Alexander VS Rome, who wins?

[alexanderthegreater]

I just stumbled upon a text by Livius where he argues that if Alexander the great would have invaded Italy, the Romans would have utterly destroyed him:

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Liv2His.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=140&division=div2

That seems like an interesting thought experiment, so I'd like to hear the opinions on that of the EB armchair generals. Please post speculation/arguments in what you would think the outcome in such an encounter.

Personally, if we compare the exploits of Pyrrhus to Alexander, I think Alexander would be able (unlike Pyrrhus) to gain and maintain control of the Greek cities in southern Italy, since he (again, unlike Pyrrhus) had the treasury and manpower to do so.
But he wouldnt conquer Rome. He might defeat them in the field, like Hannibal, but the Romans won't just run away from the battles and hail him as their new King of Kings. The had the administration, government, and mindset, to fight long and stubborn wars (as they did against Hannibal), deal with defeat, and outmanouver Alexander strategically if they can't defeat him by brute force.
Alexander might overpower them by sheer manpower (he had a big empire after all) but that would be a war of atrittion and the losses he would make would outweigh the prospects. Italy wasnt his only border after all.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Well,... apart from the question being blasphemy, I say that Alexander would have destroyed a contemporary Roman military. With ease, I might add.

I cannot tell what the outcome would be if Alexander was to fight against Imperial Roman troops, but it would be unfair to discuss this since Alexander would have adopted his troops and tactics; so an objective decision can't be taken due to the simple fact that we don't know how Alexander's army would have looked. Way too much unknown variables.

[broobins]

Alexander against Rome in the late 4th century? Rome loses badly.

[alexanderthegreater]

Im not so sure about that. Alexander wasnt so invincible on a strategic level as one might think (more blasphemy :smash:). He couldn't conquer India after all. Rome might at least have held out against him, or reach a diplomatic solution.
Against an expansionistic Alexander they might have had the Carthaginians as Allies. That would mean they probably had more navy than Alexander who never was much of a enthusiast for the naval approach. They might have shut him out of Italy that way, or cut off his supplies. He could have marched through Illyria but that detour would mean long and vulnerable supply lines as well.

[fallen851]

I believe Rome would have lost. I do not believe it would be a smashing victory for Alexander though. I think it would more closely mirror what Hannibal did to Rome, except that Alexander would have the reinforcements and the manpower to win a war of attrition against Rome and grind them down.

[bobbin]

If alexander had gone after the Romans as the were in his lifetime he would have most likely crushed them, mainly because their armies were still hoplite based being very similar to what Alexander was used to fighting in greece and so he would know how to effectively counter them.

Also there would have been plenty of neighbouring peoples that would have happily joined Alexander against the Romans such as the Samintes and Latins.

[alexanderthegreater]

If alexander had gone after the Romans as the were in his lifetime he would have most likely crushed them, mainly because their armies were still hoplite based being very similar to what Alexander was used to fighting in greece and so he would know how to effectively counter them.

Also there would have been plenty of neighbouring peoples that would have happily joined Alexander against the Romans such as the Samintes and Latins.

Not all the Romans thought as hoplites, only the Triarii? Not sure my source is EB :clown:
Im not sure wether a foreign invader like Alexander would have allies, generally the samnites would be wanting to stay independent- Alexander might not be the safest bet. And the Latins would pretty much be under tight Roman control by then- the Romans won the Latin war in 338 BC - same date as the battle of Chaeronae.

[ARCHIPPOS]

... what kind of fanboy debates are these ??? how about this one ???

USA vs GENGHIS KHAN ,who shall prevail ???

[broobins]

USA vs GENGHIS KHAN ,who shall prevail ???

AMERICA, **** YEAH

[bobbin]

It's believed that the romans only adopted thier manipular tactics after fighting the 2nd Samnite war (326-304bc) before that their armies consisted of a core of heavy hoplites supported by militia and lacking any significant cavalry, such an army would have been most likely in the end flattend by the Makedonian combined arms tactics.

Also you have to remember Rome and its territories were a lot smaller in those days so they wouldn't have had the manpower to call on that they had for example during the Punic wars.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Roman_conquest_of_Italy.PNG

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

... what kind of fanboy debates are these ??? how about this one ???

USA vs GENGHIS KHAN ,who shall prevail ???

There was no USA in the time of Ghengis Khan, so I'll assume you mean Ghengis Khan and his Mongols versus the American Indians of that period. ;)

Mongols win, big time. American Indians get their butts kicked! :beam:

[broobins]

There was no USA in the time of Ghengis Khan, so I'll assume you mean Ghengis Khan and his Mongols versus the American Indians of that period. ;)

Mongols win, big time. American Indians get their butts kicked!

But will he do so well in the forested East and West Coasts? In the mountains of Peru?

[Hax]

But will he do so well in the forested East and West Coasts? In the mountains of Peru?

*shrug* the same goes for Iran and China, really. Only naval invasions weren't really fit for the Great Horde (Japan, hah).

[broobins]

What if the Indians get one decade to breed and master horses before he invades?

[Maeran]

Surely Alexander the Molossian and Pyrrhus are models for how well Alexander would have done. The first Epirote king didn't have the resources of his relative, but he was contemporary and was repulsed by non-Roman Italian forces.

Pyrrhus was a generation or so later and had better resources (than Alexander of Epirus- I don't know how his army compares to Alexander the Great's) but was fought to a standstill by a Roman people who just wouldn't give in. Plus Carthage was indeed an ally with Rome at this time.

Alexander wouldn't have gone west. His entire focus was on the east (Persia in particular) and I doubt he would have bothered with the undeveloped western Mediterranean.

If he had. He would have won battles, but Punic fleets would have harried his supply lines (as described by Alexanderthegreater) and if Alexander of Epirus's experience is a guide (I believe it is) then the Samnites and other south Italic peoples would have fought against him and therefore on the side of Rome.

If Alexander did win, I don't think that the Macedonian mastery of Italy would have lasted long. Macedonian control in Illyria and Thrace fell apart soon after his death and it was mainly in the Persian territories (where Alexander acquired an existing government structure) that Diadochi states can truly be said to have maintained control. As such, if Rome hadn't been totally destroyed, this would only be as much a setback to them as Lars Porsenna or the Gallic sack. They would have rebounded, especially since Alexander wouldn't have singled them out for reduction, so Italy as a whole would be similarly affected.

[G. Septimus]

At Last I saw a Poll again.........
I thought Polls are Finish Like in the TWC. THere's no more Polls in TWC

[NikosMaximilian]

It would also depend on what moment of Alexander's empire we are talking about. If he hadn't died at such young age, and returned to Makedonia after all his conquests and decided to invade Italy, then I believe he would've won, but it wouldn't be a walk in the park.

Alexander would have been able to field massive armies composed of recruits from all over the empire, plus his Makedonian and Hellenic core, giving him the strategic advantage in the effective use of combined arms.

However, the Romans were crafty experts in diplomacy and would probably talk or bribe every single western neighbour of Alexander's empire against him. With Carthage's navy and army, the different Italian kingdoms, the Celts and Illyrians against him, he would have a hard time, specially in the northern front composed by Illyrians and Getae, is hostile. That front would have been fought in a guerrilla style probably, with some minor open field battles. The Romans could even try to sneak diplomats to the Bithynians, Pontus, Epirus, Haysadian, etc. and join them to their cause warning them about Alexander as a threat to their homelands. These neighbours to Alexander's territories would have been tempted to attack if the war in Italy lasted more than a couple of years.

Considering the sheer numbers and troop quality Alexander would have been able to field, he would have a really hard time, but finally would be able to achieve some territorial wins. His supply lines would be harrassed and attacked and he would have advanced at a much slower pace than he did through the Persian Empire. I don't think he would have been able to conquer Rome itself as a part of the empire, maybe win a symbolic peace and a treaty where the Romans paid a tribute.

In the other possible scenario, I don't see Alexander going for Rome instead of the Persians and the rest of Asia. It would have been sucidal to leave on campaign to the west leaving the back door open for the Achaemenid Empire.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

He couldn't conquer India after all.
What a measure.


... what kind of fanboy debates are these ??? how about this one ???

USA vs GENGHIS KHAN ,who shall prevail ???
This is no fanboy-ism, don't ruin this dicussion please.

On the topic:
Alexander the Great conquered the Achaemenid Empire, and for those of you that may have forgotten: the Achaemenid Empire was the greates empire at that time. It was bigger than the Seleukid Empire at it's heyday. They were very cultured and had a sophisticated administration and organisation. They could field hundreds of thousands of troops that arrived on the spot when the King of Kings ordered them. The distances Alexander had to cover during his conquest were gigantic.

And now compare that to Rome. Uncultured paisants without cavalry that held only a small portion of their peninsula. Why should Alexander be halted by these and the Samnites etc.? Some of the amazing Alexander feats:


annihilated the sole superpower of his time
won against great odds several times
had reeeeaallly long supply lines (biggest landmass ever conquered so far)
beat the steppe people and their invincible horse-archers
beat numerous tribes that operated with guerilla tactics
conquered the unconquerable fortresses of Gaza and Tyre
conquered the unconquerable mountain fortresses in the Hindu Kush
won against elephants in India
The reason that Rome survived the Greatest of the Great is that Alexander simply didn't care for them.

[moonburn]

alexander destroyed the khambodjians and the steppe tribes in batle rome woudln´t have been able to resist his massive army and if the charties started to bitch then from kyrynea to carthage wouldn´t be so hard to make

and ofc we must remember rome was a mere boat trip away from his core army homeland meaning his suply line wouldn´t have been such a big problem and with the suport of the greek cities and their navies alexander had the gold and the people to fight for him expecially after "burning" persepolis and avenging athens wich binded the greek city´s to him

[bobbin]

I think a lot of people are making the mistake of veiwing the Romans of Alexanders time in light of their acheivements later in history, there was nothing special about the Romans in this time, they didn't use innovative new tactics, they weren't anymore better at fighting than other peoples, their population wasn't particularly bigger than others, they weren't anymore diplomatically cunning.

What they were was a smallish regional power among others jostling for power, three years before Alexanders death they became involved in the Second Samnite war, it took 22 years for them bring it to an end and even then the Samnites were not completely defeated. If it took them that long to defeat a group of (admittedly tenacious) mountain tribes how would you expect them to do the same against a newly arisen superpower at the peak of its strength with thousands of harderned veterans lead by generals experienced in combating numerous battle tactics including those very similar to the ones the Romans used at the time.

At best they would have fought a few battles before conceeding defeat and become a client state, at worst if they were stubborn and resisted to the very end Alexander might have made a example of them and razed Rome to the ground like he did with Tyre and Thebes

[WinsingtonIII]

I accidentally voted for the wrong one....

What I actually think is that if we're talking about Alexander invading Rome during his lifetime (and not some ahistorical matchup between post-Marian Rome and Alexander) then I don't see how Rome stands any chance. At this early point they would have had pretty much no advantage over Alexander.

So I guess my choice is Rome is crushed. But I accidentally voted for Rome becomes a client state (oops), which I personally could never see Rome letting happen, they would probably rather just fight to the end.

[Ludens]

I think a lot of people are making the mistake of veiwing the Romans of Alexanders time in light of their acheivements later in history, there was nothing special about the Romans in this time, they didn't use innovative new tactics, they weren't anymore better at fighting than other peoples, their population wasn't particularly bigger than others, they weren't anymore diplomatically cunning.

Very true: the OP should have specified which Romans he was talking about. For that matter: which Alexander are we discussing? The one with or without the large empire? I think the one without may actually have done better. Sure, he had less resources, but before breaking the Persians had did pretty well at diplomacy. Afterwards the power seems to have gone to his head (hardly surprising, but not necessarily the best mindset for diplomacy).

Rome's dogged determination to win wars also was something that had not been established for very long. I suspect that an army in front of their city gates might have made them reconsider. Remember how the Romans panicked after Cannae?

[Fluvius Camillus]

That Alexander the Great is meant here is pretty obvious. But what I am missing is the time we are talking about? Are we talking about Alexander at the high point versus Roman Republic at a high point. Or are we talking about Alexander if he hadnt perished in Babylon and decided to attack Rome at that time. Please specify the time both are in.

[Smelly Jelly]

There should be no confusion: Alexander is a historic figure and we know when he lived. So Alexander vs. Romans can only be in Alexanders time. Else the OP should have said Romans vs Macedonians.

I voted the Romans would be utterly vanquished. I think they would have been assimilated and later on we'd see a hellenistic Italian peninsula.

[Finn MacCumhail]

IMHO, if Alexander invaded Italy, instead of East, he would first win, coz of he is great tactician, and so on, but you forgot that on the East he was thought by natives as Salvatore from Persian rule, and in Italy there was no Persian rule, so natives wouldn't support him. Also Persians were made to fight while Romans fight by their will. Romans as being in their home easily recruit new army, while Alexander would suffer casualties. I think the story with Pirrus would be repeated. And one more - Romans adopt new things easily (that is why they succeeded IRL), they could adopt Macedonian style phalanx, and then perhaps they would build their empire a bit earlier.

And don't forget that Megas Alexandros haven't conquer Sparta and Epirr.

[Skullheadhq]

Remember Rhomaioiphiloi, Rome was just a petty city-state of wannabe Greeks at that time, they had strong enemies to the north, and internal problems (Latin peoples and the Plebeians which were revolutionary at that time) and with soldiers who were inexperienced and just overly proud, good for nothing noblemen (which would stay so till Marius).

