Alexander The Great

[longbow]

Alexanders campaign against Persia was Brilliant,even if Phillip had stayed alive he wouldnt of accomplished what his son did.L

[Hamilcar Barca]

The Macedonian phalanx was an outdated system by the time of the Romans. Pyrrhus of Epirus, the nephew of Alexander the Great handed the Romans two consecutive defeats at Heraclea and Beneventum. But once the Romans figured out how to deal with elephants and the phalanx, they never lost against a Macedonian styled army again. The point is that the Romans would NEVER anything other than a victory on THEIR terms. While they may have lost to Alexander and his generals initially, there is no way in hell they would have surrendered to him, they would have found a way to beat him eventually and end the war they saw fit.

 

The phalanx seemed like a good idea on the surface but it had no manouvaribility. At Cynoscephelae, Phalanna and Pydna, the Romans simply got in the flanks or rear of it after which a slaughter ensued. The phalangites had light armour and a very short sword (more of a dagger), as soon as they were deprived of their hedgehog formation, they were rendered helpless.

 

As for Alexander, he was a legendry general but I think he gets more attention than he deserves. Pure luck seems to have won him most of his victories opposed to disciplined strategy. He was almost certanely mad as well, believing himself to be the son of God and thus that he was immortal. Caesar, Sulla or the Scipio's would have wiped the floor with him. Remember that S. Africanus or Sulla never lost battles either, and they were often fighting when badly outnumbered. e.g. Ilipa, Baeculla, Chaeoronea, Orchenomus etc

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Yes but none of them faced even close to the odds Alexander faced. Battle of Hydaspes alone shows just the kind of army he faced, over 200 Indian elaphants, which are larger than the ones Hannibal had and he only had 80 of them(African), defending from the other side of a fast moving river. He also faced guerilla warfare from the mountains, which the phalanx is inferior in. The enemy always fought on their terms and he won. The Macedonian phalanx, during Roman superiority was not used properly and the discipline and training of the past phalanx had been compltely compromised. The weakness in the phalanx is in the fact that it needed heavy support. Remember Alexander's army was made up of only 15000 phallangites. Macedon during Roman conquest, had lost it's cavalry power and at few battles used it completely irresponsibly(such as in between each set of units and not in the flanks). The phalanx was never a battle winner with Alexander, he won with his superior cavalry. Rome could never match the quality cavalry Alexander had. The phalanx simply holds the enemy in place while the cavalry comes. The legion beat out the phalanx because it does not need the kind of quality backing that needed. The legion could do very well on it's own while the phalanx

needed not only the right ground(flat one) but needed a powerful cavalry to back it up(Something the Romans never had). If Alexander's cavalry was to be routed, his battle was lost. However if Caesar's cavalry was routed he could still put up a powerful fight and still come with a decisive victory. How could you bring up Cynoscephelae? The Romans outnumbered, heavily, their enemy, they had elaphants, Macedon had weak cavalry and the 16,000 phallangites were poor compared to the kind of disciplined ones Alexander had when Macedon was at it's height.

Rome never faced a fully even battle against the Macedonian phalanx. They faced macedon when their generals peformed some pretty crappy tactics and they had been in long decline

[Guest spartacus]

Alexander is still " over- rated", I think Scipio is a much better Commander

[Julius Caesar]

That the Romans never faced the Macedonian system at its zenith is certainly true, but it doesn't mean that the legion at its height couldn't have beaten Alexander. Its a fascinating 'what if', and I guess the best match-up would be Caesar's army versus Alexander's.

 

Though really the Roman army had several high points. Consider; the legions that won the Second Punic War, those of Caesar, those of the late republic/early principate, those of Trajan, those of Marcus Aurelius, those of Septimius Severus, and those of Aurelian. And this list is certainly not a complete one.

[Hamilcar Barca]

I wasn't suggesting Cynoscephelae was a legendry Roman victory, I was simply saying it was a victory in any case. I am aware that the Macedonian armies at the time of Roman expansion were of poor calibre and leadership, Perseus fled without even using his cavalry. But what I am saying is that the Alexander would have NEVER conquered the Romans, he may have beaten them initially, but they would have found a way to stop him.

 

Alexander never actually fought any noteworthy commanders either though, Darius II and Porus were loosers who had armies to large for them to actually control. Darius' men constantly had bad morale, they were whipped into combat by their officers and most of them had little training or combat experience. By the time Alexander started his expedition into Asia Minor, his army was well battle-hardened from their battles with the Greeks.

 

As for badly outnumbered battles. Sulla's infantry were outnumbered 1 to 7 at Chaeoronea, I think that counts as significant. You also mention the poor quality of the Roman cavalry, this is true but the Romans often supplemented their own with far better auxillaries such as the Numidian cavalry.

 

Rome never faced a fully even battle against the Macedonian phalanx

 

 

Well actually at Pydna the Macedonians outnumbered the Romans 44,000 to 38,000 in the infantry department. But yes, Perseus didn't use his cavalry, he dropped his nuts and ran.

 

I take into account everything that you say, I just believe that the great Roman generals which I alreadt mentioned could have beaten Alexander.

 

I see this is turning to another ROME VS GREECE topic. uh oh

[Guest Scanderbeg]

this is true but the Romans often supplemented their own with far better auxillaries such as the Numidian cavalry.

