Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 188

Thread: Alexander facing the Roman legions

  1. #1

    Default Alexander facing the Roman legions

    Let's say that Alexander wasn't born in 356 BC, but two hundred years later in a hellenistic empire in Anatolia. So, he would've been born in 156 BC in the Kingdom of Pontus. During 200-100 BC the Romans were quite busy with fighting their way to the east, and they also fought in Anatolia.

    Alexander, becoming king at the age of 20, reorganises the army, reintroducing the once mighty phalanx and the cavalry. In 125 BC he's ready to fight the Romans, with his trained army, a good amount of money and his own leadership. Would Alexander beat the hell out of the Roman legions? Would it become a long struggle? Would Alexander end up like Pyrrhus, leaving the Romans alone after some years? Would Alexander take... Rome?

  2. #2

    Default

    he will surely have the ability to crush the legions possibly even take Rome, since his military genius have already been proved in many battles if we take a look at them. The macedonian pikeman and companion cavalry were surely in balance with the roman war machine and under the command of Alexander who is a capable commander will give Rome a bigger threat as Carthage once had in the First and Second Punic War.

  3. #3

    Default

    i dont think so, the phalanx in fact is quit weak against a manipular legion, as the pikes would have to batter into a well organized enemy that is raining heavy spears on them along with lighter spears. the cavalry would be a problem, but only a factor in the defeat of alexander. btw, who would the roman general be in this battle, to give us a litte bit better info as to the skill of Alexander's adversary?

  4. #4
    Freddie's Avatar The Voice of Reason
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,537

    Default

    In terms of weapon the Roman shield is the prefect defense against the phalanx pike. Due the curved shape of the shield it deflects shots and makes it hard for the hoplites to land blows on the legions. Basically what I'm saying is that some people really over estimate the phalanxes killing power, its primary role was to push the enemy back and whilst keeping the enemy busy until such time came when the cavalry could attack the flanks. If you look at Alexander’s battles most of them are won because by his cavalry not his infantry.

    I would personally love to see how Alexander would have faired against a proper army. An army that is trained and disciplined in the art of war, and if you take the dates you mention the Romans would have plenty of experience fighting Phalanx armies.

    Anyway what sort of Phalanx would he employ? Would he use his trusted Macedon phalanx system or have a few units of Spartans in his army as well? It would be interesting to see if Alexander could recruit Spartans to his cause, because if he is such a good leader of men he really ought to recruit the best fighters in Greece i.e. the Spartans.

    As far as Roman generals go I think [strike]Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio[/strike] would be an apt choice. He has both experience and good sound tactically knowledge, and knows about how phalanxes work (i.e. their strengths and weakness).

    Edit:

    Wrong Scipio! I mean Scipio Afric
    anus


    edit II 22/05/06 - Formatting
    Last edited by Freddie; May 21, 2006 at 06:26 PM.

  5. #5
    Legio XX Valeria Victrix's Avatar Great Scott!
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,054

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 00RedBaron
    Let's say that Alexander wasn't born in 356 BC, but two hundred years later in a hellenistic empire in Anatolia. So, he would've been born in 156 BC in the Kingdom of Pontus. During 200-100 BC the Romans were quite busy with fighting their way to the east, and they also fought in Anatolia.

    Alexander, becoming king at the age of 20, reorganises the army, reintroducing the once mighty phalanx and the cavalry. In 125 BC he's ready to fight the Romans, with his trained army, a good amount of money and his own leadership. Would Alexander beat the hell out of the Roman legions? Would it become a long struggle? Would Alexander end up like Pyrrhus, leaving the Romans alone after some years? Would Alexander take... Rome?
    Okay, honestly...what is up with this sub-forum...why is it being spammed up the Yazoo with what if? threads or x vs. y threads of troops that would and did never meet?

    That said, this one is particularly weak...I mean come on.

    If Alexander were born in 156, there would be no Hellenistic Kingdom in Anatolia, because he was the one who created them. Pontus would not have existed as a kingdom, because the Kingdom of Pontus was a by-product of the Successor Kingdoms and their frequent wars. Without Alexander's conquests, you have no Successors, thus, no Pontus.

    Furthermore, without an Alexander, Macedonia may have just remained a backwards little nation of a mixture of Greek and non-Greek culture, and thus, never really have presented a great threat to Rome, as it did during the 2nd Punic War. This was the reason Rome attacked Macedon, and that in turn led it into conflict with the Seleucids and so on into the East. Rome's expansion was more of a snowball effect than any desire on their part to conquer the world. It just so happened that they did.