Alexander had veterans of many battles, who fought things that were unknown to everyone in the known world (Elephants), and thus wouldn't fear those Romaioi, I think if Alexander decided to invade Italy, he would have surely won.

But if Alexander had lived he would have rather conquered the Qarthadastim empire, because of the enormous wealth that it posessed, and didn't the Karchedoi help the Tyrians in their struggle against Alexander?

-Skull

[satalexton]

It matters not when does Alexandros move onto Barbaropolis, If Alexandros moved west instead of the Persian Empire, his seasoned phalangitai and the Pezoi ton hellenon would crush all Italia like an insect. Afterwards, Alexandros would surely move on to own the Keltoi and Iberians, then possibly the Karchedoi.

If Alexandros didn't die in Babylonia, the sheer wealth and man-power he has accumulated, will make things even quicker. Especially when he would have the new phalanx to boot.

[alexanderthegreater]

To clear up some confusion about which Romans were talking about, I meant Alexander in his lifetime, after he had conquered his entire empire. So if he didn't die in Babylon. Perhaps later in his life, after the second samnite war (304 bc).
Alexander might then just be in time to defeat time, because Rome really became a strong regional power after the third samnite war (290) after which most of italy was either allied or subjugated.

Livy compared Alexanders chances to the fortunes of Pyrrhus who invaded after the third samnite war. If Alexander would attack when Pyrrhus did, around 280 bc, Rome might just have been a regional power but nonetheless a hard nut to crack

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

The very concept and motive behind this thread is yet more anti-Roman rhetoric, which I thought the EB forum overlords were supposedly trying to squash since it only leads to flaming?

While the initial question does have academic merit as evidenced by the referenced article, to bring it up on this forum is most inappropriate due to the overwhelming anti-roman sentiment and biased, vile hate speech that is pervasive in the .org.

I suggest that the overlords lock this thread to prevent more of the same.

[Skullheadhq]

The very concept and motive behind this thread is yet more anti-Roman rhetoric, which I thought the EB forum overlords were supposedly trying to squash since it only leads to flaming?


Or just a nice speculative thread without a shady motive? Just bring some arguments why Rome would win.

[Macilrille]

I got to side with Skully on this one, despite a few misgivings and being a Romaioiphiloi.

As has been stated a few times, at this point in history Rome was just a city state in Italy excerting its power over its neighbours, but not much else. I disagree that they were wannabee Graeculi though, to claim such is to demean Rome, for only during the late Republic and onwards did they start to imitate the Greeks- "conquered we conquer". The same thing happened to Alexander's own people, only as conquerers did the Greeks proper start to consider them Hellene...

SkullHQ also brings up another salient point that crossed my mind, Roman patricians were politicians first, generals second. Sometimes they produced astounishing talent like Agrippa, Caesar, Marius and Scipio Africanus, but they also produced utter incompetents like Caepio, and whoever was in command was a question of politics, not necessarily competence. With equal forces a Caesar, Marius or Scipio Africanus, or his opponent Hannibal could have matched Alexander- they were all five amongst the greatest military minds in history IMO and ye Gods would it have been bloody.

But during Alexander's time the Romans were nothing but another minor tribe/state/power competing with others in Italy and possibly not even known to the great Alexander, remember that he and his contemporary Greeks by and large was mostly East-turned because of their long struggle with the Persians, magna Graecha was by and large a frontier and not as such very interesting compared to the old centers of civilisation East of Greece.

Making that match is a bit like saying Caesarian Romans vs Franks, well at Caesar's time Franks were many smaller tribes in N Germany not even known as such yet. Caesar kicked those around he was in contact with. But 500 years later things were different, Franks took over Gaul and forged a powerful nation and empire on Roman foundations. Would Caesar and his legions still have kicked them? Yes, but things had changed...



There are many such thought experiments one can make, but they are mostly moot for anything but wargaming purposes and perhaps a fuller understanding of military tactics, organisation and strategy.

[Marcus Ulpius]

The majority rightfully shifts in favor of those who think that Romans would be defeated. I actually like Romans, but at the time of Alexander the Great, Rome was little more than city state with army, built around hoplites. Alexander knew how to fight those hoplites as pretty much the whole Greece fought this way. Romans had no cavalry (or very weak cavalry), they had nothing to counter the Hetairoi. And, of course they didn't have manpower and wealth necessary to fight in a prolonged war. I think after a few battles Romans would just capitulate of face destruction.

[Fluvius Camillus]

This clears things up, I dont think anyone would think Rome would destroy Alexandros at the time he lived, at best they get a stalemate. As Macilrille gives a good example of that with his Caesar - Franks comparison, this is an unequal battle. If we were talking outside reality, where Caesar lived in the same time as Alexandros with marian legions it would all be a lot more complicated and a more interesting discussion. But Rome at this point would at best keep its freedom, but probably fall.

So about the answers:
- Rome would win- At this time there is more certainty that Alexandros would win, Alexandros being at its high point, Roma before it started to grew mighty.
- Alexandros would win - See above.
- Stalemate/Close match - The best the Romani could achieve IMO.
- Diplmatic solution/client state - Romani would never surrender, so no client state, they would either be the victor or die trying.

Tiberius brougth up that this thread could end up in another Rome-bashing thread, SkullheadHQ replies it is a discussion. This is indeed a discussion, but what some seem to forget is that a discussion is known to have mutual respect between both sides, no matter how much the views of the sides differ. I dont really see this mutual respect and if you cant even bring up the decency to say Roma there is a large chance Tiberius will be right in the end.

~Fluvius

[vartan]

In other words, any answer is the correct answer...

I chose Alexander is vanquished as I assumed a certain match-up. It can't be wrong though, since everything here seems to be correct.

[Ludens]

IMHO, if Alexander invaded Italy, instead of East, he would first win, coz of he is great tactician, and so on, but you forgot that on the East he was thought by natives as Salvatore from Persian rule, and in Italy there was no Persian rule, so natives wouldn't support him. Also Persians were made to fight while Romans fight by their will. Romans as being in their home easily recruit new army, while Alexander would suffer casualties. I think the story with Pirrus would be repeated. And one more - Romans adopt new things easily (that is why they succeeded IRL), they could adopt Macedonian style phalanx, and then perhaps they would build their empire a bit earlier.

And don't forget that Megas Alexandros haven't conquer Sparta and Epirr.

I am sorry, but this is wrong on several counts. First of all the Romans did not rule over other cities by consent either, so there would have been many ready to welcome Alexander as liberator. Secondly the "Persians did not fight of their free will" sounds like Greek rhetoric to me, but again: Rome's allies did not have a say in whether they fought or not. In the third place: Romans were certainly willing and able to adopt new techniques, but saying the could have simply adopted the Macedonian style phalanx is going rather far. The Macedonian phalanx was part of a combined-arms system, and Rome did not have heavy cavalry required to complement it. Such things are not established overnight, either. Anyway, you don't win a war by playing your opponent's game. Trying to use green phalangites to beat seasoned ones sounds like a bad idea to me.

Oh, and Alexander did not conquer Epiros and Sparta because he didn't need to. The former was a vassal, and the latter did not amount to much any more.


To clear up some confusion about which Romans were talking about, I meant Alexander in his lifetime, after he had conquered his entire empire. So if he didn't die in Babylon. Perhaps later in his life, after the second samnite war (304 bc).

Thanks for the clarification. There is no doubt that Rome was already showing the determination that would eventually turn her into a superpower, but I am not sure they had the stamina to keep it up against what was already a superpower. They had trouble enough subduing Carthage, and that was without facing the army with the best tactical doctrine led by the greatest general of the day.


Tiberius brougth up that this thread could end up in another Rome-bashing thread, SkullheadHQ replies it is a discussion. This is indeed a discussion, but what some seem to forget is that a discussion is known to have mutual respect between both sides, no matter how much the views of the sides differ. I dont really see this mutual respect and if you cant even bring up the decency to say Roma there is a large chance Tiberius will be right in the end.

:yes:

I don't want to hand out warnings for substituting Romans with barbarians, and similar, but if this nonsense continues I will.

[alexanderthegreater]

On a side-note, what if the alexandrian Empire endured without fighting Rome (alexander names a succesor, etc, no diadochi wars)
And in the meantime Rome becomes a major power in the western mediteranean, conquering Carthage as they did.
Say the year is 200 BC, Rome has defeated Carthage and is the master in the west, Alexanders Empire has endured and is under the command of a single succesor.
In a slug match, which empire would win?

Maybe the discussion should change to "at what point in her history did Rome become as powerful as the alexandrian empire?"

[Macilrille]

Any sensible successor, assuming that there is no "Diadochii" and thus no inter-Diadochii squabbling to preoccupy them, would have attacked Rome around the time Pyrrhus did, after First Punic War at the latest, not letting a potential threat rise.

If Alexander's realm had survived intact in the hands of competent successors, it would have been them, not Pyrrhus that Taras et al had turned to for help. Even had "Alexandraia" (or whatever "The Alexandrian Realm/Empire" is in Greek) not intervened then, they certainly would have after First Punic though Rome and Carthage was largely at a stalemate then a sensible superpower eliminate any potential threats. As Rome started doing after 2nd Punic.

Question is whether any Alexandraia would have not turned on Carthage before the Punic Wars. The Greeks on Sicily, the "Greek" Greeks and Carthage had a long history of warring on Sicily and both Athenians and Spartans had often intervened there, so there was a precedence.

Around 300 BC Carthage and Rome were allies, and Carthaginian naval power and wealth coupled with Roman tenacity would probably have proven challenging, but the sheer size of the realms involved sort of decides it in the long run unless the Alex-Successor made the same decision as Tiberius later did with the conquest of Germany; that it is simply not worth it, which I find likely.

It is too much "What if?" for my liking anyway.

[Finn MacCumhail]

200 BC? I doubt Alexandros would live till then, no one can live so long, and IMHO the diadochi war is a “scripted” stuff that happens after the Alexandros death. Also Rome had Marcus Valerius Corvus, when Alexander started his East invasion. Romans were not green, they were very experienced in different Italian conflicts, also they already had Camillian-style army, as Camill lived before. Italian locals helped Carthage coz they fought with Rome particularly, Rome was an enemy. Alexander would come for the whole Italia. Could samnites prefer Macedonian rule instead of Roman, choosing which side to take? Never trust the ally with someone who more powerful. Rome was not a master of some parts of Italia, so there Alexander could’t be estimated as Salvator, coz they were independent, and their independence would be threaten. That is why they would ask someone to help. Whom? Rome.
I wonder who had the best fleet then? Carthage or Macedonia? If Carthage, then Mak army wouldn’t have supplies.
The same stile Roman army beaten Pirrus, who lived later, had even elephants and Mak-style phalanx was improved. Alexander would find his own Vietnam, and he should forget then about East. I sow in Wiki that Pirrus invaded with 40 thousand poople including elephants, and Alexander had 37 thousand invading Asia Minor. The difference is little.
After conquering India? No way. His army was demoralised. No one wanted to continue the struggle. His elites wanted home to their families. Alexander was frustrated by the death of Hefestion. And who said that he could conquer India peninsula?
The news that Alexander led his army to Roma would reach the Romans. It wouldn’t be surprise.
And what would eat all these army there? And if the Carthage cut them supplies by sea, Romans burned fields, and avoid general battle as it was some years later with Carthage? What then? His army would collapse like the Colossus on the clay legs.
USA (!) stacked in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
«Alexander, we made a long trip from Macedonia to India, then from India to Italia, we just want home, we haven’t seen our families for more then 10 years. Lots of us died on the battlefield, from diseases, even old age. Alexander we want home!» - would heared he.
BTW after India he should hear about China and go there. Who would win?

[Dutchhoplite]

Alexanders army defeated the Theban and Athenian hoplites at Chaeronea and the Spartan ones at Megalopis. I don't see why Roman hoplites (assuming they haven't adopted their manipular system yet) would do any better than their Greek counterparts.

On the other hand the Lamian war shows that hoplite armies weren't exactly powerless against the Macedonian armies, they lost but they performed well enough.

So, if Alexander would have invaded Italy in the 310's he would have defeated the Romans but only after a vicious little struggle.

[Macilrille]

The Romans changed to the more mobile Manipular System between 338 and 311 at the latest and would not have been an easy catch, being very warlike and tenacious; Romans of the Republic make pitbulls look like poodles in their tenacity in the face of any setback.

However Finn's assumptions are based on faulty comparison. Rome of 336 BC- 323 BC was not Rome of 280 BC. The Struggle between the classes was over and Latium were firm Roman allies despite what SkullHQ asserts (he obviously knows more Hellene history than Roman, with me it is the opposite). However, the rest of Italy was not yet controlled by Rome and they were embroiled in a hard struggle with the Samnites for supremacy in the peninsula. With the Samnite history of animosity to Rome I find it hard to believe that they would have sided with them against Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος, nor would the Greek city States in south Italy, nor probably Capua, having another long story of animosity to Rome.

So assuming that at various points in his career Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος would have went West instead of South and East, here is my go at it.

336, Macedonia and Rome was probably about equally strong, the Romans lacking good cavalry though and probably still using Hoplite tactics or just having changed would be disadvantaged by that, Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος by fighting on enemy turf, possibly with supply lines cut by Carthage and certainly with rebellions broiling at home and strife at his borders. Unless he could manage to smash the Romans in a Cannae-style battle I suspect he would be in trouble despite samnite and Tarentum support.

