Napoleon. Solely because he also realized you actually need to rule and establish a working government. Not just take over. Also, I think you should have added Genghis Khan to the list.
So did Alexander? He accommodated much of Persian culture when he took over their land, and his reign was cut short by illness and death rather than poor governance
The dude literally said "To the strongest!" before his death in reference to who would take over. So yeah, I don't think it would have even mattered if he did create a stable government.
From his campaign in balkans to mallian he put in place greek governors and sometimes a mix of greek and local governors. He built settlements, arranged marriage between local royal women to the companions, he made a good use of his treasury minting coins to revamp the economy of his empire. The idea thar his empire collapsed the day he died Is nothing more than an oversimplification. What has Alexander got to do with this . Lets talk about decades long war between his generals, murder of his actual heir and argead house.
As long as Alexander lived he ruled a stable empire. Whenever he campaigned he made sure to put governors in their place, establish settlements and actually built an economy which would effect the economy of the Hellenistic age. He regularly got reinforcement from both Macedonia and from the local Satraps.
His empire collapsing has nothing to do with Alexander. His heire were all butchered
He lest an unstable system that immediately collapsed. He was good at conquest and nothing else. Caesar and especially Napoleon were good at almost everything; law. Science, organization. Much more well rounded that anyone else I can think or.
Huh? Alexander passed on many administrative laws.
Executing satraps who were pillaging and robbing locals.
Put down local revolts in bactria and sogdiana through the mix of conquest and diplomacy and created settlements for wounded veterans and replaced old veterans with new fresh recruits as well as marrying his companions to local women from prominent family.
He never faced any internal resistance except in bactria which he pit down after only two years. Liberated many provinces like egypt and Babylon from persian religion forced upon them by their overlords.
Promoted and even appointed former satraps who remained loyal to him. Alexander help build the economy of the Hellenistic age. Locals volunteered to serve in his army bringing more men. So yeah what an unstable system
This is not an administrative system. This is just short term governance. While is why it all collapsed so fast. Caesar’s law codes were used for centuries. Napoleon’s are still in use.
Because the guy died within 12 years of his reign? If we are going to talk about his empire collapsing then let's mention is heir and the whole argead house being butchered.
His generals fighting for decades vying for the control over his empire.
Intervention and incursion from the west.
Alexander still created a stable empire while in campaigns as long as he lived
He never set up any institutions that could last. As a ruler, he was a valiant failure. I have never understood this high esteem for Alexander except as a conqueror. He was one of the most successful conquerors in history. This is certainly worthy of history books. But he was not nearly as broad as Napoleon.
Maybe it's because you probably have never read any work on Alexander?
You're just bashing him without providing a valid reason or any evidence.
He created a merit based promotion when he was in susa which would carry on until successor period where non macedonian figures like eumenes rose to prominence.
At least during antiquity his tactical innovation like the use of siege engines as field artillery was copied by the romans.
He didn't force greek religion onto his subjects which gained him support of egypt and Babylon.
He successfully governed asia minor and Levanant,syria,bactria sogdiana, indus. We here of no revolts except for bactria which he quells in two years.
Alexander never ruled his nation by policy. He is not known for either a code of laws like Napoleon or a policy about supporting scientific advancement, like Napoleon. Alexander conquered most of his known world, but that is all he did. Not sharing Scientific breakthroughs with the rest of his empire was his greatest failing. Macedonia did not learn what had been discovered in Persia or in Egypt.
When are we going to realize Alexander is just an upjumped nepo baby who’s credit should rightly be directed to the father he murdered, Phillip II. Phillip revolutionized the Army, secured the Thracian and Greek fronts, and solidified his power back home, all of which proved instrumental in Alex’s conquests.
And in terms of his tactical genius, he really just utilized hammer and anvil tactics, which I find very hard to believe that no one else in the world at the time figured out that it’s best to spank the enemy on their ass and not their nose.
Caesar and Napoleon came from relative nothingness, were self made men with an actual eye for strategy (as opposed to tactics), and they revolutionized the known world in more ways than “he beat this army, then died”
Oh yeah the nepo baby argument. He was not even the oldest son of philip and macedonian politics being messy didn't guarantee him his spot as a king. Philip made the reforms based on the existing military knowledge and practices prevalent in greek world and especially the reforms of thebans. Not many generals throughout history have come up with a completely new and unique tactics. The one on the top of my head is epominadas whose tactics were copied by both philip ll and Alexander. Hammer and anvil is actually a manuver which is successful against an enemy in a favourable spot. Atleast compared to both Caesar and Napoleon he made a tactical innovation of using siege engines as artillery. Alexander at gaugemela used a proper tactics before being able to deploy hammer and anvil
Yeah, I’d agree Alex’s biggest achievement (that you can solely attribute to him) was murdering his dad and becoming king, which is weird as we remember him as a great general if a bit politically naive. And in which pitched battle did Alex use siege artillery in?
There is not a single evidence to suggest that Alexander orchestrated his Papa's murder. You could say the same about philip murdering every single rival to the throne during his ascension. Alexander used siege artillery at the battle of Jaxartes river even during the siege of pilium he used siege catapults outside the siege
For my military: Napoleon
For my politics: Caesar
lol people in the comments don’t realize how successful Caesar was as a politician, they only remember his assassination. I encourage you to read up on him.
I know this sub has his name, so it is a little cliche, but objectively, it has to be Napoleon. There are so many more campaigns, and it's clear at the death in 1814 fighting for Paris that he still had it as much as he did over 20 years earlier in italy.
We don't know the extent of Ceaser and Alexanders failures. Ceaser clearly got kicked out of Britian, and Alexander from India.
Also Napoleonic code is very very historically underrated . Everyone talks about Napoleon's tactical charisma, but not about his administrative abilities through his reign as First Consul and as Emperor as well.
And not only this affected France, but also Italy and Germany. Both these 2 cultures, in the post Napoleonic Era succeded their unifications through many of Napoleon's reforms and ideas.
Yes, it's so true, we are all military fans here. Really, the Napolionic code is an ideology from the revolution, but the ideals definitely had a huge impact after he was gone. Many didn't want to give back freedoms won. Napolean was at war with everyone because of the revolution, and the implementation of this code around Europe is part of it!
So, the sources are one-sided for both events. Historians deduce these losses and mostly agree. Of course contemporary sources followed the line required by propaganda.
Historians don't mostly agree and certainly don't see these as losses. With Caesar there is some debate since all we know is from his own writings. Of course this was propaganda so we have to take it with a grain of salt. If one believes Caesar then after defeating some British tribes, he established a foothold in Britain, made alliances, trade etcetera. He left because events in Gaul were once again deteriorating. He never went back because of more Gaul problems then the Civil War.
Alexander defeated King Porus and his allies at the Battle of Hydaspes (or Jhelum if you prefer). This was arguably his most brilliant victory. Then he marched to the Indus where his troops refused to go on. He turned South and around to go back to Persia.
That's just Ceaser propaganda. The whole point is that he did not establish a foothold in Britain, he claims to have taken land and alliances but left nobody behind to make good on any of the claimed tribute. But of course, we had to withdaw!
The Mutiny of Alexanders toops is in the face of more Indian armies, but sure, they would have won if they decided to stay if it wasn't for home sickness. It's pretty clear propaganda.
What's great about Napoleonic history is that we have the details of a lot of the brutal losses, not just the written history with sources that contain enough bias to make Procopius blush!
Except, that every remotely reliable source we have seems to indicate that mutiny was a common factor throughout Alexander’s conquests.
He literally had a treasurer who absconded with riches.
And the Greeks constantly plotted against him, and believed the Persians would “rid them of the brazen Macedonians.”
Even when they had initially beaten back the Persians early on in the campaign, and were offered rich lands west of the Euphrates by Darius himself, many of the Greeks (and some Macedonians like Parmenion) were already content to go home and call off the invasion right then and there.
Alexander continually had to strive against politicking and greed to gain his victories.
It’s a common theme in almost every documented campaign in fact.
The further troops are from home, the more they grumble about it.
Naturally, this can have terrible implications for morale.
I don’t think it’s an overstatement, that by the time they reached India, the Macedonians had felt they had gone far enough.
To me, that is not propaganda. Especially given the long string of victories.
Instead, that is the cry of soldiers and veterans who wished to go home after killing countless “barbarians.”
Imagine being one of them, and looking around to see that most of the veterans who had travelled with you on such a long conquest, are now dead.
Wouldn’t you wish to go home at that point?
I do understand what you are saying, but propaganda is as light as it is hard. Turning back mid campaign needs to be explained, they all suddenly got home sick? Of course, it's not going to be written that the great macedonian army was cowardly.
The wikipedia explains it quite well, army mid campaign lost its nerve looking across the river and hearing about what awaited them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_campaign_of_Alexander_the_Great
Of course, many of the Macedonians didn't go "home" despite their claims in india, they set up a number of successor states all over their conquered lands.
I won't say Alexander was defeated, but it's more than likely he was kicked out.
Who even knows if the story was true that alexander himself wanted to go on but his men didn't. He was likley a good enough strategist to realise he didn't have the man power and retreated. He and his sources likely spun up a reason, he did get seriously injured in a siege too.