    Beyond this, you have all sorts of speculative questions like what if Alexander wasn't born into the nobility, what if he was a moron, what if this what if that. There's no right answer, and thus, no discussion or debate can be had...

    Unlike, if, just as an idea, someone were to post something about an event that ACTUALLY happened.


    "For what is the life of a man, if it is not interwoven with the life of former generations by a sense of history?" - Cicero

  6. #6
    Slaxx Hatmen's Avatar This isn't the crisis!
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    The Living End
    Posts
    3,081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio XX Valeria Victrix
    Okay, honestly...what is up with this sub-forum...why is it being spammed up the Yazoo with what if? threads or x vs. y threads of troops that would and did never meet?

    That said, this one is particularly weak...I mean come on.

    If Alexander were born in 156, there would be no Hellenistic Kingdom in Anatolia, because he was the one who created them. Pontus would not have existed as a kingdom, because the Kingdom of Pontus was a by-product of the Successor Kingdoms and their frequent wars. Without Alexander's conquests, you have no Successors, thus, no Pontus.

    Furthermore, without an Alexander, Macedonia may have just remained a backwards little nation of a mixture of Greek and non-Greek culture, and thus, never really have presented a great threat to Rome, as it did during the 2nd Punic War. This was the reason Rome attacked Macedon, and that in turn led it into conflict with the Seleucids and so on into the East. Rome's expansion was more of a snowball effect than any desire on their part to conquer the world. It just so happened that they did.

    Beyond this, you have all sorts of speculative questions like what if Alexander wasn't born into the nobility, what if he was a moron, what if this what if that. There's no right answer, and thus, no discussion or debate can be had...

    Unlike, if, just as an idea, someone were to post something about an event that ACTUALLY happened.
    Dude, you really need to realize that the "what if" topics are for FUN! They were never ment to be taken seriosly. There just for the mind to exirsize its imagination department. And since fun=happy you'll end up seeing alot of these topics.

    Ontopic:I think if Alexander had gone west into Italy. He would've abandoned the phalanx style of fighting and gone for somthing more "mobile" to be evenly toe-to-toe with the romans. However, if he had gone for italy instead of persia, the empire might have struck at him with his back turned. But i think a man of his talent would've been done with Italy by the time tehy bothered to do so and counter-strike them quite nicely.
    Under the patronage of Basileos Leandros I

  7. #7
    Legio XX Valeria Victrix's Avatar Great Scott!
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,054

    Default

    Nah, sorry, I don't buy that. Because if these 'what-if' topics are "fun", then logically those topics debating actual history are boring or less interesting. I do not accept that, I find them to be vastly more intellectually engaging than the 'what-if' topics. That said, if a what if topic actually has SOME logic and base in historical fact, I'll entertain it. This one is just ludicrous. Why move Alexander two centuries forward, why not ask "What if he lived and went west after he conquered the East?"


    "For what is the life of a man, if it is not interwoven with the life of former generations by a sense of history?" - Cicero

  8. #8
    John I Tzimisces's Avatar Get born again.
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New England, US
    Posts
    12,494

    Default

    Well, if thats the case, he would have caught rome at a really bad time...aka, in the middle of a war with the samnites, in which the roman army suffered its most embaressing defeat ever.

  9. #9

    Default

    quote:
    Basically what I'm saying is that some people really over estimate the phalanxes killing power, its primary role was to push the enemy back and whilst keeping the enemy busy until such time came when the cavalry could attack the flanks.


    Not really,the role of the foot companions(centre phalanx) was to crush a battle line that was in disorder when the companion cavalry was charging the centre of the infantry and had already defeated the enemys cavalry. The calvalry took the initiative, not the infantry.

  10. #10
    Slaxx Hatmen's Avatar This isn't the crisis!
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    The Living End
    Posts
    3,081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio XX Valeria Victrix
    Nah, sorry, I don't buy that. Because if these 'what-if' topics are "fun", then logically those topics debating actual history are boring or less interesting. I do not accept that, I find them to be vastly more intellectually engaging than the 'what-if' topics. That said, if a what if topic actually has SOME logic and base in historical fact, I'll entertain it. This one is just ludicrous. Why move Alexander two centuries forward, why not ask "What if he lived and went west after he conquered the East?"
    It seems we've come to a misunderstanding. I agree with you that a "Alex goes west" what if is more fun and enterianing then this topic. I never siad disscusing actual history was boring.(i would'int be here on these forums if a was)So dont be accusing people of saying somthing they never directly stated. My ontopic example implys exactly what your saying anyhow. Im just saying what ifs as a whole are not as bad or as ridiculous as this one. Some are rather fun.(see:"if Alexander moved into China" for proof of there popularity)
    Last edited by Slaxx Hatmen; August 24, 2005 at 08:36 PM.
    Under the patronage of Basileos Leandros I

  11. #11

    Default

    Two things that I don't think anyone's picked up on yet suggest that Rome would win out against Alexander.

