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!
Bookmarks