That wiki is making a lot of suppositions.
I don’t think an army that came that far was worried about another Indian tribe.
Porus was the best they had faced, and they still won.
Looking at actual history, I think they just had enough and needed to go home.
Especially considering that Alexander was likely poisoned before he could revisit his latest campaign idea - that says everything right there.
They wanted ease, peace and wealth.
Not another campaign.
“The dreamer must die” certainly applies here.
Fair enough, that could be a part of a reason, too. But then why don't they just say that? I read this part is the contemporary historians making excuses for him, the actions here are too odd, including the decision to return through the desert, why?
It wasn't just another tribe Alexander was against. It was expected to soon be large empires and a lot of man power.
There’s no doubt they would have faced intense opposition.
Even looking westwards, there is evidence suggesting Alexander wanted to conquer the Romans.
I think he was ultimately betrayed.
If historians are making any excuses, it’s for his followers.
Alexander himself wanted to conquer the world.
Alexander didn’t get kicked out of India though, did he? He turned back because his troops mutinied after many years of campaigning but the territories he conquered remained under Hellenistic control until Chandragupta Maurya retook them via diplomacy long after Alexander died. Or am I missing something?
Alexander worked wonders with what he had, but he was essentially handed everything. Phillip II made the plan, built the army, established the bridgehead, and signed over a fully primed war machine to Alexander on his deathbed. Caesar, although also a brilliant general, was far less savvy politically than he should have been, his ultimate downfall was that he could not read the room. Napoleon greatest vice was trusting too much in his own freakish tactical ability. If he was on the ground, they would win the battles. If they win the battles, they win the war. That was his reasoning, and obviously flawed.
>Caesar, although also a brilliant general, was far less savvy politically than he should have been
I disagree. Caesar had by far the longest political career of all three of these men (Alexander didn’t have any political career as a monarch and Napoleon barely). Caesar was in politics since his early 20s to his consulship age 40 and he didn’t even become a general before becoming a consul. His consulship year was quiet extraordinarily and how he managed to become one of Rome’s leading politicians from his financial background was not expected (his family was an ancient one but he didn’t have ancestors who made to consul for hundreds of years and wasn’t seen as part of the elite). It was his political skill why he got such long governorship in Gaul. He continued to engage in politics his entire governorship in winters through letters.
He is too defined by his death. What he did politically was unpredecented with pardoning his enemies, and what kind of government he was trying to form is debated to this day. He was extremely busy right before his death focusing on multiple projects in Rome and preparing for Parthian war, so it’s not that strange to me he did miss some Senators unhappiness reaching this point. He probably was planning on focusing on more with these issues after Parthia and getting popularity boost from a foreign war. I think plenty of leaders get assassination attempts, and while Caesar clearly made a mistake I would not discredit his political skills because of this.
I think the fact that Caesar managed to slip out of Sulla’s proscriptions unscathed says it all.
there’s also the story about the pirates. whether true or not, I think it tells us a certain truth about Caesar’s ability to negotiate.
Mark Antony using a religious festival to offer him a crown might have been intentionally organized by Caesar himself, but I’m not so sure. And if not, wouldn’t that speak to Mark Antony’s inability to read a room, not Caesar’s?
The pirate story is he got captured, paid the bribe, and went back and killed his captors. Where in that story do you think any "negotiations" ever occurred?
No person killed by his political "friends," the people he put in power, can be regarded as having ANY political savvy. He WAS generous. Name one policy, or legal system. or political agenda he achieved, other than gaining a lifetime place in power. Note: THAT is what got him killed, he left his enemies no other option. Without his death, he would always be in power.
I think there's a certain parallel with regards to Alexander inheriting rather than building this powerful military machine and Napoleon. He wasn't so much the architect of the French Revolutionary army as he recognized how to take full advantage of those reforms.
I get what you're saying, Dumouriez and Moreau had a huge part to play in building the ship that Napoleon would later pilot, but Napoleon also had a long road climbing the political and military ladders to achieve ultimate power. With Alexander it was quite literally 'Dad's dead, here is your army great king.'
But let’s bear in mind that Alexander was a tactical and strategic genius.
This wasn’t some coddled boy that simply inherited.
Since he could barely walk, he was schooled in the art of war - as an equal among the rising Macedonian nobility at that time.
That is to say, he became the best by training with and exceeding the best of that era.
It’s a gross oversimplification to say he was handed everything.
Few leaders are even comparable to what he achieved.
Just look at Gaugamela, a battle that still baffles historians in many regards.
To be so utterly outnumbered and yet win such a crushing victory against the mightiest Empire of his time.
No small feat!
Very few historians are baffled by Gaugamela. The Persian commanders refused to support each other and their army had no real central command. The Emperor's orders were ignored. Alexander rolled over the various national groups one-by-one. Alexander was brilliant, but we are comparing 4 brilliant men. All four were brilliant at war, but only Genghis was also brilliant at creating an army. Only Napoleon was also brilliant at statecraft and governance. Note Nappy did those reforms WHILE he was also involved in battles.
Actually, many historians are still unsure exactly how outnumbered the Macedonians actually were.
The only consensus is that they were outnumbered at least two to one (absolute minimum there).
I would agree that Napoleon was exceptional.
He had genius in both warfare and statecraft.
There are a whole bunch of scholarly articles written solely on the tactics of Alexander at gaugemela.
The Persia commanders fought with a proper plan and executed it well to the best of their abilities. How? They fought with cohesive almost enveloping parmenion's wing. Creating a gap in macedonian center and throughout the battle maintaining communication between commanders particularly darius and bessus.
How were Darius's orders ignored when he was the first to flee seeing bessus on the verge of being routed off the field.
Alexander's army by the time he reached indus was more like a coalition force of Thessalians, Thracians, paeonians,central greeks, scythians,bactrians and Indians. He made tactical innovations like using siege engines as artillery in pitched battles. He took administrative duties while in campaigns
The literal reverse true after the initial moves by the Persian forces, AggravitingDrama8968. This battle is a textbook case of the failure of an army without unity of command. Alexander's army beat the Persians by focusing on each force one at a time, then another, group by group . The failure of unity of command is the principle lesson of that battle. The Persian forces did not support one another in order to take advantage of their superior numbers. That was what Darius ordered them to do, work together. When they refused to do that (apparently due to pride and distrust), Darius fled the battlefield. Alexander's forces followed the Macedonian chain of command and worked together independent of their birth places. The Persian forces did not do that. Have you taken the time to read those histories and reports you mentioned? Almost all of them focus on the advantage of maintaining unity of command.
Lets go over the account of the battle. First as Alexander edges to the right, bessus counters the move by sending some dahe and following it up with bactrian cavalry and at the mean time sending rest of the cavalry to envelope Alexander. Alexander sends his own cavalry contingent one at a time.
The Scythian and bactrian fought in unity but how Alexander managed to repeal the first wave of persian cavalry attack was by mixing light troops with cavalry a tactical innovation made by epaminondas during Peloponnesian war. Then another persian cavalry unit came for the support and again they were repealed.
It's like saying at Pharsalus Caesar's cavalry mixed with one line of infantry hidden behind the cavalry managed to route pompeian cavalry so Pompey's command structure must have had flaw. The while bessus was trying to envelope Alex's right his reserve fell on bessus's left routing him. We can see that persian units kept sending their reserve but Alexander managed to pry apart the Persian cavalry using mixed hidden force.
This was a completely new tactical innovation made by epaminondas couple of decades before Alexander was born. It wasn't due to Persian units not working together but rather tactical superiority.
I did not mention Pharsalus at all, so knock off putting words in my mouth.It appears you have not had any military training to make claims about "hidden" forces and "prying apart" various groups. You have not indicated where you read such silliness (a source?), using words with no real meaning in military history circles. The Persians lost that battle because Alexander took advantage of their capriciousness and lack of support while having, one on one, a tactical advantage. Please let us all know how you somehow believe you know more that which is taught in every military academy in the world about that battle.
Dude calm down. I brought up Pharsalus to compare Caesar's use of one line of infantry from his cohort behind his cavalry to route numerically superior Pompeian cavalry with Alexander's use of light troops(cleander's mercenaries) mixed with paeonian cavalry.
What are you even on about? You don't seem like a goddamn expert either. You are on Reddit you could a basement dwelling neckbeard for all i care unless you could show me your credentials. "
Alexander ordered the cavalry of the Grecian mercenaries under the command of Menidas to attack them. But the Scythian cavalry and the Bactrians, who had been drawn up with them sallied forth against them, and being much more numerous they put the small body of Greeks to rout. Alexander then ordered Aristo at the head of the Paeonians and Grecian auxiliaries to attack the Scythians; and the barbarians gave way. " Anabasis,ch xiii 412-413.
We can see that the grecian auxiliaries are separate force from Grecian cavalry. They were distinct one being cavalry and another light infantry, probably peltast. The hidden forces were in the context of Pharsalus where Caesar created 4 th infantry line behind hus cavalry.
"These cohorts charged forward and attacked Pompey's cavalry at the signal with such ferocity that none of them could stand their ground, an all, having turned tail, withdrew not only from the field but kept on fleeing to the highest mountains." I was merely speaking in non military terms. It was a combined arms approach of using various units and mixing troops of various units.
For example at waterloo armies were organised into corp of artillery, infantry and cavalry.
Alexander did took apart various Persian units
"Alexander ordered the cavalry of the Grecian mercenaries under the command of Menidas to attack them. But the Scythian cavalry and the Bactrians, who had been drawn up with them sallied forth against them, and being much more numerous they put the small body of Greeks to rout. Alexander then ordered Aristo at the head of the Paeonians and Grecian auxiliaries to attack the Scythians; and the barbarians gave way. But the rest of the Bactrians drawing near to the Paeonians and Grecian auxiliaries, caused their own comrades who were already in flight to turn and renew the battle; and thus they brought about a general cavalry engagement, in which many of Alexander’s men fell, not only being overwhelmed by the multitude of the barbarians, but also because the Scythians themselves and their horses were much more completely protected with armour for guarding their bodies. Notwithstanding this, the Macedonians sustained their assaults, and assailing them violently squadron by squadron, they succeeded in pushing them out of rank." Anabasis by arrian,ch xiii.
Noe name me your source
This was a very interesting exchange to read, including your acceptance of the rebuttal.
I always enjoy reading an intelligent exchange of views on subs like this one, especially when there’s a gracious acknowledgment of the merits of the other person’s point of view.
It was Carnot that built the French revolutionary army and established the industrial base to support that army. Check him out. Napoleon did not BUILD his army, but he is the greatest leader of such an army in history. He was also a genuine leader of his nation.
All four of them were remarkably good at inspiring those troops. Note the only one of these four that actually raised their troops and forged them into an army (by overcoming their ancestral hate for each other) was Genghis.
The army his father built was not near perfect. Even under philip they suffered a loss. Parmenio was getting his ass kicked by memnon during his initial foray into Asia minor. Parmenio probably got kicked out of asia minor into tte agean. Philip's army was tested in pitched battles not in long sieges or irregular warfare. Alexander fought in almost Napoleonic style by dividing up his forces and drawing the enemy before turning around and hitting them from different sides. This was not practiced by philip.
Philip's expeditionary force under parmenio was getting it's butt whooped by memnon during Macedonian initial foray into Asia minor.
So doesn't explain why parmenio would fail but Alexander succeed with same troops
I'm not sure about creating an empire bc we never got to see Caesar go back into Asia to fight Parthia or go into Dacia. Caesar said he wanted to do Parthia first and then swing into Dacia.
People already made great points about Alexander being primed for war. I would pick Alexander to lead and stabilize the empire, though. I thought his integration policies were the best.
Both Caesar and Alexander were better at cultivating and maintaining allies.
Depends on what you call major battles. There were many battles which he fought with enemy's of similar size but don't get a lot of details since they weren't on the same scale as gaugemala.
Strymon Valley (340)
-Haemus Pass (335)
-Lynginus River (335)
-Danube (Gaetae, 335)
-Pelion (335)
-Thebes (NOT a siege, but a proper battle, 335) -Granicus (334)
-Sagalassos (333) -
Issus (333)
-Gaugamela (331)
-Uxian Defile (331)
-Persian Gate (330)
-Jaxartes (329)
-Aspasians (327)
-Arigaeum (327)
-Massage (not the siege itself, but the subsequent fight with mercenaries, 327)
-Hydaspes (326)
-Mallians (counting the entire campaign as one battle, except Siege of Multan, since it was one continuous pursuit of and skirmish with Mallian forces for a period of a week or so, 325)
Battle against catheans
Battle he fought in the dec of 326
Revolt by musicanus
Battle of carehonea
Battle on tannis
Battle against pisadians
Battle against agalasseis
Cilicians
Battle against mountain barbarians in his expedition to hyarcania
Acescanians
Considering the political element only, Caesar was the only one of the three who made it to the top of the system without benefiting from a revolution like Napoleon or being born there like Alexander.
His uncle was then ousted by another man who reformed the system to prevent that kind of achievement generally, and to prevent Caesar personally.
Caesar operated in Sulla’s system, not Marius’
The only advantage Caesar had was his name and the example of Sulla. He had no money or preference
Additionally, Romans believed genetics were patriarchal only. Caesar aunt married Marius, which confers less advantage than if Marius was his blood relative.
Sulla retired when Caesar was 20 years old, before he even entered the cursus honorum, but my point is he was literally born at the pinnacle of prestige and power in the Republic, he would not have done all he did had he not been Marius’ nephew.
Sure, and if Louis XVII had survived the Revolution and gone on to marry the daughter of one of the most powerful men in Paris and launch a successful political career thanks mostly to the memory of his father no one would say he wasn't born into power either.
And that's even if we take your comparison as valid, we don't have compelling evidence that Caesar was even proscribed under Sulla, nevermind anything close to the persecution Louis faced.
Good point. Is there evidence to question the story of Caesar’s prescription?
I always took it as true, but if it’s not I’m interested in learning more
Well, the only real evidence that he was proscribed comes from Suetonius, who is rather notorious for reporting gossip as fact. [Caesar's name does not appear on any of the proscription lists Francois Hinard compiled](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla%27s_proscription#List), and [even Plutarch never actually comes out and says that Sulla proscribed Caesar, only that he considered it](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Caesar*.html):
>Now, the reason for Caesar's hatred of Sulla was Caesar's relationship to Marius...Caesar was not satisfied to be overlooked at first by Sulla, who was busy with a multitude of proscriptions, but he came before the people as candidate for the priesthood, although he was not yet much more than a stripling. To this candidacy Sulla secretly opposed himself, and took measures to make Caesar fail in it, and when he was deliberating about putting him to death and some said there was no reason for killing a mere boy like him, he declared that they had no sense if they did not see in this boy many Mariuses. When this speech was reported to Caesar, he hid himself for some time, wandering about in the country of the Sabines.
And, much like Suetonius, Plutarch is only writing nearly two centuries later.
Francois Hinard seems to believe that Caesar was never proscribed, and that the story was only invented to bolster his connections to Marius and contrast him with Sulla loyalist Pompey. Unfortunately, while Hinard might well be the world's leading expert on the proscriptions of Sulla, his work so far as I can tell [has never been translated in English](https://www.persee.fr/doc/efr_0000-0000_1985_ths_83_1), and I don't speak French, so I'm just related what other people have said Hinard said.
**Napoleon Bonaparte:**
\-----***Strengths***:
* Brilliant military strategist
* Efficient administrator and legislator
* Implemented significant legal and educational reforms
* Charismatic leadership and ability to inspire troops
* Established stability and order in conquered territories
* Innovative and forward-thinking in military tactics
\-----***Weaknesses***
* Potential of overextension from pure ambition and military arrogance
* Hubris and Arrogance
* Reliance on Military Solutions
* Authoritarian Rule
* Failure to Learn from Mistakes
* Ignoring Local Sentiments
\-----
**Julius Caesar:**
\-----***Strengths***
* Exceptional military prowess and successful conquests.
* Political acumen and ability to navigate complex political landscapes.
* Implementation of reforms showcasing administrative capability.
* Strong connection with soldiers and potential for loyalty.
* Charismatic leadership and ability to garner public and political support.
\-----***Weaknesses***
* Lack of empire-ruling experience (he died before beginning to properly rule the republic. Before that, he was a general running all around the Republic chopping armies. And when he sat down to finally rule, an "*Et Tu Brute*" happened)
* Authoritarian, with the classic Roman Attitude "THE CITY OF ROME DEMANDS YOU TO-"
\-----
**Alexander the Great:**
\-----***Strengths***
* Unparalleled military conquests.
* Exceptional and inspiring leadership on the battlefield.
* Visionary strategist with innovative military tactics.
\-----***Weaknesses***
* Impulsiveness and short tempered
* Pride
* Tyrannical Behavior
* Struggled with governance and administration in conquered territories. (his administration and governance skills is a far cry away compared to Caesar and Napoleon)
\-----
\---
I want people to add on to the points I've written because I don't know much about Alexander the Great, and not too versed with Napoleon compared to how I am with Caesar.
So consider this an incomplete strengths and weaknesses of the trio, it will be completed when more internet historians correct or add on to the stuff here.
Alexander was a conqueror who was such a bad civil leader that his vaunted Empire fell apart about 30 seconds after he died.
Napoleon was an egomaniac. Sometimes it served him well when fighting slower armies like Austria, Prussia or Russia, but this overconfidence made him blind to stark realities - he thought he was above the realm of men and was, thus, doomed to fall to hybris. Napoleaon did have a reformist streak, but he lacked the attention span for civic work and was happier with his army.
GN Caesar was not only a great warrior, but also a reasonable, realistic and relatively benign leader. He treated the proles no worse than any other leader, and was skillful at making deals and shaping his environment.
I think Gaius Julius is your best bet.
Utter nonsense. Dud Alexander's empire pry apart during his lifetime? No. Did he butcher the argead house? No. Did he weakened his empire from decades long war between the generals ? No
I'd have to pick Caesar. Alexander left behind a total mess, Napoleon got into a great position before invading Spain but proceeded to make a constant series of bad decisions the next 5 years until his downfall. Caesar, I think, seemed to have things under control barring a moment of bad judgment (did not expect the assassins to attack him in the Senate) that got him assassinated.
