The phalanx actually held up well against the maniple when fully deployed and was even able to push them back . The problem is that the Macedonian phalanx is a single factor in a combined arms approach to warfare. If the cavalry doesn't deliver the hammer to the phalanx's anvil it on it's own can't deliver the killing blow. So it comes down to if alaxander's cavalry is better than Caesar's.
Nah, He'd be outflanked by Hetairoi, retreat with heavy losses, but with cohesion intact. He would then blame the defeat on his troops, like he did at Gergovia.
Caesar WAS a genius. I put him on par with Napoleon. But we're comparing a 90% success rate to a 100% success rate, and are discussing which is better. Alexander conquered more with less, and never suffered defeat. Clearly he was the superior general. Caesar was a better politician and propagandist, though.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>more with less
Alexander was the son of a great king whose life's work was to build the finest army of its time, and he succeeded. Had it not been for Philip, Alexander would never have reached such heights.
Caesar by contrast requested to be given the most troublesome province to govern (not to rule as a king), he then plunged himself headlong into ruinous debt to raise a ragtag army of raw recruits and barbarians; which he, partly through delegation and partly through his own charisma and leadership forged into a force to be reckoned with. He then diplomatically forged alliances and played Gaulish tribes against one another, using his own legions to steal victory in decivise battles. His use of the terrain and the skill with which he waged psychological warfare on his enemies, and strengthened the morale of his own troops, has been admired by kings, generals and statesmen for two thousand years
2 years ago
Anonymous
Caesars legions was not something he invented on the spot either! Both commanders benefited from having others before them form an army and doctrine that worked.
Also, Alexander very much did go into debt launching his campaign, however that's besides the point, because we are not rating these people on how good politicians they were, but how good commanders they were.
Alexander is the winner there, for the simple reason that he would win battles and wars that he had no business winning. And he was fighting the top empire at the time, still at its peak. Caesars accomplishments were great, but not on the same level.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I can see we will have to agree to disagree. Alexander, with all the power and authority of a king, was handed an army that was his father's Magnum Opus. He pitted this army, and its magnificant staff, against a crumbling empire that relied on a money to sustain itself, and was desperately short of money. Caesar by contrast was given provinicials, working class Cisalpine Italians and foreign "allies" as his army. His father had died while he was still a boy and his support staff were as yet nothing special. He decimated Rome's longest standing enemies beyond even his contemporaries expectations. He then proceeded to usurp the highest office of the Roman Republic to the roars of the Roman people. Alexander would be missing Caesar's arse had they been born in the same time
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Alexander would be missing Caesar's arse had they been born in the same time
In politics, probably. On the battlefield, no.
But I'm happy to agree to disagree. As long as we can agree that both are superior to Hannibal.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Absolutely, but Hannibal would still squash 90% of the generals in recorded history, the man had big fricking balls
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Alexander, with all the power and authority of a king, was handed an army that was his father's Magnum Opus. He pitted this army, and its magnificant staff, against a crumbling empire that relied on a money to sustain itself, and was desperately short of money.
Lel Philip's army was literally defeated by the Persians at Magnesia before Alex arrived to take over. You would know this if you were not a moron who just watched Youtube videos poorly summarizing ancient and modern sources instead of actually reading them. For example, Diodorus Siculus mentions this defeat in Book XVII of his masterwork, starting around 17.7. Now go back to jerking off your tiny Italian American penis instead of pretending to be a historian. I'm
>But even if that were true, which it's not, the Romans were renowned the world over for their expertise in siegecraft, they themselves took open pride in it and their generals and soldiers were well aware of this advantage. >To say that the Romans were inferior to anyone in matters of siegeworks is delusion, plain and simple
Non sequitur.
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that Alexander never lost a single siege, and the Romans lost some sieges. Alexander marched from Greece to India starting with just the resources of Greece, the Romans at the height of their power with uncontested control over all the resources of the Mediterranean couldn't pass from Asia Minor to the Zagros Mountains. As for the specific sieges, Alexander killed all the men in the cities who resisted him and sold the rest into slavery, but you're pretending the Roman conquests of the same area centuries later is as impressive. The logical conclusion of this argument is that you also believe the Frankish conquest of the area in Gaul that used to have Alesia is just as impressive as Caesar's siege of Alesia, and that the Frankish conquest of where Geronium was makes them better besiegers than Caesar. But of course, you don't believe that, because this is all mental gymnastics to pretend the Romans produced any military figure on par with Alexander. You shift the argument to suit your case, and not the other way around.
