What if the Roman Republic was invaded by Alexander the Great?

[Gaius Octavius]

As long as we are playing mental gymnastics, lets throw the greatest Captain ever, into the mix, Scipio Africanus.

[oats]

Gaius, I'm not even sure Scipio was even born, given Alexander's possible timeline for a Western Campaign.

And Scipio Jr. was only the Scipio he was after emulating Hannibal's tactics in which he killed Scipio Sr. (note, I am not using strictly Roman Terms). Scipio may not even have become Scipio Africanus, had he not seen the tactical prowress of Hannibal in his decade plus tour in Italy.

 

Segestan wrote:

These were the Gauls that invaded Rome , burnt Rome , invaded Macedon, burnt and killed it

[Gaius Octavius]

Oats, is this a 'what if' thread?

[oats]

Sorry, I was thinking "What If" questions to be plausible in a historical context.

 

So I can say what if Alexander took his Phalanx against American 101st Airborne? (slight exaggeration of timescale.)

 

By the time Scipio II was born in 236 BC (assuming that Alexander's what-if-he-went-west campaign didn't alter history that Scipio was born), Alexander would have been 100 years old.

[Titus Pullo]

I think the Roman legions would have been victorious. Afterall the legions defeated the Macedonian phalanx three times: Cynestophale, Magnesia and Pydna. The phalanx was very vulnerable to the roman swords once they were outflanked.

[Diocles]

I think the Roman legions would have been victorious. Afterall the legions defeated the Macedonian phalanx three times: Cynestophale, Magnesia and Pydna. The phalanx was very vulnerable to the roman swords once they were outflanked.

 

I still don't think that the early Roman legions could have withstood a campaign against Alexander. At the battles Magnesia and Pydna there were completely different tactics employed by Antiochus II and Perseus than of Alexander.

 

As I'm sure everyone is familiar with, Alexander was very aggressive in his assault and use with cavalry, only using his phalanx as a mobile wall to pin down the enemy. The only advantage over the phalanx I can see is that the Romans would have had greater mobility than the Macedonians while still being heavily armed. This could have created some problems for Alexander trying to navigate around the hills of the Italian peninsula while trying to pin down a more mobile force, however for the period, this tactic would have gone against the 'bulldoze' tactics of the Roman maniples. So even though the Romans would have an advantage, I doubt that they would have employed it against Alexander, as it was not tactically used and familiar to the generals of the time.

 

In this theory that we're creating, Alexander would have been bringing in experienced soldiers with experienced generals, just look to Tresamine and Cannae to see what battle hardened veterans assaulting inexperienced legions get you.

 

It is in my opinion, which is painful to say with my amenity towards Rome, that Alexander would have wiped the floor with Rome. This strong force entering the Italian peninsula, as did with the Carthaginians with the 2nd Punic War, would have created unrest in the communities surrounding Rome. I'm sure the Etruscans, Samnites, and Campanians, would have loved to switch allegiances to get a piece of Rome, not to mention Sicily.

[Gaius Octavius]

All wars are fought for economic gain.

 

In the original 'hypothetical' one premise is lacking: Why would Alexander go West? What did Rome have that A wanted or needed that he could not easily get in the conquered East? A was an Orientalist. He fought and conquered oriental mobs who were easily disheartened at the slightest sign of set back or defeat. This was never a part of the Republican Roman mind set. A was an oriental god and acted as such. The Republic lost many battles, but never a war.

 

If the West were less than the East, then A could easily have conquered all of North Africa as a side show when he was in Egypt and Libya. (The Oracle could have told him to Go West Young Man.) Spain would then have been an easy trick. Since he would have so easily gained the support of All The Gauls, he could have easily attacked Rome through the western Alps as would have been done so easily through the eastern Alps. The Alps, you say, would have been as easy a bag as the Hindu Kush was. Reverting to the first sentence above, and the hypothetical itself, why would A leave all this treasure at his back with the additional possibility of the perfidious Carthaginians, sundry North Africans and Gauls linking up with their betters, i.e., the Romans, and they all making short work of All The Greeces? One might conclude that there was no treasure or threat worth the effort.

