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/toc...&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 ). 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
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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[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!

[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.