Alexander the Great vs. Julius Caesar--Who Wins?

Question

The field is an open plain surrounded by mountains with a river in the middle of it--everything is perfectly symmetrical. They have the same number of troops and soldiers of whatever kind they choose and are used to working with. Who wins the battle of the generals?

Answer 1

I like this question. Good scenario. Only the river in between bothers me a bit in my choice, though Alexander did succeed at the River Granicus (334 BC) in a bitter fight.
If Caesar were truly smart (as Aemilius was against Perseus at Pydna in 168 BC), he would not attack a Macedonian phalanx on an even plain where the integrity of the massed pikemen would remain intact. The short 20 inch gladius and the throwing spears or pylae would have had little effect on the juggernaut of a disciplined Macedonian heavy infantry force numbering probably 20,000 men in 8 ranks from Alexander's time. Also, Alexander's professionally skilled 'companion' cavalry would have turned the flank of Caesar and come in from behind to hit the triarii in the last Roman rank. The cavalry was always the weak arm of the Roman army.
It would have been a slaughter on a level plain with Alexander victorious and Caesar groveling at Alexander's feet begging for mercy at the end.

By the way, the sarissa was 15 to 18 feet in length and was handled by infantry not cavalry in Alexander's army of ~331 BC. [The Swiss military used the same weapon and tactics with daunting effect in the 1300s, 1400s and early 1500s before cannons broke them up.]
Macedonian cavalry used a shorter spear. Remember, they had no stirrups for stability using a lance from horseback.

I suspect Caesar would have formed his legions on the opposite bank of the river or retreated to the side hills of the mountains (as Aemilius did at Pydna) and wait for the Macedonians to risk breaking formation to get at him.
I'd love to have a ring side seat for this battle. This was warfare by men who WANTED to fight. No innocent women and children caught in the middle. No drafted soldiers.
It would have been an amazing battle to witness.

Thinking further on this, Caesar was too smart to ever fight Alexander with that river at his back. I assume that each side had equal logistical support so neither side would be forced into battle precipitously at a disadvantage. The opening moves would have been extremely interesting.
Caesar admired Alexander greatly. Might he have been intimidated? I think he would have welcomed the chance to beat the champ.
I wonder if Caesar would have built defensive works and simply waited for Alexander to become impatient. Aemilius waited near Pydna for several days before the Macedonians were finally provoked to fight on unfavorable terrain. The Roman legions beat the Macedonians at Pydna, but the battle was fought on hillsides, not a flat plain, and Perseus did not command the allegiance or respect of his nobles who made up the cavalry. The cavalry did not fight for Perseus at all that day. Alexander suffered no lack of fighting spirit in his cavalry of 331 BC, but Alexander led from the front personally risking himself in the attack. Those were the days of real commanders.

Answer 2

Some people have pointed out the lack of roman cavalry in this situation. Caesar was able to defeat enemies with vastly superior numbers of cavalry multiple times. He had cohorts of legionaries trained specifically for the purpose of fighting off larger cavalry units. He demonstrated this at the battle of Pharsalus against the much larger force led by Pompey, a resourceful general in his own right. The same is true of the battle of Thapsus where he faced a force that outnumbered him in term of both infantry and cavalry not to mention the fact that in this scenario he also faced elephants. Caesar also soundly defeated an army with greater numbers of cavalry in the battle of Zela against the son of Mithridates of Pontus, Pharnaces II. So in my opinion the cavalry for Alexander would not have made a significant difference. As for infantry, there was no group of soldiers in the world at the time as disciplined and skilled as the legionary.

