Alexander th Great would win because all his 1000000 men had swords while Julious Ceaser's 1000000 men had only 895669 swords.
2006-07-01 22:56:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
1⤋
It wouldn't even have been in the top ten greatest battles of all time. The fighting in Europe (and European Russia) during the First and Second World Wars included many battles with well over a million men on a side.
As to your question about Alexander Vs. Caesar, neither of them had the staff organization to handle an army of a million men. If they couldn't tell most of their men what to do in time for them to do it, the winner would be determined purely by chance.
Now, cutting it down to a size they could control -- say, 50,000 men on a side -- you begin to get into interesting problems. Alexander's cavalry was better than anything the Romans ever had until late Imperial times, and the light infantry -- the Hypaspists -- would be an even match for the average Roman infantry trooper. The phalanx itself, on level ground, could sweep the Romans away as they did the Spartans in real history...but on rough ground, where its ranks would be hard-put to hold shield lock, the Romans could break into the phalanx formation and with their shorter weapons chop down the phalanx' spearmen like so much standing grain. Thus the generalship of the two leaders comes into play. Is Alexander going to be able to force a fight on even terrain, or is Caesar going to be able to bring his enemy to action on rough ground? Now, _that_ would be a spectacle worth seeing! I would tend to favor Alexander winning by making a wide flank sweep with his cavalry, as Pompey tried to do at Pharsala when _he_ had a great superiority of cavalry. Pompey failed, but his horsemen were mostly amateurs and new recruits. Alexander's elite "Companion" cavalry ought to do much better.
2006-07-02 02:10:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dick Eney 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It was already proven that the Roman legions were superior to the Greek phalanxes. The greeks were easily surround by flank attacks by Roman cavalry. The phalanxes were too ponderous and were not flexible enough to deal with flank attacks.
2006-07-03 02:45:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by Its not me Its u 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Alexander the Great, Sir Lancelot, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Troy, all of this guys were great warriors. However, my favorite warrior of all time....KING ARTHUR! That's me right there, King Arthur baby!
2006-07-02 02:57:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by Shawn J 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Alex the Great....Julius Ceaser was too greedy...he would jump into things and get killed in a milisecond
2006-07-02 02:03:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by smarin1987 2
·
0⤊
0⤋