New show featuring RTW

I was so lucky as to keep an eye on Discovery Europe tonight (sunday). It was a big Alexander night, and one of the shows was called Clash of the Generals or something.

Well, it was two Gulf War generals, a brit sir Peter and an american Chuck (who was apparently one of the minds behind the defeat of Saddam's forces).
The scenario was counterfactual in that Alexander had somehow managed to get himself into Italy and face Hannibal at Cannae. Sir Peter was Hannibal and Chuck was Alexander (they were great fans of either so it was obvious choices). They went over Issus and Cannae to determine the skill and effectiveness of the two commanders. And let me tell you the Roman army at Cannae was massive! And the Persian army at Issus was even more impressive in size. I'm quite certain that both were made to resemble the correct sizes as they filled the field completely.
Then the generals stood at a commandtable moving blocks, much like in Time Commanders, only bigger and with more explaination. With those movements the troops moved about on the battlefield. Quite nice actually, making it easy for the uninitiated to follow the game by looking at the blocks to understand the situation. To any veteran of Total War it was very broad and not focused enough on the individual units.
Both sides were forced to set up like the two sides had at their respective battles.

This was in fact what we have demanded time and again, a real fight between real people with real knowledge, not just people dragged in from the streets. ~D

Just prior to the fight each general explained his strategy. Chuck went for the classical Alexandrian tactic of heavy cavalry attack on the right. Sir Peter saw this coming and developed a counter to it.
Well, both genreals were conservative at first. Chuck went on the offensive as Alexander had and sir Peter was defensive. Chuck easily wiped out Peter's skirmishers and drove the Numidians back with his own skirmishers. But then sir Peter showed his insight and preempted Chucks planned attack on the right (Peter's left) by moving most of his cavalry into the big cresent of infantry. His plan was to lure in Chuck (and Alexander at the head) and then charge his flank. Chuck understood this and moved his own cavalry behind his own infantry, and it was here he failed miserably.
Sir Peter siezed the moment and changed formation to a turned front, Chuck followed suit and thus presented his elite troop's flank to the Spanish cavalry. Not entirely though, but the turning of the front meant the flank was now very far from the Macedonian cavalry and quite close to the Spanish. Sir Peter acted on this, charging the flank while fixing a unit of Thessalians with another unit of cavalry (not engaging though).
For Chuck it wasn't lost yet as his infantry was grinding down sir Peter's on the same flank, so he chraged in his Macedonian cavalry, but he made a critical error. He didn't mirror sir Peter's action by fixing the cavalry unit sent to fix the Thessalians with the Thessalians, instead he charged at them, giving sir Peter a chance to charge Alexander in the flank. And so he did. Alexander died and the entire army was wiped out.

I was impressed with sir Peter, while I was far from impressed with Chuck. He gave away the initiative, he opened up his flank and he failed to take decisive action when it was needed and he chose the wrong target when he finally went in. Sir Peter was wiping the floor with him, supposedly one of the best american generals alive.

Sounded really interesting. Wish there were more things like this on mainstream telly. Wish they would repeat TC on BBC, or huryy up with the new series.

Probably Sir Peter De La Billiere. Head of British Armed Forces during Gulf War 1. Don't know about Chuck.

Indeed him, he sounds like he has a piece of chocolate on his tongue all the time. A sort of lespering. But he was great. He did, though, sacrifice his skirmishers needlessly.

Nobody will remember the skirmishers....

Yep - General Sir Peter de la Billiere is the man. From naughty schoolboy thru SAS to command UK forces helping to liberate Kuwait in 1991. He wore original 1942 Eight Army 'desert rat' sholder patches for that one!

So I'm the only one that saw it?
It was quite nice as they actually went to both battlesites and went over the battles from good viewpositions. Sir Peter even attempted to charge uphill with a pike at Issus.

The American was likely Chuck Horner, USAF Ret.
He was the air operations commander for Desert Storm.

Recreating Alexander's battle strategy is usually a sound decision, except when you're facing an opponent who also KNOWS everything about Alexander and therefore is expecting that kind of stunt.

Given Alexander's penchance for discovering and exploiting his opponent's weakness I doubt he would have used the exact same tactics he used at Gaugamela against a proven tactician like Hannibal who commanded an army of comparable quality. Alexander would have known Hannibal to be a crafty fellow and anticipated it.

Although I must say the oblique formation Alexander deployed against Darius at Gaugamela would really have thrown a wrench in Hannibal's crescent shaped trap.

The show sounds interesting but I am not surprised at the outcome. De la Billiere may have a plum in his mouth but he knows his business

......Orda

I believe a more classical approach to the matter would be better. The Romans failed because they bunched up in fighting the individual units. Phalanxes would not bunch up, instead they would make the cresent work against their enemies as they would be defeated in detail. And when the central unit was broken then a really dangerous situation would present itself to Hannibal. Use the cavalry to try and plug the gap, or hope the phalanxes wouldn't advance that fast. In any case Alexander wins out as his infantry is superior and Hannibal can't get the cavalry superiority he needs to.
Of course this would require that either the central phalanx could defeat the central unit quite fast, or that the other phalanxes would halt. I believe that Alexander's troops would be albe to halt and retain their cohesion unlike the later Successors.
And I'm certain the phalanxes could defeat the cresent for a simple reason. The main troops of Hannibal, the african contingents, were not even in the line, and not even poised to recieve the phalanxes.

Hey, give Chuck a break - he's an airforce guy. ~;)

Barkhorn.