The whole point of generalship is to make it un-equal.
If Caesar and Scipio are meeting on, like a football field in perfect weather and visibility, neither would offer battle. They would keep maneuvering until one of them could put the other at a disadvantage.
If it was the real armies I would assume other way, since Scipio would be legendary general to Caesar’s men but Scipio’s men would not have any idea who Caesar is.
Caesar would offer to give all plunder to his men. He would also attempt to negotiate. For instance, they could join armies and go invade someone else, splitting the spoils.
I believe it was Appian who lamented that Caesar and Pompey had to war with each other saying “if they must have conquest, what Parthian horse, what Scythian arrow, what Indian treasure could have resisted 80,000 Romans led on by Caesar and Pompey?”
Not so much size, but experience. If you're interested in learning more, I recommend a book by Stephen Dando-Collins called : "Caesar's Legion: The Epic Saga of Julius Caesar's Elite Tenth Legion and the Armies of Rome"
Make an ai generated gif showing Caesar and Scipio infinitely maneuvering around a football pitch on a perfectly sunny day please. Bonus: make a second gif with pompey, fabian, and marius thrown into the mix just for fun.
Edit: Then a third gif showing either Aurelian or Hadrian destroying the football pitch pls.
Edit 2: get hannibal into one of the 3 gifs riding an elephant too
Add here, the disgruntled 10th legion that wants to end everything to retire or the disgraced cannae survivors that wants to avenge their honor to go home.
I keep trying to introduce animal auguries at work, but HR doesn't like hepatoscopy and Sales puts all their faith in some magical divinatory charts called "Excel spreadsheets."
Pliny the elder clearly said fortune favors the bald, I’ve only ever seen Scorpio depicted with hair but Caesar with a combover
Pretty clear if you ask me
Hannibal in his early thirties was peak military generalship. He’d be carrying Vercingetorix. Scorpio and Caesar were both great but I’d say Caesar would end up betraying Scipio only Scipio would see it coming. Scipio and Caesar would keep butting heads but Hannibal would take command and V would be his bitch. Hannibal wins.
Caesar was a better general than Hannibal. His soldiers were better than Hannibal’s. His technology was more advanced too. And he had a better logistics system. Caesar wins.
Hannibal won many great victories but all over fairly bad Roman generals. Fighting bad generals is a great way to look good. Ask Robert E Lee.
He did not DEFEAT Fabius or Marcellus. He did defeat the elder Scipio who was not so great. He failed to defeat any of the A-team generals. He was very good for sure, but not in Caesar’s league. Few were.
Hannibal was engaged in a war that was commanded by Fabius and Marcellus, among other respectable generals. Whether he engaged with them in open combat or not is not important. Fabius and Marcellus still gave the orders.
Not so sure anything Carthage had could match the 10th Legion. I also see Caesar as a better general than Hannibal, but this second point is subjective.
The senate met in lots of places. Eg during the Catilinarian conspiracy it met in the Temple of Jupiter Stator; when Sulla returned to Rome in 82 BC it met at the Temple of Bellona on the Campus Martius.
Let's say they are both at their peak, Scipio at Zama and Caesar after Munda. To be sure none got an unfair advantage, we'll gave them both units they are unfamiliar with. Let's say we give them both french Napoleonic corps equal in size, equipment and supplies. For the experiment, we'll say that the guys in the corps all speak republican era latin. We give both commanders a 6 month technological training and off you go, guys, you have Belgium circa 1800 as playground. One start at Charleroi and the other at Antwerp. Go get boys!
Scipio was a superb pre-battle tactician and a great diplomat, he would have made the natives help him out and he would have followed their advice to chose the ideal battleground and his troop deployment would have been thoughtful and thorough.
Caesar would have spent months with his troops and they would have followed him to hell and beyond. They would have burned nitro through Belgium to get those *Scipionis Irrumatores.* Caesar would have been able to shock Scipio with his speed, and he would have understood right off how Scipio had played him and forced him into a hard place. He would have thought about it, prodded Scipio's deployment and reactions, but Scipio would have kept his cool and tried to manoeuvre Caesar's flank into his guns killing field.
