Alexander the Great vs. Napoleon (Round IV)

[dragonman]

I went with Napoleon, but it took some thought. The only major power Alexander had to fight was Persia and that was politically fragile. Napoleon had to fight coalitions with some powerful members that never could be permanently conquered.

[No_Nickname]

I voted for Alexander, mostly because of his conquests of the Persian Empire but also I don't want to see him win again

[Keldren242]

I think you are overlooking many factors, Alina.

First of all, you criticize Alexander for using similar tactics in many of his battles, yet Napoleon is at LEAST as guilty of this charge.

Alexander was much more successful with different types of warfare, especially sieges (Alexander-Tyre, Gaza vs. Napleon's-Acre (defeat) and low-intensity warfare (Napoleon in Spain and Alexander in Bactria).

Alexander fought in such a way as to discourage continued conflict. At Arbela Parmenio advised that he attack at night. Alexander refused because a Macedonian victory would not destroy Persian morale as they would feel that they had been tricked, not truly defeated. (plus the Persians stayed up all night expecting a night attack)

Alexander chose brilliant underlings that were great generals in their own rights...Napoleon chose incompetent underlings in many cases.

As time went on Napoleon became increasingly unoriginal and tended to win battles solely based on his superior troops rather than brilliant tactics.

[Alina]

Originally Posted by Keldren242

I think you are overlooking many factors, Alina.

First of all, you criticize Alexander for using similar tactics in many of his battles, yet Napoleon is at LEAST as guilty of this charge.

Alexander was much more successful with different types of warfare, especially sieges (Alexander-Tyre, Gaza vs. Napleon's-Acre (defeat) and low-intensity warfare (Napoleon in Spain and Alexander in Bactria).

Alexander fought in such a way as to discourage continued conflict. At Arbela Parmenio advised that he attack at night. Alexander refused because a Macedonian victory would not destroy Persian morale as they would feel that they had been tricked, not truly defeated. (plus the Persians stayed up all night expecting a night attack)

Alexander chose brilliant underlings that were great generals in their own rights...Napoleon chose incompetent underlings in many cases.

As time went on Napoleon became increasingly unoriginal and tended to win battles solely based on his superior troops rather than brilliant tactics.

Alexander didn't choose his underlings. His father did. Alexander's siege of Tyre is not some kind of brilliant triumph. It shows what you can do if you have a lot of troops and a psychotic determination to get the job done. He'd have been better off just ignoring Tyre and going on his merry way. Instead he invested a lot of time, effort, and soldiers into taking it, only to leave it behind to head further East. It was an utter waste.

Whether or not Napoleon is as guilty of using the same tactics over and over again, is up for debate. For me, Alexander is the most overblown commander in history. He didn't name his generals, he didn't create his army, and he used the same tactic just about every time. Moreover, his tendency to lead the cavalry charge from the front left his army in mortal danger more than once, and nearly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. On top of that, he often shows immaturity and obstinacy in his behavior. Tyre would be one such example. Burning Persepolis is another. Setting himself up as a god would be a third. Having Parmenio killed is a fourth.

I simply can't rate the man highly at all. Alexander the Great wouldn't even be in my top 20.

[No_Nickname]

I missed the vote for the poll but I voted for Alexander the Great.

[Loki]

Napoleon was a general that had a taste for gaining superior firepower by strange means (usually with artillery), and drawing-flanking movements.

Alexander the Great is a general with a spirit for boldness, confidence, and a new model army to accomplish his ambitious objectives.

Which is the better? It is hard to say, comparatively the training of the Macedonian army would possibly beat the "Grand Army", but one would have to wonder if Alexander's aggresive nature would 'play' into Napoleon's hands...

[Keldren242]

Alexander didn't choose his underlings. His father did.

That is not true. Several of Alexander's generals had previously been his father's, but many had not been.

Alexander's siege of Tyre is not some kind of brilliant triumph. It shows what you can do if you have a lot of troops and a psychotic determination to get the job done. He'd have been better off just ignoring Tyre and going on his merry way. Instead he invested a lot of time, effort, and soldiers into taking it, only to leave it behind to head further East. It was an utter waste.

This just goes to show how little you know about Alexander's war with Persia. Alexander HAD to take Tyre. Without taking Tyre Alexander would have continued to face the Persian navy, but with no port in the Mediterranean under their control, the Persians' navy went over to Alexander. Taking all the Persian harbors was at the heart of Alexander's grand strategy.

