Alexander VS Rome, who wins?

[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.

[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.

[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.