Alexander the Great vs Julius Caesar

No but it shows something we have known for a long time, it's dangerous to give idol statuses to people that doesn't deserve them. If you are going to call someone great then we should call someone that actually deserves it for being a great person such as Gandhi.
We should not look at awe on how many people they killed, we should say they where assholes for doing it.

We never said Alexander and Caesar had good morals. They WERE great and amazing GENERALS and deserve that title.

I think he means people shouldn't praise them for there conquests. Which we have been for several thousand years now.

But now you are again saying that they were great and amazing generals. Something that can be disputed and is not entirely black and white.

Yes, hmm you put it easy...

We should, because that's a part of being a great general.

So you think Alexander and Caesar were bad generals?

Okay, so don't praise them for killing thousands of people? I don't think we have for a good couple minutes now that's a record for us.

I see what you did there.

But you are also right I might take it a bit overboard, they were good at conquering but I still don't think they were AMAZING generals. Which if people say that they should be top 5 of all humans in the history of humanity, all 108 billion humans that have ever lived.

It was a top 5 generals list. Which they would probably be on. Not to many generals are better than them.

Lol @Onyxja there generals not politicians, they were bred to outwit there enemy to watch there enemies crushed with intellect and prowess, they will always be remembered because they did there job the best.

Ok then, who will you say are the top 5 generals of all time?

Alright everybody calm down. No need to flip a shit. Lets not turn this into a common youtube argument

Back to Alexander vs Caesar. I think Alexander was the better commander.

My opinion is expressed in the pole.

Let's look at the two characters, one a prince with an army built loyal to him, and martial prowess, with no need for tactics because his army is better then his rival Persia, after he defeated Persia he advanced on fighting city states not empires or cohesive republics Alexander = Easy mode.

Then let's look at the more cinderella story, a noble who became a consul/dictator with no hereditary ties, very hard back then, he lead the most advanced army of its time against barbarians, defeated them, Led the most advanced army in the world against itself with a general of equal prowess, won not only a military victory but also a political one,

Ceasar is the better man because of the circumstances in which he achieved victory, whilst Alexander was a king with all the resources of his empire and not worrying about political rivals.

Please do explain how a Roman legion beats a Greek phalanx. I think Caesar would win, but i am wondering how a legion beats a phalanx.

The Legion was much more manuverable than the phalanx and so you could out flank out in battles.

This is on the assumption that the legion can flank. Alexander isn't that stupid now. In battle phalanxes are better seeing as though the legion has to dodge the pike in order to get close enough to attack. Spear > Sword

I didn't know the Romans got the chance to fight Alexander? They didn't? Oh they were fighting a non unified Greece in comparison to a unified Greece under Alexanders command. I am not arguing that Caesar wouldn't win (he would). I am arguing that Alexanders phalanx is better than Caesars legions.