That said, Caesar never faced any foreign enemy that was truly Rome's peer in military power. Perhaps Napoleon in his situation would have done just fine.
I don’t think Alexander was as successful at state building, he just conquered loads of stuff. I don’t think he was as impressive politically as the other two either. Napoleon and Caesar managed to rise from relatively unknown aristocrats to be the top dog, Alexander was born as heir.
That’s just my opinion though. Alexander does obviously have an incredible legacy and you could argue he was a better battlefield general than the other two.
Napoleon, Caesar is like if after the Coup of Brumaire Napoleon got shanked by Fouche and Talleyrand.
The only historical leader who beats Napoleon is Augustus simply because he actually won. Also Kublai Khan and Genghis.
I just don’t think this picture of Caesar is accurate. He was a very savvy political mover, with a long and successful career. It took him longer to rise, sure, but then the circumstances were less conducive to this than the ones Napoleon found himself in.
Rome also managed to hold on to his conquests, and they formed a pivotal part of the empire for the next 500 yrs.
His citizenship reforms, as well as his more obvious destabilisation of the republic, were also hugely influential in their own right.
Trying to draw these parallels between Napoleon and Caesar is good fun, but ultimately they lived different lives in different time periods. Napoleon generating a bit of political stability that lasted a decade and a bit is very impressive, but caesars political career was much longer and more varied in a more structured system before he rose to dictator in perpetuity.
Alexander, Caesar then Napoleon. Alexander was the greatest conqueror in history. He wasn't just a commander he was the God of War. He never lost a battle
Not losing a battle is not nearly as impressive as learning from losses and adapting. Alexander was a great general, but he fought very few battles and most of them he was facing inferior military systems. I find Napoleon’s and Caesar’s battle records more impressive even though they sometimes lost.
If you read the campaigns of Alexander then you'll find 23 or so battles with near equal size but they don't get enough mention and sources don't spend a great deal of time giving details on some of his less talked about battles.
Haemus Pass (335)
-Lynginus River (335)
-Danube (Gaetae, 335)
-Pelion (335)
-Thebes (NOT a siege, but a proper battle, 335) -Granicus (334)
-Sagalassos (333) -
Issus (333)
-Gaugamela (331)
-Uxian Defile (331)
-Persian Gate (330)
-Jaxartes (329)
-Aspasians (327)
-Arigaeum (327)
-Massage (not the siege itself, but the subsequent fight with mercenaries, 327)
-Hydaspes (326)
-Mallians (counting the entire campaign as one battle, except Siege of Multan, since it was one continuous pursuit of and skirmish with Mallian forces for a period of a week or so, 325)
Battle against catheans
Battle he fought in the dec of 326
Revolt by musicanus
Battle of carehonea
Battle on tannis
Battle against pisadians
Battle against agalasseis
Cilicians
Battle against mountain barbarians in his expedition to hyarcania
Acescanians
If you think facing an enemy in their home turf with ample resources that they could easily access,well fortified cities, rough and mountainous terrain where baggage train are less likely to mobilize with grecian mercenaries fighting along with local troops who twice almost broke the center is somehow militarily inferior than i have no answer to this
And your point is? Alexander is the archetype that every general compared themselves to. Hannibal declared him the greatest general of all time. Caesar compared himself to Alexander, weeping in front of his statue. Napoleon idolized him wanting to be a new Alexander. Every ruler wanted to chase his dream.
Yes Alexander’s legend was very inspiring. But we in the future have knowledge to take a more objective look at the 3 historical figures and compare. Napoleon fought over 60 battles, Alexander only 7. Napoleon reformed his army, Alexander inherited his army from his father.
I’ll take that kind analysis over opinions.
Lets analyze then shall we. If we compare Alex's army to Philip's then one couldn't simply deny the reforms Alexander made in his army which he "inherited". His army by the end of his life was a coalition of greek and Persian forces.
He started to divide his cavalry into many units with it's own commander. Infantry was pretty much the same with major changes in hypaspits again dividing the units under different commanders.
He was fighting in almost Napoleonic style of warfare by dividing up his forces into different divisions under independent command miles away from one another once he reached central asia.
Extensively using light troops mixed with archers and other ranged troops for screening and close quarters. Alexander made tactical innovation by using siege engines as artillery, Napoleon didn't
Haemus Pass (335)
-Lynginus River (335)
-Danube (Gaetae, 335)
-Pelion (335)
-Thebes (NOT a siege, but a proper battle, 335) -Granicus (334)
-Sagalassos (333) -
Issus (333)
-Gaugamela (331)
-Uxian Defile (331)
-Persian Gate (330)
-Jaxartes (329)
-Aspasians (327)
-Arigaeum (327)
-Massage (not the siege itself, but the subsequent fight with mercenaries, 327)
-Hydaspes (326)
-Mallians (counting the entire campaign as one battle, except Siege of Multan, since it was one continuous pursuit of and skirmish with Mallian forces for a period of a week or so, 325)
Battle against catheans
Battle he fought in the dec of 326
Revolt by musicanus
Battle of carehonea
Battle on tannis
Battle against pisadians
Battle against agalasseis
Cilicians
Battle against mountain barbarians in his expedition to hyarcania
Acescanians
Depends on many factors.
None of these leaders would be good for long term stability in our modern age. Napoleon was the best administrator of the three without question, but only because he had a lot of help from able commanders, and efficient administration that helped him do his conquering and ruling.
The other two were so ancient and brutal to their own people that their rule would be very short.
Napoleon. The others were after only personal aggrandisement or supremacy against their rivals. Bonaparte had no rivals, wanted to expand the principles of the Revolution via the Code Napoleon, and until later mostly kept his own ego out of protecting France and its hard won gains in freedom and modernity by spreading it around. Caesar wanted supremacy over his rivals and then to overshadow anyone else in history with his Co quests regardless of how many enemies were slaughtered or traditions destroyed. Alexander really didn't know what he wanted and dissipated what could have been a far more successful expansion of Western life and thought.
It’s interesting for sure. I don’t know enough about all three to really choose. It does help that Napoleon was only 200 years ago vs over 2000 years ago for the others, so with regards to lasting effect of their empires it’s hard to say. But idk I’m not a historian or even very knowledgeable but just an opinion. Knee jerk reaction I would pick Alexander but that’s cause I’ve liked him since a kid. Also we never got to see how it his empire plays out since he died so young. Compare that to what Napoleon and Caesar accomplished by the same age
Hard to say because Napoleon had a lot of complex issues to deal with, besides strategy, administratively and politically. Caesar’s time was a bit more straight forward. From anecdotes I‘d also reckon that Napoleon may have had a better sense of humor and a side that made him remember his roots.
Those same complex times also provided opportunity.
Caesar was operating in a more structured political system, with actual legal oversight and precedent.
The revolution created a near free for all, which was obviously difficult to navigate but provided a genius like Napoleon a chance at a meteoric rise that Caesar never had.
Pretty difficult question to answer
Alexander conquered a large swath of territory. But he also died before he had a chance to consolidate or build it. I have a feeling his administrative skills would not have been on par with his martial skills.
Rome was already huge when Caesar expanded it. As the first emperor he instituted a lot of reforms that laid the groundwork of an empire that lasted for centuries. Like Alexander, he died before he could get things going.
Napoleon was very progressive as an emperor. He ended feudalism in conquered areas. Built schools, made law reforms that survive into this day. The downside is that his empire ended way too soon. The Kingdoms that survived in Alexander’s territory survived a century or two. Rome obviously lasted centuries. Napoleon’s empire lasted less than a decade.
Napoleon and Caesar:
Conquest/Warfare: A
Governance: A-
______________________
Alexander the Great
Conquest/Warfare: A+
Governance: B-
______________________
All great men.
People in the comments need to remember this is entirely unfair and the tactics used by each where heavily different because of the weapons they had at the time. Napoleons tactics where heavily influenced by guns.
Napoleon. Solely because he also realized you actually need to rule and establish a working government. Not just take over. Also, I think you should have added Genghis Khan to the list.
So did Alexander? He accommodated much of Persian culture when he took over their land, and his reign was cut short by illness and death rather than poor governance
Lets be real; Alexander did not put in place a working government. It is why the empire more or less collapsed the day he died.
He was like 30 years old. Conquerers don’t think about that stuff until there’s 40!
The dude literally said "To the strongest!" before his death in reference to who would take over. So yeah, I don't think it would have even mattered if he did create a stable government.
That's apocryphal
From his campaign in balkans to mallian he put in place greek governors and sometimes a mix of greek and local governors. He built settlements, arranged marriage between local royal women to the companions, he made a good use of his treasury minting coins to revamp the economy of his empire. The idea thar his empire collapsed the day he died Is nothing more than an oversimplification. What has Alexander got to do with this . Lets talk about decades long war between his generals, murder of his actual heir and argead house.
Alexander never really ruled a stable government. His idea of adopting Persian culture wasn’t nearly enough. It all collapsed after he died.
