Alexander VS Rome, who wins?

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

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.

Good point. Antique navies needed to resupply rather often, since they could not load larger amounts of supplies. This is not very well implemented in RTW and so neither in EB. Also Alexander had the best shipyards of the world under his control. He could have built a fleet on his own (not necessarily though).

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.

I totally agree.

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.

I totally agree. The only weak spot of Alexandrian combined arms tactics is that it demanded a capable General. It depended too much on the person in chief. Alexander and Philipp were able to fulfill that role, many others were not (Perseus is a notorious example).

Also, you can't compare Alexander to Pyrrhos or Hannibal. Pyrrhos did not have the resources Alexander could rely on. Even before his great conquest. Also, Pyrrhos is a reckless character that has proven his strategical incompetence just as often as his tactical genius. He could not make use of a single one of his conquests. Even after he defeated Antigonos Gonatas (who only survived in disguise after his troops abandoned him on the battlefield), he could not win over Makedonia just because he went to the Pelopponese for some obscure reason. Alexander did not show such incompetence, even after he went crazy later on he did not became a fool.

Hannibal on the other side was not a King that commanded a state. He was a General acting on his own. He was not supported by his mother city, instead the war in Italy was more like a personal war of the Barca-family than a war of Carthage. He was so hated and feared at home that the Sophet (sp?) rather risked defeat by Rome than dared to support Hannibal. Rome could win over Carthage because Carthage didn't take part in the war, that's about it in short. None of this is valid for Megas Alexandros. Alexandros proved able and heartless enough to kill anybody within his own side that he deemed a potential traitor.

[Subotan]

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

[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!

[bobbin]

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.

Legio is just the latin for army it doesn't imply a specific style of military units.
From the Servius Tullius wikipedia page

Having classified manpower resources so that he could inventory it, Servius used the same classifications to establish an order of battle. The military selection process picked men from civilian centuriae and slipped them into military ones. Their function in the military depended on their age, experience, and the equipment they could afford; the wealthier men of combat age were armed as hoplites, heavy infantry with helmet, greaves, breastplate, shields (clipeus), and spears (hastae). A class thus became a line of battle in the phalanx formation.

and from the Roman Republic page

During this period, Roman soliders seem to have been modelled after those of the Etruscans to the north, who themselves seem to have copied their style of warfare from the Greeks. Traditionally, the introduction of the phalanx formation into the Roman army is ascribed to the city's penultimate king, Servius Tullius (ruled 578 to 534 BC). According to Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the front rank was composed of the wealthiest citizens, who were able to purchase the best equipment. Each subsequent rank consisted of those with less wealth and poorer equipment than the one before it.

From the time of Servius Tullius until the late 4th century bc the Romans fought with their best troops equipped as heavy hoplites arranged in a phalanx at the front with sucessively poorer troops behind them, this is a Hoplite style army. While it is probable that this classical army under went changes to equipment after the sack of Rome by the Celts it still fought in a phalanx style by the time of the 2nd Samnite War, it was defeats in this war that are believed to be the reason for the adoption of the Manipular tactics that the Romans became famous for.
Traditionally these changes were credited to Marcus Furius Camillus soon after the sack of rome which doesn't really make much sense as why would the Romans in attempting to counter celtic tactics reform their armies based on a completely seperate people (the Samnites) who never even fought the Celts?
What is more likely is that they adopted it around the time of the 2nd Samnite war where they suffered setbacks due to the greater mobilty and flexibility of the Samnite armies in the rough hilly terrain of Samnium.

[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.

[Ludens]

Good point. Antique navies needed to resupply rather often, since they could not load larger amounts of supplies. This is not very well implemented in RTW and so neither in EB. Also Alexander had the best shipyards of the world under his control.

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.

[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.

[Skullheadhq]

I wonder who voted for "Alexander will be utterly vanquished ".
Anyway, this thread has indeed run is course.

[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.

[Cambyses]

IMHO, if Alexander invaded Italy, instead of East, he would first win, coz of he is great tactician, and so on, but you forgot that on the East he was thought by natives as Salvatore from Persian rule, and in Italy there was no Persian rule, so natives wouldn't support him. Also Persians were made to fight while Romans fight by their will. Romans as being in their home easily recruit new army, while Alexander would suffer casualties. I think the story with Pirrus would be repeated. And one more - Romans adopt new things easily (that is why they succeeded IRL), they could adopt Macedonian style phalanx, and then perhaps they would build their empire a bit earlier.

