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]

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]

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!

[akritas_gs]

Kill the head of the snake and the bidy will die! Allow remember that the Gauls/Celts gave the Greeks major problems!

Huh ? When was this lol , the rest are true. Darius was a pussy indeed but yet he had the most powerful army in the world then.

[Spartan]

The Romans would have had NO CHANCE! They were nothing near the size they were when they started their empire in the 3rd century. The fact of the matter is that the Romans were sending embassies to Alexander paying homage to him. So that tells me one thing THEY WERE SCARED. Alexander paved the way for the Romans. The Romans would have not been able to take over the Middle East if it wasn't for the Alexander and his successors having already established kingdoms in those areas.

It is said that after Alexander turned back and went to Babylon his next plans were to conquer the lands of the Mediterranean. If only he would have lived another 20 years. He would have conquered everone in the Med and his som Alexander IV would have been groomed and old enough to take over for his father. This would have left Alexanders Empire intact and thus stronger. If this had happened the Romans would have been relegated to historical obscurity.


Now as for Livy everyone knows he bragged up Rome all the time. What else could he say when the Romans were his target audience? I have read his books and throughout it he does nothing but make Rome sound better than it was, EXCEPT when he was talking about their Republic phases. So taking Livy's word as accurate would be laughable.

[Alita]

As the Romans loved and admired Alexander, I don't think they would have been dumb enough to pit themselves against him. Alexander also, was wise enough to try and cooperate with those as (or almost as) powerful as himself. They would have sought an alliance and together gone out and conquered the whole world and the result would have been an earlier 'Byzantine' era encompassing the whole globe. :rolleyes:

[XEONES2345]

Theres No Point Of Comparig, They Where Both Great In There Times, But To Me, Alexander Was And Will Be The Greates Of All Times, Hail Alexander, Hail Greece.

Regards From From Mexico

[Truth Bearer]

Alexander in a land slide...in the 300's the Romans were not that strong nor had the great generals like Ceasar,Sulla or Pompey......You must remember that Alexander IV of Epirus hammered them as did Pyrrhus also 60 years later...

[Lyssius]

If the romans where to take on Alexander, with evenly matched forces, with, say Ceaser as the Roman's General, I think the romans would probably win. Why? Because the Alexandrian Phalanx, the centre and most important part of his army, had one fatal flaw; it was too slow. The Roman Phalanx/testudo could move much faster and had bigger spears. Therefore, the roman phalanx would tear into their weak side and -probably- win. Alexander where against enourmous armies whoms advantage was just their size. They where poorly trained, poorly led, and thus easily routed by the Mac's and Alex. However. If Alex had his -full- cavalry compliment, his guerrilla slingers, etc, he could probably still out-manouever the romans.


The real question is this; Could alexander, alone, beat a tank?

[Alita]

The real question is this; Could alexander, alone, beat a tank?

:lol::clap2:
Right on. I say no doubt.

[pankration]

Finally, a subject that challenges our intellect more than the ramblings of brain-dead skopjian revisionists.:clap2:

Livy is known by almost every historian since as a brilliant historian but an unabashed apologist of Rome. He made no secret of the fact that his views glorified the empire. He's taking what Rome did in hundreds of years and comparing it to what Alexander did in ten. Ludicrous. I'm also sick of hearing the Persians bashed again and again. This was an empire that lasted hundreds of years, conquered a thousand races and was probably better run than most countries today. There were many great warriors and generals most of them as fearless as the Greeks. To denigrate them as ineffectual is an insult to their legacy, one as great as Rome's! They at least lost their empire to Alexander; Rome lost to the Vandals and Visigoths, people barely out of caves and running about in furs.

And Rome, for all its glory, was almost brought down by the courageous Hannibal and Carthage. If not for a couple of fortuitous events, Rome would have fallen to this North African general.