Whether or not Napoleon is as guilty of using the same tactics over and over again, is up for debate. For me, Alexander is the most overblown commander in history. He didn't name his generals, he didn't create his army, and he used the same tactic just about every time. Moreover, his tendency to lead the cavalry charge from the front left his army in mortal danger more than once, and nearly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

This is just ignorant. I've already dealt with the generals charge...but he didn't create his army? How? He created several new units (Silver Shields, Hydapsis (sp?) and expanded the Companions tremendously). The tactics he used were dramatically changed each time he did them....and his cavalry charges generally came from his right.

On top of that, he often shows immaturity and obstinacy in his behavior. Tyre would be one such example. Burning Persepolis is another. Setting himself up as a god would be a third. Having Parmenio killed is a fourth.

He had to kill Parmenio. Parmenio's son was involved in an assassination attempt and executed. Parmenio was in charge of the treasury back in the east, so Alexander was worried that upon learning of his son's execution that Parmenio would rebel, along with much of the east (and finance by a tremendous amount of wealth).

I've already explained why Tyre had to be taken. Perhaps you should learn a bit more about Alexander's campaigns before you ignorantly condemn him. There is a reason why every great general after Alexander emulated him. Napoleon included.

I simply can't rate the man highly at all. Alexander the Great wouldn't even be in my top 20.

Well, you'd be at odds with the greatest generals in history. Hannibal rated Alexander as the greatest general in history. I'll take their opinion over your's....

[ForIAmSparticus]

Thats a difficult choice, talk about two great generals!

[DVD]

Get a coin flip it heads its Alexander and tails its Napoleon its a toss up.

[Muckbeast]

Originally Posted by Alina

Alexander didn't ... (snip a bunch of criticisms).

And yet he conquered nearly all the known world at his time - in a span of about 13 years.

But for him destroying the Persian Empire, the history of Western Civilization is likely completely different - and not dominant.

He faced countless varieties of battles and opponents, and won them all. You discount how he won, and try to minimize them, but HE actually won them. Its one thing to say a certain general wins a lucky battle here or there. But that is obviously not the case. There is a lot more than luck going on when someone is that victorious, that often, and accomplishes that much.

Originally Posted by Alina

I simply can't rate the man highly at all. Alexander the Great wouldn't even be in my top 20.

And I wonder where you'd rate in his top 20 for strategic thinkers?

"the man"........... my god. He accomplished more in an average week than you could ever hope to accomplish in your entire lifetime, and you belittle him like he was some common street beggar.

[Muckbeast]

Originally Posted by Keldren242

This just goes to show how little you know about Alexander's war with Persia. Alexander HAD to take Tyre. Without taking Tyre Alexander would have continued to face the Persian navy, but with no port in the Mediterranean under their control, the Persians' navy went over to Alexander. Taking all the Persian harbors was at the heart of Alexander's grand strategy.

You see people like Alina all the time, in all manner of subjects. They defy widely held opinions and beliefs simply because it makes them feel smarter than everyone else since they "think different."

Originally Posted by Keldren242

Well, you'd be at odds with the greatest generals in history. Hannibal rated Alexander as the greatest general in history. I'll take their opinion over your's....

That's something else that is just undeniable. The great generals that Alina consistently says are better than Alexander, themselves tended to say Alexander was the best. These were generals of enormous ego, deferring to Alexander the great.

Its not like Alexander got his reputation based on a good PR firm or marketing tricks. His reputation comes from 2000 years of passed down history and cold hard fact.

[45Colt]

2 totally different armies here. i would say Napoleon because of his knowledge about artillery. alexander knew nothing like this. Napoleon could move his army into attacking divided forces, something alexander didn't do with his set-peice battles. alexander had his generals he could consul with that and he considered their judgments before every battle.

alexander learned alot from his father philip. this was priceless, philip built an amazing fighting machine, the macedonian army. napoleon went to artillery school.

[vahistorynut196]

in my view,alexander had the better strategy and could make field adjustments better than napoleon could,so i went with that.

[KingIV]

It has to be Alexander for me
Napoleon was truly a tactical genius, however
The thing that seperates them for me is the fact that Alexander fought in the battles themsleves, alongside his troops