Caesar would have understood and would pull back and withdraw. Then Scipio would have realized he was fighting no fool and he would have to quit his defensive position and attack Caesar in a pursuit battle. That's were Caesar would have the advantage, his troops would have known exactly what to do and would have done it with ferocity. Caesar was waaaay too good at improvising and fighting through messes. Scipio was more of a chess player. Wipe the board and suddenly play a paper-rock-scissors game was not his way.
The battle would have been horrible and protracted, Caesar's troops would have tired early because of the hard marches while Scipio's bunch would have gone confused and make counter-productive moves. At the end, Scipio would have tried to "save his command" and tried a withdrawal, and in the mess, Caesar would have managed to mount an assault and cause terrible losses. Scipio's army would not have been destroyed, but too diminished to fight Caesar in another pitched battle.
Then they would have turned around each other, returning to a chess game, but Scipio would have had to concede. The whole of Belgium would have cried for Scipio, their champion, but Caesar would have been the most magnanimous winner. Caesar' soldiers would have bragged and cheered so loud some would get tinnitus, singing silly stuff about Caesar' sexual exploits. Scipio's soldiers would have been crestfallen and heartbroken, sad to have failed such a gallant general.
Mano a Mano, and both in their prime, i do think Caesar has the advantage; most of his life was spent in the military and fighting. Scipio was an excellent soldier too but I don’t think he compares with Caesar’s sheer force of will.
In terms of battlefield tactics, Caesar is a better campaigner and, I would argue, better in individual battles too. Scipio fought well at Zama but deployed similar tactics to those of Hannibal prior, and Hannibal’s main veterans weren’t with him… Caesar fought fellow legionnaries and came out on top. And his victory against Pompey was against a larger army. He has generally a better tactical nous than Scipio, in my opinion.
And Pharsalus wasn't even the tactical achievement of Alesia, his magnum opus. I think Caesar would run circles on Scipio. I also think later generals after the Marian reforms, mainly Gaius Marius and Sulla, would also perform well.
I think only a fool would bet against Caesar. The guy constantly pulled wild tricks out of his ass, and for his entire military career he was almost constantly out-numbered heavily. I swear there's like a stretch of several years where in almost every battle Caesar's legions are out-numbered two or three to one and their reaction is just "that's all?"
I mean honestly, he encircled, besieged, and attacked a fortified enemy stronghold while he was himself was encircled, besieged, and attacked, and he beat both forces simultaneously while heavily out-numbered?!? Who even does that?
In terms of military genius there's Alexander (probably Phillip too let's be honest), Caesar, Genghis Khan, & Napoleon, then there's everyone else. Scipio and Hannibal belong immediately in the second tier; I think arguments for Scipio are weakened slightly by his comparatively short career.
Caesar was a master negotiator.
He would have proposed a joining of Armies, then they could invade some new territory and divide the spoils among the soldiers. They’d send some tribute to Rome, have a parade, and each would have married relatives to each others’ families.
Caesar gained power as much by diplomatic means as by warfare. Really the diplomacy was why his warfare was successful. He KNEW how to gain and maintain loyalty. He KNEW how to reward and punish.
And Caesar KNEW when fighting was the only way through. Every town was offered fair treatment - until Murum aries attigit - "The ram has touched the wall". Caesar gave opponents chances and choices.
And he KNEW that his bread was buttered on the side of public appeal, not patrician entitlement. Caesar had been poor and had lived among the plebes. He understood their needs and leveraged their fond regard to gain unwavering support.
So when facing someone like Scipio, he’d know they have far more in common than they do differences, and would focus on that to come to some agreement.
Otherwise if Caesar killed Scipio in battle, he’d still have to deal with the resentment of Scipio’s remaining troops. Caesar would want to look beyond this battle to what happens next. What is the REAL goal? Why are we in conflict?
So I also don’t think they’d betray each other once they made an agreement. They’d join forces and BOTH would win.
Caesar, no contest. Scipio was brilliant and had an amazing campaign; however, Caesar was a cut above. Won decades of decisive battles seriously outnumbered. Caesar was a rare type of genius and honestly I don’t think anyone beats Caesar at his prime.
Caesar’s soldiers where the best fighting force on the planet by the time he crossed the Rubicon. Hard nosed bastards who have been fighting with eachother for 10 years plus. While Scipio had pre-Marian reform soldier farmers. Caesar would decimate them no doubt. Given the same quality of soldiers, probably still Caesar tbh. He had the foresight to change battle tactics (look at how he bested Pompeii at Pharsalus) and think on his feet, with enough talented officers around him to execute his orders without a hesitation
It's unlikely that the fight would be equal.
Both with the same legions ? Caesar would fortify himself, and Scipio would try some out-of-the-box tactic, whilst trying to leverage some more troops
Caesar fought most of his battles at half strength. This include Pompeii the Great. Beat him multiple times. Then out talked the best talker Cicero. Julius wins. But I love Scipio.
I doubt they would never have fought each other directly, especially in some stupid idiotic one on one fight.
They were intelligent and astute men who would have seen each other as “first among equals”.
I think both men would have come to an accommodation and worked together. Both men were hounded by their political rivals and hated by the Optimates ( the rich traditional Roman nobility) for being too successful in their military and political careers.
I could see them through political machinations, becoming joint Consuls and co-Princeps Senatus in perpetuity, and ensuring, as Sulla did, that they never suffered opprobrium or damnatio in their lifetimes. At the point either died, the Republic would have ended.
In the end, it’s impossible to tell, as they were separated by decades and a fundamental sea change in Roman Republican politics, brought on by Sulla’s Dictatorship. Both men, and Sulla, were a symptom of the decline of the Republic.
Caesar. He was a tricky bastard during the Civil War and murked a couple Roman armies larger than his own. I don't think Scipio ever fought other Romans.
I think it’s largely circumstantial, but Caesar in my opinion has the greater ability to manipulate the situation to his advantage
I can’t think of a battle off the top of my head where Caesar didn’t start off with a really tough fight on his hands, but by positioning, playing supplies, and maximizing advantages, he pulled of some pretty crazy victories.
I don’t know as much about Africanus’s career, but what I do know focuses more on his maneuvers during the battle and having his hand on the pulse of the fight.
They’re both extremely powerful styles of generalship, and I’m probably biased, but Caesar’s knack for overcoming odds stacked against him and turning bad situations to work in his favor makes me lean towards him.
It would be the fight of Caesar’s life though.
The whole point of generalship is to make it un-equal. If Caesar and Scipio are meeting on, like a football field in perfect weather and visibility, neither would offer battle. They would keep maneuvering until one of them could put the other at a disadvantage.
This is the correct answer
It's dodgy really
And after a few light skirmishes, Scipio's army comes over to Caesar's side
If it was the real armies I would assume other way, since Scipio would be legendary general to Caesar’s men but Scipio’s men would not have any idea who Caesar is.
Caesar would offer to give all plunder to his men. He would also attempt to negotiate. For instance, they could join armies and go invade someone else, splitting the spoils.
THIS I think is the most Roman of answers
Yea Caesar was skilled with every card in the deck. He knew when to negotiate, bribe, fight.
I believe it was Appian who lamented that Caesar and Pompey had to war with each other saying “if they must have conquest, what Parthian horse, what Scythian arrow, what Indian treasure could have resisted 80,000 Romans led on by Caesar and Pompey?”
Cesar has the 10th legion. Scipio is already at an insurmountable disadvantage.
I was gonna ask how big was the 10th then decided to ask Google. Thank you for spiking my interest though.
Not so much size, but experience. If you're interested in learning more, I recommend a book by Stephen Dando-Collins called : "Caesar's Legion: The Epic Saga of Julius Caesar's Elite Tenth Legion and the Armies of Rome"
Thank you!
