Could Alexander III (the great) conquered Rome ?

[caesar44]

Did he had the manpower to do it ?
Did the phalankas (whatever) were better than the legions (in c. 322 bce)
Did he had the political support to do it (back in Mokdon) ?
Did he had a good navy to land in Italy ?
Could he managed to get the support of the Samnites , Latins and Etruscans ? (Hannibal did not and we all know what happened)
Why could he succeed where Phyrrhus did not ?
Did he was better than the Roman consuls (Cursor , Rullianus , Mus , Corvus etc') ?

Finally , and a little out of the subject , what was to become of Italy and Rome if the Macedonian managed to took them ?

[caesar44]

Yes , "to take them" (can't edit)

[conon394]

You mean after his return from the east and assuming he did not die at Babylon?

I say no; Maybe the young Alexander of 10 years earlier who enjoyed the support of Parmenio, Antipater and the Macedonian army. But in 322 he was facing a revolt by both the key states of Athens and Aetolia as well as Antipater. Craterus was dragging his feet in Asia Minor which suggests he was ready to join Antipater. Craterus and Antipater had substantial prestige with the army; something Alexander had lost with his Persian policies, execution of Parmineo, etc. So the up shot is I don’t see Alexander even getting the chance to try.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=conon394]You mean after his return from the east and assuming he did not die at Babylon?


Yes .
So , in your view , because of the political situation in 322 he even could not start "his invasion in to Italy" ?

[Gurkhal]

If Alexander did manage to keep his empire together and could somehow forged it into a stabile base from which to launch his invasion into the west he would steam roll it all.

With the entire former Persie, Macedonia and Greece (quite a few cities would have to be reduced to rubble to keep his rule, but I think he would be able to ride out of the storm) he would easily be able to crush the Romans, when he did plan his invasion into the west, it wasn't Rome but Carthage which he considered would be his main opponent.


Did he had the manpower to do it ? Without question. He would be able to draw fighting men from Egypt, Persie, Syria and much more to fill the gaps and he would actually have more men ready or in the reqruitment base than the Romans.


Did the phalankas (whatever) were better than the legions (in c. 322 bce)

I think that it would be even, but Alexander would without doubt be the one to take the prize and I think that the falangs Alexander would be able to have, with heavy cavallery, elephants and light infantry with much more I think he would take Rome. The Romans could only ever match him on the heavy infantry front, on all others the Romans were far to inferior.


Did he had the political support to do it (back in Mokdon) ?

This is where my teory falls appart. He didn't at 322 BC have the political support needed. Several years of really getting controll and orginize his empire would be needed. I don't think that a major civil war between his eastern territories under himself and Macedonia and the Greeks under one or more of his former generals would erupt.


Did he had a good navy to land in Italy ?

Yes. The Romans first learned about navy war against Carthage, I don't find it unrealistic that and empire such as the one that Alexander was building would totaly dominate the entire sea totaly.


Could he managed to get the support of the Samnites , Latins and Etruscans ? (Hannibal did not and we all know what happened)

Actually alot of cities and ethnic groups in southern Italy joined with Hannibal. Among them the Samnites and the city of Capu. Due to the fact that he would probably have a larger army than Hannibal, and an even great reputation I think he would manage it.


Why could he succeed where Phyrrhus did not ?

Phyrrhus failed because he didn't have the same resources of getting more troops into the field that both the Romans with their consprict system and Carthage with their mercineries had. And his own despotic ways turned his native Greek allies against him while he wasn't strong enought to force them to support him.


Did he was better than the Roman consuls (Cursor , Rullianus , Mus , Corvus etc') ?

I am totaly conviced he was far superior to any Roman. The hole Roman military machine didn't do well when coming against adoptible foes, how Hannibal time and again outsmarted them and defeated them show this. When facing Alexander I doubt the Romans would have the time needed to learn of their misstakes and adjust. Hannibal wasn't very good at sieges, Alexander never had any bigger problems with capturing enemy towns.

But that is just what I think.

[King of Atlantis]

Well, the romans at the time were far weaker than they were at the time of the punic wars. Alexander would have been returning with an extremely elite army and would have crushed the romans.


Butm politically it is hard to say. I think that he would have had to make more assasinations, but he probably could have held onto the empire....

[nokhor]

i don't think the romans would have been a serious obstacle to alexander. especially as rome itself was sacked by gauls not too long after alexander's death. but more because in terms of discipline, troops, navy, wealth, prestige and pretty much every other military catergory, alexander significantly outnumbered the romans.

i think carthage would have become something like athens, nominally a vassal, but if they saw a chance of alexander being weakened, they would have struck out.

assuming he managed to centralize and hold onto it all, and decided to turn against the han chinese through central asia, now that outcome would be difficult to foretell.

[AntiochusIII]

assuming he managed to centralize and hold onto it all, and decided to turn against the han chinese through central asia, now that outcome would be difficult to foretell.He would probably fail this last one then. The conditions of Central Asia is very harsh and it is very hard, almost logistically impossible, to march an army - a civilized, non-nomadic army - that is large enough to threaten China through Central Asia. The nomads were masters of the grasslands/deserts/empty space and their ever-moving lifestyle allows them to travel across these harsh lands; Alexander's army can't. Besides, the Chinese (really, is it Han China by then? I suspect it's about the late Warring States period.) at the time had a lot of military resources to rely on, and an endless pool of quite well-trained peasant soldiers. If it's really the Warring States then its even harder, since the armies in China at the time were (had to be...) skilled in warfare and tactics.

