A high school teacher said to his class ,Alexander the great had conquered the known world when he was your age ,One student replied, He had Aristotle as a teacher and we only have you
I WOULD CHOOSE JULIUS CAESAR! BECAUSE UNLIKE ALEXANDER THE GREAT. HE CREATE HIS POWER,FORCES AND SKILLS ON HIS OWN SELF AND RESOURCE AND ALSO UNLIKE ALEXANDER HE ACTUALLY HAVE FOUGHT A BRILLIANT COMMANDER IN HISTORY IN A LEGENDARY BATTLE. IT MAY NOT BE AS LEGENDARY AS LIKE OF THE A THIRD CRUSADE WERE AN INTELLIGENT STRATEGIST(SALADIN) AND BRILLIANT GENERAL(RICHARD THE LIONHEART) WOULD CLASH EACH OTHER. BUT STILL AN AWESOME FIGHT!
When Caesar read about Alexander’s life, he burst into tears. His friends were surprised and asked him the reason for it. ‘Do you think I have not just cause to weep when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations, and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable?'
@M W Dude, you're clearly obsessed with Alexander being nothing without Philip. You claim it as being an absolute truth. Wtf he do to you? Yes he got a head start but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have made anything for himself without the help before hand.
As a ruler: Caesar As a conqueror: Alexander I know Turks and Greeks don't have good relations but there is no denying that Alexander was in fact great. Respect from Turkey.
Yeah but Caesar never faced anyone even near the level of Alexander. Caesar conquered Gaul...Alexander conquered the most powerful nation the world had ever seen. Caesar lost a few battles...Alexander never lost a single battle. If Alexander had lived and decided to go west...even ancient Roman generals and scholars knew Rome wouldn't have survived. Rome was just a city state at the time.
@@johnirby8847 there was no point, Rome was nothing during Alexander’s time. Rome in its prime vs Greece in its prime would’ve been quite something though
@@dead5323 it would be interesting because Rome did have a better manipole and cohort infantry system but never bothered with cavalry...mainly hiring mercenaries. Where as Alexander was an expert cavalry commander with the best cavalry on the planet at the time. Alexander relied on his phalanx infantry but his trump card was cavalry. As far as I can tell..Caesar never faced an opponent with the same tenacity as Alexander!
@@johnirby8847 Caesar never faced someone like Alexander but Alexander also never faced someone like Caesar, I get chills just thinking about it. Alexander was a bit more reckless and I could see him getting caught by Caesar’s cavalry like in Pharsalus but like you said, Alexander’s bravery and spirit was second to none and I think that would give him a decided advantage in melee combat.
He conquered the Persian empire before he was even thirty. He never lost a battle and never would have if he lived longer, he also fought side by side with his soldiers and nearly died MANY times on the battlefield. He's the greatest in my eyes.
David S and he saw himself as a soldier and not as a king even going as far as to pour away the little bits of water his men gave him when they were all dehydrated, what did Alexander do ? He poured it into the sand and said we either survive this together or die together
David S Alexander never even considered terrain in battles, and he only won victories against outnumbered barbarians or the armies of one single Persian king. Julius was amazing at waiting for the right time, always deploying on favourable ground and whenever he couldn’t, he just casually built a 40km long wall. I strongly suspect that what would have happened is that the young general who was in his earlier campaigns shown to be rather naive and throughout his battles only won by abusing enemy mistakes and in some cases simply through clever out of the box thinking. He was amazing at this, but I have great doubts that it would come to any use when under siege, surrounded, out of food and on bad terrain against a well disciplined army led by Caesar.
Axel Andersson but your mistaken, Alexander did not defeat outnumbering barbarians and a Persian king separately. The battle of Gaugamela for example, king Darius (Persian) had a army believed to be 100,000 soldiers consisting of the immortal’s (notorious for their brutality,discipline, and skill in close combat), Greek mercenaries (disciplined and battle hardened warriors), and Persian cavalry which was presumed to be the greatest the world has ever known. Then Alexander’s army, roughly 50,000 strong, was only half that of Darius. Alexander’s army was kept incredible disciplined and used the impenetrable phalanx tactic and had light cavalry meant for quick maneuvering. Despite the 1:2 ratio Alex faced he was able to defeat the Persian king with minimal casualties, thanks to his incredible strategy and ability to see the smallest flaw in the enemy’s lines unlike anyone else in history, he was victorious, as he will be throughout his expedition in Asia. Army either big or small, disciplined or not, he will always have the greatest military mind in history. I am not saying Julius wasn’t brilliant, because he was but there is a reason he studied Alexander the Greats battles tactics so closely.
David S When I say outnumbered barbarians, I’m talking about the balkan campaign. In both Gaugamella and Issus, he won simply by going between the different army lines and attacked the persian king, forcing him to flee, depleting the morale of the remaining Persians. He seemed to have been somewhat of a one trick pony. Darius was the only opponent with advanced units that Alexander fought. And many would argue that Darius was a rather incompetent general. I don’t think that Alexander would be able to capitalise on the mistakes of a general like Caesar.
Axel Andersson Axel Andersson you say “simple” like it easy to outmaneuver a army of Great size, experience, and equipment. Alexander’s maneuverability is what separates him as the best. On a battlefield he can not be defeated. He has also shown on many occasions that his brilliance goes beyond the open battlefield, for he has besieged many city’s and strongholds such as Tyre. He has only come across battles with Darius twice and if I remember correctly he has lead in nearly 30 battles (all of which undefeated) some of which were in northern India where he faced gorilla warfare and completely different terrain and leaders.
