Alexander the Great vs Napoleon vs Julius Caesar vs Genghis Khan vs Hannibal

[Sarmatian]

Bah, Caesar was also his own publicist.

Your argument that Gauls used military tactics at Roman level is quite bold, to say the least. Having rudimentary concept of military tactics doesn't make Gauls equal to Romans in that regard, or it makes them equal in military technology overall.

Caesar fortifications in Alesia were indeed great but they were a huge gamble. Giving away your ability to move, not merely maneuver, but move, for a rather weak protection afforded by wooden walls, ditches and trenches is a questionable decision. Had it been Romans in relief force instead of Gauls, Caesar's legions would have suffered disaster.

He had indeed defeated Romans but it was with veterans against green troops and he had known the exact battle plan of his enemies.

His use of engineering was indead fantastic but it doesn't give him the mantle of the greatest general. As a rule, he always faced military inferior troops, in regards to technology, tactics and training. One victory over Romans against inexperienced troops is simply not enough.

Scipio is not the greatest but I can hardly name many non european generals that could beat him. And thats what this was about, that the reason why historical generals tend to be euro centric is because they simply were better than other ones.

And I've only just noticed this. European general weren't better than the rest, you simply know more about them than you do about Muslim or Chinese generals. Khalid Ibn Al-Walid easily eclipses Caesar in military accomplishments.