[Steppe Merc]

Alexander would fail in Central Asia. He struggled against the Sakae around Afghanistan, no way he could hope to win against all of the nomadic tribes out in the true steppe. He would fail miserably.
No matter how mobile he could be, his was still a civilized army. And in the steppes of Central Asia, he would die.

[King of Atlantis]

Yes, the phalnax's greatest weakness is moblilty and he could the steppe riders would have smashed him, but i believe his next goals were to the west anyways..., and he probably would have never gotten to the point where he felt the need to go to china.

[conon394]

Alexander would fail in Central Asia. He struggled against the Sakae around Afghanistan, no way he could hope to win against all of the nomadic tribes out in the true steppe. He would fail miserably.
No matter how mobile he could be, his was still a civilized army. And in the steppes of Central Asia, he would die.

I'm not so sure about that; both Alexander and his father were able to campaign effectively against the Scythians. The Nomads are not perfect even on the steppe. The Malmuks in there repeated victories over the Mongols showed that a civilized/sedentary people can beat nomads if they plan and fight appropriately. Don’t forget Alexander’s Phalanx could march considerably faster than the nomad’s sheep and goats (no matter how mobile the nomad fighters were their stock and camps could move at little better than 3-4 miles a day). They might give him a hard time in short run, but I don’t doubt that Alexander like Sherman would be able to leverage his logical advantages in the long run, to achieve victory.

[Steppe Merc]

Mamluk vrs Mongol is a horrible example. Those Mongols were starting to go civilized, and they fought in civilized lands, not the steppe. For a better example, look at Darius against the Scythians.

If the Iranians didn't want to fight Alexander, they wouldn't. Just like Darius before him, Alexander would be stuck out in the steppe. He was slow, and the steppe people with their entire family was quite mobile.

[Kagemusha]

One thing we have to remember here is that nobody from "civilized" country has ever wanted to conguer the Steppes of central Asia.Why?Because there is absolutely nothing worth Conquering there.And if someone would have wanted, they would have used the same method like Russians when they conquered Southern Siberia which is pretty much Steppe.Attack at winter when Nomads are on their big immobile winter camps.If they run they have to leave their storages behind and their catle would starve to death as would them selves. :bow:

[Kraxis]

Did he had the manpower to do it ?
Yes, he most certainly had the manpower. His empire ended up supporting some 120,000 troops in the end. And most certainly he could have levied many more as well as pressed more from his more distant allies (Indians and various amsller kingdoms).


Did the phalankas (whatever) were better than the legions (in c. 322 bce)
In itself the phalanx was not better. But at this time it was. It was superbly experienced. It had a lot of experience fighting pretty much everything there was out there. Further, the Roman phalanx proved against Pyrrhus that it was in itself not up tothe task of defeating the phalanx, even in a pure infantry fight. The later battles involved either flanking or very experienced legions against inexperienced (equals to low morale) phalangites.


Did he had the political support to do it (back in Mokdon) ?
Prolly not. But then again it was known that Italy was fairly rich, especailly the Etruscan cities. And it was a short distance from home. He could likely have managed to get the support for a nice short loot campaign. And by this time a new generation of phalangites were almost ready. But he could not bring the entire army.


Did he had a good navy to land in Italy ?
YES! He had the entire Phoenecian navy and whatever Greek ships there were. About 400-500 ships. That is more than enough to defeat the Roman navy, if there was even one at this point (the first real Roman fleet was brought out in the First Punic War).
In any way it is not important, he had nominal rule over the Illyrians, and they would not oppose him if he marched a large army through their lands, rather they would urge him on his way fast. In the Po valley he would perhaps have to fight the Boii but I can't imagine them being able to outsmart him. Perhaps they would even join him fighting Rome?


Could he managed to get the support of the Samnites , Latins and Etruscans ? (Hannibal did not and we all know what happened)
A very uncertain subject, but I would say so. The Third Samnite War had yet to be fought. It contained not just Samnites but Umbrians, Etruscans, even Latins. Rome was only just becoming a local power, not the regional powerhouse of the First Punic War.


Why could he succeed where Phyrrhus did not ?
He had several going for him that Pyrrhus did not. He had an experienced and very large army at his back. He was a very bright commander (Pyrrhus was great too, but he never seemed to learn from his mistakes, Alexander did). His cavalry was far superior to Pyrrhus' cavalry, especially in numbers. And he had the determination to lead a war to its end. Pyrrhus did a little detour to Sicily where he fought the Carthies for a few years and lost many men recrossing to Italy.


Did he was better than the Roman consuls (Cursor , Rullianus , Mus , Corvus etc') ?
When one reads about the Roman army of the day it is obvious that the Roman commanders were in general quite uninspired. They lacked even the most basic recon and often lacked a screening force while deploying. And in battle they tended to let the tenacity of the legions do the fighting, ranther than any tactical devices they might have concieved.


Finally , and a little out of the subject , what was to become of Italy and Rome if the Macedonian managed to took them ?
Part of the empire with a Satrap. With the deep Greek influence in both north (Etruscans) and south (Greek cities) it seems likely to have been accepted rather soon. The Romans would have lost their hegemony, much like the Persians. But I think they would be employed in a the same manner as local rulers and the link to the central lands where few Greek influences reached.

