Could Alexander have conquered the Romans?

[PAO123]

Originally Posted by Lyssius

Precisely the point. All generals build up on their predecessors, and the romans built on and improved the Alexandrian form. If Alexander had been immortal and had been able to spend time further refining his tactics, he may well have been very scary to the romans. None the less, it would be very hard for him with the army he had, to beat the very quick, very maneuverable roman army. If he was in charge of a roman army against the romans, (I.e, just a fair test of millitary brilliance) I'd agree that is would be almost impossible for him to lose. But he wasn't. It'd be no different than if America went back in time with missiles and guns to attack Alexander

Even with his Greek army, Alexander still would have destroyed the Romans

[Lyssius]

A bland assertion won't get you anywhere, why'd you say that?

[Alita]

Originally Posted by pankration

Finally, what about the great Greek slave revolutionary, Spartacus? A slave army almost defeated the Romans.

I thought Spartacus was Greek, but don't know much about him. Saw a doc on him a while back and they didn't mention ANYTHING about him being Greek... something about him being from somewhere else, outside of Greece... yet all the time I was wondering, how can he have been called Spartacus and not have been Greek? Is this more propaganda the academics are propagating? Is there a good, historically-accurate source out there about Spartacus?

[Lyssius]

Actually... I think he was Thracian, which includes Macedonia... So he's probably Greek.

[Astoria]

Alexander's army would win. around 320's b.c. rome was to small of a tribe.

Here's a great forum I would like to share to you all. Alot of knowledge here, very respectfull, and alot of passion for these types of discussions. Hope to see some of you there as well some day.

Roman Army Talk :: View Forum - Greek Military History & Archaeology

(it's a roman army website but has a greek section to it with tons of information from experts in roman and greek history)



Kind Regards,

Astoria

[PhiliptheUniterchaeronea]

Originally Posted by Alita

I thought Spartacus was Greek, but don't know much about him. Saw a doc on him a while back and they didn't mention ANYTHING about him being Greek... something about him being from somewhere else, outside of Greece... yet all the time I was wondering, how can he have been called Spartacus and not have been Greek? Is this more propaganda the academics are propagating? Is there a good, historically-accurate source out there about Spartacus?

He was Thracian. I am uncertain if Thrace was Hellenized yet.

[PhiliptheUniterchaeronea]

Originally Posted by Lyssius

Actually... I think he was Thracian, which includes Macedonia... So he's probably Greek.

Sorry matie. Macedonia is not included in Thrace. The difference between the two is Macedonia has always been Hellenic, Thrace was probably Hellenized and not originally Hellenic. We have to keep things historically correct hree my friends. We can not claim what is not ours. Do not worry, Macedonia is, and always has been Hellenic. In fact, why don't we say Athens was on the fringe of the Hellenic world as opposed to vice versa. What the hell gives them the monoploy on that?!

[Truth Bearer]

Spartacus' origins
The ancient sources agree that Spartacus was a native Thracian who had served as an auxiliary in the Roman army. Plutarch describes him as "a Thracian of nomadic tribe," and says his wife, a prophetess of the same tribe, was enslaved with him; Appian says he was "a Thracian by birth, who had once served as a soldier with the Romans, but had since been a prisoner and sold for a gladiator"; and Florus says he was "a mercenary Thracian [who] had become a Roman soldier, of a soldier a deserter and robber, and afterwards, from consideration of his strength, a gladiator"; However, "Thracian" was a style of gladiatorial combat in which the gladiator fought with a round shield and a short sword or dagger, and it has been argued that this may have confused the sources about his geographical origins, although no alternative origin is attested.

The name "Spartacus" is otherwise attested in the Black Sea region: kings of Cimmerian Bosporus and Pontus are known to have borne it, and a Thracian "Spardacus" or "Sparadokos", father of Seuthes I of the Odrysae, is also known.


By that time Thrace was completely Hellenized especially since Lysimachus became the King there after the death of Alexandros o Megas King of all Hellenes....

[Truth Bearer]

And please do not waste any time wheteher Alexander would have had Rome.If he lived he would have as Rome at the time wasn't strong enough to withold him.As I said before they struggled both with Alexander IV of Epirus and Pyrrhos of Epirus and with Hannibal.Now later that's a different story as Rome became a power and it's battle formations changed and improved with the times.Thus we must also not forget that Alexander also would have improved with the times and with technology's assistance.The man was a genius full stop the only one person in history that comes close is Ghengis Khan and only because of where and how Temujin came from a worst position than Alexander and yet he united his people(by force like Alexander) and conquered the world with a very simple army of horse raiders.A good read about Temujin is http://www.greenkiwi.co.nz/footprint...is_history.htm

Ghengis is the only one who comes close to the greatest military ruler the world has ever known.We must remember that Alexander never lost a battle and conquered the world with less than 40,000 soldiers.His siege tactics were unmatched,his battle plan was risky and on a real fine line b/w winning and losing but it paid off.His diplomacy was 2nd to none in the way the Greek city states opened their doors for him and how Egypt bowed to him and his dealing with Mazaeus satrap of Babylon by opening the doors for him.All in all Alexander was the greatest Ghengis a close 2nd and then all the rest well what can we say??Some put Napoleon as well but really he fcked up in Russia and of course in Waterloo where his hesitation cost him his empire.Alexander never hesitated never lost his cool and aggresiveness.
Sorry lads I could go on and on but I do not want to bore you all.

[PAO123]

Originally Posted by PhiliptheUniterchaeronea

Sorry matie. Macedonia is not included in Thrace. The difference between the two is Macedonia has always been Hellenic, Thrace was probably Hellenized and not originally Hellenic. We have to keep things historically correct hree my friends. We can not claim what is not ours. Do not worry, Macedonia is, and always has been Hellenic. In fact, why don't we say Athens was on the fringe of the Hellenic world as opposed to vice versa. What the hell gives them the monoploy on that?!

I'm sorry but what are you exactly saying? That Thrace isn't Hellenic??