HOME | DD
GavinMichelli β Dogs of War
Published: 2010-07-17 23:27:18 +0000 UTC; Views: 5691; Favourites: 102; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
One was the greatest politician of his time, the other was a military tactician who was so ahead of his time that they still study his methods at west point. Julius Caesar and Alexander basically mastered the trait that the other lacked (Caesar, with all his military victories, won with charisma more than actual military skill, and Alexander was sorely lacking at the politics of empire). If they had somehow met...oh, who am I kidding? If they had actually met, they would have probably killed each other. Guys with egos this size change the world, but they usually don't play well with others.This is for 's "Clash of the Eras" contest.
Related content
Comments: 44
π: 1 β©: 1
π: 1 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
Like Ares and Mars themselves in human form!Β
π: 0 β©: 1
You know, that's a pretty cool way to look at it!
π: 0 β©: 0
AtG and JC look fantastic, the best i've seen
π: 0 β©: 1
Wow, that's saying something! Thank you so much!
π: 0 β©: 1
did you ever color them?
π: 0 β©: 1
No, I never got around to it. This was just a quickie I did because I really wanted to participate in that particular contest. Maybe someday, though.
π: 0 β©: 1
if you do, make AtG blonde, thats how i always saw him, plus its more epic
π: 0 β©: 1
You know, I didn't realize this when I was drawing him, but apparently he had two different colored eyes. According to Arrian and paint chips left on a few statues, one was blue and one was brown.
π: 0 β©: 1
yeah i heard that too, you never thing that someone like AtG would have that
π: 0 β©: 0
ZOMG, I've been looking for art of Alexander the Great, and think this is the best I've seen. (Your Caesar is amazing too.) I like that it's a modern, almost cartoony take done in your personal style, but really nails their depiction in ancient art. Even without the caption, I would've instantly recognized who they were. It's hard to balance between modern interpretation and outright imitation. I find that modern "fan art" of historical figures often doesn't look at all like the people it's supposed to depict, while the slavish classical imitations excel technically but are boring emotionally. You've done an amazing job here at combining the best of both and getting it right.
Apparently, Caesar is said (in Lucan's Pharsalia) to have visited Alexander the Great's tomb at Alexandria, so in a way, they did meet. (Zombie Alexander????? 
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks very much! I tried to get a recognizable likeness, but I definitely made an effort to avoid slaving over it to the point where their personalities didn't come through. I think that even if a drawing perfectly replicates a likeness, it won't truly look like the subject unless the attitude is also there.
does a great job with that kind of thing, and although his style is much more cartoony than mine, I was definitely striving for that kind of personality.
Now, I'm off to draw Zombie Alexander
π: 0 β©: 0
omg, so true XD Either they'd kill eachother, or, together, assemble one hell of an empire
π: 0 β©: 1
It would've been one helluva fight though, and being the warriors that they were they probably would fought each other deulish
π: 0 β©: 0
Me too 
π: 0 β©: 1
I have read about him n Hephaestion. Their friendship is so amazing!
π: 0 β©: 0
Haha, thanks! Y'know, I've never actually read Asterix, but it seems like something I'd enjoy. I see Asterix jokes and stuff online all the time.
π: 0 β©: 1
It worths a reading; it's author, RenΓ© Goscinny was a wise man.
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks so much! I appreciate you taking the time to comment!
I can't really say how Alexander would stack up against the other top military minds of the ancient world, but I don't think it's fair to say that Al just ran through a weak, defenseless Persia. Even conservative estimates of the troop numbers at Gaugamela put the numbers at two Persians for every Greek, so that victory in itself is impressive. I'm not necessarily saying that Ally was the greatest commander ever, or that he didn't learn most of what he knew from his dad, or that his huge and well-trained army didn't play a dominant role in his victories, but the fact that he conquered a huge swath of the planet and went a decade without being defeated really says something about the guy's military abilities.
So yeah, I'd say he was a military genius. After all, Hannibal also learned a great deal from his father, and inherited his father's army. And, although he defeated the Roman army (which had not yet reached the pinnacle of its dominance), Hannibal never conquered Rome. He never conquered anything, actually. That doesn't make him any less of a military genius, right? His strategies are still brilliant, and his victories are still impressive, right?
I don't know if you've ever heard the story of Caesar weeping in front of the statue of Alexander, but that's what really got me thinking about the meeting of these two minds. I just think that putting them together makes sense, because they could potentially cancel out each others' weaknesses. But, then again, Caesar did have a partner who was a considerable military force, and you know what happened to him...
