Alexander VS Rome, who wins?

[Macilrille]

I got to side with Skully on this one, despite a few misgivings and being a Romaioiphiloi.

As has been stated a few times, at this point in history Rome was just a city state in Italy excerting its power over its neighbours, but not much else. I disagree that they were wannabee Graeculi though, to claim such is to demean Rome, for only during the late Republic and onwards did they start to imitate the Greeks- "conquered we conquer". The same thing happened to Alexander's own people, only as conquerers did the Greeks proper start to consider them Hellene...

SkullHQ also brings up another salient point that crossed my mind, Roman patricians were politicians first, generals second. Sometimes they produced astounishing talent like Agrippa, Caesar, Marius and Scipio Africanus, but they also produced utter incompetents like Caepio, and whoever was in command was a question of politics, not necessarily competence. With equal forces a Caesar, Marius or Scipio Africanus, or his opponent Hannibal could have matched Alexander- they were all five amongst the greatest military minds in history IMO and ye Gods would it have been bloody.

But during Alexander's time the Romans were nothing but another minor tribe/state/power competing with others in Italy and possibly not even known to the great Alexander, remember that he and his contemporary Greeks by and large was mostly East-turned because of their long struggle with the Persians, magna Graecha was by and large a frontier and not as such very interesting compared to the old centers of civilisation East of Greece.

Making that match is a bit like saying Caesarian Romans vs Franks, well at Caesar's time Franks were many smaller tribes in N Germany not even known as such yet. Caesar kicked those around he was in contact with. But 500 years later things were different, Franks took over Gaul and forged a powerful nation and empire on Roman foundations. Would Caesar and his legions still have kicked them? Yes, but things had changed...



There are many such thought experiments one can make, but they are mostly moot for anything but wargaming purposes and perhaps a fuller understanding of military tactics, organisation and strategy.

[Marcus Ulpius]

The majority rightfully shifts in favor of those who think that Romans would be defeated. I actually like Romans, but at the time of Alexander the Great, Rome was little more than city state with army, built around hoplites. Alexander knew how to fight those hoplites as pretty much the whole Greece fought this way. Romans had no cavalry (or very weak cavalry), they had nothing to counter the Hetairoi. And, of course they didn't have manpower and wealth necessary to fight in a prolonged war. I think after a few battles Romans would just capitulate of face destruction.

[Fluvius Camillus]

This clears things up, I dont think anyone would think Rome would destroy Alexandros at the time he lived, at best they get a stalemate. As Macilrille gives a good example of that with his Caesar - Franks comparison, this is an unequal battle. If we were talking outside reality, where Caesar lived in the same time as Alexandros with marian legions it would all be a lot more complicated and a more interesting discussion. But Rome at this point would at best keep its freedom, but probably fall.

So about the answers:
- Rome would win- At this time there is more certainty that Alexandros would win, Alexandros being at its high point, Roma before it started to grew mighty.
- Alexandros would win - See above.
- Stalemate/Close match - The best the Romani could achieve IMO.
- Diplmatic solution/client state - Romani would never surrender, so no client state, they would either be the victor or die trying.

Tiberius brougth up that this thread could end up in another Rome-bashing thread, SkullheadHQ replies it is a discussion. This is indeed a discussion, but what some seem to forget is that a discussion is known to have mutual respect between both sides, no matter how much the views of the sides differ. I dont really see this mutual respect and if you cant even bring up the decency to say Roma there is a large chance Tiberius will be right in the end.

~Fluvius

[vartan]

In other words, any answer is the correct answer...

I chose Alexander is vanquished as I assumed a certain match-up. It can't be wrong though, since everything here seems to be correct.

[Ludens]

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.

I am sorry, but this is wrong on several counts. First of all the Romans did not rule over other cities by consent either, so there would have been many ready to welcome Alexander as liberator. Secondly the "Persians did not fight of their free will" sounds like Greek rhetoric to me, but again: Rome's allies did not have a say in whether they fought or not. In the third place: Romans were certainly willing and able to adopt new techniques, but saying the could have simply adopted the Macedonian style phalanx is going rather far. The Macedonian phalanx was part of a combined-arms system, and Rome did not have heavy cavalry required to complement it. Such things are not established overnight, either. Anyway, you don't win a war by playing your opponent's game. Trying to use green phalangites to beat seasoned ones sounds like a bad idea to me.

Oh, and Alexander did not conquer Epiros and Sparta because he didn't need to. The former was a vassal, and the latter did not amount to much any more.

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).