[Steppe Merc]

One thing we have to remember here is that nobody from "civilized" country has ever wanted to conguer the Steppes of central Asia.Why?Because there is absolutely nothing worth Conquering there.And if someone would have wanted, they would have used the same method like Russians when they conquered Southern Siberia which is pretty much Steppe.Attack at winter when Nomads are on their big immobile winter camps.If they run they have to leave their storages behind and their catle would starve to death as would them selves. :bow:
Which of course explains why many times settled peoples have wasted their troops on invasions, right? ~;)
There are certaintly a lot of worth out there. Excellent soldiers, and weaponry, but most importantly well as trading opportunties. The Chinese didn't demand tribute from the Mongols for the hell of it. It was because the steppe people had money, and trade opportunity.
Nomads were always sat on the best trading lands. Central Asia was extremely rich due to trading back and forth, and nomads controlled a good deal of that.
And attack during winter? In the steppe? The settled people would die like flies. The Russians were used to winter, so they had a bit of an edge. But keep in mind, the steppe people liked to campaign in winter. The Mongols invaded Russia in winter on purpose. All of the rivers were frozen, and they had time to store up food. It wasn't as favored as fall, but it was far more likeable than summer, which was horrible due to the dry grass for the horses.

Also, not all steppe peoples hereded cattle. Some just herded horses. Other herded goats, cattle or sheep. Some got most of their food from trade, or by demanding tributes from farmers.

[Conqueror]

Would Alexander actually have wanted to attack Rome (or Carthage or China, or whatever) though? If he had managed to stabilize his empire, I personally think that the first thought in his head would have been to go back to India, for that unfinished business in there. He would want to push beyond the Indus, and if he made it to Ganges he would not want to stop there either. He'd keep going eastward, to the Southeast Asia. That would be a difficult campaign since the Macedonian army wasn't suited to fighting in the environment and there would be the problem of tropical diseases, logistics, etc. Not to mention that the soldiers who had forced him to turn back in India wouldn't be at all eager to go there again.

It could be that I'm having a wrong picture of his personality of corse. But I can't really know what was going on in his head, It's just a guess.

[Kraxis]

Well, he was planning an attack on Arabia when he died...So perhaps he had learned his lesson with India, at least for the moment.

[caesar44]

The great historian , Titus Livius (Livy) was the first man ever in history to write an alternate history , he did it in his 9th' book of his "Ab Urba Condita" .
He was , for sure , biased , but never the less...


Said livy -
"Had Alexander the Great, after subjugating Asia, turned his attention to Europe, there are many who maintain that he would have met his match in Papirius.

[9.17]Nothing can be thought to be further from my aim since I commenced this task than to digress more than is necessary from the order of the narrative or by embellishing my work with a variety of topics to afford pleasant resting-places, as it were, for my readers and mental relaxation for myself. The mention, however, of so great a king and commander induces me to lay before my readers some reflections which I have often made when I have proposed to myself the question, "What would have been the results for Rome if she had been engaged in war with Alexander? "The things which tell most in war are the numbers and courage of the troops, the ability of the commanders, and Fortune, who has such a potent influence over human affairs, especially those of war. Any one who considers these factors either separately or in combination will easily see that as the Roman empire proved invincible against other kings and nations, so it would have proved invincible against Alexander. Let us, first of all, compare the commanders on each side. I do not dispute that Alexander was an exceptional general, but his reputation is enhanced by the fact that he died while still young and before he had time to experience any change of fortune. Not to mention other kings and illustrious captains, who afford striking examples of the mutability of human affairs, I will only instance Cyrus, whom the Greeks celebrate as one of the greatest of men. What was it that exposed him to reverses and misfortunes but the length of his life, as recently in the case of Pompey the Great? Let me enumerate the Roman generals - not all out of all ages but only those with whom as consuls and Dictators Alexander would have had to fight - M. Valerius Corvus, C. Marcius Rutilus, C. Sulpicius, T. Manlius Torquatus, Q. Publilius Philo, L. Papirius Cursor, Q. Fabius Maximus, the two Decii, L. Volumnius, and Manlius Curius. Following these come those men of colossal mould who would have confronted him if he had first turned his arms against Carthage and then crossed over into Italy later in life. Every one of these men was Alexander's equal in courage and ability, and the art of war, which from the beginning of the City had been an unbroken tradition, had now grown into a science based on definite and permanent rules. It was thus that the kings conducted their wars, and after them the Junii and the Valerii, who expelled the kings, and in later succession the Fabii, the Quinctii, and the Cornelii. It was these rules that Camillus followed, and the men who would have had to fight with Alexander had seen Camillus as an old man when they were little more than boys.

