Who deserves to be called the "Great" more?

[Edgewalker]

I think that Caesar, Alexander gained it quickly, lost it quickly.

Alexander may have been better gaining land, but he definetelly didn't knew how to conserve them

Also we have to remember that Caesar wasn't only fighting some "small tribes" he was also having troubles inside his territory, while Alexander had it more calm politically...

As someone has said before me, if I would pick a general for winning battles I would pick Alexander, but if I had also pollitical problems I would pick Caesar

[Iliad]

I think that Caesar, Alexander gained it quickly, lost it quickly.

Alexander may have been better gaining land, but he definetelly didn't knew how to conserve them

Also we have to remember that Caesar wasn't only fighting some "small tribes" he was also having troubles inside his territory, while Alexander had it more calm politically...

As someone has said before me, if I would pick a general for winning battles I would pick Alexander, but if I had also pollitical problems I would pick Caesar

He did know how to conserve it!
He just died of malaria and his plans were ruined!

[muy_thaiguy]

[quote="Dancing Mustard"]Your mum. She was great.[/quote]

I said NO stupid posts Dancing Mustard!
Anarchist, the Mongols had the 2nd largest Empire, the British had the largest.
Great posts guys! Oh yeah, just throwing this out there, Julius Caeser had to pretty much reconquer the territories of Rome and defeat Pompey, not exactly your run of the mill barbarians, you know?
Also, Alexander also conquered the Thebans, some of the steppes peoples, and a Northern Indian kingdom.

[chewyman]

augustus was a far better politician, he satisfied both plebs and elite, while taking power away from both of them, caesar only managed to satisfy the plebs, and then only with bread doles and games. Had Caesar actually been a good politician he probably wouldn't have been assassinated.

Augustus was another great politician, but his abilities do not detract from Caesar's. It is irrelevant who Caesar satisfied, what matters was that he achieved power. As for him being assassinated, many historians actually believe that Caesar knew of the assassination attempt and chose his death (he was a very sick man after all). Even if this isn't true, as has been previously mentioned, there are many very able politicians that have been assassinated.

He did know how to conserve it!
He just died of malaria and his plans were ruined!

Actually we don't really know that. There are all sorts of rumours, including poisoning (which I personally believe to be the most likely, it wouldn't have been the first attempt). Alexander was not very successful at holding his empire together. Even during his reign he quite often had to execute his vassal state kings for disobedience. Caesar built an empire that lasted for over 1000 years (although it was pretty weak by the end of things), Alexander's imploded almost immediately after his death.

Anarchist, the Mongols had the 2nd largest Empire, the British had the largest.

The Mongol Empire was the largest contiguous land empire the world has ever seen.

[Guiscard]

I voted Alexander for many of the reasons already stated, but when we consider the relative empires from which they started we can see that Alexander started off with much less territory, military might and economic stability than Ceaser, yet he conquered such a larger amount of territory he really does deserve to win this battle. He didn't lose the empire himself. His successors did.

[unriggable]

Don't forget that alexander was invading organized territory - the persian empire - which would mean that many of the places being invaded would have known of attacks.
Julius attacked disorganized territories. Much easier.

[Gold Knight]

Cant forget that Alexander is alos responsible for the cultures of many nations along his path of conquering. He is partially resposnible for all of the cultural diffusion (blending) in the areas he went through, proving he was not only a general but also a social renaissance man as well.

check the map to see where he effected

[DAZMCFC]

i voted alexander. he was a master of the art of military. having said that i would of voted for ghengis khan if he was on the list.

[Sunstripe]

I voted Alexander for many reasons, many of which have already been stated, but also that the Persians weren't retarded or else they couldn't have conquered that much land. Also i have to point out at the final battle between Alexander and Darius III that Alexander nearly lost because the Persian cavalry swept along the flank and nearly hit Alexander's infantry from the back which would have destroyed his infantry.

Another thing is that Caesar didn't ever loose a battle! The one supposed battle he lost was the battle of Gorgiva, and there what happened was that his infantry charged without orders at the heavily defended Gallic position and were nearly routed if it was not for the veterans in the 11th legion who managed to push the gauls back then retreat.

Also the gauls were not "barbarians" they were incredible metal smiths, and they had soap while the romans did not! The gauls also were dissunited during the first campaigns of Julius Caesar, but later under Vercingetorix they became a united force and destroyed 3-4 roman legions in a surprise attack on basses all over gaul, and at that time the gauls nearly pussed Caesar out of Gaul.

Also some people think that the brits defeated Caesar, but they didn't he smashed them. On both "invasions" of britan, but he didn't stay because winter came and the romans were unused to the cold. Also in Caesar's books he describes the incursions into britan as scouting missions.