Alexander (the greek macedonian ) no doubt....he won all his battles in different terrain with different ways and different rivals....above all he had the ability to imagine each rival's movement before it was done ..while planning his next movement...absolute top leader...
@@bruh3128Caesar has found its way through battles against all odds with the enemies holding massive advantages. Alesia, the battle against Pompeus and the siege of Alexandria are all examples of that. Alexander never had to deal with such situations. Also Alexander didn't have the senate conspiring against him and didn't struggle gaining control. Plus, Caesar has fought over 50 large scale battles, Alexander 9. It's easy to imagine Alexander WOULD have lost if he had fought as much as Caesar and didn't die so young.
Thant Zaw Win aye he was young possible in his 50s he would have lost a battle or two plus we don’t know if he lost lots of battles were you alive then. No I didn’t think so
From a military standpoint Alexander the Great, for everything else that would have to be Caesar as his empire did not collapse until long after his death
Yeah, it just so happen agustus was from his bloodline and at legitimate age to rule. Alexanders hair was 13yrs old. If alexander have an olderson as brave as him, he would have continued conquering arabia.
Alexander's empire broke up but didn't disappear. The Roman Republic, weak & sick, was killed by Julius but the Empire was built by Octavius & lasted, in the West, for just over half the time of the Republic. In the East, it lasted a thousand yrs after that, but did Caesar's Rome conquer Alexander's Greece, or did Alexander's Greece conquer Caesar's Rome? What was Constantinople's language? Law? Culture? Philosophy? Latin or Greek?
@@teseofabbri1812 Julius Caesar was just an above average ruler and so was Alexander. They weren't even that great. Especially Julius Caesar is extremely overrated. He's just a normal king
@@achyuththouta6957 going to have to correct you there. Alexander was the greatest conqueror of all time. He defeated the world's most powerful empire of the time with a territory reaching from Greece to India. And never lost a battle. Caesar was the greatest Roman politician and general. He repeatedly won battles against overwhelming numbers and odds; conquered Gaul, defeated Pompeus the great and defeated Pharoa ptolemy's army all in one go. He was the one to shape Rome in the greatest empire to ever be; without Caesar the world would be very different. He was so influential that every Roman emperor on centuries to be was referred to as Caesar.
For leadership Caesar should have won. When one of his legions mutiny, he just showed up and scolded them into obedience, and no matter the odds they would follow him everywhere from Britain to Egypt. Alexander during his later years just couldn't keep a good relation with his army. They refused to follow him going further into India and Alexander relented, something Caesar would never have done.
ceaser would have stopped to build up the land he conquered or as they say Romanizing that why ceaser did not advance so rapidly because the Romans took time to advance what they conquered witch is why they lasted longer then anyone else
Well the romans where also good at making people more roman they would allow people to live how they always had and keep there culture as well as leaders and the romans would even build things for them like Baths and Palaces. They would only go all batshit crazy on there ass if they did not pay taxes and caused trouble
Nope. Alexander had multiple assassination attempts on himself, had to kill his best general Parmenion and his son because of that. He never stopped campaigning for 10 years, no wonder his army "rebelled". Julius Caeser was more of a genius politician and orator than a genius general. With the Roman Army ,that had by Caeser's time already beaten the Greek armys multiple times, there wasnt a need for a brilliant general, the army would fight and win in almost every situation. Alexander after his father's death had to fight other rebelling greek city states like Athens, Thebes, Sparta. The Persian Army's were much more organised and professional than gaulic and british. Im not saying that Caeser wasnt a really good general, but Alexander was on another level, Alexander never lost a battle or was even close to, never used the same tactic twice, campaigned through desert, Mountains, Jungle, and never lost a battle, heck he even conquered Afeghanistan (cry's in American). Hit me with the Alesia siege and battle ill say Siege of Tyre, battle of gaugamela, battle of the Issus river, Battle of the Hydasphes.
No he didn’t also Alexander’s tactics were really just Phillips A key part of the Romans was they ignored Macedonian tactics and made there own the manipula system which ultimately beat the Greeks then the Marian reforms created new tactics and these were the ones he used
@@michaelgoldsmith9359 Since you seem knowladgable on these things, why is Alexander celebrated as the greatest when atleast to my knowladge he only defeated one huge empire and thats it? I mean its very impressive but in my opinion hes not even close to someone like Caesar.
They're wrong, I'd give the edge to Julius Caesar for a number of reasons. While Alexander might look somewhat better on paper (never lost a battle, defeated a massive empire) if you look closer what Caesar accomplished looks more impressive. Alexander was born the son of a king and he was groomed to rule and given command at an early age. Caesar on the other hand was simply yet another Roman aristocrat from a not particularly wealthy or important family who had no real political power or connections until he gained them by his own actions. Alexander was fighting using the superior army his father designed and raised, and he was always fighting enemies who had inferior equipment, training and leadership. However, Caesar on the other hand spent about half his career fighting against other Romans where he had no significant advantages in any of those. While the Persian Emperor that Alexander fought, Darius III, was completely incompetent and a coward, Caesar's chief rival was Pompey Magnus (Pompey the Great) is also widely considered another of the greatest generals in Roman history. Finally, while Alexander's young son was murdered while still a child, Caesar's adopted son Octavian went on to become one of the greatest imperial rulers in world history. Alexander's empire broke apart immediately following his death whereas the Empire that Caesar founded lasted, technically, until 1453 and the fall of Constantinople.