Alexander no doubt did all that a soldier ought to do in battle, and that is not his least title to fame. But if Manlius Torquatus had been opposed to him in the field, would he have been inferior to him in this respect, or Valerius Corvus, both of them distinguished as soldiers before they assumed command? Would the Decii, who, after devoting themselves, rushed upon the enemy, or Papirius Cursor with his vast physical courage and strength? Would the clever generalship of one young man have succeeded in baffling the whole senate, not to mention individuals, that senate of which he, who declared that it was composed of kings, alone formed a true idea? Was there any danger of his showing more skill than any of those whom I have mentioned in choosing the site for his camp, or organising his commissariat, or guarding against surprises, or choosing the right moment for giving battle, or disposing his men in line of battle and posting his reserves to the best advantage? He would have said that it was not with Darius that he had to do, dragging after him a train of women and eunuchs, wrapped up in purple and gold, encumbered with all the trappings of state. He found him an easy prey rather than a formidable enemy and defeated him without loss, without being called to do anything more daring than to show a just contempt for the idle show of power. The aspect of Italy would have struck him as very different from the India which he traversed in drunken revelry with an intoxicated army; he would have seen in the passes of Apulia and the mountains of Lucania the traces of the recent disaster which befell his house when his uncle Alexander, King of Epirus, perished.

[9.18]I am speaking of Alexander as he was before he was submerged in the flood of success, for no man was less capable of bearing prosperity than he was. If we look at him as transformed by his new fortunes and presenting the new character, so to speak, which he had assumed after his victories, it is evident he would have come into Italy more like Darius than Alexander, and would have brought with him an army which had forgotten its native Macedonia and was rapidly becoming Persian in character. It is a disagreeable task in the case of so great a man to have to record his ostentatious love of dress; the prostrations which he demanded from all who approached his presence, and which the Macedonians must have felt to be humiliating, even had they been vanquished, how much more when they were victors; the terribly cruel punishments he inflicted; the murder of his friends at the banquet-table; the vanity which made him invent a divine pedigree for himself. What, pray, would have happened if his love of wine had become stronger and his passionate nature more violent and fiery as he grew older? I am only stating facts about which there is no dispute. Are we to regard none of these things as serious drawbacks to his merits as a commander? Or was there any danger of that happening which the most frivolous of the Greeks, who actually extol the Parthians at the expense of the Romans, are so constantly harping upon, namely, that the Roman people must have bowed before the greatness of Alexander's name - though I do not think they had even heard of him - and that not one out of all the Roman chiefs would have uttered his true sentiments about him, though men dared to attack him in Athens, the very city which had been shattered by Macedonian arms and almost well in sight of the smoking ruins of Thebes, and the speeches of his assailants are still extant to prove this?

However lofty our ideas of this man's greatness, still it is the greatness of one individual, attained in a successful career of little more than ten years. Those who extol it on the ground that though Rome has never lost a war she has lost many battles, whilst Alexander has never fought a battle unsuccessfully, are not aware that they are comparing the actions of one individual, and he a youth, with the achievements of a people who have had 800 years of war. Where more generations are reckoned on one side than years on the other, can we be surprised that in such a long space of time there have been more changes of fortune than in a period of thirteen years ? Why do you not compare the fortunes of one man with another, of one commander with another? How many Roman generals could I name who have never been unfortunate in a single battle! You may run through page after page of the lists of magistrates, both consuls and Dictators, and not find one with whose valour and fortunes the Roman people have ever for a single day had cause to be dissatisfied. And these men are more worthy of admiration than Alexander or any other king. Some retained the Dictatorship for only ten or twenty days; none held a consulship for more than a year; the levying of troops was often obstructed by the tribunes of the plebs; they were late, in consequence, in taking the field, and were often recalled before the time to conduct the elections; frequently, when they were commencing some important operation, their year of office expired; their colleagues frustrated or ruined their plans, some through recklessness, some through jealousy; they often had to succeed to the mistakes or failures of others and take over an army of raw recruits or one in a bad state of discipline. Kings are free from all hindrances; they are lords of time and circumstance, and draw all things into the sweep of their own designs. Thus, the invincible Alexander would have crossed swords with invincible captains, and would have given the same pledges to Fortune which they gave. Nay, he would have run greater risks than they, for the Macedonians had only one Alexander, who was not only liable to all sorts of accidents but deliberately exposed himself to them, whilst there were many Romans equal to Alexander in glory and in the grandeur of their deeds, and yet each of them might fulfil his destiny by his life or by his death without imperilling the existence of the State.

[9.19]It remains for us to compare the one army with the other as regards either the numbers or the quality of the troops or the strength of the allied forces. Now the census for that period gives 250,000 persons. In all the revolts of the Latin league ten legions were raised, consisting almost entirely of city troops. Often during those years four or five armies were engaged simultaneously in Etruria, in Umbria (where they had to meet the Gauls as well), in Samnium, and in Lucania. Then as regards the attitude of the various Italian tribes - the whole of Latium with the Sabines, Volscians, and Aequi, the whole of Campania, parts of Umbria and Etruria, the Picentines, the Marsi, and Paeligni, the Vestinians and Apulians, to which we should add the entire coast of the western sea, with its Greek population, stretching from Thurii to Neapolis and Cumae, and from there as far as Antium and Ostia - all these nationalities he would have found to be either strong allies of Rome or reduced to impotence by Roman arms. He would have crossed the sea with his Macedonian veterans, amounting to not more than 30,000 men and 4000 cavalry, mostly Thracian. This formed all his real strength. If he had brought over in addition Persians and Indians and other Orientals, he would have found them a hindrance rather than a help. We must remember also that the Romans had a reserve to draw upon at home, but Alexander, warring on a foreign soil, would have found his army diminished by the wastage of war, as happened afterwards to Hannibal. His men were armed with round shields and long spears, the Romans had the large shield called the scutum, a better protection for the body, and the javelin, a much more effective weapon than the spear whether for hurling or thrusting. In both armies the soldiers fought in line rank by rank, but the Macedonian phalanx lacked mobility and formed a single unit; the Roman army was more elastic, made up of numerous divisions, which could easily act separately or in combination as required. Then with regard to fatigue duty, what soldier is better able to stand hard work than the Roman?

If Alexander had been worsted in one battle the war would have been over; what army could have broken the strength of Rome, when Caudium and Cannae failed to do so? Even if things had gone well with him at first, he would often have been tempted to wish that Persians and Indians and effeminate Asiatics were his foes, and would have confessed that his former wars had been waged against women, as Alexander of Epirus is reported to have said when after receiving his mortal wound he was comparing his own fortune with that of this very youth in his Asiatic campaigns. When I remember that in the first Punic war we fought at sea for twenty-four years, I think that Alexander would hardly have lived long enough to see one war through. It is quite possible, too, that as Rome and Carthage were at that time leagued together by an old-standing treaty, the same apprehensions might have led those two powerful states to take up arms against the common foe, and Alexander would have been crushed by their combined forces. Rome has had experience of a Macedonian war, not indeed when Alexander was commanding nor when the resources of Macedon were still unimpaired, but the contests against Antiochus, Philip, and Perses were fought not only without loss but even without risk. I trust that I shall not give offence when I say that, leaving out of sight the civil wars, we have never found an enemy's cavalry or infantry too much for us, when we have fought in the open field, on ground equally favourable for both sides, still less when the ground has given us an advantage. The infantry soldier, with his heavy armour and weapons, may reasonably fear the arrows of Parthian cavalry, or passes invested by the enemy, or country where supplies cannot be brought up, but he has repulsed a thousand armies more formidable than those of Alexander and his Macedonians, and will repulse them in the future if only the domestic peace and concord which we now enjoy remains undisturbed for all the years to come."



Indeed ! :book:

[Kraxis]

Honestly, do you think Livy had a clue? He was no military man, he was a lawyer if I'm not mistaken.

Several times in his books is he obviously making up his stories, adding drama and mythical events to spice up some empty or boring sections. For instance his entire section around the Roman soldier that dines with Pyrrhus. It is a blatant Roman propaganda and he does nothing to hide it.
Even worse is the fact that he made up an entire book regarding Aeneas and the time after him.

Remember that Livy was writing for Augustus, a time when the Roman supreme commander (Augustus) was attempting to become devine. He was by all means attemting to be better than all. Then there couldn't be any warlord who he couldn't best, especially not one who was long dead (and thus far out of reach).
No it is far better to make it seem that Rome already back then would have defeated any and all opponents.

But the fact is that Rome could hardly have fielded more than 40,000 troops in all. Her population couldn't support more at the time. And that includes the Latin allies. Further, Livy himself goes to great lengths to show how superior the Roman troops were in fair head on fights, but by getting his attention locked like that he forgets to add tactical insight to his commanders. He obviously drew on older accounts of the battles, and added some flair. But given his lack of tactical understanding he didn't dare change how the outline of the battles were. And thus he has preserved the layout of the battles. They show time and again that the Roman commanders were anything but inspired. They were serevely lacking in tactical sense, and almost devoid of an understanding of recon. Two defeciencies that would have played very nicely into the hands of Alexander.

[caesar44]

Honestly, do you think Livy had a clue? He was no military man, he was a lawyer if I'm not mistaken.

Several times in his books is he obviously making up his stories, adding drama and mythical events to spice up some empty or boring sections. For instance his entire section around the Roman soldier that dines with Pyrrhus. It is a blatant Roman propaganda and he does nothing to hide it.
Even worse is the fact that he made up an entire book regarding Aeneas and the time after him.

Remember that Livy was writing for Augustus, a time when the Roman supreme commander (Augustus) was attempting to become devine. He was by all means attemting to be better than all. Then there couldn't be any warlord who he couldn't best, especially not one who was long dead (and thus far out of reach).
No it is far better to make it seem that Rome already back then would have defeated any and all opponents.

But the fact is that Rome could hardly have fielded more than 40,000 troops in all. Her population couldn't support more at the time. And that includes the Latin allies. Further, Livy himself goes to great lengths to show how superior the Roman troops were in fair head on fights, but by getting his attention locked like that he forgets to add tactical insight to his commanders. He obviously drew on older accounts of the battles, and added some flair. But given his lack of tactical understanding he didn't dare change how the outline of the battles were. And thus he has preserved the layout of the battles. They show time and again that the Roman commanders were anything but inspired. They were serevely lacking in tactical sense, and almost devoid of an understanding of recon. Two defeciencies that would have played very nicely into the hands of Alexander.


And Arianus was a great military commander , he met Alexander and spoke with him ?
Did plutarch was with Alexander in Babylon ?
Did Diodorus was fighting with Alexander in India ?
Your point is problematic , if you say that Livy was a bad historian (tell that to the academy...) why you consider the "historians" who wrote about Alexander to be worth something ?

[Kraxis]

You fail to see my point.

The others do not presume to know the inner workings of Alexander. Livy does. Also Livy had a politic agenda, if you take a look at his account of the Second Punic War you wil realize that he wasn't so much in it for the clean historical approach as to present the view that the Romans were destined to rule.
But at points he had little option but to present to us what was the truth as he had nothing else. That is what we have to work with. We have to learn where the historians are correct and where they are not.

I see you are trying to make this into another of those "Did Alexander exist" discussions, but that is not the point. We have to presume he existed for the main discussion even to be valid.

I'll tell you this.
Livy is in his own right not a bad historian, but if you go into details he becomes more or less worthless. His obvious wrong accounts leaves a dark shroud over the others, and so it become a hard task to determine if they are good or not. One has to use him as a general historian, in that you read him and say: "Ahhh... So Pyrrhus went home in search of more easy pray." Or "I see, there were problems in Hispania." But if you go into it and begin to dig out details he becomes very unstable at best.

As I said, he was no military man (unlike Polybius who was tutored in the matter), he had a political agenda, and he had to work for Augustus and please him. Lastly he was working of accounts of Fabius Pictor, Polybius and other older accounts (timeline historians it is believed, much like Europe's yearbooks of the Medieveal period). In many cases he is simply copying Polybius, but adding some glorious speech and/or changing the details to make the Romans look more glorious.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Did he had the manpower to do it ?
Did the phalankas (whatever) were better than the legions (in c. 322 bce)
Did he had the political support to do it (back in Mokdon) ?
Did he had a good navy to land in Italy ?
Could he managed to get the support of the Samnites , Latins and Etruscans ? (Hannibal did not and we all know what happened)
Why could he succeed where Phyrrhus did not ?
Did he was better than the Roman consuls (Cursor , Rullianus , Mus , Corvus etc') ?

Finally , and a little out of the subject , what was to become of Italy and Rome if the Macedonian managed to took them ?

IMO he had strategical and tactical strength to do it. The light macedonian phalanx was better vs legions than the heavier greek one used at Cynoskephalae, and Alexander also had very, very good cavalry at his disposal, so mobility and manouvering wouldn't have been a problem. I don't know about naval or diplomatic (help from samnites etc.) stuff, but I don't think those would have been problems. The main problem, I think, which is why Alexander never DID conquer the romans, was that he probably didn't consider Rome a target worth bothering about. Also, the persians were a bigger threat as they had attempted an invasion of Greece earlier. I also don't know if those at home would support him in a war against the Romans, which the macs had no quarrel with afaik. He wouldn't have recieved support for going against Rome INSTEAD of the persians. But if he hadn't died so young, perhaps he would have been able to proceed and conquer Rome, although I doubt the hellenistic world saw romans as much more than pitiful barbarians at the time.

In any case, an Alexander phalanx with good cavalry support would be able to inflict numerous defeats on roman armies, and as Rome was weaker at that time than when Hannibal came, and Alexander knew how to use tactics as advanced as, or more advanced than, those of Hannibal, I think he'd have stood a great chance of destroying Rome. The quite impressive achievement of repeatedly fielding new armies despite the defeats in the punic wars, would still have been possible at that time, but probably not to an as great extent. 2-3 losses would have been unbearable for Rome. And they also afaik lacked their great walls around the city (which stopped Hannibal) at the time, but I'm not sure. If the city of Rome itself had been conquered once at that time, I doubt the romans would have been able to rise, especially if a strong garrison had been kept in the city. And if they had risen once, and been defeated, things would have been even worse. However, as Alexander had no quarrel with rome, the romans would see the conquest as highly unjust and keep fighting for freedom, and the inevitable long term result would have been a loss of the land. The main thing is, as usual, when it comes to holding the land, the people have to support the conquest, seing it as a liberation.

So - macs could have conquered Rome at that time IMO, but wouldn't have been able to hold it. Especially if we bear in mind that Alexander would have some trouble holding the persian empire at the same time, had he lived longer than he did.

[caesar44]

You fail to see my point.

The others do not presume to know the inner workings of Alexander. Livy does. Also Livy had a politic agenda, if you take a look at his account of the Second Punic War you wil realize that he wasn't so much in it for the clean historical approach as to present the view that the Romans were destined to rule.
But at points he had little option but to present to us what was the truth as he had nothing else. That is what we have to work with. We have to learn where the historians are correct and where they are not.

I see you are trying to make this into another of those "Did Alexander exist" discussions, but that is not the point. We have to presume he existed for the main discussion even to be valid.

I'll tell you this.
Livy is in his own right not a bad historian, but if you go into details he becomes more or less worthless. His obvious wrong accounts leaves a dark shroud over the others, and so it become a hard task to determine if they are good or not. One has to use him as a general historian, in that you read him and say: "Ahhh... So Pyrrhus went home in search of more easy pray." Or "I see, there were problems in Hispania." But if you go into it and begin to dig out details he becomes very unstable at best.

As I said, he was no military man (unlike Polybius who was tutored in the matter), he had a political agenda, and he had to work for Augustus and please him. Lastly he was working of accounts of Fabius Pictor, Polybius and other older accounts (timeline historians it is believed, much like Europe's yearbooks of the Medieveal period). In many cases he is simply copying Polybius, but adding some glorious speech and/or changing the details to make the Romans look more glorious.


Indeed I fail to see your point...
1. Polybius was Scipio Aemilianus's best friend , so he was also biased
2. If livy just was copying from Polybius that's make his history a reliable , so what is the argument here ? just ignore his speechs
3. Where do you think Polybius took his history about the Gallic invasions ? from Fabius Pictor ! there is no other source .
4. If Livy was so biased and wanted just to please Augustus , why he wrote about Roman defeats ?
5. How Livy Could have pleased Augustus by writing about Scipio's victories ? or about Marcus Antonius Victories (the grand father , the father and Antony himself) ? I really don't understand that point , did writing about Glabrio's success in Asia minor would have something with Augustus 200 years after ???