btw, not
Caesar WAS a genius. I put him on par with Napoleon. But we're comparing a 90% success rate to a 100% success rate, and are discussing which is better. Alexander conquered more with less, and never suffered defeat. Clearly he was the superior general. Caesar was a better politician and propagandist, though.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I've read commentaries on Alexander's life and conquests, don't get so high and mighty. So Phillips army suffered a defeat, so what? They went on to conquer the known world, what's your point? Show me an army that has aspired to the same heights and never known defeat
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I've read commentaries on Alexander's life and conquests
Yeah buddy, sure you have. Rest assured, I completely believe in the honesty of this statement to match the sincerity of the rest of your post. Now we can both leave the conversation happy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Lmao you treat a book like it's this indecipherable lexicon. Get a fricking grip lad, people have been reading books for millennia you're not special
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Caesar/Napoleon success rate >90%, 100%
Which is which
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nah, Alexander 100. Caesar + Napoleon 90% (Take that with as much salt as needed, not an actual calculation)
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Alexander suffers his first defeat >wails and rages like a little b***h >Caesar suffers his first defeat >sends an emissary to convey his respect of their ferocity, and makes them his vanguard in conquering their fellow Gauls
2 years ago
Anonymous
Caesar WAS a genius. I put him on par with Napoleon. But we're comparing a 90% success rate to a 100% success rate, and are discussing which is better. Alexander conquered more with less, and never suffered defeat. Clearly he was the superior general. Caesar was a better politician and propagandist, though.
He's saying Alexander was the 100% success rate, and Caesar/Napoleon the 90%. Napoleon and Caesar actually have practically the same success rate because Caesar lost quite a bit (Gergovia, Dyrrhachium, Ruspina, arguably at least one of the invasions of Britain) with fewer total engagements, but of course Caesar's losses counted for less.
Caesar would've risen to the top even if he were born into completely different circumstances, Alexander was a classic case of being in the right place at the right time
>Alexander was a classic case of being in the right place at the right time
He was the right person, at the right place, at the right time. The guy was a genius too.
While Caesar wasn't born into as fortunate circumstances as Alexander, he was definitely afforded a lot of fortune's better side.
Like being a descendant of the Julii/Marius, having the opportunity to harness the power of one of the most effective military institutions the world had seen up until that point in history.
I do think Caesar had greater wits than Alexander but who knows what Alexander would have matured into or could have achieved if he lived to the same age as Caesar.
Both of them, in their own way, were standing on the shoulders of giants and became giants themselves - nothing in history ever happens in a vacuum.
The Julii had to flee the proscriptions of Sulla and by the time of Gaius had fallen on hard times and were reduced to living in a rented urban apartment. All having an ancient family line did was allow him to campaign on being descended from Venus
Well that's precisely the point, being the legendary descendant of a goddess is like +10 to charisma where the superstitious Roman masses are concerned
2 years ago
Anonymous
True, but then again superstitious morons aren’t exactly hard to trick. Pisistratus, the Tyrant of Athens, got the people on his side by finding the tallest woman in the land and dressing her up as Athena and then claiming that she actually was Athena who totally wanted him to break the law in order to forcefully seize power
Lol, and? Alexander was the greatest besieger in history. Alex would trap the Italian inside his fortifications and mop up the corpses after a month or two.
>1km long, 200m wide causeway after a 7 month seige, with your army at full strength but being delayed in the early stages of it's campaign
or >30 miles of 2 separate rings of fortifications, simultaneously defending from both a sortie and external attack, all with numerical inferiority, at the risk of your entire campaign
Every single one, because besieging a horde of buttrubbing Gallic barbarians in their village is not impressive. Maybe impressive for Caesar, because he somehow managed to lose to them once before. Alexander took real cities, and your argument is that Caesar would have built better ad-hoc fortifications in the couple of days he had to prepare than the city walls of Tyre or Halicarnassus, built and refined over centuries. Not to mention Alexander would cut off Caesar's supplies, so he would need to either stockpile food or order his men to charge into the Macedonian phalanx in its peak condition. The best case scenario for Caesar is that he finds an opening and runs away with part of his army.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>batman would swoosh! and throw batarang with cryptonite pew pew and then he would jump and boom! kapow! and Superman would be lying on the ground helpless. Then they'd have gay sex with and they’d ask me to join and I’d be like m- me? But they’d make me feel welcome and we’d have an awesome orgy! and Wonder Woman would join us
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nice fanfic but I'm not a marvel fan so I don't understand the relevance. Maybe >>>IQfy is more your speed.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the npc is characterized by the lack of self awareness, a key fundamental trait of a human being
2 years ago
Anonymous
Who are you quoting?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>quoting
go back
2 years ago
Anonymous
Those "buttrubbing Gallic barbarians in their village" were far more martial and war like than any of the peoples alexander even fought
It was gauls who introduced the gladius, chainmail and rectangular shields to the romans
They were extremely trained/skilled and used as mercenaries everywhere in the known world
So yeah what caesar did was indeed impressive even if i like alex too
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's putting it mildly. Rome considered them their most ancient and feared enemy while despising Greeks as effeminate boyfrickers. Gallic Cavalry were considered the finest in the world, to the point where Romans didn't even bother fielding domestic cavalry, they just hired Gaulish horsemen. Even Greeks eventually caught on to the brilliance of mail armor, though too late in their history to reverse their decline.
