Quote:
Originally Posted by
Maion Maroneios
Alexander had a plan of creating a Greek-Iranian Empire by setting forth massive movement of populations between Greece and Asia. If his plan worked, many scholars debate things would have been way more stable.
This is something very very difficoult to do. To transfer so much greeks so far away is a logistic nightmare, and there's no evidence that it could be possible.
Anyway, it's a very-long-term plan, how could he keep the empire until that?
Quote:
And nobody neglects Alexander was at least one level above Caesar. Even if I wasn't Greek myself, I would have said the same. Just compare the works of the two.
I'm sorry, i'm doing that and i'm not alone.
Quote:
And it's foolish to say Alexander was not a skilled politician. The very fact he was able to bring the world's largest Empire to its knees with relatively "small" effort (compared to the size of the Persian Empire) is already a massive feat in itself.
Maion
This is NOT political skill. It's strategic genius, which i NEVER say Alexander lacked.
Political skill is completely different, and sure Alexander wasn't as skilled as Caesar. Caesar was NOT the undisputed king of his kingdom. He had to face a hostile Senate and dangerous rivals. Alexander didn't.
Quote:
Not to mention the undying (even to our days) legacy he left behind.
Ahem... his empire crumbled in a few years after his death. His SUccessors fought for decades against each other, and then fell one after another. Nothing of their "legacy" and their culture survived until our days. Even in the Roman Era there was very little left, as PArthians and other Asian people took over what had left of the successors.
Quote:
His fame streches further than any other man has ever achieved, and his fame will remain for many more years to come.
I'm sorry this is a personal opinion. Many many people just don't think so, just look at the topic about the "top 5 ancient celebrities".
Quote:
AFAIK, His (Darius) satraps turned against him when they realized that he i s loosing, that Alexander is going to change many things from the roots. But the fact is that Darius did had oportunities to assemble some huge armies and not only once. Gauls are entirely different story, and they never had any real leader who would lead them united against Cesar. That is my point when i say that Alexander conquered united enemy.
I already said that Darius' huge armies were nothing more than a patchwork of different cultures and peoples. Orders had to be translated in a dozen languages to reach every unit, and i suppose you know HOW this could affect a battle outcome.
Quote:
When Cesar demolished one army, he had no further problems with entire tribe. Alexander on the other hand was fighting one man (Darius) in several occasions.
One Vercingetorix counts for about 10 Darius. An army of sheeps led by a Lion will beat an army of lion led by a sheep. And Gauls were not "sheeps".
Quote:
After all, it's something magic in Alexander what inspires me today (and in Hannibal of course). Cesar, for me, doesn't have anything magicalal in him and he belongs to some other type of a "genius". But he was a great man of his time, of course.
Personal opinions, i will never force you to love Caesar instead than Alexander. :beam:
Alexander had a mythic aura around him, that's true. His magnifical campaign sure had been one of the greatest of all the History, no doubt :yes:
Caesar had a more "practical" view of war, and sure he was less charismatic. I appreciate it, some people don't :2thumbsup:
Quote:
I think you should all stop debating who was better of the 2, they were leaders of different times and not to mention different locations. Alexander gained his glory in the East when the phalanx was new technology thus the Persians didn't have the knowledge to counter it other than charging head on to their deaths. Same goes with Caesar his fame mostly came from conquering Gaul where again the Roman Legion was relatively new strategy where the Gauls had no answer other than head-on fighting. Both armies were lethal in open field and both generals where very adaptable. So comparing who was the better general is unrealistic, comparing generals should be done like Scipio and Hannibal people of the same Era not to mention they actually fought and tried to kill each other.
You forget that Caesar fought armies very similar to his own one. That's why i think it's military skills are at least equals to alex's ones.
Quote:
As for Legacy i think both are equally great, Caesars name was honored by all Emperors that followed by bearing his name plus the Russian Czar Derived from Caesar. As for Alexander he has the City of Alexandria and his name forever bore "The Great"
:yes:
Quote:
Both Men WERE GREAT! leave it at that. I respect them both as i respect Hannibal even though i hate Carthage to the Guts
The Great Triad: Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar :egypt: i respect them too