Alexander VS Rome, who wins?

[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]

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

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

[bobbin]

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

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

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

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

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

what opponent that Alexander faced could match Rome equally?

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

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

[Zarax]

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

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

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

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

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

[Macilrille]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[vartan]

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

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

[HunGeneral]

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

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

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

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

phyrrus was a magnificent general...Do you have any proof to how Alexander could do any better than phyrrus against Rome?

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

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

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

really, you did not even consider the time it would take to plan an invasion, Rome would be fighting, and learning all along the way while Alexander was still gathering info about the natives.

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

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

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

who has the will to last longer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[L.C. SVLLA]

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

ah in my haste to type the post i forgot to never give 100% guarantees. like when i said no allies capitulated over to the other side against Rome. Then again i couldn't be any less accurate as you can only mention a few allies while could practically say most of Romes allies stuck with Rome anyway..this part of the discussion is moot.

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

How can i even reply to this post that has no real detailed argumentative substance to it at all? nobody fought Alexanders empire, they fought Alexander and his army. noticeable difference.

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

what? i didn't understand the last part I'm afraid, but please don't turn this into a one sentence reply debate...I'd like examples..some more detailed info..then i can learn and reply in detailed posts...

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

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

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

hey it's just a tiny tribute to the greatest nation ever known. certainly lasted longer than macedonia's

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

[L.C. SVLLA]

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

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

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

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

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

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

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

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

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