Thanks for the clarification. There is no doubt that Rome was already showing the determination that would eventually turn her into a superpower, but I am not sure they had the stamina to keep it up against what was already a superpower. They had trouble enough subduing Carthage, and that was without facing the army with the best tactical doctrine led by the greatest general of the day.

Tiberius brougth up that this thread could end up in another Rome-bashing thread, SkullheadHQ replies it is a discussion. This is indeed a discussion, but what some seem to forget is that a discussion is known to have mutual respect between both sides, no matter how much the views of the sides differ. I dont really see this mutual respect and if you cant even bring up the decency to say Roma there is a large chance Tiberius will be right in the end.

I don't want to hand out warnings for substituting Romans with barbarians, and similar, but if this nonsense continues I will.

[alexanderthegreater]

On a side-note, what if the alexandrian Empire endured without fighting Rome (alexander names a succesor, etc, no diadochi wars)
And in the meantime Rome becomes a major power in the western mediteranean, conquering Carthage as they did.
Say the year is 200 BC, Rome has defeated Carthage and is the master in the west, Alexanders Empire has endured and is under the command of a single succesor.
In a slug match, which empire would win?

Maybe the discussion should change to "at what point in her history did Rome become as powerful as the alexandrian empire?"

[Macilrille]

Any sensible successor, assuming that there is no "Diadochii" and thus no inter-Diadochii squabbling to preoccupy them, would have attacked Rome around the time Pyrrhus did, after First Punic War at the latest, not letting a potential threat rise.

If Alexander's realm had survived intact in the hands of competent successors, it would have been them, not Pyrrhus that Taras et al had turned to for help. Even had "Alexandraia" (or whatever "The Alexandrian Realm/Empire" is in Greek) not intervened then, they certainly would have after First Punic though Rome and Carthage was largely at a stalemate then a sensible superpower eliminate any potential threats. As Rome started doing after 2nd Punic.

Question is whether any Alexandraia would have not turned on Carthage before the Punic Wars. The Greeks on Sicily, the "Greek" Greeks and Carthage had a long history of warring on Sicily and both Athenians and Spartans had often intervened there, so there was a precedence.

Around 300 BC Carthage and Rome were allies, and Carthaginian naval power and wealth coupled with Roman tenacity would probably have proven challenging, but the sheer size of the realms involved sort of decides it in the long run unless the Alex-Successor made the same decision as Tiberius later did with the conquest of Germany; that it is simply not worth it, which I find likely.

It is too much "What if?" for my liking anyway.

[Finn MacCumhail]

200 BC? I doubt Alexandros would live till then, no one can live so long, and IMHO the diadochi war is a “scripted” stuff that happens after the Alexandros death. Also Rome had Marcus Valerius Corvus, when Alexander started his East invasion. Romans were not green, they were very experienced in different Italian conflicts, also they already had Camillian-style army, as Camill lived before. Italian locals helped Carthage coz they fought with Rome particularly, Rome was an enemy. Alexander would come for the whole Italia. Could samnites prefer Macedonian rule instead of Roman, choosing which side to take? Never trust the ally with someone who more powerful. Rome was not a master of some parts of Italia, so there Alexander could’t be estimated as Salvator, coz they were independent, and their independence would be threaten. That is why they would ask someone to help. Whom? Rome.
I wonder who had the best fleet then? Carthage or Macedonia? If Carthage, then Mak army wouldn’t have supplies.
The same stile Roman army beaten Pirrus, who lived later, had even elephants and Mak-style phalanx was improved. Alexander would find his own Vietnam, and he should forget then about East. I sow in Wiki that Pirrus invaded with 40 thousand poople including elephants, and Alexander had 37 thousand invading Asia Minor. The difference is little.
After conquering India? No way. His army was demoralised. No one wanted to continue the struggle. His elites wanted home to their families. Alexander was frustrated by the death of Hefestion. And who said that he could conquer India peninsula?
The news that Alexander led his army to Roma would reach the Romans. It wouldn’t be surprise.
And what would eat all these army there? And if the Carthage cut them supplies by sea, Romans burned fields, and avoid general battle as it was some years later with Carthage? What then? His army would collapse like the Colossus on the clay legs.
USA (!) stacked in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
«Alexander, we made a long trip from Macedonia to India, then from India to Italia, we just want home, we haven’t seen our families for more then 10 years. Lots of us died on the battlefield, from diseases, even old age. Alexander we want home!» - would heared he.
BTW after India he should hear about China and go there. Who would win?

