Julius Caesar vs. Attila the Hun

Julius Caesar vs. Attila. Who Wins?

  • Julius Caesar

    Votes: 12 37.5%
  • Attila

    Votes: 10 31.3%
  • Draw

    Votes: 1 3.1%
  • Enough with these match ups, Anaxagoras!

    Votes: 9 28.1%

  • Total voters
    32

Anaxagoras

Banned
Who would win in a battle between Julius Caesar and Attila the Hun? Assume that Caesae commands the same army he commanded in Gaul in 52 B.C., while Attila commanded the same army he commanded st the Battle of Chalons in 451 A.D.
 
I demand cool wrestling nicknames!


Anyway, I say Caesar. He was a better tactician than Attila. The Hun was able to take advantage of the empire at a weak point.
 

Keenir

Banned
Who would win in a battle between Julius Caesar and Attila the Hun? Assume that Caesae commands the same army he commanded in Gaul in 52 B.C., while Attila commanded the same army he commanded st the Battle of Chalons in 451 A.D.

they wouldn't fight - they'd form an alliance, crush all their enemies and rivals, and each would marry the other's sister.

the Super Empire would never die!
 
Hmmm... Personally, I'd say it really comes down to the men more than the leaders. Basically, late-republic infantry v late empire cavalry. I really couldn't say who would win but I suspect the equipment and training differences (whichever way it goes) would be enough to make generalship less than critical.
 
Attila wins, assuming we are talking about a set-piece battle. Roman armies during the period in question, if you will recall, had a very hard time dealing with the Parthians, who, like the Huns, fielded a cavalry army primarily composed of horse archers, which the Roman legions were NOT equipped to deal with at that period of history. The Huns will be an even more formidable opponent than the Parthians, because they had an improved composite bow and had incorporated large number of Germanic (Ostrogoths and others) armored lancers into their armies as well, so they had improved firepower and also an excellent shock arm. Basically the Huns will treat Caesar the way the Parthians treated Crassus at Carrhae, only worse, and there's very little Caesar could do, tactically, to change the outcome, given the limitations of his troops.
 
Attila wins, assuming we are talking about a set-piece battle. Roman armies during the period in question, if you will recall, had a very hard time dealing with the Parthians, who, like the Huns, fielded a cavalry army primarily composed of horse archers, which the Roman legions were NOT equipped to deal with at that period of history. The Huns will be an even more formidable opponent than the Parthians, because they had an improved composite bow and had incorporated large number of Germanic (Ostrogoths and others) armored lancers into their armies as well, so they had improved firepower and also an excellent shock arm. Basically the Huns will treat Caesar the way the Parthians treated Crassus at Carrhae, only worse, and there's very little Caesar could do, tactically, to change the outcome, given the limitations of his troops.

I agree with the esteemed member's assessment.
 
At Carrhae, didn't Crassus make some other egregious mistakes and weren't the Parthians in a defensive spot where they could be easily resupplied?
 
The Huns would certainly have an advantage (mainly because in they would fight with armies of the 5th century AD), but lets not consider only Carrhae as the only example of Roman - Parthian conflicts. Trajan defeated and humiliated the Parthians in every way possible and while some changes occured in the Roman army in two centuries, the armies of Caesar were similar to those of Trajan. Besides Caesar's army in Gaul had large numbers of Gallic and Germanic cavalry auxiliaries, it is not like the Roman army used only solid infantry, it was a war machine that could adapt succesfully to almost everything.
 
What is the terrain like? If it's an open plain like at Carrhae, the Huns have a marked advantage, but the Romans can nullify that with any hills, wooded areas, or broken ground.
 
Caesar was a well-trained and generally careful tactician. He would probably seek to avoid a battle if he copuld do it at all, and rely on terrain advantage, field fortifications and supply control to outmaneuver the Huns. Attila could probably still win if he was able to force a decision (by, e.g., threatening Italy or aesar's supply routes), but the most likely outcome is a Hunnish defeat, not because of the superior fighting power of the legions (thery were good, but just good), but because of their superior soldiering skills.

BTW, the Romans were certainly able to deal with cavalry. They preferred not to, but on balance they tended to come off the better against the Alans, Sarmatians, Parthians and Batavians.
 
The Huns would certainly have an advantage (mainly because in they would fight with armies of the 5th century AD), but lets not consider only Carrhae as the only example of Roman - Parthian conflicts. Trajan defeated and humiliated the Parthians in every way possible and while some changes occured in the Roman army in two centuries, the armies of Caesar were similar to those of Trajan. Besides Caesar's army in Gaul had large numbers of Gallic and Germanic cavalry auxiliaries, it is not like the Roman army used only solid infantry, it was a war machine that could adapt succesfully to almost everything.
You don't even have to move forward that far for a Roman army defeating the Parthians.

In 39BC, general Bessus, with veteran legions from Caesar by the way, kicked out the Parthians from Judea and Syria in three seperate battles, in which he killed the Parthian king, the Roman traitor (Labienus) that lead the Parthian army and another Parthian general (maybe the guy that defeated Crassus a decade before?).

After this he was stopped by Mark Antony because he was a bit too succesful...
 

Keenir

Banned
Caesar was a well-trained and generally careful tactician. He would probably seek to avoid a battle if he copuld do it at all, and rely on terrain advantage, field fortifications and supply control to outmaneuver the Huns. Attila could probably still win if he was able to force a decision

I'm a little confused as to why nobody thinks that supreme political manipulators like Caesar and Attila would do anything but fight?
 
I'm a little confused as to why nobody thinks that supreme political manipulators like Caesar and Attila would do anything but fight?


Because the idea of this thread is to compare their military skills and their fighting styles? ;)
 
Technically, Anaxagoras, this should be in ASB. Lee vs. Moltke was semi-plausible, seeing as they fought in wars at the same time, but I doubt any twisting of a POD is going to get Caesar to live 500 years. :p
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Technically, Anaxagoras, this should be in ASB. Lee vs. Moltke was semi-plausible, seeing as they fought in wars at the same time, but I doubt any twisting of a POD is going to get Caesar to live 500 years. :p

ITTL, Caesar drinks A LOT of green tea and red wine.
 
Top