Round 2: Alexander the Great vs. Julius Caesar

[Marshal Murat]

The two great generals, oft compared by Plutarch, and heralded.

Please vote.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

well Caesar with his legions would easily beat Alexander's outdated army.
i dunno if tactics really matter here.

[Gurkhal]

I'll throw in my money on Alexander. I think he was, and that the Macedonian army at its prime had an edge (although probably not a huge one) over Caesar and the legions.

[Oleander Ardens]

well Caesar with his legions would easily beat Alexander's outdated army.
i dunno if tactics really matter here.

1) This thread is about the general's skill

2) Anyway Alexanders army would have been a tough call for every army for well over 1700 years

3) I'll take Alexander as a general over Caesar

OA

[Louis VI the Fat]

I want an Alexander versus Hannibal showdown for the final. Two thousand years on, and they're still considered the greatest generals that ever graced (or cursed) the earth. They are the originals, the giants of antiquity. What could be better than the two classical grandmasters of strategy taking each other on?

[ShadesWolf]

For me it must be Caesar, he is a truely interesting person.

Alexander, was a shot in the pan, and the empire crumbled after his death, hence how can he be classed as great. I accept what he did was unbeleavable and his achievement were great but one man cannot be seen as great if all crumbles.

Caesars achievments didnt crumble, the empire just got stronger and stonger...
If you ignore the civil war and just look at the conquest of Gaul that would be enough. And he left his own words to describe his achievements....

[IrishArmenian]

Alexander couldn't convince his army to march into India.
Caesar convinced his men to march against their own kind.

[TinCow]

Both great tactical generals, but Caesar wins due to his strategic superiority. Alexander over-stretched his resources and was eventually forced to halt his expansion due to a lack of willing soldiers and supplies. In contrast, Caesar made great efforts to ensure that his armies were well supplied and well-positioned to win the battles before they even began. Victory on the battlefield is not the only aspect of a great commander, and on the strategic level Alexander is inferior to Caesar (IMO).

[Rodion Romanovich]

I voted Alexander.

Stating that Caesar achieved more than Alexander is IMO not fair. Caesar had a stable and incredibly strong Republic with an extremely superior army when he begun, and he fought against rather weak opposition in comparison, the Gauls were weakened by previous internal wars. He fought a civil war and slaughtered his own people when the senate wanted to remove the legions from his command because he had, against their orders, moved around like a maniac conquering Gaul for no reason at all. Then he turned the Republic into a military dictatorship instead of trying to repair the damages in the constitution. The fact that the borders didn't crumble at all during the civil war is quite telling of how strong the Empire was before him, and how little impressive his achievements in Gaul were. Caesar was just another in the line of people who continued the unprovoked extension into land that rome had no use for, slaughtering people whom he had no quarrel with, creating more enemies to Rome and turning its image even darker to the outside world than before him.

Alexander the Great however, dealt a decisive final blow to the Persian Empire, who had attempted to conquer Greece and failed at doing so but managed to grasp Macedonia to some extent. He had little previous experience (in comparison to Caesar), when he went out on such a difficult campaign, which makes his important victories in battle even more impressive. The war could also be seen as a partly defensive action due to the Persian invasion of Greece and partial occupation of Macedonia previously. Without Alexander's spread of Hellenistic culture, it would most likely have died during the culturally repressive period during the Dark age of the Roman Empire period, and during the early Medieval period, when technology and philosophy had been suppressed and damaged by the late roman period.

Caesar's only impressive tactical achievement was Pharsalos, where his victory was granted only by his keeping the cavalry back, hoping that Pompey would send a cavalry charge around his flank, so that he could counter-charge with his own slightly smaller cavalry reserve. It should also be noted that Caesar had veteran legionaires while Pompey had rather fresh and inexperienced troops. Alexander the Great won great victories several times, both at Issos and Gaugamela, and also against the Baktrians, against superior opposition. The Macedonian army he led was made up of levies with little prior training, and yet they repeatedly defeated the world's strongest army not just once but twice.

Alexander was hardly a bad strategic. He died at the mere age of 33. The fact that the Diadochi, despite their notorious internal fighting, for very long managed to prevent being overrun by other factions, is quite telling that Alexander didn't overextend much. It was his failure to find a suitable successor that was his mistake.

[Lysander13]

My vote goes to Alexander...Where as Caesar was a great commander in his own right as well as a brilliant politician...Alexander's exploits as a general on the battlefield are the stuff of legends.

[Slug For A Butt]

Are we talking about the best General, best diplomat, best empire builder, most interesting guy or the one that left the best legacy here? Everyone seems to have differing opinions.
I thought this was about best General... could the OP please specify?

As a General (which I assumed is what this was about), both men were inspiring on the battlefield. Both had formidable inherited armies of the time (although I think Caesars Gallic enemies that he first faced up to were weaker than the other Hellenistic enemies that Alexander first faced up to).
BUT... I'm going for Caesar as I think he was more flexible, and also because I want to see him in the final against Hannibal.

[Conradus]

I voted Caesar. Though Alexander and Julius both were excellent commanders, tacticians,... I had to chose Caesar over Alexander.

They both had the best troops of their time at their disposal and fought mostly against inferior yet enormous hordes of adversaries.
But unlike Alexander, Caesar had a long way to go before he was able to command his legions whilst Alex succeeded his father and inherited a fine war-machine.
Alexander fought mostly against the enormous armies of the Persian empire and while he was very apt in destroying that war machine and leaving a hellenistic legacy, I believe the Persian soldiers were lesser warriors than the Gauls Caesar's Romans faced. Also, while Alexander showed he could overcome any foe and any army, he had problems with the Indian kingdoms, Caesar could destroy any army fielded against him. Alexander's greatest flaw imo was that he didn't leave a kingdom. He set no base for a dynasty and left his great empire to be devoured among his 'finest' generals. Caesar begun an empire which August finished.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I voted for Caesar, but I will be in the minority. Alexander will win here and win the overall as well.

Alexander was a master at forming a cult of personality around himself -- it was integral to his leadership -- and his skill at this above all else rings down throughout the ages.

Megaros Alexandros indeed.

Edit: Actually, I think you could expand this single-elimination "tournament" to a field of 512, and the result would still be Alexander in a slight win over Subotai. The adherents of both are simply so passionate for their heros that all others would be discarded.

[CountArach]

Alexander had much better strategic skills, yet Caesar constantly blundered into bad situations. Overall though they were both brilliant tacticians and I am not oging to deny that (Actually I think Caesar may have a slight edge tactically).