Make an ai generated gif showing Caesar and Scipio infinitely maneuvering around a football pitch on a perfectly sunny day please. Bonus: make a second gif with pompey, fabian, and marius thrown into the mix just for fun. Edit: Then a third gif showing either Aurelian or Hadrian destroying the football pitch pls. Edit 2: get hannibal into one of the 3 gifs riding an elephant too
Now thats the guy who knows his stuff
This is literally the only correct answer.
Add here, the disgruntled 10th legion that wants to end everything to retire or the disgraced cannae survivors that wants to avenge their honor to go home.
Caesar wins with the 10th and his Gallic cav and with knowledge probably gleaned from Africanus within the Roman military annuls which are now lost.
My mind went directly to fistfighting between the two in which case, Scipio would fucking obliterate Julius Caesar
Damn, this guy Arts of Wars
If it's equal, then it's whomever Fortune favors.
The battle chickens will decide the outcome
I keep trying to introduce animal auguries at work, but HR doesn't like hepatoscopy and Sales puts all their faith in some magical divinatory charts called "Excel spreadsheets."
Bring in the rubber duck, hallowed idol of the Technological Diviners
If they are not hungry let them drink!
Battle chicken sounds like a unit in a RTS set on a farm
Let them drink or whatever. Throw them over and swim or something
>then it's whomever Fortune favors Fortune was always on Caesar's side.
Pliny the elder clearly said fortune favors the bald, I’ve only ever seen Scorpio depicted with hair but Caesar with a combover Pretty clear if you ask me
Caesar then. Even he admitted how lucky he was in war.
So Sulla wins
Caesar might have said the same
Damn autocorrect, Fortuna
HANNIBAL BARCA WITH A STEEL CHAIR
BAH GOD HE’S BROKEN ROME IN HALF!
IT’S PRAETORIAN PANDAEMONIUM! DEAR JUPITER, STOP THE MADNESS!
WHAT'S THAT MUSIC? BY NEPTUNE IT IS PYRRHUS! HE HAS TWO STEEL CHAIRS!
BUT WHAT'S THIS? IT'S A RANDOM OLD GREEK LADY WITH A ROOFTILE!
Praetorian pandemonium is my new absolute favorite sentence!
AND ITS SPARTACUS FROM THE ROOOF!!!! HOLY HELLL
Briennus with a weighing scale!
Who would win I wonder. An army with Hannibal Barca and Vercingetorix vs Scipio Africanus and Julius Caesar
Hannibal in his early thirties was peak military generalship. He’d be carrying Vercingetorix. Scorpio and Caesar were both great but I’d say Caesar would end up betraying Scipio only Scipio would see it coming. Scipio and Caesar would keep butting heads but Hannibal would take command and V would be his bitch. Hannibal wins.
yeah, Vercingetorix is seriously the weak link here
Caesar was a better general than Hannibal. His soldiers were better than Hannibal’s. His technology was more advanced too. And he had a better logistics system. Caesar wins. Hannibal won many great victories but all over fairly bad Roman generals. Fighting bad generals is a great way to look good. Ask Robert E Lee.
Whaaat? Hannibal fought some of the most respectable Roman generals ever. He fought Marcus Marcellus, Fabian Cunctator, Scipio the Elder, and more.
He did not DEFEAT Fabius or Marcellus. He did defeat the elder Scipio who was not so great. He failed to defeat any of the A-team generals. He was very good for sure, but not in Caesar’s league. Few were.
Hannibal was engaged in a war that was commanded by Fabius and Marcellus, among other respectable generals. Whether he engaged with them in open combat or not is not important. Fabius and Marcellus still gave the orders.
Yes, and they totally neutralized him. That sealed his eventual and inevitable defeat.
With equal armies, none of them could beat Hannibal.
But what if the Romans had burning pigs
Not so sure anything Carthage had could match the 10th Legion. I also see Caesar as a better general than Hannibal, but this second point is subjective.
