Julius Caesar vs Alexander the Great

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Axrendale"]

At that point, Caesar was just a young man of 30 who hadn't fought a single battle. He lamented the fact that at his age, Alexander had accomplished so much, where he had accomplished nothing.

Axrendale

lets see, maybe because Alexander was given reins to a United Greece at the age of 20? Ceasar had no such thing ever for battle.. All of his battles were under the republic, when he became emperor he played cat and mouse with his rival, intill his rival died.. And then he was killed in the Senate by their representatives.. I think its hard to say, Ceasar was a way better politican thats for sure.. Alexander was a master propagandist though.

Caesar is widely regarded as one of the greatest propagandists of all time, to the point where his works are still studied today by those wishing to master the art.

When I mean propaganda I mean in the modern day sense of the negitivty. I said already he was a amazing politican.

It is true that Alexander started off much earlier. Why was this so? Because he inherited everything he had. Without his father, King Phillip, he would have had no army, no kingdom. Alexander was incredibly reliant on his army - without Philip's reforming of the Macedonian military, Alexander would certainly have had a very different military career.

Caesar, by contrast, mostly relied on Roman legions, but by no means exclusively. He fought battles where he was commanding german mercenaries, african militia, pontus infantry, and many others, and he won all the same.

Caesar had no such luck as inheriting a kingdom. When he was a youth, he became a political outlaw. He had to work his way up from the bottom - literally - he started off as a foot soldier who was awarded the Roman equivalent of the Medal of Honor for his actions, getting into politics, working his way up, etc.

He raised and trained his army by himself, and won their undying loyalty.

[QUOTE="Axrendale"]

There is a point that needs to be made. Alexander the Great gets a lot of hype for "never losing a battle". That is certainly a very great accomplishment. But exactly how many battles are we talking about here?

Over the course of his campaigns, Alexander fought a grand total of 5 pitched battles, 3 major sieges, and several dozen small skirmishes. Nothing to be sniffed at. But...

Over the course of his career, Caesar fought no less than 50 pitched battles, 47 of which ended in victory, literally dozens of major sieges, and hundreds of small skirmishes.

A point that should be addressed, no?

sSubZerOo

Memory serves, Alexander did lose a battle and was forced to retreat from the region close to India. Which lead to his long trip home and to his controversial death which lead to the collapse of his 10 year empire.

He won the battle, but at great cost, as I recall. His men forced him to retreat because they had heard of the great enemy numbers still to be faced, when it had already taken a huge effort to face just some of them.

Caesar. 

Alexander was a drunkard and owed a lot of his success to his fathers empire before hand, not to mention his enemies were far inferior compared to the ones Caesar fought.  Secondly, he also fought against other roman armies himself, arguably the greatest military at the time.  Thirdly, the man was a political genius, and if it had not been for his assassination he would have definately turned east and conquered everything that Alexander did at one point.  

Alexander commanded a large marauding force charicterized by a quick win and moving on.  The conquered areas of Alexander quickly fell back into sovereignty soon after his death.  Caesars conquered areas remained in the empire after his.

Oh, I'd give Alexander credit - he was certainly a brilliant general and extraordinary tactician, one whose accomplishments, as said, are not to be sneezed at. But the fact is that he never practiced warfare on as many different levels on the scale that Caesar did.

the guy with the time machine ;)markop2003

Curses! He's figured me out;)

*steps back into time machine*

Ave comrades, I'm going back Rome;)

Both had their hands in the creation/fabrication of the Christian religion. battousai188

[QUOTE="battousai188"]Both had their hands in the creation/fabrication of the Christian religion. sSubZerOo

I would have to dig up some books, but Both Alexander and Ceasar, had the idea to create singular religion to fit the Roman population and some of Alexander's ideas and Ceasars ideas clashed along with the ideas of several aristocratic scholars came up with the rest.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="battousai188"]Both had their hands in the creation/fabrication of the Christian religion. battousai188

I would have to dig up some books, but Both Alexander and Ceasar, had the idea to create singular religion to fit the Roman population and some of Alexander's ideas and Ceasars ideas clashed along with the ideas of several aristocratic scholars came up with the rest.

Alexander.rockguy92

Julius Caesar wasn't even the best Roman leader. Augustus was far better. Alexander was better than either though.