[Dutchhoplite]

Alexanders army defeated the Theban and Athenian hoplites at Chaeronea and the Spartan ones at Megalopis. I don't see why Roman hoplites (assuming they haven't adopted their manipular system yet) would do any better than their Greek counterparts.

On the other hand the Lamian war shows that hoplite armies weren't exactly powerless against the Macedonian armies, they lost but they performed well enough.

So, if Alexander would have invaded Italy in the 310's he would have defeated the Romans but only after a vicious little struggle.

[Macilrille]

The Romans changed to the more mobile Manipular System between 338 and 311 at the latest and would not have been an easy catch, being very warlike and tenacious; Romans of the Republic make pitbulls look like poodles in their tenacity in the face of any setback.

However Finn's assumptions are based on faulty comparison. Rome of 336 BC- 323 BC was not Rome of 280 BC. The Struggle between the classes was over and Latium were firm Roman allies despite what SkullHQ asserts (he obviously knows more Hellene history than Roman, with me it is the opposite). However, the rest of Italy was not yet controlled by Rome and they were embroiled in a hard struggle with the Samnites for supremacy in the peninsula. With the Samnite history of animosity to Rome I find it hard to believe that they would have sided with them against Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος, nor would the Greek city States in south Italy, nor probably Capua, having another long story of animosity to Rome.

So assuming that at various points in his career Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος would have went West instead of South and East, here is my go at it.

336, Macedonia and Rome was probably about equally strong, the Romans lacking good cavalry though and probably still using Hoplite tactics or just having changed would be disadvantaged by that, Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος by fighting on enemy turf, possibly with supply lines cut by Carthage and certainly with rebellions broiling at home and strife at his borders. Unless he could manage to smash the Romans in a Cannae-style battle I suspect he would be in trouble despite samnite and Tarentum support.

334 With Macedonia and Greece now firmly behind him, his supply lines would be more secure both from naval trouble and trouble on his home turf. Rome would be in trouble, for no doubt Samnium would side with Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος. Rome was not eastern despotism though, so a long and bloody war of attrition lurks and meanwhile the Greeks proper would probably wonder why the guy they elected to protect and avenge them against the Persians was bimpling around in Italy. Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος would need to subdue Res Publica Romana quickly or face trouble in Hellas, and SPQR did not easily surrender to anyone.

332, say instead of going for rich and ancient Egypt Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος had sailed west to deal with some barbarian tribe/nation in Italy. Rome would probably have been smashed by his veteran, well-led and well-integrated army. However, what would Darius do to his eastern conquests while he was undertaking the long task of subduing the stubborn Romans?

326/327, if he decided to leave India alone and go allllllll the way back west to deal with the insignificant tribe in Italy?
Rome would be defeated, but it would be a long and hard struggle. Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος had shown his ability to deal with such in the eastern parts of his empire and Bactria though and he would be both immensely rich and have the resources of the largest empire the world had seen behind him... so he would defeat Rome and this close to home; would his army be so eager to get home? Even if so, he would have no trouble replacing them with fresh recruits eager for glory and booty in his homeland before setting out. Something he could hardly do along the Hyphasis. Samnites etc would still side with him. I do not see how the Romans could have survived such a massive amount of resources.

320-ish, assuming he survives or did not contact his illness (I do not believe the poison theory), Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος could have easily recruited a new army eager for glory and with "NCO"'s and core being veterans while discharging his oldies. With this army he would have crushed Rome in a long and bloody struggle as described above. Again I do not see how even Rome could stand against him, they were, after all, just another city state in Italy. And locked in a long struggle with the almost equally strong Samnites who hated Rome even up to the Socii-War...


Roman resources:
Good heavy infantry, Hoplite or newly formed into manipular system, very warlike and tenacious.

Roman weaknesses, almost no cavalry, thus no Combined Arms tactics. No navy, but Carthage could supply that.
Total Roman Strength was at 311 approximately 12.000 heavy infantry, 4800 light infantry and skirmishers and 1200- 1800 cavalry. Socii would probably double that number, or even triple it. This number was achieved between 366 BC and 311 BC, we do not know when, but in 366, the infantry was only half the number.
Max number, 30-36.000 heavy inf, 14.400 light inf, 3600- 5000 Cav


Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος resources:
338 BC (probably same in 336), 30.000 Inf, 2000 Cav.
334, 22.000 Phalangati, 20.000 Peltastai, 5000 Cav.
333, 22.000 Phalangati, 14.000 Peltastai, 5-6000 Cav.
331, 31.000 Phalangati, 9000 Peltastai, 7000 Cav.
326, at furthest limit and heavily attrited, 34.000 inf and 9000 cav.
In general comparable and even-ish numbers to potential Roman muster, much superior to normal Roman muster and in any case superior in cavalry (Can we say "Cannae"?).

