Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

[TTRouble]

Ok. guys .. and gals..

Time for a wee question and to hear your thoughts on whether the Roman Polybian legions could have defeated the army of Alexander or his fathers army if they had ever met on the battlefield say at Cynoscephalae ?

I ask the question as I've read that Philip had trained his phalagnites to be dual role as they were able to fight in the Macedonian phalanx or when required as a traditional hoplite and some units could also fight as peltasts. Alexander's phalangites would thus have had the same dual role abilities, combined with his formidable cavalry would have posed a far greater proposition at Cynoscephalae than the army of Philip V did. The phalangites by Philips V time were simply pikemen.

I've also been curious as to why there's no mention of the heavy infantry/melee units that you would expect to have placed at the flanks and to the rear of the phalanx at Cynoscephala ? If they had been positioned there would the Roman's have been able to exploit the gaps that opened up while the left and centre of the Macedonian phalanx was still forming up ?


TTrouble

[AspisPhalanx90]

ALexander would have won.

The macedonians lost at Cynoscepalae because they lacked the combined arms, the very aspect which made the phalanx unbeatable. It became so used to Diadochi warfare that it was merely phalanx on phalanx, with no real use of other units. In a way, calling alexander's army a phalanx isnt doing it justice. It was a well oiled machine capable of being as flexible as the Roman legions. They would have beaten rome mostly because of the vast gap in abilities between Alexander's cavalry and Romes.

my two cents

[Lycaner]

If i were Alexander , i wouldn't even choose to fight at Cynoscepalae because the terrain is not suitable for my phalanx....
I would retreat to find another better terrain which i can beat the crap out of the romans....

[Sergeant Matt]

It all depends on who the Roman commander is. With armies of equal size, it's all down to the skill of the commander. However, very few generals would beat Alexander.

[Sergeant Matt]

And what kind of troop composition are we talking about? Any Italian cavalry would be crushed by the Companions, but if the Romans have, for example, Sarmatian Auxilia then that advantage is more or less negated.

[Lycaner]

Well HAs surely is a nightmare for the macedonians ........

[Caesar's Heir]

Sarmatian Auxilia are Cataphracts, not HAs, the Romans used Syrians for that. And then it all comes down to the Roman general.
Pompey? No.
Marcus Antonius? No.
Africanus? Maybe, pretty close in my opinion, both never lost...
Agrippa? Again, pretty close in my opinion
Marius? Depends on how old he was, but German invasion age, I think so.
Caesar? Yea, Caesar would have won, I think he's the greatest general of all time.

All just my opinion...

[Dramatic Cat]

welp it would also depend on the composition of the army i believe, be them those shiny Principate legions or the older hastati-principes.. against those foot companions and stuff.

But in any case if it was Alexander himself leading the army then i doubt the romans would even stand a chance.

[Sergeant Matt]

I can see Alexander being very successful, except for one thing. He died because he wasn't smart enough to realize that, as the General, his ultimate duty was to stay alive and lead his troops not lead charges against fortified positions. If he continued his usual habit of personally leading cavalry charges against the enemy,it could easily backfire. Since these are no Persian light infantry but disciplined, battle-hardened Roman legions, I could easily see Alexander getting himself killed early on.

[TTRouble]

Its a tough question as its had me thinking for sometime simply becuase the foot compnaions of Philips/Alexanders army were full time professionals trained to fight not just as pikemen and thus were armed accordingly depending on the situtaion that they faced. So instead of carrying a short dagger like later day pikemen, the "original" phalangites I think would have known what to do or reacted quicker to the situation as it arose. Also the light infantry to each wing and reserve of heavy infantry/hoplites to the rear of their phalanx would have been available to plug and counter any attacks against the phalanx as it opened up and that simply wasn;t the case at Cynoscephalae or it seems at Pydna.