What i really like is that Alexander suporters dont have many arguments, while Caesar guys always proove why he was better. I guess that the movie Alexander made him more popular. Hail Caesar
Well said, both are great just one was better. One came from everything had all the right tutors and resources the other built his empire with no prior “advantages”.
Alexander sure had some advantages but come on the guys conquered half the know world at is time and he did it before he it 30. I personnaly dont believe that Darius was that bad a leader, he was not great but is biggest downfall is just being against one of (if not the) the best military tactitian in history. Still the Persian opposed multiple army's ( i believe it was 3 armys) that Alexander destroyed being in numerical inferiority and they also used some affective tactics( scorched earth) that Alexander just countered. And even Alexander's "easy" start has king was not, most of greece rebelled almost immidietly after philip's death. Alexander crushed them and then went to conquered everithing from the Illyrian sea to the Indus river before dieing at 30. And about is legacy, sure is empire collapsed but all the lands that he conquered were then ruled by macedonians for the next 200 years or so. Most of the states only falling to Rome it self. Some historian even argue that the reason why Rome was able to conquer so far east and that christianity spread there was because of th ground work that Alexander did by creating a hellenistic world from Epirus to Batricia. Even tho Ceasar is clearly the superior politician, Alexander is just on another military level with very fews able to contest is dominance (Genghis Khan , Charlemagne , Hannibal , Napoleon come to mind but others than then I dont really see) (Sorry for the Bad english not my primary language)
Cameron, conquering more land doesn't make you a more able general than the one who conquered less. Julius Caesar to conquered alot of land. Technically he conquered what would become the Roman Empire. Not to mention that he fought more battles than Alexander and opposed more able generals than Alexander did. As generals they were in the same league. But overall Caesar was a greater man than Alexander. Alexander we know is more a literacy creation
@@Braila2000 Will its true Ceasar faugth more battle he also had a longuer career wich helps a little. And for conquering what became the roman empire not really by the time he became a leader Rome was already the number one player in the mediterren. Iberia, Africa, Greece, Illyria and Italie were all under Rome Ceasar did conquer most of Gaule and some part of Germany and help with the intergration of Egypte. Also Cesar lost a number of Battles, Alexander won all of them exept one wich migth have been a draw. In fact if I recall correctly Cesar lost a battle in Gaule, Gergovie, in wich he only manage to get is army out because it started raining and the Gauls thaugth it was a bad omen and did not persue (that part migth be myth, I think its mostly myth but could be possible)
Said Salik again not always he did it once and it’s not smart it means he want commanding his army so either he’s a great commander on he fought on the front lines he can’t do both it’s literally not possible especially with massive army’s like his
@@malenablanca1864 Macedonia is Greece my friend , slavs did not exist back then , The so-called Makedonians in 2019 speak slavian lagnuage , Alexander was speaking GREEK. The only reason they call themselves Macedonians is because they are close to us , and dont have a name on their own , they are slavic gupsies speaking broken serbian , and try to go back 2000 year of history , when everying around them shouts in Greeek.
@@malenablanca1864 Alexander the Great tried to enter the Olympics, but the other Greeks called him a barbarian and not a pure Greek. Then, he proved them that he really had Greek descendance and was allowed to enter, he finished with a tie in a running competition. That happened according to a Greek historic, dont remember if it was Xenophon or Thoukidedes (I butchered the english names).
He should have been called the Conqueror because during his ENTIRE reign all he did was conquering stuff while Caesar didnt just care about battle he brrought good reforms that helped shape our society today so if anything Caesar was the "Great"
There are many here, who point out "The Great" moniker, but Caesar meant Emperor, later rulers didn't want call themselves Kings, but Tsars and Kaisers. P.S. Pompey was also called "The Great" and we all know how little it meant when you faced Caesar.
Its mostly people who have beard about caesar in terms of politics/his disctatorship and eventual assasination but never read or heard about what it took him to reach that point and his military campaigns.
@@FlaviusConstantinus306 Say what you will about Pompey legacy, but in his own time Pompey was never treated as a joke, he was most famous politician and general of Rome. Even Sulla, who was dismissive of others respected and feared Pompey. He well earned his title.
@@JanikAshe Not exactly...even Roman sources have a ironic humor when Pompey is compared to Alexander. If you are going to call yourself "great" or have other people call you "great" during your lifetime...it's kind of like a title that's bestowed on one's self. No one during Alexander's time called him "the great." Other people called him that after his death.
no he wouldn't have. His men were tired of battle so they returned to Persia. They refused to go any further and he lost most of his army to the desert.
HE didn’t fail, but his men were already exhausted so he couldn’t push them any more. So instead they started to return home where he would rule...then he died
His troops mutinied before entering modern day India. He conquered the Persian Empire that declined considerably from the invasions of Greece. It is debatable how much more he could conquer, but the fate of the empire was sealed even before his death. A larger empire might have split faster and into many more pieces.
Caesar fought 58 battles whereas Alexander fought in 20 + -. Caesar never lost a major battle and defeated far greater opponents. Who stood in Alexanders way ? Caesar went through Pompeii when outnumber and starved.
