Alexander The Great

[Fatboy]

A lot of fuss seems to be being made about how Alexanders Empire's lack of longevity. I think it must be remembered that he died very suddenly as a young man, without a natural heir. He had no opportunity to set up an enduring dynasty and any administrative plans he may have had were cut short. The survival of the Hellenic successor states after his death is testament to the potential of his Empire had he survived. I feel he must have had quite formidable administrative skills, such was the coherence of the vast Empire he conquered in such a short space of time.

He is often portrayed as crazy but he could be very practical at times. His adoption of the customs and semi divine position of Egyptian and Persian rulers was mosly a case of simple political expediency. It was this light touch that allowed him to pacify the populations of each country amazingly quickly, although of course his native Macedonian troops grew to resent these practices. A prime example is his reaction to Darius's death. When Darius was seized and murdered by Bessus, the govenor of Bactria who then declared himself King, Alexander swore revenge against Bessus thus portraying himself as the rightful heir to, and avenger of Darius.

He was a lucid and intelligent guy who exported hellenistic culture successfully and permanently to places where you would not expect it to take, not just some looney stomping around asia killing anybody who looked at him crooked( although he did that too ). Yes, he was unpredictable and increasingly paranoid and vindictive as time went on. Yes, he was involved in a kind of insane mythical struggle against various Greek Gods whom he percieved himself to be in competition with. Yes, he was first and foremost a warrior. But he was much more than that; certainly no petty warlord he is one of the few historical figures who can comfortably be called " Great ".

 

As far as what would have happened had he encountered the Roman Legions well, as others have said already, I think he would have won the battle but lost the war. As far as Alexander fighting poor quality opposition, this is not true. Darius's armies contained many heavily armed Greek mercenaries amongst a variety of high quality ( and not so high quality ) troops. Neither Darius or Porus, his most famous opposition were inept, he just made it look so.

If this Roman/Macedonian battle occurred it would certainly not have been a case of the Phalanx versus the Legion. Alexander only used the phalanx as part of a varied, integrated and flexible army. Alexander was a true military genius, he would not have been undone by a simple flanking manuvure as was Phillip V when he faced the Romans. In fact his loyal General Parmenio ( later executed for his trouble ) normally found himself employed specifically to prevent the army being flanked while Alexander engineered a weakness in the enemy line. There was almost no chance of flanking Alexander's phalanx and subsequently no way of stopping it. Not the clumsy and vunerable formation the Romans eventually did face, the phalanx in Alexanders hands was a battering ram he could use to punch holes in the opposition lines whenever he chose. Fully supported and protected by skimishers and hoplites and with Alexanders companion cavalry outclassing their Roman counterparts

the prudent use of the phalanx would enable a Macedonian victory in any first encounter in my opinion, as it has been proven that even the Legions could not stand up to the Phalanx head on.

Were the Romans to lose this imaginary initial encounter with Alexander it could hardly be considered suprising as Rome had a long history of suffering catastrophic defeats when faced with a new kind of enemy. Here is where the Romans come into their own however, as the ability to absorb defeats and losses in manpower are in my opinion what really set the Roman military machine on a different plane to any other. A fine example of this of course is the famous victory of Phyrrus over the Legions at Asculum, the origin of the phrase " phyrric victory ". Although Roman losses were double that of the Macedonians Phyrrus could not afford such losses turning a tactical victory into a strategic defeat. " Another such victory and we are lost! " he exclaimed, and when fighting the Romans one victory was never enough. No other Empire, certainly not Alexander's could have sustained such defeats as Rome suffered at the hands of Carthaginians, Persians, Celts and Germans amongst others, and yet still recover. All Alexander would have to look forward to after his victory was another engagement against a similar Roman army, one who had learnt from the previous battle.Brilliant as he was, the Romans would have defeated him eventually like they did all their opponents, whether through finding a weakness or simply by attrition.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

It's also worth noting that Hannibal tried the same idea that Alex did when conquering Italy. The Persian Empire by that point was very poorly held together by that point with many areas within it seeking to break off and go with just about anyone else. Egypt welcomed Alexander in their territory and diefed him. hannibal tried a similar approach, saying he was freeing the Roman allies against the cruel hold ROme had, yet they showed just how close they had gotten to Rome and just didn't buy into it.

[mquish]

Nope, and if he did he'd have lost!

