Julius Caesar vs Alexander the Great

[Mihais]

The history would suggest otherwise. Alexander spent ten years fighting the Synthians. Obviously, he faced defeats that was not recorded. You don't spent ten years fighting tribes that took Genghis Khan less than 2 to conquer.

Sir I humbly recall you that Alexander spent 4-5 years in Afghanistan,fighting local guerillas.He succeded with a policy of outright genocide(much like Genghis did in the same area).The Scythians that supported the rebels won a small engagement(aprox. 1000 Macedonians and allied KIA's).Alexander won a bigger battle by using the combined arms and displaying his usual flexibility in the field.They didn't dare move against him again.

[Officer of Engineers]

I agree entirely but the point I was trying to make was that Alexander was not the end all, be all of war.

[HoratioNelson]

I agree with you O of E, as amazing as Alexander was, he was not the be all and end all. Caesar, his opponent here, probably outclasses every opponent that Alexander ever fought, and his legions are of a much higher quality of training and discipline than the Persians, Greeks and Indians that Alexander warred against. I believe this would be the first time that Alexander has faced opponents of this calibre. Caesar, on the other hand, did face opponents that gave him trouble, and he defeated them and gained from the experiences. I would take Pompey Magnus or Vercingetorix over Darius III anyday, though I don't know enough about Porus of India to compare him to Caesar's great foes.

Another factor in this battle would be the command style of the two generals. Alexander famously led from the front, always in the thick of the action with his Companion cavalry. Caesar led from shortly behind the front, controlling the deployment of reserves, and better able to observe the ebb and flow of the battle. Caesar's command style also makes him less vulnerable to being killed in the midst of the action and leaving his army leaderless. Overall, I'd prefer Caesar's style of command to Alexander's.

[Mihais]

Point taken sir.There are few others in the same league as him and Genghis-Qahan(real estate grabbed is the least important factor in this equation).

Back to the thread.A thing that few consider is the fact that the Macedonians under Phillip and Alexander were as professional as every imperial legion.They used various inf types besides phalanxes(which in this age were head and shoulders above the ones defeated by the Romans).In an open plain the cohort has no chance against the phalanx(see both Kynoskephalai and Pydna).They can only fight for time,while second and 3'd lines of the legion envelopes the attacking phalanx.But if these are kept at bay by Macedonian hypapists or Thracian mercenaries,then the Romans lose.And that without taking into account the superior MAcedonian cavalry roaming on the flanks.The river is not much of an obstacle for phalanx cohesion(Granicus and Issos),while the loss of cohesion on the hills can be prevented by the greater discipline and flexibility of the alexandrian phalanx.

Command-both sides rely on capable officers that know the commanders intent and display initiative.Both leaders are visible for their troops,with Alexander more inclined to lead the decisive attack in person.
My bet is 55/45 for Alexander.Anyway its a close run affair

[Officer of Engineers]

I give the edge to Caesar for one very important reason. He had the better engineers. :-)

In all honesty, I think the determining factor between the two would be who is the luckier one.

[Johnny W]

Alexander faced Greeks as well as Persians. Of the Persians he faced fighting formations of all types from light infantry, elite cavalry and chariots, heavy infantry, the best ancient archers and Greek hoplites.

True, and I am not saying he wasn't good. He definitely was. But was he really great? Was he better than Scipio Africanus who never lost a battle and bested Hannibal? Of course, its all subjective.

[zraver]

Which begs a question ... why didn't the Indian subcontinent conquer Persia?

Persia wasn't as good of land as the Indian Sub continent and no real racial or religious links plus lots of hostile tribes and difficult terrain to cross.

[citanon]

What if the Romans had a few days to prepare the battlefield? I watched a history channel program that said Caesar's army ameliorated their numerical disadvantage against the Gauls by using various obstacles, tetrahedral metal spikes that could be rapidly deployed, various trenches and fortifications in combination with long range artillery weapons. Did Alexander use such tactics against the Persians? Would Caesar choose to fight Alexander on open ground without having made preparations first?

[Cactus]

Which begs a question ... why didn't the Indian subcontinent conquer Persia?

No Motivation: Why would they bother, as Zraver noted, when they had an entire little self-sufficient world to rule for themselves? Right until 20th Century India was THE PRIZE to be had (along with China), and whoever got it had usually more than they could handle. The economic self-sufficiency is attested by the fact that Indians took nothing in payment from foreigners except gold, silver or horses. The Persians had in fact tried to conquer India for nearly 150 years before Alexander, but they had not been able to make any inroads beyond a few tenuous settlements in modern Af-Pak border.

However, Alexander's invasions did provide one motive for external action: Punitive/Preventive Expedition. Alexander had setup a string of settlements of Greeks and Persians on the banks of the Indus under Governor-General Seleucus Nikator, and they became the forward-posts for continued meddling in Indian affairs - particularly of the vulnerable republics with their open governments. Their weakened political stage and xenophobia allowed the emergence of a unified empire again under the Mauryas. The first "external" action of the Mauryas was the destruction of those settlements, pursuit and defeat of Seleucus in modern Afghanistan (the NW limits of Indian sub-continent).

[troung]

What about cavalry?

The Macedonian army was a combined arms force with a good striking cavalry arm.

Right until 20th Century India was THE PRIZE to be had (along with China),

Central Asia's ATM...

[Cactus]

Right until 20th Century India was THE PRIZE to be had (along with China),

Central Asia's ATM...

Yup, for the 1 in 10,000 who got lucky... same as at all other ATMs.

[Vinod2070]

What about cavalry?

The Macedonian army was a combined arms force with a good striking cavalry arm.

Central Asia's ATM...

Well the nomads did make hay while the sun shone on them. They are mostly looked upon as nothing more than highway robbers by us.

[troung]

Yup, for the 1 in 10,000 who got lucky... same as at all other ATMs.

Sounds like you are broke or/and one liner challenged...

Mughals, Timur, Durrani, Nadir Shah, Ghori...

[Cactus]

Sounds like you are broke or/and one liner challenged...

Mughals, Timur, Durrani, Nadir Shah, Ghori...

Sultana Begum, Howra, West Bengal.

[Triple C]

What about cavalry?

The Macedonian army was a combined arms force with a good striking cavalry arm.

Ceasar relied on his German auxilliaries for heavy cavalry. They were of good quality and discipline. He trusted them enough to lead them in person into battle in what became the charge that broke the resolve of the Gauls in the Battle of Alessia. I don't know if they were anywhere nearly as good as the Macedonian Companions who were handpicked elites, however.