Alexander the Great is master strategist who even Caesar admired. According to one legend Caesar when in Gaul(modern France) found a bust of Alexander and felt that despite Alexander being young he achieved so much and that he could not. The contest between Alexander and Caesar would be in favour of Alexander.First let us assume that they had same armies(including the size and each unit).From the battles that Alexander fought Alexander favoured a more involving approach and skillful manouvering.
The thing was, you weren't really allowed to lead armies at that age, it was mostly Praetors, Consuls or governors, though there was exeptions (Like Scipio).
What caesar achieve @ 50 alexander achieve @ 20 . he started conquer @ 18 .. as his father said to him go further my son mocdonia is small empire for you.
Caesar beat the best commanders of his time on equal or lesser terms. Alexander had the best army in the world at the time, given to him by his dad.... It's no comparison. Alexander also couldn't keep his men in line, and was a piss poor ruler.
Alexander was handed a ready-to-go eager army by his father who died. His father game up with the idea of the very succesfull Phalanx. His generals were also genius. Julius Ceasar did everything on his own merit AND played the political game almost flawlessly. Alexander was already on top of the political hierarchy. Ceasar fought many more battles too.
@@geodim3904 is it wrong to admire someone else for their deeds and does that mean you will never surpass them yourself as a legend? Just because admired someone doesnt pinpoint to superiority otherwise alexander wasnt as good as philip whom he admired
I remember reading that during the making of Alexander the movie a few years ago, a historian consulting for the film was asked what did he want as payment for his help, his answer was the honor to ride with Alexander and his Complanion Cavalry in the Charge at Gaugamela - I tip my hat to this historian, what better reward for a historian than to relive one of history's greatest battles!, and what an awsome sight that would have been!
Caesar laid the foundation for one of the single greatest and most powerful Empires that lasted for over a millennium. Alexander conquered Persia and took over an empire that already existed. He became a new King of Kings. And when he died the empire fell apart immediately. Also when it came to the military victories, Alexander defeated the Persian army which was mostly composed of slaves and mercenaries. In comparison, Caesar beat Vercingetorix and subdued the Gallic tribes, and also defeated the most renowned Roman general of their time, Pompey. And Pompey had experienced Roman legions fighting for him, compared to Darius' slaves and mercenaries. Caesar defeated a much stronger army.
gole kirovski Julius Caesar was outnumbered almost every battle. Im sorry, but Julius really would win. In terms of entertainment and media, Alexander wins, but Julius would win in reality.
@DubiousDevil Yeah but thats like saying a modern general would beat Julius Ceasar in a battle. If you were gave both the exact same materials then you'd decide who's is more clever.
hornswoggle lover39 im factoring in Roman tactics vs Hellenistic tactics, variety of enemies fought, feats accomplished, hoe the enemies were defeated, etc... Tech didnt change all that much.
Alexander was king at age 20 and was always in the frontline never loss a battle and took down the persian empire. The only man that can stand a chance againts him is genghis khan. But genghis khan wasnt a god at age 30 like Alexander was. I can only imagine what he could have done if he lived longer
Not with Alexander no. He actually did lead from the front, either with his Companions to oversee the decisive charge or with the Hypaspists (such as at Tyre).
No. Khaled ibn Al-Walid was good, but he went up against two extremely weak empires that had spent the last 20+ years beating each other to a pulp. His accomplishments are also wildly embellished by Arab sources.
the first round should have gone to caesar, he was a master tactician who studied the terrain masterfuly and making his week position into a superior one, while Alexander didnt care for such things and could even lead his men over rivers. I can argue all day but caesar is the superior millitary genius/tactician but alexander has councured more land wish makes him the better councurer
Mugetsu they were pretty accurate, in reality Ivan wouldn't attempt to fight Alexander head on since he would lose against him so easily. Instead Ivan would play dirty and try to poison Alexander like they show in the rap battle. That is why Alex was Great and Ivan was Terrible
FYROM = 🇧🇬 Macedonia = 🇬🇷 •The name Macedonia comes from the Greek word “Makedones/Μακεδόνες” meaning “Highlanders” or “The tall ones” and was the name used to describe the most northern Ancient Greek city state. •The name Alexandros comes from combination of the Greek words “Alexein + andros” meaning in Greek literally “defender of men” • His horse Bucephalus name derives from combination of the Greek words “Bous” meaning ox and “Kefales” meaning head to describe the horse as having a head like an ox. • The Macedonian Royal House the Agread dynasty gets its name from the modern Greek city of “Argos” as the first Macedonians originated from from Southern Greece • The Macedonian empire spread from Greece to Egypt through the Middle East, and Turkey. This explains why the names of many places in these areas derive from Greek. E.g. The name Egypt derives from Greek - “Aigyptos” meaning “below the agean”. The names of virtually all Turkish cities are variations of there original Greek names and New Testament of the Bible was originally written in Greek. • Aristotle tutored Alexander the Great in Greek