Now regards Generals, I think both Alexader and Philip, and I think even Pyhruss too would have been able to adapt to the Roman polybian legions strategy and beaten them - think Pyhruss's staggerd Phalanx formation but with superior cavalry and better infantry. If you look at Alexanders first contact with Samartian horse archers, he was able to device a tactic that on their second encounter the macedonians were able to beat them - he used his own skirmisher cavalry intermixed with archers, slingers and peltasts to force the Samratians to fight while he himself flanked and attacked with the Companions and Thessalian cavalry. The exact formation that was used by him isn't known but they were able to crush them. At Magnesia,had the Seleucid King let Hannibal command the infantry would the outcome have been different ?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Alexander would probably die leading a stupid cavalry charge into disciplined infantry. Plus the Romans could drown him in men anyway.

[Caesar's Heir]

Alexander would probably die leading a stupid cavalry charge into disciplined infantry. Plus the Romans could drown him in men anyway.

That is true, Rome was known for a massive draft. And the drafted weren't always "green".

[juvenus]

That is true, Rome was known for a massive draft. And the drafted weren't always "green".

yeah, and the Alexander's men who marched over half of the world and saw the places the Romans never heard of were green, right?

[Roman4life]

i am not familiar with the term "green" also i beleive at cynosephalae the romans would probably have won against alexander had caesar or africanus been in charge because you must remember that the superior disipline present in the roman army would have allowed them to respond quicker to changing situations then the "original" phalangites who would have been a little less seasoned at manipular warfare due to the fairly exclusive use of the phalanx in actual combat in persia (they may have been trained but several people have noted that this is no real garentee) and the hilly ground would have made the phalanx less useful which means that the high ground advantage would be gained if they truly fought like hoplites but the frontal strength would be lost the cavalry could work better or worse depending on how it was used but as many of you have mentioned he liked to charge into people particulary at the rear of the enemy which would mean the triarii which would be interesting because if he didnt break them he wasnt gonna have fun withdrawing would have been risky because the armys are described to have "Ran into each other" this is my opinion i would be very interested to hear counter points and opinions if you bothered thnks for reading

[Caesar's Heir]

yeah, and the Alexander's men who marched over half of the world and saw the places the Romans never heard of were green, right?

No, of course not, but if his army got exterminated who would he fall back on? Would the new army be as experienced as a recently recruited Roman army? I'm willing to bet against that.

[Royal_McKeogh]

The Romans would never have allowed Alexander to get close to Italy, Alexander had 1 very veteran army thatt revered him, however, armies of this period, especially phalanx armies, were made up of those elite veterans and so were very hard to replace. The Roman's armies differed considerably. In the early periods, they could raise legions in just a few years, in the latter periods, the legions served for longer than the 2 year campaign of the Pre-Marian armies. If Alexander lost too many soldiers in a battle, he may have been unable to continue. That is the difference between ultimate victory and defeat and it is why Hannibal never took Rome.

[medievaldude]

Wait Are the romans facing Philip II Makedonian phalanx, or Hellenistic phalanx? what are the conditions too?

At Magnesia,had the Seleucid King let Hannibal command the infantry would the outcome have been different ?

Hellenistic armies focus too much no the phalanx, and make them doomed big formations. As well they rarely support them with light infantry, and for Makedonian's chance was too little cavalry and people for the matter. Magnesia's problem, was really the elephants and the deep phalanx, if less files and more deployed length wise better results .

Its a tough question as its had me thinking for sometime simply becuase the foot compnaions of Philips/Alexanders army were full time professionals trained to fight not just as pikemen and thus were armed accordingly depending on the situtaion that they faced.

i think the problem with Hellenistic Macedon, is the mass migration of Greeks to the Diadochi. This incluides some of there fine cavalrymen like the Thessalians. As well the foot companions many of these veterans were in Syria, Egypt and Asia minor scattered among the empire Alexander left. And they were too lazy to train there levies.

But Makedonian, had many weird points. Tyrants and stuff with no heir Alexanders homeland was chaotic. An example Pyhruss stole the Macedonian throne became king and so on ...Plus the Aetolian league and Sparta were issues.


right now i can't say much so much peoples opinions is causing me to think about history again

[TTRouble]

Some more food for thought regards Philips/Alexanders phalangites..

" .... The formation, in both senses of the word, of the Macedonian phalanx, gave Philip an infantry force that was capable of standing up to Greek hoplites in open battle. If it was to retain any strategic utility however, its men needed to be able to fight outside the confines of the phalanx. As with most peoples living in an area surrounded by hills, the traditional Macedonian weapon was the javelin. Philip ensured that his men were trained in the use of both weapons, and carried whichever was the most appropriate for the occasion, so that his infantry could fulfill the role of both hoplite and peltast as need be. When marching through broken country, javelins were carried: Polyainos relates how when Onomarchos' Phocians ambushed Philip's men, they were able to fight back at a distance.

... Philip's brutally efficient training programme, backed by his autocratic royal power, ensured his men lived up to his expectations. Training men to use two sorts of weapons with equal facility is no easy task, and very few other classes of warriors over the millenia have ever attained such dexterity; the few that readily spring to mind are mostly aristocratic steppe horsemen accustomed to both lance and bow. Training his men to use two weapons that required a completely different formation to fight with, a rigid pike phalanx against the loose order required to hurl javelins, made the achievement all the more outstanding, especially given the inclusive nature of his reforms - it was the entire national levy that was so trained, and not just a picked elite."

[Visarion]

defenitely not

Edit:

Some more food for thought regards Philips/Alexanders phalangites..

" .... The formation, in both senses of the word, of the Macedonian phalanx, gave Philip an infantry force that was capable of standing up to Greek hoplites in open battle. If it was to retain any strategic utility however, its men needed to be able to fight outside the confines of the phalanx. As with most peoples living in an area surrounded by hills, the traditional Macedonian weapon was the javelin. Philip ensured that his men were trained in the use of both weapons, and carried whichever was the most appropriate for the occasion, so that his infantry could fulfill the role of both hoplite and peltast as need be. When marching through broken country, javelins were carried: Polyainos relates how when Onomarchos' Phocians ambushed Philip's men, they were able to fight back at a distance.

... Philip's brutally efficient training programme, backed by his autocratic royal power, ensured his men lived up to his expectations. Training men to use two sorts of weapons with equal facility is no easy task, and very few other classes of warriors over the millenia have ever attained such dexterity; the few that readily spring to mind are mostly aristocratic steppe horsemen accustomed to both lance and bow. Training his men to use two weapons that required a completely different formation to fight with, a rigid pike phalanx against the loose order required to hurl javelins, made the achievement all the more outstanding, especially given the inclusive nature of his reforms - it was the entire national levy that was so trained, and not just a picked elite."

Excellent info

[Kozmonavt]

The Romans would never have allowed Alexander to get close to Italy, Alexander had 1 very veteran army thatt revered him, however, armies of this period, especially phalanx armies, were made up of those elite veterans and so were very hard to replace. The Roman's armies differed considerably. In the early periods, they could raise legions in just a few years, in the latter periods, the legions served for longer than the 2 year campaign of the Pre-Marian armies. If Alexander lost too many soldiers in a battle, he may have been unable to continue. That is the difference between ultimate victory and defeat and it is why Hannibal never took Rome.

I disagree. If Alexander truly lived to go west, he would have a much better backing than either Pyrrhus or Hannibal. Pyrrhus's forces were truly finite, because they were merely leased to him (he had a very small kingdom) and Hannibal had plenty of potential reinforcements, just no way to concentrate them in Italy. Alexander would have had more than enough gladius fodder (not just to keep his main army fully manned, but also to keep Romans completely pinned down), complete naval superiority (no roman navy at all back then, pirates would have been a bigger problem) and a preexisting strong beachhead and supply bases in Italy (cities of Greater Greece). So attrition would be less damaging to Alexander, I'd say he would be far more likely to simply die while leading one of his charges. If.