Who would win?

Question

Alexander the Great of Macedon or Scipio Africanus?
Please, only relevant answers, none of those "Chuck Norris" or "the ninjas." Also, why do you think that person would win?

Answer 1

Depends on to many other variables.

Terrain for one. Alexander was a master, probably the best general who ever lived, but his Phalanx isn't worth a whole lot in the wrong terrain. That is why the Romans were finally able to defeat the Hellenistic Sucessor States, the Legion was a lot more flexable than the Phalanx. It could deploy on more kinds of terrain, and execute more tactics. The Phalanx is strong, but brittle.

Another question is what kind of forces do they have, specifically cavalry. Alexander's great strength was his Companion Cavalry. He used the Phalanx like an anvil, to fix the enemy army... then he used the Companions as a hammer to smash into the decisive point and break the enemy formation. (His greatest gift was an instinctual ability to spot the decisive spot and time.) If the Romans had enough good cav, or the right terrain, or both, and were able to deny Alexander this advantage, that would give them a real edge.

So while Alexander was undoubtedly a better General than Scipio, (Alexander is the best General the Human Race has ever produced.) Scipio would have vastly better tools to work with.

My money would be on Scipio, not because HE was better, but because the Legion was better than the Phalanx.

Answer 2

I think that Chuck Norris and the Ninjas would win because they're BAMFs like that. Yeah.