Romans vs Alexander

[yiannis]

This seems to be a very challenging subject.
I tend to believe that Alex could have probably won the contemporary Roman army with or without the help of the Greek cities of South Italy and Sicily (Magna Graecia). I seriously doubt though that he could do the same if he was facing the same armies that the Macedonians faced later at Pydna and Cynos Kefalai. It was not the size or the tactics of the Roman armies that made them so strong. It was the ability of the Roman Republic to mobilize its citizen for war and to raise one legion after the other. It was the continuation of the Greek city-states but with one major difference: the Romans were talking of a nation! So after the destruction they suffered by Hannibal mercenary army where 50000 Roman were left to rot in the fields the Roman were able to quickly replenish their losses while Hannibal had to fight again and again against an enemy that wasn't reduced in size while his African, Iberian and Gaul mercenary troops demanded more and more gold. Moreover if they were crushed in battle they would be dissolved.
In conclusion, I think that Alexander against the free farmers/legionnaires of Rome fighting for their land would have (probably) lost just as the Persians lost against the (less united) Greek farmer/hoplites centuries before in historyThoughts everyone?Regards,
Yiannis

[maciek]

You are right but look Alex made his wars diferent if he would win win he would fast run in direction of Rome and it would be no time for romans to mobilize new army. By the way It was great also how fast Persians mobilized much greater army in theyr country. It was not so good as the roman's but they abbility of mobilisation was funtastic too.For the second part of Your statment - Maybe that if Alex would not die greco-macedonian country would have better nation than Rome to this time.Maciek

[Tre]

Greetings!It's all in the training. Alexander had the best trained most seasoned fighting men of his era. They were after all, a 'standing' army and this was their profession. In fact the Silver Shields became so proficient the Diadochi began to fear them. I agree with the comment that they were the best standing army in the world up until the discovery of gunpowder. Later the Romans would find it hard to defeat the Macedonians under Philip V who had a vastly inferior army to Alexander.And of course, generalship does tell, and no one did that better than Alexander himself.Regards,Tre

[davej]

I think we have done this before have'nt we? I don't think Alexander would have been able to conquer Italy given his limited man power and the distances between his two fronts. He could not fight in Asia and Italy at the same time. The logistics in maintaining an empire that geographically diverse are immense. The other factor to conside is that Greece could not be relied upon to stay quite, Sparta and couple of others were always on the verge of rebellion. You must also keep in mind that Rome as Hannibal found out had an almost inexaustable supply of manpower. After Cannae they raise four new armies, including one of emmancipated slaves. And all the time the Scipios were in Spain attacking Carthage's interests. Pyhrus said he could not afford victories against Rome. They just kept fighting on and on relentlessly. That is how they won, they had very few brilliant generals, They did'nt need them. They had the numbers and resources.When you look at the ease with which Alexander defeated Persia, you must keep in mind that many Greek armies had humbled Persia before Alexander. Pausanias, Kleon, Agesalaus, Xenophon to name a few. The Persian king had subjects, the Italians had citizens fighting for their own country. People fight harder when their freedom is at stake. The Persians were already conquered, they were just changing on master for another. The Romans hated kings, they would have fought like hell. Probably taken seriously heavy losses until Alexander got sick of it and turned around.

[yiannis]

Dave,
I couldn't have said it better myself
That was my point. After the disaster at Cannae, the Romans were able to mobilize another army in no time. Their workshops were producing more and more equipment etc while Hannibal's merceneries were arming themselves from the looted Roman armor.regards,
Yiannis

[maciek]

Yes Yannis it was like this and still Hannibal defeted Romans as many times as he wanted and nothing could stop him. Roman Army was very good but they always had to learn on their mistakes and they did many mistakes often because of bad commanders (consuls). With Alex they could not have a second chance - even if they would have a second chance the third wasn't there for sure. I think in 324 or 323BC Alexanders army could afford victory against Romans if they would acted quicly and use the same methods of easy treatening the conquered lands.
I think in this moment it would be no problem of fighting on bouth frons because he knew that he will loose some far placed lands in vicinity Hindus river. Also revolts in Greece could not happened if he still alived but even if so Alex watched carefully Greece for all his time beeing in Asia now he would be much closer to homeland then from Sogdiana or Bactria so he could support Krateros (if the change of Macedonia's governor would happened).Maciek

[yiannis]

Maciek, I agree with you (as I mention in my original post) that Alex would have won over the contemporary Roman. My objections is that he couldn't (probably) do the same with the Republican Roman army.Regards,
Yiannis

[maciek]

It's hard to compare and maybe it's right but it depend from many diferent points like how great armies it would be who would command romans army, how fast and how would the senat react to the fact of Alex's invasion. I'm not so sure about it, because Alex was very flaxible to new challenges and could find some good tactik against Romans. I agree that greatest Roman advantage was human recources - it was stunning during the first punnic war how fast they collect three armies one after another and how fast they lost it in the sea storms and in wars. I think their simpicity would be their weekest point.Maciek

[Sam]

One need to analyse this subject from the tools/ methods, political/economic and leadership.There is no doubt in a frontal assualt nothing can rival the Alexandrian Phalanx- as demonstrated in the battle founght by Phillip V. However the phalanx is no where near as flexible and they can be defeated by the Romans by maneovres. Alex could have easily defeated the contemporary Roman Maniples however there is no stopping the emergence of a Scipio as demonstrated in the Punic War Romans have shown extraordinary adaptability and responsiveness to crisis scenarios.Politically Alex's empire was established far too quickly and therefore very unstable even if he had lived. Subservience could be easily reversed and without a doubt the Romans can tied down Alex for quite some time- enough to allow revolts to occur over other parts of his empire to the point of disintegration. I think that Alex could have established a smaller empire in the West had he not engaged the Persians, however I do not believe he could have done both. As history would have it Alex took out the Persians first so had he lived he would have been struggling to hold his empire together and Rome would still have been free to dominate the West until probably after the Punic War era- his potential assistance to Hannibal would have been minimal. One way or another the most likely scenario would still be a dominant power in the West - be it Rome or Carthage and we would likely have the scenario of two great powers between East and the West.There is no question of Alex's political/ military leadership- but after the Persians he simply would not be in a position to seriously threaten Rome.Sam Leung