Also, the Romans were constantly upgrading their legionaries until the late western empire. They kept adding new tactics and new training to keep them up to date. The greeks, on the other hand, rarely upgraded the phalanx, and it remained largely unchanged until Phillip and Epemeinodas, hundreds of years after the invention of the phalanx.
Greatest General: Caesar or Alexander
- Thread starter Gandalf13
- Start date
Parmenion
Warlord
Whilst conceding other points regarding the relative pros and cons of each civilisation and it's military, I am not willing to accept that Caesar was a better General than Alexander. I agree to a lot of what you're saying about Caesar, and I have been educated. Still, the fact of the matter exists that the knowledge we have on Caesar's victories comes mostly from his own writings (the conquest of Gaul), either as a 1st hand or 2nd hand piece of historical evidence, whereas there are several works on Alexander's conquests. Okay, some were actually commissioned by the man himself, which makes them vaguely suspect anyway, but there are others that all agree on certain important facts regarding what Alexander actually achieved. Also, many of the places Alexander conquered still have legends about him, some of them oral ones that have been passed down for more than 2 thousand years! At the end of the 19th Century, several hill tribes in Afghanistan were contacted by British expeditions and it was discovered that they still had a limited form of worship of the God Alexander and his children. Caesar seems to have been heavily dramatised by writers, including Shakespeare which has contributed to his popularity and the general view that he was a great leader. Alexander however seems to have his reputation from oral tradition aswell as more conventional means. Thus I have concluded that Alexander was the better general IMO.
Stefan Haertel
Title
It is not very fruitful to compare the written sources about Alexander to those about Caesar.
Caesar happened to live in the midst of a time every serious man recognized as one that was to change history. Hell, he recognized that himself! That's why he wrote down the Gaullic and Civil Wars. And despite the obvious tone of self-praise, his style is surprisingly sober and realistic.
The authors who wrote about him -Cicero, Suetonius and Plutarch to name the most important- lived in the same civilization as he did, so they had a clear view of things. This is why we can consider the written sources about Caesar trustworthy.
Alexander on the other hand lived in a strange time. For some reason, no historian can be placed in this time in succession to Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon. Of course companions of Alexander wrote- and they didn't write very little. Callisthenes was Alexanders 'personal' historian. Soldiers wrote of their experiences. So did Nearchus and Ptolemaeus. But for some odd reason, nothing of this survived in a complete and unedited way. There are five complete histories of Alexander: that of Diodorus (ca. 50 BC), that of Plutarch (ca. 50 AD), Arrian (ca. 150 AD), Quintus Curtius Rufus (150 AD) and Iustin (ca. 250 AD). These often quote from their sources, but between Alexander and these historians lie centuries, in which Alexander became more a myth than a memory.
We can rely on a certain extent to these historians. But then, all of written history is reliable only to a certain extent.
I would also give an opinion to Parmenion's statement that the Romans copied off the Greek civilization.
Throughout history, you will find many civilizations that bear the one or other astounishing similarity to others. Just look: Persian bas-reliefs look oddly much like Assyrian and Babylonian ones. Carthaginian cities (though lost) had very much the structures of Greek ones, and Roman temples looked oddly much like Greek temples as well.
This is not a question of copy. It is a question of influence. Many civilizations regarded foreign ideals as true and good and adopted, assimilated them (a very widespread practice, for example, in Hinduism). That doesen't mean they copied foreign civilizations. Yes, Roman architecture, at least in the earlier times, bore remarkable similarities to Greek architecture. How could it have been otherwise? They were surrounded by Greeks, and also by Etruscans and Carthaginians, who had also adopted Greek ideas. They knew nothing else but tribal cults from their origins. In order to establish a civilization to challenge the others, they had to adopt certain things. And by the time they became unnecessary, they had already become so deep a part of their culture that they didn't consider dropping them again, but advancing them.
This is not a Greek feat. The same has been accomplished by the Babylonians, Assyrians and, yes, Persians, and so many others.
