Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

[Ashton]

Oh come on people , i see you all saying that he would probably die leading one of his stupid charges or whatever. This charge had a purpose, this charge boosted the morale of his men and inspired his men on great deeds on the battlefield. So , i don't think that his charges against the Romans would have been simple suicide attempts. Other than that, since both the Romans and the Macedonians were truly magnificent soldiers my opinion is that the terrain would decide the winner

[medievaldude]

Alright if its during the time Alexander is alive, HANDS DOWN Alexander wins . during the time of Alexander's regime, romans were fighting the Etrucans, Samnites those non-latins e.t.c... Plus the roman army is still an hoplite-influenced army . And we know during this time, romans could never do good as Greek phalanx. And facing Alexander, they be crushed as well the aid of

(cities of Greater Greece)

As, Kozmonavt noted.

[SAINTS975]

Rome has always been known for the manpower to create more troops, so in my opinion it would have been attrition that would beat alexander.
but still in battle, alexander would always win. i mean in the modern world some countries still use tactics from Alexander the Great.

[eskil]

ehi,ehi... i think we are missing the point: to compare rome with the army led by alexander we should consider roma?s best troop led by its best general

[medievaldude]

ehi,ehi... i think we are missing the point: to compare rome with the army led by alexander we should consider roma?s best troop led by its best general

Considering the scenario, is at the time Alexander is alive Rome is still small. With the support of the whole Hellenes and his great skill, He would be able to destroy them and pick-off those Non-Latins. Then, again he can just command his armies in Makedon and still win. ..

and pick-off those Non-Latins

Or ally with the Samnites, etrucans and destroy Rome with them for support.

[Grimbold]

ehi,ehi... i think we are missing the point: to compare rome with the army led by alexander we should consider roma?s best troop led by its best general

Trajan?!

[Kozmonavt]

Oh come on people , i see you all saying that he would probably die leading one of his stupid charges or whatever. This charge had a purpose, this charge boosted the morale of his men and inspired his men on great deeds on the battlefield. So , i don't think that his charges against the Romans would have been simple suicide attempts. Other than that, since both the Romans and the Macedonians were truly magnificent soldiers my opinion is that the terrain would decide the winner

Never said his charges were suicide attempts, but as far as I know he received many injuries. It's been said they contributed to his early grave, maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but there certainly was a risk of death every time it happened (despite all his supporting troops, equipment and doctors, of which he surerly had only the best) and another prolonged campaign to conquer a half of the known world... I think you can see my point.

[juvenus]

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.

i see ur point. but still, i'm not sure u fully understand the entire context. by the time of the Alexander's greater successes, Rome was pretty much a relatively small central Italy power. so, u'd better dont bet that Romans would stand any chance vs. Alexander's empire in the long run cause u would soundly loose that bet. even if they could manage to score a victory, what would happen next? he would simply send another army-pretty much the same as the Romans did at the pinnacle of their strength, much later

just remember that Alexander died in 323dc! even at that time, his empire had millions of inhabitants and thus could provide several hundreds of thousands of troops-at least! so, the experience factor isn't of much importance cause both sides had certain number of the experienced troops but the Macedonians had overwhelmingly greater resources to draw upon. in the long run, Rome wouldve had no chances whatsoever.
i'm a huge fan of the Romans but this comparisons is simply wrong. Rome was still in it's infancy (in terms of power) at the time when Alexander conquered half the world. if anyone tries to convince u that Romans had magical powers & were ultra smart while the Macedonians and all the people from Asia and Europe under their rule were just a bunch of morons then dont believe him!

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

The Macedonians would have eaten the Romans alive, the Romans were like orcs: numerous, wicked and relentless, but also unimaginative and clumpsy.

[Kozmonavt]

even if they could manage to score a victory, what would happen next? he would simply send another army-pretty much the same as the Romans did at the pinnacle of their strength, much later

If italian powers banded together and managed to score an impressive enough victory, Alexander's distant territories would probably rebel and he would be forced to either return in person or disperse his troops to deal with the problem. That's what happened to both Darius I and Xerxes and what ultimately saved Greece from conquest. Also, remember that Romans spent a lot of time and resources consolidating their power (military, economic and political), but Alexander conquered everything quickly and his empire was hanging together by a thread of his personal prestige.

[equites]

@People who say Alex wins easily
In my opinion the chances are equal,As this time Alexander is not facing Levy,undisciplined Persian Army and it was mostly Darius mistakes that made Alexander victorious
And the Romans will always get a way of beating their enemy, as at the battle of Avus 4,000 legionaries penetrated to the rear of Philip's camp, and when Flamininus attacked in front, they fell upon the Macedonian rear, and completely routed them and the decisive victory at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, And battle of Pydna shows that the roman warfare is capable of beating the Macedonian Phalanx.its is just up to who is leading the Roman Army

i mean in the modern world some countries still use tactics from Alexander the Great.

Which Tactics

[metsikhovne]

of course alexander conquered "all knowns world" but i do not him to be greatest general of ancient times. many generals, hannibal, caesar, marius... i think they were better, never loosing to not means that one was greatest, and genial commander, sometimes there was not enemy in that times when some "great generals" lived. it is just a matter of time.

