who was the better general Alexander the great or Napoleon

hello everyone,

Ive always thought Alexander the Great was the best leader, but then when i heard of Napoleon i thought napoleon was pretty damn good. so i done a little bit of resaerch on Napoleon, but..... i still cant figure out whose better, so please post who you think is better and why.

Regards,
Minamoto Yoritomo








:sparta:

You could write a book about this subject - in fact I'm sure books HAVE been written about it.

IMO, that question is entirely problematic as Alexandrian warfare & Napoleonic warfare were completely different animals. Athough Sunzi's precepts hold good in any era, the Napoleonic Wars saw mass movement of corp, army & army group formations, the logistical & administrative problems of which were enormous. Ancient warfare typically consisted of single armies ( generally ) maneovering against each other until a battle occured or one or other retreated or dug-in if strategic conditions were unfavourable. I've ignored the many small scouting/ raiding units common to both eras for the sake of simplicity here.

Both Alexander & Napoleon were masters of strategy on a grand scale & tactics on the battlefield, but I suggest it would be almost impossible to say who was the greater general simply because they were asked too many different questions strategically & tactically.

I think Napoleon is the best because I had to climb his way to power, he had to fight a war in multiple fronts, and also he was constantly being betraied when he was in his campaigns but when he got back to France he always got over it. And I am even not talking about escaping Elba, besieging Toulon winning countless battles, and almost winning the battle where he was utterly defeated.

I also have an admiration for good old Alexander, but I think that Napoleon had better skills because Alexander was born to be a king and to have power in his hands, in a time of great glory to his nation Napoleon had to fight his way to the top during one of the most dark periods of French history.

But thats my opinion .

Originally Posted by *_doGerdnA_*

I think Napoleon is the best because I had to climb his way to power, he had to fight a war in multiple fronts, and also he was constantly being betraied when he was in his campaigns but when he got back to France he always got over it. And I am even not talking about escaping Elba, besieging Toulon winning countless battles, and almost winning the battle where he was utterly defeated.

I also have an admiration for good old Alexander, but I think that Napoleon had better skills because Alexander was born to be a king and to have power in his hands, in a time of great glory to his nation Napoleon had to fight his way to the top during one of the most dark periods of French history.

But thats my opinion .

but Alexander was given an army at 15 to destroy a barbarian tribe remember? at the battle of gauge emela, Alexander conqured his first state at the age of 15, and Alexander was the first European to discover india. And he was one of the first to conquer that much, yes Darius the first, or cyrus the first expanded persia to a great extent, he didnt conquer as much as Alexander, and people didnt say ' wow darius or cyrus whatever his name is, was awesome' it was because people didnt think much of middle easterns back then because of the and christians hated the people of the muslim and arabian religion
thats why people further on in history people didnt think of darius or cryus cause he was from the middle east.(no offense to any one) and Alexander was a soldier then a general he fought with his men
and Napoleon Boneapart, Julius Ceasar, and all those other great generals all looked up to Alexander and if some didnt they would have looked up to one of the generals who did look up to Alexander.

Ok man, I think you are right in a way: alexander was the inspiration of a great number of generals. But, (and with Napoleon particulary) those generals had to adapt what he did to different types of warfare. As Jakhammer said, the warfare was very different on the two periods. It's going to be hard to take a conclusion...

@ OP: Smiley-spam, eh?

About the question: It's hard - if not impossible - to say if one of the two was better than the other... I mean, there are so many factors to consider! To me personally Alexander's military victories appear to be more impressive than Napoleon's.

Napoleon Boneapart, Julius Ceasar, and all those other great generals all looked up to Alexander and if some didnt they would have looked up to one of the generals who did look up to Alexander.

Alexander-imitatio is the keyword. (I think Pompeius was a huge Alexander-fan... but well, many Romans were I guess If I remember correctly, Augustus himself was a considerable supporter of the "Alexander-cult"! )

Originally Posted by *_doGerdnA_*

Ok man, I think you are right in a way: alexander was the inspiration of a great number of generals. But, (and with Napoleon particulary) those generals had to adapt what he did to different types of warfare. As Jakhammer said, the warfare was very different on the two periods. It's going to be hard to take a conclusion...

yes i know, but you can compare them for there time, napoleon was very good cause he was taking on almost all of europe, the coalition didnt declare war on france but napoleon himself, and alexanders campaign was inspired with revenge from the persians exploiting the greeks for so long, and thats where leonides came in (by the way 300 is a realy good movie) Napoleon came up with heeps of differant tactics Alexander stuck with the same tactic: phalagnites form long thick phalanx cavalry charge on there flanks and peltast and slingers run through the phalanx and hammer the persians

Originally Posted by Minamoto Yoritomo

but Alexander was given an army at 15 to destroy a barbarian tribe remember? at the battle of gauge emela, Alexander conqured his first state at the age of 15, and Alexander was the first European to discover india. And he was one of the first to conquer that much, yes Darius the first, or cyrus the first expanded persia to a great extent, he didnt conquer as much as Alexander, and people didnt say ' wow darius or cyrus whatever his name is, was awesome' it was because people didnt think much of middle easterns back then because of the and christians hated the people of the muslim and arabian religion
thats why people further on in history people didnt think of darius or cryus cause he was from the middle east.(no offense to any one) and Alexander was a soldier then a general he fought with his men
and Napoleon Boneapart, Julius Ceasar, and all those other great generals all looked up to Alexander and if some didnt they would have looked up to one of the generals who did look up to Alexander.

