Debate Alexander the Great vs Julius Caesar: Who was the Greatest Commander in the Ancient World?

[Vallicanus]

Not really, most Balkan/South Slavs had already settled within Byzantine by this point. The Avars conquered the east Slavs, some Germanic tribes, Daco-Romans etc -

My point included the fact that the East Roman/Byzantine emperor Basil the Second, known as Bulgar-Slayer for obvious reasons, subjected all the South Slavs up to the Danube in the early 11th century.

In any case, thee Balkan Slavs were subjected to foreign rule for much of their Balkan history, Avars initially , Ninth Century Franks in some western parts like Carinthia and Slovenia, Venetians on the coast and the Kingdom of Hungary inland and then finally the Ottomans from the 15th to early 20th centuries.

 

[TetaEglantina]

My point included the fact that the East Roman/Byzantine emperor Basil the Second, known as Bulgar-Slayer for obvious reasons, subjected all the South Slavs up to the Danube in the early 11th century.

In any case, thee Balkan Slavs were subjected to foreign rule for much of their Balkan history, Avars initially , Ninth Century Franks in some western parts like Carinthia and Slovenia, Venetians on the coast and the Kingdom of Hungary inland and then finally the Ottomans from the 15th to early 20th centuries.

Avars never made it to the Balkans, like I said they conquered germanics and east slavs

Maybe this is an avar line but looks too recent, what do you think? -

N-Y6516 YTree

www.yfull.com

More avar possibilities here -

N-M2126 YTree

www.yfull.com

 

[rishav]

The two greco Persian wars having failed speaks nothing of the technological superioty of greeks over persians. If that was the case Persians shouldn't have won the Ionian revolt,war of the delian League, and even the two greco Persian wars showed that the persians could operate with the logistics that greeks at that time couldn't.
Infact the persians overtook much of the greek world burning athens.

During Agelisius invasion Spartans were defeated by a comparatively smaller force. Greeks were defeated at cunaxa.

I mean stronger power could still lose given logistical issues,theater of war, terrain etc. i mean just take a look at zyprion Macedonian invasion of scythia or Anthony's invasion of parthia. Were Macedonian and romans inferior to Scythians and parthians respectively?

Late Achamenid even had proto cataphracts, scythed chariots, kardakes described as being similar to greek hoplites, and mercenaries with string navy .

Alexander fought greeks, balkan tribes of thracians, illyrians,gatea tribe, persians, tyrians, scythians, Indians.

Achamenid empire was stronger than many ppl give it credit for. It forced Alexander to fight on three fronts in the very beginning of his campaign i.e Asia minor, agean and greece.
He fought capable generals like memnon, pharnabazus, darius, agis,ariobazanes, bessus, satibazanese, spitamenese.

He later fought a multi front war against steep nomads in bactria, sogdiana margiana and scythian frontier

 

[rishav]

The two greco Persian wars having failed speaks nothing of the technological superioty of greeks over persians. If that was the case Persians shouldn't have won the Ionian revolt,war of the delian League, and even the two greco Persian wars showed that the persians could operate with the logistics that greeks at that time couldn't.

Infact the persians overtook much of the greek world burning athens.



During Agelisius invasion Spartans were defeated by a comparatively smaller force. Greeks were defeated at cunaxa.



I mean stronger power could still lose given logistical issues,theater of war, terrain etc. i mean just take a look at zyprion Macedonian invasion of scythia or Anthony's invasion of parthia. Were Macedonian and romans inferior to Scythians and parthians respectively?



Late Achamenid even had proto cataphracts, scythed chariots, kardakes described as being similar to greek hoplites, and mercenaries with string navy .



Alexander fought greeks, balkan tribes of thracians, illyrians,gatea tribe, persians, tyrians, scythians, Indians.



Achamenid empire was stronger than many ppl give it credit for. It forced Alexander to fight on three fronts in the very beginning of his campaign i.e Asia minor, agean and greece.

He fought capable generals like memnon, pharnabazus, darius, agis,ariobazanes, bessus, satibazanese, spitamenese.



He later fought a multi front war against steep nomads in bactria, sogdiana margiana and scythian frontier

 

[Degredado]

Alexander. He led an army from a relatively small kingdom and destroyed the superpower of the time; won massive battles, always outnumbered and on enemy ground, progressively farther from home; never lost a battle; always led from the front, almost irresponsibly; more innovative a tactician; took his army over a huge area, previously largely unexplored by Greeks, going through some of the most inhospitable places on Earth; achieved all of that still in his 20s.

