Alexander VS Rome, who wins?

[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

[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

[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?

[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.

[Subotan]

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