Napoleon and alexander

Grant never fought a battle when he had less man than Lee. Lee nearly allways was behind the federals in manpower count. Plus the confederates were not even close to the Union in terms of equipment especially Artillery. The only real arm of the military they allways enjoyed was the Cavalry. They had much better riders and the training (the backround of the members ) was top notch.

Lee faced nearly allways a do or die proposition. The south could not afford to lose any battles so the strategy was more direct, while the Union counted on many reserves and would take their sweet time taking down the South. The Anaconda plan was designed with the Northerns natural advantages in mind. The Southern strategy was predicated on getting foreign aid by the result of one decisive victory, but they never managed one except Fredricsburg which by then was too late.

If grant changed places with Lee the South would have fallen in one year.

Grant isnt even in the top five generals. He lost way too many men considering the proponderance of material. He allmost was an american Stalin.

Grant was a better president and thats not even saying much because he sucked.

In civil war: in order

Lee
Jackson
phil Sheridan
Forrest
US grant
stuart

The only way to accurately compare the generals would be to reduce them all to a common standing (say, what Alexander had to work with), and see what happens.  Also, if Alexander were so impulsive, then I think that says more about his military prowess - that is, if he didn’t stop to think about the future and plan, he was flying by the seat of his pants (and won anyway).

Lee is far superior to Grant.  Lee did more with less, and I don’t think Grant could have done the same.  The Union army had the advantage of money, troops, and technology.

Good points there guys.  Alright lets go back a couple of years before the civil war and analyze two generals of the Texas revolution.  The two main figures……

Antonio López de Santa Anna vs Sam Houston

One lived his life as a dictator of Mexico and the other fought to break from his rule.  Alright you guys know what to do.

while Alexander would be bereft of those 3000 years of accumulated skill.

But thats exactly what my last point on the comparison was about: Namely Alexander mearly used his fathers ideas, while ceasar really contributed to his game of warfare with improvements in how war was conducted. Ceasar brought more original ideas to the table in the art of seige warfare and also improvements to the organization of how the legions conducted combat.

in both cases they used the skill set of the past but in ceasars case he created many new ideas in his own age.

Napoleon also developed many new ideas that were latter emulated.

Our warfare concept was at least in part credited to the German blitzkreig.

Antonio López de Santa Anna vs Sam Houston

Well the only thing Santa Anna won was Alamo and he had to bring thousands of mexicans into the battle just to make sure he could win. In the defense of Houston the Texans were outnumbered 2 to 1 and still wiped out the mexicans. Beating the mexicans was like shooting ducks. The ‘leadership’ of this gang of holligans had little to do with the poor fighting qualities of his soldiers. They were on a morphine drip before they even entered Texas.

i dont think this camparison has any meaning…

The only real battle the mexicans would win was against the French at the battle of Puebla…yea what a battle like 4k against 6k big deal… Napoleons Wagram had like 330k men fighting thats a real battle.

I didn’t even read all the replies, mostly because there seems to be an emerging trend here.  Certain folks are arguing that this guy was the greatest general, while others are saying that that guy was the greatest leader.  General implies that he was strictly a military leader, while the word leader means that they could lead their country/empire well.

As far as a great general goes, Alexander kicks a$$, hands down.

And yes, it is also noteworthy to point out that these guys lived in different timeframes.  So, if you give Alexander the same technology that Napoleon had (gunpowder, for example) he could be that much greater.

People say that George B. McClellan was a gifted organizer of forces, training his men well.  Of course, as we know from history, he was not good at commanding them into battle.  Also, I have to agree that Santa Anna was a horrible general, but he did introduce chicles (later known as chiclets) to the US after his military career, so I guess his life wasnt that pathetic.  :-D

Well ill think of some other comparisons later. Maybe the American Revolution?  If you guys have some good comparisons of generals, by all means post it so we can discuss.  :wink:

Yes this is a great thread.

Yamamoto vs. fletcher or Nimitz

Yamashita vs. MacArthur

Manstein vs Rundstedt

Molke vs. Hindenburg

Hitler vs Stalin

Yamato vs. Iowa class Battleship

the bears vs. the NFL

Ditka vs Jordan

Ditka vs. god

Bratwurst vs. sausage

the list goes on.

ah yes, ditka plays god in football, and wins 72 - 17

Alexander conquered an already falling apart Persian Empire that had already been soundly defeated by the Greeks at Marathon and Salamis. Alexander had a better army with the phalanx, and his troops were well trained, while the Persian troops were hastily gathered soldiers raised by hiring them for money on the spot–- eg. levies.  Â

And Caesar had a better army with heavey armor and reliable weapons with cohorts made up into legions against naked untrained barbarians. I don’t see much of a difference here.