 

You are completely mislead if you think he would have lost if he came up against rome. Against any other phalanx formated army rome probably would have won due to their flexibility but against Alexander a man who was in love with his cavalry, ate with them, drank with them and held them in the highest regard their would be no contest. When it comes to cavalry superiorty, Alexander had the best. He was also a brilliant tactician. The only way the romans could beat a phalanx formation was to outflank it and come in from the sides and the rear. To do this they would have to defeat alexanders cavalry which is propostrous, giving the quality of cavalry a roman army commands.

[Primus Pilus]

You are completely mislead if you think he would have lost if he came up against rome. Against any other phalanx formated army rome probably would have won due to their flexibility but against Alexander a man who was in love with his cavalry, ate with them, drank with them and held them in the highest regard their would be no contest. When it comes to cavalry superiorty, Alexander had the best. He was also a brilliant tactician. The only way the romans could beat a phalanx formation was to outflank it and come in from the sides and the rear. To do this they would have to defeat alexanders cavalry which is propostrous, giving the quality of cavalry a roman army commands.

 

Unfortunately there is no way to ever prove who would win, and we've found the discussion to be an exercise in futility around here.

[tvihiocus]

Well, since this has been brought back up now, here's my two cents.

 

It really seems the hardcore Rome fans aren't really looking at this objectively. Think about it, Rome was a relatively small power back in Alexander's time. So while Rome was able to recover from huge losses for example in the Second Punic War, Alexander would probably have been the one with this advantage in his day - his empire was huge, and he employed many of the "barbarians" he conquered in his army. He certainly wouldn't have run out of men any time soon, while Rome just might have.

 

Further, when thinking about Alexander fighting Rome, it's not really relevant to bring the likes of Caesar, Scipio and Sulla into the discussion in the sense that they weren't around when Alexander was. In Alexander's day Rome didn't have any generals even nearly equal to him. With his advantage of a huge pool of resources, skilled veteran troops and his tactical and strategical genius, I'd dare claim Rome probably wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in Hell. Think about it, in that time Rome's army wasn't huge, nor was it the professional Marius-reformed army of Caesar's time. Nor did they really have the auxiliaries they had later, while Alexander had plenty of different troops to draw into service, including the excellent cavalry, phalangites, and even elephants and all the rest. Had they met in one decisive initial battle, and had Rome lost like it would've most likely happened, Rome most likely wouldn't even have had time to recover for a new large battle before Alexander would've already seized Rome.

 

In general it seems many think Rome in its prime when comparing with Alexander, and that is just wrong when thinking what would've happened had Alexander invaded Rome. A hypotethical encounter between someone like Caesar and Alexander is another thing entirely, and not such a simple thing. Later generals learned a lot from Alexander, the troops and circumstances were different, etc etc. There's really no answer. And isn't the fact alone that Caesar looked up on Alexander a testament in and of itself?

 

As a side note, Alexander most likely would've fought Romans sooner or later had he lived longer. After all, he seemed to be planning further conquests in Europe.

[PARTHICOS]

Nope, and if he did he'd have lost!

The man reach india Rome did not, The man won his first encounter with elephants rome did not, The man create a large empire all by himself in a short time while the romans took 300 or 200 years with many generals to create what is called the roman empire. Caesar plans that were use by mark antony in his parthian campaign didn't work, cataphracts and the desert make them flee back to rome without crassus body. rome during alexander's time is not that powerful, 30 or 40 yrs after alexander death pyrrho of epirus defeat roman armies that were sent against him, only to be defeated by the lack of manpower and the roman carthago alliance, even northern barbarians sack rome around this time period, so if rome have a hard time with pyrrho alexander would have good time with them.

[Neos Dionysos]

The man reach india Rome did not, The man won his first encounter with elephants rome did not, The man create a large empire all by himself in a short time while the romans took 300 or 200 years with many generals to create what is called the roman empire. Caesar plans that were use by mark antony in his parthian campaign didn't work, cataphracts and the desert make them flee back to rome without crassus body. rome during alexander's time is not that powerful, 30 or 40 yrs after alexander death pyrrho of epirus defeat roman armies that were sent against him, only to be defeated by the lack of manpower and the roman carthago alliance, even northern barbarians sack rome around this time period, so if rome have a hard time with pyrrho alexander would have good time with them.

 

Wow... where to begin...