In Roman arenas, gladiator classes were commonly based off of POWs, often still fighting in the kit that they were taken prisoner in, with hoplomachus growing out of Greek hoplites and Thraex growing out of Illyrian POWs. Gaulish POWs were initially dubed Gallus, and were considered a heavily armored class, and they eventually grew into the Murmillo class, literally "fishmen" in direct reference to their heavy scale armor. Tacitus even notes that the Crupellarius class gladiator were Gauls "encased in the continuous shell of iron usual in the country". Far from being naked savages (that's more a 2nd Punic War thing) they were among the finest warriors in the ancient western world, and Caesar's victory can be attributed not to brute force, but his uncanny ability to play Gauls off of each other, literally writing the book on divide and conquer
Alexander had the fortune of fighting a crumbling empire who hadn't get caught on to the force projecting power of cavalry, while inheriting the world class officer class that Phillip II spent his lifetime putting together. Caesar fought a wide variety of enemies, often against wildly bad odds, and was a master improviser, a fiendish backroom schemer, and had a legendary eye for finding and promoting men of talent. My money is on Julius
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Gallic cavalry was considered the finest in the world
By the Romans and Romans alone. The vaunted Gaulic and Germanic horsemen who they brought against the Parthians and Persians tended to get horrifically decimated even by light Iranic cavalry and the Romans stopped claiming that after the early contact with the Iranic peoples. In fact I don't think a single Greek writer ever considered Gallic cavalry the best or most elite.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not that anon but wasn't it German cavalry the Romans honoured as the most fearsome, making even the Gauls unwilling to even pretend competition with them. I distinctly remember Caesar mentioning his Gallic allies being afraid of the Germans, and unable to counter them because every cavalryman had a youthful skirmishes who would keep pace with their horse and counter and harrass any attempt against the mounted man
2 years ago
Anonymous
It was the Celto-Germanic cavalry of the Belgae that were the most fearsome in the region. Also the Roman had good cavalry themselves in the form of the Campaignians and allies.
2 years ago
Anonymous
To my own knowledge the Belgae were a famously fierce people, and a thorn in the Roman side, but not particularly renowned for their cavalry. I stress again that Caesar himself, and Tacitus too I think in his recount of the reign of Tiberius mentioned that the Germans specifically, while they may lack the heavy armour of the Parthians, were remarkably ferocious and difficult to counter because of their style of fighting, which their native land favoured ofcourse
2 years ago
Anonymous
2 years ago
Anonymous
According to EB they were the best of the best.
2 years ago
Anonymous
According to EB they were the best of the best.
What game?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Divide Et Impera and Europa Barbarorum
2 years ago
Anonymous
Kino. Still, had the Belgae truly been Mongol-tier they wouldn't have been confined to their little flatlands
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't think the point was that they're mongol tier but the best cavalry in their region and surroundings.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Until you reach the Rhine that is
2 years ago
Anonymous
These guys were nearly as good as their Belgae counterparts
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nobody's denying that the Belgae had balls, but they were not a large people. The Germans posed a real threat to them, and they saw sense and capitulated to the only people capable of a breaking the Germans
2 years ago
Anonymous
Fair points I don't disagree with you really. It's debatable for sure
2 years ago
Anonymous
IIRC 2 separate Roman historians of 2 separate lifetimes recorded the Belgae as being particularly fierce. There is honour even in defeat, and the Belgae certainly deserve it
2 years ago
Anonymous
lol what
You probably mean just Carrhae because thst is likely rhe only one you know
though the few hundred Gauls at Carrhae literally fought cataphracts and killed them in at least implied significant numbers while the Roman eastern cavs were being slaughtered.
After this there is literally not a single mention of Gallic or Germanic cavalry having issue with Persian cavalry while in Roman service.
For fricks sake even the kings of Numidia employed Gallic cavalry.
King Juba famously had Gauls as shock cavalry.
I swear these pop history wikipedia hisplorians are poison
2 years ago
Anonymous
>though the few hundred Gauls at Carrhae literally fought cataphracts and killed them in at least implied significant numbers
not him but you're extremely low iq
2 years ago
Anonymous
You are fricking moronic. The Romans went after trying to hire or supplement their armies with Sarmatians and other Iranic horsemen to counter Parthian and Persian cataphracts. Gallic horsemen got raped in every campaign by the Parthians and Persians so badly they were turned into skirmishers and scouts.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Attacking an oppidum hillfort is way harder than attacking low placed Middle Eastern cities dumbass.
Also Romans themselves took same Middle Eastern cities with greater ease than they did Celtic or Iberian ones when they did the same.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Also Romans themselves took same Middle Eastern cities with greater ease than they did Celtic or Iberian ones when they did the same.