To come back to the subject - Livy's analysis looks not so bad , he was biased (I already said so) but he calculated many variables , like the manpower of the Italians (not just the Romans , much better than the Macedonians) , their nationalistic spirit (the army of Alexander was of mercenaries) etc' .

Bty , with out Livy , we actually don't have any history for the years 443 bce to 293 bce , so have a little respect for the guy... ~;)

[Kagemusha]

If Gauls could just before that why couldnt Alexander?At that point Rome was just another city state in Italy.I think if Alexander would have attacked West he would have thinked Carthage as his main opponent.

[caesar44]

If Gauls could just before that why couldnt Alexander?At that point Rome was just another city state in Italy.I think if Alexander would have attacked West he would have thinked Carthage as his main opponent.

The Senones Celts took Rome in c. 385 bce , and we are talking about 322 bce , in these 63 years Rome became the leading power in Central Italy and about to become , in just a few years , the no. 1 power in all Italy .
now look at the USA in 1882 and in 1945 (63 years) , looks the same ?

[Kagemusha]

Yes.Rome was a leading power in central Italy but Alexander´s empire was the leading power in the world.I have uttermost respect towards Romans,but at that time they couldnt have handled such a foe.If you look at the Punic wars and exceptionally Hannibals Campaign in Italy.You can see that the hardest troops to coupe for Romans was the Hannibals cavalry.Then compare that cavalry to Alexanders Companion´s. :bow:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Interesting Question:

On the Macadamian (blood pressure check -- just kidding) side:

Advantages:

Largely unified command.
Superb military system & components.
(Mac Phalanx, Hypaspists, Peltasts, Persian Bow, Mac Cavalry)
Most experienced leadership and "NCO" corps on planet at that time.
Excellent Morale.
Huge Resource Base from extended empire.
Potential Local Allies.


Disadvantages:

Large and disparate empire, significant need for garrisons, difficult to judge size of expeditionary force that could be sent.
Illyrian/Sicilian and Italian terrain not as conducive to Macedonian warfare, defenders could use moutains, marsh, forrest to advantage.
Loss of Leader could cripple offensive (and empire). Alexander always fought at the front -- for good or for ill.


For the Romani:

Advantages:

Superb Morale and strong military tradition.
Infantry somewhat more flexible, much more effective in bad terrain than phalanx.
Capable of mobilizing a surprising number of soldiers from a smaller polulation base.
Leadership not crippled by the loss of any one person.

Disadvantages:

Far more powerful that a city state, they were dwarfed by the Alexandran Empire (They were having real problems with the Samnites and Italians at this time, this was only resolved DURING the time frame of probable invasion by Alexander).
Weak cavalry.
Weak Missile component compared to Mac's.
Potential enemies locally who would join Alexander.


Summary:

A lot would have depended on random factors.

Could Alexander get things quiet enough at home to take a year or two to go smash Roma? (Probably)

Who was in Charge of the Romans in the specific year of the fight?
(2 consuls like at Cannae and Alex would romp, 2 truly good ones who could work together -- who knows what happens.)

Could Macedonian excellence overcome Roman tenacity?
(When and where do the armies clash -- a lot hinges on this)

My guess:

Alexander's superb use of cavalry proves too effective a strike tool and he bests the Roman field armies. Easily where the ground is open, but with significant casualties when and where the Romans fight on broken ground. The finale of the campaign however, is anyone's guess. Alexander never was his best at sieges and the siege of Rome would have been a doozy. I can see him inflicting 4-5 defeats on Rome in the field and then perishing on the walls of Rome and demoralizing his army in the process.

65-35 in Mac's favor, but for the Mac's, too much hinges on one man.

Seamus

[Colovion]

Maybe. It all depends on if he would've been able to have a supply line.

He most likely would have been able to trounce the unimaginative Romans as easily as Hannibal - but taking Rome would depend on supply and siege more than tactics.

[caesar44]

Yes.Rome was a leading power in central Italy but Alexander´s empire was the leading power in the world.I have uttermost respect towards Romans,but at that time they couldnt have handled such a foe.If you look at the Punic wars and exceptionally Hannibals Campaign in Italy.You can see that the hardest troops to coupe for Romans was the Hannibals cavalry.Then compare that cavalry to Alexanders Companion´s. :bow:

Did you forgat that Mokdon was a tiny kingdom comparing the Persian empire ?

Hannibal lost it and that is the main point - you could smash the Romans ones , twice , again and again , they , for 600 years , always came with the upper hand - a fact .
Phyrhus won it in 280 , but he could not conquer them .

[King of Atlantis]

The romans survived Carthage because they had far supeior man-power. They would have far less to alexander..

[caesar44]

How is that ??? he invaded Persia with 35,000 soldiers (some say 50,000) , the Romans had 8 legions = 36,000 soldiers + allied forces (some 40,000 soldiers) and more

[Steppe Merc]

Caesar, you can't go on ancient historian's numbers. They all lie when it comes to military matters, in particular when it comes to army's numbers.
The only semi reliable ones are the real soldiers.