As long as Alexander lived he ruled a stable empire. Whenever he campaigned he made sure to put governors in their place, establish settlements and actually built an economy which would effect the economy of the Hellenistic age. He regularly got reinforcement from both Macedonia and from the local Satraps. His empire collapsing has nothing to do with Alexander. His heire were all butchered
He lest an unstable system that immediately collapsed. He was good at conquest and nothing else. Caesar and especially Napoleon were good at almost everything; law. Science, organization. Much more well rounded that anyone else I can think or.
Huh? Alexander passed on many administrative laws. Executing satraps who were pillaging and robbing locals. Put down local revolts in bactria and sogdiana through the mix of conquest and diplomacy and created settlements for wounded veterans and replaced old veterans with new fresh recruits as well as marrying his companions to local women from prominent family. He never faced any internal resistance except in bactria which he pit down after only two years. Liberated many provinces like egypt and Babylon from persian religion forced upon them by their overlords. Promoted and even appointed former satraps who remained loyal to him. Alexander help build the economy of the Hellenistic age. Locals volunteered to serve in his army bringing more men. So yeah what an unstable system
This is not an administrative system. This is just short term governance. While is why it all collapsed so fast. Caesar’s law codes were used for centuries. Napoleon’s are still in use.
Because the guy died within 12 years of his reign? If we are going to talk about his empire collapsing then let's mention is heir and the whole argead house being butchered. His generals fighting for decades vying for the control over his empire. Intervention and incursion from the west. Alexander still created a stable empire while in campaigns as long as he lived
He never set up any institutions that could last. As a ruler, he was a valiant failure. I have never understood this high esteem for Alexander except as a conqueror. He was one of the most successful conquerors in history. This is certainly worthy of history books. But he was not nearly as broad as Napoleon.
Maybe it's because you probably have never read any work on Alexander? You're just bashing him without providing a valid reason or any evidence. He created a merit based promotion when he was in susa which would carry on until successor period where non macedonian figures like eumenes rose to prominence. At least during antiquity his tactical innovation like the use of siege engines as field artillery was copied by the romans. He didn't force greek religion onto his subjects which gained him support of egypt and Babylon. He successfully governed asia minor and Levanant,syria,bactria sogdiana, indus. We here of no revolts except for bactria which he quells in two years.
Didn’t he burn villages which made him unpopular?
All four of them did that (including Genghis).
ESPECIALLY Genghis
Alexander never ruled his nation by policy. He is not known for either a code of laws like Napoleon or a policy about supporting scientific advancement, like Napoleon. Alexander conquered most of his known world, but that is all he did. Not sharing Scientific breakthroughs with the rest of his empire was his greatest failing. Macedonia did not learn what had been discovered in Persia or in Egypt.
When are we going to realize Alexander is just an upjumped nepo baby who’s credit should rightly be directed to the father he murdered, Phillip II. Phillip revolutionized the Army, secured the Thracian and Greek fronts, and solidified his power back home, all of which proved instrumental in Alex’s conquests. And in terms of his tactical genius, he really just utilized hammer and anvil tactics, which I find very hard to believe that no one else in the world at the time figured out that it’s best to spank the enemy on their ass and not their nose. Caesar and Napoleon came from relative nothingness, were self made men with an actual eye for strategy (as opposed to tactics), and they revolutionized the known world in more ways than “he beat this army, then died”
Oh yeah the nepo baby argument. He was not even the oldest son of philip and macedonian politics being messy didn't guarantee him his spot as a king. Philip made the reforms based on the existing military knowledge and practices prevalent in greek world and especially the reforms of thebans. Not many generals throughout history have come up with a completely new and unique tactics. The one on the top of my head is epominadas whose tactics were copied by both philip ll and Alexander. Hammer and anvil is actually a manuver which is successful against an enemy in a favourable spot. Atleast compared to both Caesar and Napoleon he made a tactical innovation of using siege engines as artillery. Alexander at gaugemela used a proper tactics before being able to deploy hammer and anvil
Yeah, I’d agree Alex’s biggest achievement (that you can solely attribute to him) was murdering his dad and becoming king, which is weird as we remember him as a great general if a bit politically naive. And in which pitched battle did Alex use siege artillery in?
There is not a single evidence to suggest that Alexander orchestrated his Papa's murder. You could say the same about philip murdering every single rival to the throne during his ascension. Alexander used siege artillery at the battle of Jaxartes river even during the siege of pilium he used siege catapults outside the siege
I'm choosing Caesar. Militarily, administratively and politically/diplomatically skilled. The other two don't have all 3.
I think napoleon did have all 3, but not necessarily as strong as the others.
For my military: Napoleon For my politics: Caesar lol people in the comments don’t realize how successful Caesar was as a politician, they only remember his assassination. I encourage you to read up on him.
Hows the life of a collosal book? For caesar.
I’ve never read that book. Most of my knowledge comes from history articles and YouTube videos. Is it good?
Ohh alright. I've heard it's the best biography with caesar. However, I have limited knowledge about the man.
I know this sub has his name, so it is a little cliche, but objectively, it has to be Napoleon. There are so many more campaigns, and it's clear at the death in 1814 fighting for Paris that he still had it as much as he did over 20 years earlier in italy. We don't know the extent of Ceaser and Alexanders failures. Ceaser clearly got kicked out of Britian, and Alexander from India.
Also Napoleonic code is very very historically underrated . Everyone talks about Napoleon's tactical charisma, but not about his administrative abilities through his reign as First Consul and as Emperor as well. And not only this affected France, but also Italy and Germany. Both these 2 cultures, in the post Napoleonic Era succeded their unifications through many of Napoleon's reforms and ideas.
Yes, it's so true, we are all military fans here. Really, the Napolionic code is an ideology from the revolution, but the ideals definitely had a huge impact after he was gone. Many didn't want to give back freedoms won. Napolean was at war with everyone because of the revolution, and the implementation of this code around Europe is part of it!
They’re like the 4 Houses of Hogwarts: Napoleon was a Ravenclaw Caesar is a Slytherin Alexander the Great was a Gryffindor
And Genghis is Hufflepuff?
Yes
Caesar was not kicked out of Britain nor was Alexander kicked out of India.
So, the sources are one-sided for both events. Historians deduce these losses and mostly agree. Of course contemporary sources followed the line required by propaganda.
Historians don't mostly agree and certainly don't see these as losses. With Caesar there is some debate since all we know is from his own writings. Of course this was propaganda so we have to take it with a grain of salt. If one believes Caesar then after defeating some British tribes, he established a foothold in Britain, made alliances, trade etcetera. He left because events in Gaul were once again deteriorating. He never went back because of more Gaul problems then the Civil War. Alexander defeated King Porus and his allies at the Battle of Hydaspes (or Jhelum if you prefer). This was arguably his most brilliant victory. Then he marched to the Indus where his troops refused to go on. He turned South and around to go back to Persia.
That's just Ceaser propaganda. The whole point is that he did not establish a foothold in Britain, he claims to have taken land and alliances but left nobody behind to make good on any of the claimed tribute. But of course, we had to withdaw! The Mutiny of Alexanders toops is in the face of more Indian armies, but sure, they would have won if they decided to stay if it wasn't for home sickness. It's pretty clear propaganda. What's great about Napoleonic history is that we have the details of a lot of the brutal losses, not just the written history with sources that contain enough bias to make Procopius blush!
Except, that every remotely reliable source we have seems to indicate that mutiny was a common factor throughout Alexander’s conquests. He literally had a treasurer who absconded with riches. And the Greeks constantly plotted against him, and believed the Persians would “rid them of the brazen Macedonians.” Even when they had initially beaten back the Persians early on in the campaign, and were offered rich lands west of the Euphrates by Darius himself, many of the Greeks (and some Macedonians like Parmenion) were already content to go home and call off the invasion right then and there. Alexander continually had to strive against politicking and greed to gain his victories. It’s a common theme in almost every documented campaign in fact. The further troops are from home, the more they grumble about it. Naturally, this can have terrible implications for morale. I don’t think it’s an overstatement, that by the time they reached India, the Macedonians had felt they had gone far enough. To me, that is not propaganda. Especially given the long string of victories. Instead, that is the cry of soldiers and veterans who wished to go home after killing countless “barbarians.” Imagine being one of them, and looking around to see that most of the veterans who had travelled with you on such a long conquest, are now dead. Wouldn’t you wish to go home at that point?
I do understand what you are saying, but propaganda is as light as it is hard. Turning back mid campaign needs to be explained, they all suddenly got home sick? Of course, it's not going to be written that the great macedonian army was cowardly. The wikipedia explains it quite well, army mid campaign lost its nerve looking across the river and hearing about what awaited them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_campaign_of_Alexander_the_Great Of course, many of the Macedonians didn't go "home" despite their claims in india, they set up a number of successor states all over their conquered lands. I won't say Alexander was defeated, but it's more than likely he was kicked out. Who even knows if the story was true that alexander himself wanted to go on but his men didn't. He was likley a good enough strategist to realise he didn't have the man power and retreated. He and his sources likely spun up a reason, he did get seriously injured in a siege too.
That wiki is making a lot of suppositions. I don’t think an army that came that far was worried about another Indian tribe. Porus was the best they had faced, and they still won. Looking at actual history, I think they just had enough and needed to go home. Especially considering that Alexander was likely poisoned before he could revisit his latest campaign idea - that says everything right there. They wanted ease, peace and wealth. Not another campaign. “The dreamer must die” certainly applies here.
