Could Alexander have conquered the Romans?

[Paulos Melas]

I agree TB that Macedon never fought the spartans ( I think the way that i phrased my proposal didn t exactly revert the correct meaning). Nonetheless my point remain the same.
It is impossible to give a black and white answer of whether Alexander would have defeated the Romans.

[TallOne]

IMO Rome is overated.. On his 32nd birthday, Ceaser wept because his accomplishments were not as Great as Alexanders

[Lakonian]

And Alexander spewed when he saw he could go as deep into India as Dyonisus....

[Truth Bearer]

Alexander would have mauled the Romans.........

[Nikas]

Hello everyone,

Interesting topic and one debated since antiquity

I won't go into to much detail, but a few points:

1) Macedon did in fact conquer Sparta (Antigonos vs. Cleomenes) although this was of course a much different Sparta than in it's heyday.
2) The Romans of Alexanders day had not yet adopted the Manipular formation. It would have been a phalanx vs. phalanx alongside the worlds best cavalry at the time led by a military genius and a host of very competent generals.
3) The Romans did have problems with the phalanx of Pyrrhus (with the elephants) and against Philip in the First Macedonian War until the Aetolians broke the flank, so it is hard to compare when considering that Philips/Alexanders phalanx formations were probably the peak of that type of formation.
4) The Macedonian phalanx towards the end was a shadow of it's previous self. Without the devastating cavalry attack, it was custom made for the Roman maniples to tear apart.
5) Alexander of Epirus never actually faced the Romans themselves head-on. He was killed in action against other Italic tribes...

[Makedonia25]

Originally Posted by Truth Bearer

Alexander would have mauled the Romans.........

+1.. The Romans were just tribes when Alexander was around!

[pankration]

The trouble is that when one compares different eras, advances in weapons, tactics, supplies, reconnaisance etc. have to be factored in. It's like comparing sports figures of different generations; different rules, nutrition, training etc. skew the results there too. The tactics of Alexander were the most advanced of his day as were the Romans at their peak. What we would need to do is to timetravel, reassess all parties given the same advantage and then determine a winner. For pure fearlessness, speed and audacity Alexander still comes out on top in my estimation. Leadership qualities are the one constant and few even come close to Alexander.

[Truth Bearer]

Yes but we are talking at the time before his death when he had plans to invade the Italian peninsular after the invasion of Arabia Pankration.

[pankration]

Rome at that time was not the Rome of the Roman Empire. They would have been defeated quickly and decisively.

[Kipros_Elliniki]

Alexander could have defeated anyone AFTER conquering the Persians. First of all, you talk about Romans being tough etc(even at that time). Even if that was true, Alexander had a larger army now, since he had Greek, Persian, Egyptian and even Indian forces. Rome was no match for him. Even with both armies at their peak, Alexander would have had the advantage of having a huge, differentiated army. The Romans didn't have that ability. It's like saying what's best. 2D or 3D?

Had Alexander lived even 5 years more, he would have conquered the whole of Europe and heck, he could have sent people to search for new lands, like America, though that one I can doubt, but I'm still cautious. That is because he was convinced that the world ended at where India was, and that he could have seen his home from the mountains up there, but realised that the world was larger that they thought. And as Alexander was a dreamer, he could have gone to America and China.
So the answer is that Alexander would have defeated the Romans easily, and make the world a different place. And by conquering Europe, make history and today be different.