No they didn't, because Alexander destroyed the city walls of the cities he conquered. IQfytards, I swear to God. The only cities the Romans besieged in the area Alexander conquered were part of the Pontic empire or Judea, with neither area Alexander having any problems with, so if you want to draw this silly comparison then the fact the Romans had to besiege cities there at all shows their inferiority to Alexander, for Alexander made the same cities submit to him by merely passing by.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>for Alexander made the same cities submit to him by merely passing by.
Tyre
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm talking about the same cities the Romans besieged, moron. The Romans couldn't besiege Tyre because Alexander fricking destroyed it. Tyre was rebuilt, but it never recovered to what it was pre-Alexander, not to mention the fact that even if it did recover, any siege of the city would now be necessarily less impressive because it was a peninsula post-Alexander, not an island.
In any case, even though Tyre sided against the Romans consistently, ultimately Rome took Tyre when Pompey offered the city a deal as a privileged free city in the Roman sphere of influence. After this, the Romans built Tyre up and turned it into the port of the Levant, which made the city extremely wealthy and grateful to the Romans, and thereby turned them into Romans. In short, Tyre didn't join Rome because it was scared of Rome, but because it was good economic sense.
On the other hand, there was no economic incentive to join Alexander's empire. Cities already enjoyed significant autonomy under the Persians, and when Alexander came along he demanded higher taxes (to pay for his wars) and less autonomy (to feed his military machine). The cities in Asia minor and Syria that surrendered to Alexander surrendered because they were terrified of him and his military, not because Alexander offered them a square deal. That shows how mighty Alexander was, and how pathetic the Romans were in comparison. Alexander would wipe out any Roman army easy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Or everyone would see they better off with the Romans and side against Alexander and his youthful vanity. If it came between pledging loyalty to Rome or to Macedonia anyone with any sense would choose Rome
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Alexander would wipe out any Roman army easy.
And then there would be another. And another. And another. And then everyone is gabging up on ol' alex because he cannot be in 10 places at once.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Even for the handful (and that description is being generous) of cities whom Alexander demanded tear down their walls, the Romans did not arrive in the area until 300 years later. More fool them if within 10 generations they neglected their own defenses. But even if that were true, which it's not, the Romans were renowned the world over for their expertise in siegecraft, they themselves took open pride in it and their generals and soldiers were well aware of this advantage. To say that the Romans were inferior to anyone in matters of siegeworks is delusion, plain and simple
2 years ago
Anonymous
>But even if that were true, which it's not, the Romans were renowned the world over for their expertise in siegecraft, they themselves took open pride in it and their generals and soldiers were well aware of this advantage. >To say that the Romans were inferior to anyone in matters of siegeworks is delusion, plain and simple
Non sequitur.
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that Alexander never lost a single siege, and the Romans lost some sieges. Alexander marched from Greece to India starting with just the resources of Greece, the Romans at the height of their power with uncontested control over all the resources of the Mediterranean couldn't pass from Asia Minor to the Zagros Mountains. As for the specific sieges, Alexander killed all the men in the cities who resisted him and sold the rest into slavery, but you're pretending the Roman conquests of the same area centuries later is as impressive. The logical conclusion of this argument is that you also believe the Frankish conquest of the area in Gaul that used to have Alesia is just as impressive as Caesar's siege of Alesia, and that the Frankish conquest of where Geronium was makes them better besiegers than Caesar. But of course, you don't believe that, because this is all mental gymnastics to pretend the Romans produced any military figure on par with Alexander. You shift the argument to suit your case, and not the other way around.
2 years ago
Anonymous
With respect I say you have misrepresented my point, and strayed off topic with less than basic knowledge. Alexander was remarkably merciful, Caesar *arguably* more-so but that's besides the point. Alexander reigned over his empire for 11 years was it? The Romans had many generals, you cannot tally up the defeats of one man's short life against the defeats of a hundred generations.
Alexander was *arguably* the finest military figure in human history aye, in that he appeals to every class of man, from the cook to the general, being a Herculean archetype; but Caesar is something different altogether. Caesar dwarfes other men as your own post well reveals. His achievements are uncontestable for the average man, in contrast to Alexander, and yet Caesar was devoted to the people and Alexander was not.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Caesar dwarfes other men as your own post well reveals
ESL
2 years ago
Anonymous
I went to a grammar school homosexual, I was entirely correct.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Alexander made the same cities submit to him by merely passing by.
Most of them were happy to submit because it meant they were rid of the Persians.
That statement sounds moronic as frick.
I mean, Caesar had better army than Alexander (more soldiers+monipular system), so how can we imagine their "fair" battle?
Everyone knows since the Battle of Marathon that the Persians are no match against the Greek Phalanx. I really don't understand why Alexander's campaign is really that impressive. The Persian Empire was also at its lowest point by the time he arrived.
Yes, Alexander would absolutely destroy an opponent with an army specifically designed to counter the phalanx.