[muy_thaiguy]

[quote="Sunstripe"]I voted Alexander for many reasons, many of which have already been stated, but also that the Persians weren't retarded or else they couldn't have conquered that much land. Also i have to point out at the final battle between Alexander and Darius III that Alexander nearly lost because the Persian cavalry swept along the flank and nearly hit Alexander's infantry from the back which would have destroyed his infantry.

Another thing is that Caesar didn't ever loose a battle! The one supposed battle he lost was the battle of Gorgiva, and there what happened was that his infantry charged without orders at the heavily defended Gallic position and were nearly routed if it was not for the veterans in the 11th legion who managed to push the gauls back then retreat.

Also the gauls were not "barbarians" they were incredible metal smiths, and they had soap while the romans did not! The gauls also were dissunited during the first campaigns of Julius Caesar, but later under Vercingetorix they became a united force and destroyed 3-4 roman legions in a surprise attack on basses all over gaul, and at that time the gauls nearly pussed Caesar out of Gaul.

Also some people think that the brits defeated Caesar, but they didn't he smashed them. On both "invasions" of britan, but he didn't stay because winter came and the romans were unused to the cold. Also in Caesar's books he describes the incursions into britan as scouting missions.[/quote]

Umm, barbarian was a term applied even to the Romans because they were not Greek or part of the Hellenistic culture. It basically means non-Greek. On Record Caesar did lose that battle, sorry. Also, Caesar did not have the military force to remain in Britain. If they were unused to the cold, then what about the 8 years in Gaul, which is modern-day France? Not exactly tropical you know.

[dwightschrute]

alexander

[Sunstripe]

"Umm, barbarian was a term applied even to the Romans because they were not Greek or part of the Hellenistic culture. It basically means non-Greek."

True

"On Record Caesar did lose that battle, sorry."

technically but not his fault

"Also, Caesar did not have the military force to remain in Britain. If they were unused to the cold, then what about the 8 years in Gaul, which is modern-day France? Not exactly tropical you know. "

Yes, but I forgot to mention that he was running low on supplies and romans don't campaign in winter, and he didn't want to be in enemy territory during that time.

[strike wolf]

What many of you are overlooking is that at the time Caesar came about Rome was not the glorious empire that most people view it as. Rome at that point was suffering from an economy so bad that it was only outdone by the economy of the empire's collapse, even many of the Roman aristocrats were suffering. However Alexander was in charge of a civilization that was at it's apex and where both Persian and Egyptian empires were mere shells of their former power. What Alexander did was take a powerful empire and extend it's influence over weakened areas. What Caesar did was take a weak republic and lay the foundation for one of the world's greatest empires. The political turmoil that Caesar had to deal with only further proves his abilities as a politician.

[muy_thaiguy]

[quote="strike wolf"]What many of you are overlooking is that at the time Caesar came about Rome was not the glorious empire that most people view it as. Rome at that point was suffering from an economy so bad that it was only outdone by the economy of the empire's collapse, even many of the Roman aristocrats were suffering. However Alexander was in charge of a civilization that was at it's apex and where both Persian and Egyptian empires were mere shells of their former power. What Alexander did was take a powerful empire and extend it's influence over weakened areas. What Caesar did was take a weak republic and lay the foundation for one of the world's greatest empires. The political turmoil that Caesar had to deal with only further proves his abilities as a politician.[/quote]

I would like to point out that Rome was not officially called The Roman Empire, but was still a Republic even under Caesars control. It was not until Augustus Caesar that it became known as Empire.

[muy_thaiguy]

"Umm, barbarian was a term applied even to the Romans because they were not Greek or part of the Hellenistic culture. It basically means non-Greek."

True

"On Record Caesar did lose that battle, sorry."

technically but not his fault

"Also, Caesar did not have the military force to remain in Britain. If they were unused to the cold, then what about the 8 years in Gaul, which is modern-day France? Not exactly tropical you know. "

Yes, but I forgot to mention that he was running low on supplies and romans don't campaign in winter, and he didn't want to be in enemy territory during that time.

In other words, I just pretty much debunked what you were saying.

There, fixed.

[Skittles!]

Hey, guy above me, can you please put on your BBCode. It's annoying.. to see you not have it on

[strike wolf]

What many of you are overlooking is that at the time Caesar came about Rome was not the glorious empire that most people view it as. Rome at that point was suffering from an economy so bad that it was only outdone by the economy of the empire's collapse, even many of the Roman aristocrats were suffering. However Alexander was in charge of a civilization that was at it's apex and where both Persian and Egyptian empires were mere shells of their former power. What Alexander did was take a powerful empire and extend it's influence over weakened areas. What Caesar did was take a weak republic and lay the foundation for one of the world's greatest empires. The political turmoil that Caesar had to deal with only further proves his abilities as a politician.

I would like to point out that Rome was not officially called The Roman Empire, but was still a Republic even under Caesars control. It was not until Augustus Caesar that it became known as Empire.

I didn't think it needed to be pointed out but I highlighted it for you.

[muy_thaiguy]

Sorry, the options button said it was on.