Let's say they were even matched. You have the greatest commanders in the world, who would win? Personally I think Caesar. The Legions are more flexable than Hoptile warfare. But Caesar is a better politician than Alexander. Anyone?
shareI think the Roman Legions and Macedonian Pikes had much in common.
The Roman army was a "buzzsaw" that cut it's way into the enemy - relentless, disciplined, organised but not necessarily brilliant! Philip's Macedonians relied on a similar approach, however the Phalanx was tactically inferior to the Maniple, especially on uneven ground or indeed any battle where mobility was important.
Despite this, a battle between these two leaders could go either way depending on the terrain, weather conditions and available intelligence. IF the pikes could hold down the legions for long enough it's conceivable that, after routing the inferior Equites, Alexander's Companions would be able to "hammer and anvil" the Roman infantry into surrender. Hence, I would give him the edge in a single "stand-up" battle on his chosen ground.
However, generals must win wars not battles and Caesar was probably the better strategist with the support of Roman Logistics (to keep his troops resupplied and reinforced) which was far superior to what was available to the Greeks. Hence, I'd expect Caeser's cautious but shrewd campaigning to eventually win the war.
Caesar would almost certainly win, having the benefit of 400 years of military advances. It's like asking who'd win between Napoleon and Patton. Alexander also had very weak opponents with armies composed primarily of poor farmers fighting as light infantry that were severely outmatched by the professional military his father had established. After defeating Darius' host of peasants it was essentially a matter of mopping up wherever he chose.
shareYou don't seem to know the full story.
Alexander had a very tough fight at Acre and also in India. These peoples were far from a pushover! Mopping up you wrote? Get down your local library and find some informed biographies on Alexander and read them cover to cover!
Alexander would win; Rome learned everythjng they knew from Alexander and Rome got sloppy
shareI m fron Greece.
The father oF Alexander was Phillip
The teacher of Alexander was Aristotelis
Alexander at 16 was commander of the best horseman in all of the ancient world
Alexander conquer 90 precent of the known world
Because of Alexander christianity is a fact!!!
Alexander found Alexandria in Egypt the greatest city in all mankind
Alexander died in 32.
I dont care if Alexander was gay
Alexander has no other exmple in our history of mankind. simply is the greatest man ever walked in planet earth
I can hardly disagree with you : I am a huge admirer of the man too.
The greatest man who ever walked on Earth? Almost. Let's say one of the greatest. Certainly, the greatest leader of people and military genius.
In military history Alexander was second only to Napoleon.
shareNapoleon was second only to Alexander!
shareMy guess: In the end, it would matter little who would lead the army as the Roman legionaries way of fighting proved superior to the Macedonian phalanx. The Romans fought against the Macedonian kingdom after the Punic Wars and met armies which were still very similar to Alexander's host, with a core of spear-armed infantry fighting in tight formation, supplemented by light troops, heavy and light cavalry. In numbers, their armies were then more or less evenly matched most of the time. Once a Roman fighter could slip past the lancepoints, he could massacre the otherwise lightly armed Macedonian fighters and break up the formation. The kill ratio of Romans vs. Macedonians in such battles was horrendous and usually ended with complete annihilation of the enemy phalanx. Also, cavalry shock tactics which worked well against the Persians were not effective against the Romans with their formidable defensive skills.
And we are talking about the Pre-Marian legions (still a citizen army, not professional soldiers). Caesar had better-equipped and better-trained soldiers at his disposal, with much battlefield experience.
So, even with all the skill of Alexander, my money would still be on the legionary, especially if lead by Caesar.
Alexander has the upper hand in cavalry, Caesar has the upper hand in heavy infantry. Both are experienced generals with proffessional, battle hardened armies. I say Caesar would win. The Romans had bested the Macedonian phalanx time after time after time. In his battle with Pompeii, Caesar anticipated a cavalry attack (by Pompeii's superior cavalry force), and easily repelled it by pulling heavy infantry out of the line and deploying it to repel the cavalry, which shows he has the skill for anticipating and blocking/countering the tactics of his enemies. I could be wrong though, maybe Alexander's fearless heavy cavalry charge would have routed Caesar's cavalry (or maybe even killed/captured Caesar!) and left Alexander and his cavalry free to hammer the Roman infantry from the flank/rear.
Also, Alexander may not have been gay, but he was almost certainly at least bisexual. It doesn't seem to have been such a big deal to Greeks in those days - men tended to enjoy both women and other men. Ancient Greece was/is infamous for man on man action. Even in ancient times they were infamous for it.
Without a doubt, Alexander's achievements were far more impressive.
Alexander took on the armies of the mightiest empires of the east, and decimated them. These were the Egyptians, the Persians -- people with centuries of military strategy behind them, and enormous armies. And while Caesar's accomplishments are impressive in their own way, they cannot compare with Alexander's.
First, look at the size of land that Alexander conquered, and compare that to Caesar's Gaul. Second, Caesar didn't fight organized nation-states like Egypt and Persia, with all the might and military sophistication's that nation-states can bring to the battlefield -- Caesar fought a disjointed series of rustic tribes people who had no strategy or sophisticated weapons. This isn't to say that they were "pushovers," but ultimately the Romans were far better trained, equipped and led than their Gallic counterparts. This makes the contest uneven in Caesar's favor.
Alexander had no such luck. His battles were harder to fight, harder to win, and against much, much greater odds.
🏈
At Alesia, the Romans had a smaller army in the field than their combined Gaul enemies. (Before, they probably had the largest coherent fighting force in Gaul). So both Caesars legions and Alexanders armies did fight as numerically inferior armies and still won. The ability to defeat a numerically superior army would not be the decisive point for me.
Both armies had superior discipline and - man by man - probably had better equipment than their average enemy combatant. The Persians could field greater numbers of combatants than the Gauls, but - man by man comparison - the Celtic warrior was probably better armed with defensive and offensive weapons than the Persian infantryman. The “kill ratio” was very high in both theaters of war: usually, the Persian and Gaul antagonists suffered heavy losses if they were not completely annihilated. By the way, if Roman legions encountered Asian armies equipped in the style of Macedonian phalanxes, the result was equally horrific for their Asian antagonists. So I think the quality of the enemy armies was inferior in both theaters.
The Macedonian armies probably had an edge in leadership. While Caesar was a competent leader, with the exception of Alesia, his battles needed less tactical effort than Alexander`s battles. Caesar had a heavy infantry army with a few auxiliary forces. Alexander relied on a complex cooperation of heavy and light infantry, skirmishers, heavy and light cavalry and the right timing when to use which type of army unit was crucial. Caesar relied on a proven tactical system which required organization and discipline, but needed less complex cooperation between different units.
But the question “who would win” can only be answered by a direct comparison of both armies. Legions and Phalanx did fight against each other. With few exceptions, the Legions won. Tactically, I would give Alexander a slight edge as a commander. I don`t think it would outweigh the disadvantage the phalanx had against more mobile opponents once those got past the lancepoints.
Another interesting question: what if Alexander had waged a campaign against the Romans in his time (as he had once planned). The Roman historian Livy gave this alternate scenario some thought and concluded that – while Alexander had a high-quality army and impressive achievements as a military leader – in a campaign against Rome, he ultimately would have failed. He would have faced higher attrition than in his Persian battles, the Romans could replace losses more easily, politically they were far more united than the Persian Empire with its many ethnicities, and – while Roman generals were not always geniuses – the average quality of leadership was probably higher than in the Persian armies. One lost battle would have forced Alexander to end his campaign.