Hellenic Productions if Macedonia was Greek; - it wouldn’t have been separate to Greece on all maps throughout history - the Macedonians wouldn’t have been called “barbarians” which meant non Greek and non Greek speakers - Macedonia and Macedonians wouldn’t be mentioned separate to Greeks and Greece/Achaia in the bible. The Romans named all of Greek land -Achaia. Acts chapter 20: Through Macedonia and Greece 20 When the uproar had ended, Paul sent for the disciples and, after encouraging them, said goodbye and set out for Macedonia. 2 He traveled through that area, speaking many words of encouragement to the people, and finally arrived in Greece, 3 where he stayed three months. Because some Jews had plotted against him just as he was about to sail for Syria, he decided to go back through Macedonia. - Macedonians and Greeks wouldn’t be mentioned separately in historical accounts. - Alexanders Greats grandfather wouldn’t be called a philhelene, which meant “friend of Greeks” if he was Greek The Greeks wouldn’t have joined the Persians and Romans to fight the Macedonians if the empire was Greek. Book II - Battle of Issus, in Arrian's "The Campaigns of Alexander" "Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander's triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian." Flavius Josephus "...These Egyptians, therefore, were the authors of these troubles, who having not the constancy of MACEDONIANS, nor the prudence of GRECIANS, indulged all of them the evil manners of the Egyptians, and continued their ancient hatred against us; for what is here so presumptuously charged upon us, is owing to the differences that are amongst themselves...... - If the Macedonians were Greek, they would’ve spoken Greek, not Macedonian. Macedonian wasn’t a dialect of Greek. It was completely foreign. That’s why they were called barbarians, like the thracians and Illyrians. A TRUE fact is that the Macedonians didn’t speak Greek and didn’t participate in the Olympic Games. Only a few kings did, like Philip of Macedon. He could do what he wanted. He conquered the Greeks. But out of respect for the Greeks and so they don’t get upset, he didn’t let any Macedonians compete. - if Alexander was Greek, he wouldn’t have been known as “Alexander the Macedonian” or “Alexander of Macedon” for over 2000 years. I The famous words of Demosthenes, a well known ancient Greek .. not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave" - Demosthenes, Third Philippic, 31. The famous words that this Greek orator from Athens used to describe the Macedonian king Philip II, the father of Alexander the Great, prior to Philip’s conquest of Greece. We know for a fact that the ancient Greeks stereotyped and called all non-Greeks barbarians. These included the Persians, the Thracians, Illyrians, Macedonians, Egyptians etc. The modern Greeks however, claim that Philip was Greek, and that Demosthenes called him "not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks" and "barbarian", only in a "rhetorical context", which was aroused by the political anger that existed between Macedonia and the Greeks states on the south, although it is very clear from Demosthenes’s words that he regards the Macedonians and their king Philip II as non-Greeks.
Oh god all you talk about is ancient history ... If you guys are so tough why did the Albanians fight for your independence ??? All your national heroes are Albanian
Mike Mike: If you actually learned some history, you’d realize Alexander was never promised the throne, when he did inherit the throne, he also inherited a mountain of debt on his father’s account, and to start his conquest, he had to borrow a small fortune, which he paid back a thousandfold. Stay in school, little boy.
Hardcore Doom really? Caesar was from a poor family and started as a soldier. He rised up ranks through the years and won alot of battles. Caesar wasnt promised anything. Caesar was loved by all his soldiers and people. The only downfall of him was that he only got to rule for a year and the senate were corrupts power fools.
@@dominusdone5023 Don't bother with him, he would rather rage at others in ignorance than research history a little thoroughly. Alexander despite his own obstacles had a far greater head start to Ceaser. No ammount of indebted princeling can ammount to the tumultuous beginnings of Ceaser.
@@sujaysannyamath655 What are you talking about Caesar was from one of the most aristocratic families in Rome, a kin to Gaius Marius. He was of the Julian clan.
@@billaros1338 Gauis Marius was a plebian who rose in power through military. And then his faction lost the civil war. Young Caesar was proscribed by Sulla and had all his belongings taken. His wealth reduced to nothing. He had to run away from Italy untill Sulla died. Only then he came back to build his political career from smithereens to what we know today. He began from bottom of the totem pole with only some prestige from his clan. No wealth, position or power. Unlike a certain prince of Macedon. That is what I am talking about.
Julius Caesar is #1 because Julius Caesar built his army from the ground up, by the time Alexander was giving his father elite army when his father was killed.
Caesar had an army of 50,000 besieging 80,000 Gauls in Alesia, then a relief army arrivedm 250,000 Gauls, Caesar fought in the front lines and won. Caesar's Empire would last 1500 years, Alexander's Empire fell apart immediately after he died.
Ορθόδοξος Έλληνας >it was Roman ONLY in name and State organization (laws, armies etc). lmao this is funny. And it was Christian as the late Roman empire was.
Some Random Name Alexander never even considered terrain in battles, and he only won victories against outnumbered barbarians or the armies of one single Persian king. Julius was amazing at waiting for the right time, always deploying on favourable ground and whenever he couldn’t, he just casually built a 40km long wall. I strongly suspect that what would have happened is that the young general who was in his earlier campaigns shown to be rather naive and throughout his battles only won by abusing enemy mistakes and in some cases simply through clever out of the box thinking. He was amazing at this, but I have great doubts that it would come to any use when under siege, surrounded, out of food and on bad terrain against a well disciplined army led by Caesar.
