Alexander Vs Caesar

Dominican just STOP posting lad. Your IGNORANCE about pretty much EVERYTHING is astonishing.

Lol. Nice argument

i agree alexander is overrated but you do a disservice to that argument by being so obtuse. The persians were in no way as fucked up as the WRE was, which had been through so much fucking shit that nobody even understood how it was still around in the first place, this was literally the first bad king they ever had, the army was still professional and large, it just wasnt what it was a century before. In decline, but not for very long and only as much as could possibly happen in a single ruler's tenure. Its easy as a Greek to write the narrative that the degenerate effeminate persians were in decline and so conquest was inevitable AFTER a man takes 40k men from greece to india in fucking ancient times.

>Alexander
>Sheltered

Also he only conquered one country, Persia. While it's pretty considerable feat, it's much easier than, say Cyrus conquering the same area from three separate empires. Once Alexander sent Persia reeling in the first few battles, it was hard for the remaining satraps to organize defence - only the ones in the east that didn't have their forces depleted put up serious defence.

Aside from Persia, Alexander conquered the Indus Valley, where he defeated the Pauravas and some tribes which weren't really that considerable, and he had the local Taxilas on his side the entire time.

Don't get me wrong, Alexander's feat was remarkable given the contemporary ideas about the world, and the logistics involved, but it wasn't really anything impossible strategically or tactically.

it was logistically revolutionary if nothing else, its easy to say somethijg was inevitable or easy after-the-fact, muh harder to predict who will be tomorrow's pioneer.

>The persians were in no way as fucked up
There are records that says that achaemenid army was unorganized and unskilled, that is why it was so easy for alexander to win
And as i said, any man with a capable army could have done the same
Cyrus the younger marched with 10k mercenaries and could have beat the achaemenids if he wouldnt have died, some greek historians said that he inspired philip to invaded persia as he saw that you just need a trained army to beat persia

Romans beat later day Hellenistic armies which were a far cry from Phillip and Alexander's army. The late Hellenistic phalanx couldn't even turn without breaking formation. Alexander's army could cross fucking rivers in good battle order.

Cyrus had a fuckton of other troops in addition to those 10k mercenaries.

Caesar. Legionary battlefield deployments are better, they leave organized reserves and are all set up in such a way that peeling men off to another front is not only easy but encouraged.

It is a much more forgiving and flexible system so all things being equal it wins.

But still, it gave the idea to philip

Still Romans had a butthurt shit of a time dealing with Phalanghites, before they figured out the sure fire way to beat it. But alexander on the other made sure to cover his vulnerable exposed flanks. Both generals are creative and aggressive, it would have been a historic fight for sure.

If Caesar doesn't kneel down and suck Alexander's dick of course.

Diogenes would just BTFO them with his pure Chadness

>but it wasn't really anything impossible strategically or tactically.

Says the arm-chair general of the 21st century on an image-based internet forum.

Is that before or after he shits in a public theater?

Ya I agree. The army Alexander inherited was the best until the Mongols rose. Rome's greatest strength wasn't its legions but its massive population and highly advanced bureaucracy. A good example is Hannibal's invasion. He handed Rome some of the most stunning defeats every seen in the classic world. And Rome just turned around and made whole new well trained and equipped armies. No one else outside maybe the Han could do that.

>Another leader would have accomplished the same
Is there a more disgusting meme than this?

Yes user, no way are tactics important in battle, you can replace him with Charles II and everything will turn out the same

>While it's pretty considerable feat, it's much easier than, say Cyrus conquering the same area from three separate empires.

t. Iranian diaspora.

The Persian Empire could levy the same sort of manpower those three empires could.

>highly advanced bureaucracy
Lel. Rome's bureaucracy was virtually non existent during the republic and early empire. It's only after Diocletian that the famous Roman/Byzantine bureaucracy forms.

They were separated by about three centuries. Do you think there was no military evolution and improvement in all those years? Why not just pitch Alexander against Napoleon or Rommel.

Probably alexander. Combined arms and what not.

The Carthaginians main force were phalanx based infantry. They adopted this largely suring their wars in Syracuse. They used Hellenic armor and weapons and Hannibal looked to Alexander for formation and strategy. Yes he deployed many ethnicites, but his greek, Carthaginian, and Libyan troops (his backbone) fought in a Hellenic style.

