Salah

Alexander the Great, commanding a small detachment of Companions and several thousands of phalangites meets Khalid ibn Walid who is at the head of a similarly-sized host of both light and heavy infantry, some mounted on camels.

Who takes it?

Labienus

Khalid. I always thought that Alexander was overrated. Don't get me wrong, he was a great general but I would not put him in my top 5. Khalid was better. His tactics were certainly comparable to Alexander and he faced a much greater opposition.

Aechemid Persia + Indian tribes+ Greek mercenaries vs Sassanid Persia+Eastern Roman Empire. No contest here as far as opposition is concerned.

Belisarius

Khalid is greatly over-rated. He faced the dregs of a last gasp Sassanid empire and local levies from an exhausted Eastern Roman/Byzantine empire. There is doubt that he even commanded in some of the battles for which he is given credit. He's a Muslim version of "El Cid", or "King Arthur"; more hype than substance.

alsoubani

i usually agree with most of your post
but you'll be the first person i come across who thinks that Khalid is overrated
i read articles books and watched many programs about him, and nothing about the guy is overrated
those byzantine and sassanid empires you talking about, still had numbers war experience and weapons and armeres on khalid armies and they even joint forces against the guy and they could not mount a single victory (large or small).
and let me know who had doubt about him commanding the muslim army in some battles? the only two names that come to mind who could have lead the muslim armies are abo ubida and amer bin al aas, and if i am not mistaken there are letters from abo ubida and amer that praise the countless abilities in the war games.

Labienus

The question then is: Who is more overrated, Alexander of Khalid? In my opinion, it is clearly Alexander. His opposition was weak, his enemy's generals were incompetent, he had the best army in the world against a Persian rabble, etc.

alsoubani

how can a guy who never lost a battle and fought more than a 100 battles be considered overrated if most people do not even know who he was.
if anything the guy is way underrated.

Labienus

His military exploits were inflated by the Muslim propaganda.

Belisarius

No they weren't, it's just that there is significant doubt amongst Western historians that the exploits attributed to Khalid might well have been carried out by other lesser known commanders. The siege of Damascus is a case in point, some accounts state Khalid captured the city by siezing a watchtower left unguarded, others state the Damascenes surrendered to a different Arab army once a Roman relief force had been defeated. Yet other accounts state that both things occurred at the same time. Arab accounts give a time frame for the siege from 4 to 14 months, so confusion reigns.

Belisarius

I've responded in part to this to Labienus' "propaganda"post. I'll get back to you in more detail when I've more time.

Eternalsonata

Khalid was better than Alexander. Tactically they were on par but Khalid had less to work with and faced stronger oppositions compared to Alexander.