There has been a time of imitation and copying of parts of foreign civilizations. But this was in the Rennaissance and later. That again, had a totally different cause.
Caesar happened to live in the midst of a time every serious man recognized as one that was to change history. Hell, he recognized that himself! That's why he wrote down the Gaullic and Civil Wars. And despite the obvious tone of self-praise, his style is surprisingly sober and realistic.
The authors who wrote about him -Cicero, Suetonius and Plutarch to name the most important- lived in the same civilization as he did, so they had a clear view of things. This is why we can consider the written sources about Caesar trustworthy.
Alexander on the other hand lived in a strange time. For some reason, no historian can be placed in this time in succession to Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon. Of course companions of Alexander wrote- and they didn't write very little. Callisthenes was Alexanders 'personal' historian. Soldiers wrote of their experiences. So did Nearchus and Ptolemaeus. But for some odd reason, nothing of this survived in a complete and unedited way. There are five complete histories of Alexander: that of Diodorus (ca. 50 BC), that of Plutarch (ca. 50 AD), Arrian (ca. 150 AD), Quintus Curtius Rufus (150 AD) and Iustin (ca. 250 AD). These often quote from their sources, but between Alexander and these historians lie centuries, in which Alexander became more a myth than a memory.
We can rely on a certain extent to these historians. But then, all of written history is reliable only to a certain extent.
I would also give an opinion to Parmenion's statement that the Romans copied off the Greek civilization.
Throughout history, you will find many civilizations that bear the one or other astounishing similarity to others. Just look: Persian bas-reliefs look oddly much like Assyrian and Babylonian ones. Carthaginian cities (though lost) had very much the structures of Greek ones, and Roman temples looked oddly much like Greek temples as well.
This is not a question of copy. It is a question of influence. Many civilizations regarded foreign ideals as true and good and adopted, assimilated them (a very widespread practice, for example, in Hinduism). That doesen't mean they copied foreign civilizations. Yes, Roman architecture, at least in the earlier times, bore remarkable similarities to Greek architecture. How could it have been otherwise? They were surrounded by Greeks, and also by Etruscans and Carthaginians, who had also adopted Greek ideas. They knew nothing else but tribal cults from their origins. In order to establish a civilization to challenge the others, they had to adopt certain things. And by the time they became unnecessary, they had already become so deep a part of their culture that they didn't consider dropping them again, but advancing them.
This is not a Greek feat. The same has been accomplished by the Babylonians, Assyrians and, yes, Persians, and so many others.
There has been a time of imitation and copying of parts of foreign civilizations. But this was in the Rennaissance and later. That again, had a totally different cause.
Parmenion
Warlord
Stefan - thanks for the lesson in classics, I never did really listen much at Uni, unless it was about battles or orgies, so the new knowledge has been noted and is appreciated.
Still haven't heard your opinion as to who was the best general yet - I know you wanted to refrain from that part of the debate but I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear your view on it.
Still haven't heard your opinion as to who was the best general yet - I know you wanted to refrain from that part of the debate but I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear your view on it.
Stefan, I agree with your last post. I have Caesar's Gallic Campaign and Civil War, and they're great books. As I said before, it was much easier for Alexander to win a battle against the Persians than for Caesar to be victorious against the Celts, because of the fact that if the Persian leader ran away or was killed, the Persian army would flee.
Stefan Haertel
Title
Well, if you're going for the general only, I'd say Caesar was the more able (to put it in a rather neutral way) of both. He had much more of a general's character than Alexander.
SKILORD
Insurgent
Caeser's tactics didn't depend on going up against savages
he beat Pompey didn't he?
he beat Pompey didn't he?
Michiel de Ruyter
Grand Admiral
Remember the armies of Caesars time were a lot bigger than in Alexander's time, so they were more difficult to manage.
And Alexander captured an already established empire, so he didn't have to pay to much attention on his logistics, so the one time he had to march trough a desert (on his way back to Babylon from the Indus) he lost a very large part of his army.
Caesar on the other hand, had to capture a more backward country and arrange for re-enforcements and supplies and was still able to pull of an invasion of Brittain.
Also, Caesar was one of the first to command his troops from the rear, he fought only to inspire his men during Alesia, however, Alexander got almost killed on a number of occasians, while his entire campaign releid on him.
And Alexander captured an already established empire, so he didn't have to pay to much attention on his logistics, so the one time he had to march trough a desert (on his way back to Babylon from the Indus) he lost a very large part of his army.
Caesar on the other hand, had to capture a more backward country and arrange for re-enforcements and supplies and was still able to pull of an invasion of Brittain.
Also, Caesar was one of the first to command his troops from the rear, he fought only to inspire his men during Alesia, however, Alexander got almost killed on a number of occasians, while his entire campaign releid on him.
Skilord- it has been my point all along in saying that Caesar was not up against savages. Pompey was Roman and an able general. Also, as I said before, the Celts inter-tribal warfare made them excellent warriors who were a match for the Roman legions.
Michiel de Ruyter- good point with the logistics, although Caesar often did lead from the front, not just at Alesia. He would almost always take some part in the battles to encourage his men, just read his Gallic Campaign or Plutarch's life of Caesar.
Michiel de Ruyter- good point with the logistics, although Caesar often did lead from the front, not just at Alesia. He would almost always take some part in the battles to encourage his men, just read his Gallic Campaign or Plutarch's life of Caesar.
And other battles and sieges (Massilia being one of the most difficult and technically challenging, ranking up there with Massada later and Tyre earlier) against Romans in Provance, Spain, and Africa, and against Hellanized kindoms in the east, such as Egypt & Pontus where he defeated armies with all the traditions of both Alexander and Persia behind them.
TheDuckOfFlanders
the fish collecter
Well ,i aknowledge that Julius Caesar was indeed a very wise man ,afterall ,didn't he say once (or write in the Bella Galico) :
"From all people i conquered the Belgian's were the bravest"
"From all people i conquered the Belgian's were the bravest"
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
But Caesar was a better writer 
SKILORD2
coolest nerd around
i was being pro-Caeser. he was an Excellent general and politician and not a bad writer, well better than Alex.
Well C. Julius Ceasar was an all around standout. One of the best roman commanders, perhaps behind Scipio Africanus and Trajan. The 2nd best orator, behind Cicero. An excellent writer of prose. Themost skillful politition. One of the most famous lovers. One peculier characteristic metioned in more than one source was that he was quicker than anyone else. Occaisionaly in his younger military carreer he would go to the front with a sword when needed to bolster flagging morale, and his sword play was so fast that it was difficult to see. Even when attacked by suprise as an old and not well man when assasinated, the first stab (delivered by Casca, down through the should into an artery) being the only likely fatal would he recieved, he stabed and beat the snot out his dozen or so attackers using the wax tablet and stylus he was carrying. When dictating correspondence he would have 3 secretaries each doing a separate letter with him dictating one sentence to each in turn.
Magnus
Diplocat
my college humanities professor related this story to me:
Apparently during one of his campaigns, Caesar was in his tent looking over some letters and one of his junior officers entered and was astonished to see his General looking at the articles and not moving his mouth! Seems that up to that point in time anybody reading would either speak or mouth the words as they went along, but not Caesar, he simply read with just his eyes!
Apparently during one of his campaigns, Caesar was in his tent looking over some letters and one of his junior officers entered and was astonished to see his General looking at the articles and not moving his mouth! Seems that up to that point in time anybody reading would either speak or mouth the words as they went along, but not Caesar, he simply read with just his eyes!
Ah Caesar the master of self promotion. Isn't it funny? We think of Caesar as one of the greatest generals of ancient times - and our primary source for his achievements (at least in Gual) is Caesar himself?