[medievaldude]

@People who say Alex wins easily
In my opinion the chances are equal,As this time Alexander is not facing Levy,undisciplined Persian Army and it was mostly Darius mistakes that made Alexander victorious
And the Romans will always get a way of beating their enemy, as at the battle of Avus 4,000 legionaries penetrated to the rear of Philip's camp, and when Flamininus attacked in front, they fell upon the Macedonian rear, and completely routed them and the decisive victory at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, And battle of Pydna shows that the roman warfare is capable of beating the Macedonian Phalanx.its is just up to who is leading the Roman Ar

well what kind of roman army are we facing? Do you not understand, if romans bring an army of the same time as Alexander the great is still alive , romans will lose.

Battle of Cynoscephalae

197 B.C pah , an roman army of 356-270 is weak. And Alexander would obviously be not dumb enough, to use phalanx as assault and deploy them so thick. He wouldn't let an roman army ambush he either, his conquest of the world had 50,000 troops, two republican legions of 270-109 b.c still arent big enough to compare with Alexanders.

P.S fixed some typos.

[EoinMcC]

The Macedonians would have eaten the Romans alive, the Romans were like orcs: numerous, wicked and relentless, but also unimaginative and clumpsy.

Seriously?! Well there's no helping some I suppose

Anyhew, Roman military tactics, theory and general carry on is my area of study, though I've been looking into the Macedonian phalanx as well, though the question is purely speculative (obviously) I'm going to say Caesar's Gallic veterans could have taken them, if you gave them time to build themselves up after Alesia. As for Alexander's leadership methods, I find them to be more in the heroic chieftain vein than calculating military genius.

On to the meat of the battle, due to the highly flexible nature of the manipular formation, Alexander's preferred 'Hammer and Anvil' method of Persian bashing would have been somewhat negated, after all Caesar did negate a massive cavalry deficency at Pharsalus. Though obviously Alexandrian Hetairoi would have been better than the cavalry fielded by Pompey, even still I find it hard to believe that veteran troops under a highly charismatic leader able to fully exploit his own strenghts and his enemies' weakness would not have found a way to deal with Alexander's Hammer, and without the might of the Hetairoi a flank assault would have rolled up the line to cries of Roma Victa!

That's just what I think anyway

[EoinMcC]

AFAIK the only 'Alexandrian' tactic used in modern warfare is overwhelming power to a weak point, but this is also stressed in Sun Tzu, Clausewitz.... well you see where I'm going

[equites]

@medievaldude
He is talking about using the same army used at the battle of Cynoscephalae.

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 ?

[medievaldude]

@medievaldude
He is talking about using the same army used at the battle of Cynoscephalae.

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

nope? Seriously the Hetairoi, weren't the only cavalry force. Alexander brought Prodromoi, Paeonian cavalry,
Socrate's Hetairoi, Thracain cavlary, Thessalian cavalry, and allied cavalry. His cavalry were all fierce, formidable and are capable of a devastating hammer blow. Not to mention horse-archers.

Cretan archers, dont forget argianian javelinmen, and other skirmishers who can defeat the elephants, like at Zama.

His Hypaspists and reserve allied phalangites/and or hoplites could help and support the main makedonian phalanx line, Added in with the cavalry it would be more hard to defeat.


I'm pretty sure Alexander, wouldn't meet at this location. And if so, he would quickly take the high ground and use his cavalry force to ambush the romans.

[equites]

I agree with you
But what I am saying the Alexander will not have an easy win as the chances are equal and the Roman army at 2nd century B.c was much more stronger due to Scipio's Reforms.

[Caesar's Heir]

The Macedonians would have eaten the Romans alive, the Romans were like orcs: numerous, wicked and relentless, but also unimaginative and clumpsy.

What?!? They tried the Grecian phalanx, and they were utterly crushed by barbarians due to its inflexibility.
They created a new system of cohorts, it was more flexible, and each soldier had a pilum to hit his opponent. After fighting multiple wars on multiple fronts, they reformed their system again so that the state would assist in paying for the armor and weapons of soldiers who could not.
The pilum was also fixed so that it would bend, thus an enemy who blocked it would have to discard his shield. Even if he tried, he would not be able to throw the pilum back, which was happening before Marius.

So, yea, Rome had no imagination.

his conquest of the world had 50,000 troops, two republican legions of 270-109 b.c still arent big enough to compare with Alexanders.

Caesar's conquest of Gaul swelled up to 12 legions and then with some auxilia, that's 60,000 + his auxilia.
Octavian had 17 Legions which totals to 85,000 + 33,000 allied cavalry + auxilia.

Both those wars were ~60 years after your time frame, but they still had the ability to recruit those numbers time and time again, so don't say that they couldn't.
And if you mean the 6, not 2 that fought at Cynoscephalae, then you have to have alexander's army composed of Philip V's army. Which as stated earlier by someone else, there was a lack of supporting infantry.

[Kozmonavt]

AFAIK the only 'Alexandrian' tactic used in modern warfare is overwhelming power to a weak point, but this is also stressed in Sun Tzu, Clausewitz.... well you see where I'm going

That's called local superiority and was used to great effect centuries before this guy, namely to defeat the Spartans. Combined arms is my choice of his lasting contribution, you can't get more combined than today's armies. Of course, speaking of China, that's a whole parallel universe they have there. It's better not to compare at all, pretty much everything iron age Europe invented, they invented it before, got tired of it, forgot about it and then got spammed with HA stacks.