Brilliant analysis my dude.
No he wouldn't because he was long dead by that time
Gauls and Germans didn't exactly fight in phalanx formation
No, but the Romans other Italians did before they adopted the manipular legion.
The phalanx actually held up well against the maniple when fully deployed and was even able to push them back . The problem is that the Macedonian phalanx is a single factor in a combined arms approach to warfare. If the cavalry doesn't deliver the hammer to the phalanx's anvil it on it's own can't deliver the killing blow. So it comes down to if alaxander's cavalry is better than Caesar's.
Underrated take
Nah, He'd be outflanked by Hetairoi, retreat with heavy losses, but with cohesion intact. He would then blame the defeat on his troops, like he did at Gergovia.
Alexander was never defeated. Caesar was. End of.
Adversity reveals the genius of a general. good fortune conceals it.
Caesar WAS a genius. I put him on par with Napoleon. But we're comparing a 90% success rate to a 100% success rate, and are discussing which is better. Alexander conquered more with less, and never suffered defeat. Clearly he was the superior general. Caesar was a better politician and propagandist, though.
>more with less
Alexander was the son of a great king whose life's work was to build the finest army of its time, and he succeeded. Had it not been for Philip, Alexander would never have reached such heights.
Caesar by contrast requested to be given the most troublesome province to govern (not to rule as a king), he then plunged himself headlong into ruinous debt to raise a ragtag army of raw recruits and barbarians; which he, partly through delegation and partly through his own charisma and leadership forged into a force to be reckoned with. He then diplomatically forged alliances and played Gaulish tribes against one another, using his own legions to steal victory in decivise battles. His use of the terrain and the skill with which he waged psychological warfare on his enemies, and strengthened the morale of his own troops, has been admired by kings, generals and statesmen for two thousand years
Caesars legions was not something he invented on the spot either! Both commanders benefited from having others before them form an army and doctrine that worked.
Also, Alexander very much did go into debt launching his campaign, however that's besides the point, because we are not rating these people on how good politicians they were, but how good commanders they were.
Alexander is the winner there, for the simple reason that he would win battles and wars that he had no business winning. And he was fighting the top empire at the time, still at its peak. Caesars accomplishments were great, but not on the same level.
I can see we will have to agree to disagree. Alexander, with all the power and authority of a king, was handed an army that was his father's Magnum Opus. He pitted this army, and its magnificant staff, against a crumbling empire that relied on a money to sustain itself, and was desperately short of money. Caesar by contrast was given provinicials, working class Cisalpine Italians and foreign "allies" as his army. His father had died while he was still a boy and his support staff were as yet nothing special. He decimated Rome's longest standing enemies beyond even his contemporaries expectations. He then proceeded to usurp the highest office of the Roman Republic to the roars of the Roman people. Alexander would be missing Caesar's arse had they been born in the same time
>Alexander would be missing Caesar's arse had they been born in the same time
In politics, probably. On the battlefield, no.
But I'm happy to agree to disagree. As long as we can agree that both are superior to Hannibal.
Absolutely, but Hannibal would still squash 90% of the generals in recorded history, the man had big fricking balls
>Alexander, with all the power and authority of a king, was handed an army that was his father's Magnum Opus. He pitted this army, and its magnificant staff, against a crumbling empire that relied on a money to sustain itself, and was desperately short of money.
Lel Philip's army was literally defeated by the Persians at Magnesia before Alex arrived to take over. You would know this if you were not a moron who just watched Youtube videos poorly summarizing ancient and modern sources instead of actually reading them. For example, Diodorus Siculus mentions this defeat in Book XVII of his masterwork, starting around 17.7. Now go back to jerking off your tiny Italian American penis instead of pretending to be a historian. I'm
btw, not
I've read commentaries on Alexander's life and conquests, don't get so high and mighty. So Phillips army suffered a defeat, so what? They went on to conquer the known world, what's your point? Show me an army that has aspired to the same heights and never known defeat
>I've read commentaries on Alexander's life and conquests
Yeah buddy, sure you have. Rest assured, I completely believe in the honesty of this statement to match the sincerity of the rest of your post. Now we can both leave the conversation happy.
Lmao you treat a book like it's this indecipherable lexicon. Get a fricking grip lad, people have been reading books for millennia you're not special
>Caesar/Napoleon success rate
>90%, 100%
Which is which
Nah, Alexander 100. Caesar + Napoleon 90% (Take that with as much salt as needed, not an actual calculation)
>Alexander suffers his first defeat
>wails and rages like a little b***h
>Caesar suffers his first defeat
>sends an emissary to convey his respect of their ferocity, and makes them his vanguard in conquering their fellow Gauls
He's saying Alexander was the 100% success rate, and Caesar/Napoleon the 90%. Napoleon and Caesar actually have practically the same success rate because Caesar lost quite a bit (Gergovia, Dyrrhachium, Ruspina, arguably at least one of the invasions of Britain) with fewer total engagements, but of course Caesar's losses counted for less.