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

Livy is simply wrong.:nono:

[Spartan]

If the romans where to take on Alexander, with evenly matched forces, with, say Ceaser as the Roman's General, I think the romans would probably win. Why? Because the Alexandrian Phalanx, the centre and most important part of his army, had one fatal flaw; it was too slow. The Roman Phalanx/testudo could move much faster and had bigger spears. Therefore, the roman phalanx would tear into their weak side and -probably- win. Alexander where against enourmous armies whoms advantage was just their size. They where poorly trained, poorly led, and thus easily routed by the Mac's and Alex. However. If Alex had his -full- cavalry compliment, his guerrilla slingers, etc, he could probably still out-manouever the romans.


The real question is this; Could alexander, alone, beat a tank?


What some seem to forget is WHY Alexander was GREAT! His pure military genius! He was able to adapt and take advantage of any enemies weakness. This combined with his perceverance he was unstoppable!

You must also remember where the Romans got their ideas from. They heavily studied Alexander and his military genius and strategies.

Even Caesar paid his respects at Alexanders tomb when he visited Alexandria!

[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

[PAO123]

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 AlexanderEven 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]

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 (http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewforum.php?f=19)

(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]

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]

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/footprints/mongolia/ghengis_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]

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??

[pankration]

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]

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.
:dry:

[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?

[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]

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.

[Promethean Fire]

No question about it, Alexander would have doe more. But tha fact is the empire was collapsing from within, so in reality even if he leaved, there was still going to be power struggle. The Romans were fresh and waiting and striked at the best time.

For arguements sake it would have been a decade war. Alexander had the best tactics and till this day inspires U.S marines not to mention the standalone Spartan ones.

In order for an empire to sustain it needs satbility. As Alexander was leading the Greeks across to India, there was already tention. Anyways to tell you the truth, i think Greece has already conquored Rome, simply because our influence was to great. Its a case of who go there first, and you will find in that comparison that Greece will always be the winner.

[pankration]

If Alexander had gone west, we'd all be speaking Greek today, the Middle Ages would never have occurred and there's a good chance that today's major religions would either not exist or would look radically different (maybe not such a bad thing).

[TallOne]

Lets add up the greatest generals and greatest Greek and Roman armies.
It took Ceaser 10 years to conquer Gaul, and he was considerd one of the greatest millitary leaders.

It took Alexander 11 years to conquer much of the known world. No Roman could compare to that.

The Romans made numerious atempts to conquer Persia and every time they lost. Alexander wiped the floor with an army thought to be invinsible.

The Romans on there best day could not compare with Alexander and his army.

Maybe in some parralel universe Alexander lived on and conquerd Europe and more. :P

[pankration]

Alexander defeated empires. The Romans defeated tribes. Enough said.

[Andrew]

Let's do some math
1) Alexander conquered ASIA with 45.000 infantry ans 5.000 Cavalry
2) In his last years he had new ASIAN trupes (Επίγονοι) trained in the of the Macedonian Phalanx and some they they were 50.000 to 100.000
3) Pyrrhus a little bit later , before loosing gave the Romans a hard time with only 20.000 infantry , 3000 thessalian Cavalry 2.000 Archers and 200 Elephants ...
4) The Greeks of "Magna Grecia" i think that would of have helped Alexander
in Sicily we have Agathokles another authentical prototype of commander and Bengtson addes the last great figure of the Occidental grecism
the numbers of the Italian Greeks are estimated to 20.000 Infantry and other units
So summing all that gives us : Alex + Magna-Grecia :
================================================== ===
- 120.000 to 170.000 total Greek Phalangean Infantry & barbarian auxiliary forces ( Paeonian & Thracian peltastes , Asian non phalanx troops ...)
- 5.000 to 10.000 Cavalry WITH ELAPHANTS that gave a hard time to Romans under Pyrrhus
- Probably a united Greek Fleet !!!!!
================================================== ===

All this forse inspired by Alexander and commanded by persons like Alexander,Craterus,Antigonus,Cassander,Ptolemy,Ale xander of Epeirus (Pirrhusis father), Agathokles

....come on ....Romans couldn't make it ..they would have been DOOMED !!!
:headbonk::headbonk: and greek party time !!:banana::banana: