No announcement yet.

Alexander the Great vs. Julius Caesar (Round II)

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by grognard View Post
    Look at Alexander's battles against the Indians, the steppe horsemen and the mountaineers to see how he won against all foes--he rose to the occasion every single time.
    Having flown over and walked the ground at Ghazni, Ghazni Province a couple of days ago, my respect for Alexander's accomplishments is growing by leaps and bounds.

    (Perhaps I was too... hasty in my choice of Caesar. --- Double entendre intended as quote is also attributed to various perpetrators of regicide throughout Roman History.)
    Last edited by Prussian Havoc; 19 Mar 08, 15:47.
    Principles and rules are intended to provide a thinking man with a frame of reference. - Karl von Clauswitz, Vom Kriege, 1832.
    "Quality posts have a Quantity of value all their own." PH


    • #32
      Both Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar have shown a brilliance in strategy and tactics.


      Has a strong stable army with himself as the sole and only commander.
      While not overly so, he is bold.
      He is ambitious.
      He is confident.
      The Macedonian army was a revolutionary update from the older Hoplite.
      The Macedonians placed a strength in their calvary.
      Macedonian Calvary was the hammer in Alexander's battles.

      Alexander as a person was overly bold.
      He exhibited hubris in his life.
      He killed himself basically.
      He was overly daring.
      His sanity could be in question.

      His army:
      1) Macedon had well trained and veteran infantry.
      2) The 'Sarissa' spears that the Macedonians sported were imposing.
      3) The Macedonians placed a lot of weight with their calvary.

      Julius Caesar:

      He showed great personal courage and leadership.
      He was an orator.
      He was confident.
      He used the Romans engineers often to build forts, bridges, and the such.

      He wasn't a great judge of character.
      He didn't use his calvary much.

      I haven't studied Caesar as much as Alexander, but from what I have studied judging from the battles fought between the Roman Legions and the Hoplites, I would have to say that the Roman Legions, with their greater flexibility and training, would emerge (and have) victorious from an encounter with Hoplites.

      This doesn't come into question though, the use of Alexander's calvary. The infantry might retreat but what if Alexander slammed into Casear's rear? I doubt Alexander would do this because he never really used his calvary for flanking. He would drive his calvary through the Roman lines... Which wouldn't work as well.

      "The Objective in war is not to die for your country, but to make the other (guy) die for his." - PATTON
      "If Emily Post doesn't work, try Sigmund Freud." - Hogan


      • #33
        Alexander been one Dimensional and unimaginitive as one forum member suggests shows Ignorance.

        Alexander The Great was the greatest practitioner of siege warefare in history. His tenacity and stubournness to do the un doable was legendary. 6 months siege of Tyre.3 month siege of Sidon.The Sogdian Rock.Pir sar.

        Feinting strategy against Porus. Smaller mobileunits used against the hit and run tactics of Spitamenese. Crossing rivers. Using formations to deflect rolling carts against the Illirians.

        Balkan armies outmanouvered and terrorised to submision by Alexanders pave and tenacity. No horse or army traveled as quick as Alexanders force. He was down the throats of Thebes before they could sneeze.

        He did an El Cid rose from a dying bed with a lung arrow wound to give his troops hope.

        He lead a cavalry Charge across a river with a severe dose of disentry.

        Alexander was a warrior as hard as nails. He would keep comming and hammering till you yielded. Only his greedy generals and losers let him down and were it not for them poisoning him. His Empire would have swallowed the whole world


        • #34
          I just don't understand how this could be a second round match up. It could easily be a semifinal or finals match. Easily


          • #35
            Now these 2 are 2 of the best to ever live and i would name these 2 the best generals of antiquity now what makes one general better than another because for me if they were to fight on even ground with even number Caesar would win no doubt about it not because he is a better general but because he is like 250 years after Alexander and the Romans since then had learned from Alexander and other great generals and they had designed specific tactics and formations to counter the phalanxes and by Caesars time they had conquered Macedonia, Greece and many other phalanx armies so in a battle i think Caesar with his army designed to smack phanlanxes would win

            but as far as who is the better general in theory which is all you can compare them on really i woudl say Alexander is the better only marginaly though because he is so successful and influential and even Caesar and Hannibal both said that Alexander was the best so ill take there word for it.