334 With Macedonia and Greece now firmly behind him, his supply lines would be more secure both from naval trouble and trouble on his home turf. Rome would be in trouble, for no doubt Samnium would side with Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος. Rome was not eastern despotism though, so a long and bloody war of attrition lurks and meanwhile the Greeks proper would probably wonder why the guy they elected to protect and avenge them against the Persians was bimpling around in Italy. Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος would need to subdue Res Publica Romana quickly or face trouble in Hellas, and SPQR did not easily surrender to anyone.

332, say instead of going for rich and ancient Egypt Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος had sailed west to deal with some barbarian tribe/nation in Italy. Rome would probably have been smashed by his veteran, well-led and well-integrated army. However, what would Darius do to his eastern conquests while he was undertaking the long task of subduing the stubborn Romans?

326/327, if he decided to leave India alone and go allllllll the way back west to deal with the insignificant tribe in Italy?
Rome would be defeated, but it would be a long and hard struggle. Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος had shown his ability to deal with such in the eastern parts of his empire and Bactria though and he would be both immensely rich and have the resources of the largest empire the world had seen behind him... so he would defeat Rome and this close to home; would his army be so eager to get home? Even if so, he would have no trouble replacing them with fresh recruits eager for glory and booty in his homeland before setting out. Something he could hardly do along the Hyphasis. Samnites etc would still side with him. I do not see how the Romans could have survived such a massive amount of resources.

320-ish, assuming he survives or did not contact his illness (I do not believe the poison theory), Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος could have easily recruited a new army eager for glory and with "NCO"'s and core being veterans while discharging his oldies. With this army he would have crushed Rome in a long and bloody struggle as described above. Again I do not see how even Rome could stand against him, they were, after all, just another city state in Italy. And locked in a long struggle with the almost equally strong Samnites who hated Rome even up to the Socii-War...


Roman resources:
Good heavy infantry, Hoplite or newly formed into manipular system, very warlike and tenacious.

Roman weaknesses, almost no cavalry, thus no Combined Arms tactics. No navy, but Carthage could supply that.
Total Roman Strength was at 311 approximately 12.000 heavy infantry, 4800 light infantry and skirmishers and 1200- 1800 cavalry. Socii would probably double that number, or even triple it. This number was achieved between 366 BC and 311 BC, we do not know when, but in 366, the infantry was only half the number.
Max number, 30-36.000 heavy inf, 14.400 light inf, 3600- 5000 Cav


Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος resources:
338 BC (probably same in 336), 30.000 Inf, 2000 Cav.
334, 22.000 Phalangati, 20.000 Peltastai, 5000 Cav.
333, 22.000 Phalangati, 14.000 Peltastai, 5-6000 Cav.
331, 31.000 Phalangati, 9000 Peltastai, 7000 Cav.
326, at furthest limit and heavily attrited, 34.000 inf and 9000 cav.
In general comparable and even-ish numbers to potential Roman muster, much superior to normal Roman muster and in any case superior in cavalry (Can we say "Cannae"?).

Macedonian strengths was the combined arms tactic using the heavy phalanx to pin down the enemy centre while the lighter peltastai covered the flanks and the cavalry outflanked them. Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος could do this in confidence that the superior Phalanx would not break in the face of even very superior numbers. Pyrrhus did much the same, strenghtening his cavalry attacks by using the fearsome elephants.

If we use the Pyrrhic campaigns as a guide it is likely that the outcome would have been much the same as their armies and tactics were very similar. However, Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος was a much superior politician and could probably have exploited his victories more and IMO he had a better army at his disposal. Much credit much go to Phillipos for creating the army that Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος used. Further, as I said, Rome of 330-ish was not Rome of 280-ish. They had much fewer resources. The muster numbers I state are very optimistic- very. It is more likely that they would be limited to a total of 15.-20.000 inf and 2-3000 cav.

If we believe Hannibal Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος and Pyrrhus were also similar in tactical and strategic skill (personally I hold Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος to be better, but then they faced different enemies and it is hard to compare). In any case, while Pyrrhus had only the resources of Epeiros and Taras at his disposal, Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος would have those of the largest empire the world had seen. In the end that- if nothing else- would have been decisive.

It is BTW, interesting to note that most of the really good armies led by the great leaders of the fourth- third centuries BC are of comparable size. One could guesstimate that such was the optimum size?

Anyway, the points are very moot, for Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος would not have turned West.
Why on earth should he? Unless he was blessed with prescience he could never have guessed that one of many tribes on the Italian peninsula would be the next great power and create an empire that would rival his own and outlast it by far. So what on earth would he do in underdeveloped Barbaricum?

[Yarema]

A Perfect subject for the Rome-haters, and other people frustrated that they are using latin alphabet, living in states with judicial systems based on roman law, etc.

Putting aside all the annoying "barbaropolis must be destroyed" and other symptoms of inferiority syndrome, if Alexander would invade Italy instead of Persia, hewould face various peoples determined to firght for their freedom instead of an ill-motivated army of minor-asia satraps. Still, i think Rome was not strong enough yet to hold off Alexander in the 330s.

In the 280s, however, Alexander would probably share the fate of Pyrrhus (countrary to what he thought, Alexander was not a god).
And after 200 BC the vastly superior Roman army would cut Alexander's army to pieces, like they did it with every other "hellenistic" army of that time.

If Alexander would attack Italy after Hydaspes and India, the great empire and it's resources would rather turn to his disadvantage...
The soldiers from different corners ofthe empire would have trouble in guessing what would they be fighting for.
And even if he would win, his Italian conquests would be impossible to hold on to for any longer than a few short years - a state based in Babylonia cannot reach further than Asia minor, i think even wiki knows that, hehehe.

[vartan]

...So what on earth would he do in underdeveloped Barbaricum?

What is Barbaricum? :thumbsdown:

[satalexton]

In Alexandro's eyes, Italia was probably a bunch of Koine Barbaropolios that annoys the civilized people of Megas Hellas. Certainly one Barbaropolis ton Rhomaion would be no different from others of Italia, especially considering that the Etruscan, barbaroi too, were probably considered -almost- greek and thus a bigger power.

If Alexandros wanted to go west, Italia (and subsequently the barbaroi that inhabit it) would only be a first stage. I'm curious on what would alexandros do when he reaches the pillar of herakles though......

[G. Septimus]

Or just a nice speculative thread without a shady motive? Just bring some arguments why Rome would win.
hah!
Alexander, only has the Potential, and his army is demoralized in the Far East!!!!!!
they went to Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and India!!!!
Italy is a diffrent place, and It will be a stalemate, or worst :devil:.
neither Alexander's "Desert Fighter" Army or the Capuan Pedites, Bovianum's Samnicti , and the Latin League's Legions.
Alexander does not need to create another landing force, he already has 2 cities- Tarentum, and Kroton-
so................................
it's a STALEMATE


In Alexandro's eyes, Italia was probably a bunch of Koine Barbaropolios that annoys the civilized people of Megas Hellas. Certainly one Barbaropolis ton Rhomaion would be no different from others of Italia, especially considering that the Etruscan, barbaroi too, were probably considered -almost- greek and thus a bigger power.

If Alexandros wanted to go west, Italia (and subsequently the barbaroi that inhabit it) would only be a first stage. I'm curious on what would alexandros do when he reaches the pillar of herakles though......
The Etruscans were already destroyed, by the Latin Leauge before 330 BC.
and Rome IS'NT A BARBARIAN CITY!!!!!
You Romaioktonoi are the Barbarians!!!!!!!
I, and the rest of the Romans, evn tell, that even your name is Filthy.
"ROMAIOKTONOI" such a funny name...............
Destrucion to you Fools, Burn all your cities..... ALL YOUR TEMPLES...........
:devil: muahahahaha

-alright, back on topic:
the Etruscans have been defeated a the Time of Phillip II of Macedon, Alexander's father.
Like Greece, the Italians fight each other. but came the "Greeks", that purged the land,
Slavery, Installed Governors, Treachery......
everything that is not Democratic. The Romans on the other hand, does'nt use much force in their War.
they Manipulate, and has also a Flexible, yet small army. even the Romans have'nt defeated the Samnites,
they can still hold they're selves, and a long struggle to take Italy.
now I have a Question:
Why did Alexander died, before he wanted to attack Italy
Answer:
He was'nt destined to. The Greeks / Macedons were'nt destined to conquer, or Destroy Rome.
instead the Goths Defeated Rome

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Very good post, Macilrille. Have a balloon: :balloon2:

[bobbin]

What is Barbaricum? :thumbsdown:

It a way of refering to the Romans, similar to Barbaropolis that the fans of the Hellenistic factions like to use around here. I think people should stop with the whole romans = barbarians language as that will only lead to more Roman or Hellen bashing and ruin the thread.

Also all this talk about Carthage being able to disrupt Alexanders supply line from Greece is nonsense, at its nearest point the gap betwen Italy and Greece is only slightly bigger than the english channel, given that the nearest Carthaginian ports would be in western Sicily they would never be able to react fast enough to catch any ships making the crossing and given that both coast lines would be hostile to them they would only be able to maintian a presence in the area for a short amount of time before they would have to return to a friendly port to resupply.


if Alexander would invade Italy instead of Persia, hewould face various peoples determined to firght for their freedom instead of an ill-motivated army of minor-asia satraps.
I wouldn't think they would not have been any less motivated than most armies, this notion that the persian empire was some despotic regime who's unwilling subjects suffered under its authoritarian rule is a myth, sure there were rebellions but every empire has those and persian rule wasn't particularly noted for them.


And after 200 BC the vastly superior Roman army would cut Alexander's army to pieces, like they did it with every other "hellenistic" army of that time.

A big part of which due to those states failure to support the phalanx properly to allow it to fufill its intended role on the battle feild, the exception being at Magnesia which still could have easily turned out very differently if Antiochos had kept his wits about him and stayed on the feild instead of riding off to attack the Roman camp. I think by 200bc the Roman army would have been a pretty even match for a Alexandrian style army, neither in my opinion were superior to the other if used correctly.


And even if he would win, his Italian conquests would be impossible to hold on to for any longer than a few short years - a state based in Babylonia cannot reach further than Asia minor, i think even wiki knows that, hehehe.

Hmm..the Umayyad Caliphate comes to mind.

[L.C. SVLLA]

Rome absolutely victorious. If Hannibal and Phyrus couldn't bring Rome to capitulating, what makes you think Alexander can? besides this being a 'what if' question and thus we will never know for sure, I'd comfortably place all my money on Rome. Roman aristocrats had values, and these values were to be stern and relentless, never give up. In the time of the civil war between the Pompeians and caesarians, where supposedly Roman morals were in decline, many pompeian generals showed willingness to fight again and again, interestingly after pharsulus. Caesar was almost killed in Spain because of the unrelenting pompeians. A huge sense of pride along with Roman military reforms meant Rome would eventually be victorious, examples being the first and second Punic wars. It is very clear looking at Rome around this time they will fight again and again to preserve themselves (war against Phyrus) and learn from the enemy and his way so that Rome may destroy them (Rome learning from the Samnite way of fighting). These examples may be later than Alexanders time but there is no real reason to doubt Rome would not act this way earlier, so the samnite wars will be a nice example and closest to how the Romans would fight around Alexanders time. These wars itself are a testament to Romes unyielding ferocity.

and there is nothing Alexander can do about it. No matter how great he is.

[Julius Augustus]

To all those who somehow believe alexander would have lost.The roman army of the day would have been made up of unarmored rorarii, leves, and accensi. Then there were the very lightly armored hastati with little or no training. To back them up would be moderately armed and armored principes who would have had been the equivalent of an average hoplite of the day, albeit one who had an oval shield and two pila. These would have been moderately skilled and would have been able to hold the phalanx for a decent amount of time. Finally, as the elite of the roman army, we have some triarii, who are in essence very well equipped hoplites with a fair amount of experience. These are the troops on which Rome could count the most. But even triarii would not have been able to dfetat a phalanx head on. Alexander was a military genious and would not have allowed his phalanx to be flanked. Rome's most glaring weakness lies in it's cavalry. The roman equites could not stand for and instant against hetairoi, or hippeis thessalikoi. Alexander could have easily flanked the roman line with his cavalry while pinning it with the phalanx. Rome's military was based on hoplite warfare. Alexander had defeated the most elite hoplites in Greece at Chearonea. Rome wouldn't have stood a chance.

[L.C. SVLLA]

To all those who somehow believe alexander would have lost.The roman army of the day would have been made up of unarmored rorarii, leves, and accensi. Then there were the very lightly armored hastati with little or no training. To back them up would be moderately armed and armored principes who would have had been the equivalent of an average hoplite of the day, albeit one who had an oval shield and two pila. These would have been moderately skilled and would have been able to hold the phalanx for a decent amount of time. Finally, as the elite of the roman army, we have some triarii, who are in essence very well equipped hoplites with a fair amount of experience. These are the troops on which Rome could count the most. Rome's most glaring weakness, however, lies in it's cavalry. The roman equites could not stand for and instant against hetairoi, or hippeis thessalikoi. Alexander could have easily flanked the roman line with his cavalry while pinning it with the phalanx. Rome's military was based on hoplite warfare. Alexander had defeated the most elite hoplites in Greece at Chearonea. Rome wouldn't have stood a chance.

C'mon:dizzy2:

EB starts off in a time where the phalanxes took a trend to becoming heavier, Alexanders troops would've been lighter than whatever you've seen in EB. Also, interestingly enough you get to see your 'what if' situation in action thru the Phyrric war...who won that one? Rome, albeit barely, Rome still won. Take into account the same Hellenic-Albanian epirote troops you mentioned in your post, except with elephants!! throwing them against the Romans, and the fact that this battle/war actually happened historically should be proof of Romes tenacity in war. and IMO their victory. Also their cavalry would need some serious stamina to handle those Italian hills. It didn't look like Rome was easily defeated by these 'superior' uber pwning cavalry...