Needless to say Caesar was a genius as well, but his military reputation rests mainly on his defeating the Gauls (very numerous, fighting on their terrain, but notoriously undisciplined and not as materially developed as the Romans) and Pompey (remarkable, but not as much as Alexander’s achievements).

 

[thejoker]

Julius Caesar can be argued as the stronger commander because he was not only a brilliant battlefield leader but also a strategic thinker and political architect. Unlike Alexander, whose empire collapsed immediately after his death, Caesar built structures that shaped Western history for centuries. He consistently won battles even when outnumbered, adapting to different terrains and enemies with unmatched flexibility. His leadership style was steadier and more rational, earning deep loyalty without the volatility that marked Alexander’s later years. While Alexander was the greatest conqueror, Caesar was the more complete commander, uniting military genius with political vision and long‑term impact.

 

[Vallicanus]

Julius Caesar can be argued as the stronger commander because he was not only a brilliant battlefield leader but also a strategic thinker and political architect. Unlike Alexander, whose empire collapsed immediately after his death, Caesar built structures that shaped Western history for centuries. He consistently won battles even when outnumbered, adapting to different terrains and enemies with unmatched flexibility. His leadership style was steadier and more rational, earning deep loyalty without the volatility that marked Alexander’s later years. While Alexander was the greatest conqueror, Caesar was the more complete commander, uniting military genius with political vision and long‑term impact.

It was Caesar's adopted son Octavian, the future Augustus, who created the political structures that changed the Republic into the Empire.

 

[Degredado]

Alexander. He led an army from a relatively small kingdom and destroyed the superpower of the time; won massive battles, always outnumbered and on enemy ground, progressively farther from home; never lost a battle; always led from the front, almost irresponsibly; more innovative a tactician; took his army over a huge area, previously largely unexplored by Greeks, going through some of the most inhospitable places on Earth; achieved all of that still in his 20s.

Needless to say Caesar was a genius as well, but his military reputation rests mainly on his defeating the Gauls (very numerous, fighting on their terrain, but notoriously undisciplined and not as materially developed as the Romans) and Pompey (remarkable, but not as much as Alexander’s achievements).

Julius Caesar can be argued as the stronger commander because he was not only a brilliant battlefield leader but also a strategic thinker and political architect. Unlike Alexander, whose empire collapsed immediately after his death, Caesar built structures that shaped Western history for centuries. He consistently won battles even when outnumbered, adapting to different terrains and enemies with unmatched flexibility. His leadership style was steadier and more rational, earning deep loyalty without the volatility that marked Alexander’s later years. While Alexander was the greatest conqueror, Caesar was the more complete commander, uniting military genius with political vision and long‑term impact.

Caesar built on much more solid foundations to begin with. By his time, the Roman republic had been steadily expanding for almost 500 years, and its continuity did not depend on the talent or charisma of a single man. And even so, there was civil war and chaos for decades after Caesar’s death (he had contributed to that political instability with his insubordination and relentless ambition). A weaker state probably would have collapsed.

On the other hand, the Macedonian kingdom was a small state that suddenly found itself ruling over a very large empire, while being located at one of its distant fringes. Realistically, it was never going to last, given the geographic and demographic challenges, Alexander’s succession issues (for which he was partly responsible) and the colossal personalities of men like Antigonus, Seleucus, Ptolemy etc. The Macedonian empire only held together for some time because of Alexander himself. And he was a long-term visionary as well. He founded dozens of cities, had very “modern” (and definitely un-Macedonian) ideas on cultural integration, religious tolerance, ethnic blending etc.

 

[thejoker]

Alexander. He led an army from a relatively small kingdom and destroyed the superpower of the time; won massive battles, always outnumbered and on enemy ground, progressively farther from home; never lost a battle; always led from the front, almost irresponsibly; more innovative a tactician; took his army over a huge area, previously largely unexplored by Greeks, going through some of the most inhospitable places on Earth; achieved all of that still in his 20s.

Needless to say Caesar was a genius as well, but his military reputation rests mainly on his defeating the Gauls (very numerous, fighting on their terrain, but notoriously undisciplined and not as materially developed as the Romans) and Pompey (remarkable, but not as much as Alexander’s achievements).


Caesar built on much more solid foundations to begin with. By his time, the Roman republic had been steadily expanding for almost 500 years, and its continuity did not depend on the talent or charisma of a single man. And even so, there was civil war and chaos for decades after Caesar’s death (he had contributed to that political instability with his insubordination and relentless ambition). A weaker state probably would have collapsed.

