(Version 2) The Greatest Ancient General: Julius Caesar of Rome vs Alexander of Macedon

BY JEFF JONAS

Who would win the duel of ancient titans at the head of the best armies of their times? Caesar and his legions or Alexander’s phalanx and unstoppable cavalry? How can the strengths and weaknesses of each legendary commander be turned into a miniature game? Simon Elliott’s entertaining book Alexander the Great versus Julius Caesar: Who was the Greatest Commander in the Ancient World? gives many clues as to who he believes was the best general. Who will win? Time to roll the dice.

Would a fight between the titans come down to their own personal leadership style, or would it be the legion or phalanx systems, or a bit of both? What follows is a set of traits to help decide the outcome.

STRATEGIC VISION

A general’s strategic vision determines how much he can force a battle on his own terms. Whether it was an ambush or executing a difficult siege, both men were able to adapt. Both generals won almost all their set-piece battles, but both had their share of setbacks too. The Romans were experts at getting their enemies to fight them on ground of their choosing. Since both commanders’ strategic vision is so acute, we will assume that neither would accept a fight on unsuitable terrain. I’ve chosen the area near Pharsalus where Caesar defeated Pompey as a likely midway point. The site allows Caesar to have a somewhat protected flank, but this is also territory Alexander was well acquainted with.

Julius Caesar’s friends were astonished, and asked the reason for his tears. “Do you not think,” said he, “it is matter for sorrow that while Alexander, at my age, was already king of so many peoples, I have as yet achieved no brilliant success?”

CHARISMA

As great commanders, both Caesar and Alexander have the highest levels of martial charisma. They would seize the perfect moment to join a decisive charge, or rally wavering troops by joining their ranks. Famously they would motivate their troops to do the impossible, whether it was scale a sheer cliff to get behind the foe, or eat bread made of root bark to stave off starvation. Both leaders should be rated the highest possible for leadership and should be able to re-roll any failed morale checks in their command range.

TACTICAL AGILITY

Caesar’s foes were primarily made up of infantry similar to his army. His agility was measured by his incorporation of Gallic cavalry to offset his lack of horsemen. When faced with superior cavalry, he hid legionary cohorts behind his cavalry screen. These troops burst forth and then thrust their pila into the enemy cavalry’s faces and routed them, opening up the flank. Alexander’s tactical agility is revealed time and time again. When crossing rivers he made sure the riverbanks were covered by his siege artillery, driving the enemy away from attacking his troops on inflatable rafts. Alexander also had the uncanny skill to read when the enemy line was thin enough to launch a massive cavalry breakthrough, which he did time and time again. Timing the swift assault that broke the enemy line was Alexander’s most potent stratagem. Caesar could be given an ability to hide one unit as a reserve force. Alexander could be given the ability to launch an attack at higher speed, or to seize initiative and create a double move.

ARMY EXPERTISE

Caesar’s army consisted of well-armed and protected swordsmen, and they usually outnumbered the core infantry of any Macedonian Successor army. Their goal was to grind down the enemy frontally, or they would fall back when the opponent was too strong and rely on the enemy flanks being crushed. Roman citizen cavalry had disappeared by Caesar’s time and was replaced by Gallic and German cavalry to bolster that weakness. To keep his heavy infantry safe from enemy missile troops, he incorporated elite light infantry assets of the western Mediterranean, and even some Cretan archers.

The flexibility of Caesar’s veteran legions allowed him to create a reserve by pulling cohorts out of the line. These reserves formed into ad-hoc units called Antesignani, literally troops that fought ‘before the standards’; they would scout ahead, reinforce the cavalry and light infantry, or be assigned to neutralize a dangerous enemy threat such as elephants. They could be Caesar’s key unit to close a gap or lie in wait to surprise the foe. Caesar would stay mounted and ride behind the line at crisis points to make sure he could react quickly. He was not someone who led the charge, but he often joined troops that were wavering and could turn them back to the fight.

Alexander’s army is a famous ‘combined arms’ force where each arm had to cooperate to achieve victory. The Macedonian carved his empire out by holding the enemy in place with the formidable phalanx, then launching devastating cavalry charges covered by light infantry. The massive 16,000-man phalanx in Alexander’s time was able to operate in sub-units, which gave it more tactical flexibility than later phalanxes that operated mostly as a solid block. Flexibility was important because the Romans had learned not to dash themselves frontally against it. They could back-pedal or avoid it, trading space for time while surrounding the flanks.

The decisive component of Alexander’s army was his elite lance-armed heavy cavalry. He brilliantly timed their charge to breach an enemy weak spot and blast into the enemy line, breaking it up. This breakthrough usually routed his foes. Alexander’s tough cavalry still needed infantry support to break through a solid infantry line. Alexander always kept his Hypaspist guards and elite Agrianian peltasts close to support the cavalry charge. Alexander almost always led from the front as the tip of the Macedonian spear.

