The first recorded alternative history

[Caesar CXXXVII]

When dealing with the second Samnite war , Livy did a thing never done before him , he asked "what if" .

Here is his words about Alexander Mokdon landing in Italy (in c. 330 - 323) to fight the Romans led by the celebrated Lucius Papirius Corsur , Quintus Fabius Rullianus , marcus valerius Corvus and others .

 

It is Livy at his best !

 

"Had Alexander the Great, after subjugating Asia, turned his attention to Europe, there are many who maintain that he would have met his match in Papirius.

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.

 

"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.

 

"It remains for us to compare the one army with the other as regards either the numbers or the quality of the troops or the strength of the allied forces. Now the census for that period gives 250,000 persons. In all the revolts of the Latin league ten legions were raised, consisting almost entirely of city troops. Often during those years four or five armies were engaged simultaneously in Etruria, in Umbria (where they had to meet the Gauls as well), in Samnium, and in Lucania. Then as regards the attitude of the various Italian tribes-the whole of Latium with the Sabines, Volscians, and Aequi, the whole of Campania, parts of Umbria and Etruria, the Picentines, the Marsi, and Paeligni, the Vestinians and Apulians, to which we should add the entire coast of the western sea, with its Greek population, stretching from Thurii to Neapolis and Cumae, and from there as far as Antium and Ostia-all these nationalities he would have found to be either strong allies of Rome or reduced to impotence by Roman arms. He would have crossed the sea with his Macedonian veterans, amounting to not more than 30,000 men and 4000 cavalry, mostly Thracian. This formed all his real strength. If he had brought over in addition Persians and Indians and other Orientals, he would have found them a hindrance rather than a help. We must remember also that the Romans had a reserve to draw upon at home, but Alexander, warring on a foreign soil, would have found his army diminished by the wastage of war, as happened afterwards to Hannibal. His men were armed with round shields and long spears, the Romans had the large shield called the scutum, a better protection for the body, and the javelin, a much more effective weapon than the spear whether for hurling or thrusting. In both armies the soldiers fought in line rank by rank, but the Macedonian phalanx lacked mobility and formed a single unit; the Roman army was more elastic, made up of numerous divisions, which could easily act separately or in combination as required. Then with regard to fatigue duty, what soldier is better able to stand hard work than the Roman?

 

"If Alexander had been worsted in one battle the war would have been over; what army could have broken the strength of Rome, when Caudium and Cannae failed to do so? Even if things had gone well with him at first, he would often have been tempted to wish that Persians and Indians and effeminate Asiatics were his foes, and would have confessed that his former wars had been waged against women, as Alexander of Epirus is reported to have said when after receiving his mortal wound he was comparing his own fortune with that of this very youth in his Asiatic campaigns. When I remember that in the first Punic war we fought at sea for twenty-four years, I think that Alexander would hardly have lived long enough to see one war through. It is quite possible, too, that as Rome and Carthage were at that time leagued together by an old-standing treaty, the same apprehensions might have led those two powerful states to take up arms against the common foe, and Alexander would have been crushed by their combined forces. Rome has had experience of a Macedonian war, not indeed when Alexander was commanding nor when the resources of Macedon were still unimpaired, but the contests against Antiochus, Philip, and Perses were fought not only without loss but even without risk. I trust that I shall not give offence when I say that, leaving out of sight the civil wars, we have never found an enemy's cavalry or infantry too much for us, when we have fought in the open field, on ground equally favourable for both sides, still less when the ground has given us an advantage. The infantry soldier, with his heavy armour and weapons, may reasonably fear the arrows of Parthian cavalry, or passes invested by the enemy, or country where supplies cannot be brought up, but he has repulsed a thousand armies more formidable than those of Alexander and his Macedonians, and will repulse them in the future if only the domestic peace and concord which we now enjoy remains undisturbed for all the years to come. "

 

1. What do you think about the concept of an alternative history ?

2. What do think about livy's precedent ?

3. what do you think about his analysis ?

4. Who would won the war ?

Edited January 29, 2007 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Gaius Octavius]

1. An alternative history sets people to thinking and debating. I think that it is acceptable in this case as the weapons were basically the same, but to compare any ancient captain to a modern one, would not be acceptable. The weapons employed, on the same field of battle, would dictate different tactics and perhaps, produce different results. Today, a commander would never lead his troopers in battle. His intelligence might be better. His supplies more readily available. I believe that it was Capt. Liddell-Hart who said that Alexander fought an Oriental mob, whereas, Scipio fought a veteran, disciplined, and well trained army. The comparison not only could be made to the Romans, but also to Hannibal.

 

As an aside, it would be interesting to compare Marshall Zukhov, and his tactics, to Alexander. And even more fiery to switch them in time, (which comparison I said would be invalid, above).

 

2 & 3. The precedent (if it was that) was a good one, yet his analysis, to me, is lacking in military comparisons.