[caesar44]

Caesar, you can't go on ancient historian's numbers. They all lie when it comes to military matters, in particular when it comes to army's numbers.
The only semi reliable ones are the real soldiers.


Steppe ,
Ok , but you have to choose ! if ancient historians numbers , so ancient historians numbers for all , if modern historian numbers , so modern historian numbers for all .
Still the ratio is the same ! think of it .
So , still 2 to 1 for the "Italians" .

[Kraxis]

As I said in the end there were more than 120,000 troops in Alexander's army. He recieved constant reinforcements from Macedon, he hired and trained eastern troops to fightin in the phalanx (part of why the Macedonians became so incenced was because they now had to fight beside the conquered people).

Rome at this time could at best field 25,000 Roman troops (if we look at the 3rd Samnite War from 20 years AFTER a possible Alexandrian invasion). This equates to about 4 legions in all. Most likely it would have been two consular armies. So two armies of about 20,000 troops would face off with some 40,000 superb troops, in turn. Hardly a chance.

And Alexander was a superb siege master.
His sieges in Asia Minor and in India were determined, well thought out and he had a strong siege train with him always.

Lastly, Alexander's main strength wasn't his tactical genius, it was his ability to force march his men to the extreme. As well as his ruthless pursuits.
If he won in thefield agains a Roman army he would not dally around like Pyrrhus or Hannibal. The Roman army would vanish, of course they wouldn't all get captured or killed but the remainders would go into hiding effectively removing them from the equation.

The Roman territory at this time was Latium, Umbria, and some of Samnium and Etruria. A normal army could enter Rome within a few days of crossing the boundary. An army under Alexander would have been before the city before a second Roman army could have been outfitted (that took almost half a year). And his siege of Rome would be a determined one whre he would work until his troops had gained an advantage then he would rush the city. Rome would fall.

Rome at this time was far weaker than the Rome that faced either Pyrrhus or Hannibal. At this time Rome wasn't beyond making concessions to enemies (2nd Samnite War had seen that for instance).

[caesar44]

Thomas Arnold (great historian) , HISTORY OF ROME , pages 338-339 (about the year 295 bce) :

"the consular armies...consisting each of two Roman legions , and an unusually large force of Roman cavalry; together with 500 Campanian cavalry , and a force of allies still larger than that of the Romans themselves . amongst the allies were undoubtedly the Lucanians and Campanians , and in all probability the Marsians , Pelignians , Marrucinians , and Vestinians , as well as the contingents of the colonies founded in the late war , and those of the still independent cities of the Latins . all the forces of the Picentians...as well as those of the Camertians... . Whilst this large force , consisting at least between fifty and sixty thousand men , was to take the field in the north , two more Roman legions , with a proportionate number of allies , were to invade Samnium... . A third army...was to be stationed as a reserve in the Faliscan territory... . And lastly , a forth army...was to be encamped in the Vatican district...to cover Rome itself . This account of the dispositions of the Romans is clear and perfectly credible..."


Well ? some 100,000 soldiers for the Roman consuls ! :book:
Please some respect for the mighty Romans ~;)

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=Kraxis]As I said in the end there were more than 120,000 troops in Alexander's army.

Please some sources

[Steppe Merc]

Steppe ,
Ok , but you have to choose ! if ancient historians numbers , so ancient historians numbers for all , if modern historian numbers , so modern historian numbers for all .
Still the ratio is the same ! think of it .
So , still 2 to 1 for the "Italians" .
I don't know the most modern historian's estimates. I just know that ancient sources almost almost always exagerate or lie.
It is for a couple of reasons:
A. Make your own side look better by saying how huge you're army was.
B. Explain a loss on your side by saying how huge the enemy's army was.
C. The historian never even saw the battle, so is just making up a nice big number.

[Geoffrey S]

Whether the Roman army had huge numbers is fairly irrelevent; when it would come to actually fielding the army and keeping it in the field huge numbers would prove to be a disadvantage. Other things would count as advantages for Alexander:
1. His strong cavalry. Arguably the best at the time, and supported by the famous phalanx. History shows that Rome was at it's weakest when faced with strong detachments of cavalry, and Alexander was a master at combining his infantry and cavalry to deadly effect.
2. Fickle Italian allies. As was seen in the second Punic war a lot of Rome's allies would desert if it came to a prolonged war with a doubtful outcome for Rome. This would be even more the case at the time when Alexander could have invaded, since Rome's territories were smaller and quite probably less loyal due to being conquered relatively recently.
3. While Rome's command system could produce good leaders this was relatively rare, particularly early in a war. Frequently leaders would be too overconfident or not scout out the area properly before battles, factors which would play into the hands of a general such as Alexander.
4. And not least, by this time Alexander had vast resources behind him and knew how to use them.

To me it seems likely Alexander would have been more than capable of winning, if he could get his own empire under control first. But he had plenty of time to get that sorted out, and had shown before that he could do so. Not only was he a master of battles, but also excellently capable of keeping an eye on the bigger picture.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I think he deffinently could have at the peak of his power. When everyone loved him, it was possible. At the end though I might have to say no...

[Gurkhal]

If he had not died, I think he could kept the empire together. Even if he would perhaps be forced to fight a civil war. Which I doubt he would lose.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Especially with all the support he had. He was loved even in Persia, for giving the land back and treating the people nicely.(The ones that were nice to him)


This has nothing to do with my post...

:charge: :charge:

Charge and Retreat!