    Firstly, manpower. Rome at this period had the larger reserves which would suggest they would win ultimately by attrition if for no other reason. This was the problem Carthage faced.

    Secondly, style of leadership. A Roman general's job on the battlefield was not to get personally involved in the fighting but to move around the field staying close to the action, directing the battle, feeding in reserves, inspiring his men, rallying broken troops, etc.

    Alexander's style was to lead from the front of his Companion cavalry and actually get stuck into the melee. This meant a high probability that Alexander would be killed in a battle. In a long series of battles, which any war with Rome would inevitably involve, the risk of this happening would be very very high. With Alexander dead, the war would most likely come to an end in Rome's favour as there would be no one able to take over leadership of the whole army. Alexander's empire was very much a one lifetime empire with little chance of continuity after his death. This was shown by it immediately splitting into three parts after much squabbling between his generals.

    I agree the phalanx could be defeated by the legions. You only have to look at the occasions they did encounter one to see how it was dealt with.

    All in all a Roman victory is the most likely outcome to such a war.

    JAN.
    Last edited by JAN; August 25, 2005 at 08:36 AM.

  12. #12

    Default

    first off if you dont like these what if scenarios, thats cool thats your opinion, because then again this topic and all others are about opinion, but you should respect others opinions of wanting to discuss this in the spirit of our imagination and leave this topic be, go talk on the topics you want to instead of coming here and bashing this thread. Again this is my opinion and im sure u disagree with me, oh well.

    As for Rome winning, their only chance would be if Alexander was killed early in the campaign as jan said, if this doesnt happen i dont think, even with their superior manpower, that they would beat alexander. The persians had more men to throw at the macedonians and well, we all know what happened there, yes the Romans were a much better army than the Persians, but it also could depend on the roman commander, i mean if caesar, scipio, constantine, marius, or some1 on their level commander the romans, they have a good chance, simply because they have the better army, alexander is a better general than all of the aforementioned, however the superior manpower, resources, and troops might be the difference. If the commander was (higher probability) one of their foolish commanders, i believe alexander runs them over.

    The Legions and their armor and shields are a perfect match for the phalanx, but their cavalry would get owned by the companions, and just like cannae, they would be able to rout the roman cavalry, and come back to strike the legions. Alexander was no doubt a genius I agree he would have reforemd his army(much like he did the farther east he went) to be more mobile, and harder hitting, the two weaknesses the legionaries had (mobile = parthians, hard hitting = gothic cavalry). Also dont forget Alexanders great charasima, maybe he could convince some of the conquered peoples to join his cause, im sure not all of them, but possibly a good amount of tribes, these could help with replenishing his losses, not to mention helping with resources.

    Then again there are SO many possibilities and the what if questions, could be endlessly countered with more what if questions. The only thing we can go on is history, and even then the cloud of uncertainty still hovers over us. All we have left then is our instincts and bias in which way this war would go.
    "Heaven cannot brook two suns, nor earth two masters." - Alexander the Great
    "I begin by taking. I shall find scholars later to demonstrate my perfect right." - Frederick (II) the Great
    "Strike an enemy once and for all. Let him cease to exist as a tribe or he will live to fly in your throat again" -Shaka, King of the Zulu
    TRU

  13. #13

    Default

    It would in my opinion it would take a long struggle lets say about two to three years.
    After Alexander studied and knew how the roman legions acted and fought he would have an advantage!
    Then in a big decisive battle were each side fought desperateley and bravely the well trained,organized(not that the romans weren't organized) line of the phanlanx would be deadly to the Roman Legions!

  14. #14

    Default

    As has been said earlier in the topic, the phalanx does not have the killing power that you might think. I needs very even ground to perform efficiently and can easily get into disorder. The Romans in their encounters with phalanxes proved good at exploiting their weaknesses.

    Alexander's cavalry would be a problem as Roman cavalry at the time was poor in comparison. However, Roman infantry tactics could be easily adapted to neutralise the Greek cavalry advantage. Also, I don't believe Alexander's cavalry, however good, would have quite the shock effect against the more heavily armed Roman infantry that they had against the Persians.

    On the question of manpower, the Romans had far better quality troops as well as numbers compared with the Persians. A significant proportion of the Persian armies were rubbish quality and were only there to make up the numbers.