He did shit, the trained army was the one fighting

Where is your source?
Do you realize the phalanx formation came from sumerians right?
It was something universal and hannibal didnt look for alexander, you are just making shit out
C
O
P
E
Harder

If anything, we know the Macedonian armies devolved from their hayday in Alexander's time. Any one of Phillip and Alexander's generals would have kicked the shit out of Perseus or Antiochus III.

>Source
Any book an the Carthaginian military during the Punic wars is my source.

>Phalanx is from the Sumerians
The hoplite phalanx originated from the greeks in around the 8th-7th century bc.

>The phalanx was something universal
It spread throughout Europe because of the Greeks. It was definitely not a universal concept.

>Hannibal didn't look to Alexander
Ok, all you have proven is that you have never read a book on Hannibal, holy shit.

>300 year technology difference

Cesear obviously. Technology advanced much slower in the past, but it still advanced.

What exactly kind of technological advantage would Caesar have over Alexander?

>"The Romans had been fighting the Macedonian Phalanx for over a century. Pyrrhus defeated the Romans with it early in the 3rd century, the Carthaginians in Africa in the middle of the century did as well, and Hannibal did the same later" pg. 204 "Soliders and Ghosts" by JE Lendon
>"The army of Carthage was modeled on Greek armies, and Hannibal himself was a Hellenized commander" pg. 206 "Soldiers and Ghosts"

Fucking kill yourself you tripfaggot

>He did shit, the trained army was the one fighting
You fucking dunce, an army of lions led by sheep is worse than an army of sheep led by a lion. Alexander was NOTORIOUS for being part of the strike teams to deliver the crushing blow, the ancient Hellenistic commanders (and some Romans) constantly tried to emulate his leadership from the front leading these wild cavalry charges. He used it effectively at Gaugamela, he used it at Issus, he used it at the Grannicus. Here's a list of his injuries he got from fighting on the front line
>my body bears many a token of an opposing Fortune and no ally of mine. First, among the Illyrians, my head was wounded by a stone and my neck by a cudgel. Then at the Granicus my head was cut open by an enemy's dagger, at Issus my thigh was pierced by the sword. Next at Gaza my ankle was wounded by an arrow, my shoulder was dislocated, and I whirled heavily round and round. Then at Maracanda the bone of my leg was split open by an arrow. There awaited me towards the last also the buffetings I received among the Indians and the violence of famines. Among the Aspasians my shoulder was wounded by an arrow, and among the Gandridae my leg. Among the Mallians, the shaft of an arrow sank deep into my breast and buried its steel; and I was struck in the neck by a cudgel...
Don't talk shit about things you don't know about.

>What exactly kind of technological advantage would Caesar have over Alexander?

Extremely sophisticated logistics, civil engineering, siege engines, etc.

the Carthaginian army was still based on a model brought in by the Spartan mercenary general Xanthippas.

Fuck are you talking about, how is any of that going to help in a battle?

uh

That is what greek historians said, remember that greek got many things from phoenician

This is a fact, i have seen that some books claim that carthage culture was even hellenic

>jungles

>Greeks got many things from the Phoenicians
Not counting alphabet, the culture exchange was rather equal.

>Books claim that Carthage culture was even hellenistic
Punic, and especially Barcid, culture was considerably Hellenistic over time. Especially by the Punic wars. It definitely retained it's Phoenician roots but it was morphed into its own entity (a hellenistic phoenician) because of this.

The cavalry advantage is obvious, long spears are long and Greek men of even the middle Iron Age are superior to Italics of the late Republican period as evidenced by their naval prowess. The best Macedonian phalanx is real shit.

Cretan archers might decide the contest, Rome needs to set a record pace in erecting fortifications.

What knowledge does Caesar bring against Alexander? Caesar himself was influenced heavily by Alexander, he must have some opinion on Alexander's weaknesses.

If Alexander tries to personally kill Caesar in battle, does he really stand a chance?