Brian O'Hara The only reason he won at Alesia against the outnumbering reinforcements was the quality of his troops. For a fair comparison, Alexanders phalanx should be of similar numbers to the legions of Caesar, as well as of similar quality. The reason that Alexanders empire collapsed was geography. Rome was in the centre of the Empire, while the administrative centre of Macedon was on the edge of the empire. Because of this, Alexander had to place a bunch of nobles as despotic governors of the satrapies. And ones Alexander died with no male relatives that weren’t either retarded or unborn, the Diadochi seized power.
@@aleksandarstojanovski8910 Alexander is a Greek name from the words αλεξω=push and ανήρ=man. His father’s name is also Greek as Phillip comes from the Greek words Φίλος=friend and Ίππος=horse. His mother’s name was Olympia, also a Greek name given after the Greek mountain Olympus. His teacher was the famous Greek Aristotle. What language did he teach Alexander in? Ancient Macedonian?😂😂😂😂 Get your mind straight and don’t fool yourself. Don’t let false propaganda get to you. Be proud of your Slavic nature and don’t try to steal our culture..
Alexander's army was actually built by his father Philip who should probably get a little credit. Rome was already a power before Julie's Caesar. From a military standpoint Hannibal is probably most impressive. He was winning with smaller armies.
Falcon lover yeah greek in culture , but they language they spoke the greeks didn't understand there dialect, ofcourse alexander knew how to read and speak greek though
Falcon Lover he was Greek but I love how the Greeks shunned the Macedonian invaders but then once he conquered half the world they clams he was a true Greek
@@aleksandarstojanovski8910 MACEDONIA IS A GREEK REGION DUMMY. MACEDONIANS WERE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE OLYMPICS WHEN ONLYJ GREEKS COULD. HE WAS MACEDONIAN🇬🇷 AND SO ON GREEK🇬🇷GREECE EXISTS SINCE 3000 BC
@@aleksandarstojanovski8910 MA KE ΔΟ ΝΙ Α HELLENIC WORD WITH HELLENIC MEANING. ALL ANCIENT MACEDONIAN COINS SAY ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ AND ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ. CRY ABOUT IT 🤫🤫🤫🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷
One vote to Alexander of Macedon. Why? Alexander of Macedon was the Man who Július Ceaser wanted to be about 300 years later but phisically Alexander was much stronger and never made any mistake? Greek? Makedon! Never lost any serious battle thats speak for itself. So my vote goes to Alex. Július was great but second place behind of Alexander is really good
Well to honest it's not even a contest if you're a historian. Caesar eclipses Alexander in every imaginable way be it administration, politics, diplomacy, law even military. So yeah, Caesar should have the W.
This comparison doesn’t make any sense, Julius faced tougher and smarter enemies, his challenges were far greater than what Alex faced. Alex in his time didn’t face smart leaders, he just faced leaders with larger armies
What are you talking about? Alexander faced the greatest nations in the known world. Julius Caesar faced unorganized tribes. Even when Alexander faced organized tribes he won...look at Bactria(modern day Afghanistan)...Alexander spent 2 years there learning how to fight a different kind of enemy. Alexander sent 300 men to take an impregnable stronghold at the top of a mountain. 270 men survived and took over the fort....the enemy was so impressed they surrendered their entie army and joined Alexander.
As a man, and as a commander, Julius Caesar rises head and shoulders above Alexander. I think what ultimately separates the two is that Caesar consistently bested other generals, both Roman and Gallic, of considerable skill. His victories over Vercingetorix, Titus Labienus, and Pompey the Great solidify his reputation as a commander of unmatched brilliance. Alexander, on the other hand, never fought another general with evident strategic or tactical acumen.
Thank you, this was so well put. All the generals you named would have defeated Alexander. The most comparable battle I can imagine to the hypothetical is Caesar vs Pharnaces in which pharnaces tried a bold Alexander like charge and ended up getting routed. Being risky and counting on the opponent to be shocked while sacrificing your position to do so relies more on luck and is a poor strategy. And beyond all this, Caesar wasn’t just a legendary general but also a shrewd politician and pontifex Maximus (talk about doing it all)
Not only is Alexander the Great the greatest general to ever live, he has a strong argument as the greatest person to ever live. He's as close as we ever got to meeting an Olympian.
AlexTheSniper19 Alexander never even considered terrain in battles, and he only won victories against outnumbered barbarians or the armies of one single Persian king. Julius was amazing at waiting for the right time, always deploying on favourable ground and whenever he couldn’t, he just casually built a 40km long wall. Just kidding. People have misstated my name as Alex and that is the only reason I vote for Caesar.
But Alexander's men revolted because they didn't want to continue further. They were tired of their continuous expansion and feared the might of the armies in India which were said to be larger and more fierce. That last point should have went to Caesar. Alexander pushed his men to the edge and many died on the trek back to Persia.
@@dominusdone5023 Carving a bloody path all the way to India from Greece is one thing and doing the same thing from Italy to France is another. There is no comparison here.
Let's just say this. These 2 are amazing commanders and just the fact they both existed and actually did these things is what's amazing to me, It's crazy that not even Hollywood can make shows or movies about these 2 that is as awesome as what they've done in real life.
Caesar was a great leader, but he falls short to Alexanders greater conquest. He conquered much of the East, never lost a battle, became king of Persia.
@@ashutoshprakash3017 They are soo fucking cringe. If Alexander was to witness that battle against Ivan the terrible he would probably execute everyone associated with it assuming they were mocking and insulting him.
