Who would win...

Who would win? Caeser in 45 BCE with total control of the Roman state or Alexander the Great in 325 BCE with total control of the Macedonian empire's state. No just a battle either, who would win the war?

At this point, the Romans were professionals at destroying the Macedonian phalanx, although I've read that's largely because the Macedonians after Alexander weren't proficient at using them.

>BCE

>BBC

Caesar

If you are comparing Empire to Empire then Rome without a question
Romes mantiple system beat the phalanx hands down. On top Rome had far more resources than Alexanders Macedonia.
Furthermore the Romans were famous for winning wars even after losing many battles. Alexanders troops revolted when casualties got to high.
Not even the mention the Romans practice of field fortifications

caesar didnt look like that

Yeah, troop quality aside, Roman logistics and ability to soak up attrition gives them an advantage.

Caesar. While Alexander is almost certainly the better pure general, a Caesar at the head of the late Republic is capable of throwing out an army that matches Alexander's in professionalism and is about 6 times the size.

>Who would win? Caeser in 45 BCE with total control of the Roman state or Alexander the Great in 325 BCE with total control of the Macedonian empire's state. No just a battle either, who would win the war?

This fucking board. I swear to god, it showed promise when it first started.

alex always finds a way

>Romes mantiple system beat the phalanx hands down.
Only dumb part of your post. Alexander's army wasn't a fucking 40,000 man phalanx.

Romans would have the massive advantage in numbers, logistics, supplies, manpower, and already seasoned in breaking and fighting Hellenistic armies, formations, and tactics. Doesn't matter how amazing Alexander was, his tactics and strategies were well known to the Western world at that point.

No it wasn't. We were literally /int/ meets /pol/ 2.0 even in the first couple weeks, this board was terrible.

MOMMY

>Alexander's army wasn't a fucking 40,000 man phalanx

Made me chuckle.

And? The Macedonian phalanx was his core guard.
Alexander was good at Calvary but didn't have that big of numbers. And in this fictional battle he'd probably be facing the Numidian auxillary units which are arguably much better Calvary

Caesar was old at that point, My boy Alex would beat his ass ez

> The Macedonian phalanx was his core guard.

Yes, a Macedonian phalanx far superior than what the successors had when the Romans fought their phalanxes.

> Alexander was good at Calvary but didn't have that big of numbers

He had 7000 of what was arguably the most superior shock cavalry on Earth until the Parthians came along.

> And in this fictional battle he'd probably be facing the Numidian auxillary units which are arguably much better Calvary

lol fucking no

Numidians were light screening cavalry used for support and javelin throwing, they would be obliterated by the companion cavalry.

Caesar hands down

This is literally a Goku vs Superman thread.

This thread reminds me of an Arthur C. Clarke book where Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan get teleported through time and have to fight one another.

No chance for Alexander. Pyrrhus was the closest comparison to Alexander in time, troops etc. and failed against Romans. God damn Romans learned their unyielding autism to admit defeat from fighting Pyrrhus.

Caesar wouldn’t need the entire state. He would crush Alexander’s army with his own private resources by nature of his army being from a couple hundred years in the future and having a hindsight advantage on the general everybody read about

The phalanx was completely outdated by Caesars time with or without the myth of Alexanders superiority. The flexible maniple system would beat it every day. The phalanx was too rigid , , lacked manouverability and would break on uneven ground.

And now your saying light ranged Calvary is going to be run down by heavy cavalry??
How'd that work when heavy western knights or cataphravts encountered steppe Calvary ??

>Julius Caesar aka Julius Caesar
>Alexander the Great aka Alexander the Great

kek

But Pyrrhus won batteles agains Romans. He lose war because of manpower. If he had empire as large as Alexander he woud save Magna Graecia

Too many knowledgeable people. Nothing to add. It's all been said. New thread new characters?

Alexander would win.

Caesar would keep sending army after army to get defeated by Alexander, as Alexander conquered more and more land Caesar's political enemies (you know the guys who stabbed him a year later) would turn against Caesar and potentially even join with Alexander if Alexander was behaving chivalriously to the aristocracy of those he defeated (which he did most of the time).

While Rome/Caesar can bring more troops to bear there is a limit to how many men can be mobilized in a particular place. If Alexander defeated Caesar with similar causalities he suffered to the Persians Alexander's one army can defeat Caesar's many armies.

Caesar lost multiple battles, and got outmaneuvered multiple times. Alexander never lost a battle and was out maneuvered once and it didn't even matter.