Caesar on the other hand, fought against huge Gallic and German peoples who had never been conquered by the Romans. The people of Gaul were brave and brutal. At the battle of Alesia against Vercingetorix, Caesar, while besieging the Gallic leader, was surrounded by a huge Gallic army, which some accounts place at as large as 180,000-200,000 men. Caesar, with his force of 30,000, fought off both the surrounding army and the large force that he was besieging. In a great battle, Caesar annihilated the surrounding force and sacked Alesia, ending the war. Although against the Gauls he had superior troops with the legionaries, in the Roman Civil War he completely annihilated a Roman force which outnumbered him three to one and was led by Pompey the Great, one of Romes greatest generals. This shows that Caesar was greater than Alexander.

I don’t see that it does. So, Caesar defeats a 200 000 man army. Alexander defeats a 250 000 army at Gaugamela with 40 000.

The tactic of the phalanx is sometimes credited to Alexander but It was Alexander’s father, Phillip, who developed that tactic of a phalanx.

Â

Well, the Greeks with their hoplite infantry fought in a Phalanx long before Phillip came along. Phillip developed the Macedonian phalanx, which was far larger. The 
Macedonian phalanx had as many as 32 ranks compared with the 8 of the Greeks and their spears  were 19ft-23ft. The back ranks of Phillip’s phalanx were usually not in armor which saved money. The sure weight from this form of attack would be very difficult for the smaller Greek phalanx to withstand regardless of how well they were trained.

Conclusion: The Romans were constantly upgrading their legionaries until the late western empire. They kept adding new tactics and new training to keep them up to date. The greeGreeks the other hand, rarely upgraded the phalanx, and it remained largely unchanged  hundreds of years after its  invention. So Alexander didnt didn’t anything to strategy in this respect. Secondly, Ceaser was perhaps the greatest strategist in the tactic of seige siegeidenced by Alesia. again the master of this tactic goes to Ceasar.

What kind of new tactics did Caesar implement? I’m curious. And yes, the Greeks changed there tactics when a Greek Phalanx was destroyed by Skirmishers, the Greeks move toward lighter armour and longer spears so it was easier to engage light troops. I don’t know much about Caesar’s seiges. He may well have been the good at it but it doesn’t make him the best general.

Also, you have to Remember the armies of Caesars time were a lot bigger than in Alexander’s time, so they were more difficult to manage. This is a credit to ceaserceasets also a credit to Napoleon.Alexander worked with comparatively smaller forces so it was an easier project to manage.

Well, so far I haven’t read or have seen you post an example of Caesar commanding any army larger than anything Alexander did. I will  say that Caesar’s supply line was no where near as far reaching as Alexander’s

Just FYI, ther eis a History Channel special coming up in the near future on Alexander, and apparently on his role in the development of the Catapult for seige warfare.

If that link is true (and I am out of my element, going off show promor and the titel of it), then Alexander had a MASSIVE impact on warfare until the Age of Gunpowder was well advanced.

And Caesar had a better army with heavey armor and reliable weapons with cohorts made up into legions against naked untrained barbarians. I don’t see much of a difference here.

The difference was the conquest of Gaul against a trained army while the army of Persians were made up primarily people who were raised on the spot… hardly a trained experienced army. The "naked’ Barbarians in Europe as you put it fought much harder than Persians. Ceasar conquered all of Gaul (including spain and France and invaded Britain and latter Ceasar crossed the rhine and fought against the best "naked’ savages with clothes that the world had seen up to that time. Plus Vercingetorix was by far a better adversary than say the riff raff Alexander had to go against.

I don’t see that it does. So, Caesar defeats a 200 000 man army. Alexander defeats a 250 000 army at Gaugamela with 40 000.

Yes but caeasar was laying seige to a city while outnumbered and also fighting yet another force at his back again at huge odds. A seige is by far the hardest tactic to employ in ancient times as it leads to major loses but Ceaser accomplished this feat greater than any other including alexander who was considered an excellent master himself of the seige. Thats what makes caeaser better. But to Alexanders credit he also fought and won battles of great odds. The difference was the situation surrounding the two battles rather than the odds.

Well, the Greeks with their hoplite infantry fought in a Phalanx long before Phillip came along. Phillip developed the Macedonian phalanx, which was far larger. The
Macedonian phalanx had as many as 32 ranks compared with the 8 of the Greeks and their spears  were 19ft-23ft. The back ranks of Phillip’s phalanx were usually not in armor which saved money. The sure weight from this form of attack would be very difficult for the smaller Greek phalanx to withstand regardless of how well they were trained.

Right then you agree with me that Alexander really didnt bring anything new to the scene in terms of major military developments. he rested on what was allready in use before. Ceaser on the other hand made improvements in how the legions were deployed and tactics. he also created the last word on ancient art of seige warfare… an often attributed skill to alexander. However, ceaser won the greatest battle of this type at Alesia.