>an army specifically designed to counter the phalanx
brainlet detected, also reddit spacing
Alexander: 5’0
Caesar: 5’7
MOGGED
>Alexander: 5’0
>Caesar: 5’7
Propaganda, 2000 year old Italian cope.
Caesar would've risen to the top even if he were born into completely different circumstances, Alexander was a classic case of being in the right place at the right time
>Alexander was a classic case of being in the right place at the right time
He was the right person, at the right place, at the right time. The guy was a genius too.
While Caesar wasn't born into as fortunate circumstances as Alexander, he was definitely afforded a lot of fortune's better side.
Like being a descendant of the Julii/Marius, having the opportunity to harness the power of one of the most effective military institutions the world had seen up until that point in history.
I do think Caesar had greater wits than Alexander but who knows what Alexander would have matured into or could have achieved if he lived to the same age as Caesar.
Both of them, in their own way, were standing on the shoulders of giants and became giants themselves - nothing in history ever happens in a vacuum.
The Julii had to flee the proscriptions of Sulla and by the time of Gaius had fallen on hard times and were reduced to living in a rented urban apartment. All having an ancient family line did was allow him to campaign on being descended from Venus
Well that's precisely the point, being the legendary descendant of a goddess is like +10 to charisma where the superstitious Roman masses are concerned
True, but then again superstitious morons aren’t exactly hard to trick. Pisistratus, the Tyrant of Athens, got the people on his side by finding the tallest woman in the land and dressing her up as Athena and then claiming that she actually was Athena who totally wanted him to break the law in order to forcefully seize power
Chad as frick
He would just keep digging and fortifying
Lol, and? Alexander was the greatest besieger in history. Alex would trap the Italian inside his fortifications and mop up the corpses after a month or two.
Name a siege of Alexander's more impressive than Alesia
Tyre.
>1km long, 200m wide causeway after a 7 month seige, with your army at full strength but being delayed in the early stages of it's campaign
or
>30 miles of 2 separate rings of fortifications, simultaneously defending from both a sortie and external attack, all with numerical inferiority, at the risk of your entire campaign
Turning an island into a peninsula is cooler.
Then Dubai Black folk would beat both of them
Sogdian Rock.
Every single one, because besieging a horde of buttrubbing Gallic barbarians in their village is not impressive. Maybe impressive for Caesar, because he somehow managed to lose to them once before. Alexander took real cities, and your argument is that Caesar would have built better ad-hoc fortifications in the couple of days he had to prepare than the city walls of Tyre or Halicarnassus, built and refined over centuries. Not to mention Alexander would cut off Caesar's supplies, so he would need to either stockpile food or order his men to charge into the Macedonian phalanx in its peak condition. The best case scenario for Caesar is that he finds an opening and runs away with part of his army.
>batman would swoosh! and throw batarang with cryptonite pew pew and then he would jump and boom! kapow! and Superman would be lying on the ground helpless. Then they'd have gay sex with and they’d ask me to join and I’d be like m- me? But they’d make me feel welcome and we’d have an awesome orgy! and Wonder Woman would join us
Nice fanfic but I'm not a marvel fan so I don't understand the relevance. Maybe >>>IQfy is more your speed.
>the npc is characterized by the lack of self awareness, a key fundamental trait of a human being
Who are you quoting?
>quoting
go back
Those "buttrubbing Gallic barbarians in their village" were far more martial and war like than any of the peoples alexander even fought
It was gauls who introduced the gladius, chainmail and rectangular shields to the romans
They were extremely trained/skilled and used as mercenaries everywhere in the known world
So yeah what caesar did was indeed impressive even if i like alex too
That's putting it mildly. Rome considered them their most ancient and feared enemy while despising Greeks as effeminate boyfrickers. Gallic Cavalry were considered the finest in the world, to the point where Romans didn't even bother fielding domestic cavalry, they just hired Gaulish horsemen. Even Greeks eventually caught on to the brilliance of mail armor, though too late in their history to reverse their decline.
In Roman arenas, gladiator classes were commonly based off of POWs, often still fighting in the kit that they were taken prisoner in, with hoplomachus growing out of Greek hoplites and Thraex growing out of Illyrian POWs. Gaulish POWs were initially dubed Gallus, and were considered a heavily armored class, and they eventually grew into the Murmillo class, literally "fishmen" in direct reference to their heavy scale armor. Tacitus even notes that the Crupellarius class gladiator were Gauls "encased in the continuous shell of iron usual in the country". Far from being naked savages (that's more a 2nd Punic War thing) they were among the finest warriors in the ancient western world, and Caesar's victory can be attributed not to brute force, but his uncanny ability to play Gauls off of each other, literally writing the book on divide and conquer
Alexander had the fortune of fighting a crumbling empire who hadn't get caught on to the force projecting power of cavalry, while inheriting the world class officer class that Phillip II spent his lifetime putting together. Caesar fought a wide variety of enemies, often against wildly bad odds, and was a master improviser, a fiendish backroom schemer, and had a legendary eye for finding and promoting men of talent. My money is on Julius
>Gallic cavalry was considered the finest in the world
By the Romans and Romans alone. The vaunted Gaulic and Germanic horsemen who they brought against the Parthians and Persians tended to get horrifically decimated even by light Iranic cavalry and the Romans stopped claiming that after the early contact with the Iranic peoples. In fact I don't think a single Greek writer ever considered Gallic cavalry the best or most elite.