Macedonian strengths was the combined arms tactic using the heavy phalanx to pin down the enemy centre while the lighter peltastai covered the flanks and the cavalry outflanked them. Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος could do this in confidence that the superior Phalanx would not break in the face of even very superior numbers. Pyrrhus did much the same, strenghtening his cavalry attacks by using the fearsome elephants.

If we use the Pyrrhic campaigns as a guide it is likely that the outcome would have been much the same as their armies and tactics were very similar. However, Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος was a much superior politician and could probably have exploited his victories more and IMO he had a better army at his disposal. Much credit much go to Phillipos for creating the army that Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος used. Further, as I said, Rome of 330-ish was not Rome of 280-ish. They had much fewer resources. The muster numbers I state are very optimistic- very. It is more likely that they would be limited to a total of 15.-20.000 inf and 2-3000 cav.

If we believe Hannibal Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος and Pyrrhus were also similar in tactical and strategic skill (personally I hold Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος to be better, but then they faced different enemies and it is hard to compare). In any case, while Pyrrhus had only the resources of Epeiros and Taras at his disposal, Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος would have those of the largest empire the world had seen. In the end that- if nothing else- would have been decisive.

It is BTW, interesting to note that most of the really good armies led by the great leaders of the fourth- third centuries BC are of comparable size. One could guesstimate that such was the optimum size?

Anyway, the points are very moot, for Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος would not have turned West.
Why on earth should he? Unless he was blessed with prescience he could never have guessed that one of many tribes on the Italian peninsula would be the next great power and create an empire that would rival his own and outlast it by far. So what on earth would he do in underdeveloped Barbaricum?

[Yarema]

A Perfect subject for the Rome-haters, and other people frustrated that they are using latin alphabet, living in states with judicial systems based on roman law, etc.

Putting aside all the annoying "barbaropolis must be destroyed" and other symptoms of inferiority syndrome, if Alexander would invade Italy instead of Persia, hewould face various peoples determined to firght for their freedom instead of an ill-motivated army of minor-asia satraps. Still, i think Rome was not strong enough yet to hold off Alexander in the 330s.

In the 280s, however, Alexander would probably share the fate of Pyrrhus (countrary to what he thought, Alexander was not a god).
And after 200 BC the vastly superior Roman army would cut Alexander's army to pieces, like they did it with every other "hellenistic" army of that time.

If Alexander would attack Italy after Hydaspes and India, the great empire and it's resources would rather turn to his disadvantage...
The soldiers from different corners ofthe empire would have trouble in guessing what would they be fighting for.
And even if he would win, his Italian conquests would be impossible to hold on to for any longer than a few short years - a state based in Babylonia cannot reach further than Asia minor, i think even wiki knows that, hehehe.

[vartan]

...So what on earth would he do in underdeveloped Barbaricum?

What is Barbaricum?

[satalexton]

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......

[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:

[bobbin]

What is Barbaricum?

It a way of refering to the Romans, similar to Barbaropolis that the fans of the Hellenistic factions like to use around here. I think people should stop with the whole romans = barbarians language as that will only lead to more Roman or Hellen bashing and ruin the thread.

Also all this talk about Carthage being able to disrupt Alexanders supply line from Greece is nonsense, at its nearest point the gap betwen Italy and Greece is only slightly bigger than the english channel, given that the nearest Carthaginian ports would be in western Sicily they would never be able to react fast enough to catch any ships making the crossing and given that both coast lines would be hostile to them they would only be able to maintian a presence in the area for a short amount of time before they would have to return to a friendly port to resupply.

if Alexander would invade Italy instead of Persia, hewould face various peoples determined to firght for their freedom instead of an ill-motivated army of minor-asia satraps.

I wouldn't think they would not have been any less motivated than most armies, this notion that the persian empire was some despotic regime who's unwilling subjects suffered under its authoritarian rule is a myth, sure there were rebellions but every empire has those and persian rule wasn't particularly noted for them.

And after 200 BC the vastly superior Roman army would cut Alexander's army to pieces, like they did it with every other "hellenistic" army of that time.

A big part of which due to those states failure to support the phalanx properly to allow it to fufill its intended role on the battle feild, the exception being at Magnesia which still could have easily turned out very differently if Antiochos had kept his wits about him and stayed on the feild instead of riding off to attack the Roman camp. I think by 200bc the Roman army would have been a pretty even match for a Alexandrian style army, neither in my opinion were superior to the other if used correctly.