Fun fact: the man who CONQUEROR last Roman Empire the Eastern Roman MEHMET THE CONQUEROR thing for himself as new ALEXANDER the great and his Empire the new ROMANA EMPIRE
Actually to a great extent he did. Read his battles. He mostly relied on the superior experience of his men. First against untrained Celts, then against green Roman troops. For the most part his troops just plowed through his enemies frontally despite numerical inferiority.
Sparta refused to join Alexander expedition. Alexander was worried about that but after all at his times Sparta was too far from the glorious days of the Persian wars and Peloponnesus war.
That last one "He could lead just about anyone, anywhere" except for all of those times that the army rebelled against him. In India, his army refused to go any further and Alexander was forced to turn around. When the Ninth Legion refused to fight during the civil war, Caesar went to them and forced them to step down and continue to fight for him. When Alexander started to dress and behave like a Persian the Macedonians saw it as a betrail and they refused to prostrate themselves before, Alexander had to back down. When Caesar's men looked as though they didn't want to fight against Romans any more, he recognised this and planned around it in Hispania at the Battle of Ilerda. Alexander the Great is one of the most impressive people in history, that isn't up for debate but in terms of the best Military leader Caesar fought against so many different armies; Gauls, Hispanic mountain tribes, Britons, Egyptians and Romans. Alexander fought against Persians and whipped the floor with them but when he fought the Indians, he very nearly lost and before he could do it again his army rebelled. Caesar was able to fight using different tactics in the field, Alexander had one. It isn't possible to call one of these two men better than the other because their victories aren't the same kind. Alexander conquered half of the known world and destroyed the greatest superpower that the world had ever known and Caesar conquered Gaul, defeated a series of kings, won a civil war and lay the foundations for the most important empire in world history, he didn't start the empire, Augustus did that, but he showed the Romans that one-man rule could work. Who is the better leader? It is impossible to know.
Alexander was just extremely privellaged with many experienced generals from who served his father philip while caesar although he had capable generals like Antony did most the work himself and had to fught tougher opponents like pompey.
Augustus was a much greater leader than Julius, who's name Augustus inherited. He outlived every enemy and ally he made, became one of the richest men that history has ever seen, the first emperor, brought peace to Rome twice, which was pretty much unheard of before then. Brought about a number of reforms and created Rome's first standing army. He ushured In agolden age for Rome. He also nudged Virgil to write the Aenied, possibly the greatest piece of lituriture ever and most certainly at the time. It's a shame that Julius seems to overshadow Augustus despite learning from all of the priors mistakes.
Augustus was a great man... a great leader.. a great politician... but he was not an elite commander or general... and he was not a self made man because he inherited Caesar's wealth and his legions loyalty Caesar's path from irrelevant patrician outlawed by Sulla to Master of the World is more impressive
Dimitrakoulas22 the mobility of the Roman ranks easily beat the Greek phalanx’ stationary strategy. Caesar would never engage the Greek phalanx head on, instead he would out flank them thus exposing the greek phalanx’ pike lines biggest flaw and weakness. In a battle Caesar takes it no question.
@@Dimitrakoulas22 those two men lived about 300 years from each other. That's a ca. 300 years advantage for ceasar. In those 300 years a lot inventions were made. It's like putting a M1A2 Abrams against a sherman tank. Ceaser vs. Alexander in a battle (with Alexander's soldiers from more than 300bc against Ceasars soldiers from ca. 50 bc) would result in Ceasars victory.
and do you think alexander would stayed idle and seeing his men butchered by the romans?...lets speak logically...macedonian army at the period of alexander was very mobile by the use of many different troops such as light cavalry and infantry which were always at the flanks protecting the main core of the phallangitew while the superior heavy cavalry use to smash and hit the weak spots of the opponent..caesar would think a lot before confronting with alexander..
Thats my point it was and will always be Greece even than a small part of ancient Macedonia is part of Skopje that doesn't say anything. Most part of middle east was part of Macedon Kingdom lets call all eastern countries Macedonia then!
Macedon and it's Capital was a Greek (the right word is Hellenistic Kingdom) The northern one... Just as all the Hellenistic King was fighting each other ... (Sparta-Athens Theban-Spartan Theban-Macedon) e.t. Kingom of Macedon was the one who was the strongest at the time. So Philip and his son Alexander made the Hellenic League (Greek League) to conquer there ancient Enemy... Persia... Alexanders mother language was Greek his Teachers was Greeks his mother was Greek from Epirus and his Father was Greek from Macedonia and rased up in Thebes... End of story.
REMEMBER ME Greeks never called Macedonians barbarians, stop making shit up. The Macedonians were as Greek as the Athenians and the Spartans. If the Macedonians were considered “barbarians” then they wouldn’t have been been able to take part in the Olympic Games.
The Godfather Of The Night Alexander is still not Greek whether you called the Macedonians barbarians or not, language is irrelevant. Some african countries talk French, doesn’t mean that they are French.
Dr Faustus, they talked french because they were french colonies. Macedonia was a place where people spoke Greek, had Greek education, with the Greek alphabet, learnt by Greek philosophers and Greek generals. One of those people was Alexander the Great, educated by one of the greatest Greek Philosophers of all time. I dont care what you think, Macedonia is a geographical compartment of Greece, whether you like it or not.
Karmakaluas you don’t get it. Even if you have every cultural aspect of a Greek society doesn’t change your nationality. If you go to France and dedicated every single second to French culture, it still doesn’t make you French. You inherit nationality.
