Julius Caesar vs Alexander the Great

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

Alexander was the greatest strategist.

Ceasar just had Man power "STORM IT" was pretty much his strategy in half of his conquests.

Alexander the Great. Who doesn't like Phalanx formation?GettingTired

Alexander didn't use the phalanx. He was more about cavalry, I believe. He actually crushed the Greeks who were still using phalanx formations during his early conquests.

[QUOTE="GettingTired"]Alexander the Great. Who doesn't like Phalanx formation?GamerForca

Alexander didn't use the phalanx. He was more about cavalry, I believe. He actually crushed the Greeks who were still using phalanx formations during his early conquests.

In a battle between the two, Caesar would win. But Alexander was probably the better strategist.

[QUOTE="GamerForca"]

[QUOTE="GettingTired"]Alexander the Great. Who doesn't like Phalanx formation?ShuLordLiuPei

Alexander didn't use the phalanx. He was more about cavalry, I believe. He actually crushed the Greeks who were still using phalanx formations during his early conquests.

In a battle between the two, Caesar would win. But Alexander was probably the better strategist.

Umm, no. He used the phalanx oblique formation (I should've pointed this out in my last post, my bad) to attack the enemy flanks during large battles, but his main tactic was a massive cavalry charge used to quickly finish his enemies. That's how he defeated the Greeks and Persians.

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"][QUOTE="GamerForca"]

[QUOTE="GettingTired"]Alexander the Great. Who doesn't like Phalanx formation?GamerForca

Alexander didn't use the phalanx. He was more about cavalry, I believe. He actually crushed the Greeks who were still using phalanx formations during his early conquests.

In a battle between the two, Caesar would win. But Alexander was probably the better strategist.

Umm, no. He used the phalanx oblique formation (I should've pointed this out in my last post, my bad) to attack the enemy flanks during large battles, but his main tactic was a massive cavalry charge used to quickly finish his enemies. That's how he defeated the Greeks and Persians.

"The Macedonian phalanx..."

He used cavalry more than the Greeks, but he did still use phalanx. Infact, what many people think of phalanx today is his phalanx.ShuLordLiuPei

Still wasn't his main tactic, even though he would use those phalanx formations to set up a cavalry charge at times. When you think of Alexander's fighting tactics, it's usually of his cavalry. The pic you showed was a formation invented long before Alexander's time.

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]He used cavalry more than the Greeks, but he did still use phalanx. Infact, what many people think of phalanx today is his phalanx.GamerForca

Still wasn't his main tactic, even though he would use those phalanx formations to set up a cavalry charge at times. When you think of Alexander's fighting tactics, it's usually of his cavalry. The pic you showed was a formation invented long before Alexander's time.

Even if he didn't use it often, you are incorrect to say he didn't use it at all. That type of formation was made before he was born, but he still used it.

And again, you are incorrect. When I think of Alexander's tactics, I picture the phalanx.

"Alexander didn't use the phalanx"

Even if he didn't use it often, you are incorrect to say he didn't use it at all. That type of formation was made before he was born, but he still used it.

And again, you are incorrect. When I think of Alexander's tactics, I picture the phalanx.

ShuLordLiuPei

I already pointed out my mistake. And when I said "When you think of Alexander's fighting tactics, it's usually of his cavalry", I was talking about people who know military history in general. The phalanx wasn't his main tactic, so whatever.

"Infact, what many people think of phalanx today is his phalanx."
It's not his phalanx if he didn't invent it. Since you want to point out my mistakes so much, I can do the same....

[QUOTE="GamerForca"][QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"][QUOTE="GamerForca"]

[QUOTE="GettingTired"]Alexander the Great. Who doesn't like Phalanx formation?ShuLordLiuPei

Alexander didn't use the phalanx. He was more about cavalry, I believe. He actually crushed the Greeks who were still using phalanx formations during his early conquests.

In a battle between the two, Caesar would win. But Alexander was probably the better strategist.

Umm, no. He used the phalanx oblique formation (I should've pointed this out in my last post, my bad) to attack the enemy flanks during large battles, but his main tactic was a massive cavalry charge used to quickly finish his enemies. That's how he defeated the Greeks and Persians.

"The Macedonian phalanx..."

To clear it up..

He did use the Macedonian phalanx which his father invented, using pikes that were more than twice as long as the general greek ones.

Alexanders tactics were mainly holding the enemy in place with his infantry, the phalanx acting as a shield, while his cavalry flanked them. He would never have made it without the phalanx formations, nor without his heavy cavalry. he knew that having a balanced army was far better than only having, say infantry (like most Greek states had), or being mainly composed of archers (Persia).

Edit:

And Caesar would most likely win, the Roman formations were much more advanced, hence Rome simply trampled over both Greece and Macedon when they expanded East.

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"] "Alexander didn't use the phalanx"

Even if he didn't use it often, you are incorrect to say he didn't use it at all. That type of formation was made before he was born, but he still used it.

And again, you are incorrect. When I think of Alexander's tactics, I picture the phalanx.

GamerForca

I already pointed out my mistake. And when I said "When you think of Alexander's fighting tactics, it's usually of his cavalry", I was talking about people who know military history in general. The phalanx wasn't his main tactic, so whatever.

"Infact, what many people think of phalanx today is his phalanx."
It's not his phalanx if he didn't invent it. Since you want to point out my mistakes so much, I can do the same....

I never suggested he invented it. He is the one who made it known, however.

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

GamerForca

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.

julius caesar cause he's got the best strategies....remember this formation?

its callerd the testudo.....very good defense against archers

I'd actually say that Julius Caesar was the far greater General than Alexander. And the Greater Ruler than Augustus. But since we're just on the subject of military matters at the moment, Caesar's tactics went far, far beyond just "storm it". Classics of his strategy and tactics include The battle of Pharsalus, Alesia, Zela, to name but a few.

I'd also stipulate that Caesar was a far better conqueor than Alexander - much more thourough in the art of conquering. Case in point - after Alexander's death, his empire split apart and some parts of it seceded altogether. By conrtrast, Gaul, Caesar's famous conquest, would not attempt to rebel for a good 300 years after Caesar's death. Think about that - the Roman republic was in chaos after Caesar's death - in the confusion of a Civil War, it could easily have attempted to regain independance. Not a murmur. Caesar did the job too well.

I already pointed out my mistake. And when I said "When you think of Alexander's fighting tactics, it's usually of his cavalry", I was talking about people who know military history in general. The phalanx wasn't his main tactic, so whatever.

"Infact, what many people think of phalanx today is his phalanx."
It's not his phalanx if he didn't invent it. Since you want to point out my mistakes so much, I can do the same....

GamerForca

49-10

Alexander, that's why he was Great.cyberdarkkid

You're gonna have to come up with something bettter than that to convnince me:(

Alexander without a doubt.krazykillaz

Why so?

[QUOTE="krazykillaz"]Alexander without a doubt.Axrendale

Why so?

Cause the Romans alwayts used the same old tactics, box formation! Y not get run over by horses with Alexanders Massive Calvaries.

[QUOTE="Axrendale"]

[QUOTE="krazykillaz"]Alexander without a doubt.Makemap

Why so?

Cause the Romans alwayts used the same old tactics, box formation! Y not get run over by horses with Alexanders Massive Calvaries.

Wrong. Not only did the Romans make heavy use of cavalry, and a whole variety of infantry formations (far more than did the greeks) they also were the undisputed masters of military engineering. The Roman legions trampled the Greek and Macedonian armies into the dirt.

Caesar was pretty extreme I read once that he was on a raft getting across a river and saw an enemy warship and had his men row towards it demanding they surrenderLief_Ericson

It wasn't just an enemy warship - it was an entire fleet of enemy warships. And yes, Caesar's incredible charisma was another thing he had over Alexander.

Both would be beaten by... Hannibal Barca

Alexander. Caesar had a much smaller area to cover, Alexander went full throttle til he died.btaylor2404

Alexander may have covered a larger area, but Caesar undoubtably had the more difficult conquests. Alexander fought campaigns where winning a single battle, or taking a single city would gain you control of the entire area. Caesar was forced to fight battles where the entire region - every person capable of bearing arms was arrayed against him. Also notable is that Alexander had the benefit of facing enemies with soldiers vastly inferior to his own. Caesar won many of his greatest victories against other Roman armies.

after reading numerous books on both. Alexander by far!

[QUOTE="Makemap"][QUOTE="Axrendale"]

[QUOTE="krazykillaz"]Alexander without a doubt.Axrendale

Why so?

Cause the Romans alwayts used the same old tactics, box formation! Y not get run over by horses with Alexanders Massive Calvaries.

Wrong. Not only did the Romans make heavy use of cavalry, and a whole variety of infantry formations (far more than did the greeks) they also were the undisputed masters of military engineering. The Roman legions trampled the Greek and Macedonian armies into the dirt.

Ya, when Alexander wasn't there and the greeks fought themselves to death, they actually had to give up due to low number of armies.

Alexander the Great, even though the movie sucked CleanPlayer

and i thought it was awesome. especialy the directors cut. even though there was only a few of his battles

[QUOTE="CleanPlayer"]Alexander the Great, even though the movie sucked sAndroid17

and i thought it was awesome. especialy the directors cut. even though there was only a few of his battles

The movie felt so weird and off by alot.

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]Alexander. Caesar had a much smaller area to cover, Alexander went full throttle til he died.Axrendale

Alexander may have covered a larger area, but Caesar undoubtably had the more difficult conquests. Alexander fought campaigns where winning a single battle, or taking a single city would gain you control of the entire area. Caesar was forced to fight battles where the entire region - every person capable of bearing arms was arrayed against him. Also notable is that Alexander had the benefit of facing enemies with soldiers vastly inferior to his own. Caesar won many of his greatest victories against other Roman armies.

All true, but I go by territory gained, who knows, both died early, they could have taken over the whole known world.

I got to go with Alexander since I'm Macedonian.II-FBIsniper-II

Greek Macedonian or Fyrom?

Alexander.

The man never lost a battle. Not only that, but at the time he was marching as far East as Europe knew about. He literally thought he'd be hitting the Pacific any moment as he trekked through India, meaning he had absolutely no logistical or strategic intelligence a few days in front of him. A twenty first century high schooler knows more about Asian geography than Alexander could have, yet he was never defeated on the field of battle.

On the other hand, Caesar was fighting close to Rome in Gaul, and then later with an enemy he knew extremely well (Pompey, etc). He had the amazing Roman military machine create the institutions and recruits for his army (though he was excellent at leading them) and had luxuries Alexander just didn't.

Bottom line, when Caesar saw Alexander's statue in Spain, he broke down and wept in jealously at what Alexander had accomplished. Pretty much tells you all you need to know.

Alexander.

The man never lost a battle. Not only that, but at the time he was marching as far East as Europe knew about. He literally thought he'd be hitting the Pacific any moment as he trekked through India, meaning he had absolutely no logistical or strategic intelligence a few days in front of him. A twenty first century high schooler knows more about Asian geography than Alexander could have, yet he was never defeated on the field of battle.

On the other hand, Caesar was fighting close to Rome in Gaul, and then later with an enemy he knew extremely well (Pompey, etc). He had the amazing Roman military machine create the institutions and recruits for his army (though he was excellent at leading them) and had luxuries Alexander just didn't.

Bottom line, when Caesar saw Alexander's statue in Spain, he broke down and wept in jealously at what Alexander had accomplished. Pretty much tells you all you need to know.

Danm_999

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.

[QUOTE="GettingTired"]Alexander the Great. Who doesn't like Phalanx formation?GamerForca

Alexander didn't use the phalanx. He was more about cavalry, I believe. He actually crushed the Greeks who were still using phalanx formations during his early conquests.

Both wrong.. First Alexander did not revolutionize the phalanx formation for Macedonia, his father Philip of Macedon did. Secondly Alexander was the first Greek commander to have calavery play a huge role in military combat, though he still heavily relied on the phalanx. Basically he would flank with his calavery to have the enemy crash into the Phalanx wall. Philip of Macedon did not get enough credit for what he did for Alexander by giving him the first united/conquerored Greece, revolutionizing the phalanx, as well as othe rthings.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

Alexander.

The man never lost a battle. Not only that, but at the time he was marching as far East as Europe knew about. He literally thought he'd be hitting the Pacific any moment as he trekked through India, meaning he had absolutely no logistical or strategic intelligence a few days in front of him. A twenty first century high schooler knows more about Asian geography than Alexander could have, yet he was never defeated on the field of battle.

On the other hand, Caesar was fighting close to Rome in Gaul, and then later with an enemy he knew extremely well (Pompey, etc). He had the amazing Roman military machine create the institutions and recruits for his army (though he was excellent at leading them) and had luxuries Alexander just didn't.

Bottom line, when Caesar saw Alexander's statue in Spain, he broke down and wept in jealously at what Alexander had accomplished. Pretty much tells you all you need to know.

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.

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.

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?

[QUOTE="Axrendale"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]

Alexander.

The man never lost a battle. Not only that, but at the time he was marching as far East as Europe knew about. He literally thought he'd be hitting the Pacific any moment as he trekked through India, meaning he had absolutely no logistical or strategic intelligence a few days in front of him. A twenty first century high schooler knows more about Asian geography than Alexander could have, yet he was never defeated on the field of battle.

On the other hand, Caesar was fighting close to Rome in Gaul, and then later with an enemy he knew extremely well (Pompey, etc). He had the amazing Roman military machine create the institutions and recruits for his army (though he was excellent at leading them) and had luxuries Alexander just didn't.

Bottom line, when Caesar saw Alexander's statue in Spain, he broke down and wept in jealously at what Alexander had accomplished. Pretty much tells you all you need to know.

sSubZerOo

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.

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.

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?

Axrendale

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.