GamerForca

No way, Augustus was a joke in the aftermath of Caesar's death and the beginning of the Second Triumverate. He was simply fortunate to have the counsel of many much more potent strategists, like his friend Agrippa and many senior legionaires who had served with Julius Caesar.

[QUOTE="battousai188"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] The hell are you talking about? Alexander died over 300 years before Chirst's death.. And the Roman Empire (not Roman Republic) adopted Christanity as its main religion like 4th century AD.. Around 300 years after Julius Ceasar's death.Axrendale

I would have to dig up some books, but Both Alexander and Ceasar, had the idea to create singular religion to fit the Roman population and some of Alexander's ideas and Ceasars ideas clashed along with the ideas of several aristocratic scholars came up with the rest.

Yeah I understand, it was a few years ago when that prospect peeked my curiosity and the books I pulled up went alot deeper than just Ceasar and Alexander it went into the theory about who wrote the bible and made the stories and such, it never denied the existance of Jesus but they exagurated his status heavily. A little of what I researched is kind of explained in The Divinci Code. But it was also brought up in my college Western Civ class about the theory of the creation and fabrication of religions. And all I remember is that Both Alexander and Ceasar at one point had written ideas about a perfect and infalible religion and set stories of morality and faith to keep a becomming moraly unstable society in line. Sorry but that is all I got regarding that, I know pretty un-credible but I remember the stuff I read and learned from my professor made alot of sense, I will just have to rewind a few years or find the books I was reading back then. :S

[QUOTE="Axrendale"][QUOTE="battousai188"]

I would have to dig up some books, but Both Alexander and Ceasar, had the idea to create singular religion to fit the Roman population and some of Alexander's ideas and Ceasars ideas clashed along with the ideas of several aristocratic scholars came up with the rest.

battousai188

Yeah I understand, it was a few years ago when that prospect peeked my curiosity and the books I pulled up went alot deeper than just Ceasar and Alexander it went into the theory about who wrote the bible and made the stories and such, it never denied the existance of Jesus but they exagurated his status heavily. A little of what I researched is kind of explained in The Divinci Code. But it was also brought up in my college Western Civ class about the theory of the creation and fabrication of religions. And all I remember is that Both Alexander and Ceasar at one point had written ideas about a perfect and infalible religion and set stories of morality and faith to keep a becomming moraly unstable society in line. Sorry but that is all I got regarding that, I know pretty un-credible but I remember the stuff I read and learned from my professor made alot of sense, I will just have to rewind a few years or find the books I was reading back then. :S

Interesting... I apologize for my earlier brusqueness, you appear to really have been on to something here. I will have to look into this.

[QUOTE="battousai188"][QUOTE="Axrendale"] I don't know where you're pulling this from, but you seriously need to go back and check your sources. Caesar and Alexander were both firm proponents of the religions fo their times - heck, Caesar was the Chief Priest of the Roman Religion for a while. Gonna have to give the thumbs down to this one.Axrendale

Yeah I understand, it was a few years ago when that prospect peeked my curiosity and the books I pulled up went alot deeper than just Ceasar and Alexander it went into the theory about who wrote the bible and made the stories and such, it never denied the existance of Jesus but they exagurated his status heavily. A little of what I researched is kind of explained in The Divinci Code. But it was also brought up in my college Western Civ class about the theory of the creation and fabrication of religions. And all I remember is that Both Alexander and Ceasar at one point had written ideas about a perfect and infalible religion and set stories of morality and faith to keep a becomming moraly unstable society in line. Sorry but that is all I got regarding that, I know pretty un-credible but I remember the stuff I read and learned from my professor made alot of sense, I will just have to rewind a few years or find the books I was reading back then. :S

Interesting... I apologize for my earlier brusqueness, you appear to really have been on to something here. I will have to look into this.

Hey its no problem. I was just trying to get into something to deeply about something I had barely put any thought into for years, its one of those subjects that gets really interesting and deep and you learn alot of interesting things and deffinatly makes me think about what really is going on, there is so much literature like that, that people don't look at or think about but puts alot of interesting truths on things we are supposed to put our hearts and souls into.

