Rome vs Alexander

[geo]

Hi all, regarding the previous post Federico seems to know his history, but its anybodies guess! We can or course for the fun of it take the plunge and dream. I would say that Alexander would win but with great hardship.
Rome had not yey reached its real greatness yet. We must remember that Alexander's forces now were not of one nation or one city nor did they have a mutual purpose for fighting except for gain!
So on the other hand the Roman's were of one blood, one city one country, and they were defending that country!
It would be very very close, and Alexander would not be able to hold Rome for very long, and if she allied herself with the Gauls, and Germans it would have meant defeat for Alexander.
george

[Terratheon]

I have little doubt Alexander would have prevailed against the Roman military establishment at any time prior to the advent of Scipio Africanis, who combined the Roman with the Hellenistic style of warfare. The earlier Manipular legion without adequate cavalry support was defeated by Pyrrhus, at Heraclea and Aculum, half a century after Alexander using an Epirote-Macedonian-Samnite army which was inferior to AlexanderGÇÖs first-rate Hellenistic army. Moreover, nothing in the campaigns of Pyrrhus, who was defeated often suggests he was equal let alone superior to Alexander. The Roman army which faced Pyrrhus, and later Hannibal was superior to the Camillan Cohorts which would have faced Alexander, and both Hannibal and Pyrrhus defeated the Romans using Hellensitic combined arms tactics first used by Philip II and Alexander. The cumbersome oversized phalanxes of Phillip V at Cynoscephelae and Perseus at Pydna, lacked adequate cavalry, and hypapist support, and all by themselves could not have practiced the combined arms Hellenistic tactics used by Pyrrhus and Hannibal to defeat the legion. They were far inferior to AlexanderGÇÖs phalanx, even apart from their lack of effective cavalry support. Moreover the Roman army which beat them was, after years of trial against Hannibal, much better than that which would have faced Alexander. The Persian army with itGÇÖs good and diverse cavalry supported by large numbers of Greek mercenary infantry scarcely inferior to AlexanderGÇÖs own the best troops, was more of a challenge than the contemporary Romans would have been.

[Federico]

I'm happy to hear your opinions, this was my aim. I want to tell George that our opinons are not so different. We both speak of a victory of Alexander and of great difficulties against Roman defense. However I've a little doubt about a Celtic or German (!) help to Rome. Celts had no interest in defending Rome and I think that it would be more probable a Cisalpin Gauls help for Alexander (gold of Susa is absolutely more convincing). As for Germans, even I'm not sure that Romans had contacts with them or knew them! (first direct contacts are at Marius' times). As for Terratheon, I want to invite him to read with attention the account of Heraclea and the real reasons of the Roman partial defeat (the decisive role of elephants...etc. and not Pyrrhus' superiority in cavalry! The charge of Companion-like-Epirote Heavy cavalry (and Thessalians) was stopped by simple italian light cavalry! Pyrrhus fell from his horse!). Hannibal won mainly thanks to his genius(and Numidian and Spanish cavalry), when Rome had a great commander (Publius Cornelius Scipio, the future Africanus) and good cavalry, the Carthaginian combined arms proved really inferior). Then, I want to underline that Perseus had with him the best horsemen in Macedon and when the battle was still in doubt he preferred flee with them to remain alive. Philp V and Perseus had troops similar to Seleucidian Argyraspides (so similar to Hypaspist, a little more armoured). Simply the macedonian rulers had a good Hellenistic army, but made a bad use of it. However I have supposed Alexander's invasion took place in 294/3 BC so, no Camillan army to face, but a earlier manipular legion ready to defend plains with the extremely mobile chess-board deployment and mountains(already learned Caudium's lesson). I know my history.
Phobos ka+¼ Deimos
Federico

[Terratheon]

I disagree that Pyrrhus owed his victories to the elephants: they were a double edged sword, often rampaging to harm pyrrhus troops as much as the Romans. Pyrrhus success, in keeping with the Macedonian system of war was based on combined arms and asymmetric warfare, not any single arm. He used elephants to drive Roman cavalry away from their wings and his cavalry to strike at the exposed flanks of the infantry while the phalanx pinned the legions frontally and Samnites secured the flanks of the phalanx. Pyrrhus was badly outnumbered and his Thessalian cavalry was superior in all respects to their Roman opponents except with regard to numbers. At the battles of Cynocephalae and Pydna, the Romans had access to Aetolian and other Hellenistic cavalry, and hence were able to avoid the mounted weakness which had plagued them during the early battles against Hannibal. Their Macedonian opponents had a much smaller cavalry force relative to the infantry than had prevailed in the time of Alexander, and they relied too much on the Phalanx, as the strike (hammer) element, while Alexander had used it mostly as the pinning (anvil) element. Moreover Macedonian cavalry and infantry in RomeGÇÖs Macedonian wars was inferior in quality to that of AlexanderGÇÖs era. AlexanderGÇÖs phalanxes assaulted the PersianGÇÖs Greek mercenary infantry while moving across rugged river embankments, and prevailed, at both Granicus and Issus. The phalanx of Cynocephalae and Pydna could not even cross shallow inclines without breaking apart. As I expressed in my previous entry, I do concur the Roman military establishment at the time of Scipio Africanis would have been a challenge to anyone but as I stated that is precisely because Scipio combined the best elements of the Roman and Hellenistic combat systems. It is most improbable the Romans of the 330 BC time frame,