What kind of new tactics did Caesar implement? I’m curious. And yes, the Greeks changed there tactics when a Greek Phalanx was destroyed by Skirmishers, the Greeks move toward lighter armour and longer spears so it was easier to engage light troops. I don’t know much about Caesar’s seiges. He may well have been the good at it but it doesn’t make him the best general.

Read up on Alesia its one of the most important battles of the ancient world

Well, so far I haven’t read or have seen you post an example of Caesar commanding any army larger than anything Alexander did. I will  say that Caesar’s supply line was no where near as far reaching as Alexander’s

Here you go:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr0009.htm

Key portion:

“Philip of Macedon could field a combat army of 32,000 men organized in four divisions of 8,192 men each, and the army of Alexander sometimes exceeded 60,000 men. Roman military forces, which at the end of the empire totaled 350,000 men, could routinely field armies upward of 40,000. At the Battle of Cannae the Roman force arrayed against Hannibal was 80,000 men strong. Of these, 70,000 were destroyed in a single day! The one exception to the ability of Iron Age states to deploy large armies was the armies of classical Greece. Being products of relatively small city-states, classical armies were unusually small even for the Bronze Age. Ahab, for example, at the Battle of Ai could field 30,000 men, while at the Battle of Marathon the Greeks were able to field only 10,000 men against the Persian force of 50,000.”

BTW Cannae was before Ceasar… he had no part in that debacle.

his role in the development of the Catapult for seige warfare.

Yes thats what i am pointing out… namely Alexander is known for his ability to conduct the art of seige. But Caesar has by far a greater accomplishment of this tactic at Alesia. What i am saying is how ideass that these men were credited with were used to advance the method of how war was fought. Caesar has a better account of what Alexander is often credited with as “his” own signature military tactic invention. The other being the improvements related to the phalanx which remained unchanged, and the structure of the Legions which had seen many improvements under Caesar.

BTW:
Alexander developed the torsion ballista which is kinda like a crossbow but bigger. It was also a  devise that was also used by the Romans. The Romans improved it by casting the major stress parts in metals to improve durability.

IL, you are not supporting your argument here…

Caeser only IMPROVED what Alexander had already done.

It is a lot easier to modify, than to create…

The point is not:

“Caesar only IMPROVED what Alexander had already done”

The phalanx is nothing like the structure of the legion….

The point was to demonstrate that Caesar made changes to his strategy and adapted them to the degree of his adversary. This is a trait of a superior general. Alexander used the same ideas that he learned from his father and never made improvements in the evolution of tactics. of course he was a great general but to the extend of which he added something to how

Alexander invented the torsion ballista but that hardly is a major contribution to military strategy.

Caesar developed the modified Cohortal Legion which was an improvement of the Manipular Legion. Alexander mearly used the EXACT formation that his father Philip had created before him and made NO IMPROVEMENTS. A modification was probably necessary when facing those persian Elephants. As pointed out earlier Ceasar allways made improvements in how his armies would fight to allways improve to minimize loses.

A good general has allways left a mark of improvement of military tactics and their is simply no evidence that Alexander has done anything to advance the evolution of military tactics. In the ancient world the improvements that were made under Caesars ideas were the established benchmark for how warfare was conducted. Thats an important quality of a Superior general IMO.

Also,
The largest amphibious invasion ever conducted until 1944 (overlord) occurred under Caesars watch when he invaded Britain. No prior campaign of this scale was attempted before.

Alexander also has conducted this operation but not even close to the extent of Caesar.

@Imperious:

Yamamoto vs. fletcher or Nimitz

Ill go with the Yamamoto vs Nimitz here.  Yamamoto was a very good naval tactician and strategist.  However at the Battle of Midway he received a major defeat against the naval force of Nimitz.  Nimitz had very good leadership qualities, which are necessary in a commander, but in the end Yamamoto was perhaps the better tactician/strategist.  His defeat at Midway was due to two things.  1) Nimitzs great intelligence department which was able to know what the IJN intentions were.  2) Just plain old luck.  Luck that the recon planes were able to find the Japanese carriers first.  Luck that the US Dive Bombers attacked the Jap carriers during the crucial transicion from bombs to torpedos on the fighter planes (and also tons of fuel on the decks.)  This is not to say that the American forces didnt fight with skill, because they did, as well as the Japanese.  In the end however, it was the US that edged the Japs, with luck and skill.  To me this would be a tough decision, so ill just let you guys decide.  :wink:

Yamamoto had the correct idea about trying to get the americans involved into a huge battle to finally destroy them but he allowed Nagumo to screw up the finer points of the attack. I do not favor the idea of barely escorted carriers attacking for in advance of the other elements of what appears an overly complicated plan. I would have favored using a minimum of 6 front line carriers ( including  CV SHOKAKU and ZUIKAKU) and probably that junyo which was basically wasted in support of  the diversion at Dutch Harbor.