Oh and why is it that Alexander had to be leading when ever his armies were victorious? Rome sure could produce able general in their darkest hours, but the Macedonians couldn't when they tried to exert their power when ever Alexander wasn't present:laugh4: Alexander maybe could've won if the samnites sided with Alexander...

to all those who think Alexander would've won..time to get a new hero...

[Ca Putt]

I totally agree with Macilrillein both major points: Alexander would have probably won but would not have been happy with his victory. and there is no reason why he would have gone west, as rome(or anything in italy) would neither pose a threat bigger than the persians nor provide with as much prestige and loot as the Persian empire.(IIRC)

if he had conquerd Rome (and some other tribes) before he went east(or instead) the rebellious and agressive romans would be his smallest problem, more annoying would be that continuing northwest would be totally pointless, Carthagian ships and most importantly the undefeated superpower in the east. maybe the persians would have conquered "ye known world" then. many people here are seemingly underestimateing the Persians and I'd like to add that Persia bashing is not a bit better than Rome bashing.

if we imagine he would have moved east after he'd conquerd the persian empire the roman rebels could have become sort of a problem but (aslong as he lives(or maybe one more reasonable successor than the historic Successors) ) the Hellenic empire would be powerful enough to just cut the gordian knot and do things that would have to be considered very brutal and wrong by everybody supporting a possible assasination of Alexander(or his Successor).

so Alexander would clearly have defeated the romans but it would be definately the wrong thing to do.

Ps: seems as if a new "It's you who are the barbarians!" discussion I would like to point out that Macilrillein is not a roman hater, and probably used it to give an account of Alexanders opinion on the romans rather than his own. afterall a Barbarian bascially is someone who does not speak the same language as yourself/is of different culture. I'm not exactly sure about Alexanders personal opinion as a macedonian who were often called barbarians by thier fellow greeks. But if Macedonias were considered Barbarians there is not the slightest doubt that the greeks of southern greece(and tarentum I assume) would reffer to romans(and samnites etc.) as barbarians.

[G. Septimus]

Alright,
The Romans, that time, would'nt have enough power, and disciplince, so, Alexander would just win,

[Yarema]

Out of curiosity: If alexander didn't see "Persians" And other easterners as inferior Barbarians, why would he see Romans, Etruscans etc as such? I think his horizon wasn't as narrow, and he would never say anything like "destroy barbaropolis" or "delenda carthago" in greek (that is if he was to move further west). Rome wasn't an established capital of an empire back then, as Persepolis was.

[Cute Wolf]

Well, after examining the morale condition on Alexandros' troopers, take into the mind that he wasn't poisoned / ill, and the Hypothetical condition that more likely to be happened in Italian soil, we can conclude that:

On this condition, Alexandros decide to attack Roma soon after he back from Babylon, he'll get heavily demoralized veteran troops and war-weary elites, that means he never wait wait tens of years later (but if he decide to wait long years, manage a good empire, raise and properly train his pezhetairoi just like his father do and pamper his elite troops so they get their will to fight again, he will certainly win and vanquish rome).

The logical experiment goes:

On Alexandros' side:
- He couldn't rely on extreme majority of his veteran troops, afterall they are bored and need to spend some good quality time with their family, that means he must rely on *cough* fresh militia levy from Makedonia (just like Phalangitai Deuteroi), Illyrian and Epeirote tribes (mostly Illyrioi Paraktioi and Thureophoroi), and young Hellenes that never seen a war before (Hoplitai Haploi and such psiloi troops)
- Alexandros never cared much about elephants, he thinks that elephants are better served as foodstuff at the table afterall, so, no elephants for his army (who want to incorporate a bulky and risky troop type that he defeat on very first contact)
- The Skythian tribes are still at large, and after witnessing their prowess in several battles, maybe he will hire some Scythian horse archers fresh from the steppe to augment his own (remember guys, Alexandros' cavalry is allready wearied and didn't want to go to war again, no Thessalians for Alexander in this campaign).
- And he will proceed to contact some Agrianai and several Thrakian tribes to give him some Agrianikoi Pelekuphoroi, Peltastai, and maybe Thraikioi Prodromoi to replace his demoralized hetairoi (we can assume that the only real hetairoi present in his campaign are his personal bodyguards, as well as his general's retinues only, but never at large numbers), this was the only way of him to gaining some experienced troops, but then, this troops maybe the disloyal one, so their numbers wouldn't be great)
- And at least, don't forget that he need several of his troops to check those Spartiatai Bad Boys at Hellas, Indian kingdoms that love to unleash their elephants' ass toward Macedonians, as well, as properly reinforcing his empire at Asia and Egypt, so no supperior numbers for Alexandros, his empire was allready large and need extreme cost of Maintenance.

On Roman Side, or more Precisely, Joined Roman-Karthadast-MegaleHellas-Celtic Alliance (here goes, assuming the baddest day for Alexandros, as always): - for easier keeping, I'll call them the Allied Force
- Karthadast will certainly join their forces against threat of Alexandros. They'll supply not only the Navy, but also their elite troops, as well as using their wealth bribing several Celtic tribes to the north into their alliance (expect they'll do that, as they allready use several mercenary forces)
- The Italian cities will clear their differences, and then flock under the banner of Roma, against one Huge empire that named Makedonia (Note: Hellenes do that against Persian empires, so we must assume that Roma will become the one who rally the Italians on the Italian soil, afterall, their sense of shared identity will prevail when they face extreme foreign threat)
- The Megale Hellas WON'T SUPPORT ALEXANDROS!!! and more likely support Romans at this time... remember where the disloyal Hellenes take their refugees when Alexandros clean the Hellas proper? Italy.... so expect some nasty Greek troops fought on Roman side. They'll share the role of Good Cavalry with Karthadast Elites.
- We must assume that *cough* the Romans at this time not only fought as poorly armoured rorarii, acensi, leves, and hastati with frying pan on their chest, consider they squezze their treasury to produce several proper armoury to increase their number of Princeps and Triarii. Not to mention that their Italian allies will also pump Samnites and Pedites Extraordinarii, as well as some horsies.
- The bribed Celts will get their proper army, expect some of Naked Angry men on the field, as well as disciplined chainmail armoured soldiers on teh field.

=========================================

The Progress:
0) Alexandros is using fresh Makedonian and Hellene levies as his initial landing troops under his personal command. After examining the size and population of Hellenic Poleis at Hellas proper that time, I assume he can raise an army of barely trained phalangitai with not so good armour about 8000 men strong. And the city states of Hellenes will supply about 10000 militia hoplites that lack any battle experience. The Hellenes and some Makedones will also support him with 10000 light skirmishers and missile troops, as well as about 3000 light and medium cavalry (hippakontistai and hippeis, but don't forget that Alexandros will also bring in the freshly built badass Catapult, ordered from the university of Athenai. Maybe we can add 1000 Thraikioi Prodromoi as his real cavalry force, and supplement his number with 1000 agrianian assault infantry, and 1000 Thracian peltast. His total force for initial landing = 35000 men

1) Alexandros is a military genius, and this time he got TONS of experience, so he will try to use the fastest way to land on the Whole Allied territory, rather than blatantly just drop his troops on Italy. He'll secure his foothold on Megale Hellas first (expect Taras to be invaded first), and expect that this landing is taken by surprise (he will certainly try to made the Allied thinks that he will land on the north Italy, or march by land, by placing some mock threats on the northren gallic lands).

Expect the resistance of south italy are composed from Syrakousai-Taras army, with some senior hoplites. But Alexandros are with his Catapult now, and while the Allied try to hide behind their walls, Alexandros will simply bombard and demoralize them, and at last assault them with his Agrianian and Thracian troops on walls...

No matter how hard their resistance is, Taras will be easily taken as the result, and the hellenes here was forced (after doing what Alexandros do in proper hellas back in his young days) to provide some (maybe 2000) addition of proper hoplite, as well as 2000 more of light skirmishers, but we can expect that he will lost half of his Thracian and Agrianian infantry in a brutal assault.

He will let most of his hellenic militia troops rest at this time, and we can expect that he give better armour to get some proper hoplites this time. His Phalangitai are just present to watch their first battle, but not take any real part.

2) The Allied then rush to the south, and meet Alexandros on the field with joint Roman-Celtic army, as well as Karthadast cavalry at their expense.

This troops will mostly composed of the Cream of the Romaioi, as well as the Karthadast Sacred Band Cavalry (really, they will try to kick Alexandros' ass out of Italy quickly that time, and they kick really hard with bringing their sheer elite forces in supperior numbers to ensure Alexandros army was raped at this time).

They will meet Alexandros with a staggering forces of 4000 Heavily armoured triarii, 8000 Sword armed princepes, 8000 lightly armoured Hastati, 16000 Rorarii-Leves-Accensi, 14000 Pedites Extraordinarii and Samnite-Like soldiers, 21000 light Italian infantry, 10000 Italian Hoplites, 15000 light armed Gallic tribesmen, 9000 properly pissed off Gallic warriors, 3000 Gallic Elite Warriors (Fanatics included), 4000 Light Gallic cavalry, 2000 Phoenician cavalry, 1000 Elite Phoenician cavalry, and 10000 lightly armed Libyan mercenaries.

The Battle is a bad day for Alexandros now... but let us remember that he was Charismatic enough to inspire his troops to do better things than they usually are... He will try to divert them into a narrow pass on Italian mountains, where their numbers are heavily negated (look for a lil mountain pass north of Taras and Rhegion, Alexandros will outmanouver the Allied there, just like in Issus). After that, he'll rest his Phalangitai on the central pass to get easier kill (most of the Romans and Celts will prove their "Bravery" by charging frontally there hoping their sheer numbers will scare and break the poorly trained Phalangitai), but Alexandros has read that before, and he will present at the Central pass to encourage his levy Phalangitai. He will use His heaviest hoplite to back the phalangitai, and put his lighter hoplite to guard another pass and his back.

The battle result is = The Allied are utterly ruined and routed, but Alexandros will lost most of his Phalangitai troops too. His Heavy hoplites are severely damaged, and his light hoplites are getting significant casualities. But then, in turns, after that Battle, the Rest of Megale Hellas will join him, and he get enough time to ship another Militia Phalangitai from Makedon, as well as several more Assault troopers and Scythian cavalry.

3) The Romans are badly mauled, rather than waiting longer (after several skirmishes), Alexandros will carry his sheer will (with his new fresh militia troops from Hellas), to bombard Roma with Catapults, The Romans will then... *cough* immitating the Spartans and made their *cough* soory Satalexton *cough* heroic last stand on Roma, where they fought tooth and nails against Invading Makedonian army.... 40000 rorarii (assumed all left able bodied men in Roma fought for their lives), with 12000 Hastati will fought against Boulder flingin' Catapult defended by Hoplites.... Really brutal battle afterall, Alexandros will lost almost all of his assault infantry, and lost most of his fresh hoplites again, and forced to exterminate barbaropolis for a good reason....

The Karthadastei and Their Celtic Allies will then continue the war, and maybe some Romaioi will fled and take refugees, but then, The Roma was fallen, and Alexandros will let his men to rape the romaioi women so they'll get proper Greek sons...

After that, I'll expect Karthadast to attack from the South, and the next battle will be in Sicily, but then, Barbaropolis is allready fallen, albeit with a heavy cost.... :2thumbsup:

------------------

That's my logical simulation...

[Dutchhoplite]

Anyway, the points are very moot, for Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος would not have turned West. Why on earth should he? Unless he was blessed with prescience he could never have guessed that one of many tribes on the Italian peninsula would be the next great power and create an empire that would rival his own and outlast it by far. So what on earth would he do in underdeveloped Barbaricum?

Following Arrian, Alexander warned the romans of their conquests to the south coast of Italy. Tarentum and Crotona were old allies of some greek states, which were know subdued to Macedonia and to Alexander. In 326 BC, Naples is conquered by the Romans. In 324 BC Alexander warns the romans of their expansion to the South, saying that they should not attack Tarentum or the south greek colonies in Magna Graecia. Probably the ambitious romans ignored the warning of the macedonians, and they didn't respond to it.

[Yarema]

Whoever in Hellas would like to go west after Hydaspes anyway? Why conquer new lands if we already have kingdoms with riches unheard of in the east? Not to mention, we have to defend them, too.

[Smelly Jelly]

Ps: seems as if a new "It's you who are the barbarians!" discussion I would like to point out that Macilrillein is not a roman hater, and probably used it to give an account of Alexanders opinion on the romans rather than his own. afterall a Barbarian bascially is someone who does not speak the same language as yourself/is of different culture. I'm not exactly sure about Alexanders personal opinion as a macedonian who were often called barbarians by thier fellow greeks. But if Macedonias were considered Barbarians there is not the slightest doubt that the greeks of southern greece(and tarentum I assume) would reffer to romans(and samnites etc.) as barbarians.

Alexander was the one who said a being Greek or Barbarian had nothing to do with language or culture, but with the way one behaved himself. A good person was "Greek", a bad person was "Barbarian".

[Cute Wolf]

Whoever in Hellas would like to go west after Hydaspes anyway? Why conquer new lands if we already have kingdoms with riches unheard of in the east? Not to mention, we have to defend them, too.