Originally Posted by U-Boat

I think Napoleon is the best because I had to climb his way to power, he had to fight a war in multiple fronts, and also he was constantly being betraied when he was in his campaigns but when he got back to France he always got over it. And I am even not talking about escaping Elba, besieging Toulon winning countless battles, and almost winning the battle where he was utterly defeated.

I also have an admiration for good old Alexander, but I think that Napoleon had better skills because Alexander was born to be a king and to have power in his hands, in a time of great glory to his nation Napoleon had to fight his way to the top during one of the most dark periods of French history.

But thats my opinion .

Good afternoon everybody !

I totally agree with U-Boot.

Napoleon I. had a lot of more events to become Emperor than Alexander.

Alban

hmmm...no difficult question at all NAPOLEON at alexanders time the only tactic was BANG man vs man whos better...and alexander was called a military genius coz he figuerd out that a lil cav at the sides and killing the enemies general as fats as possible would be helpful to win while napoleon developed different tactics that were mindblowing at that time thats why they called it napoleonic warfare...i cant remember a alexander warfare ?!

only thing they have in common is that they wanted to much which ended in their death

Gentlemen, I suggest a poll!

I never heard of any Napoleon the Great.

Originally Posted by xHerzoGx

hmmm...no difficult question at all NAPOLEON at alexanders time the only tactic was BANG man vs man whos better...and alexander was called a military genius coz he figuerd out that a lil cav at the sides and killing the enemies general as fats as possible would be helpful to win while napoleon developed different tactics that were mindblowing at that time thats why they called it napoleonic warfare...i cant remember a alexander warfare ?!

only thing they have in common is that they wanted to much which ended in their death

Issus, Tyre, Gaugamela, campaigning across Bactria, campaigning against the Scythians, Hydapses.

No tactics there

i would say napoleon just say like this if by using timetravel u put Napoleon inhead of alexanders army he would have done good if u put alexander in head of napoleons army he would have had no clue what to do.Its also whole different thing kinda like saying whats the best aicraft a Fokker Triplane or a F16 they where both great leaders but diferent times diferent enemys diferent area. Napoleon fought better trained enemys since the Prussians Russians British and Austrians was just as well equipped as the french soldiers but when Alexander fought the Persians for example most of the Persian soldiers where slaves whit no armor and a Spear

a poll has now been put in, so please vote then put who you think is better and why.

Napoleon

Easily, Napoleon faced enemies of much greater size, who were just as technologically advanced as he was, revolutionized warfare, changed the French state and the state of Europe forever.

Sure Alexander the Great conquered more land in terms of size, but most of it was still occupied by only tribes or desert. Napoleon conquered the hardest armies, whilst mostly being outnumbered, and always had the constant enemy armies at the borders. Taking the achievements of both, Alexander was a great commander, and did fight some battles against the odds, but still, Napoleon takes it easily!

But then again, the eras of warfare were over 2000 years apart, so it really is hard to figure this out properly. But I'm just taking things into perspective by comparing enemy sizes by percentage and the percent of other armies were enemies and the amount of time he was pressed with war.

You know this is comparing eggs to pineapples, don’t you?

If they met on a battlefield it would not be much of a struggle. I am pretty sure that cannon and muskets could deal with a pike phalanx effectively though the archers might cause some casualties.

I am equally sure that a modern armored taskforce could take on and route either force with ease.

Both men were brilliant and made best use of the assets in their time but it leaves little room for comparison across the ages.

Alexander’s empire broke up without him. Napoleon was defeated, came back and was defeated again. He lived long enough to peak and decline, which Alexander did not.

The only area of comparison would be who made the biggest mistakes. In that case it would seem that Napoleon was the loser because he bit off more than he could chew with the Russians.

ME.

I beat Napoleon, his generals, Hannibal and Pyrrhus and many others.

I've been a general since 280BC, can't beat my experience.

Alexander died of diarhea, bit of a letdown.....

Still, i think he is the greatest. Napoleon got defeated in the end, Alexander won all his important battles

Originally Posted by eXistenZ

Alexander died of diarhea, bit of a letdown.....

Still, i think he is the greatest. Napoleon got defeated in the end, Alexander won all his important battles

what are you on about, he died from alcahole poisining or the arrow that hit him while taking an indian town....... so.......uh.....your wrong (no offense)