Romani Campaign

[Jebivjetar]

I did read that Caesars book, and i have this in mind:

1) Alexander conquered one big empire, one big enemy.
2) You say that Caesar conquered Gaul: yeah, he did: he conquered it tribe by tribe mostly. He wasnt fighting one big enemy, but many little ones. Galia was disunited, and i'm not sure if Caesar would have achieve what he did if the Gauls were not so naive, childlish and fragmented. Afterall, he did shit his pants when 2-3 tribes were about to unite: and he surely would shit his entire entrails if all the Gauls manage to unite them selves and attack him like they should.

While Alexander did drink one huge bottle, Caesar drinked little cup by little cup.

[Alsatia]

I did read that Caesars book, and i have this in mind:

1) Alexander conquered one big empire, one big enemy.
2) You say that Caesar conquered Gaul: yeah, he did: he conquered it tribe by tribe mostly. He wasnt fighting one big enemy, but many little ones. Galia was disunited, and i'm not sure if Caesar would have achieve what he did if the Gauls were not so naive, childlish and fragmented. Afterall, he did shit his pants when 2-3 tribes were about to unite: and he surely would shit his entire entrails if all the Gauls manage to unite them selves and attack him like they should.

While Alexander did drink one huge bottle, Caesar drinked little cup by little cup.

But even though Alexander had more than a few bottles in his day, he wanted more than what he already had. He could of conquered Roma if he didn't die in Babylon. The empire was too much for his greedy sucessors. Ampition was rife and the greed and ambition was their own undoing. Most of his sucessors struggled with their own portion of their empire yet they (probably) wanted more. They fought a civil war that they would never win.

Sure, Caesar did not get them all at once but it made it much more easier than attacking all those naked men at once. Divide and conquer was far easier. One of the marvellous things about the Roman Empire that Alexander did not have is that it has some form of stability until the late empire. Sure, when Caesar died, there was a squabble, but that did not properly mean the Empire was going to destroy itself anytime soon. The Empire would remain largely intact until the 3rd century. Then greed ,ambition ,corruption, The economy and those Germans brought the west to it's knees)

Caesar did not conquer the world, neither did Alexander, but what they both did chaged the world for the ages afterward.

Alexander, I hold with respect because with the equipment you had in those days, doing that in a lifetime was a great achievement in itself.

All Caesar did was conquer Gaul and start the foundation of the Empire (but Octavian properly started the Empire, as we all know).

[DionCaesar]

But even though Alexander had more than a few bottles in his day, he wanted more than what he already had. He could of conquered Roma if he didn't die in Babylon. The empire was too much for his greedy sucessors. Ampition was rife and the greed and ambition was their own undoing. Most of his sucessors struggled with their own portion of their empire yet they (probably) wanted more. They fought a civil war that they would never win.

Sure, Caesar did not get them all at once but it made it much more easier than attacking all those naked men at once. Divide and conquer was far easier. One of the marvellous things about the Roman Empire that Alexander did not have is that it has some form of stability until the late empire. Sure, when Caesar died, there was a squabble, but that did not properly mean the Empire was going to destroy itself anytime soon. The Empire would remain largely intact until the 3rd century. Then greed ,ambition ,corruption, The economy and those Germans brought the west to it's knees)

Caesar did not conquer the world, neither did Alexander, but what they both did chaged the world for the ages afterward.

Alexander, I hold with respect because with the equipment you had in those days, doing that in a lifetime was a great achievement in itself.

All Caesar did was conquer Gaul and start the foundation of the Empire (but Octavian properly started the Empire, as we all know).

Do you truly think that Alexander would be able to manage such empire on his own? The fact that his successors couldn't do it with like 100 men, only reinforces that, imho.
Alexander would have been a war criminal: why would he attack Italians or Africans? OK, Persia just asked for it, but he went further and further, in his naive dream of being the conqueror of the world.

Caesar, on the contrary, attacked the Gauls because they were becoming a treat to the Romans. Besides that, Ariovistus was about to become too powerfull. Caesar had political plans for an Empire, and to realise those plans, he had to be on the top position of it. The republic didn't move on in time.

About the conquests: Caesar has won more battles than Alexander, more difficult battles and even against his own equals (Pompey's legions). Alexander fought Barbaroi (the Persians) and some Indians, when his army wanted him to go back. When that happened to Caesar, he just reversed the situation and made his soldiers beg him to take them with him (to Africa that was at the time).
After his military successes, Caesar reorganized Roman laws and gave the people what should be theirs. IDK what Alexander did with his power, but I'm very sure it was less significant than what Caesar did.


DionCaesar

[Skullheadhq]

Don't think so.
Caesar might be a better politician but Alexander was a military genius, even more then Caesar.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Don't know. Caesar's also fought enemies who had the same kind of troops he has, led by a VERY skilled general, very close to him in military skills. Alexander didn't face any worthy enemy who led another hammer-and-anvil makedonian army. I consider it a military genius because he ALSO defeated the nomads, because most of the hammer-and-anvil tactic had been developed by his father.

Caesar didn't fought nomads as well as Alexander didn't face makedonian army and tactics and military skilled generals. I think they are comparable.


TOTALLY false that Alexander fought a united enemy. Persian army was a freaking puzzle led by a military idiot. Persian satraps turned against Darius many times, and ultimately killed him. Alexander took the entire Egypt without fight, after the fall of Tyrus IIRC.

Also, Alexander totally failed in creating a united empire: he could never keep its conquests even if he didn't die so young. His Successors were very very skilled men, but failed too. Taking down the Persian Empire was a very delicate matter, and Alexander lacked the patience and the political skill needed.

[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. 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.

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. Not to mention the undying (even to our days) legacy he left behind. His fame streches further than any other man has ever achieved, and his fame will remain for many more years to come.

Maion

[Valion]

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.

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"

Both Men WERE GREAT! leave it at that. I respect them both as i respect Hannibal even though i hate Carthage to the Guts

[Mikhail Mengsk]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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".

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.

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

Caesar had a more "practical" view of war, and sure he was less charismatic. I appreciate it, some people don't

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.

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"

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 i respect them too

[Jebivjetar]

TOTALLY false that Alexander fought a united enemy. Persian army was a freaking puzzle led by a military idiot. Persian satraps turned against Darius many times, and ultimately killed him. Alexander took the entire Egypt without fight, after the fall of Tyrus IIRC.

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.

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.

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.