            But these 2 are simply 2 of the best so much so that if you were to make a top 10 generals of all time and both these guys arnt in it and they could be 1-2 but if ther not in it at all then your list is just wrong plain and simple thats how good these 2 are.


            • #36

              greatest seven generals in history on 100 points scale:

              1:general khalid ibn al-walid: 100 points.

              2:genghis khan: 96 points.

              3:Ming general Yuán Chónghuàn: 87 points

              4:Alexander the great: 86 points.

              5:general tariq ibn zeyad: 54 points.

              6: hizbulluh chief of operation at 2006 war with israel: 25-70 points.

              7:Gaius Julius Caesar: 39 points


              • #37
                Originally posted by gps7500
                greatest eight generals in history on 1000 points scale:

                1:Zulu general Ntshingwayo kaMAhole Khoza (black south african): 1000 points.

                2:general tariq ibn zeyad & general muosa ibn nusir: 6.9 points

                3:general khalid ibn al-walid: 6.7 points

                4: Hizbulluh chief of operations at 2006 war with israel: 4.6 points.

                5:genghis khan: 4.1 points.

                6:Alexander the great: 3.8 points.

                7:Ming general Yuán Chónghuàn: 2.1 points

                8:Gaius Julius Caesar: 0.6 points

                Zulu general Ntshingwayo kaMAhole Khoza (black south african): 1000 points
                battle ratio: 1:36 spears against rifles, cannons and rockets. like a battle between alexander with his spears against U.S civil war army, battle period and its preparations took 16 days, winning over an army 36 times your army in 16 days, battle period (3 days) is a genoius accomplishment. for example alexander took a period of 10 years to when over armies that outwiegh him by tens of times. therefore Zulu general Ntshingwayo is bill gates of war.
                Surreal man . Truly surreal .
                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic:
                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths:


                • #38
                  Originally posted by gps7500
                  greatest nine generals in history on 100 points scale:

                  1: Hizbulluh chief of operations at 2006 war with israel: 100 points.

                  hizbulluh: 4000 fighters

                  israel: 40000 soldiers

                  technology ratio: hizbulluh 1:10 israel

                  training level:
                  israel: 1
                  battle ratio: israel 67:1 hizbulluh

                  hizbulluh: 250 fighters killed

                  israel: claimed 121 killed, french report based on israeli government officials information leaks: 2300 killed, probably 269 soldiers killed.
                  hizbulluh claimed destroying 200 israeli tanks.

                  total loss ratio taking tanks in consideration: israel: 11.1: 1 hizbulluh, israel losses more than 11 times than hizbulluh lossess.

                  battle result: draw, more to hizbulluh side.

                  hizbulluh commander during 2006 battle with israel is proved #1 the greatest general in history because the battle happened in 2006 while information about alexander or tariq ibn-zeyad thousands of years old do not provide evidence even 1967 war, WW2 information are not credible.
                  You, Sir, are a troll. Where is your proof of these statistics? May I also point out that if the Israeli losses were as huge as your dreamed than the Israeli population would have raised such a stink that the Israeli government would have collapsed. Please do us all a favor and take your revisionist, anti-Semitic history else where.
                  Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

                  "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

                  What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.


                  • #39
                    gps7500, you are posting in a now concluded Armchair Attacks Campaign thread about something not even approaching topical.

                    This is not the place for this!

                    ACG Staff
                    On the Plains of Hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest-and resting... died. Adlai E. Stevenson

                    ACG History Today



                    Latest Topics