Could Alexander have conquered the Romans?

[Ptolemy]

It appears this question was popular also during antiquity among Roman intellectuals. One of the most characteristic inputs about the issue was coming from Livy.

Nothing can be thought to be further from my aim since I commenced this task than to digress more than is necessary from the order of the narrative or by embellishing my work with a variety of topics to afford pleasant resting-places, as it were, for my readers and mental relaxation for myself. The mention, however, of so great a king and commander induces me to lay before my readers some reflections which I have often made when I have proposed to myself the question, "What would have been the results for Rome if she had been engaged in war with Alexander? "The things which tell most in war are the numbers and courage of the troops, the ability of the commanders, and Fortune, who has such a potent influence over human affairs, especially those of war. Any one who considers these factors either separately or in combination will easily see that as the Roman empire proved invincible against other kings and nations, so it would have proved invincible against Alexander. Let us, first of all, compare the commanders on each side. I do not dispute that Alexander was an exceptional general, but his reputation is enhanced by the fact that he died while still young and before he had time to experience any change of fortune. Not to mention other kings and illustrious captains, who afford striking examples of the mutability of human affairs, I will only instance Cyrus, whom the Greeks celebrate as one of the greatest of men. What was it that exposed him to reverses and misfortunes but the length of his life, as recently in the case of Pompey the Great? Let me enumerate the Roman generals - not all out of all ages but only those with whom as consuls and Dictators Alexander would have had to fight - M. Valerius Corvus, C. Marcius Rutilus, C. Sulpicius, T. Manlius Torquatus, Q. Publilius Philo, L. Papirius Cursor, Q. Fabius Maximus, the two Decii, L. Volumnius, and Manlius Curius. Following these come those men of colossal mould who would have confronted him if he had first turned his arms against Carthage and then crossed over into Italy later in life. Every one of these men was Alexander's equal in courage and ability, and the art of war, which from the beginning of the City had been an unbroken tradition, had now grown into a science based on definite and permanent rules. It was thus that the kings conducted their wars, and after them the Junii and the Valerii, who expelled the kings, and in later succession the Fabii, the Quinctii, and the Cornelii. It was these rules that Camillus followed, and the men who would have had to fight with Alexander had seen Camillus as an old man when they were little more than boys.

Alexander no doubt did all that a soldier ought to do in battle, and that is not his least title to fame. But if Manlius Torquatus had been opposed to him in the field, would he have been inferior to him in this respect, or Valerius Corvus, both of them distinguished as soldiers before they assumed command? Would the Decii, who, after devoting themselves, rushed upon the enemy, or Papirius Cursor with his vast physical courage and strength? Would the clever generalship of one young man have succeeded in baffling the whole senate, not to mention individuals, that senate of which he, who declared that it was composed of kings, alone formed a true idea? Was there any danger of his showing more skill than any of those whom I have mentioned in choosing the site for his camp, or organising his commissariat, or guarding against surprises, or choosing the right moment for giving battle, or disposing his men in line of battle and posting his reserves to the best advantage? He would have said that it was not with Darius that he had to do, dragging after him a train of women and eunuchs, wrapped up in purple and gold, encumbered with all the trappings of state. He found him an easy prey rather than a formidable enemy and defeated him without loss, without being called to do anything more daring than to show a just contempt for the idle show of power. The aspect of Italy would have struck him as very different from the India which he traversed in drunken revelry with an intoxicated army; he would have seen in the passes of Apulia and the mountains of Lucania the traces of the recent disaster which befell his house when his uncle Alexander, King of Epirus, perished.

[9.18]I am speaking of Alexander as he was before he was submerged in the flood of success, for no man was less capable of bearing prosperity than he was. If we look at him as transformed by his new fortunes and presenting the new character, so to speak, which he had assumed after his victories, it is evident he would have come into Italy more like Darius than Alexander, and would have brought with him an army which had forgotten its native Macedonia and was rapidly becoming Persian in character. It is a disagreeable task in the case of so great a man to have to record his ostentatious love of dress; the prostrations which he demanded from all who approached his presence, and which the Macedonians must have felt to be humiliating, even had they been vanquished, how much more when they were victors; the terribly cruel punishments he inflicted; the murder of his friends at the banquet-table; the vanity which made him invent a divine pedigree for himself. What, pray, would have happened if his love of wine had become stronger and his passionate nature more violent and fiery as he grew older? I am only stating facts about which there is no dispute. Are we to regard none of these things as serious drawbacks to his merits as a commander? Or was there any danger of that happening which the most frivolous of the Greeks, who actually extol the Parthians at the expense of the Romans, are so constantly harping upon, namely, that the Roman people must have bowed before the greatness of Alexander's name - though I do not think they had even heard of him - and that not one out of all the Roman chiefs would have uttered his true sentiments about him, though men dared to attack him in Athens, the very city which had been shattered by Macedonian arms and almost well in sight of the smoking ruins of Thebes, and the speeches of his assailants are still extant to prove this?

However lofty our ideas of this man's greatness, still it is the greatness of one individual, attained in a successful career of little more than ten years. Those who extol it on the ground that though Rome has never lost a war she has lost many battles, whilst Alexander has never fought a battle unsuccessfully, are not aware that they are comparing the actions of one individual, and he a youth, with the achievements of a people who have had 800 years of war. Where more generations are reckoned on one side than years on the other, can we be surprised that in such a long space of time there have been more changes of fortune than in a period of thirteen years ? Why do you not compare the fortunes of one man with another, of one commander with another? How many Roman generals could I name who have never been unfortunate in a single battle! You may run through page after page of the lists of magistrates, both consuls and Dictators, and not find one with whose valour and fortunes the Roman people have ever for a single day had cause to be dissatisfied. And these men are more worthy of admiration than Alexander or any other king. Some retained the Dictatorship for only ten or twenty days; none held a consulship for more than a year; the levying of troops was often obstructed by the tribunes of the plebs; they were late, in consequence, in taking the field, and were often recalled before the time to conduct the elections; frequently, when they were commencing some important operation, their year of office expired; their colleagues frustrated or ruined their plans, some through recklessness, some through jealousy; they often had to succeed to the mistakes or failures of others and take over an army of raw recruits or one in a bad state of discipline. Kings are free from all hindrances; they are lords of time and circumstance, and draw all things into the sweep of their own designs. Thus, the invincible Alexander would have crossed swords with invincible captains, and would have given the same pledges to Fortune which they gave. Nay, he would have run greater risks than they, for the Macedonians had only one Alexander, who was not only liable to all sorts of accidents but deliberately exposed himself to them, whilst there were many Romans equal to Alexander in glory and in the grandeur of their deeds, and yet each of them might fulfil his destiny by his life or by his death without imperilling the existence of the State.

Livy's bold assertion that Alexander could not have conquered the Romans of course carries a great dose of being biased as by his time Rome was the undisputed masters of Mediterranean world.

What are your thoughts about the issue? Could Alexander have conquered the Romans and if not whom do you nominate as his equal Roman counterpart??

[Reaper]

Alexander's relative Pyhrrus did quite well over there with his elephants, however the Romans were simply fascinated with Alexander and every aspect of his life. One of the reasons we still know so much is partly down to the Romans who idolised him.

[Truth Bearer]

Alexander would have beaten them hands down as the Romans weren't as powerfull in 320's B.C as later years.Alexander's brother in law Alexander IV king of Epirus had them beat in a couple of battles and pushed them right back in 334 B.C until a lucky arrow pierced and killed him.At that point the Epireans retreated and sailed back to Epirus.Alexander had plans after the conquest of Arabia to march on and take the Romans.....

[Ehetlaios]

Alexander could beat anyone.

Himself was his worst and greatest enemy.

[Truth Bearer]

Ehetlaios again spot on well said mate......

[gmellos]

I say at worst he would have done as badly as Pyhrrus! With I Believe he would have defeated the Romans simply because they where not strong enuff to stand up to him and his battle hardened men and Generals at the time! Now the real qustion is what Alexandros would have done if he was up against Ceasar, Sulla, Pompey, and Octavian?

[Ehetlaios]

Originally Posted by gmellos

Now the real qustion is what Alexandros would have done if he was up against Ceasar, Sulla, Pompey, and Octavian?

What would they have done against Alexander?

[olvios]

Rome would lose with no doubt.The Romans could not even conquer the Persians .

It took caesar(the best roman...) 8 years to conquer GAul(fighting style=charge and growl) and only did this by genociding 1,000,000 gauls.Alexander took over the world in 10.Among other things.

No roman(only as a joke even to consider it) or other earthling was ever born to best Alexander.

[akritas_gs]

indeeed spot on again Ehetlaios.
Alexanderos was a genius and a mastermind in battle. He with only few 40 thousand troops conquered the most powerful empire of the known world. He went against all odds and won , im telling you when WE GREEKS actually want to do something we will.
Opos lene i poutsa tou tsolia einai kai poli varia, one good advice ..don't fuck with the Greeks

[gmellos]

Originally Posted by akritas_gs

indeeed spot on again Ehetlaios.
Alexanderos was a genius and a mastermind in battle. He with only few 40 thousand troops conquered the most powerful empire of the known world. He went against all odds and won , im telling you when WE GREEKS actually want to do something we will.
Opos lene i poutsa tou tsolia einai kai poli varia, one good advice ..don't fuck with the Greeks

Remember that the Darius that Megas Alexandros fought WAS A PUSSY! Ceaser, Sulla, and Pompey where MEN! Kill the head of the snake and the bidy will die! Allow remember that the Gauls/Celts gave the Greeks major problems! They even sacked Delphi! I still believe Magas Alexandros would have won but it would have been close!