[Federico]

I think you say good general statements, but this is theory, not practice. I'm convinced that history is made of contingent events. Often Armies clearly superior were defeated by opponents clearly inferior! You said elephants were a double edged sword, and I agree with you, but even if they express this double quality in an evident way at Heraclea, they were extremely decisive in giving victory to Epirotes. Pyrrhus kept them as a reserve behind his lines and used them at the right moment. They also prevent Pyrrhus to obtain a total victory by rampaiging through their own lines and so they allowed Roman retreat. However no Roman retreat, no Roman defeat would have occurred if Pyrrhus would haven't made use of the "boves Lucani". Not only the roman horses were terrified, but Roman legionarii themselves! They had never seen those enormous pachiderms. Remember the power of fear! Later on, in fact, Rome (learned the elephants lesson), after Pyrrhus' retutn from Sicily defeated him, making not a Pyrrhic, but a ROMAN victory. Where's hellenistic warfare system now? Roman system of fighting proved very soon superior. They know how treat phalanxes, the same for cavalry and elephants, etc... Alexander was not like Pyrrhus, so I think he wold be the winner, but Romans were a real obstacle. As for cavalry at Heraclea, my sources say the opposite (Thessalians + Tarentines = 4000 / Roman cavalry + Southern Italian cavalry = 2400). The Greek cavalries you mention about Kynoskephalai, supporting Quinctius Flamininus, were neither superior nor more numerous than Macedonian ones. Macedonian defeats in 197 BC and 168 BC were not due to lack of cavalry, but to terrible mistakes in taking advantages from the terrain! I think that Africanus' combination of system is limited to the use of cavalry and elephants. However cavalry was already used in Roman legions, simply Scipio had at his disposal better mercenaries and allied, and used them!
Phobos ka+¼ Deimos
Federico

[Terratheon]

While I agree elephants were an important part of Pyrrhus victories, they were only co-equal, if even that, to the phalanx which fought a continual seesaw struggle with the Roman legions and to the Thessalian cavalry which out flanked them. The Romans were not pursued to destruction in part because even in defeat, they still greatly outnumbered the Greek troops and also because the elephants turned on their owners. DonGÇÖt forget the Romans used elephants to crush of the deploying left wing phalanx at Cynoscephalae, and later to drive off the Macedonian left wing cavalry and light armed troops at Pydna, but it does not follow from this the Romans owed their victories only to the elephants. Unlike the later MacedoniansGÇÖs, AlexanderGÇÖs troops fought elephants for the first time at the Hydapses and handled them far more effectively and successfully than the Romans did after two battles against Pyrrhus. Your statement that the superior military system will invariably defeat the inferior one must be interpreted in both directions: the Romans lost to the Hellenistic tactics of both Pyhrrus and Hannibal until Scipio Africanis made the cavalry and infantry coordination of Hellenisitc warfare, a more salient feature a Roman tactics. (i.e. cavalry became a decisive strike arm, not just a flanks security, scout and skirmish force as before.) As to the idea the late Macedonian cavalry were of high-quality, the historical records shows At Pydna, the Macedonian right-wing cavalry did not even attack and as noted the left-wing cavalry were easily routed. This would not have occurred in the armies of Alexander or Phllip II, and did not even occur in the Roman army at Cannae and the Trebia where the Italian horsemen fought bravely if unsuccessfully. We

[Terratheon]

(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS ENTRY...) We have little information on the Macedonian cavalry at Cynoscephelae, but they clearly played little role apart from the initial skirmish prior to the battle. The late Macedonian cavalry were inferior to those available to the Romans. If victory is only prima facie arbiter of superiority in a miliatry system, without troop and command aualkity being considered, then one must explain why the Hellenisitc armies of Alexander and the Seleucids often defeated the Parthians while the Romans seldom did. (Carrhae, AnrhonyGÇÖs invasion etc.)

[Federico]

Well, we arrived to a turning point. By checking our previous postings I noticed that we agree about the greater effectiveness of Alexander's army respect to the lesser quality Diadochoi armies. That's a solid base. The differences between our opinions simply lay in episodes and the main problem are sources. Probably we had different readings, so I think it is stupid to go on with this "diatriba". I formed my opinion on Heraclea referring to Plutarch and some other interesting articles. It seems your account of this battle is very different from Plutarch's one, so I'm convinced you read different sources. Then you say "the Romans lost to the Hellenistic tactics of both Pyhrrus and Hannibal until Scipio Africanus". I think this is unacceptable, because it is historically false! Scipio wasn't already born when Curius Dentatus defeated Pyrrhus and his Hellenistic system. Then I want to remember to you that Romans also defeated that system on the Metaurus river before Scipio's new use of cavalry (as you say), that, I think, took place at Zama. I would define your statement about the use of cavalry, a little forced. In fact Numidian cavalry was light and operated with incursions and rare direct attacks. This was the cavalry Scipio used! (very different from schock cavalry used in hellenistic warfare!). Scipiones started to use hellenistic cavalry at Magnesia (Eumenes' one), but this use of cavalry was not the fundament of Roman system! It is clearly demonstrated by the continuous decrement of cavalry squadrons in later repubblican legions. Caesar in his campaign against Gauls made little use of cavalry (some Celts and Teutons), this is a good proof of not great consideration Romans had in the cavalry. As for our discrepancies about Kynoskephalai and Pydna, well... we make only hypotheses, sources speak very little about consistence and role of both Macedon and Roman (Greek) cavalry (Polybius focuses more on infantry). So, let's stop discussing about this matter. Terratheon you proved very prepared, this was a beautiful discussion. I'm an Alexander and Hellenistic warfare supporter, but I also want to give the right honour to my ancestors (the Romans). Hellenism survived thanks to Romans, and I think that a reason exists (even military) if we are writing this postings in Latin alphabet and not in Greek one. Cheers.
Phobos ka+¼ Deimos
Federico

[Terratheon]

My sources on the Roman-Epirote Wars include Dionysius of Hallicanassus, Cassius Dio, ZonaruGÇÖs epitome of Dio, as well a Plutarch, plus modern reconstructions based on the same. The fact the Romans defeated Pyrrhus at Beneventum after two defeats, and prevailed at Metaurus after 13 years of defeat from Hannibal does not alter the historic fact they usually lost to the Hellenistic system until Scipio gained control,of the main war effort. While I agree Caesar and many other later Roman commanders did not rely as heavily on cavalry as Scipio, (a devolution it would seem) and did not use the Hellenistic model of cavalry as a strike alarm, Scipio did use cavalry in that way, as an outflanking strike arm at Ilippa, the Ebro and Zama, striking the flanks of enemy infantry after defeating the cavalry. Scipio relied even more on well-trained Roman lancer squadrons he trained while in Sicily than he did on Numidians. He taught them to defeat the pro Carthaginian Numidians by pursuing them without pause (see Appian). I do not dispute that the Camillan and Marian legions were remarkable achievements, I simply dispute they were intrinsically superior to the Macedonia system of warfare. As the case of Scipio demonstrates, the two systems were best when combined. I agree with you the Romans by imposing unity on the Hellenistic world, were able to preserve Hellenistic culture threatened by internicene conflict. However, Rome itself derived the cultural unity needed to administer an empire by taking over the pre-existing Hellenistic culture which dominated the Balkans and coastal Anatolia, and which has been

[Terratheon]

(Continued from Previous Entry)) ...been seminal through Magna Greacia, and Etruria in the foundation of Roman culture itself. It was ultimately a symbiotic relationship from which both Rome and Greece profited. have enjoyed our discourse on these topics but we both seem to have thoroughly considered but differing viewpoints and perhaps must simply agree to disagree.

[Federico]

Good words, your last ones in previous message. "agree to disagree", it's exactly the concept I would have expressed in this message, but you anticipate me. That's better. This has been a beautiful discussion, I'm only sorry not to be completely master of english language. If I could use my own language, I'd have said many other things and by expressing my opinions in a more correct and clear way. I'd like to know who I discussed with. You're free not to answer, obviously. I mean: I'd like to know if you're a teacher, a university professor or a simple man very interested in ancient military history, As for me I'm a 20 years old student of Classical Archaeology at Genoa's University. Cheers.
Phobos ka+¼ Deimos
Federico

[Terratheon]

Although I majored in history, many years ago, my primary motive in studying ancient history is recreational and avocational: I love the topic along with other favorites such as philosophy, cosmology, the arts and others. I am from America and find your communication in our language to be perfectly clear. Your thoughtfulness, grasp of the ancient sourcess and attention to detail should serve you well in a your study of antiquities.
Best wishes,
Terratheon

[Federico]

Thanks, you proved to be a kind person. I only can say: culture makes people better, and you are a learned man. The variety of your interests gives you honour. I also like phylosophy! Alexander himself was (for his times) a learned man (educated by Aristoteles, expert in Homer's poems, etc...).
Phobos ka+¼ Deimos
Federico

[ailiah27]

Wow,that was a great stuff.....