Alexander the Great vs Julius Caesar

Since these two are considered two of the best generals of all time who do you guys would think win if these were pitted against each other.

Well I don't think that is a fair match, considering the time period. The Roman army itself was more efficient, and better, due to 380 years of innovation since Alexander's campaigns. However, I would say that Alexander was definitely the better general. I will elaborate more later if you like, but I have to go do something now.

Alexander did nothing but kill his father then take his army to crush the already crumbling persian empire. While Caesar fought through all of modern day Spain France and parts of England and lead the triumvirate and beat probably the most accomplished military commanders of the age in Pompeii. Caesar fought for what he had and was one of the most fascinating figures in history while Alexander just got everything from his dad and had the benifit of being tauht by some of the best minds in Greece in military tactics and manouvers not saying Alex was not a cool figure hewas he just fought a dieing enemy and to me was overrated

wait a second theres something ot my window *walks to window* OH MY GOD ITS POM ARRRRGH!

You just started a shitstorm sir. Just look at the first couple pages on the best military leader in world history thread to see what i mean.

However, Hannibal would win. Seeing as though he isn't an option I suppose Caesar...

i second the hannibal he is better then both. and yea i kinda figured that

Kinda made the mistake in Gaul, unfriendly natives there. Oh well, no elephants

First of all, Alexander did not murder his father. His mother ordered the murder, and got one of the subordinates I believe to carry it out. At least that is the accepted theory. Alexander was the one who lead the critical cavalry charge that beat the Greeks (forget which battle), when the Greeks had all but beaten the Macedonian army. Alexander, on multiple occasions, won battles where he was greatly outnumbered, at most by 5 to 1. Alexander never lost a battle.

The Persian Empire was not crumbling. It was still the largest and most powerful empire at the time, and arguably had the best military for its time. They were not just a bunch of peasants, they were a large and elite army. If Alexander hadn't died in his 30's, he could have planned out better how exactly he was gonna go about succession.

Caesar, while a great commander, just happened to be in the right place at the right time. It was pure luck that he was able to get Ciscalpine Gaul along with Transalpine Gaul, due to the death of the governor of the province. He just happened to be governor when the Helvetti decided to go on their mass migration. He was fighting a bunch of disorganized tribes, who's loyalty to him changed constantly. They also could not keep an army in the field for very long. If it was not for the Aedui and his other allies supplying him with the grain, he would not have been able to effectively campaign. About his campaign in Britain, both of his attempts to invade the island failed.

Another thing we have to take into consideration, is that his commentaries obviously do exaggerate, as they were written for him to gain political power and win the hearts of the Roman people. When he beat Pompey, Pompey had not commanded an army in battle for about 13 years, and was 57. Pompey was also pressured by other members (Cato, Ahenobarbus, etc.) to fight a decisive battle that Pompey was not confident he could win. They threatened to take their parts of the army and go on their own if he did not attack. He was forced into attacking. If Pompey was fighting on his own terms, I think he would have more than likely won.

Hannibal is one of the best tactical generals in world history. Just look at Canae bitches.




Edit: before anybody hounds me I know a lot of this information is inaccurate.

Hannibal knew how to win a battle, but not how to use it.

Notice I said tactical general. However, despite that if Hannibal didn't destroy half his army crossing the alps he would have fared better in Italy. Imagine if he had proper siege equipment...

im not argueing that he was a bad commander he was a great i just feel he is overrated and i got my crumbling Persian empire statement from Dan Carlin in Iforget what episode but he was saying something about a 1000 Greek mercanarys walking all the way from the middle of Persia back to Greece or something? and whenever they fought the persians they would hit there shield wall and the persians would run away and you could say that Alexander was just as much in the right place and right time with his father dieing and all

Well I believe his brother landed on the coast bringing more troops and proper siege equipment and much needed soldiers. I am just awe struck that after this battle, the Romans did not beg for peace.

Ugh. When you have 5 to 1 odds, you should be able to easily outmaneuver and outflank your opponents just by sheer numbers, especially against a phalanx. Also, the Persians had just as good, if not better horseman than that of the Makedonians. Their cavalry also outnumbered Alexander's greatly. The Persians did not just simply flee on contact. They had crack heavy infantry as well. At Guagamela, the battlefield was extremely large, which should have played right into the hands of the Persians. The Persians actually nearly completely broke the line of the Macedonians in that battle, after Darius fled, but thanks to Alexander placing a second line specifically in case that happened, the day was saved. Also, in 11 years of campaigning, he lost zero battles. Even Hannibal and Caesar lost battles.

I might be mistaken but i believe that the Romans still had 700,000 men they can recruit for battle after Canae, so manpower isn't an issue. However on Hasdrubal bringing siege I never read that before? When did it happen, the Carthaginian navy was getting its ass kicked by Rome (At least from what I have read.)

Also do you know when during the war Fabius Maximus became dictator was it before or after Canae I don't remember? I know he had the right strategy of his war of Attrition against Hannibal.


EDIT: 100th comment bitches.

Also the fact that Caesar wept at the statue of Alexander, gives more to the fact that Caesar viewed Alexander as the greater man.

indeed, but after Alexander's dead his empire split pretty fast

A carthaginian army landed on the italian coast and tried to link up with hannibal, but was defeated. It was lead by his brother I believe. Also, Maximus was the Roman commander in charge of defeating hannibal, but was considered to be too passive (wanted to cut his supply lines instead of fight) so was replaced. After Cannae, he was promptly regiven command lol.

Because he died before he could actually plan out his succession. Most people are not thinking about succession at the age of 33. Also, his successor kingdoms lasted fairly long, the longest (ptolemaic kingdom) lasting until 30 BC.

Could you say india and deserts kinda screwed his army a little over?

What? His army was just tired from 11 years of campaigning, and were thousands of miles from their home. If he continued though and insisted, I think his army would have still followed him.

Well Hannibal himself never had the siege equipment then, Hasdrubal was his idiot brother. Maximus strategy worked when they were using it, until Varso or Varro (I forget) was elected consul then raised an army for Canae, I remember now.

That doesn't mean he was the greater man though just mean he thought he was.