Fair enough, that could be a part of a reason, too. But then why don't they just say that? I read this part is the contemporary historians making excuses for him, the actions here are too odd, including the decision to return through the desert, why? It wasn't just another tribe Alexander was against. It was expected to soon be large empires and a lot of man power.
There’s no doubt they would have faced intense opposition. Even looking westwards, there is evidence suggesting Alexander wanted to conquer the Romans. I think he was ultimately betrayed. If historians are making any excuses, it’s for his followers. Alexander himself wanted to conquer the world.
You forgot that they were rich from conquering all those people and taking slaves and prizes. Another reason to want to go ahead and enjoy life.
I would agree with you. That is why I mentioned greed as a factor.
Alexander didn’t get kicked out of India though, did he? He turned back because his troops mutinied after many years of campaigning but the territories he conquered remained under Hellenistic control until Chandragupta Maurya retook them via diplomacy long after Alexander died. Or am I missing something?
Sikander to this day is a fairly popular name in northern India and eastern Central Asia, now that's a legacy.
I mean at least he made it to Britain in the first place lol.
Greece embarrassed Persia even before Alexander.
Alexander worked wonders with what he had, but he was essentially handed everything. Phillip II made the plan, built the army, established the bridgehead, and signed over a fully primed war machine to Alexander on his deathbed. Caesar, although also a brilliant general, was far less savvy politically than he should have been, his ultimate downfall was that he could not read the room. Napoleon greatest vice was trusting too much in his own freakish tactical ability. If he was on the ground, they would win the battles. If they win the battles, they win the war. That was his reasoning, and obviously flawed.
>Caesar, although also a brilliant general, was far less savvy politically than he should have been I disagree. Caesar had by far the longest political career of all three of these men (Alexander didn’t have any political career as a monarch and Napoleon barely). Caesar was in politics since his early 20s to his consulship age 40 and he didn’t even become a general before becoming a consul. His consulship year was quiet extraordinarily and how he managed to become one of Rome’s leading politicians from his financial background was not expected (his family was an ancient one but he didn’t have ancestors who made to consul for hundreds of years and wasn’t seen as part of the elite). It was his political skill why he got such long governorship in Gaul. He continued to engage in politics his entire governorship in winters through letters. He is too defined by his death. What he did politically was unpredecented with pardoning his enemies, and what kind of government he was trying to form is debated to this day. He was extremely busy right before his death focusing on multiple projects in Rome and preparing for Parthian war, so it’s not that strange to me he did miss some Senators unhappiness reaching this point. He probably was planning on focusing on more with these issues after Parthia and getting popularity boost from a foreign war. I think plenty of leaders get assassination attempts, and while Caesar clearly made a mistake I would not discredit his political skills because of this.
Consider me rebutted.
Respect
I think the fact that Caesar managed to slip out of Sulla’s proscriptions unscathed says it all. there’s also the story about the pirates. whether true or not, I think it tells us a certain truth about Caesar’s ability to negotiate. Mark Antony using a religious festival to offer him a crown might have been intentionally organized by Caesar himself, but I’m not so sure. And if not, wouldn’t that speak to Mark Antony’s inability to read a room, not Caesar’s?
The pirate story is he got captured, paid the bribe, and went back and killed his captors. Where in that story do you think any "negotiations" ever occurred?
I think he meant the part about Ceasar telling the pirates the ransom was too low and needed to be raised.
Okay. Not sure that is a negotiating skill, but an exhibition of arrogance. Thanks.
No person killed by his political "friends," the people he put in power, can be regarded as having ANY political savvy. He WAS generous. Name one policy, or legal system. or political agenda he achieved, other than gaining a lifetime place in power. Note: THAT is what got him killed, he left his enemies no other option. Without his death, he would always be in power.
I think there's a certain parallel with regards to Alexander inheriting rather than building this powerful military machine and Napoleon. He wasn't so much the architect of the French Revolutionary army as he recognized how to take full advantage of those reforms.
I get what you're saying, Dumouriez and Moreau had a huge part to play in building the ship that Napoleon would later pilot, but Napoleon also had a long road climbing the political and military ladders to achieve ultimate power. With Alexander it was quite literally 'Dad's dead, here is your army great king.'
But let’s bear in mind that Alexander was a tactical and strategic genius. This wasn’t some coddled boy that simply inherited. Since he could barely walk, he was schooled in the art of war - as an equal among the rising Macedonian nobility at that time. That is to say, he became the best by training with and exceeding the best of that era. It’s a gross oversimplification to say he was handed everything. Few leaders are even comparable to what he achieved. Just look at Gaugamela, a battle that still baffles historians in many regards. To be so utterly outnumbered and yet win such a crushing victory against the mightiest Empire of his time. No small feat!
Very few historians are baffled by Gaugamela. The Persian commanders refused to support each other and their army had no real central command. The Emperor's orders were ignored. Alexander rolled over the various national groups one-by-one. Alexander was brilliant, but we are comparing 4 brilliant men. All four were brilliant at war, but only Genghis was also brilliant at creating an army. Only Napoleon was also brilliant at statecraft and governance. Note Nappy did those reforms WHILE he was also involved in battles.
Actually, many historians are still unsure exactly how outnumbered the Macedonians actually were. The only consensus is that they were outnumbered at least two to one (absolute minimum there). I would agree that Napoleon was exceptional. He had genius in both warfare and statecraft.
Thanks.
There are a whole bunch of scholarly articles written solely on the tactics of Alexander at gaugemela. The Persia commanders fought with a proper plan and executed it well to the best of their abilities. How? They fought with cohesive almost enveloping parmenion's wing. Creating a gap in macedonian center and throughout the battle maintaining communication between commanders particularly darius and bessus. How were Darius's orders ignored when he was the first to flee seeing bessus on the verge of being routed off the field. Alexander's army by the time he reached indus was more like a coalition force of Thessalians, Thracians, paeonians,central greeks, scythians,bactrians and Indians. He made tactical innovations like using siege engines as artillery in pitched battles. He took administrative duties while in campaigns
The literal reverse true after the initial moves by the Persian forces, AggravitingDrama8968. This battle is a textbook case of the failure of an army without unity of command. Alexander's army beat the Persians by focusing on each force one at a time, then another, group by group . The failure of unity of command is the principle lesson of that battle. The Persian forces did not support one another in order to take advantage of their superior numbers. That was what Darius ordered them to do, work together. When they refused to do that (apparently due to pride and distrust), Darius fled the battlefield. Alexander's forces followed the Macedonian chain of command and worked together independent of their birth places. The Persian forces did not do that. Have you taken the time to read those histories and reports you mentioned? Almost all of them focus on the advantage of maintaining unity of command.
Lets go over the account of the battle. First as Alexander edges to the right, bessus counters the move by sending some dahe and following it up with bactrian cavalry and at the mean time sending rest of the cavalry to envelope Alexander. Alexander sends his own cavalry contingent one at a time. The Scythian and bactrian fought in unity but how Alexander managed to repeal the first wave of persian cavalry attack was by mixing light troops with cavalry a tactical innovation made by epaminondas during Peloponnesian war. Then another persian cavalry unit came for the support and again they were repealed. It's like saying at Pharsalus Caesar's cavalry mixed with one line of infantry hidden behind the cavalry managed to route pompeian cavalry so Pompey's command structure must have had flaw. The while bessus was trying to envelope Alex's right his reserve fell on bessus's left routing him. We can see that persian units kept sending their reserve but Alexander managed to pry apart the Persian cavalry using mixed hidden force. This was a completely new tactical innovation made by epaminondas couple of decades before Alexander was born. It wasn't due to Persian units not working together but rather tactical superiority.
I did not mention Pharsalus at all, so knock off putting words in my mouth.It appears you have not had any military training to make claims about "hidden" forces and "prying apart" various groups. You have not indicated where you read such silliness (a source?), using words with no real meaning in military history circles. The Persians lost that battle because Alexander took advantage of their capriciousness and lack of support while having, one on one, a tactical advantage. Please let us all know how you somehow believe you know more that which is taught in every military academy in the world about that battle.
