Alexander VS Rome, who wins?

[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.

[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.