Julius Caesar knew how to keep territory conquered; the spartan Alexander wasn’t a diplomat , just a pretty brilliant general with an unmatched army of the time .
Attacking first is not ideal. Unless you are Alexander...the dude straight up charged at the Battle of the Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela. His rapid advances were shocking, brave, borderline foolish but resoundingly successful.
Yeah, Alexanders arrogance got his elite Army attritioned away though the deserts of Gedrosia en-route home. His reason for Crossing? He wanted to prove he could do it. What a nice 'Thank you' to all those who had loyally served him for all those years. Alexander was a spoiled brat of a boy who just happened to be a Genius whose blind faith in success on the battlefield met with good fortune...until it didn't and he got sick and died before returning home. Caesar is the Historical winner in about every category that counts.
First of all Alexander the Great is not a spoiled brat who had everything laid out for him, if you know anything about Alexander the Great’s early life you’ll know that before he had to stabilze Macedon from his political rivals after his father’s death, secondly his men were not people of blind faith, Alexander earned their loyalty, you know that desert he got lost in? When his troops tried to give him water so that he won’t be thirsty, he refused and said that he would rather die with his tropps then live at the cost of their lives, which moved his soldiers to tears, thirdly you wanna talk about arrogance? Caesar was so arrogant he pissed off every single in Rome with any power which was why he was assassinated, oh and one more thing Caesar didn’t build Rome, he conquered lands and established himself emperor, but before he could truly rule he was assassinated and it was his adopted son Augustus Caesar and his successor Tiberius who built Rome, so no Caesar did not win where it counts m, he didn’t even win over his own citizens and advisors to not assassinate him.
Completely disagree. Alexander was way more personal in his fighting in the thick if it, faced a much more dangerous enemy. Caesars men also mutnied at points. His most notable campaigns were against his own countrymen, a negative in my book.
*Victor Farren* Caesar did convince his own citizens not to assassinate him. The assassins were other senators and after they proudly announced their victory, the populace actually hated them and many of the murderers (including Brutus and Cassius) were forced to flee to greece. And I can tell you, there's no way anyone with Alexander's degree of ambition and success would survive the Roman senate of Caesar's time. That said, I can't deny that Alexander was the greater of the two in military context and it's true he also had to overcome political problems before he could start his conquests.
predwin1998 yeah but see here’s the problem with your statement first Caesar proclaimed himself emperor that means everyone in Rome that isn’t himself is one of his citizens including his senators, but I can see how I wasn’t clear about that, second of all what you’ve said about Alexander is nothing more than speculation because he has never been in a situation like the Roman senate, that being said there is no evidence supporting whether or not he would have survived, but he did earn the undying loyalty of all on his citizens, including the Persians who were his main enemies in war and unlike Caesar he was not assassinated by his own. Or at least that we know of.
Augustus ruled the way Ceasar inteded and fought for, he prepped him since he was a child. The same goes for Philip and Alexander. Therefore for me, Ceasar is the greatest. Alexander just inherited the worlds best army, Ceasar laid the foundation of 300 years of the most successful time in Romes history.
Alexander’s empire lasted for 20 years, but Caesar laid the foundation for an empire that would last 1500 years, being the worlds most powerful nation for 900 of them... Caesar is basically a god, who needed 27 stabs to die, while Alexander died from a little sickness.. Therefore Caesar is the greatest..
I liked the show on HBO "Rome" a whole lot better than I liked the movie "Alexander" with Colin Farrell. So I am giving my own edge to Ceasar for better acting.
Fairoboi Lawrence Oh don’t be silly I agree he was probably a better leader and general. I was simply pointing out that they haven’t done him justice cinematically.
Thank you. Alexander may not even be the best conqueror at his own dinner table. People seem to forget how great Philip was all of Alexander’s improvements and innovations were off of the backs of Philips. Philip single handler rebuilt Macedons army and political standing in Greece. The argument shouldn’t even be btw Alexander it shud be btw Philip and Caesar. Philip was a fucking hostage for crying out loud and turned Macedonian from a backwater to a superpower THE super power within 15 years.
Alexander was spoiled with great privilege and education. Julius Caesar was a self-made man who after losing his family fortune worked his way up in the Roman military. Julius Caesar all the way.
Lol! These comparisons are so stupid. No one in history can even come close to Alexander the great, hannibal barca perhaps as a commander is the closest as 2nd best but even so he would have had to do alotttttt more to even compare. Alexander NEVER lost a battle! Thats incredible; he also not only fought with his men but often led the charge and was the first one in the thick of the battle; He and his companions also won many battles (and most major battles) outnumbered at least 2 to 1 and won decisively and thats against armies with many elite units. I could go on and on but only one man will be remembered as 'The Great' many conquerors, kings, emperors etc have given themselves that title and tried to force it but history only remembers one.
Fighting slaves and mecinaries of a cowardly king isnt that impressive comparing to fighting hundreds of thousands of gauls and experienced roman legions led by one of the most greatest generals of roman history and how that republic lasted longer even AFTER HIS DEATH and becoming an empire to influence the western world for millenia..
@@bryanmanuelbaes7871 stfu you don't know anything , he defeated the Scythians (most powerful Eurasian tribes) and also the mighty Persian Empire and also defeated Pauravas and Mallians .