And don't forget that Megas Alexandros haven't conquer Sparta and Epirr.

eh, come on. The whole Persian troops being whipped into battle is surely just Greek propaganda. They wanted to fight as much as any bunch of warriors would - they just werent tactically adaptable enough. Also, the natives of the Persian Empire did give some resistance to Alexander. However, as he was establishing himself as a successor to the achaemenid monarchs that resistance was vastly reduced.

Alexander was a death or glory kind of guy, the Romans would have had to kill him, kneel before him or be utterly wiped out

Are we really suggesting that Sparta and Epirus were not effectively vassal states during Alexander's reign? Why do you think he burned Thebes to the ground?

[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.

[Epimetheus]

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.

As I recall, at the time of his death, Alexander was having Krateros construct a massive expeditionary fleet (supposedly a thousand ships) at Tarsos in Kilikia, with the intent of attacking Carthage. After Alexander's death, production stopped. It was still apparently a fairly impressive fleet, even unfinished, which Krateros would eventual sail to Greece to help Antipater put down an Athenian revolt. I think, if I remember correctly, that control of his fleet eventually passed to Antigonos Monophthalmus and his children, and became the foundation for the Antigonid Makedonian navy.

[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

[L.C. SVLLA]

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

Yep that part about ordering soldiers from as far as Syria was mere speculation. I based that off of Pompey Magnus and his civil war with Caesar. He was in Greece when he requested more soldiers to fight Caesar, so I just thought hey, Alexander would be in Greece so....just speculation that's all.

and about reading your posts, i just posted about my reason why Rome would be victorious, not replying to any post, and went on from there, replying to you and some others that called me out.

[Finn MacCumhail]

@Cambyses

About Sparta and Epirr I ground my opinion on this map.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

About tactics and so on. Rome had Marcus Valerius Corvus. He had an exp fighting in Itally. Rome had its leader.
And I have a question. I read in wiki that triarii, principii, and hastatii serve since 350 BC. So does it means that since 350 BC they were like Camillian EB troops? Or like hoplite phalanx?
I think that if Alexander invaded Itally instead of East he would face strong resistance, and had to withdrew, coz his political, strategic aim was East. If he instead of death went to Itallia, then as someone previously said his advantages turned disadvantages. Even Brits were defeated by Shaka of Zululand, Spain stacked in Netherlands, USA in Vietnam.
But I had to agree, that during the period after taking Egypt and before his death, he would definitely conqured Rome, but then he should to forget about East. Hm, if he was poisoned IRL, then in 10 years of conqures his servants would be bored of him, and try to poison anyway.

[Ludens]

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.

If you wish for a serious discussion, you should take both your arguments and your opponents' seriously. If you want to ignore him, ignore him.

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.

Well, the Athenians have a history of ill-advised resistance against superior powers. And they weren't quite alone in their resentment of Macedonia. They wouldn't go into revolt while Alexander was near, but once he was campaigning in Italy it is possible that an alliance of Greek city states would have made their break for freedom.

Also, with the eastern Phoenicians out of the equation and Athens unwilling, I think the finest shipyards of the Mediterranean would be in Carthage.

About Sparta and Epirr I ground my opinion on this map.

And I have a question. I read in wiki that triarii, principii, and hastatii serve since 350 BC. So does it means that since 350 BC they were like Camillian EB troops? Or like hoplite phalanx?

Cambyses was wrong in saying that Sparta was a vassal, but Epiros definitely was under the Macedonian thumb. But even if it wasn't, that still doesn't make your point valid. Alexander never conquered Sparta and Epiros, but then he never attempted to.

As for Rome's army: go back and read Macilrille's posts. It's not clear when Rome switched from the hoplite phalanx to the quinqunx formation. However it's quite likely that the terms hastati, principes and triari derive from the hoplite phalanx. They initially indicated property classes rather than equipment or battlefield position IIRC.