But how can we just debate Alexander and Caesar? Has no one heard of Hannibal? Napoleon ranked Alexander and Hannibal above Caesar. He's no great historical authority, I know, but he did study the tactics of all three.
Personnelly I fell all have their merits and failings. I like Caesar the man the best as Alexander and Hannibal strike me as being rather more "thuggish" - more like real soldiers I suppose. As to who was the best general? I dunno... I claim an honourable draw.
Regarding Caesar and his "funny" style of reading: until quite recently it was normal for people to read out loud. I'm not sure when we started reading quietly but during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries it was still common for people to read aloud. It was because (rough expanlation) people believed that they understood lanuage by hearing it. Therefore they read aloud to listen to the text and understand it.
But how can we just debate Alexander and Caesar? Has no one heard of Hannibal? Napoleon ranked Alexander and Hannibal above Caesar. He's no great historical authority, I know, but he did study the tactics of all three.
Personnelly I fell all have their merits and failings. I like Caesar the man the best as Alexander and Hannibal strike me as being rather more "thuggish" - more like real soldiers I suppose. As to who was the best general? I dunno... I claim an honourable draw.
Regarding Caesar and his "funny" style of reading: until quite recently it was normal for people to read out loud. I'm not sure when we started reading quietly but during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries it was still common for people to read aloud. It was because (rough expanlation) people believed that they understood lanuage by hearing it. Therefore they read aloud to listen to the text and understand it.
Stefan Haertel
Title
I thought it good that Hannibal wasn't mentioned before.
Yes, Hannibal came far. Yes, he lost only a single battle (Zama, 202 BC) in his whole career. This battle, however, was fatal for Hannibal and for Carthage.
Hannibal was a great warrior. Nothing more. He was neither a good politician, nor a good general. As a matter of fact, he was a horrible general.
We describe it as a great feat of leading his elephants over the alps. Well, it might have looked impressive for the first couple of moments and the last couple of moments. But it was a disaster. The few elephants that survived weren't used in battle.
But forget the elephants.
After Hannibal had defeated the Romans at Cannae, his first move shouldn't have been Capua or anywhere else, but immediately to Rome. Every moment of waiting would have been, and was, fatal. Rome settled the inner quarrels. Immediately after Cannae, Italy was almost empty of legions. One year after that, there were 20 legions available to Rome! Only an immediate march into the city of Rome could have halted that progress.
Hannibal might not yet have destroyed the Roman empire, but he would have had the power, and could have made Rome a vassal. In any case, he could have saved Carthage. He knew how to wind battles; he didn't know how to use these victories. His sole command of the army was why he failed.
Yes, Hannibal came far. Yes, he lost only a single battle (Zama, 202 BC) in his whole career. This battle, however, was fatal for Hannibal and for Carthage.
Hannibal was a great warrior. Nothing more. He was neither a good politician, nor a good general. As a matter of fact, he was a horrible general.
We describe it as a great feat of leading his elephants over the alps. Well, it might have looked impressive for the first couple of moments and the last couple of moments. But it was a disaster. The few elephants that survived weren't used in battle.
But forget the elephants.
After Hannibal had defeated the Romans at Cannae, his first move shouldn't have been Capua or anywhere else, but immediately to Rome. Every moment of waiting would have been, and was, fatal. Rome settled the inner quarrels. Immediately after Cannae, Italy was almost empty of legions. One year after that, there were 20 legions available to Rome! Only an immediate march into the city of Rome could have halted that progress.
Hannibal might not yet have destroyed the Roman empire, but he would have had the power, and could have made Rome a vassal. In any case, he could have saved Carthage. He knew how to wind battles; he didn't know how to use these victories. His sole command of the army was why he failed.
Elfstorm- Caesar is not our primary source of information about him. Numerous people alive at the time, including some of his own soldiers and Cicero (who was not exactly a supporter of Caesar) wrote about Caesar's achievments in Gaul. Plutarch also wrote about Caesar extensively, and he was alive not long after the death of Caesar.
