Alexander VS Rome, who wins?
I just stumbled upon a text by Livius where he argues that if Alexander the great would have invaded Italy, the Romans would have utterly destroyed him:
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toc...&division=div2
That seems like an interesting thought experiment, so I'd like to hear the opinions on that of the EB armchair generals. Please post speculation/arguments in what you would think the outcome in such an encounter.
Personally, if we compare the exploits of Pyrrhus to Alexander, I think Alexander would be able (unlike Pyrrhus) to gain and maintain control of the Greek cities in southern Italy, since he (again, unlike Pyrrhus) had the treasury and manpower to do so.
But he wouldnt conquer Rome. He might defeat them in the field, like Hannibal, but the Romans won't just run away from the battles and hail him as their new King of Kings. The had the administration, government, and mindset, to fight long and stubborn wars (as they did against Hannibal), deal with defeat, and outmanouver Alexander strategically if they can't defeat him by brute force.
Alexander might overpower them by sheer manpower (he had a big empire after all) but that would be a war of atrittion and the losses he would make would outweigh the prospects. Italy wasnt his only border after all.
Bookmarks