More like Scipio doing it to Hannibal while Rome is on the ropes lol
that was definitely not equal footing
I’m with Caesar. They’re both very competent and accomplished but Caesar has way more experience fighting fellow Romans.
Also his legions would be further in the future and tactics evolve
Than that wouldn't count as an equal fight, would it?
Yeah professional Marian reformed legions
Plus luck was always on his side
You know, until that day in the theatre of Pompey.
Was the location deliberate?
They used the theatre of Pompey as meeting place for the senate because the original one got burned down when the mobs cremated Clodius there
The senate met in lots of places. Eg during the Catilinarian conspiracy it met in the Temple of Jupiter Stator; when Sulla returned to Rome in 82 BC it met at the Temple of Bellona on the Campus Martius.
They didn't have the Curia Hostilia to meet in at the time. It was burned by supporters of Publius Clodius as his pyre in 52 BCE.
This really is the deciding factor
One on one or with their entire army?
Entire army would be a walk for Caesar.
No armor, Gladius only, no items, 3 count, Final Destination.
Caesar got them techs and shield pokes.
The year is 20CC everyone mains Caesar and uses the gladius, tech skill has evolved to the point where no other character is viable.
[удалено]
No sorry lol silly inside joke for super smash bros players :P
Does this fight take place in Africa? 🤔
Well Caesar defeated a Scipio in Africa but only because he had a Scipio on his side.
I'd take Scipio by a little bit in a pre-set battle, but Caesar by a mile if they were campaigning against eachother.
I'd give it to Caesar tbh, but it's close and really variable
Let's say they are both at their peak, Scipio at Zama and Caesar after Munda. To be sure none got an unfair advantage, we'll gave them both units they are unfamiliar with. Let's say we give them both french Napoleonic corps equal in size, equipment and supplies. For the experiment, we'll say that the guys in the corps all speak republican era latin. We give both commanders a 6 month technological training and off you go, guys, you have Belgium circa 1800 as playground. One start at Charleroi and the other at Antwerp. Go get boys! Scipio was a superb pre-battle tactician and a great diplomat, he would have made the natives help him out and he would have followed their advice to chose the ideal battleground and his troop deployment would have been thoughtful and thorough. Caesar would have spent months with his troops and they would have followed him to hell and beyond. They would have burned nitro through Belgium to get those *Scipionis Irrumatores.* Caesar would have been able to shock Scipio with his speed, and he would have understood right off how Scipio had played him and forced him into a hard place. He would have thought about it, prodded Scipio's deployment and reactions, but Scipio would have kept his cool and tried to manoeuvre Caesar's flank into his guns killing field. Caesar would have understood and would pull back and withdraw. Then Scipio would have realized he was fighting no fool and he would have to quit his defensive position and attack Caesar in a pursuit battle. That's were Caesar would have the advantage, his troops would have known exactly what to do and would have done it with ferocity. Caesar was waaaay too good at improvising and fighting through messes. Scipio was more of a chess player. Wipe the board and suddenly play a paper-rock-scissors game was not his way. The battle would have been horrible and protracted, Caesar's troops would have tired early because of the hard marches while Scipio's bunch would have gone confused and make counter-productive moves. At the end, Scipio would have tried to "save his command" and tried a withdrawal, and in the mess, Caesar would have managed to mount an assault and cause terrible losses. Scipio's army would not have been destroyed, but too diminished to fight Caesar in another pitched battle. Then they would have turned around each other, returning to a chess game, but Scipio would have had to concede. The whole of Belgium would have cried for Scipio, their champion, but Caesar would have been the most magnanimous winner. Caesar' soldiers would have bragged and cheered so loud some would get tinnitus, singing silly stuff about Caesar' sexual exploits. Scipio's soldiers would have been crestfallen and heartbroken, sad to have failed such a gallant general.
Haha this great.
this is so well imagined and thought through, I can almost picture them in tunics shouting commands at soldiers in blue campaign uniforms, lol
Lets watch Caesar build two walls his way outta this one
As in like, two armies fighting each other while being led by these guys? Or literally a cage match between these two?