At Hawaii they used 6 Carriers, while against American carriers they use 4? what kind of plan is that?  They should have had 3 independent carrier groups complete with proper escorts of heavy cruisers. The main body was too far in the real to make any difference in the battle.

Also, they placed too much emphasis on destroying the midway installation. That could have been bombed by the battleships and rendered useless. The plan tried to accomplish too many things at once: destroy the US carriers, invade midway, invade dutch harbor… i mean come on what where they thinking?

Based on only this battle i would be inclined to favor Nimitz. Yamamoto’s only deserved victory was all those islands they took in a few months following Dec 7th. Thats was well planned except the victory itself rested in the hands of other generals namely Yamashita who wiped out the Brits at Singapore and the Philippines.

The "naked’ Barbarians in Europe as you put it fought much harder than Persians

You have no way of backing up that statement.

Plus Vercingetorix was by far a better adversary than say the riff raff Alexander had to go against.

Again, what proof do you have here beyond your opinion.

Yes but caeasar was laying seige to a city while outnumbered and also fighting yet another force at his back again at huge odds. A seige is by far the hardest tactic to employ in ancient times as it leads to major loses but Ceaser accomplished this feat greater than any other including alexander who was considered an excellent master himself of the seige. Thats what makes caeaser better. But to Alexanders credit he also fought and won battles of great odds. The difference was the situation surrounding the two battles rather than the odds.

I’m not trying to argue that Alexander’s victory was any more impressive then Caesar’s. They are both outstanding. However, if you’re saying that Caesar’s victory, and you clearing are, is worthy of more credit because he was conducting a siege at the time. I disagree. As far as I read Caesar was constructing  a massive trench works around the town 28k or 17.4 miles, which is pretty wild. So, we have Caesar’s army “dug in” around this fort. That makes his withstanding a massive barbarian assault a little less dynamic then if he was in a open feild attacking a force 6 six times, or whatever, his size, like Alexander.

Right then you agree with me that Alexander really didnt bring anything new to the scene in terms of major military developments. he rested on what was allready in use before.

Why change what works. He never lost a battle.

Ceaser on the other hand made improvements in how the legions were deployed and tactics

Can you give some examples. As far I as know Marius made the reforms. And any general who has ever commanded an army has made adjustments to how he may have deployed his army based on terrian, whether he is attacking or defending, what he is fighting against and so on. Caesar does not deserve extra credit.

he also created the last word on ancient art of seige warfare

Read up on Alesia its one of the most important battles of the ancient world

I did just that.  I have read, not study, Adrian Goldworthy’s book “Roman Warfare” and “Fighting techniques of the Ancient World” by four or five different authors…I don’t recall their names right now. Both of those books indicate that Romans did nothing different, as far the sieges are concerned, then the greeks did. Like you mentioned they did modify seige engines. But, there is not a single word in those books that mention Caesar being the mastermind behind siege warfare. Romans in general developed trench works not Caesar himself althought the example at Alesia is certainly a highlight.

Here you go:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr0009.htm

Key portion:

“Philip of Macedon could field a combat army of 32,000 men organized in four divisions of 8,192 men each, and the army of Alexander sometimes exceeded 60,000 men. Roman military forces, which at the end of the empire totaled 350,000 men, could routinely field armies upward of 40,000. At the Battle of Cannae the Roman force arrayed against Hannibal was 80,000 men strong. Of these, 70,000 were destroyed in a single day! The one exception to the ability of Iron Age states to deploy large armies was the armies of classical Greece. Being products of relatively small city-states, classical armies were unusually small even for the Bronze Age. Ahab, for example, at the Battle of Ai could field 30,000 men, while at the Battle of Marathon the Greeks were able to field only 10,000 men against the Persian force of 50,000.”

BTW Cannae was before Ceasar… he had no part in that debacle.

Thanks for the link. However, it does not really prove anything here. Caesar did not command an 350 000 men army and Caeser did not, himself, develope the impressive Roman logistic system.

Caesar developed the modified Cohortal Legion which was an improvement of the Manipular Legion. Alexander mearly used the EXACT formation that his father Philip had created before him and made NO IMPROVEMENTS. A modification was probably necessary when facing those persian Elephants. As pointed out earlier Ceasar allways made improvements in how his armies would fight to allways improve to minimize loses.

Again, what modifications did he make. Marius was the developer of the Imperial Roman legions as far I as know, but I’ll read into that tonight.
One could argue that no one used cavalry to such a decisive and davastating degree as Alexander.
At both the battles of Gaugemala and Hypadus? Alexander’s loses were minimal. I belive 280 men and 330 respectively.