Give the time machine to several Romaioktonoi (icluding me), and teleport us to the court of Alexandros, right before he will gone forever, we will carry with us top notch medical tools, antibiotics, and several guns. And we'll "persuade" Alexandros to invade room rather easily... :devil:

NOTE: I have finished my campaign simulation based on wikipedia up there.... feel free to give a look

[Ca Putt]

Alexander was the one who said a being Greek or Barbarian had nothing to do with language or culture, but with the way one behaved himself. A good person was "Greek", a bad person was "Barbarian". yeah i know thats why i don't know what his opinion on romans(and samnites) was but I bet the average greek would be reffering to romans as barbarians not because they were uncivilized(another discussion) but because they were not greeks simple as that, you were either a greek or a barbarian and as a non greek consequently a barbarian. just because in RTW and modern usage the term barbarian is universal for not civilized people that does not mean that this was the case in alexanders time.

ps who compares alexander to phyrros and Hannibal forgets that Hannibal fought for a trade federation against a militrarist nation that fought a total war and phyrros was somewhat a rogue king :D who fought the same militarist total war nation, both did not have military kingdom as Macedonia was behind them nor defeated and conquered the superpower of the time and most of "ye known world" and that both had elephants is not an argument, elephants may mean a auto win in screenshot contests but they are not a must have for every war the romans won plenty of battles without useing elephants.

@Cute wolf: nah rather convince the sabines to conquer them instead of interbreeding :D or convince spartacus to seige rome. ^^

[Finn MacCumhail]

Why everyone says here that Roman army in 4th BC was hoplite-based? I lurked in Wiki and it was said that Legio was established in the time of Servius Tullius 6th century BC. Also since 350 BC people were devided into triarii, principii and hastatii. So why hoplites? (Ok, may be triarii – hoplites, like in EB, but what about the rest?) In Servius Tullius time Legio had 4200 infantry, 900 cavallery, 1200 levy. They had cavallery.
Also during Servius Tullius time first line infantry in Legio had heavy armour.
In 4th BC there were 4 Legio. 3000 heavy inf, 1200 levies, 300 cav. So 12000 heavy inf, 4800 light, 1200 cav. It was standard amount 2 legions belong to one tribune. During campaign they recruit more.

[G. Septimus]

Why everyone says here that Roman army in 4th BC was hoplite-based? I lurked in Wiki and it was said that Legio was established in the time of Servius Tullius 6th century BC. Also since 350 BC people were devided into triarii, principii and hastatii. So why hoplites? (Ok, may be triarii – hoplites, like in EB, but what about the rest?) In Servius Tullius time Legio had 4200 infantry, 900 cavallery, 1200 levy. They had cavallery.
Also during Servius Tullius time first line infantry in Legio had heavy armour.
In 4th BC there were 4 Legio. 3000 heavy inf, 1200 levies, 300 cav. So 12000 heavy inf, 4800 light, 1200 cav. It was standard amount 2 legions belong to one tribune. During campaign they recruit more.
only 4?????????
during campaign, they recruit the Pedites, And Samnicti, so maybe, extra troops from the Allies.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Also all this talk about Carthage being able to disrupt Alexanders supply line from Greece is nonsense, at its nearest point the gap betwen Italy and Greece is only slightly bigger than the english channel, given that the nearest Carthaginian ports would be in western Sicily they would never be able to react fast enough to catch any ships making the crossing and given that both coast lines would be hostile to them they would only be able to maintian a presence in the area for a short amount of time before they would have to return to a friendly port to resupply.
Good point. Antique navies needed to resupply rather often, since they could not load larger amounts of supplies. This is not very well implemented in RTW and so neither in EB. Also Alexander had the best shipyards of the world under his control. He could have built a fleet on his own (not necessarily though).


I wouldn't think they would not have been any less motivated than most armies, this notion that the persian empire was some despotic regime who's unwilling subjects suffered under its authoritarian rule is a myth, sure there were rebellions but every empire has those and persian rule wasn't particularly noted for them.
I totally agree.


A big part of which due to those states failure to support the phalanx properly to allow it to fufill its intended role on the battle feild, the exception being at Magnesia which still could have easily turned out very differently if Antiochos had kept his wits about him and stayed on the feild instead of riding off to attack the Roman camp. I think by 200bc the Roman army would have been a pretty even match for a Alexandrian style army, neither in my opinion were superior to the other if used correctly.
I totally agree. The only weak spot of Alexandrian combined arms tactics is that it demanded a capable General. It depended too much on the person in chief. Alexander and Philipp were able to fulfill that role, many others were not (Perseus is a notorious example).

Also, you can't compare Alexander to Pyrrhos or Hannibal. Pyrrhos did not have the resources Alexander could rely on. Even before his great conquest. Also, Pyrrhos is a reckless character that has proven his strategical incompetence just as often as his tactical genius. He could not make use of a single one of his conquests. Even after he defeated Antigonos Gonatas (who only survived in disguise after his troops abandoned him on the battlefield), he could not win over Makedonia just because he went to the Pelopponese for some obscure reason. Alexander did not show such incompetence, even after he went crazy later on he did not became a fool.

Hannibal on the other side was not a King that commanded a state. He was a General acting on his own. He was not supported by his mother city, instead the war in Italy was more like a personal war of the Barca-family than a war of Carthage. He was so hated and feared at home that the Sophet (sp?) rather risked defeat by Rome than dared to support Hannibal. Rome could win over Carthage because Carthage didn't take part in the war, that's about it in short. None of this is valid for Megas Alexandros. Alexandros proved able and heartless enough to kill anybody within his own side that he deemed a potential traitor.

[Subotan]

A mere "what-if" question, and therefore irrelevant.

[Julius Augustus]

C'mon:dizzy2:

EB starts off in a time where the phalanxes took a trend to becoming heavier, Alexanders troops would've been lighter than whatever you've seen in EB. Also, interestingly enough you get to see your 'what if' situation in action thru the Phyrric war...who won that one? Rome, albeit barely, Rome still won. Take into account the same Hellenic-Albanian epirote troops you mentioned in your post, except with elephants!! throwing them against the Romans, and the fact that this battle/war actually happened historically should be proof of Romes tenacity in war. and IMO their victory. Also their cavalry would need some serious stamina to handle those Italian hills. It didn't look like Rome was easily defeated by these 'superior' uber pwning cavalry...

Oh and why is it that Alexander had to be leading when ever his armies were victorious? Rome sure could produce able general in their darkest hours, but the Macedonians couldn't when they tried to exert their power when ever Alexander wasn't present:laugh4: Alexander maybe could've won if the samnites sided with Alexander...

to all those who think Alexander would've won..time to get a new hero...

Seriously? Alexander was much better of a commander than Phyrrus. He didn't flip flop all of his commitments around. Alexander stuck to his guns. Alexander also would have had the advantage of not having to face the same kind of manipular tactics that Phyrrus did. Phyrrus attacked rome a while after Alexander did. And, one of your main points, that of the greek cavalry not being able to handle the romans, is false. The Macedonians were in possesion of much better cavalry than the epeirots. To throw the futility of the roman cause into sharp contrast, however, one must compare Rome to Alexander's other enemies.

Rome: Probably around 80000 total troops with allies included. However, no more than around 40000 would go to battle at any given time. Rome only aquired huge amounts of manpower later in history.

Persia: If one includes all of the men that Persia used in it's war against Alexander, they would probably add up to about 150,000 men. I can't verify this, but it seems reasonable, judging by the fact that Persia used and army of about 30,000, an army of about 50000, and an army of about 100,000, at seperate battles. In addition, the persians resisted Alexander at many smaller sieges along the way.

Indians: The Indians faced Alexander and fought several smaller battles with him, as well as a major one at the Hydaspes river. At the hydaspes river, Alexander faced anywhere from about 25,000 to 45,000 men.He also faced many elephants and chariots.

Other Enemies: Alexander also fought wars with the Illyrians, Getai, Thracians, Thebans, and Scythians. The Getai and Thracians numbered over 15000 men in total. He fooled the Illyrians and stormed one of their cities. He sacked and enslaved Thebes.

If Alexander had triumphed over so many thousands of men, could one alliance in Italy really stop him? The odds are really against the Romans. And the whole argument that many Romani supporters offer is that the samnites would support the Romans. Rome would be much worse off on it's own against Alexander's mighty empire. If the samnites supported Rome in it's fight, the battle would be closer, but after one or two defeats, the Samnites would have likely switched sides, along with the Bruttians and other southern Italian Peoples. Alexander could have called on nearly limitless numbers of troops in a war against Rome from all over his empire. And consider this: Would the samnites truly have considered siding with Rome against an enemy that had defeated the most powerful empire in the world? Quite possibly not. The Romans were tenacious, and would not have gone down easy, and the battles would not have been simple by any means, but Alexander could certainly have vanquished the Romans. The real question is really, would it be worth it for Alexander to go after Italy? Would the benefits have outweighed the costs? The answer, probably not.:juggle2:
Anyway, All Hail Makedonia!

[bobbin]

Why everyone says here that Roman army in 4th BC was hoplite-based? I lurked in Wiki and it was said that Legio was established in the time of Servius Tullius 6th century BC. Also since 350 BC people were devided into triarii, principii and hastatii. So why hoplites? (Ok, may be triarii – hoplites, like in EB, but what about the rest?) In Servius Tullius time Legio had 4200 infantry, 900 cavallery, 1200 levy. They had cavallery.
Also during Servius Tullius time first line infantry in Legio had heavy armour.
In 4th BC there were 4 Legio. 3000 heavy inf, 1200 levies, 300 cav. So 12000 heavy inf, 4800 light, 1200 cav. It was standard amount 2 legions belong to one tribune. During campaign they recruit more.

Legio is just the latin for army it doesn't imply a specific style of military units.
From the Servius Tullius wikipedia page

Having classified manpower resources so that he could inventory it, Servius used the same classifications to establish an order of battle. The military selection process picked men from civilian centuriae and slipped them into military ones. Their function in the military depended on their age, experience, and the equipment they could afford; the wealthier men of combat age were armed as hoplites, heavy infantry with helmet, greaves, breastplate, shields (clipeus), and spears (hastae). A class thus became a line of battle in the phalanx formation.

and from the Roman Republic page

During this period, Roman soliders seem to have been modelled after those of the Etruscans to the north, who themselves seem to have copied their style of warfare from the Greeks. Traditionally, the introduction of the phalanx formation into the Roman army is ascribed to the city's penultimate king, Servius Tullius (ruled 578 to 534 BC). According to Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the front rank was composed of the wealthiest citizens, who were able to purchase the best equipment. Each subsequent rank consisted of those with less wealth and poorer equipment than the one before it.

From the time of Servius Tullius until the late 4th century bc the Romans fought with their best troops equipped as heavy hoplites arranged in a phalanx at the front with sucessively poorer troops behind them, this is a Hoplite style army. While it is probable that this classical army under went changes to equipment after the sack of Rome by the Celts it still fought in a phalanx style by the time of the 2nd Samnite War, it was defeats in this war that are believed to be the reason for the adoption of the Manipular tactics that the Romans became famous for.
Traditionally these changes were credited to Marcus Furius Camillus soon after the sack of rome which doesn't really make much sense as why would the Romans in attempting to counter celtic tactics reform their armies based on a completely seperate people (the Samnites) who never even fought the Celts?
What is more likely is that they adopted it around the time of the 2nd Samnite war where they suffered setbacks due to the greater mobilty and flexibility of the Samnite armies in the rough hilly terrain of Samnium.

[L.C. SVLLA]

Seriously? Alexander was much better of a commander than Phyrrus. He didn't flip flop all of his commitments around. Alexander stuck to his guns. Alexander also would have had the advantage of not having to face the same kind of manipular tactics that Phyrrus did. Phyrrus attacked rome a while after Alexander did. And, one of your main points, that of the greek cavalry not being able to handle the romans, is false. The Macedonians were in possesion of much better cavalry than the epeirots. To throw the futility of the roman cause into sharp contrast, however, one must compare Rome to Alexander's other enemies.

Rome: Probably around 80000 total troops with allies included. However, no more than around 40000 would go to battle at any given time. Rome only aquired huge amounts of manpower later in history.


aff if i could go back in time i would burn makedonia earlier and claim Rome did it just to spite EB members.

First off, why do you demean phyrrus? you should know if your into ancient history Hannibal considered him one of the bestgenerals in history. you criticize him strategic flip flopping entire regions but that has little do do with the smaller scale of individual battles which phyruss fought admirably enough for many to consider him one of the greatest military commanders of his time, phyrrus brought elephants for Christs sake Rome hasn't even seen that before how do you think Alexander would be? terrifying to Rome:wall::wall:. phyrrus was a magnificent general...Do you have any proof to how Alexander could do any better than phyrrus against Rome? you can't. and source on who says Phyrrus' own cavalry couldn't match up to Alexanders? they're both led the same way if I'm mistaken...

so how can you claim Alexander would fair better? you baffle me as to how Rome would even submit or be defeated by Alexander, not even a dual alliance by the Etruscans and Samnites could force Rome to give in (period related to our discussion). and this was when Rome didn't even perfect their formations to match anything around 272 BC.

Also, you're wrong about Rome not using manipular formation. Rome adopted it around the time of their defeats by the samnites. Alexander would've faced the same if he had come to Italy.

really, you did not even consider the time it would take to plan an invasion, Rome would be fighting, and learning all along the way while Alexander was still gathering info about the natives. Wasn't Alexander planning to attack Carthage anyway? Alexander would be facing hard, very disciplined Romans after 2 samnite wars if Alexander did pass up Rome for Carthage. and what these wars taught Romans were to never give in and learn from the enemy. it happened to every enemy Rome ever faced.