 

 

But Rome did not have those options when Alex was around. It barely gained victory from a half-assed general like Pyrrhus. Image a full invasion from Alexander after his Persian campaign. In the end. Phalanx or legion, it comes down to one thing, leadership and strategy. Alexander showed he had both on an overwhelming level. The Romans may cook up ways to beat him in the end, assumption, but even Hannibal was not by new tactics but by his own and a took the rise of an exceptinal general to do this. What would have happened to Rome had Hannibal had the full backing of Carthage?. The Macedonian phalanx is a very powerful mar machine but it needs heavy maintanence and supervision. This is not the same with the legion. Plus both do not have the same job. The phalanx is meant to just hold the enemy in place while the legion is meant to kill and destroy the enemy.

 

Alex Vs. Rome are done far too often and often all that happens in those topics is the repetition of the same facts over and over again.

[Guest spartacus]

Just a mad thought

 

But would that not make a top selling game

 

Alexander v Caesar

 

Wow, I would buy it for sure

 

If anyone here is a whizz on computors then I will invest 5 grand to help finance it

 

 

And you think I am joking !!

[Ursus]

A book I read about him recently made the point, that to paraphrase Napolean, it's not enough to defeat your enemies - you have to profit from their defeat. Alexander may have been a brilliant general and fierce warrior, but his political and cultural visions of a united empire simply weren't realistic. It was bound to collapse as soon as he died and break off into successor states.

 

Arguably though, he didn't care all that much, as his main goal seems to always have been simply to conquer everyone, be declared a god on earth, and get his name in the history books . In this he succeeded, and his legacy to inspire others to military glory is not in doubt.

 

But his legacy as an imperial architect of lasting vision is. His father was much more sophisticated in this regard, and certainly various Roman rulers were on a higher plane. To be blunt, even if Alexander was the greatest *general* in history, I think that's marred by the fact he wasn't the greatest *ruler* in history.

[Guest spartacus]

I too made the point in an earlier post that his father was a better leader, Alexander a better soldier!

 

" To have everything is to have nothing " - John Clifford

 

 

This is certainly true in the case of Alexander, he did not sustain his conquests, consolidate may be a better choice of word, in another sense if you look at it in a cold and blunt way it was a total waste of time!

There is little point in invading a country then simply walking away from it, sort of defeats the point!

As for being a great soldier, in many cases he was, but I would say with total conviction if he had encountered the Romans in battle he would taste defeat, he was good in his time

[skel]

^^ thats sortr of what my point was sparticus... he may have conqoured alot of land but it was sort of on accident. he only set out with the idea in his mind that he wanted the persian king. taking all the land was mearly the result of his crazed pursuit.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

he may have conqoured alot of land but it was sort of on accident.

 

 

it was definately not an accident. Empires dopn't form accidentally. His victories at Granicus, Issus and Guagamela. Those are battles were numbers were completely against him. He was in enemy territory, he managed to completely disunite the Persian Empire, the people loved him, except for greeks ironically. He showed skill in just about every field in the battle and performed incredible manouevers with his army and cavalry. He had plans for strenghthening his Empire but died to young. Remember, he was only 33. Imagine just what he could have done if he had lived till say 50 or 60. In my opinion he was by far the greatest conquerer of the ancient world. In 7 short years did more then any other general. Though ultimately he self destructed. Had he not had so many problems with his ego and drinking he could have lasted. The guy was worthipped by foreigners. He name spread out across Asia and Europe. Just about everywhere you see someone talking aboujt a conquerer, he is always put in comparison to Alexander. Even Caesar was said to have weeped when, around the same age as Alexander when he died, compared what he had done with Alexander.

 

The opinion about Alexander here seems to extremely influenced by the fact that we are some deep Romanophiles here

It is to be expected though

[pompeius magnus]

On the flip side alexander went up an empire that was near its end after being defeated twice by Greek armies and they also used chariots which were simply outdated. Alexander focused the majority of his attack with the excellent cavalry of Greece but the Phalanx were a big part too. The Romans would have had an advantage in infantry mobility, but the Greeks would have held a far superior advantage in cavalry. It would be an interesting debate. However, the Romans had more numerous brillant generals than macedon/greece such as Caesar, Pompey, Sulla, Marius, Scipio, Fabius, Marcellus, Agrippa etc. whereas the Greek generals would have a tough time adapting to the different form of fighting. In the end, the Roman experience against Hannibal, as well as the manoverability of the legionairres as well as their supperior weaponry would allow them the attack the flanks and surround the phalanx, maybe adopting the cresent formation of Hannibal at Cannae, however it was done the Greeks would be unable to defeat the Romans without their infantry being able to fight both in phanlax formation and the legionaiire style.

[skel]

scanderbeg.. when i say accident i dont necessarily mean "fluke" i mean that he did not leave greece saying "i am going to conquer the known world" he simply went out saying "i want persia to pay for what they have done to greeks" and in the process of making them pay he conquered the known world...

 

is this not a correct statement?

[Guest Scanderbeg]

used chariots which were simply outdated

 

Yes, I wont argue they were outdated. But Scythed Chariots are deadly to the immobile phalanx. In the end it did pierce through. Even if it was on unfavourable ground and Darius used the chariots very well. he made enough space for them to manuever, pick up speed and cleared the area so it would not be ubstructed by natural bumps in the ground. He was not the fool made out to be. This was just propaganda put out by the Greeks to put him down. Before Alex came Darius was looking like a very promising leader.

 

"i want persia to pay for what they have done to greeks" and in the process of making them pay he conquered the known world...

 

 

More or less. That was the whole thing "excuse" he made. But I doubt it was just about him getting revenge. He wanted glory.