Alexander VS Rome, who wins?

[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.

[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 .
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...........
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:

[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

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 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...

[Julius Augustus]

C'mon

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 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.
Anyway, All Hail Makedonia!

[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. 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]

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.

[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]

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....

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

That's my logical simulation...