[bobbin]

And I have a question. I read in wiki that triarii, principii, and hastatii serve since 350 BC. So does it means that since 350 BC they were like Camillian EB troops? Or like hoplite phalanx?
I think that if Alexander invaded Itally instead of East he would face strong resistance, and had to withdrew, coz his political, strategic aim was East. If he instead of death went to Itallia, then as someone previously said his advantages turned disadvantages. Even Brits were defeated by Shaka of Zululand, Spain stacked in Netherlands, USA in Vietnam.
But I had to agree, that during the period after taking Egypt and before his death, he would definitely conqured Rome, but then he should to forget about East. Hm, if he was poisoned IRL, then in 10 years of conqures his servants would be bored of him, and try to poison anyway.

The Triarii, principes and hastatii were AFAIK created by Camillus during his reorginisation of the Roman army after the sack of Rome by the celts, they still fought in the phalanx formation with spears but were arranged as they were in later times ie the hastaii arranged in a phalanx with the pricipes phalanx behind them and the triarii phalanx at the back (before the reform the situation was reversed).

Shaka never fought the British having died decades before the Anglo-Zulu war and while the Zulu's won individual battles they were defeated in the end. As for the Netherlands and Vietnam both recieved substantial support form powerful neighbouring or sympathetic countries, they weren't going it alone.
Rome could have relied on Carthage, its Latin and maybe Campanian allies for support but thats it really it, the Samnites and Etruscans hated the Romans and might have even gone as far as joining Alexander who could have also relied on the support of the Greek cities in the south and Sicilly as well (like what happened with Phyrros).

replying to you and some others that called me out.

Well apart from the bit about the allies during the 2nd Punic war you don't seem to have replied to anything my post at all. Anyway during the war quite a few subjegated peoples and allies defected to Hannibal, these include major ones such as Capua (along with most of the Campanians), Syracuse (causing other greek cities in sicilly to revolt as well), the Samnites, the Lucanians, Tarentum and the Bruttians as well as various other cities such as Thurii, Croton and Heraclea among others. While this did in no way represent the majority of their allies it ws still a significant chunk and certainly disproves your rather flippant remark that "History has proved that not even Hannibal could make an ally of Rome turn on them."

Now if Alexander had invaded after his conquests in the east he could rely on the support of most if not all of the Greek cities in the area at the very least, Rome's list of allies on the other hand is much smaller, they have a powerful one in the form of Carthage but apart from that they could only expect support from the Latins and the Campanians. The neighbouring Samnites and what was left of the Etruscans would at best remain neutral and at worst join the invaders (quite likely with the Samnites considering they were warring with Rome at the time), the other Italian peoples would probably keep to themselves.

I do find your belief that the romans of the time were some kind of super people superior to everyone else in martial and political skill rather odd.
The truth of the matter is that at the time they were a small somewhat unremarkable republic that showed the occasional flash of the greatness they would eventually achieve but at the time that future was in no way certain.

This is the last I shall say on the matter.

[Fluvius Camillus]

I read all of the posts and can agree especially with Macilrille on most points.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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?

Cute Wolf also has some good point however I disagree on some minor points.

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".

"To me every bad greek is a barbarian and every good barbarian is a greek." The proper greeks were prone to divide the world in two: Their superior greek culture, everyone else were barbarians. Alexander did not, as the quote above testifies. Also there is a speech of Alexandros in the forum which I am unable to find at the moment, preaching equalty.

[..]
Are we really suggesting that Sparta and Epirus were not effectively vassal states during Alexander's reign? Why do you think he burned Thebes to the ground?

I am not sure about Epirus, probably there was political marriage involved and heavy Macedonian influence. About Sparta I know they were no threat, but there was an acnient Spartan law which prevented a foreigner to rule Sparta, hence we see Sparta as independent. Probably they had heavy Makedonian control and not much to say, but couldn't officially join the empire.

@L.C. SVLLA

As you are a new member, you probably have to get acqainted with this forum first, but I suggest you look up your history first and keep sources by hand. You are not helping your side nor the discussion if you start screaming things. Take your time to read through your post after you are done typing, this saves you time because you dont have to write new posts to correct your mistakes (you can edit posts afterwards if you see mistakes). Please be specific and have some proof about things the general public might not know. Give examples.

@main subject:

Do know that Alexanders veterans were exhausted. The ones from the start probably have grown too old to campaign more and troops underway are badly mauled by the distance they covered and their harsh Gedrosian expedition. A lot of fresh recruits must have joined, (who where there aplenty though, taking in regard Alexander's popularity). Also Alexandros did not employ Hellens much, he found them unreliable after having rebelled from him and hated him from the start. Alexanders borders would be more secure than in Seleucid times, as peoples probably feared Alexander and most opposition simply was wiped out.