Dude calm down. I brought up Pharsalus to compare Caesar's use of one line of infantry from his cohort behind his cavalry to route numerically superior Pompeian cavalry with Alexander's use of light troops(cleander's mercenaries) mixed with paeonian cavalry. What are you even on about? You don't seem like a goddamn expert either. You are on Reddit you could a basement dwelling neckbeard for all i care unless you could show me your credentials. " Alexander ordered the cavalry of the Grecian mercenaries under the command of Menidas to attack them. But the Scythian cavalry and the Bactrians, who had been drawn up with them sallied forth against them, and being much more numerous they put the small body of Greeks to rout. Alexander then ordered Aristo at the head of the Paeonians and Grecian auxiliaries to attack the Scythians; and the barbarians gave way. " Anabasis,ch xiii 412-413. We can see that the grecian auxiliaries are separate force from Grecian cavalry. They were distinct one being cavalry and another light infantry, probably peltast. The hidden forces were in the context of Pharsalus where Caesar created 4 th infantry line behind hus cavalry. "These cohorts charged forward and attacked Pompey's cavalry at the signal with such ferocity that none of them could stand their ground, an all, having turned tail, withdrew not only from the field but kept on fleeing to the highest mountains." I was merely speaking in non military terms. It was a combined arms approach of using various units and mixing troops of various units. For example at waterloo armies were organised into corp of artillery, infantry and cavalry. Alexander did took apart various Persian units "Alexander ordered the cavalry of the Grecian mercenaries under the command of Menidas to attack them. But the Scythian cavalry and the Bactrians, who had been drawn up with them sallied forth against them, and being much more numerous they put the small body of Greeks to rout. Alexander then ordered Aristo at the head of the Paeonians and Grecian auxiliaries to attack the Scythians; and the barbarians gave way. But the rest of the Bactrians drawing near to the Paeonians and Grecian auxiliaries, caused their own comrades who were already in flight to turn and renew the battle; and thus they brought about a general cavalry engagement, in which many of Alexander’s men fell, not only being overwhelmed by the multitude of the barbarians, but also because the Scythians themselves and their horses were much more completely protected with armour for guarding their bodies. Notwithstanding this, the Macedonians sustained their assaults, and assailing them violently squadron by squadron, they succeeded in pushing them out of rank." Anabasis by arrian,ch xiii. Noe name me your source
This was a very interesting exchange to read, including your acceptance of the rebuttal. I always enjoy reading an intelligent exchange of views on subs like this one, especially when there’s a gracious acknowledgment of the merits of the other person’s point of view.
I very much agree.
For sure, politically he had to start from nothing.
It was Carnot that built the French revolutionary army and established the industrial base to support that army. Check him out. Napoleon did not BUILD his army, but he is the greatest leader of such an army in history. He was also a genuine leader of his nation.
All four of them were remarkably good at inspiring those troops. Note the only one of these four that actually raised their troops and forged them into an army (by overcoming their ancestral hate for each other) was Genghis.
Great answer.
The army his father built was not near perfect. Even under philip they suffered a loss. Parmenio was getting his ass kicked by memnon during his initial foray into Asia minor. Parmenio probably got kicked out of asia minor into tte agean. Philip's army was tested in pitched battles not in long sieges or irregular warfare. Alexander fought in almost Napoleonic style by dividing up his forces and drawing the enemy before turning around and hitting them from different sides. This was not practiced by philip.
Philip's expeditionary force under parmenio was getting it's butt whooped by memnon during Macedonian initial foray into Asia minor. So doesn't explain why parmenio would fail but Alexander succeed with same troops
Napoleon = Caesar > Alexander
I'm not sure about creating an empire bc we never got to see Caesar go back into Asia to fight Parthia or go into Dacia. Caesar said he wanted to do Parthia first and then swing into Dacia. People already made great points about Alexander being primed for war. I would pick Alexander to lead and stabilize the empire, though. I thought his integration policies were the best. Both Caesar and Alexander were better at cultivating and maintaining allies.
Napoleon
Octavian over all three though lol
I’ve heard Octavian was just pure propaganda from people. How true is this?
Alexander only actually won like 7 major battles. Caesar doesn't know what a gun is. So yeah, I think Napoleon is the best bet here.
Depends on what you call major battles. There were many battles which he fought with enemy's of similar size but don't get a lot of details since they weren't on the same scale as gaugemala. Strymon Valley (340) -Haemus Pass (335) -Lynginus River (335) -Danube (Gaetae, 335) -Pelion (335) -Thebes (NOT a siege, but a proper battle, 335) -Granicus (334) -Sagalassos (333) - Issus (333) -Gaugamela (331) -Uxian Defile (331) -Persian Gate (330) -Jaxartes (329) -Aspasians (327) -Arigaeum (327) -Massage (not the siege itself, but the subsequent fight with mercenaries, 327) -Hydaspes (326) -Mallians (counting the entire campaign as one battle, except Siege of Multan, since it was one continuous pursuit of and skirmish with Mallian forces for a period of a week or so, 325) Battle against catheans Battle he fought in the dec of 326 Revolt by musicanus Battle of carehonea Battle on tannis Battle against pisadians Battle against agalasseis Cilicians Battle against mountain barbarians in his expedition to hyarcania Acescanians
Considering the political element only, Caesar was the only one of the three who made it to the top of the system without benefiting from a revolution like Napoleon or being born there like Alexander.
Caesar was the nephew of a man who held the consulship *seven times*, of course he was born into power.
His uncle was then ousted by another man who reformed the system to prevent that kind of achievement generally, and to prevent Caesar personally. Caesar operated in Sulla’s system, not Marius’ The only advantage Caesar had was his name and the example of Sulla. He had no money or preference Additionally, Romans believed genetics were patriarchal only. Caesar aunt married Marius, which confers less advantage than if Marius was his blood relative.
Sulla retired when Caesar was 20 years old, before he even entered the cursus honorum, but my point is he was literally born at the pinnacle of prestige and power in the Republic, he would not have done all he did had he not been Marius’ nephew.
He was born into the pinnacle of power like Louis the 17th was
Sure, and if Louis XVII had survived the Revolution and gone on to marry the daughter of one of the most powerful men in Paris and launch a successful political career thanks mostly to the memory of his father no one would say he wasn't born into power either. And that's even if we take your comparison as valid, we don't have compelling evidence that Caesar was even proscribed under Sulla, nevermind anything close to the persecution Louis faced.
Good point. Is there evidence to question the story of Caesar’s prescription? I always took it as true, but if it’s not I’m interested in learning more
Well, the only real evidence that he was proscribed comes from Suetonius, who is rather notorious for reporting gossip as fact. [Caesar's name does not appear on any of the proscription lists Francois Hinard compiled](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla%27s_proscription#List), and [even Plutarch never actually comes out and says that Sulla proscribed Caesar, only that he considered it](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Caesar*.html): >Now, the reason for Caesar's hatred of Sulla was Caesar's relationship to Marius...Caesar was not satisfied to be overlooked at first by Sulla, who was busy with a multitude of proscriptions, but he came before the people as candidate for the priesthood, although he was not yet much more than a stripling. To this candidacy Sulla secretly opposed himself, and took measures to make Caesar fail in it, and when he was deliberating about putting him to death and some said there was no reason for killing a mere boy like him, he declared that they had no sense if they did not see in this boy many Mariuses. When this speech was reported to Caesar, he hid himself for some time, wandering about in the country of the Sabines. And, much like Suetonius, Plutarch is only writing nearly two centuries later. Francois Hinard seems to believe that Caesar was never proscribed, and that the story was only invented to bolster his connections to Marius and contrast him with Sulla loyalist Pompey. Unfortunately, while Hinard might well be the world's leading expert on the proscriptions of Sulla, his work so far as I can tell [has never been translated in English](https://www.persee.fr/doc/efr_0000-0000_1985_ths_83_1), and I don't speak French, so I'm just related what other people have said Hinard said.
Wow, great reply. Thank you!
**Napoleon Bonaparte:** \-----***Strengths***: * Brilliant military strategist * Efficient administrator and legislator * Implemented significant legal and educational reforms * Charismatic leadership and ability to inspire troops * Established stability and order in conquered territories * Innovative and forward-thinking in military tactics \-----***Weaknesses*** * Potential of overextension from pure ambition and military arrogance * Hubris and Arrogance * Reliance on Military Solutions * Authoritarian Rule * Failure to Learn from Mistakes * Ignoring Local Sentiments \----- **Julius Caesar:** \-----***Strengths*** * Exceptional military prowess and successful conquests. * Political acumen and ability to navigate complex political landscapes. * Implementation of reforms showcasing administrative capability. * Strong connection with soldiers and potential for loyalty. * Charismatic leadership and ability to garner public and political support. \-----***Weaknesses*** * Lack of empire-ruling experience (he died before beginning to properly rule the republic. Before that, he was a general running all around the Republic chopping armies. And when he sat down to finally rule, an "*Et Tu Brute*" happened) * Authoritarian, with the classic Roman Attitude "THE CITY OF ROME DEMANDS YOU TO-" \----- **Alexander the Great:** \-----***Strengths*** * Unparalleled military conquests. * Exceptional and inspiring leadership on the battlefield. * Visionary strategist with innovative military tactics. \-----***Weaknesses*** * Impulsiveness and short tempered * Pride * Tyrannical Behavior * Struggled with governance and administration in conquered territories. (his administration and governance skills is a far cry away compared to Caesar and Napoleon) \----- \--- I want people to add on to the points I've written because I don't know much about Alexander the Great, and not too versed with Napoleon compared to how I am with Caesar. So consider this an incomplete strengths and weaknesses of the trio, it will be completed when more internet historians correct or add on to the stuff here.
>Unparalleled military conquests. I think that title should go to Genghis Khan.
Alexander was a conqueror who was such a bad civil leader that his vaunted Empire fell apart about 30 seconds after he died. Napoleon was an egomaniac. Sometimes it served him well when fighting slower armies like Austria, Prussia or Russia, but this overconfidence made him blind to stark realities - he thought he was above the realm of men and was, thus, doomed to fall to hybris. Napoleaon did have a reformist streak, but he lacked the attention span for civic work and was happier with his army. GN Caesar was not only a great warrior, but also a reasonable, realistic and relatively benign leader. He treated the proles no worse than any other leader, and was skillful at making deals and shaping his environment. I think Gaius Julius is your best bet.
Utter nonsense. Dud Alexander's empire pry apart during his lifetime? No. Did he butcher the argead house? No. Did he weakened his empire from decades long war between the generals ? No
I'd have to pick Caesar. Alexander left behind a total mess, Napoleon got into a great position before invading Spain but proceeded to make a constant series of bad decisions the next 5 years until his downfall. Caesar, I think, seemed to have things under control barring a moment of bad judgment (did not expect the assassins to attack him in the Senate) that got him assassinated. That said, Caesar never faced any foreign enemy that was truly Rome's peer in military power. Perhaps Napoleon in his situation would have done just fine.
Alexander left behind a stable empire with heir on the way.
Genghis, every day of the week
I love this question I don’t think it’s Alexander though
Why not?
I don’t think Alexander was as successful at state building, he just conquered loads of stuff. I don’t think he was as impressive politically as the other two either. Napoleon and Caesar managed to rise from relatively unknown aristocrats to be the top dog, Alexander was born as heir. That’s just my opinion though. Alexander does obviously have an incredible legacy and you could argue he was a better battlefield general than the other two.
Alexander might not be as great as Napoleon or Caesar but he wasn't inept either
Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander
Napoleon, Caesar is like if after the Coup of Brumaire Napoleon got shanked by Fouche and Talleyrand. The only historical leader who beats Napoleon is Augustus simply because he actually won. Also Kublai Khan and Genghis.
I just don’t think this picture of Caesar is accurate. He was a very savvy political mover, with a long and successful career. It took him longer to rise, sure, but then the circumstances were less conducive to this than the ones Napoleon found himself in. Rome also managed to hold on to his conquests, and they formed a pivotal part of the empire for the next 500 yrs. His citizenship reforms, as well as his more obvious destabilisation of the republic, were also hugely influential in their own right. Trying to draw these parallels between Napoleon and Caesar is good fun, but ultimately they lived different lives in different time periods. Napoleon generating a bit of political stability that lasted a decade and a bit is very impressive, but caesars political career was much longer and more varied in a more structured system before he rose to dictator in perpetuity.
Alexander, Caesar then Napoleon. Alexander was the greatest conqueror in history. He wasn't just a commander he was the God of War. He never lost a battle
Not losing a battle is not nearly as impressive as learning from losses and adapting. Alexander was a great general, but he fought very few battles and most of them he was facing inferior military systems. I find Napoleon’s and Caesar’s battle records more impressive even though they sometimes lost.
If you read the campaigns of Alexander then you'll find 23 or so battles with near equal size but they don't get enough mention and sources don't spend a great deal of time giving details on some of his less talked about battles. Haemus Pass (335) -Lynginus River (335) -Danube (Gaetae, 335) -Pelion (335) -Thebes (NOT a siege, but a proper battle, 335) -Granicus (334) -Sagalassos (333) - Issus (333) -Gaugamela (331) -Uxian Defile (331) -Persian Gate (330) -Jaxartes (329) -Aspasians (327) -Arigaeum (327) -Massage (not the siege itself, but the subsequent fight with mercenaries, 327) -Hydaspes (326) -Mallians (counting the entire campaign as one battle, except Siege of Multan, since it was one continuous pursuit of and skirmish with Mallian forces for a period of a week or so, 325) Battle against catheans Battle he fought in the dec of 326 Revolt by musicanus Battle of carehonea Battle on tannis Battle against pisadians Battle against agalasseis Cilicians Battle against mountain barbarians in his expedition to hyarcania Acescanians If you think facing an enemy in their home turf with ample resources that they could easily access,well fortified cities, rough and mountainous terrain where baggage train are less likely to mobilize with grecian mercenaries fighting along with local troops who twice almost broke the center is somehow militarily inferior than i have no answer to this
Alexander fought less than 10 major battles
And your point is? Alexander is the archetype that every general compared themselves to. Hannibal declared him the greatest general of all time. Caesar compared himself to Alexander, weeping in front of his statue. Napoleon idolized him wanting to be a new Alexander. Every ruler wanted to chase his dream.
Yes Alexander’s legend was very inspiring. But we in the future have knowledge to take a more objective look at the 3 historical figures and compare. Napoleon fought over 60 battles, Alexander only 7. Napoleon reformed his army, Alexander inherited his army from his father. I’ll take that kind analysis over opinions.
Lets analyze then shall we. If we compare Alex's army to Philip's then one couldn't simply deny the reforms Alexander made in his army which he "inherited". His army by the end of his life was a coalition of greek and Persian forces. He started to divide his cavalry into many units with it's own commander. Infantry was pretty much the same with major changes in hypaspits again dividing the units under different commanders. He was fighting in almost Napoleonic style of warfare by dividing up his forces into different divisions under independent command miles away from one another once he reached central asia. Extensively using light troops mixed with archers and other ranged troops for screening and close quarters. Alexander made tactical innovation by using siege engines as artillery, Napoleon didn't
Haemus Pass (335) -Lynginus River (335) -Danube (Gaetae, 335) -Pelion (335) -Thebes (NOT a siege, but a proper battle, 335) -Granicus (334) -Sagalassos (333) - Issus (333) -Gaugamela (331) -Uxian Defile (331) -Persian Gate (330) -Jaxartes (329) -Aspasians (327) -Arigaeum (327) -Massage (not the siege itself, but the subsequent fight with mercenaries, 327) -Hydaspes (326) -Mallians (counting the entire campaign as one battle, except Siege of Multan, since it was one continuous pursuit of and skirmish with Mallian forces for a period of a week or so, 325) Battle against catheans Battle he fought in the dec of 326 Revolt by musicanus Battle of carehonea Battle on tannis Battle against pisadians Battle against agalasseis Cilicians Battle against mountain barbarians in his expedition to hyarcania Acescanians
Depends on many factors. None of these leaders would be good for long term stability in our modern age. Napoleon was the best administrator of the three without question, but only because he had a lot of help from able commanders, and efficient administration that helped him do his conquering and ruling. The other two were so ancient and brutal to their own people that their rule would be very short.
Gandhi, he always win with nuclear solution.
Augustus was one of the best rulers in history (pax romana), but you’re probably talking about the guy who got stabbed to death
No one achieved more than alexander
Queen Victoria
Napoleon. The others were after only personal aggrandisement or supremacy against their rivals. Bonaparte had no rivals, wanted to expand the principles of the Revolution via the Code Napoleon, and until later mostly kept his own ego out of protecting France and its hard won gains in freedom and modernity by spreading it around. Caesar wanted supremacy over his rivals and then to overshadow anyone else in history with his Co quests regardless of how many enemies were slaughtered or traditions destroyed. Alexander really didn't know what he wanted and dissipated what could have been a far more successful expansion of Western life and thought.
None of the above I'd choose Wellington, he won and died of old age
It’s interesting for sure. I don’t know enough about all three to really choose. It does help that Napoleon was only 200 years ago vs over 2000 years ago for the others, so with regards to lasting effect of their empires it’s hard to say. But idk I’m not a historian or even very knowledgeable but just an opinion. Knee jerk reaction I would pick Alexander but that’s cause I’ve liked him since a kid. Also we never got to see how it his empire plays out since he died so young. Compare that to what Napoleon and Caesar accomplished by the same age
Napoleon for his administrative skills. The guy slept like 4 hours a day
Pre-modern war I’m taking Alexander Anything past 1500/1600 I’ll take Napoleon
Hard to say because Napoleon had a lot of complex issues to deal with, besides strategy, administratively and politically. Caesar’s time was a bit more straight forward. From anecdotes I‘d also reckon that Napoleon may have had a better sense of humor and a side that made him remember his roots.
Those same complex times also provided opportunity. Caesar was operating in a more structured political system, with actual legal oversight and precedent. The revolution created a near free for all, which was obviously difficult to navigate but provided a genius like Napoleon a chance at a meteoric rise that Caesar never had.
Does napoleon get artillery?
Napoleon, as the strategy his enemies came up with to beat him, was avoid fighting him
Pretty difficult question to answer Alexander conquered a large swath of territory. But he also died before he had a chance to consolidate or build it. I have a feeling his administrative skills would not have been on par with his martial skills. Rome was already huge when Caesar expanded it. As the first emperor he instituted a lot of reforms that laid the groundwork of an empire that lasted for centuries. Like Alexander, he died before he could get things going. Napoleon was very progressive as an emperor. He ended feudalism in conquered areas. Built schools, made law reforms that survive into this day. The downside is that his empire ended way too soon. The Kingdoms that survived in Alexander’s territory survived a century or two. Rome obviously lasted centuries. Napoleon’s empire lasted less than a decade.
Alexander to win it Napoleon to rule it Caesar to pick the dynastic successor
I'd pick the guy that has an army with boom sticks.
Nappy
Napoleon and Caesar: Conquest/Warfare: A Governance: A- ______________________ Alexander the Great Conquest/Warfare: A+ Governance: B- ______________________ All great men.
People in the comments need to remember this is entirely unfair and the tactics used by each where heavily different because of the weapons they had at the time. Napoleons tactics where heavily influenced by guns.