Could Alexander have conquered the Romans?

[pankration]

Originally Posted by PAO123

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

Thrace was fully Hellenized 200 years before Spartacus led his revolt.
For all intents and purposes he was Greek.

[Paulos Melas]

The greek army under Alexander was a highly motivated force.
We ve beaten the persians, yes, but Persia was a vast Empire consisted by millions of slaves who simply didn t want to fight.
For instance Alexander never attempted to conquer the Spartans in fear of the damage such attempt would have done to his army and the moral of his men.
Romans although not as powerful at that time as they became afterwards were an equally rigid corps with high tactics and their own version of Phalanx, the Legion, which was far more effective than the greek structure (thats why Phalanx disappeared and legion prevailed).
The romans were not just a mob of slaves fighting under a despot king
They were highly motivated and trained citizen soldiers.
So we cannot be sure for the outcome of such confrontation.
Perhaps yes alexander would have defeatd the romans perhaps no

[Truth Bearer]

Yes but you would have are referring about the Romans during their peak period when they had great generals like Sulla,Pompeii and Cesar.They were around 200 years after Alexander.Sorry Melas but Alexander would have ripped them.

[Lyssius]

I'm just curious, if the romans at their peak fought Alexander at his peak (he found a time machine big enough for an army), what do people think would happen?
I think at the least, the romans would give alex a run for his money.

[akritas_gs]

Originally Posted by Lyssius

I'm just curious, if the romans at their peak fought Alexander at his peak (he found a time machine big enough for an army), what do people think would happen?
I think at the least, the romans would give alex a run for his money.

No1 is saying that the Romans were like the Persians but I think we all agree that both Rome and Macedon were superior military powers. Now ..well for the mastermind Alexandros was I personally think that he would win any battle against Rome( being at their peak) but that would mean lots of casualties in his army. The difference is that he had this thing with his army...this unique relationship of a leader of a brother of a general, his men would give their soul for him. I don't think romans were like that...
if he lived and continued his campaign, history nowadays and the world would have been a very different place.

[Ehetlaios]

A phalanx with good cavalry support could beat any army.

[Lyssius]

The romans used a very similar formation to the macs, except their version of the Phalanx was far more -mobile- and could change direction far more easily than the Macedonian one.
-Thats- why there is some uncertainty in the issue.

[Paulos Melas]

I still believe that nobody can answer this question. As I said neither Alexander nor Philip defeated the Spartans so why we are so sure that Alexander would easily defeated the romans.
Romans were a highly motivated army as well.
I would not think that it is just to draw fast conclusions.
The odds i think are even.
Alexander could have win and equally could have lost.
I cannot say with certainty neither the one nor the other possibilty

[Truth Bearer]

The Macedonians NEVER EVER fought the Spartans Melas.You seem to forget that by the time of Alexandros King of all Hellenes Sparta was weakened since they lost in the battle of Eleuctra to the Thebans.Philip and Alexander need Sparta neutralised and really Agis was no match for the Macedonians.Instead that king was secretly sending arms and men to Darius.

[Ehetlaios]

Agis helped the Persians?
Got proof for that?