Rome would probably see Italia turn against them. Old enemies seeking for revenge, also Alexander could afford mercenaries and bribe people as he accumulated vast amounts of talents from the Persian treasury. If Rome started losing battles (like in the 2nd Punic war) allies would also forfeit Rome for Alexander. At this time, no matter how driven and brave, Rome could not defeat Alexandros.

~Fluvius

[Dutchhoplite]

Rome could have relied on Carthage, its Latin and maybe Campanian allies for support but thats it really it, the Samnites and Etruscans hated the Romans and might have even gone as far as joining Alexander who could have also relied on the support of the Greek cities in the south and Sicilly as well (like what happened with Phyrros).

Hmmm, depends...how powerfull was Carthage near the end of the 4th century?? Timoleon defeated the Carthaginians on Sicily and Agathocles handled them pretty roughly in North Africa and he was "just" the Tyrant of Syracuse.

[L.C. SVLLA]

Well apart from the bit about the allies during the 2nd Punic war you don't seem to have replied to anything my post at all. Anyway during the war quite a few subjegated peoples and allies defected to Hannibal, these include major ones such as Capua (along with most of the Campanians), Syracuse (causing other greek cities in sicilly to revolt as well), the Samnites, the Lucanians, Tarentum and the Bruttians as well as various other cities such as Thurii, Croton and Heraclea among others. While this did in no way represent the majority of their allies it ws still a significant chunk and certainly disproves your rather flippant remark that "History has proved that not even Hannibal could make an ally of Rome turn on them."

Now if Alexander had invaded after his conquests in the east he could rely on the support of most if not all of the Greek cities in the area at the very least, Rome's list of allies on the other hand is much smaller, they have a powerful one in the form of Carthage but apart from that they could only expect support from the Latins and the Campanians. The neighbouring Samnites and what was left of the Etruscans would at best remain neutral and at worst join the invaders (quite likely with the Samnites considering they were warring with Rome at the time), the other Italian peoples would probably keep to themselves.

I do find your belief that the Romans of the time were some kind of super people superior to everyone else in martial and political skill rather odd.
The truth of the matter is that at the time they were a small somewhat unremarkable republic that showed the occasional flash of the greatness they would eventually achieve but at the time that future was in no way certain.

This is the last I shall say on the matter.

aff right. sorry to have skipped you

regarding allies not turning on Rome i wrote that in haste and retracted it. universal rule being never give out 100% guarantees of anything (Rome never lost, Caesar never lost a battle, etc.). southern Italy ran to Hannibal after cannae, Sicily decided to favor Hannibal, the Macedonians decided also to favor Hannibal. however central Italy did not, massilia did not favor Carthage at all and wary of its expansion, and when scipio soon defeated Hannibal lost his Italian allies (almost as soon as he left Italy) and they went back to Rome again. Furthermore did you know, northern Italy, where Hannibal inspired Gauls to raid after Hannibal's victories, was actually pretty quiet? according to(just to cite a source anyway) unrv.com, Rome had good relations with the northern tribes, and any gallo-roman conflict was minor?...it takes either direct conquering or major victories such as cannae to convince an ally of Rome to switch sides, even then Hannibal lost small skirmishes while in Italy.

Rome decided that if Hannibal was too great an enemy to attack directly, then they would attack him in Spain, it just shows the resolve Rome had in them. But everyone should know this, instead they look up to Alexander like a kid his dad...

Also, many people here has agreed or at least mentioned Alexander preparing to invade Carthage, Rome was still fighting their own wars. how long would it take for Alexander to prepare for the invasion, what date he would set it, and how long it would take to destroy Carthage? we won't know, that's an even bigger 'what if' question than OP's post. but be certain Rome was still at war and still gaining experience in its long list of battle around Italy. and if/when Alexander did attack Carthage

Also, do you know why Rome gave up hoplite type armies? sure you do, defeats from more mobile Gauls and samnites, ineffectiveness of the phalanx in rough Italian ground (central Italy being more mountainous than southern Italy, where Phyrrus' famous battles and most of his time were spent including a foray into Sicily). so if we take this reasoning and apply it to Alexanders 'phalangitai' infantry how would he not be at some disadvantage facing Romes army? (which would be veteran if most soldiers did not serve their full time required to be exempt to be called up for further wars). this would be at close to the final stages of the 2 samnites wars or at the end, if you want to say Alexander right away jumped on a ship and told the captain to head straight to Italy...