Not that anon but wasn't it German cavalry the Romans honoured as the most fearsome, making even the Gauls unwilling to even pretend competition with them. I distinctly remember Caesar mentioning his Gallic allies being afraid of the Germans, and unable to counter them because every cavalryman had a youthful skirmishes who would keep pace with their horse and counter and harrass any attempt against the mounted man
It was the Celto-Germanic cavalry of the Belgae that were the most fearsome in the region. Also the Roman had good cavalry themselves in the form of the Campaignians and allies.
To my own knowledge the Belgae were a famously fierce people, and a thorn in the Roman side, but not particularly renowned for their cavalry. I stress again that Caesar himself, and Tacitus too I think in his recount of the reign of Tiberius mentioned that the Germans specifically, while they may lack the heavy armour of the Parthians, were remarkably ferocious and difficult to counter because of their style of fighting, which their native land favoured ofcourse
According to EB they were the best of the best.
What game?
Divide Et Impera and Europa Barbarorum
Kino. Still, had the Belgae truly been Mongol-tier they wouldn't have been confined to their little flatlands
I don't think the point was that they're mongol tier but the best cavalry in their region and surroundings.
Until you reach the Rhine that is
These guys were nearly as good as their Belgae counterparts
Nobody's denying that the Belgae had balls, but they were not a large people. The Germans posed a real threat to them, and they saw sense and capitulated to the only people capable of a breaking the Germans
Fair points I don't disagree with you really. It's debatable for sure
IIRC 2 separate Roman historians of 2 separate lifetimes recorded the Belgae as being particularly fierce. There is honour even in defeat, and the Belgae certainly deserve it
lol what
You probably mean just Carrhae because thst is likely rhe only one you know
though the few hundred Gauls at Carrhae literally fought cataphracts and killed them in at least implied significant numbers while the Roman eastern cavs were being slaughtered.
After this there is literally not a single mention of Gallic or Germanic cavalry having issue with Persian cavalry while in Roman service.
For fricks sake even the kings of Numidia employed Gallic cavalry.
King Juba famously had Gauls as shock cavalry.
I swear these pop history wikipedia hisplorians are poison
>though the few hundred Gauls at Carrhae literally fought cataphracts and killed them in at least implied significant numbers
not him but you're extremely low iq
You are fricking moronic. The Romans went after trying to hire or supplement their armies with Sarmatians and other Iranic horsemen to counter Parthian and Persian cataphracts. Gallic horsemen got raped in every campaign by the Parthians and Persians so badly they were turned into skirmishers and scouts.
Attacking an oppidum hillfort is way harder than attacking low placed Middle Eastern cities dumbass.
Also Romans themselves took same Middle Eastern cities with greater ease than they did Celtic or Iberian ones when they did the same.
>Also Romans themselves took same Middle Eastern cities with greater ease than they did Celtic or Iberian ones when they did the same.
No they didn't, because Alexander destroyed the city walls of the cities he conquered. IQfytards, I swear to God. The only cities the Romans besieged in the area Alexander conquered were part of the Pontic empire or Judea, with neither area Alexander having any problems with, so if you want to draw this silly comparison then the fact the Romans had to besiege cities there at all shows their inferiority to Alexander, for Alexander made the same cities submit to him by merely passing by.
>for Alexander made the same cities submit to him by merely passing by.
Tyre
I'm talking about the same cities the Romans besieged, moron. The Romans couldn't besiege Tyre because Alexander fricking destroyed it. Tyre was rebuilt, but it never recovered to what it was pre-Alexander, not to mention the fact that even if it did recover, any siege of the city would now be necessarily less impressive because it was a peninsula post-Alexander, not an island.
In any case, even though Tyre sided against the Romans consistently, ultimately Rome took Tyre when Pompey offered the city a deal as a privileged free city in the Roman sphere of influence. After this, the Romans built Tyre up and turned it into the port of the Levant, which made the city extremely wealthy and grateful to the Romans, and thereby turned them into Romans. In short, Tyre didn't join Rome because it was scared of Rome, but because it was good economic sense.