Alexander was fortunate to have some of the very best auxiliaries to guard his flanks and deal with enemy skirmishers and cavalry that might try to get in behind the phalanx. He employed Cretan archers, the ubiquitous mercenaries of the period, and Thracians to screen the front of the army. Alexander would have access to all the top-notch specialist troops from Asia. Ex-Persian-empire slingers and heavy cavalry would also be available. His cavalry was further buttressed by the excellent Thessalians, who usually guarded the weak flank. In his late battles Alexander utilized steppe horse archers to soften up the enemy cavalry; this became a common tactic of his Successors’ armies.

Alexander had acquired many Indian elephants, and he surely could choose to bring them. This is a difficult choice to gauge because Alexander may have known they were a double-edged sword, equally likely to hurt his own army instead of the enemy. Alexander’s other ace-in-the-hole was his canny use of field artillery, which was rarely used in pitched battles but could be a surprise that shocked the legion into moving.

LOGISTICS AND ENGINEERING

Both commanders were famous for their sieges and for undertaking great marches. Alexander often outmarched his foes and overran them with speed. His sieges were swift and often resulted in quick assaults on breaches caused by his excellent artillery corps and ability to build towers. Caesar’s men could endure extreme hardships, including lack of food and fodder, and still dig walls and trenches around the enemy. The Roman army often dug trenches and built walls to box in their Hellenistic opponents. Alexander occasionally used his siege artillery in battle to harass the enemy at long range. It is a toss-up as to how the Roman ability to dig in would have been offset by Alexander’s ability to manoeuvre. Suffice to say that both commanders would use these strengths to offset their weaknesses.

FANTASY PHARSALUS

One would guess that if Caesar fortified his position, Alexander would force march around it rather than accept battle on a limited front that would negate his strike-force cavalry units. As stated above, the initial scenario would place this battle in Thessaly, near the same place that Caesar and Pompey clashed, because it is open enough for cavalry and at least has one Roman flank anchored on a river.

Set up

This game is a set-piece head-to-head battle. If the linear campaign is attempted, players should experiment with meeting engagements and other scenarios. The OOBs provided are a guide. Players should use what they have to start. Use your favourite rules and fill in the details to suit your games. As a reference point, I’ve listed units as Small (6–8 models); Medium (10–16 models); Large (18–24 models); and Massed (32–48 models). Garrison troops set up in the area of the camp off map and only come into play if a camp is attacked by an enemy unit attacking or shooting at the gate. The garrison count as in hard cover and may toss javelins out of the camp at enemies in range. Each army is divided into three wings. Each wing must be deployed in its zone.

Players should roll a D6 to see who deploys first. That player deploys all the units of one zone. One cavalry unit may be deployed adjacent to the left and right wing. Then the other player deploys a zone, until all three zones are filled. Open order troops can freely move directly forward one full move. The Antesignani, elephant, or bolt shooter battery may be placed in any zone.

Terrain effects

The river has an area of swampy ground that should count as a major obstacle to formed troops. The hills should not impede movement. Woods and scrub areas should not present any impediment to light troops, but cavalry and formed troops should be penalized. The camps are just a one-by-six-inch zone with a gate in the centre to reveal the entrance point.

Special rules

Eagle: Both commanders are able to use one of these special rules once per game. The Eagle offers these options:

Stealth: At the start of his first turn, a player may reposition one unit from one wing to another; the unit may move freely.

Timing: The player may seize the initiative and switch the turn sequence, thus allowing a double turn.

Rally: The player may rally a fleeing unit or allow a unit to ignore a panic test/rout entirely.

Reaction: The player attempts to stop the other player from using his Eagle. Both players roll off; high die wins. If the challenger wins, the player may not use his Eagle this turn. The challenger does not lose his Eagle if it fails or succeeds in a Reaction. A succcessful challenge simply negates the Eagle this turn and it is not removed.

Victory

Both players should defend their camps as a first priority. A small shrine is located in the centre of the table as a victory point. If neither army is broken by normal means, the player that controls his own camp and captures the shrine and/or the enemy camp should be seen as the victor. If the camps are secure and the shrine is contested, the side with the most units in the opponent’s deployment zones should count as winning a tactical victory.

A LINEAR CAMPAIGN

Playing a single game might not reveal who is the Greatest Of All Time. One way to crown the supreme commander is to set up a simple linear campaign. The strategic map is used to keep track of victories. Start the campaign by battling over Greece. If the Romans win, then move to the right; if they lose, move to the left. The next battle is fought on home turf (Italia or Asia), with the loser retreating back toward their capital.

If one side wins a complete and obviously total victory, roll a D6. A 4+ allows the next battle to jump two spaces. So if Alexander decisively defeats Caesar in Asia, the next battle can skip Graecia and jump back to Italy. If a battle is lost at the capital, the losing side has lost the campaign and humbly submits that his famous opponent is truly the champion of ancient generals.

Players might wish to change up the terrain for the Asia and Italia games. Asia might have fewer hills and more open space. Italy may have some more rugged hills to channel the phalanx. Folks may tire of endless battles in Graecia as games toggle back and forth and declare the next fight the decisive one. If play extends to further games, feel free to add or replace units and reassign the wing troop contents.

Good luck determining who will be the GOAT of ancient generalship. Will Alexander’s phalanx be crushed by the relentless march of the hobnail-booted legionaries? Or will the Macedonian cavalry find the gaps between the legions and break through to send them packing? Let the dice be cast! WS&S