 

Yes Alexander reached India, but he did not stay nor did his presece of that of his successors last very long in India...

 

Alexander did not create his empire by himself... he had not only the best trained army in the world, (due to his father not Alexander), and he had excellent generals under him who could be argued were the reason for Alexander's success...

 

...also, Alexander's empire practically crumbled upon his death, while the Roman empire lasted hundreds of years later and left a greater legacy to the world than his short lived one.

 

You just combined a dozen different scenario's concerning Parthia... Caesar had delevoped plans for the East as did Marc Antony but none of them came to fruition because of the civil wars that occured so that cannot be used against them. In addition, Alexander only went East and expanded all in that direction, Rome went North, South, East and West... thier attention was divided much more around.

 

Of course Rome isn't that powerful, she was just starting to dominate central Italy around the time of Alexander... so you cannot compare the two. Alexander and his Macedonian Empire was at it's peak, while Rome was still a fledgling Republic...

 

Pyrrhus was defeated in the end by his own allies in Italy who once they won under Pyrrhus thought they did not need him and once Rome defeated them they pleaded for Pyrrhus' aid once more. His allies were just as a threat to him as Rome was and this is not including the Antigonids in Macedonia.

 

The Gallic Sack of Rome was in the 4th century bc, not the 3rd... which is when Pyrrhus was in Italy. In fact it was in 390bc, much longer before Alexander and before Macedonia was more than a backwater hole of little value.

 

You present weak arguements... besides the inheirent fact the two cannot be compared since in no way would an Imperial Roman Army vs Alexander's Macedonian Army.

[PARTHICOS]

The man reach india Rome did not, The man won his first encounter with elephants rome did not, The man create a large empire all by himself in a short time while the romans took 300 or 200 years with many generals to create what is called the roman empire. Caesar plans that were use by mark antony in his parthian campaign didn't work, cataphracts and the desert make them flee back to rome without crassus body. rome during alexander's time is not that powerful, 30 or 40 yrs after alexander death pyrrho of epirus defeat roman armies that were sent against him, only to be defeated by the lack of manpower and the roman carthago alliance, even northern barbarians sack rome around this time period, so if rome have a hard time with pyrrho alexander would have good time with them.

 

Wow... where to begin...

 

Yes Alexander reached India, but he did not stay nor did his presece of that of his successors last very long in India...

 

Alexander did not create his empire by himself... he had not only the best trained army in the world, (due to his father not Alexander), and he had excellent generals under him who could be argued were the reason for Alexander's success...

 

...also, Alexander's empire practically crumbled upon his death, while the Roman empire lasted hundreds of years later and left a greater legacy to the world than his short lived one.

 

You just combined a dozen different scenario's concerning Parthia... Caesar had delevoped plans for the East as did Marc Antony but none of them came to fruition because of the civil wars that occured so that cannot be used against them. In addition, Alexander only went East and expanded all in that direction, Rome went North, South, East and West... thier attention was divided much more around.

 

Of course Rome isn't that powerful, she was just starting to dominate central Italy around the time of Alexander... so you cannot compare the two. Alexander and his Macedonian Empire was at it's peak, while Rome was still a fledgling Republic...

 

Pyrrhus was defeated in the end by his own allies in Italy who once they won under Pyrrhus thought they did not need him and once Rome defeated them they pleaded for Pyrrhus' aid once more. His allies were just as a threat to him as Rome was and this is not including the Antigonids in Macedonia.

 

The Gallic Sack of Rome was in the 4th century bc, not the 3rd... which is when Pyrrhus was in Italy. In fact it was in 390bc, much longer before Alexander and before Macedonia was more than a backwater hole of little value.

 

You present weak arguements... besides the inheirent fact the two cannot be compared since in no way would an Imperial Roman Army vs Alexander's Macedonian Army.

it seems that i make you mado my friendo, you said rome went north, south, west and east maybe even outer space, but rome rule a tiny portion of the east not the whole eastern world, they may rule the west but not the east my friend they hit a brick wall in parthia. when they hit this wall they scratch their heads and ask each other how did alexander went further than us man..juiceist caesta

[Pantagathus]

Well, since this has been brought back up now, here's my two cents.

 

It really seems the hardcore Rome fans aren't really looking at this objectively.

 

This whole discussion is based on subjectivity!

[Moonlapse]

This whole discussion is based on subjectivity!

I agree. Locked.