Let me ask ALL of you makedonia fanboys. if Alexander never was defeated, how would he react if he lost some small battle? or one of his generals lost? you think he'd know how to retreat if Rome laid a trap? Rome built their ghost navy to match the mighty Carthaginians (which if they wanted to they could build a navy to cut greece away from italy) I think you makedonia fans severely underestimate the pure resilience of Rome.

History has proved that not even Hannibal could make an ally of Rome turn on them. Rome has the home field advantage, and believe they have the resources and the potential to create many fine generals. something Alexander had few of when ever he had subordinates invade far flung enemies of his empire. what opponent that Alexander faced could match Rome equally? furthermore its interesting Rome (a people) would fight bitterly. that's an entire people we're talking about. to face their own tenacity, Alexander. a single brilliant general.

who has the will to last longer?

The sheer amount of Alexander fan boys sicken me. Rome invictus. They are unconquerable.

[Ca Putt]

The sheer amount of Alexander fan boys sicken me. Rome invictus. They are unconquerable.

have a close look do you see the flaw in your argument?(and all the rest but I would have to reapeat all the others to say something against every 'argument' of yours)

[bobbin]

Let me ask ALL of you makedonia fanboys. if Alexander never was defeated, how would he react if he lost some small battle? or one of his generals lost? you think he'd know how to retreat if Rome laid a trap? Rome built their ghost navy to match the mighty Carthaginians (which if they wanted to they could build a navy to cut greece away from italy) I think you makedonia fans severely underestimate the pure resilience of Rome.

I think for the time period in question you're severely overestimating it, at the time of Alexanders death the SPQR controlled Latium an a sliver of coast in Campania, not like during the punic wars when they controlled almost all of the Italian penninsula and were far more formidable (and could absorb far more punishment).

Also it's not like Alexander won every single engagment ever, if his forces were defeated he would have done what any good general would have done and retreated, regrouped and formed a new strategy.


History has proved that not even Hannibal could make an ally of Rome turn on them.

Eh? Capua, the second largest city in italy did just that after Cannae as well as many others including important allies such as Syracuse.


what opponent that Alexander faced could match Rome equally?

are you honestly saying that the Achaemenid Empire could not match 4th century BC Rome equally?:inquisitive:

I do think topic of this thread is too one sided mind you, of course the answer would be Alexander it's like Macirille stated earlier with his Caeser/Franks comparision while the Franks would go on to take part in the destruction of the Empire there is no way they could have stood up to it in Caesers time.

[Zarax]

It's unlikely to have happened anyway.
Alexander's next step was Carthage, not Rome.

Once master of the punics, IF such a huge macedonian empire could hold together (and historically we all know what happened) Rome wouldn't be able to match its sheer might.

Don't forget that at the time Alex would have the support of all the cities in magna graecia as well as the likely support of the western greek colonies after he dealt with their worst enemy, Carthage.
This means a serious logistic base (Syracuse and Tarentum to name some known ones) in Italy itself along with good chances of exploiting Rome's traditional enemies, namely the samnites and what was left of the etruscans.

It would be doubtlessy a bloody fight (again, IF Rome tried to step in Alexander's toes which is unlikely especially after the defeat of their commercial partners) but IF it came at that point Rome's best chance would be internal strife among the macedonian empire rather than any battlefield luck.

Also, remember that Alexander would have been able to bring to the battlefield both roman battlefield nemesis, namely elephants and horse archers that coupled to heavy cavalry would give severe punishment to anything the romans could field.

[Macilrille]

Or an even more apt example. Because in the 18th and 19th Century England pwned everyone, did that mean that the bunch of tribes on the North Sea Coast who would become Anglo-Saxons was invincible at Caesar's time?

It is the same argument some Roman lovers use here, and I am one of the greatest admirers and lovers of Rome, but I am also a historian by profession. I do not equal greatness at one point with greatness ever before and after. Different peoples rise to power at different times, seemingly moving outwards from the ancient centers of civilisation as new barbaric people learn a sort of civilisation and add to that the vigour of youth. Sounds weird, but it is the best description I can come up with of what I see in history. I expect at some point the effect will move back in. I dunno, generalisations and predictions are hard to make.

As for this thread :skull: It shows me that not only amongst the Roman-haters but also amongst my fellow Roman-lovers are there delusional people who refuses to see reality, listen to sensible arguments and read posts more then five sentences long. Especially if the post is against their prejudiced opinion.

I intuitively knew this would be the case, but now I have proof. I am but glad that I never joined any group for or against Rome.

As for this thread... it is futile and has run its course IMO. I suggest :dancinglock::dancinglock:

Which means of course that I will not demean myself any further by participation.

[Ludens]

Good point. Antique navies needed to resupply rather often, since they could not load larger amounts of supplies. This is not very well implemented in RTW and so neither in EB. Also Alexander had the best shipyards of the world under his control.

Did he? He had sacked Tyre, so the Phoenicians might not like him anymore, and Athens was ready to revolt at this point. I quite agree with the rest of your arguments, though.

[vartan]

As for this thread... it is futile and has run its course IMO. I suggest :dancinglock::dancinglock:

This is the best thing I've read so far, haha. Seconded.

[Skullheadhq]

I wonder who voted for "Alexander will be utterly vanquished ".
Anyway, this thread has indeed run is course.

[HunGeneral]

I voted "Rome will be vanguished" since I also believe Alexander would have beaten the Italian city states (enough arguments have been said why) - if he wanted to, but I think a man who had conquered most of the known world would have seen no reason to conquer a peninsula full of warring tribes and city states. If Italia was already under roman rule then maybe he would have attacked, but this is already too much speculation. (The most likely reason Alexandros whould have gone westward would have been Carthage - they had already formally declared war on eachother during the siege of Tyre however this only stayed a formality.)


As for this thread... it is futile and has run its course IMO. I suggest :dancinglock::dancinglock:

I also think that is the best solution for this thread.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

phyrrus was a magnificent general...Do you have any proof to how Alexander could do any better than phyrrus against Rome?
Pyrrhos abandoned Makedonia for the Pelopponese instead of winning the entire kingdom with relative ease. I wrote that earlier on, but I repeat it: Pyrrhos was strategically incompetent, Alexander was not.


so how can you claim Alexander would fair better? you baffle me as to how Rome would even submit or be defeated by Alexander, not even a dual alliance by the Etruscans and Samnites could force Rome to give in (period related to our discussion).
You equal in power two Italian peoples to the Makedonian Empire of Alexander the Great???


really, you did not even consider the time it would take to plan an invasion, Rome would be fighting, and learning all along the way while Alexander was still gathering info about the natives.
How do you think Alexander conquered the Persian Empire? How do you think every conqueror has conquered his respective conquered?


History has proved that not even Hannibal could make an ally of Rome turn on them.
Yes, Hannibal did exactly this, and Hannibal was pretty much on his own private campaign, as I stated earlier.


who has the will to last longer?
The one with the overwhelming majority of ressources is my bet.


The sheer amount of Alexander fan boys sicken me. Rome invictus. They are unconquerable.
Epic. Best comment ever, in the whole history of EB. Seriously.


Did he? He had sacked Tyre, so the Phoenicians might not like him anymore, and Athens was ready to revolt at this point. I quite agree with the rest of your arguments, though.
I don't think Alexander would have to be afraid of an Athenian revolt. He would travel the whole way back from Babylon to Hellas it he was to subdue the Romans, I can't imagine how the Athenians could have acted so foolish. But when I say "the best shipyards of the world", I generally refer to all the shipyards in the eastern Mediterranean.

Lastly (before the lock), I want to express my astonishment and aliviation over the fact that this thread indeed was ruined by Roman fanboys, and none of the Hellene fanboys (including myself) fell for the trap and went on a flaming spree.

[Cambyses]

IMHO, if Alexander invaded Italy, instead of East, he would first win, coz of he is great tactician, and so on, but you forgot that on the East he was thought by natives as Salvatore from Persian rule, and in Italy there was no Persian rule, so natives wouldn't support him. Also Persians were made to fight while Romans fight by their will. Romans as being in their home easily recruit new army, while Alexander would suffer casualties. I think the story with Pirrus would be repeated. And one more - Romans adopt new things easily (that is why they succeeded IRL), they could adopt Macedonian style phalanx, and then perhaps they would build their empire a bit earlier.

And don't forget that Megas Alexandros haven't conquer Sparta and Epirr.

eh, come on. The whole Persian troops being whipped into battle is surely just Greek propaganda. They wanted to fight as much as any bunch of warriors would - they just werent tactically adaptable enough. Also, the natives of the Persian Empire did give some resistance to Alexander. However, as he was establishing himself as a successor to the achaemenid monarchs that resistance was vastly reduced.

Alexander was a death or glory kind of guy, the Romans would have had to kill him, kneel before him or be utterly wiped out

Are we really suggesting that Sparta and Epirus were not effectively vassal states during Alexander's reign? Why do you think he burned Thebes to the ground?

[L.C. SVLLA]

Pyrrhos abandoned Makedonia for the Pelopponese instead of winning the entire kingdom with relative ease. I wrote that earlier on, but I repeat it: Pyrrhos was strategically incompetent, Alexander was not.


You equal in power two Italian peoples to the Makedonian Empire of Alexander the Great???


How do you think Alexander conquered the Persian Empire? How do you think every conqueror has conquered his respective conquered?


Yes, Hannibal did exactly this, and Hannibal was pretty much on his own private campaign, as I stated earlier.


The one with the overwhelming majority of ressources is my bet.


Epic. Best comment ever, in the whole history of EB. Seriously.


I don't think Alexander would have to be afraid of an Athenian revolt. He would travel the whole way back from Babylon to Hellas it he was to subdue the Romans, I can't imagine how the Athenians could have acted so foolish. But when I say "the best shipyards of the world", I generally refer to all the shipyards in the eastern Mediterranean.

Pyrrhos abandoned Makedonia for the Pelopponese instead of winning the entire kingdom with relative ease. I wrote that earlier on, but I repeat it: Pyrrhos was strategically incompetent, Alexander was not. I already addressed this. "...you criticize him strategic flip flopping entire regions but that has little do do with the smaller scale of individual battles...". while Alexanders greece and phyrrus' Greece are very different politically with MANY different faction fighting each other for power, Alexander didn't face as much revolts, differently led enemies and bad luck as phyrus did. If Alexander would choose to "flip flop" like he did against persia, securing ports and other cities, Rome, like Persia, would rebuild in strength. Except the Roman army is in a whole other league than Persia's. And like any war for early Rome they would most likely learn from past mistakes and counter Alexander effectively.

Yes, Hannibal did exactly this, and Hannibal was pretty much on his own private campaign, as I stated earlier.
ah in my haste to type the post i forgot to never give 100% guarantees. like when i said no allies capitulated over to the other side against Rome. Then again i couldn't be any less accurate as you can only mention a few allies while could practically say most of Romes allies stuck with Rome anyway..this part of the discussion is moot.


You equal in power two Italian peoples to the Makedonian Empire of Alexander the Great??? How can i even reply to this post that has no real detailed argumentative substance to it at all?:inquisitive: nobody fought Alexanders empire, they fought Alexander and his army. noticeable difference.


How do you think Alexander conquered the Persian Empire? How do you think every conqueror has conquered his respective conquered?:dizzy2: what? i didn't understand the last part I'm afraid, but please don't turn this into a one sentence reply debate...I'd like examples..some more detailed info..then i can learn and reply in detailed posts...


The one with the overwhelming majority of ressources is my bet. hmm, yes that does play a significant role..one that Rome has showed to be master of in their wars while Alexander was more of a brilliant general. He'll have to send more messengers back to his homeland and maybe as far as Syria to ask for more reinforcements..which would be new if in hast or trained if given time for training..all depending how Alexanders campaign goes.


Epic. Best comment ever, in the whole history of EB. Seriously. hey it's just a tiny tribute to the greatest nation ever known. certainly lasted longer than macedonia's:laugh4:

also..there's a whole post that you dissected and decided to attack with 1 sentence replies..that isn't a debate and a realdebate is what I'm looking for. one pro Alexander guy should be able to do this right?

[L.C. SVLLA]

I already addressed this. "...you criticize him strategic flip flopping entire regions but that has little do do with the smaller scale of individual battles...". while Alexanders greece and phyrrus' Greece are very different politically with MANY different faction fighting each other for power, Alexander didn't face as much revolts, differently led enemies and bad luck as phyrus did. If Alexander would choose to "flip flop" like he did against persia, securing ports and other cities, Rome, like Persia, would rebuild in strength. Except the Roman army is in a whole other league than Persia's. And like any war for early Rome they would most likely learn from past mistakes and counter Alexander effectively.
[SPACE]
ah in my haste to type the post i forgot to never give 100% guarantees. like when i said no allies capitulated over to the other side against Rome. Then again i couldn't be any less accurate as you can only mention a few allies while could practically say most of Romes allies stuck with Rome anyway..this part of the discussion is moot.
[SPACE]
How can i even reply to this post that has no real detailed argumentative substance to it at all?:inquisitive: nobody fought Alexanders empire, they fought Alexander and his army. noticeable difference.
[SPACE]
:dizzy2: what? i didn't understand the last part I'm afraid, but please don't turn this into a one sentence reply debate...I'd like examples..some more detailed info..then i can learn and reply in detailed posts...
[SPACE]
hmm, yes that does play a significant role..one that Rome has showed to be master of in their wars while Alexander was more of a brilliant general. He'll have to send more messengers back to his homeland and maybe as far as Syria to ask for more reinforcements..which would be new if in hast or trained if given time for training..all depending how Alexanders campaign goes.
[SPACE]
hey it's just a tiny tribute to the greatest nation ever known. certainly lasted longer than macedonia's:laugh4:
[SPACE]
also..there's a whole post that you dissected and decided to attack with 1 sentence replies..that isn't a debate and a realdebate is what I'm looking for. one pro Alexander guy should be able to do this right?

EDIT: afff please keep this into a paragraph debate, just quote and reply in whole. 1 sentence replies is the most awful form of debating IMO.


have a close look do you see the flaw in your argument?(and all the rest but I would have to reapeat all the others to say something against every 'argument' of yours)

lmao of all macedonia supporters you'd be the least I'd worry about to reply to me. i type my posts in a hurry so there's bound to be mistakes. my mistake your glory huh? only way for you to trump me lol.

[Epimetheus]

Did he? He had sacked Tyre, so the Phoenicians might not like him anymore, and Athens was ready to revolt at this point. I quite agree with the rest of your arguments, though.

As I recall, at the time of his death, Alexander was having Krateros construct a massive expeditionary fleet (supposedly a thousand ships) at Tarsos in Kilikia, with the intent of attacking Carthage. After Alexander's death, production stopped. It was still apparently a fairly impressive fleet, even unfinished, which Krateros would eventual sail to Greece to help Antipater put down an Athenian revolt. I think, if I remember correctly, that control of his fleet eventually passed to Antigonos Monophthalmus and his children, and became the foundation for the Antigonid Makedonian navy.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

EDIT: afff please keep this into a paragraph debate, just quote and reply in whole. 1 sentence replies is the most awful form of debating IMO.
To be honest, at first I didn't want to reply at all. You can always read the posts I made before, I guess you did not read them so far because they are rather long. There you can find the more detailed answers.

Addressing your statement, Alexander would have to ship reinforcements from Syria: this is not true for the time of Alexander. In the late 4th century BC, reinforcements would come from Makedonia and Hellas. Also, you are perhaps not fully aware of the geographical situation: If Alexander was to invade Rome after finishing his conquests in the east, he would march from Babylonia westward, via Syria and through Asia Minor to Makedonia, where he would at first destroy any thoughts of rebellion. There his troops would be reinforced. It's a cat's jump from Greece to Italy, and reinforcements are VERY MUCH quicker than in Baktria, obviously.

P.S. The conqueror is the one that conquers, conquering is the action of conquering, and the conquered are the people that were conquered, if this word exists in English, that is, if not, than not. :D

[L.C. SVLLA]

To be honest, at first I didn't want to reply at all. You can always read the posts I made before, I guess you did not read them so far because they are rather long. There you can find the more detailed answers.

Addressing your statement, Alexander would have to ship reinforcements from Syria: this is not true for the time of Alexander. In the late 4th century BC, reinforcements would come from Makedonia and Hellas. Also, you are perhaps not fully aware of the geographical situation: If Alexander was to invade Rome after finishing his conquests in the east, he would march from Babylonia westward, via Syria and through Asia Minor to Makedonia, where he would at first destroy any thoughts of rebellion. There his troops would be reinforced. It's a cat's jump from Greece to Italy, and reinforcements are VERY MUCH quicker than in Baktria, obviously.

P.S. The conqueror is the one that conquers, conquering is the action of conquering, and the conquered are the people that were conquered, if this word exists in English, that is, if not, than not. :D

Yep that part about ordering soldiers from as far as Syria was mere speculation. I based that off of Pompey Magnus and his civil war with Caesar. He was in Greece when he requested more soldiers to fight Caesar, so I just thought hey, Alexander would be in Greece so....just speculation that's all.

and about reading your posts, i just posted about my reason why Rome would be victorious, not replying to any post, and went on from there, replying to you and some others that called me out.

[Finn MacCumhail]

@Cambyses

About Sparta and Epirr I ground my opinion on this map.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/MacedonEmpire.jpg

About tactics and so on. Rome had Marcus Valerius Corvus. He had an exp fighting in Itally. Rome had its leader.
And I have a question. I read in wiki that triarii, principii, and hastatii serve since 350 BC. So does it means that since 350 BC they were like Camillian EB troops? Or like hoplite phalanx?
I think that if Alexander invaded Itally instead of East he would face strong resistance, and had to withdrew, coz his political, strategic aim was East. If he instead of death went to Itallia, then as someone previously said his advantages turned disadvantages. Even Brits were defeated by Shaka of Zululand, Spain stacked in Netherlands, USA in Vietnam.
But I had to agree, that during the period after taking Egypt and before his death, he would definitely conqured Rome, but then he should to forget about East. Hm, if he was poisoned IRL, then in 10 years of conqures his servants would be bored of him, and try to poison anyway.

[Ludens]

lmao of all macedonia supporters you'd be the least I'd worry about to reply to me. i type my posts in a hurry so there's bound to be mistakes. my mistake your glory huh? only way for you to trump me lol.

:inquisitive:

If you wish for a serious discussion, you should take both your arguments and your opponents' seriously. If you want to ignore him, ignore him.


I don't think Alexander would have to be afraid of an Athenian revolt. He would travel the whole way back from Babylon to Hellas it he was to subdue the Romans, I can't imagine how the Athenians could have acted so foolish. But when I say "the best shipyards of the world", I generally refer to all the shipyards in the eastern Mediterranean.

Well, the Athenians have a history of ill-advised resistance against superior powers. And they weren't quite alone in their resentment of Macedonia. They wouldn't go into revolt while Alexander was near, but once he was campaigning in Italy it is possible that an alliance of Greek city states would have made their break for freedom.

Also, with the eastern Phoenicians out of the equation and Athens unwilling, I think the finest shipyards of the Mediterranean would be in Carthage.


About Sparta and Epirr I ground my opinion on this map.

And I have a question. I read in wiki that triarii, principii, and hastatii serve since 350 BC. So does it means that since 350 BC they were like Camillian EB troops? Or like hoplite phalanx?

Cambyses was wrong in saying that Sparta was a vassal, but Epiros definitely was under the Macedonian thumb. But even if it wasn't, that still doesn't make your point valid. Alexander never conquered Sparta and Epiros, but then he never attempted to.

As for Rome's army: go back and read Macilrille's posts. It's not clear when Rome switched from the hoplite phalanx to the quinqunx formation. However it's quite likely that the terms hastati, principes and triari derive from the hoplite phalanx. They initially indicated property classes rather than equipment or battlefield position IIRC.

[bobbin]

And I have a question. I read in wiki that triarii, principii, and hastatii serve since 350 BC. So does it means that since 350 BC they were like Camillian EB troops? Or like hoplite phalanx?
I think that if Alexander invaded Itally instead of East he would face strong resistance, and had to withdrew, coz his political, strategic aim was East. If he instead of death went to Itallia, then as someone previously said his advantages turned disadvantages. Even Brits were defeated by Shaka of Zululand, Spain stacked in Netherlands, USA in Vietnam.
But I had to agree, that during the period after taking Egypt and before his death, he would definitely conqured Rome, but then he should to forget about East. Hm, if he was poisoned IRL, then in 10 years of conqures his servants would be bored of him, and try to poison anyway.

The Triarii, principes and hastatii were AFAIK created by Camillus during his reorginisation of the Roman army after the sack of Rome by the celts, they still fought in the phalanx formation with spears but were arranged as they were in later times ie the hastaii arranged in a phalanx with the pricipes phalanx behind them and the triarii phalanx at the back (before the reform the situation was reversed).

Shaka never fought the British having died decades before the Anglo-Zulu war and while the Zulu's won individual battles they were defeated in the end. As for the Netherlands and Vietnam both recieved substantial support form powerful neighbouring or sympathetic countries, they weren't going it alone.
Rome could have relied on Carthage, its Latin and maybe Campanian allies for support but thats it really it, the Samnites and Etruscans hated the Romans and might have even gone as far as joining Alexander who could have also relied on the support of the Greek cities in the south and Sicilly as well (like what happened with Phyrros).


replying to you and some others that called me out.
Well apart from the bit about the allies during the 2nd Punic war you don't seem to have replied to anything my post at all. Anyway during the war quite a few subjegated peoples and allies defected to Hannibal, these include major ones such as Capua (along with most of the Campanians), Syracuse (causing other greek cities in sicilly to revolt as well), the Samnites, the Lucanians, Tarentum and the Bruttians as well as various other cities such as Thurii, Croton and Heraclea among others. While this did in no way represent the majority of their allies it ws still a significant chunk and certainly disproves your rather flippant remark that "History has proved that not even Hannibal could make an ally of Rome turn on them."

Now if Alexander had invaded after his conquests in the east he could rely on the support of most if not all of the Greek cities in the area at the very least, Rome's list of allies on the other hand is much smaller, they have a powerful one in the form of Carthage but apart from that they could only expect support from the Latins and the Campanians. The neighbouring Samnites and what was left of the Etruscans would at best remain neutral and at worst join the invaders (quite likely with the Samnites considering they were warring with Rome at the time), the other Italian peoples would probably keep to themselves.

I do find your belief that the romans of the time were some kind of super people superior to everyone else in martial and political skill rather odd.
The truth of the matter is that at the time they were a small somewhat unremarkable republic that showed the occasional flash of the greatness they would eventually achieve but at the time that future was in no way certain.

This is the last I shall say on the matter. ~:wave:

[Fluvius Camillus]

I read all of the posts and can agree especially with Macilrille on most points.


The Romans changed to the more mobile Manipular System between 338 and 311 at the latest and would not have been an easy catch, being very warlike and tenacious; Romans of the Republic make pitbulls look like poodles in their tenacity in the face of any setback.

However Finn's assumptions are based on faulty comparison. Rome of 336 BC- 323 BC was not Rome of 280 BC. The Struggle between the classes was over and Latium were firm Roman allies despite what SkullHQ asserts (he obviously knows more Hellene history than Roman, with me it is the opposite). However, the rest of Italy was not yet controlled by Rome and they were embroiled in a hard struggle with the Samnites for supremacy in the peninsula. With the Samnite history of animosity to Rome I find it hard to believe that they would have sided with them against Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος, nor would the Greek city States in south Italy, nor probably Capua, having another long story of animosity to Rome.

So assuming that at various points in his career Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος would have went West instead of South and East, here is my go at it.

336, Macedonia and Rome was probably about equally strong, the Romans lacking good cavalry though and probably still using Hoplite tactics or just having changed would be disadvantaged by that, Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος by fighting on enemy turf, possibly with supply lines cut by Carthage and certainly with rebellions broiling at home and strife at his borders. Unless he could manage to smash the Romans in a Cannae-style battle I suspect he would be in trouble despite samnite and Tarentum support.

334 With Macedonia and Greece now firmly behind him, his supply lines would be more secure both from naval trouble and trouble on his home turf. Rome would be in trouble, for no doubt Samnium would side with Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος. Rome was not eastern despotism though, so a long and bloody war of attrition lurks and meanwhile the Greeks proper would probably wonder why the guy they elected to protect and avenge them against the Persians was bimpling around in Italy. Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος would need to subdue Res Publica Romana quickly or face trouble in Hellas, and SPQR did not easily surrender to anyone.

332, say instead of going for rich and ancient Egypt Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος had sailed west to deal with some barbarian tribe/nation in Italy. Rome would probably have been smashed by his veteran, well-led and well-integrated army. However, what would Darius do to his eastern conquests while he was undertaking the long task of subduing the stubborn Romans?

326/327, if he decided to leave India alone and go allllllll the way back west to deal with the insignificant tribe in Italy?
Rome would be defeated, but it would be a long and hard struggle. Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος had shown his ability to deal with such in the eastern parts of his empire and Bactria though and he would be both immensely rich and have the resources of the largest empire the world had seen behind him... so he would defeat Rome and this close to home; would his army be so eager to get home? Even if so, he would have no trouble replacing them with fresh recruits eager for glory and booty in his homeland before setting out. Something he could hardly do along the Hyphasis. Samnites etc would still side with him. I do not see how the Romans could have survived such a massive amount of resources.

320-ish, assuming he survives or did not contact his illness (I do not believe the poison theory), Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος could have easily recruited a new army eager for glory and with "NCO"'s and core being veterans while discharging his oldies. With this army he would have crushed Rome in a long and bloody struggle as described above. Again I do not see how even Rome could stand against him, they were, after all, just another city state in Italy. And locked in a long struggle with the almost equally strong Samnites who hated Rome even up to the Socii-War...


Roman resources:
Good heavy infantry, Hoplite or newly formed into manipular system, very warlike and tenacious.

Roman weaknesses, almost no cavalry, thus no Combined Arms tactics. No navy, but Carthage could supply that.
Total Roman Strength was at 311 approximately 12.000 heavy infantry, 4800 light infantry and skirmishers and 1200- 1800 cavalry. Socii would probably double that number, or even triple it. This number was achieved between 366 BC and 311 BC, we do not know when, but in 366, the infantry was only half the number.
Max number, 30-36.000 heavy inf, 14.400 light inf, 3600- 5000 Cav


Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος resources:
338 BC (probably same in 336), 30.000 Inf, 2000 Cav.
334, 22.000 Phalangati, 20.000 Peltastai, 5000 Cav.
333, 22.000 Phalangati, 14.000 Peltastai, 5-6000 Cav.
331, 31.000 Phalangati, 9000 Peltastai, 7000 Cav.
326, at furthest limit and heavily attrited, 34.000 inf and 9000 cav.
In general comparable and even-ish numbers to potential Roman muster, much superior to normal Roman muster and in any case superior in cavalry (Can we say "Cannae"?).

