[Rameses the Great]

Well, I'll lead off then others can chime in. Alexander the Great as a general was far greater than Caeser. He influenced more people, and bridged the gap between the east and the west. Caeser before fighting Pompey in Greece went up to Alexander's statue and said, "at the age of twenty three he conquered the world and I have yet to conquer Italy!" I think people assume that Caeser was the greatest because he was after Alexander. Julius Caeser was not able to do the achievements that Alexander was able to do. I mean he even admitted to it. Julius Caeser in my opinion was more a better polition than general. Alexander beat the unbeatable at that time Persians killing 600,000 in one battle. Julius Caeser barely yielded the already familiar Gauls and lost to the Britanians. Caeser never faced an organised army. He was not even the leader of Rome. Alexander the Great was the Greatest man of his time.

[Neos Dionysos]

Sheizerbrick, on Apr 23 2006, 11:49 PM, said:

By leader i dont striclty mean a general...in more looking for an all round leader. The reason for this thread is that at school we are having a debate about whether Julius Caesar is the greatest leader of Ancient Times, and it is my role to find someone who was better than him. I have considered the usual people like Alexander and Atilla but id like the opinion of people with more knowledge than me :rolleyes:. Timeframe doesnt really matter, as long as its considered to be in Ancient times.
Any help would be appreciated :)

Caesar this, Caesar that... the man is overrated in my opinion, (and if you speak with M. Porcius Cato on UNRV he will show exactly why Caesar is more of a criminal than a hero).

If you want a great all around person... choose Augustus. He was succesful in both military and adminstrative. And left a great legacy for others to follow.

I would advise against Alexander because he was a brilliant general, but a very poor administrator IMO. He was more concerned with the next conquest, he simply put someone in charge of a territory and moved on. The men who laid the true foundations of Hellenic society were men like Ptolemy, Antigonos and Seleukos... Alexander simply brought Hellenic soceity to someone's door... but once the army marched out... so did the culture... it was his successors who were able to make it take root.

Rameses the Great, on Apr 24 2006, 12:33 AM, said:

Well, I'll lead off then others can chime in. Alexander the Great as a general was far greater than Caeser. He influenced more people, and bridged the gap between the east and the west. Caeser before fighting Pompey in Greece went up to Alexander's statue and said, "at the age of twenty three he conquered the world and I have yet to conquer Italy!" I think people assume that Caeser was the greatest because he was after Alexander. Julius Caeser was not able to do the achievements that Alexander was able to do. I mean he even admitted to it. Julius Caeser in my opinion was more a better polition than general. Alexander beat the unbeatable at that time Persians killing 600,000 in one battle. Julius Caeser barely yielded the already familiar Gauls and lost to the Britanians. Caeser never faced an organised army. He was not even the leader of Rome. Alexander the Great was the Greatest man of his time.

Caesar defeated Pompey and then his sons... this is not an organized army?

Caesar was dictator of Rome, he was the leader by the laws of the Republic... granted this was for a short time but he was still its leader.

I will agree Caesar was a better politican than general...

[Primus Pilus]

Furius Camillus.

Life of Camillus by Plutarch

[Germanicus]

Quote

Caeser before fighting Pompey in Greece went up to Alexander's statue and said, "at the age of twenty three he conquered the world and I have yet to conquer Italy!"

Kindly post your source for this.

[Pantagathus]

I kind of like the caveat Sheizerbrick, because it deserves to be broken down. There can be a big difference between leadership qualities/abilities and accomplishments.

I of course consider P.C.Scipio Africanus to be one of the greatest based on the combination of leadership qualities and his accomplishments.

Alexander of course ranks up there because he accomplished the amalgamation of west & east.

Conversely to Alexander, one must also consider Cyrus the Great or Darius from Persia for setting the stage & the beginning of the east-west amalgamation.

And do the Barcas not deserve some consideration? Not only Hannibal but his father Hamilcar?

How about Dionysius the Elder of Syracuse?

[Ursus]

If Caesar had lived, it would have been very interesting to see what he would have done with his empire. But the question is completely hypothetical. I do believe Augustus his successor was among the slickest politicans ever. And I also believe Diocletian and Constantine breathed precious new life into the military and political structures of a shaken empire.

Among non Romans, I think Ptolemy I Soter is seriously underrated. He shrewdly built up his power base in Egypt rather than risk eveything to conquer all of Alexander's realms. And his cultural and economic handling of Egypt proved quite profitable. His attempt to create a universal religion via the cult of Isis was ahead of its time, and presaged the Christian cult.

[Greco-Roman]

Id go with Alexander the Great. Ceaser in my opinion is overated. He was struggling with the Guals and other Roman commanders and Alexander is taking over the known world. Clearly i see no comparison.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Sheizerbrick, on Apr 25 2006, 12:30 AM, said:

thanks for the replies guys. :(
ive decided to go with Constantine the Great, and now im all set for the debate. :)

Congrats, how did you choose him?

[Rameses the Great]

Quote

Kindly post your source for this.

It was written in ancient texts leading up to Caeser's showdown with Pompey. As you now the battle was in Thessaly in northern Greece around the Macedonian area. They said it once on Decisive Battles. I will try to find a source that confirms this. I'll try to find the unit price for the series of Decisive Battles, and check out the unit price for Australia. I'll give you a personal message as soon as I can get it. Just give me one if you are interested and I will try my best.



Andrew

[Germanicus]

I've heard the tale about before, but it bares a major similarity to Plutarch:-

Quote

It is also said that at another time when he was in Spain and had some leisure, he was reading some part of the history of Alexander and, after sitting for a long time lost in his own thoughts, burst into tears. His friends were surprised and asked him the reason. "Don't you think" he said, "that I have something to be sorry about, when I reflect that at my age Alexander was already king over so many peoples, while I have never yet achieved anything so remarkable"

And Suetonius, describes the same event, also at the time of his Quaestorship in Spain (before the conquest of Gaul):-

Quote

VII. Farther-Spain fell to his lot as quaestor; when there, as he was going the circuit of the province, by commission from the praetor, for the administration of justice, and had reached Gades, seeing a statue of Alexander the Great in the temple of Hercules, he sighed deeply, as if weary of his sluggish life, for having performed no memorable actions at an age at which Alexander had already conquered the world.

The reason I asked for your source was because I've never heard of this happening when Caesar was fighting the Civil war, and cannot imagine him saying "I have yet to conquer Italy"...or Rome as you put it in an earlier thread. I doubt the actual event ever happened in truth anyway, although perhaps only in the way Suetonius describes.

[Rameses the Great]

Remember, Alexander did not have a good heir to the throne. As a matter of fact he did not have any because he died at a young age. This left the kingdom with a weak secular government if any. That is why they spilt up. If you want to compare the two through a political standpoint than Caeser would obviously win. The thing is the only thing Alexander liked to do was conquer. It would be interesting to see if he was more involved with politics, but of course that is hypothetical. Before he died he planned an invasion of Saudi Arabia.

If you want to stack up the military prowess of the two, then there is no comparison. Caeser's only great victory in my opinion was against Pompey, pending Caeser's troops were very loyal and veteran. Pompey's troops were a bit the opposite. It was a time when Persia planned to take over Greece, and Alexander did something nothing short of astounding by defeating them. he would face 600,000 Persians and win with 35,000 with minimal casualties. He has never lossed a battle, and Caeser has lost some to Vercengetorix.

This is very opinionated, but somewhat could be logical with some breakdown. Perhaps, Germanicus we should start a poll comparing just the two.

[Pantagathus]

Germanicus, on Apr 26 2006, 11:34 PM, said:

I doubt the actual event ever happened in truth anyway, although perhaps only in the way Suetonius describes.

I'd side with Plutarch...

The Temple of 'Hercules' in Gades was actually built at a much earlier period by the Phoenicians (>600BC?) and was actually the Temple of Melqart...

So this raises and interesting question! If Suetonius is correct, who bestowed the statue of Alexander to the Temple and when? Did Alexander dedicate it himself after the fall of Tyre? :) From the exact opposite side of the known world?

Could be, even Diodorus says that most of the who's who of the ancinet world dedicated stuff to that particular temple. But man, that bestows some serious mojo on that Temple if Alexander did that without coming within thousands of miles of Spain...

[Pertinax]

Tyre was certainly a monumental effort and one might feel inclined to celebrate the achievment in a "monumental" gesture ( in physicality and mood) . Certainly Alexanders strategic vision cannot have been daunted by such an action , given the extent of his travels and the actuality of his achievements. So , perhaps as a demonstration of "strategic reach"? it would certainly daunt any possible enemies! I theorise but it doesnt seem amiss does it?