You are a golden gawd. That's what I'm talking about. Full Credit.

Nimitz Class History Buff Award.

Although you might have mentioned more about their advisaries. Both Armies were of similar size and training but Caesar raided until the Gallic tribes FINALLY united. Warriors almost alway lose to soldiers despite superior numbers b/c of unit integrity and the inability to change tactis under fire.

Darius's general/cousin(?) was awaiting Alexander at Granicus where ATG bull rushed them at dusk, crossed the river and up hill under massive fire and proceeded to skull **** the Persian forces (and almost died if not for Phillip's man Black Cleitus).
He then killed 10,000 Greek mercenaries that night to make his point about Hellenistic unity.

Of course, the Battle of Gaugamela was pure genius and had Parminian held the left flank allowing Alexander to capture Darius history would have been VERY interesting.

Alexander fought trained soldiers HOWEVER the Gauls were fighting for their homes and for their way of life. Darius's army was pooled from conquered regions with no love for Darius or Asia Minor.

In the end I go with Alexander. Just because of his ability to mix passion with adaptation. I would have been loyal even into India and beyond.

Here's the real question. Could Alexander have defeated The Chin? No way.

CalebMcCreary06 said:

---

Not Patton don't care.




Honestly though, good thought experiment. I would consider Alexander superior based on the organization of the enemy he fought. The Gauls had a semblance of organization under Vercingetorix but the Persian Empire was highly coordinated and self sufficient. I give the edge to Alexander for that reason.

---

Even Patton knew his history.

Can you list all the generals he believed he was reincarnated from?

Haven't kept up with all those things. Have no proof I had an ancestor in any of them so no direct ties.

You can't knock Caesar for his legions because the Persians had no answer for the Greek phalanx. They both had advantages versus the Persians and the Gauls.

I think Caesar was the better general because of what he did in the Civil war that followed the gallic wars. He was always outnumbered 2 to 1 or more by other Roman legions and always won and against Pompey who would have been considered one of the greatest generals In Roman history had it not been for Caesar.

I accept this challenge...need some time though ...I'm on the Revolutionary War loop myself ...been there for a few years now but just recently expanded to include Pacific Theatre and you are so right! They got me hooked. lol

Concur with ATG.

Also, ATG had no peers in a purely battlefield setting with the lone exception (Ancient world) Hannibal.

Also, the Chin would have folded like a paper dragon. China has never been unified nationally and their classes of arms while they had some unique tech and gadgets, they had never fully developed Combined arms in such a way as to deploy that would counter ATG.

If Alexander could have recruited enough auxiliaries in the Indus valley, while maintaining his reinforcements from illyria and Macedon etc, he would have walked to the the pacific.

I have always been amazed how the Bactrian Greeks were able to hold on in the middle of Afghanistan and Pakistan for 500 years after ATG. The Hellenizing cultural effect must have been something else.

In today's age of political correctness we have to pick Alexander because he was gay and Caesar was a straight white man.

When I was standing at the Torkham Gate on the Pak border with Afghanistan all I could think about how Alexander and his army marched through that very same area.

Rabid Cougar said:

---

When I was standing at the Torkham Gate on the Pak border with Afghanistan all I could think about how Alexnader and his army marched through that very same area.

---

I thought the same about Gaugamela when I was in N. Iraq.

Great thread and good comments. I second the notion that Alexander's victories were greater because of the quality of his opponents. But let's not lose sight of the sheer brilliance of Caesar's siege of Alesia. He beseiged the enemy, and when a relief force came, built a wall around his entire force and was besieged while besieging. He won the battle against the best the Gauls had, Vercingetorix.

Of course, Caesar was operating after Alexander, so the argument kind of reminds me of the argument of whether Stevie Ray Vaughan was better than Hendrix. I think SRV was better, but of course, he had Hendrix as the starting point, and Hendrix had to invent much of his style. So when you add that factor in, Alexander definitely appears to be greater. On the battlefield, at least. Caesar's brilliance was political as well, and in this area, he far surpassed Alexander. They both hooked up with a floozy for political purposes, but Caesar/Cleopatra was a much better choice from a political standpoint than Alexander/Roxanne.

Quote:

---

Also, ATG had no peers in a purely battlefield setting with the lone exception (Ancient world) Hannibal

---

Scipio Africanus anyone?

Apache said:

---

Quote:

---

Also, ATG had no peers in a purely battlefield setting with the lone exception (Ancient world) Hannibal

---

Scipio Africanus anyone?

---

The Scipios were formidable adversaries and excellent battlefield commanders but despite Zama, they only locked horns with Hannibal once. I would venture to say that if Hannibal had his troops that were hardened from years of campaigning in Spain that he had a the beginning of the 2 Punic war, it probably would have been a better battle. As it was he had poor cavalry and poorer troops with only 1/3 being his own.