alexander conquered alot more than caeser did, when caeser came to power in rome, rome had already conquered most of the mediteranean, though ceasear was responsible to taking gaul if i remember right..alexander in his time conqered a lot more in a shorted period of time, than rome as a whole, rome eventually conquered more at its peak, but it took a few hundred years to do so :P,

alos you have to think that alexander died at a young age, had he not he could have conquered more to the west, who knows,

and alexander was able to conquer areas that rome was never able to conquer, such as the persian empire, not sure what it was during the roman empire, the romans did conquer asia minor, but they couldn't conquer anymore eastward as they kept losing, also the romans always had trouble with germanic, never being able to defeat them, alexander never suffered a defeat that we know of,

[QUOTE="GamerForca"]

Julius Caesar wasn't even the best Roman leader. Augustus was far better. Alexander was better than either though.

xboxgamefx

Genghis Khan owns all....nobody can beat him. He and his mongol gang march 70 miles a day, eat anything they have to eat to survive, and kill all.

Indeed a very vivid leader,a real mans man

Alexander, he knew his opponents inside out, if you know what I mean.

alexander conquered alot more than caeser did, when caeser came to power in rome, rome had already conquered most of the mediteranean, though ceasear was responsible to taking gaul if i remember right..alexander in his time conqered a lot more in a shorted period of time, than rome as a whole, rome eventually conquered more at its peak, but it took a few hundred years to do so :P,

alos you have to think that alexander died at a young age, had he not he could have conquered more to the west, who knows,

and alexander was able to conquer areas that rome was never able to conquer, such as the persian empire, not sure what it was during the roman empire, the romans did conquer asia minor, but they couldn't conquer anymore eastward as they kept losing, also the romans always had trouble with germanic, never being able to defeat them, alexander never suffered a defeat that we know of,

I think alexander would win. He seemed very smart and was able to boost the morale of his troops for a long time. He conquered alot of land and without fast transportation that would have been very hard.

After reading Axrendel's posts, we can pretty much say /thread.Dark-Sithious

[QUOTE="Dark-Sithious"]After reading Axrendel's posts, we can pretty much say /thread.Axrendale

[QUOTE="Axrendale"][QUOTE="Dark-Sithious"]After reading Axrendel's posts, we can pretty much say /thread.rockon1215

:question:

Veni Vidi Vici: Julius Caesar's catch-phrase, for those who weren't aware. It translates as "I came, I saw, I conquered"8)

So in the final analysis Caesar can be credited not only with superb generalship, but also with the ability to come up with frankly bad-ass sayings. So one or the other establishes him as the clear winner. Take your pick.

Alexander was by far the greater general.

In a hypothetical battle, Alexander would be wiped off the face of the map by pretty much any Roman army from the late Republic onwards to the Pax Romana. The Phalanx and cavalry that he employed simply wouldn't have been able to hold him in good stead. Starting after the 2nd Punic War, the Roman Legion could wipe the Phalanx out simply by flanking it. It was Caesar himself who could be said to have perfected anti-cavalry tactics, to the point where at Pharsalus he faced some 7000 Greek Cavalry (of the type Alexander would have had) with some 3000 infantry. They were on an open plain and should have been cut down by the cavalry. Instead, the Romans suffered a few dozen casulaties to the complete rout of the enemy cavalry. Another point for Caesar. Caesar and Alexander both enjoyed a key advantage over their oppenents in that they could motivate their soldiers to march swiftly. But even here, Alexander comes out second to Caesar: Alexander's top speed was some 28 miles a day, no mean feat, but annihilated by the incredible 48 miles a day Caesar was able to rack up.Axrendale

[QUOTE="Axrendale"]In a hypothetical battle, Alexander would be wiped off the face of the map by pretty much any Roman army from the late Republic onwards to the Pax Romana. The Phalanx and cavalry that he employed simply wouldn't have been able to hold him in good stead. Starting after the 2nd Punic War, the Roman Legion could wipe the Phalanx out simply by flanking it. It was Caesar himself who could be said to have perfected anti-cavalry tactics, to the point where at Pharsalus he faced some 7000 Greek Cavalry (of the type Alexander would have had) with some 3000 infantry. They were on an open plain and should have been cut down by the cavalry. Instead, the Romans suffered a few dozen casulaties to the complete rout of the enemy cavalry. Another point for Caesar. Caesar and Alexander both enjoyed a key advantage over their oppenents in that they could motivate their soldiers to march swiftly. But even here, Alexander comes out second to Caesar: Alexander's top speed was some 28 miles a day, no mean feat, but annihilated by the incredible 48 miles a day Caesar was able to rack up.sonicare

Alexander was by far the greater general.

sonicare