>some greek historians
you mean the greek historian. more wise insight from the guy parroting herodotus, like I said its easy to claim something was inevitable or to say "they would have if" after you know the conclusion. Herodotus has a narrative and you cant take it at face value, war is chaos and no matter how certain it seems at the end its always in the air until you get there, just because theres a void doesnt mean theres gonna be a perfect storm to fill it.

it would go just like pharsalus. alexander would go for the hammer, caesar would have an entire third line to deal with it, and then the cohorts would pick apart the phalanx. The roman legion was built to take down phalanxes(among other things), romans dealt with more advanced heavy cavalry than alexander had

literally an impossible question since Caesar and alexander could have never been on an even playing field since Caesar could just study AG's tactics in hindsight.

you say that but those armies were still better equipped than their predecessors and still had the advantage of hindsight that the future always has in these scenarios.
In this same vein a medieval army would crush a roman army or any other ancient army because their equipment was far superior, these are always dumb conversations.

I mean, Macedon was already destroyed...

what a retard

He also never lost a batlle. Undeniably the greatest general who ever lived.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Hydaspes

>The hoplite phalanx originated from the greeks in around the 8th-7th century bc.
but that formation came from sumerians, do you really think greeks were the only one?

>the mutinies are really just sit-downs, they were exhausted
Alexander lost more soldiers scurrying around in India then he did at Persia.

>the culture exchange was rather equal.
cultural exchange?
so an old civ its going to adopt from a new one?
that is the bullshit you people say to feel better about yourselves, phoenicians didnt adopt shit from greeks

you faggots think that greeks were the first one on everything and you are wrong, hercules came from melqart which is a phoenician god and greeks got some more
>culture was considerably Hellenistic over time
never was, that is what archaeologist say but it wasnt like that
remember that the winners write history
>model brought in by the Spartan mercenary general Xanthippas.
they didnt, that greek general just helped them in the first punic war

He'd drop a flopper in the senate and walk out like the mad man he was.

The spear wall is probably older than sumeria. That's just the oldest we know.

>You think the greeks were the first one on everything
Never said that, I definitely don't believe that. Phoenicians are my favorite topic.

>Hercules is from melqart
Hercules didn't come from Melqart. It was an Interpretatio graeca, such as saying Osiris is Dionysus. Both gods evolved separately but became associated with eachother in a comparative sense.

>An old civ wouldn't adopt
Except they adopted art, military concepts, government concepts, burial concepts, mythology, and ship concepts from the greeks. The phoenicians well known for taking in other concepts and mixing them. Saying older civs don't adopt things is an extremely historically ignorant statement.

>Archeologists are wrong, I'm right!
So the experts who specialize in these topics know less than you? Interesting.

>Xanthippas
He helped by training and changing their military.

Are you Veeky Forums biggest shitposter?

are you Veeky Forums biggest faggot?

I see your replies are as witty and informed as your regular posts. To the filter you go.

youre thinking of a completely different battle there was no phalanx, it was legion on legion but pompey employed alexandrian tactics and caesar used the third line to repel them, even using their pila as spears, which freed up the cohorts to do their thing and start eating pompey's left. Same thing would have happened phalanx or not, pompey's men were in a shield phalanx being attacked by caesar's men, if anything flanking a phalanx would have been even easier. Heavy cavalry will fuck up a cohort in the flank, not so much against caesar because he'll just box his shit up and repel your attack, there will,be no grand break, alexandrian tactics require an enemy that will break and caesar's men were fanatically loyal and would never break, which explains why they were attacking a numerically-superior force in the first place.

Even terrain and logistics/supply lines and all things considered equal, Alexander. This is a silly hypothetical though because Caesar or any Roman general worth his snuff knew better than to engage a phalanx on flat terrain.

>Except they adopted art, military concepts, government concepts, burial concepts, mythology, and ship concepts from the greeks
that is where you are wrong, why the fuck phoenicians would do that?
do you think their were inferior to greeks ones?

as i said, winners write history
lol and you said they adopted govt concept? fucking greeks got their republic thanks to phoenicians and even their democracy

>adopted art, military concepts,burial concepts, mythology, and ship concepts from the greeks
ok you are getting out of hand here, as far as i know, greeks took the trireme from phoenicians, phoenicians had their own mithology different from greeks and it could be viceversa where greeks adopted it from them, there isnt point anymore, you are just trolling

Pompeys cav weren't nearly as heavy or numerous and they were green-horned, undisciplined auxillaries which is why they broke and fled so quickly. Pila don't double for a spear wall, Caesar just knew Pompey's cav weren't up to par.

honestly, alexander just sort of rolled the rice with his setpiece battle and then charged in, barely any tactical oversight.

caesar on the other hand was the pinnacle of micromanagment, constantly running from cohort to cohort inspiring his men, pulling men from the frontline and putting them elsewhere, inspiring outnumbered men in the right place at the right time, constantly winging it like a total war player and filling in whatever gaps show up, always managing to pull together the right troops at the right time, and basically shitting out a plan in seconds in a situation where virtually any other general would have been stunned. I think caesar has this easily. Better army, better flexibility, and a proven ability to anticipate and counter exactly the sort of move alexander would attempt, you cant rout romans like you can with persians, least of which caesar's legions. When romans get smashed by cavalry, its completely unexpected. Alexander was flashy, I doubt he could effectively outwit caesar when he's one of the greatest generals ever at micromanaging against all sorts of cirumstances. This guy had everything thrown at him and always managed to pull something together and survive, caesar was never routed utterly, worst he was ever dealt was the need for a tactical retreat twice but the army remained intact both times and he would go on to win in the next battle both times.

roman armies defeated persian armies which had more and better cavalry than alexander's army. They also defeated barbarian tribes with thousands of heavy cavalry, steppe tribes with far superior heavy cavalry, and all sorts of advanced shit that would enter the stage throughout their thousand years of power. This is like asking if WW1 troops could beat 21st century troops, the enemies the romans fought might not have always been as disciplined or skilled as the companioms but plenty outmatched them in armor, weaponry, and numbers, and the romans dealt with them all the same. People will cite the goths but tragic upsets via cavalry were relatively rare things, romans have a hundred years of domination, lose a battle, and people take that one battle out of context and assume romans werent throwing back punches.

Why don't you look up those Roman dedeats of Persian armies and notice how it's not their cav that cause them to lose the battle. Saying the Romans win because Rome won is a bit defeating the point of the hypothetical.

>notice how it's not their cav that cause them to lose the battle

Im sorry but what? Persian armies required their cavalry to win, they were built around winning with a charge after softening the enemy with missiles. If the persians dont win its because they failed to use their cavalry effectively. If the cav cant do anything then the roman infantry always wins, it was the best infantry in the ancient world.

Ok, you're just being a troll. Should have assumed from the namefagging.

Different peoples exchanged ideas. The phoenicians took and shared ideas, art, etc an intensive amount. To an extent it becomes hard telling what art and pottery is there's. The greeks did not get their ideas of republics and democracies from the Phoenicians. The Phoenicians had a monarch and ruling merchant class until Carthage's reforms in about the 4th century bc which still had the latter. The greeks were culturally very against merchants. Read the Iliad and Odyssey, they prize the pirates that steal from the merchant who is portrayed as dishonorable and deceptive.

>Ships
The Phoenicians are credited with the bireme, trireme, and quadrireme. The greeks (syracuse specifically) are credited with the quinquereme and hexareme.

>Hahahahaha how the fuck are sieges real Nigga Just Build A Contravallation Like Nigga Re-siege Them Back Haha

Romans had to use Eastern Cavalry to beat Eastern Cavalry and over time their Infantry became useless when dealing with horse armies.

source: your ass

The entire battle hinges on whose cavalry is more effective. Arguably, the Thessalian cavalry and Hetairoi outrank roman citizen and patrician cavalry, so Alexander is basically guaranteed victory 1v1 as long as his phalanx holds. Which is very likely because the Romans were only ever able to effectively collapse a phalanx by putting it on uneven ground or flanking it, both of which here are put out by flat terrain and Alexander's superior cavalry.

In this scenario, given that neither uses anything besides the men at their disposal and ingenuity, then I'd say Alexander wins pretty much every time.

Caesar's main strength wasn't that his army was so much better, but that it could outmaneuver his enemies and had immense discipline. Many times Caesar beat other Roman forces because his men simply refused to be baited, did what they were commanded to the letter, and were reliably more mobile. This includes his cavalry and auxiliaries.

The problem is that Alexander has these things in spades as well, and the phalanx he has is basically unbreakable from the front.

A simple trip into wiki and first 3 forums you'd find in google search. Or just read overviews of their battles with the Turks, Persians, Arabs, heck even the Huns.

The overall decline of the quality and prestige of Byzantine infantry over time and the large scale adoption of Cataphracts and horse archers is a source in it off itself.