On the other hand, the Macedonian kingdom was a small state that suddenly found itself ruling over a very large empire, while being located at one of its distant fringes. Realistically, it was never going to last, given the geographic and demographic challenges, Alexander’s succession issues (for which he was partly responsible) and the colossal personalities of men like Antigonus, Seleucus, Ptolemy etc. The Macedonian empire only held together for some time because of Alexander himself. And he was a long-term visionary as well. He founded dozens of cities, had very “modern” (and definitely un-Macedonian) ideas on cultural integration, religious tolerance, ethnic blending etc.

The argument that Caesar inherited a "solid foundation" overlooks the fact that by 49 BC, the Roman Republic was a failing state. For a century, Rome had been plagued by systemic corruption, street violence, and the inability of a small senatorial elite to govern a vast empire. Caesar did not destroy a functioning democracy; he stepped into a power vacuum created by an oligarchy that refused to reform.
His insubordination was a response to a Senate that sought to prosecute him for political reasons despite his massive achievements. Furthermore, his reforms, such as redistributing land to the poor, reforming the calendar, and granting citizenship to provincials, were not mere ego projects, but essential steps to stabilize a collapsing society. The chaos following his death was not caused by his ambition, but by the lack of a successor plan among the conspirators, who killed the only man capable of maintaining order without having a viable alternative.

As for "Caesar’s reputation" doesn’t rest only on defeating the Gauls. He also crushed highly capable Roman armies in the civil war, outmaneuvered Pompey’s veteran legions, defeated the Egyptians under Achillas and the forces of Pharnaces in the East, and repeatedly prevailed while outnumbered and far from supply lines. His record shows not just success against “undisciplined tribes,” but consistent victories over organized, well equipped, and politically sophisticated opponents, making him far more than a Celts' bugaboo.

 

[adian808]

Alexander successfully conquered the powerful Persian Empire despite being outnumbered, established a vast empire and spread Hellenistic culture across the known world, and in the process he never lost a battle.

Julius Caesar conquered Gaul and won the civil war. He faced political intrigue and shifting loyalties in the late Roman Republic from the beginning. He was not just a military leader but also a skilled politician. His conquests were closely tied to his political ambitions, and he played a significant role in the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire.
Through is political and administrative achievements, including significant reforms (like the roman calendar) Caesar's influence is still felt in modern times.

Alexander never encountered armies that were such in the sense that the Macedonian army was. Caesar fought against the barbarians and against other Romans. It's hard to say which of the two achieved more with scarcer means than the other.

I am giving my opinion not just based on the military aspects. While Alexander's achievements were impressive, his empire disintegrated shortly after his death. Caesar's legacy endured and led to the birth of the Roman Empire, which stood for centuries to come. Caesar's success in turning the tide of the Roman Republic and laying the foundations for the empire makes him perhaps the greatest of the two.

The Roman legion is also a superior tool of war than the macedonian phalanx.
The Roman legion's adaptability, mobility, and effectiveness in hand-to-hand combat gave it an advantage over the Macedonian phalanx. The phalanx, while effective in certain situations, had limitations in unfavorable terrain and in turning quickly.
The phalanx being a row of shoulder-to-shoulder infantry soldiers with long pikes, offers great cohesion, but with limited maneuverability and vulnerability in unfavorable terrain.

It is worth highlighting that Napoleon, the only one who can compare to the two (and Hannibal Barca too) thought that Alexander was the greatest.
https://www.businessinsider.in/defe...parte/slidelist/61707124.cms#slideid=61707115

This is also the opinion of this WatchMojo video

Napoléon is a war criminal against Haitians, Carribeans, Russians, Mexicans, Morrocans, Arabes, Egyptians, Turks.
Hé was racist and Saïd hé loves pharaohs although most pharaohs before late Berber, Sémite, Ethiopian and Greek Dynasties were so called Blacks.

Alexander thé Great is a prophet of Islam
while Jules César is cruel and don t respect Ahimsa and other people and nature, so hé is what Hindus call Untouchables , and what Muslim call " Kouffars " .
Thé actual Black Untouchables of India are Untouchables only because of circumcision despite Jews who practised it are called Brahmins but Untouchable Australoides and Dravidiens respect all values of Ahimsa, they respect God, nature and humans and are egalitarians, and are thé first Hindus,the Harappa culture, they trust in An the God of the Sky like sumerian (Australoides of Irak ) who is Shiva thé God of Aryans

 

[Vitruvius]

Maybe, but in any case you cannot compare the military strength of the Parthian Empire with that of the Achaemenid Empire. Their armies were very different. The Parthians relied much more in cavalry, be it horse archers or cataphracts. The Macedonians defeated the Achaemenid Persians relatively easily, but their successors the Seleucids were also defeated relatively easily by the Parthians. I'm not sure that even Julius Caesar could have vanquished them with his legions (heavy infantry), as this type of army was really not well suited to fighting very mobile cavalry on the vast expanses of Mesopotamia and Iran.