 

4. Had Alexander come to Italy, he would have been fighting on a different terrain and against a fierce and uncompromising people. I believe that it was King Phyrrus who said something like: 'Another victory (over the Romans) like this, and I'll lose the war'.

It is my opinion, that the Romans would have defeated Alexander sooner or later.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Julius Ratus]

1. I love alternate history because it forces you to ask "why" and "how". Why and how are the important parts of understanding history.

 

Normally the moderators are opposed to unequal comparisons, pitting modern commanders vs ancient ones, but your Marshall Zhukov vs Alexander gave me a chuckle. If the Siberian Divisions had been equipped with wicker shields and spears, and then sent into battle using the tactics Zhukov utilized at Rzhev, it would have been Alexander fighting an Oriental mob all over again .

 

4. My Professor thinks that Alexander would have steamrollered the Romans. I find my self agreeing. The Romans could have kept on calling up divisions but Alexander would have killed them off, loosing fewer men than Pyrrus had.

 

What gave Alexander his victories were his Thessalian and Companion cavalry units. These were the killing arms in the warmachines of Alexander and Philip. The cavalry in Pyrrus' army were not as prominent as they were the in the earler Macedonian armies.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

True, the macedonian cavalry was very powerful and would have been a major problem for the Romans, especially since at the time their own cavalry was very few in numbers and far from being trained as the macedonian cavalry was. But we must remember that this cavalry would have gone against the flank or the rear of the roman formation, against the old formation of the roman legion, against the hastati force with it's long spear which might have been able to halt the charge due to it's good organization. Nowhere did the macedonian meet as disciplined a force as the roman, so while numbers would finally play into the macedonians favor they would suffer heavy losses. What could be the final trouble for the romans might have more to do with the defection of the greek cities like Capua, essential for the army's training, and other along the coast which stayed loyal during the hanibalic war but might well have taken a different course of action with a greek invasion of the area.

[Divi Filius]

That for me is one of the most interesting parts of the narrative. Livy inexplicably goes out the history into the historical alternative. Its as if he started thinking about it while writing, became very emotional; and in turn started writing his thoughts down... lol

 

However, the first historical alternative, as far as I remember, is actually in Polybius narrative. In one of his later books he gives a thought over what would have happened had Hannibal turned his attention to the east instead of Rome. He felt the Carthagenian would have conquered like Alexander.

 

In a way, through this comparison, Polybius himself seems to believe that Alexander probably would not have been able to subdue the Romans.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Divi Filius

[The Augusta]

4. My Professor thinks that Alexander would have steamrollered the Romans. I find my self agreeing. The Romans could have kept on calling up divisions but Alexander would have killed them off, loosing fewer men than Pyrrus had.

 

What gave Alexander his victories were his Thessalian and Companion cavalry units. These were the killing arms in the warmachines of Alexander and Philip. The cavalry in Pyrrus' army were not as prominent as they were the in the earler Macedonian armies.

 

Another one here in agreement! And although we should not romanticise too much, Alexander pre-dated the Roman generals to whom soldiers were personally loyal, by almost three hundred years. His men followed him everywhere, only having second thoughts in India. And if Livy is speculating about the period after the Persian conquest, Alex would have not only brought his Thessalian and Companian cavalry units - he'd have brought his very large Oriental mob as well!

Edited March 9, 2007 by The Augusta

[Ursus]

1. What do you think about the concept of an alternative history ?

 

It is a fun but ultimately useless exercise, best left to fiction authors and armchair enthusiasts than serious historians.

 

 

2. What do think about livy's precedent ?

 

See above

 

 

3. what do you think about his analysis ?

 

See above

 

 

4. Who would won the war ?

 

Probably Alexander, but who cares? Why in the world would Alexander have gone West to sack a bunch of poor, hilltop villages in Italy when the riches of the Persian empire beckoned him? That's the problem I have with the whole concept. There was no good reason in the world for Alexander to conquer the Italians, and thus the entire speculation seems devoid of purpose.

[Julius Ratus]

1. What do you think about the concept of an alternative history ?

 

It is a fun but ultimately useless exercise, best left to fiction authors and armchair enthusiasts than serious historians.

 

To write good historical fiction, one must have a good grasp of the real events to make the story believeable. Harry Turtledove, who some call the master of alternate history, has a P.h.D. in Byzantine History. I consider most people that spend the time to achieve a P.h.D. to be rather serious.

[Gaius Octavius]

To write good historical fiction, one must have a good grasp of the real events to make the story believeable. Harry Turtledove, who some call the master of alternate history, has a P.h.D. in Byzantine History. I consider most people that spend the time to achieve a P.h.D. to be rather serious.Could they be rather serious about filling their pockets?

[Julius Ratus]

Could they be rather serious about filling their pockets?

 

 

Indeed, but getting a P.h.D. requires alot of work. There are far easier ways to fill one's pockets.

Edited March 28, 2007 by Julius Ratus