I do find your belief that the Romans of the time were some kind of super people superior to everyone else in martial and political skill rather odd.

i find it that everyone here thinks Alexander to be some demi-god even stranger. in a room full of pro Macedonians i drew a lot of attention just by saying "Rome would win". also, wouldn't you say Rome was the superior war-like and politically tact city in all of Italy..say if they conquered it? hey look they did...and that's just simple greek logic.

@FLUVIS CAMILLUS: hey how are ya. everyone here giving out RTW facts and half baked opinion you go and tell me give examples? ill take it you didnt read my post as i give so many fact and examples

@LUDENS: OK, ignoring the simple 1 paragraph posts that has magical words such as "Alexandros easily wins" and spectacularly winning a debate by giving one liners.

[Finn MacCumhail]

Ok, I agree, Alexander was managed to conquer Rome. It doesn’t matter how long, on which period of his life, what would be the price, and so on and so on. It would be possible if all of necessary aspects would meet in the right place and in the right time. And I am sure during his life such things meat.

Now I wonder. Well, it s commonly known that Alexander was impressed by East culture. He introduced some of East customs in his Empire, he respected their culture, closered some Persians. (Some of his generals were disappointed by these facts)

But my question is: was it random stuff that he was influenced East culture coz he faced it among first (not counting barbarian or native ones), or he would be influenced by it any way, no matter what other cultures he faced before. I mean if he conqured Rome first would he be influenced by its culture – speaking Latin, establishing Roman Law all over his Empire… May be Roman Republican system ideas would spread to the far Indus? Could it be?

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

@FLUVIS CAMILLUS: hey how are ya. everyone here giving out RTW facts and half baked opinion you go and tell me give examples? ill take it you didnt read my post as i give so many fact and examples, so ill kindly disregard everything you say from now on. you should look at yourself, relying on others arguments and give a 1 paragraph summary of how Alexander conquers it all. haha oh wow.

@LUDENS: ok, ignoring the simple 1 paragraph posts that has magical words such as "alexandros easily wins" and spectacularly winning a debate by giving one liners.

You complain that people don't read what your are writing but you openly admit that the same is true for you, while in the same moment complaining about me only "giving one liners". I guess you feel like you are really treated unfair, right?

I'm out of this now (should have left before I guess).

[HunGeneral]

But my question is: was it random stuff that he was influenced East culture coz he faced it among first (not counting barbarian or native ones), or he would be influenced by it any way, no matter what other cultures he faced before. I mean if he conqured Rome first would he be influenced by its culture – speaking Latin, establishing Roman Law all over his Empire… May be Roman Republican system ideas would spread to the far Indus? Could it be?

Well I think the reasons: Alexandros was impressed by the East are many, but the ones I can think of now:

- The Persians managed to create the greatest empire of there time.
- Alexandros viewed the Persians Rulers (Cyrus the Great - Kurush Wuzurg - above all) as exampels to be followed - Cyrus was a great general and one of the first really merciful and just kings. It is even speculated that Alexandros wanted to conquer the whole of Asia to prove himself a worthy Heir to the earlier Achemanid Rulers. (He ordered his men to treat the Family of Darius as people of royal blood. He gave Darius a Burial fitting to his rank and fought a long campaign further east - all the way to Baktria - to have the murderers of Darius punished - among other reasons.)
- Later he believed that as such a great conqueror he was he would deserve the respect given to gods. He also took over several traditions from the Ahcemanid Dynasty (this was what outraged most of his men - in there eyes Alexandros was making them behave like slaves.... in a way no free man would tolerate.)
I believe there were other reasons, but I can't remember them right now..

I would recomend reading the work of Curtius Rufus on Alexander, it deals primalry with the events after the Battle of Granicus and on. I Personally find it an interresting read - haven't finished it yet, but it clearly has an educational purpose which can be felt beyond the centuries.

[L.C. SVLLA]

You complain that people don't read what your are writing but you openly admit that the same is true for you, while in the same moment complaining about me only "giving one liners". I guess you feel like you are really treated unfair, right?

I'm out of this now (should have left before I guess).

k i was a bit harsh, ill edit that kind of. its normal for two people to get angry when arguing.