During Caesar's era horse mounted Roman archers whose role was copied from the Parthians were being developed and trained. They were termed the Sagitarii and were used with great success just 50 years after Gaius Julius Caesar's death in Germanicus' conquest of the Cherusci + allied Germanics and defeat of Arminius in north/central Germania. While it's not fair to either side to speculate I think we can all agree that the Romans were very quick to recognize the superiority of good outside ideas once discovered and that had Gaius Julius Caesar had the opportunity to use the Sagitarii as part of his regular forces - the outcome in Parthia would likely have been much different than what happened to Crassus.

 

[Vitruvius]

The argument that Caesar inherited a "solid foundation" overlooks the fact that by 49 BC, the Roman Republic was a failing state. For a century, Rome had been plagued by systemic corruption, street violence, and the inability of a small senatorial elite to govern a vast empire. Caesar did not destroy a functioning democracy; he stepped into a power vacuum created by an oligarchy that refused to reform.
His insubordination was a response to a Senate that sought to prosecute him for political reasons despite his massive achievements. Furthermore, his reforms, such as redistributing land to the poor, reforming the calendar, and granting citizenship to provincials, were not mere ego projects, but essential steps to stabilize a collapsing society. The chaos following his death was not caused by his ambition, but by the lack of a successor plan among the conspirators, who killed the only man capable of maintaining order without having a viable alternative.

As for "Caesar’s reputation" doesn’t rest only on defeating the Gauls. He also crushed highly capable Roman armies in the civil war, outmaneuvered Pompey’s veteran legions, defeated the Egyptians under Achillas and the forces of Pharnaces in the East, and repeatedly prevailed while outnumbered and far from supply lines. His record shows not just success against “undisciplined tribes,” but consistent victories over organized, well equipped, and politically sophisticated opponents, making him far more than a Celts' bugaboo.

I fully agree. The degree of corruption in the late republic cannot be understated. The senatorial class had been pushing the broader Italian farmer population into poverty through the latifundiae system which had supplemented middle class farming labor with slaves. We can debate the ethnic composition of those slaves some other time, but the reality of the matter is that in distributing the spoils of war in Gaul to his legionaries, Julius Caesar was at the forefront of setting up a system in which the average Italian now once again could work through military service to achieve a stable and well paid career/retirement. This was simultaneously part of what accelerated the outbreak of civil war between himself and the senate because it de facto transitioned him from a state general to a warlord. His legions were now loyal to himself and his more extravagant payments, not the lesser stipend that was given by the Roman state. Once he had won the civil war, he immediately granted Roman citizenship to all of Northern Italy (other than the still yet unconquered alps) and his second in command Marcus Antonius came close to granting all of Sicily citizenship as well, however, it was backtracked due to corruption charges in the voting process (read Cicero for more). In addition he started a process in which the massive land estates of his senatorial enemies were distributed to his veterans for their service and standardized this practice for both land in Italy and foreign nations. This of course would be continued by Augustus and this system was able to rebalance the distribution of wealth in such a way that the empire's borders would be maintained by the poorer regular classes of Italian descent in exchange for their upward social mobility. We also consequentially see the decline of the slave class and the latifundiae system after his death as a direct result of this system.

The more astute of you will realize this is along the same lines of the policy and military actions taken by his uncle-by-marriage Gaius Marius who was similarly persecuted for his populares-like political stance, back to back unbroken reign as consul, and in the end also took up a warlord like status by paying his men in spoils of war. Caesar's policies were of course continued by Augustus with great success.

 

[Dianatomia]

Just the logistics of moving an army from Greece to North Africa and then to India is astounding. Let alone conquering everyone in the process. Among others the Global power at the time. And doing it before reaching the age of 33. Quite remarkable.

Also, one should not compare later armies to determine how strong Alexander’s army was. It’s like comparing Wilt Chamberlain to Michael Jordan. Just not fair, because each generation learns from the previous one. While it’s all ancient history, each generation armies adapted to conquer others. Learning from the mistakes of previous generations.

 

[adian808]

Cyrus the zoroastrian and prophet of islam and judaism , and Alexander the great , son of Amon Ra , prophet of amonism/netjerism/atonism ( ancient egyptian faith ), prophet of islam and judaism and coptism and ethiopian christianity, are better than Cesar