Answer 3

Lenny is being a bit unfair on Alexander. Alexander is universally regarded as the finest commander of his time and was highly successful in all his military engagements and his tactics at Gaugemela were extremely effective against an enemy army far superior in numbers. Alexanders military leadership was also held in the highest regard during the Roman era as can be seen by writers such as Plutarch. Far from relying just on the phalanx as Lenny suggested, ALexander commanded possibly the finest cavalry of his time the Hetairoi (Companions) and it was this unit that was so decisive at Gaugemela and Issus. However it should be remembered that the Persian empire had been in decline for a number of years prior to Alexanders invasion. By the time of Caesar, Romes armies were the most effective and disciplined fighting force in the Mediterranean, in my personal opinion Caesars conques of Gaul is a far less impressive achievemnent than Alexanders conquest of Persia. I think Caesar really showed himself as a great commander against Pompey and the Republic. I would still say that Julius Caesar would win out of the two,primarily due to the nature of the Roman army and not necessarily due to Caesar being a greater strategist. By CAesars time the Phalanx was finished as an effective fighting method and Greek and Macedonian armies had been destroyed by the far more flexible make up of the Roman armies in battles such as Magnesia (190 BC) and Pydna (168 BC). You have to take into acount that warfare had moved on a great deal from Alexanders time to Caesar. Both were without doubt the finest commanders of their respective eras

Answer 4

I love scenarios like this, mainly because they can be argued in either commander's favor. For my part, I would have to say Alexander the Great. People who say the Roman legions were the highly disciplined and battle-hardened, able to defeat proud Celtic peoples such as the Gauls, Britons, and Celtiberians. However, the phalangists who served under Alexander were also well-trained and battle-hardened. So I'd say their main infantry units are at a draw, but for differing reasons. The Roman legions emphasized high defense through use of their shields, their pila (which were used to attack the enemy before the enemy engaged them, and their gladius which was a short sword. The phalangists emphasized a highly offensive style with small shields and long sarissas. Then there's cavalry. Alexander takes this without a doubt. Cavalry in a Macedonian army were in their element, and Romans on horseback often weren't. Then you have auxiliary forces which Alexander also takes with his wider variety

Answer 5

The simple answer is Alexander would win in any geographical location, Alexander devised virtually every strategy for every scenario as proven at the siege of tyre and gaugemela which most military leaders including ceasar used even in this modern era, he was able to improvise on the spot at such an incredible speed that ceasar would still be scratching his **** while Alexander wiped his army out

Answer 6

I'd probably say Caesar. For one thing, he probably studied Alexander's tactics and strategies, and thus, would know how to counter them. Even in a Death Battle-esque scenario, Caesar would have already known everything about Alexander, while Alexander would have never seen Caesar's type of soldiers nor recognized his methods.

Answer 7

The Roman legions were more flexible than the slow moving wedge of phalanxes used by the hoplites. As in reality, the hoplites were easily out manuevered, being attacked from their flanks and rear. As you remember, the undoing of Leonides solid phalanxe was the attack from the rear. In reality, when the hoplite Greek phalanxe first met the Roman legions, they were undone. Putting Alexander at their head would not have made a difference, unless they feined retreat in the middle and suckered the romans into a trap, i doubt whether JC would've fell for it.

After reading the previous comment, i need to do my homework on Alexander's tactics, i'm stereotyping him to the other Greek tactics....which is wrong, my bad.

Answer 8

Everything we know about Caesar suggests that he wasn't a very good general. He tended to do badly on his campaigns, but since he wrote the histories, he put himself in a positive light.

Alexander, on the other hand, was innovative - he practically invented the idea of combined arms with his use of cavalry, archers, heavy infantry and light infantry on the field. He managed to fight many different kinds of armies and win.

Troop-wise, the first response is right - Roman legions were very good against phalanxes. However, Alexander didn't only use phalanxes; he also used cavalry (he himself preferred the sarissa in combat, which could only be used from horseback) which Roman legions didn't do well against. It's hard to say which was more effective in combat - neither side would have a clear advantage.

I'd go with Alex.

Answer 9

Alexander he was a great man and was very good when it came to military.
Caesar was very much exaggerated but was still good at controlling his army.
I'd go with Alex his stratagems were very effective and he could adapt well like when he went up against the Indianas and their elephants.

Answer 10

I think that Alexander the Great would win. First of all it is because all of is people liked him and his army had his back unlike Caesar. Most of his people did not like him so then people even soon murdered him.

But over all I think that Leonidas of SPARTA would win over all of then

IF YOU PEOPLE AGREE THEN LIKE THIS COMMENT!