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.