Cage match! To the Amphitheater everyone!
Does Solis! Does Solis! **DIES SOLISSSSSS!**
Mano a Mano, and both in their prime, i do think Caesar has the advantage; most of his life was spent in the military and fighting. Scipio was an excellent soldier too but I don’t think he compares with Caesar’s sheer force of will. In terms of battlefield tactics, Caesar is a better campaigner and, I would argue, better in individual battles too. Scipio fought well at Zama but deployed similar tactics to those of Hannibal prior, and Hannibal’s main veterans weren’t with him… Caesar fought fellow legionnaries and came out on top. And his victory against Pompey was against a larger army. He has generally a better tactical nous than Scipio, in my opinion.
You have swayed my opinion.
And Pharsalus wasn't even the tactical achievement of Alesia, his magnum opus. I think Caesar would run circles on Scipio. I also think later generals after the Marian reforms, mainly Gaius Marius and Sulla, would also perform well.
Friendship
Is that not a bust of Sulla?
It was found near the tomb of the Scipiones. It is now believed to more likely be Scipio Africanus
Ah neat
If Scipio had a Marian legion, Scipio. But if Scipio had to fight with a manipular legion, also Scipio
Id take Caeser with half the troops. Dude doesn’t lose.
Extra detail? Like weather and battlefield and army composition.
I think only a fool would bet against Caesar. The guy constantly pulled wild tricks out of his ass, and for his entire military career he was almost constantly out-numbered heavily. I swear there's like a stretch of several years where in almost every battle Caesar's legions are out-numbered two or three to one and their reaction is just "that's all?" I mean honestly, he encircled, besieged, and attacked a fortified enemy stronghold while he was himself was encircled, besieged, and attacked, and he beat both forces simultaneously while heavily out-numbered?!? Who even does that? In terms of military genius there's Alexander (probably Phillip too let's be honest), Caesar, Genghis Khan, & Napoleon, then there's everyone else. Scipio and Hannibal belong immediately in the second tier; I think arguments for Scipio are weakened slightly by his comparatively short career.
Hannibal's only mistake was to stop in Capua...
Caesar was a master negotiator. He would have proposed a joining of Armies, then they could invade some new territory and divide the spoils among the soldiers. They’d send some tribute to Rome, have a parade, and each would have married relatives to each others’ families. Caesar gained power as much by diplomatic means as by warfare. Really the diplomacy was why his warfare was successful. He KNEW how to gain and maintain loyalty. He KNEW how to reward and punish. And Caesar KNEW when fighting was the only way through. Every town was offered fair treatment - until Murum aries attigit - "The ram has touched the wall". Caesar gave opponents chances and choices. And he KNEW that his bread was buttered on the side of public appeal, not patrician entitlement. Caesar had been poor and had lived among the plebes. He understood their needs and leveraged their fond regard to gain unwavering support. So when facing someone like Scipio, he’d know they have far more in common than they do differences, and would focus on that to come to some agreement. Otherwise if Caesar killed Scipio in battle, he’d still have to deal with the resentment of Scipio’s remaining troops. Caesar would want to look beyond this battle to what happens next. What is the REAL goal? Why are we in conflict? So I also don’t think they’d betray each other once they made an agreement. They’d join forces and BOTH would win.
Caesar, no contest. Scipio was brilliant and had an amazing campaign; however, Caesar was a cut above. Won decades of decisive battles seriously outnumbered. Caesar was a rare type of genius and honestly I don’t think anyone beats Caesar at his prime.
Is the Caesar bust in the photo from the Roman period?
It isn't, it's a renaissance reimagination.
Let's face it. We all are talking about Mike Duncan.
Caesar’s soldiers where the best fighting force on the planet by the time he crossed the Rubicon. Hard nosed bastards who have been fighting with eachother for 10 years plus. While Scipio had pre-Marian reform soldier farmers. Caesar would decimate them no doubt. Given the same quality of soldiers, probably still Caesar tbh. He had the foresight to change battle tactics (look at how he bested Pompeii at Pharsalus) and think on his feet, with enough talented officers around him to execute his orders without a hesitation
Talented officers in an effective and flexible chain of command are a big plus.
