No. The ones for Caesar, Alexander, etc., exist in a handful of medieval manuscripts"
"the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of material. Furthermore, the work of many ancient authors has been preserved only in manuscripts that date from the Middle Ages (sometimes the late Middle ages), far removed from the time at which they lived and wrote. On the contrary, the time between the composition of the books of the New Testament and the earliest extant copies is relatively brief. Instead of the lapse of a millennium or more, as is the case of not a few classical authors, several papyrus manuscripts of portions of the New Testament are extant that were copied within a century or so after the composition of the original documents."
Metzger, B. M., & Ehrman, B. D. (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Ed.). Oxford University Press.
People who have no background in ancient history, classics, etc., generally seem to thoroughly misunderstand the extant, nature, and evidence that exists for basically anybody from antiquity, and apply double standards. For example, somehow coins with Alexander attest to his historicity, but coins with the mythical gods and heroes are treated differently because...? Because the evidence is treated differently depending upon how the amateur wishes inconsistently apply standards to evidence that generally she or he cannot read (except in what translations of particular critical editions exist to the extent they do) or are simply told about without critical context (such as what we actually can or cannot glean from numismatics).
Which begs the question, why do you believe he was? 
