Who'd win in a War?

Question

Alexander the Great vs. Robert E. Lee?

Same technology, same weaponry, similar armies.

Answer 1

Well it is ridiculous to consider a fight between an army of riflemen, against swordsmen. However if they both had the same weapons ie sword vs sword, or rifle vs rifle then Alexander by far, he was the most Brilliant General of all time.
Born in 356BCE as the son of Phillip II of Macedonia, he showed early promise as a military leader when he successfully commanded the left flank at the Battle of Chaeronea (August 2, 338BCE). He quickly showed an understanding of troop mobility and support, and led always from the front. His battle show an unyeilding aggression and skilled movement of men. He was rarely backed into a defensive position, and when it did occur, always managed to relieve his troops with reinforced pressure elsewhere. Following his father's death, he succeeded the throne, and quickly subdued internal Greek unrest (336BCE) before conquering the much more powerful Persian Empire by 331BCE in a series of brilliantly planned battles. By 326BCE he had also conquered the Scythians and Parthians, and went on to walk through the frontiers of India, before his unbeatable troops got homesick and wanted to go home.
Robert E. Lee, on the other hand, despite the reverance placed upon him within the US, was not even the greatest commander in the US Civil War. That would be Ulysses S. Grant. Though masterful on the defense, Lee's offensives were mostly poorly planned and executed. In fact there is often little evidence of any planning on his part whatsoever. Unlike most professional armies, the army of North Virginia, did not develop a staff system for routine or logisitical work, and in addition to a lack of effective and efficient staffing, Lee's affinity for his native Virginia meant he misused the elements of his command, husbanded his Virginian troops, even when they were better set and prepared, whilst also often freely sacrificing and needlessly expending the troops of North Carolina and Texas. Lee's Charisma and gentlemanly demeanour was well noted by everyone, but it also mean he was inefficient at replacing ineffective commanders. Finally, his strategic offensives were notable in their lack of coherant and attainable goals, his tactical expertise on the defense adding years and costing countless lives for nothing towards a struggle he could not possibly win.

Answer 2

Alexander the Great would defeat Robert E. Lee

Robert E. Lee relied on standard tactics and maneuvers during his battles. He also had the advantage (numbers or more familiar landscape) throughout almost all of the fights he won. Once he came face to face with generals employing different strategems when in combat, he was never able to recapture his momentum.

Alexander the Great would be able to win with less soldiers, as proven against his fights with Darius and the Persians. Alexander was a general who possessed flexible tactics and a stronger basic military knowledge.

Alexander was a strategic innovator while Lee was better at following established protocols. With the same playing field and technology, Alexander would quickly find the chinks in Lee'a armor and exploit them for a victory.

Perhaps Alexander should try going against another Civil War innovator and try his luck ... General William Tecumseh Sherman

Answer 3

If the war were to be fought in Russia, General Lee wouldn't stand the slightest chance.

The Russian army would outnumber the confederation army anyway and I don't know if General Lee was aware that a great commander was the one who could stimulate the fighting spirit in soldiers - all the batallions.

If he was, he wouldn't stand on the way of Alexander for the first
place and would do his best to avoid a war with him whereas Alexander the Great (suppose General Lee was a separatist in Russia, challenging the authority as did he in America) would chase him down from St.Petersburg to Vladivostok, just to cut his head off.

Answer 4

Well, after the war, the people who were seized by Alexandre enjoyed more freedom than before! The rulers remained with the order to be better to their people! Thus, the ones who win the war, in the case of Alexandre, the people wan, their living standards were elevated, the monarchs became better, and so on!
Further, Alexandre promoted the Greek managing system: Leadership, instead of management! in a period of 13 years he went from Greece, Epirus, what is now Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, etc. to the Indus River! Never lost a battle. Used for first time submarine. Founded 73 cities, restored ruined cities and temples, of every religion!
These and more we know of Alexandre.
Who is Robert E. Lee?

Answer 5

Robert E. Lee can shoot Alexander the Great.

Answer 6

Alexander the Great

Answer 7

Lee's style of command required generals like Stonewall Jackson, so a alot would have to be conditioned on your answer, ie, can they have the pick of their lieutenants before going into battle? I'm not familiar with Alexander's tactics or command style to know how he'd compare to Lee. I know he used the phalanxe in the middle and cavalry on the flanks. Both used 'flanking' strategies.

Answer 8

William Wallace.

Answer 9

Sounds like one helluva stalemate... Lee might have some bones left - not sure - but he certainly can't move them.

Putting their handicap (mortality) aside, I'd put my money on Mr. the Great.

Answer 10

Superior firepower wins most often, so Lee. Maybe Alex could win on hit-and-run tactics.