On the other hand, there was no economic incentive to join Alexander's empire. Cities already enjoyed significant autonomy under the Persians, and when Alexander came along he demanded higher taxes (to pay for his wars) and less autonomy (to feed his military machine). The cities in Asia minor and Syria that surrendered to Alexander surrendered because they were terrified of him and his military, not because Alexander offered them a square deal. That shows how mighty Alexander was, and how pathetic the Romans were in comparison. Alexander would wipe out any Roman army easy.
Or everyone would see they better off with the Romans and side against Alexander and his youthful vanity. If it came between pledging loyalty to Rome or to Macedonia anyone with any sense would choose Rome
>Alexander would wipe out any Roman army easy.
And then there would be another. And another. And another. And then everyone is gabging up on ol' alex because he cannot be in 10 places at once.
Even for the handful (and that description is being generous) of cities whom Alexander demanded tear down their walls, the Romans did not arrive in the area until 300 years later. More fool them if within 10 generations they neglected their own defenses. But even if that were true, which it's not, the Romans were renowned the world over for their expertise in siegecraft, they themselves took open pride in it and their generals and soldiers were well aware of this advantage. To say that the Romans were inferior to anyone in matters of siegeworks is delusion, plain and simple
>But even if that were true, which it's not, the Romans were renowned the world over for their expertise in siegecraft, they themselves took open pride in it and their generals and soldiers were well aware of this advantage.
>To say that the Romans were inferior to anyone in matters of siegeworks is delusion, plain and simple
Non sequitur.
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that Alexander never lost a single siege, and the Romans lost some sieges. Alexander marched from Greece to India starting with just the resources of Greece, the Romans at the height of their power with uncontested control over all the resources of the Mediterranean couldn't pass from Asia Minor to the Zagros Mountains. As for the specific sieges, Alexander killed all the men in the cities who resisted him and sold the rest into slavery, but you're pretending the Roman conquests of the same area centuries later is as impressive. The logical conclusion of this argument is that you also believe the Frankish conquest of the area in Gaul that used to have Alesia is just as impressive as Caesar's siege of Alesia, and that the Frankish conquest of where Geronium was makes them better besiegers than Caesar. But of course, you don't believe that, because this is all mental gymnastics to pretend the Romans produced any military figure on par with Alexander. You shift the argument to suit your case, and not the other way around.
With respect I say you have misrepresented my point, and strayed off topic with less than basic knowledge. Alexander was remarkably merciful, Caesar *arguably* more-so but that's besides the point. Alexander reigned over his empire for 11 years was it? The Romans had many generals, you cannot tally up the defeats of one man's short life against the defeats of a hundred generations.
Alexander was *arguably* the finest military figure in human history aye, in that he appeals to every class of man, from the cook to the general, being a Herculean archetype; but Caesar is something different altogether. Caesar dwarfes other men as your own post well reveals. His achievements are uncontestable for the average man, in contrast to Alexander, and yet Caesar was devoted to the people and Alexander was not.
>Caesar dwarfes other men as your own post well reveals
ESL
I went to a grammar school homosexual, I was entirely correct.
>Alexander made the same cities submit to him by merely passing by.
Most of them were happy to submit because it meant they were rid of the Persians.
Caesar would just keep digging more
Alexander would seethe at his fortifications.
caesar is relentless
>Alexander at his death
>I'll leave my empire to the strongest
>Empire collapsed
>Caesar at his death
>Adopts my boy Octavian
>Made the Roman Empire
collapsed
>"our based tetrarchy"
>"their cringe hellinism"
>after 4 years
>after 4 centuries
Yeah totally the same
It was also Caesar and Augustus who took down the last remaining Alexandrian successor kingdom
>Taking down a crumbling empire on its last legs, ruled by a military incompetent, is impressive
Yeah, Alexander really is overrated
Nonetheless, he certainly deserves fame and admiràtion
He didnt go down in history as Alexander the Good or Alexander the Decent. There is a reason for that.
Every general worth their salt that came after Alexander studied his wars. There is a reason for this.
It's called Parmenion
UHH NO HE WASNT THAT GREAT HE WAS ONLY GREAT BECAUSE PEOPLE SAID HE WAS GREAT YOU BIGOT
Romans never conquered Persia, cope with it.
You missed the point.
That statement sounds moronic as frick.
I mean, Caesar had better army than Alexander (more soldiers+monipular system), so how can we imagine their "fair" battle?
Caesar’s legionaries did not use the manipular system that defeated the Greek phalanx, they used the cohort system which was an upgrade
My dad would kick your dad's ass
three walls
>nobody even mentions Dyrrachium
All of you are a bunch of pseuds and schizoids. Please pick up a book and take your meds, it's for your own good
Alexander wouldn't be able to conquer Gaul, just like how he pussied out with the Pajeets
Everyone knows since the Battle of Marathon that the Persians are no match against the Greek Phalanx. I really don't understand why Alexander's campaign is really that impressive. The Persian Empire was also at its lowest point by the time he arrived.