Yes - agreed. But I guess the question is whether the ancient armies are stacked against the latter ones with no "modern" upgrades or whether they would use the same tactics but with minor improvements (Bronze armour = steel / iron studs, bows = longbows / crossbows, kontos = lances, stirrups for all)
That would kind of defeat the question at hand, wouldn't it? If you give both sides medieval weapons, the medievals who are used to them would probably still win.
I think the original question was, if Alexander and his armies would meet a medieval army, both sides being as prepared for each other as Cortez and the Aztecs were in 1519 (i.e. not at all), the battle field being halfway suitable to both sides (i.e. mediterranean climate) who would then win?
And in that case I would still say it is down to mostly luck and unponderables. Some things are clear... hellenic cavalry would not be able to stand against knights, regardless of discipline, due to lack of armor and medieval horses being superior breeds. Medieval archery would probably also be superior to hellenic one for reasons given already. With the infantry, hellenic discipline might go a long way to offset their lighter weapons and the obsolescence of their staple tactic, the phalanx, but who knows what improvisation would be possible? Luck and imponderables again determine the winner...
As for tactics I think no Hellenic commander with half a brain would try "staple" tactics like phalanx and cavalry skirmish against an enemy clad in medieval armor and carrying medieval weapons. They would try to improvise something more suited to holding off a heavy cavalry charge and somehow try fight a more mobile battle (where the heavy medievals are at a disadvantage). On the other hand a medieval commander would see how lightly the Hellenics are armored, and how close their ranks are, and would try to line his knights up for a frontal battle much more directly than he would do if he was facing an enemy with troops similar to his own forces.
People improvise quickly. On Cortez' first attempt to seize Tenochtitlan, the Aztecs were tactically clueless because the Spaniards did not fight by the Mesoamerican rulebook, i.e. they did not try to capture warriors and they did not engage in the usual diplomatic back-and-forth game. They got slaughtered, and missed countless opportunities to trap and kill Spaniards. However when Cortez came back after the Noche Triste for the siege of Tenochtitlan, the Aztecs had already adapted their tactics, did no longer try POW captures instead of straight kills, and had barricaded their metropolis so well it took the Spaniards and their allies months to conquer it.
So who knows, maybe the hellenics can improvise tercio squares on the spot instead of their phalanx? Or launch a Swiss-style charge with lowered pikes to overrun the men-at-arms.
Last edited: