that enables the phalanx to operate optimally.
And he gas nothing to gain from fighting on a field that leaves his flanks open to envelopment.

Most importantly, he has nothing to fear from a defeat. Tine is always on romes side because Rome dies not care if the entire army dies and the general is killed

Alex, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on killing the enemy king to legitimise his claim, and his army is dependent on the regular supply of booty to keep it in the field.

There is a reason why he uses blitz tactics and keros rushing after the next end point.
and a reason why Caesar is happy to take his time establishing political control over gaul.

Alex must kill Caesar, and he must do it quickly.
Caesar can march Alex around for months before he needs even think about committing to battle.

Caesar wins in the same way that the Russians always win, by trading space for time

[Jim Webster]

The answer is for several groups to try this one on the tabletop.

Absolutely

And the winner will be the one who smuggles the most points onto the table under the nose of the umpire, because he's the one who has captured the spirit of these two men

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

And what pray are Caesar's cavalry doing whist Coenus is suppisedly flanking the legionaries who are flanking the phalanx? Just watching? No, they will be engaging the Macedonians.

But which Macedonians?  Remember how at Gaugamela Alexander's cavalry wing of about 3,500 managed to keep a Persian wing of 20,000 cavalry amused, engaged and eventually defeated them using less than half their numbers (3,500 less Alex's approximately 1,800 Macedonians).  Given the generally unenterprising conduct of Roman cavalry (albeit admitting their command and control would be superior to Persians) I do not see Alexander's disengaged cavalry wing having any trouble with Caesar's 1,000 double-mounted cavalry, even assuming Caesar had them on that flank rather than on the one Alex would be attacking.

I don't know where you get this putative lacklustre performance of Roman infantry againstlance armed cavalry.

"For Antiochus, on his right flank, since he saw that there were no auxiliaries there except four troops of cavalry, because of the Romans' confidence in the river, and that these, while they were maintaining contact with their neighbours, were leaving the bank unguarded, made an attack upon them with the auxiliaries and the armoured cavalry [cataphracto equitatu]; [8] nor did he charge from the front alone, but encircling them from the river was already pressing on from the flank, until first the cavalry fled and then the infantry who were nearest were driven headlong towards the camp." - Livy XXXVII.42.7-8

"Then, as the enemy got to work, their light, cavalry rode round on the flanks of the Romans and shot them with arrows, while the mail-clad horsemen in front, plying their long spears, kept driving them together into a narrow space, [2] except those who, to escape death from the arrows, made bold to rush desperately upon their foes. These did little damage, but met with a speedy death from great and fatal wounds, since the spear which the Parthians thrust into the horses was heavy with steel, and often had impetus enough to pierce through two men at once." - Plutarch, Crassus 27.1-3

Properly formed up they do just fine. At Carrhae cataphracts do not charge through them, at Pharsalus, intermingled with the Caesarian cavalry they drive off Hellenistic cavalry.

And at Magnesia they crumple before them.  Incidentally, are we really justified in calling Pompey's predominantly raw cavalry at Pharsalus 'Hellenistic'?  As far as I can see, the only remotely Hellenistic cavalry he had were a few hundred Macedonians, who had cashed in their lances for javelin and shield some generations ago.  I would also question the 'intermingled' bit: in my understanding, Caesar's cohorts hit the Pompeian cavalry as they were about to change direction to catch Caesar's Tenth Legion in flank, thus catching the cavalry when they were lacking impetus and changing formation.  Good timing and good technique did the rest.

The answer is for several groups to try this one on the tabletop.

As others have pointed out, this will mainly reflect the rules set used as written rather than the armies and commanders in question.

Alex, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on killing the enemy king to legitimise his claim, and his army is dependent on the regular supply of booty to keep it in the field.

There is a reason why he uses blitz tactics and keros rushing after the next end point.
and a reason why Caesar is happy to take his time establishing political control over gaul.

Alex must kill Caesar, and he must do it quickly.
Caesar can march Alex around for months before he needs even think about committing to battle.

Caesar wins in the same way that the Russians always win, by trading space for time

I am not sure that Alex would be fighting to establish a claim as 'King of Rome', although Caesar would - a point that eventually got him killed.  Perhaps the battleground affording most scope would be to give each man his holdings at the height of their power, Alex moving west having survived his trip to Babylon and Caesar about to move east having survived the Ides of March (this also gives Caesar a more anti-Parthian type of army if he likes).  Draw a line through Illyria and the Adriatic and down past Brundisium to the African coast near Tripoli: everything west of this line is Caesar's as it was in 44 BC and everything east of it (as far as the Indus) is Alexander's as it was in 323 BC.

That would make an interesting campaign for the two presumed greatest generals of antiquity.  I have thoughts about co-opting the Imperium Romanum II boardgame for the purpose ... all we need now is for Alex and Julius to put in an appearance.