    'Fraid my money's still on Rome winning.

    JAN.

  15. #15
    Freddie's Avatar The Voice of Reason
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,537

    Default

    The phalanx proved good against the lightly armed slave armies of Darius, but against well drilled heavy infantry the Romans can muster its a completely different matter.

    I agree with “Da_TRU_1” that the Roman cavalry wouldn’t be match for the Companion cavalry (assuming of course the companions had some battle experience and were not completely green). But how would companion cavalry fair against roman legionnaires? The Romans always held men in reserve to either reinforce the battle line or counter any flanking attack from enemy cavalry.

  16. #16

    Default

    ...The Romans would most certainly win against any military genius in an all-out war. They would win the same way they won against Hannibal or the allies won aginst Napoleon. Avoid battle with the military genius(in this case Alexander) and attack other armies led by less capable men, until the enemy is fatally weakened.
    ...Just as Hannibal had his Zama after Carthage was sufficiently weakened and Napoleon his Waterloo after he was forced to use new drafts to fight veterans, Alexander would eventually be defeated when ground down in the military meatgrinder that was Old Rome.
    ...The poster who talked of Alexander's probable demise while leading a charge also has a valid point. An incident like this would certainly quickly end any Greek/Macedonian ascendance. I seem to remember that Gustavus Adolphus ended this same way.

  17. #17

    Default

    You people seem to forget that Alexander was not the one who introduced the phalangite/heavy cavalry combination. It was his father, Philip. Alexander would not have fought with his trademark army, because it would not have existed. He would most likely have fought with a mixture of sparabara and ill-disciplined phalanxes; with light javelin cavalry and perhaps Armenian or Curdachi horse archers.

    That's basically the same type of army Sulla slaughtered like cattle when he fought Mithradates in Pontus. The Galatian and Thracian mercenaries the Romans used as cavalry would have annihilated Alexander's weak skirmishing horsemen, were they foolish enough to come to grips.

    Without heavy cavalry, Alexander's only advantage would be lost. The man wasn't invincible. Far from it.

  18. #18
    Slaxx Hatmen's Avatar This isn't the crisis!
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    The Living End
    Posts
    3,081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedo

    Without heavy cavalry, Alexander's only advantage would be lost. The man wasn't invincible. Far from it.
    Indeed, i mean the guy was killed from whine overdoce. I think i pilla to the ass would work quite in the same fashion.
    Under the patronage of Basileos Leandros I

  19. #19

    Default

    I'm glad the mystery of Alexander's death has finally been solved. A "whine overdoce" always seemed like the cause of death. Take away his phalangites, his companion cavalry, take away all of the things that are a Macedonian army and you're still left with a man who purely knew how to win. Invincible? clearly not. Unbeatable? about as close as you'll ever come. Honestly, who else would you want leading your ancient army and doing so from the front? He was wounded by pretty much every conceivable piece of ancient weaponry. His courage and toughness are far from questionable.

    Alexander may not have been facing the best army in the world (that was the army he was leading) but he consistently showed tactical brilliance against a larger force everytime he stepped on the field of battle. I have a hard time believing it would be a walk in the park for either side. Rome and Alexander would have their hands full marching to battle with one another. As far as i can see it, it's pretty much a coin flip. Whoever proves to have the better luck will probably be victorious. I don't think that one battle would turn the tide of war, as both sides would more than likely be hardened against their foe and ready to avenge any percieved defeat.

    The man who successfully seiged and conquered Tyre could most definitely march his army through the streets of Rome a victor. I can't even imagine the ideas he would come up with to defeat Rome. What if Alexander had a strong navy at his disposal? Who knows what tactics he would engineer facing such a strong foe....if only we knew
    ______________________





  20. #20

    Default

    Alexander was smart, tough, and a great military leader. But Alexnader never faced an army like the roman legions. I think that his great military mind will cause the Romans to loose many soldiers, but he could never defeat Rome, even sack Rome at that. He might get Anatolia, and other eastern parts of the world, but not much further. It is very hard for an army to land somewher, and costly.

    Q: who is leading the Roman Legions? And why is he leading the Pontic army? why not Macadonian?

    Edit: Also Alexander only had like 40-60 thousand men right? and Rome would have somewhere like 200 thousand men. Hannible won ever single battle he fought, he only had 45 thousand men, but there was no way for him to win. He could have won all the battles but there would still be another army after the one he just beat. The same thing would happen to Alexander, if he managed to win against the romans.
    Last edited by Tigran of Sasoun; August 26, 2005 at 02:26 AM.

Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •