Julius Caesar versus Alexander

[Eric]

well who would win in an even battle

[Centurion Quintus]

The men themselves? Or their forces?

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

Alexander. Caesar was hardly an invinsible general. He was pushed to his max on a number of occasions, while Alexander never even came close to finding a real challenge.

[Maximo]

i reckon i could take him, sif id let some wussy campaion cavarly flank me

ive been watchin a few docos about theses guys and their tatics and i could take em,give me some spartans , some cretans, some seige wepons and a bridge and they aint going nowhere *bringiton*

[AHappyMilkCarton]

Originally posted by Alexander Beats Hannibal@Feb 26 2005, 07:20 PM
Alexander. Caesar was hardly an invinsible general. He was pushed to his max on a number of occasions, while Alexander never even came close to finding a real challenge.

Alexander wasn't invincible either. Alexander did face some challenges, too.

Anyway, I'm undecided for this one; I'm going to sit on the fence and watch the battle. :grin

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

Alexander's greatest loss in a battle was 3,000 at the Hypdapses (these are the very highest estimates, it could go as low as a hundred), and the Indians lost pretty much everything. He still never actually came close to losing the battle. Alexander was never pushed to his maximum. We never even got to see his true capabilities.

[Eric]

Caesar would win this battle because as historary has shown us on numerous occasions the Legion is far far more effective than the Phalanx couple this with Caesar's leadership and tactical skill and Alex is toast

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

The legion never showed itself superior to the phalanx. It never even met on equal terms. The Roman legions never faced a phalanx the level of Alexander's. Even still, when they fought the phalanxes of Pyrrhus, Macedon, and Carthage, it showed itself to be equal to the legions.

And when it comes to tactics, no one is superior to Alexander. Honestly, Caesars greatest victory was only a little better then what Alexander faced at the Granicus.

As for infantry, that would never decide this fight, but cavalry. And if one wanted to compare armies, the Macedonians would have had far superior cavarly, not only in numerical sense, but also quality.

[Bombay211]

yea id have to say Alexander would win just because of him simply being a better general

[qnzkid711]

Originally posted by Alexander Beats Hannibal@Feb 27 2005, 02:51 PM
The legion never showed itself superior to the phalanx. It never even met on equal terms. The Roman legions never faced a phalanx the level of Alexander's. Even still, when they fought the phalanxes of Pyrrhus, Macedon, and Carthage, it showed itself to be equal to the legions.

And when it comes to tactics, no one is superior to Alexander. Honestly, Caesars greatest victory was only a little better then what Alexander faced at the Granicus.

As for infantry, that would never decide this fight, but cavalry. And if one wanted to compare armies, the Macedonians would have had far superior cavarly, not only in numerical sense, but also quality.

Actually the legion did prove its superiority against the legion

Opening the spring campaign Flamininus led his two veteran legions along with a strong compliment (8,000) of mostly Aetolian Greeks into Thessaly. Philip responding to the conquest of several of his towns in the region approached to confront the Romans with about 25,000 men. At Cynoscephalae the two armies met in 197 BC. In the first large scale meeting between the Roman legion and the classical Macedonian phalanx, the legionary flexibility proved superior. Hemmed in by their own rigid tactics, the Macedonians were overwhelmed as Flaminius countered Philip’s tactics with various strategic maneuvers. With a crushing defeat, Philip had no choice but to settle on unfavorable terms.

68 BC finally proved to be decisive. L. Aemilius Paullus, Consul for the year, arrived and immediately set about training and organizing his army. Paullus managed to force Perseus to battle on June 22, 168 at Pydna. The Macedonians were caught on broken ground, disadvantageous to the immobile phalanx and had little chance of victory. The Romans slaughtered 20,000 of the Macedonian force, taking 6,000 prisoners and 5,000 from nearby forces. Perseus escaped the carnage, but his allies in the region quickly submitted to Rome, and without an army, he had no choice but to surrender.

The legion wasnt stopped by hills and such. Which were big problems for phalanx. Was much more flexible, which was proved through many different battles from Scipio's battles at ilipa(no Phalanx could do those manuevers) to battles against Macedon.

[Flavius Nevitta]

Originally posted by Bombay211@Feb 27 2005, 02:57 PM
yea id have to say Alexander would win just because of him simply being a better general

Caesar by far. Alexander did meet his limits and his commanders won his battles for him. Alexander laid out the basic strategy and then he went leading his cav.(not a thing a general should do imho, any goodopponent would adjust/or change his tacticsand Alexander wouldn't be able to react) It was his subcommanders who saved the battle at Gaugamela and Granikos (because they made the right moves). Ipsos would have been a defeat for Alexander if Dareios would have stayed. The Persians gave up way too early each time. Bad leadership on their side.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

Caesar by far. Alexander did meet his limits and his commanders won his battles for him. Alexander laid out the basic strategy and then he went leading his cav.(not a thing a general should do imho, any goodopponent would adjust/or change his tacticsand Alexander wouldn't be able to react) It was his subcommanders who saved the battle at Gaugamela and Granikos (because they made the right moves). Ipsos would have been a defeat for Alexander if Dareios would have stayed. The Persians gave up way too early each time. Bad leadership on their side.

Alexander's battle plans never failed. His commanders didn't have to do any improvising. If Alexander wasn't leading his Companion Cavalry, they wouldn't have been able to do half of what they did. It was only because he was an expert at finding wholes in the enemies lines, and being a great organizer and leader that his cavalry was able to do what they did.

The legion wasnt stopped by hills and such. Which were big problems for phalanx. Was much more flexible, which was proved through many different battles from Scipio's battles at ilipa(no Phalanx could do those manuevers) to battles against Macedon.

That phalanx was not on the same level as the ones Alexander had. Macedon had been in decline. The Romans had the better training. Not to mention the Macedonians had poor leadership. The terrain didn't help matters, but gaps should never have been allowed to form in the Macedonian lines. Perseus was incompetent. And the phalanx isn't meant to hold a line for a cavalry flank, which should have happened with Macedon's superior cavalry. Plus, the phalanx is support by light troops to prevent what happened against the legions from happening.

[PROFESSORPAUL]

Caesar is just... cooler though.

I mean, he starts off some Roman General who is sent off into Gallic lands, where big, hairy, axe-wielding buff men jump out of anywhere and instantly ambush you and let none live.

He spent like 10 years in that country owning them, then comes back to earn his rightful place as emperor. He then takes over the Senate, overthrowing all of Rome, and becoming probably the best ruler of all time and makes the Roman Empire seriously grow, as if it wasnt growing in the first place.

So I'd say Caesar. I mean really, he actually dressed in a long, fur clothing to survive the harsh environments of Northern Gaul and doesnt care if things are against Roman ways or not.

Plus, Romans > Macedonians.

One of Caesar's Legions could beat one of Alexander's phalanxs. First a pilum attack would seriously hurt the phalanx, then with the legion's high skills and excellent defense, they would just clobber the phalanx and get around the sides like they do in the game and kill it.

Plus, dont forget, Caesar counquered lots of land as well.

[John I Tzimisces]

:blink wow. you people...

battle/siege of alesia. Caesar surrounds a gallic town filled with angry unshaven gauls. sets up his siegeworks and whatnot. then he gets surrounded by another group of gauls, who besiege HIM. boo-hoo. Caesar beats them all.
battle of Pharsalus. Caesar vs. Pompey Magnus, a man who had never lost a battle in his long military career. Too bad, Pompey loses.

Some might say, hey, who hasn't conquered france? sure, caesar can do it, but so has my grandmother. Well, after the civil war began, he beat pompey the great, who was almost a god-like figure in the east. then, he had to conquer everyone whom he pardoned and promptly turned on him. thats pretty much all of Roman dominion + Egypt. lots of urban combat went on in Alexandria, too.
On top of all that...Caesar fixed welfare (work or DIE), implemented a calender that was accurate for over 1000 years, was a brilliant orator, and one hella clever fella. All we get out of Alexander is poor management, bum-rushing his far inferior opponents, and the quote referring to his succesor ("to the strongest"). i've even read Alexander was mentally unstable, seeing as how he murdered his best friend in broad daylight because his intentions and tactics and whatnot were questioned.

aka...Caesar wins. :cool

[PROFESSORPAUL]

Also, Caesar actually led his men into battle, which automatically makes him the coolest general.

I'm not really sure if Alexander actually led his men into battle, as in charging into the fray and such. But I'm pretty sure Caesar did.

[PROFESSORPAUL]

And as Imperator said, Caesar had to face much harder, fiercer, scarier enemies than Alexander did.

Alexander faced Greeks and Eastern Factions who had phalanxes and Muslim infantry and horsemen. Good for him.

Caesar faced huge men with no personal safety who killed for fun and pleasure and ambushed out of forests and even cut themselves to show their anger. And dont even get me started on the Germanic tribes.

So really, France during that time WASNT "that" easy to conquer.

Plus, he has the coolest, most historically valued quote of all time....

Vini. Vedi. Vici. (I came, I saw, I conquered)

[Homi]

Originally posted by PROFESSORPAUL@Feb 27 2005, 04:45 PM
And as Imperator said, Caesar had to face much harder, fiercer, scarier enemies than Alexander did.

Alexander faced Greeks and Eastern Factions who had phalanxes and Muslim infantry and horsemen. Good for him.

Caesar faced huge men with no personal safety who killed for fun and pleasure and ambushed out of forests and even cut themselves to show their anger. And dont even get me started on the Germanic tribes.

So really, France during that time WASNT "that" easy to conquer.

Plus, he has the coolest, most historically valued quote of all time....

Vini. Vedi. Vici. (I came, I saw, I conquered)

Did you even read anything real about the Gauls?
Yes they were bigger and they were much more hairrier than the Romans but even if you read Ceasars own books he will describe the Gausl as ''Men who come in great numbers but flee in even greater fear''

Alexander faced more than Persian phalanxes but, since you actually mention ''Muslim infantry'' I realise you have little sence of history since Islam didn't excist untill the 7th century AD

and veni vidi vici is nothing but pure arrogance

[qnzkid711]

Originally posted by PROFESSORPAUL@Feb 27 2005, 05:45 PM
And as Imperator said, Caesar had to face much harder, fiercer, scarier enemies than Alexander did.

Alexander faced Greeks and Eastern Factions who had phalanxes and Muslim infantry and horsemen. Good for him.

Caesar faced huge men with no personal safety who killed for fun and pleasure and ambushed out of forests and even cut themselves to show their anger. And dont even get me started on the Germanic tribes.

So really, France during that time WASNT "that" easy to conquer.

Plus, he has the coolest, most historically valued quote of all time....

Vini. Vedi. Vici. (I came, I saw, I conquered)

Muslim infantry

Your over 800 years off. *wink*

[Homi]

Btw a bit off topic but muslim infantry was for 800 years the greatest threat to Europe (Arabs and Ottomans)

[Falworth]

Originally posted by Homi@Feb 27 2005, 06:07 PM
Btw a bit off topic but muslim infantry was for 800 years the greatest threat to Europe (Arabs and Ottomans)

Well, after the 800 years... The Muslims never advanced and never was a threat to anyone. They just stopped developing.. They are 800 years back where they were, as the world moves on... They basicly are a DEAD Culture.....