π: 0 β©: 1
This can be a start of an interesting discussion
I am not saying that Alex was weak commander. But his army had great generals and great officers - it was such a great war machine that could stand any army even twice larger
I won't say the same about Hannibal. Of course he learned lots from his father but his army was just a mix of iberians, africans and celts. And they were much worse military force than macedonian hetaroi and pezhetaroi. In addition he had to fight agains roman legions. You must admit that romans were great soldiers and what is more, there were 500 000 of them (including allies). Still Hannibal survived in Italy for 15 years, pretty impressive if you consider that he had just 40 000 to 60 000 men and almost no reinforcements. But he not only survived, he did conquer many cities (the biggest was Capua) and defeated Romans many times. I think he could not conquer Rome - it was just too big and too well fortified for his army. In addition his soldiers always trusted him, despite ethnical mix in his army, while Alex almost caused a revolt. And one more thing. Alex had many great generals eg. Ptolomaios, Seleukos or Perdikkas. Hannibal could count only on his younger brother Mago who commanded his cavalry. So I think Hannibal beats Alex. In my opinion that macedonian's talents are overestimated but still you can have own point of view
And of course putting them together makes sense. I totally agree. I said the drawing is great and the same refers to the general idea
π: 0 β©: 1
Wow, you really sound like you know your stuff!
Was Al a little crazy? You bet. Most great commanders were. You could certainly argue that Hannibal taking his forces over the Alps was insane, and he definitely lost a lot of soldiers, but it worked. And Hannibal has been called a megalomaniac himself, too. Maybe not as often as Alex, though 
As for the Macedonian army revolting...well, that's kind of what I'm getting at with this piece. I think the main reason that Alexander failed in his ultimate quest is that he really had no quest. Unlike Hannibal, who had a concrete foe to beat, Alex was just kind of wandering around India, and his army knew it. He was a great general, but he was a crappy ruler. Caesar, on the other hand, was just the opposite. The reason he won so many battles was because his army believed in him, where as Alexander won his battles by using his cavalry in conjunction with his phalanx in a way that contemporary armies weren't trained to deal with. So, if he had someone with Caesar's charisma there to help administrate, his empire might not have fallen into such disarray after he died.
But, then again, Caesar would have probably usurped Alexander. Like I said, Alexander was politically naive, and Caesar was a master manipulator. In that respect, I would probably give the nod to JC over both Alexander and Hannibal, and I would take Augustus over all of them. As both Al and Hannibal eventually learned, a brilliant military mind can only get you so far.
Wow, this discussion is pretty intense! I don't have these kind of talks with people. Thanks for taking the time to chime in on this piece and let me know what you think. I really appreciate it
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks
I don't agree at one point. Do you know where the information about Hannibal loses are known from? From Livy and Polybios, first one was Roman and the second was Greek fascinated by Roman conquests. Livy wasn't very good historian, he was much better at pro-roman propaganda. Polybios was really good, but not when it came to numbers. They tell about ca. 40 000 casualties during Hannibal's way from Spain to Padan Plain. It is not many when you consider that he had to fight against hostile celtic tribes. But probably he lost less men. Why? Roman historians know only 2 numbers. How many troops had Hannibal in Spain and with how many he appeared in Italy. No one says that all from these 40 000 were casualties. If you consider that he told his army - "if you don't want to go with me you can go home" many iberians could do so maybe even 30 000 of them. And actually Hannibal was great politician. After Zama his decisions saved carthaginian economy. In addition Hannibal was great admiral. Antiochs III navy was undefeated under his command. He also had pretty interesting ideas, how to gain advantage in sea battles. During one he ordered catapults to fire jars with poisonous animals at enemy ships, what caused panic and let Hannibal crush the enemy. So maybe Alex was as good as Hannibal at commanding an army but Hannibal also had more charisma and was more talented politician and admiral (but I must admit that Alex did better at logistics support).
I think it was not lack of talents caused the fall of his empire. He had good administrators like Antypatros, Seleukos or Ptolomaios. The problem was he conquered too much
And right Ceasar would probably usurped him. But I think there would be "possibility" that these two would cooperate if Ceasar adopted Alex. JC rather cared about his friends and relatives.
Augustus over all of them? I don't like him much, he made many mistakes like making pretorian guards unit or that he did not create any rule about heritage of the throne - it led to many problems. But if you want to call him great politician (still he deserves it) remember about his wife Livia
PS. I will answer your next post after 2 weeks when I come back from holiday
π: 0 β©: 1
Nah, I think we can call it at this point. Thanks for the stimulating conversation! Hopefully, this is the first of many
π: 0 β©: 0
very very cool
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks very much! I actually looked at a few sculptures for each of them (although Alexander was more based on a Roman-era mosaic) to make sure I got something resembling their likenesses, and I tried to give them as much personality as I could. I'm glad you like it
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks a lot! I appreciate you voting for me in the journal, too!
π: 0 β©: 0
And if their DNAs were combined?
Anyway, very cool
π: 0 β©: 1
Hey, now, I try to keep things clean! I don't draw pics of guys "combining their DNA"!
π: 0 β©: 2
That's not what your mom told me...
π: 0 β©: 1
You lie, sir! My mom doesn't even know about my gay porn stash!!
π: 0 β©: 0
lol - well, they were Greco-Roman
π: 0 β©: 0