And even if he would win, his Italian conquests would be impossible to hold on to for any longer than a few short years - a state based in Babylonia cannot reach further than Asia minor, i think even wiki knows that, hehehe.

Hmm..the Umayyad Caliphate comes to mind.

[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...

[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.

[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...

[Dutchhoplite]

Anyway, the points are very moot, for Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος would not have turned West. Why on earth should he? Unless he was blessed with prescience he could never have guessed that one of many tribes on the Italian peninsula would be the next great power and create an empire that would rival his own and outlast it by far. So what on earth would he do in underdeveloped Barbaricum?

Following Arrian, Alexander warned the romans of their conquests to the south coast of Italy. Tarentum and Crotona were old allies of some greek states, which were know subdued to Macedonia and to Alexander. In 326 BC, Naples is conquered by the Romans. In 324 BC Alexander warns the romans of their expansion to the South, saying that they should not attack Tarentum or the south greek colonies in Magna Graecia. Probably the ambitious romans ignored the warning of the macedonians, and they didn't respond to it.

[Yarema]

Whoever in Hellas would like to go west after Hydaspes anyway? Why conquer new lands if we already have kingdoms with riches unheard of in the east? Not to mention, we have to defend them, too.

[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]

Whoever in Hellas would like to go west after Hydaspes anyway? Why conquer new lands if we already have kingdoms with riches unheard of in the east? Not to mention, we have to defend them, too.

Give the time machine to several Romaioktonoi (icluding me), and teleport us to the court of Alexandros, right before he will gone forever, we will carry with us top notch medical tools, antibiotics, and several guns. And we'll "persuade" Alexandros to invade room rather easily...

NOTE: I have finished my campaign simulation based on wikipedia up there.... feel free to give a look

[Ca Putt]

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".

yeah i know thats why i don't know what his opinion on romans(and samnites) was but I bet the average greek would be reffering to romans as barbarians not because they were uncivilized(another discussion) but because they were not greeks simple as that, you were either a greek or a barbarian and as a non greek consequently a barbarian. just because in RTW and modern usage the term barbarian is universal for not civilized people that does not mean that this was the case in alexanders time.

ps who compares alexander to phyrros and Hannibal forgets that Hannibal fought for a trade federation against a militrarist nation that fought a total war and phyrros was somewhat a rogue king :D who fought the same militarist total war nation, both did not have military kingdom as Macedonia was behind them nor defeated and conquered the superpower of the time and most of "ye known world" and that both had elephants is not an argument, elephants may mean a auto win in screenshot contests but they are not a must have for every war the romans won plenty of battles without useing elephants.

@Cute wolf: nah rather convince the sabines to conquer them instead of interbreeding :D or convince spartacus to seige rome. ^^

[Finn MacCumhail]

Why everyone says here that Roman army in 4th BC was hoplite-based? I lurked in Wiki and it was said that Legio was established in the time of Servius Tullius 6th century BC. Also since 350 BC people were devided into triarii, principii and hastatii. So why hoplites? (Ok, may be triarii – hoplites, like in EB, but what about the rest?) In Servius Tullius time Legio had 4200 infantry, 900 cavallery, 1200 levy. They had cavallery.
Also during Servius Tullius time first line infantry in Legio had heavy armour.
In 4th BC there were 4 Legio. 3000 heavy inf, 1200 levies, 300 cav. So 12000 heavy inf, 4800 light, 1200 cav. It was standard amount 2 legions belong to one tribune. During campaign they recruit more.

[G. Septimus]

Why everyone says here that Roman army in 4th BC was hoplite-based? I lurked in Wiki and it was said that Legio was established in the time of Servius Tullius 6th century BC. Also since 350 BC people were devided into triarii, principii and hastatii. So why hoplites? (Ok, may be triarii – hoplites, like in EB, but what about the rest?) In Servius Tullius time Legio had 4200 infantry, 900 cavallery, 1200 levy. They had cavallery.
Also during Servius Tullius time first line infantry in Legio had heavy armour.
In 4th BC there were 4 Legio. 3000 heavy inf, 1200 levies, 300 cav. So 12000 heavy inf, 4800 light, 1200 cav. It was standard amount 2 legions belong to one tribune. During campaign they recruit more.

only 4?????????
during campaign, they recruit the Pedites, And Samnicti, so maybe, extra troops from the Allies.