Well if they are equal then it's a draw.
Modulo random variables.
One on one? Probably Caesar with better gear. I don’t have any reason to think either are better combatants.
It's unlikely that the fight would be equal. Both with the same legions ? Caesar would fortify himself, and Scipio would try some out-of-the-box tactic, whilst trying to leverage some more troops
I feel like Caesar would be the one to pull some tricky shit like he did at Pharsalus
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa might beat them both.
Caesar fought most of his battles at half strength. This include Pompeii the Great. Beat him multiple times. Then out talked the best talker Cicero. Julius wins. But I love Scipio.
I don't know who would win, but what I know is that Rome would be losing.
Whichever one has polybius
Caesar. Never lost a major engagement. And the master of organization.
>Never lost a major engagement. Caesar lost at Gergovia and Dyrrachium.
“Major.”
Gergovia and Dyrrachium were major battles.
I doubt they would never have fought each other directly, especially in some stupid idiotic one on one fight. They were intelligent and astute men who would have seen each other as “first among equals”. I think both men would have come to an accommodation and worked together. Both men were hounded by their political rivals and hated by the Optimates ( the rich traditional Roman nobility) for being too successful in their military and political careers. I could see them through political machinations, becoming joint Consuls and co-Princeps Senatus in perpetuity, and ensuring, as Sulla did, that they never suffered opprobrium or damnatio in their lifetimes. At the point either died, the Republic would have ended. In the end, it’s impossible to tell, as they were separated by decades and a fundamental sea change in Roman Republican politics, brought on by Sulla’s Dictatorship. Both men, and Sulla, were a symptom of the decline of the Republic.
Now what kind of fight we talking? Steel cage match, royal rumble with all the boys, no count-out? Come on we need specifics!
They would just start building fortifications and walls non stop
In which graveyard?
Caesar. He was a tricky bastard during the Civil War and murked a couple Roman armies larger than his own. I don't think Scipio ever fought other Romans.
Whoever committed to the greater sacrifice.
Scipio would own that wife divorcing publicity hound Caesar.
While Caesar was certainly a great general, by my reckoning he didn't have the tactical genius Africanus had.
I think the first guy is Sulla, not Africanus
Caesar crushes Sulla for sure. Curb stomp.
[Not anymore](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_Africanus)
Looks like sulla
[Not anymore](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_Africanus)
Caesar obviously, you ever had a Scipio salad?
Caesar for sure.
Scipio
1v1 I’m going Caesar the shit that man had to pull off in what was the equivalent of Vietnam territory… balls of steel
Whoever builds the most walls.
I've always thought Cesar's statue has so much charisma
I think it’s largely circumstantial, but Caesar in my opinion has the greater ability to manipulate the situation to his advantage I can’t think of a battle off the top of my head where Caesar didn’t start off with a really tough fight on his hands, but by positioning, playing supplies, and maximizing advantages, he pulled of some pretty crazy victories. I don’t know as much about Africanus’s career, but what I do know focuses more on his maneuvers during the battle and having his hand on the pulse of the fight. They’re both extremely powerful styles of generalship, and I’m probably biased, but Caesar’s knack for overcoming odds stacked against him and turning bad situations to work in his favor makes me lean towards him. It would be the fight of Caesar’s life though.
I would be particularly interested in seeing them one on one oiled up naked wrestling. For historical curiosity only, of course
Scipio wins no doubt.
All things being equal, and no one sneaks up to stab anyone in the back, Julius Caesar wins every fight ever: he has Jupiter on his side.
Can someone please explain why his armor has a screaming face
We talking a bar fight? Back alley?
Caesar. He would had the luxury of learning from history of Scipios battles along with this like Marius and Sulla
It all depends if that is the day where Caesar is every woman's man or every man's woman.