Alexander and Julius Caesar?

[Aimee]

I'm working on an essay comparing these two, and I was wondering what your thoughts were. Do you think they shared many similarities, or were they completely different? Any input would be great And if anyone knows of any websites that compare them, aside from Plutarch's chapters, that would be greatly appreciated.Thanks!

[iskander_32]

I think the Main difference, was Caesar was primerily a political Animal with ambition to totally rule Rome, Although a magnificent General Ceasar used warfare and military acievements to gain power and reputation in Rome.The similarities I would say were ambition,confidence and tenacity to overcomer the seemingly impossioble.At Alesia Ceasar was sandwiched between two far larger Gallic armies, yet the brilliance made it that Two armies were both neautralised then totally smashed,that Victory Alone I compare to any of Alexanders and and Vivtories in history.regardskenny

[marcus]

Hi Kenny,I agree with you. I think it's actually very hard to compare the two, because they came from such different backgrounds and cultures. But Caesar's military brilliance can be compared with Alexander's, although Caesar probably didn't have the ability to be as flexible in his *use* of his forces as Alexander was.Of course, there were elements of emulation, too, and a large part of the reason for Caesar's murder was to do with his becoming more and more like a Hellenistic monarch - in other words, he was killed partly because he was becoming more like Alexander.But a major area of similarity has to lie in their leadership qualities - the way Caesar interacted with and was loved by his men is very similar to Alexander.All the bestMarcus

[iskander_32]

Spot On MarcusIn my understanding of Imperial and Republican Rome was always a society based on the mob rule pof the Senate a collection of mega rich politicians who ultimately had power over the Roman Empire.The gang would indeed a Emperor to be the head and in some times be allopwed to act in stupid ways as long as the state or the senate were ultimately threatened.Julius Caesar been a p[roven point,the senate allowed him to be pemperor for life but the senate even with Caesar were the power,when caesar had other ideas that he wanted soul power well we know what happened, Ceasar knew what fate awaited him,yet he didnt try to avoid or take the senate on he basically turned up at the forum to commit suicide as he knew ultimately he could never have what he always seeked ultimate power over Rome.Every society from then till now is operated on the senate gang process, call it parliament,American Congeress even Natzi Germany were societies ruled by the gang or sindicates, The Natzis had Hitler as a charismatic mouthpiece. I wouldnt put a tenth of what Hitler was supposed to have done at his door, I doubt he ever had the intelligence to even know the orders he was signing.

[iskander_32]

Spot On MarcusIn my understanding of Imperial and Republican Rome was always a society based on the mob rule pof the Senate a collection of mega rich politicians who ultimately had power over the Roman Empire.The gang would indeed a Emperor to be the head and in some times be allopwed to act in stupid ways as long as the state or the senate were ultimately threatened.Julius Caesar been a p[roven point,the senate allowed him to be pemperor for life but the senate even with Caesar were the power,when caesar had other ideas that he wanted soul power well we know what happened, Ceasar knew what fate awaited him,yet he didnt try to avoid or take the senate on he basically turned up at the forum to commit suicide as he knew ultimately he could never have what he always seeked ultimate power over Rome.Every society from then till now is operated on the senate gang process, call it parliament,American Congeress even Natzi Germany were societies ruled by the gang or sindicates, The Natzis had Hitler as a charismatic mouthpiece. I wouldnt put a tenth of what Hitler was supposed to have done at his door, I doubt he ever had the intelligence to even know the orders he was signing.

[beausefaless]

Stature, no comparison at all. With Alexander, If any thought of assassination was a death sentence!The same goes with military tactics, Alexander was innovated and ruthless during battle and sometimes after, this was a necessary *fear* to put in all the enemies minds (they must fear you more than any deity and natural disaster could ever provide, obviously Caesar never had this persona. Why did Caesar weep, all tanked up, in front of Alexanders' statue. Modern times proves my point.Out of the top 100 commanders I rank Caesar 15 to 20 with Alexander # 1 and Philip II in the five to ten spot.My question would have an easy answer. Why were all the commanders in antiquity measured to Alexander. But I would rate Hannibal Barca a close second.You should research (read) both of these commanders and make your own decision instead of relying on pundits. Excuse me for being a little harsh but this is a good question and you're welcome.

[iskander-32]

AndrewOnce again we agree, but I fear Ceasar Is in the top five take a look at his Gaulic expeditions and the campaign in my opinion was monumental.You argue for Hannibal in second maybe so maybe not, we had a programe on the discovery channel pitting Alexander against Hannibal.I have and do admire Hannibal but I have always maintained he was an ambush specialist against an inept foe, I totally think Alexander would have reconesanced enough and worked at tactics to deal with Alexander.I think Scipio would have taken hannibal at any time in Scipio we had a tenatious general, did his home work and knew how exactly to take Hannibal such a mind as Alexanders also would have taken Hannibal at every outing.Unless of coarse Alexander became clumbsy in war and tactics our man was never clumsyregardskenny

[jona]

Several members of this forum have already suggested that there are few differences, so I can ignore that point. But perhaps you should change the question a bit: how did the ancients regard the differences and similarities? Then, you have three interesting texts to study, viz. Plutarch's comparison at the end of his double biography, and Appian's comparison in his books on the Civil Wars (at the end of either book 2 or 3), and Livy's strange essay on what would have happened if Alexander had gone to the west. And you can study Roman emulation.Jona