Macedonian strengths was the combined arms tactic using the heavy phalanx to pin down the enemy centre while the lighter peltastai covered the flanks and the cavalry outflanked them. Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος could do this in confidence that the superior Phalanx would not break in the face of even very superior numbers. Pyrrhus did much the same, strenghtening his cavalry attacks by using the fearsome elephants.

If we use the Pyrrhic campaigns as a guide it is likely that the outcome would have been much the same as their armies and tactics were very similar. However, Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος was a much superior politician and could probably have exploited his victories more and IMO he had a better army at his disposal. Much credit much go to Phillipos for creating the army that Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος used. Further, as I said, Rome of 330-ish was not Rome of 280-ish. They had much fewer resources. The muster numbers I state are very optimistic- very. It is more likely that they would be limited to a total of 15.-20.000 inf and 2-3000 cav.

If we believe Hannibal Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος and Pyrrhus were also similar in tactical and strategic skill (personally I hold Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος to be better, but then they faced different enemies and it is hard to compare). In any case, while Pyrrhus had only the resources of Epeiros and Taras at his disposal, Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος would have those of the largest empire the world had seen. In the end that- if nothing else- would have been decisive.

It is BTW, interesting to note that most of the really good armies led by the great leaders of the fourth- third centuries BC are of comparable size. One could guesstimate that such was the optimum size?

Anyway, the points are very moot, for Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος would not have turned West.
Why on earth should he? Unless he was blessed with prescience he could never have guessed that one of many tribes on the Italian peninsula would be the next great power and create an empire that would rival his own and outlast it by far. So what on earth would he do in underdeveloped Barbaricum?


Cute Wolf also has some good point however I disagree on some minor points.


Alexander was the one who said a being Greek or Barbarian had nothing to do with language or culture, but with the way one behaved himself. A good person was "Greek", a bad person was "Barbarian".

"To me every bad greek is a barbarian and every good barbarian is a greek." The proper greeks were prone to divide the world in two: Their superior greek culture, everyone else were barbarians. Alexander did not, as the quote above testifies. Also there is a speech of Alexandros in the forum which I am unable to find at the moment, preaching equalty.


[..]
Are we really suggesting that Sparta and Epirus were not effectively vassal states during Alexander's reign? Why do you think he burned Thebes to the ground?

I am not sure about Epirus, probably there was political marriage involved and heavy Macedonian influence. About Sparta I know they were no threat, but there was an acnient Spartan law which prevented a foreigner to rule Sparta, hence we see Sparta as independent. Probably they had heavy Makedonian control and not much to say, but couldn't officially join the empire.

@L.C. SVLLA

As you are a new member, you probably have to get acqainted with this forum first, but I suggest you look up your history first and keep sources by hand. You are not helping your side nor the discussion if you start screaming things. Take your time to read through your post after you are done typing, this saves you time because you dont have to write new posts to correct your mistakes (you can edit posts afterwards if you see mistakes). Please be specific and have some proof about things the general public might not know. Give examples.

@main subject:

Do know that Alexanders veterans were exhausted. The ones from the start probably have grown too old to campaign more and troops underway are badly mauled by the distance they covered and their harsh Gedrosian expedition. A lot of fresh recruits must have joined, (who where there aplenty though, taking in regard Alexander's popularity). Also Alexandros did not employ Hellens much, he found them unreliable after having rebelled from him and hated him from the start. Alexanders borders would be more secure than in Seleucid times, as peoples probably feared Alexander and most opposition simply was wiped out.

Rome would probably see Italia turn against them. Old enemies seeking for revenge, also Alexander could afford mercenaries and bribe people as he accumulated vast amounts of talents from the Persian treasury. If Rome started losing battles (like in the 2nd Punic war) allies would also forfeit Rome for Alexander. At this time, no matter how driven and brave, Rome could not defeat Alexandros.

~Fluvius

[Dutchhoplite]

Rome could have relied on Carthage, its Latin and maybe Campanian allies for support but thats it really it, the Samnites and Etruscans hated the Romans and might have even gone as far as joining Alexander who could have also relied on the support of the Greek cities in the south and Sicilly as well (like what happened with Phyrros).

Hmmm, depends...how powerfull was Carthage near the end of the 4th century?? Timoleon defeated the Carthaginians on Sicily and Agathocles handled them pretty roughly in North Africa and he was "just" the Tyrant of Syracuse.

[L.C. SVLLA]

Well apart from the bit about the allies during the 2nd Punic war you don't seem to have replied to anything my post at all. Anyway during the war quite a few subjegated peoples and allies defected to Hannibal, these include major ones such as Capua (along with most of the Campanians), Syracuse (causing other greek cities in sicilly to revolt as well), the Samnites, the Lucanians, Tarentum and the Bruttians as well as various other cities such as Thurii, Croton and Heraclea among others. While this did in no way represent the majority of their allies it ws still a significant chunk and certainly disproves your rather flippant remark that "History has proved that not even Hannibal could make an ally of Rome turn on them."

Now if Alexander had invaded after his conquests in the east he could rely on the support of most if not all of the Greek cities in the area at the very least, Rome's list of allies on the other hand is much smaller, they have a powerful one in the form of Carthage but apart from that they could only expect support from the Latins and the Campanians. The neighbouring Samnites and what was left of the Etruscans would at best remain neutral and at worst join the invaders (quite likely with the Samnites considering they were warring with Rome at the time), the other Italian peoples would probably keep to themselves.

I do find your belief that the Romans of the time were some kind of super people superior to everyone else in martial and political skill rather odd.
The truth of the matter is that at the time they were a small somewhat unremarkable republic that showed the occasional flash of the greatness they would eventually achieve but at the time that future was in no way certain.

This is the last I shall say on the matter. ~:wave:

aff right. sorry to have skipped you:wall:

regarding allies not turning on Rome i wrote that in haste and retracted it. universal rule being never give out 100% guarantees of anything (Rome never lost, Caesar never lost a battle, etc.). southern Italy ran to Hannibal after cannae, Sicily decided to favor Hannibal, the Macedonians decided also to favor Hannibal. however central Italy did not, massilia did not favor Carthage at all and wary of its expansion, and when scipio soon defeated Hannibal lost his Italian allies (almost as soon as he left Italy) and they went back to Rome again. Furthermore did you know, northern Italy, where Hannibal inspired Gauls to raid after Hannibal's victories, was actually pretty quiet? according to(just to cite a source anyway) unrv.com, Rome had good relations with the northern tribes, and any gallo-roman conflict was minor?...it takes either direct conquering or major victories such as cannae to convince an ally of Rome to switch sides, even then Hannibal lost small skirmishes while in Italy.

Rome decided that if Hannibal was too great an enemy to attack directly, then they would attack him in Spain, it just shows the resolve Rome had in them. But everyone should know this, instead they look up to Alexander like a kid his dad...

Also, many people here has agreed or at least mentioned Alexander preparing to invade Carthage, Rome was still fighting their own wars. how long would it take for Alexander to prepare for the invasion, what date he would set it, and how long it would take to destroy Carthage? we won't know, that's an even bigger 'what if' question than OP's post. but be certain Rome was still at war and still gaining experience in its long list of battle around Italy. and if/when Alexander did attack Carthage

Also, do you know why Rome gave up hoplite type armies? sure you do, defeats from more mobile Gauls and samnites, ineffectiveness of the phalanx in rough Italian ground (central Italy being more mountainous than southern Italy, where Phyrrus' famous battles and most of his time were spent including a foray into Sicily). so if we take this reasoning and apply it to Alexanders 'phalangitai' infantry how would he not be at some disadvantage facing Romes army? (which would be veteran if most soldiers did not serve their full time required to be exempt to be called up for further wars). this would be at close to the final stages of the 2 samnites wars or at the end, if you want to say Alexander right away jumped on a ship and told the captain to head straight to Italy...


I do find your belief that the Romans of the time were some kind of super people superior to everyone else in martial and political skill rather odd. i find it that everyone here thinks Alexander to be some demi-god even stranger. in a room full of pro Macedonians i drew a lot of attention just by saying "Rome would win". also, wouldn't you say Rome was the superior war-like and politically tact city in all of Italy..say if they conquered it? hey look they did...and that's just simple greek logic.

@FLUVIS CAMILLUS: hey how are ya. everyone here giving out RTW facts and half baked opinion you go and tell me give examples? ill take it you didnt read my post as i give so many fact and examples:wall::wall:

@LUDENS: :inquisitive: OK, ignoring the simple 1 paragraph posts that has magical words such as "Alexandros easily wins" and spectacularly winning a debate by giving one liners.

[Finn MacCumhail]

Ok, I agree, Alexander was managed to conquer Rome. It doesn’t matter how long, on which period of his life, what would be the price, and so on and so on. It would be possible if all of necessary aspects would meet in the right place and in the right time. And I am sure during his life such things meat.

Now I wonder. Well, it s commonly known that Alexander was impressed by East culture. He introduced some of East customs in his Empire, he respected their culture, closered some Persians. (Some of his generals were disappointed by these facts)

But my question is: was it random stuff that he was influenced East culture coz he faced it among first (not counting barbarian or native ones), or he would be influenced by it any way, no matter what other cultures he faced before. I mean if he conqured Rome first would he be influenced by its culture – speaking Latin, establishing Roman Law all over his Empire… May be Roman Republican system ideas would spread to the far Indus? Could it be?

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

@FLUVIS CAMILLUS: hey how are ya. everyone here giving out RTW facts and half baked opinion you go and tell me give examples? ill take it you didnt read my post as i give so many fact and examples:wall::wall:, so ill kindly disregard everything you say from now on:clown:. you should look at yourself, relying on others arguments and give a 1 paragraph summary of how Alexander conquers it all. haha oh wow.

@LUDENS: :inquisitive: ok, ignoring the simple 1 paragraph posts that has magical words such as "alexandros easily wins" and spectacularly winning a debate by giving one liners.
You complain that people don't read what your are writing but you openly admit that the same is true for you, while in the same moment complaining about me only "giving one liners". I guess you feel like you are really treated unfair, right?

I'm out of this now (should have left before I guess). :thumbsdown:

[HunGeneral]

But my question is: was it random stuff that he was influenced East culture coz he faced it among first (not counting barbarian or native ones), or he would be influenced by it any way, no matter what other cultures he faced before. I mean if he conqured Rome first would he be influenced by its culture – speaking Latin, establishing Roman Law all over his Empire… May be Roman Republican system ideas would spread to the far Indus? Could it be?

Well I think the reasons: Alexandros was impressed by the East are many, but the ones I can think of now:

- The Persians managed to create the greatest empire of there time.
- Alexandros viewed the Persians Rulers (Cyrus the Great - Kurush Wuzurg - above all) as exampels to be followed - Cyrus was a great general and one of the first really merciful and just kings. It is even speculated that Alexandros wanted to conquer the whole of Asia to prove himself a worthy Heir to the earlier Achemanid Rulers. (He ordered his men to treat the Family of Darius as people of royal blood. He gave Darius a Burial fitting to his rank and fought a long campaign further east - all the way to Baktria - to have the murderers of Darius punished - among other reasons.)
- Later he believed that as such a great conqueror he was he would deserve the respect given to gods. He also took over several traditions from the Ahcemanid Dynasty (this was what outraged most of his men - in there eyes Alexandros was making them behave like slaves.... in a way no free man would tolerate.)
I believe there were other reasons, but I can't remember them right now..:shame:

I would recomend reading the work of Curtius Rufus on Alexander, it deals primalry with the events after the Battle of Granicus and on. I Personally find it an interresting read - haven't finished it yet, but it clearly has an educational purpose which can be felt beyond the centuries.

[L.C. SVLLA]

You complain that people don't read what your are writing but you openly admit that the same is true for you, while in the same moment complaining about me only "giving one liners". I guess you feel like you are really treated unfair, right?

I'm out of this now (should have left before I guess). :thumbsdown:

k i was a bit harsh, ill edit that kind of. its normal for two people to get angry when arguing.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

k i was a bit harsh, ill edit that kind of. its normal for two people to get angry when arguing.
I really hope for you that you are not older than 14.



Please lock this thread.

[satalexton]

I think this calls for using the ever wonderful FD and money cheat, to create Arche Makedonia as it may be if Alexandros had not died....and start a campaign against Rhomaiopolis. I think the AS roster works best.

[HunGeneral]

Alright this thread really needs a BIG lock on it... any Moderator who thinks the same?

[Macilrille]

:dancinglock::dancinglock::dancinglock::dancinglock::dancinglock::dancinglock:

I will poke Ludens.


k i was a bit harsh, ill edit that kind of. its normal for two people to get angry when arguing.

No it is not the way you and several others in this thread argue is a disgrace I thought only belonged on Youtube.

This is the EB Forum and just as EB is a cut above any other mod, so should we be. If my fellow students and I had argued that way at university we would have failed dismally and in no way be taken seriously- just as many of the arguments here cannot be. And trust me, if you were my high school student arguing that way, the consequence would be low grades. Not merely are the arguments flawed and faulty; based on wrong assumptions and irrelevant information, their style and presentation is really bad as well, especially when targeting the opponent instead of the opponent's argument; doing so is the same as admitting one has a weak argument.

I guess both sides of this debate have their ignorants, but ignorants do better to keep silent and thus seem wise and possibly learn something.

:dancinglock::dancinglock::dancinglock:

[mountaingoat]

this poll clearly indicates the outcome!

we can go back in time and present it?