 

His marching army could never carry more than three days supply. As he did in the East, he would have had to build a great navy to attack Italy (in lieu of the above) and to supply his troops from and by the sea. Now, I say unto you that Italy, at that time, had no great ports along a 2,000 mile coastline. But, you say that he could forage as he did from Syria to Sogdiana to India. And, again, you say that this conquest could have been a double pincer from the Alps and its supplement from the sea. Alas, we all know that the Romans were an impractical, lazy, fearful, cowering lot who could only think upon future orgies and discovering the joys of pizza. You also may hold that these inferior Roman's superior DNA could never produce a superior Captain as it always did. This proposition is not within the bounds of the hypothetical.

 

Do you see the problems? Are the shades eclipsed from your eyes? Go Yankees!

 

In conclusion and in sooth and without fear of sentient contradiction, I say unto all y'all: HAD IT TAKEN 1,000 YEARS, THE HEART OF MY GLORIOUS IMPERIAL ROMAN ANCESTORS WOULD HAVE CONSIGNED THE NAME ALEXANDER TO OBLIVION! greeks!

Edited June 6, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

I think the Roman legions would have been victorious. Afterall the legions defeated the Macedonian phalanx three times: Cynestophale, Magnesia and Pydna. The phalanx was very vulnerable to the roman swords once they were outflanked.

 

I disagree. Alexander started his conquest of the Persian Empire in 334 BC. That was barely half a century after the Romans had suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of the Gauls under Brennus. The only province Rome had managed to subjugate by this time was Etruria. In fact she had just defeated the Latin League at Trifanum in 338 BC. The Romans had just abandoned the phalanx formation in the middle of the 4th century BC and their experience in using the legio formation in combat was rather limited during Alexander the Great's time.

Remember that the first clash between legion and phalanx was in 280 BC at Heraclea and Pyrrhus did win this battle. It's doubtful if the Romans would have been able to withstand Alexander's phalanx.

[Fergalus Carolanii]

On the assumption that both forces would be numerically even (for talks sake) I think that a campaign by Alexander into Italy would have been a very hard fought event. For one thing Alexanders troops wouldn't have come up against anyone like the Romans before. Even in their infancy the Romans infantry were more than a match for a phalanx of pikemen. The reason i believe that they were a match for Alexander is that the Romans are famous for thier adaptability and i feel that they may have adapted to Alexander's use of phalanx and cavalry. Also although the Romans themselves only really had some light cavalry, some of the cities in Italy (especially in the south) had heavy cavalry. The Romans later emloyed them into their army. Alexander was supposed to be brilliant at exploiting the enemys weakness. However he'd never encountered anything like the Romans before so he wouldn't know their weakness. However in the end I'd say the Macedonians victory would be enevitable due to thier experience in battle. The only way I could see Rome really winning is if they could dicide on the field of battle and picked a terrain unsuitable for large cavalry movements. Maybe a marshy terrain.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys!

All I can say of this kind of "what if" scenarios is that they always end in a really wild ride of fantasy.

Edited July 21, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Salve, guys!

All I can say of this kind of "what if" scenarios is that they always end in a really wild ride of fantasy.

I agree. I think they're just a pointless waste of time.

[Kosmo]

Alexander would have not needed to cross the Alps. A "west" campaign would have meant for a greek to get the large and rich cities of South Italy and Sicilia across the sea from Epirus on a well known sea route. With Tarentum and Syracusa in his grip Cartage would be the main foe. If that's solved, then a quick blow from South Italy to Rome was an easy job in terrain much better than A faced in other parts of the world.

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

But why would Alexander or Macedon want to invade Rome. They would gain nothing defeating a neutral (i think) 'faction'. I thikn this suggestion os a bit farfetched.

Anyway most of Southern Italy belonged to Alexander anyway.

[Marcus_Aurelius]

I think the Italian rough terrain could have been a serious problem to the macedonian phalanx.Alexander might have found his Scipio if he fought Rome,who knows.I personally don't think he would've attacked Rome,if he had made it back to Macedonia he would have probably begun some plans about how to maintain his empire,named a few Iranian satraps backed up by Greek generals and given a bit more autonomy to the Eastern provinces.I guess he was more keen to attack Carthage by sea with his newly taken Phoenician fleet.

[GAIUS ALEXIANUS MARIUS]

Maybe im moving away a little from the topic. Still, even if Alexander did not march west for Rome, it is of course well known that the Greek influence captivated the Roman way of life. Whether by Etruscan influence which was based off some Greek customs and traditions , or direct Greek influence from the southern Greek colonies of Italy. The biggest victory and proof of hellenization of the ancient world was without a doubt, Rome.

" Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit".