Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 246

Thread: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

  1. #61

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    Also the phalanx was not originally 'winning' it was holding the romans. It took the initiative of some Centurions to break it up, but it still happened, I KNOW that there's a massive gap in quality but the point still stands, if the phalanx were to be infiltrated then yes Alexander's phalangites would have fought better, but still, the pinning power would be lessened and eventually the legionaries would have gotten past the spear points into the phalangites themselves, do you not agree?

  2. #62
    medievaldude's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    North York, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,147

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    skilled nature of the phalanx is somewhat perplexing, sure they might have been better at sword-range than the later phalanxes but the romans were trained soley in the use of the sword, so you're getting a 'jack of all trades' approach versus a dedicated training pattern? I mean the fight would be very close but I honestly think the Roman's could have done it.
    Alexander's phalanx is also known to fit the role of peltasts, and quite often they were sword-users.

    So hang on, the charge that you said he wouldn't do?
    Alexander's charges were winners, but also inspiring. You know of Pyrrhus's charges to yes?

    "In war numbers alone confer no advantage"

    That means he can spread his phalanx more length wise, supported with light infantry and skirmishers.
    With a huge cavalry advantage that would help stop flank manuveurs, the Thracian Odrysians, Prodromoi, and Paenonians would harras advances. As well, he had great lower ranking commanders, problem is there were capable tribunes.

    Also a competent commander (such as Flaminius) would expect the use of cavalry and would find a way to neutrilise the threat.
    But Alexander can use that fact for his advantage, he has plenty of skirmishers and with cavalry mock charges it would do quite a effect.


    Also the phalanx was not originally 'winning' it was holding the romans.
    It was it pushed back the legionaries causing disruption. At Pydna the broke the romans, but the phalanx decided to follow them and lost. But with a bigger cavalry support it would be different.

    the legionaries would have gotten past the spear points into the phalangites themselves, do you not agree?
    In many battles encountering Persians,afghans or Indians close-combat happened to the phalanx. Before anything bad happened Alexander used his cavalry to support them to win the day. As i noted the lower ranking officers of Alexander contributed to discipline and not to give up.

    Ductus Exemplo
    Fas est et ab hoste doceri !
    He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.
    Treat your men as you would your own beloved sons. And they will follow you into the deepest valley.

  3. #63

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    The romans decided to retreat, knowing there was broken ground behind them, which would disrupt the phalanx, so the legions were not 'broken'.


    "But Alexander can use that fact for his advantage, he has plenty of skirmishers and with cavalry mock charges it would do quite a effect."

    Hang on, what do you mean? Mock charges, fine no problem, may well have happened, but I doubt that the third line would be needed really so they would have been happy enough to act as a deterrent, the skirmishers wouldn't have been such a massive problem, really I understand that Alexander had oodles of light infantry, but like it or lump it they'd still have to engage the legions and then they would be slaughtered.

    For staying power the phalanx requires depth, less depth = less strength no? the reason the Romans could extend their line is the rather unique Triplex acies system, not something replicated by Alexander.

    Of course I know about Pyrrhus' charges, I was merely remarking that you said in an earlier post that Alexander would not have used a personal charge.

    So they were pikemen, swordsmen and light infantry in one go? That kind of backs up my point no? Polybius says that it is detrimental to the skill of a soldier to be trained to proficiency in more than one of the skills of a soldier

  4. #64
    medievaldude's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    North York, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,147

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    really I understand that Alexander had oodles of light infantry, but like it or lump it they'd still have to engage the legions and then they would be slaughtered.
    they don't have to.


    For staying power the phalanx requires depth, less depth = less strength no?
    50 men wide and 32 men deep is example of late Hellenistic phalanx. really its a turtle. You can achieve the same power with say less deep rows.

    the reason the Romans could extend their line is the rather unique Triplex acies system
    The fact that, it could be defeated like a Cannae is the funny part. Look Alexander III army pretty much has the ingredients to make that kind of situation and battle happen.

    The romans decided to retreat, knowing there was broken ground behind them, which would disrupt the phalanx, so the legions were not 'broken'.
    they did broke.

    the skirmishers wouldn't have been such a massive problem,
    that's the same underestimating that happened at the Jugurthine War.

    Ductus Exemplo
    Fas est et ab hoste doceri !
    He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.
    Treat your men as you would your own beloved sons. And they will follow you into the deepest valley.

  5. #65

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    Quote Originally Posted by medievaldude View Post


    they did broke.



    .
    no they did not broke...unable to break the phalangite formation they retreated ona a rough terrain,But as the phalanx pushed forward, the ground became more uneven as it moved into the foothills, and the line lost its cohesion, then the roman army simply retaliated...
    on a side note the macedonian army had almost double man than the roman

  6. #66
    medievaldude's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    North York, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,147

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    o they did not broke...unable to break the phalangite formation they retreated ona a rough terrain,But as the phalanx pushed forward, the ground became more uneven as it moved into the foothills, and the line lost its cohesion, then the roman army simply retaliated...
    on a side note the macedonian army had almost double man than the roman
    they retreated, the tribunes rallied and kept order.
    then they charged at disorganized phalanx they followed them, Summed it up.


    Pretty much broke means retreat lol

    Ductus Exemplo
    Fas est et ab hoste doceri !
    He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.
    Treat your men as you would your own beloved sons. And they will follow you into the deepest valley.

  7. #67

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    no, they maneuvered to favorable terrain.... apparently this kid thinks the romans can't do anything strategically and the macedonians can do everything at all times... can think of everything perfectly. Apparently, the battlefield is a video game and they can pause and rethink strategy whenever they want to and can carry 5 different sets of weapons 'just in case' they needed that other discipline of training that they 'thankfully' were trained in

  8. #68
    SimpleCourage47's Avatar Ducenarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    930

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3w6pXqekm4

    Watch through the 3 parts. Rome didn't have that battle easy at all, they got pushed back on to uneven terrain, a roman officer saw a gap and exploited it, Macedon didn't plug the gap, they lost. Many pikemen surrendered but romans didn't understand the gesture of lifting your pike up to surrender and killed them. Had the commander been Alexander, this would have been different, he would more than likely have used his cavalry and support infantry to back up his phalanx, and Rome would have lost that battle in my opinion.
    Last edited by SimpleCourage47; July 02, 2011 at 11:44 PM.
    Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming.

  9. #69
    TheRomanRuler's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,964

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    In long war: Absolutely yes
    In singal battle: no. Alexander himself kept them "good warriors", and so did many before them, Rome beat them all..
    Last edited by TheRomanRuler; July 03, 2011 at 02:31 AM.
    Apologies for anyone who's message i may miss or not be able to answer

  10. #70

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRomanRuler View Post
    In long war: Absolutely yes
    In singal battle: no. Alexander himself kept them "good warriors", and so did many before them, Rome beat them all..
    there were 28000 romans against almost 50000 macedonians, of course they did have it though,however to fight while moving is one of greatest roman weapon... they understood that they couldn't break frontally a phalanx and retreated to a better territory....

    remember the battle against spartaco... the flank of the roman army was oblitared and they simply rotated theyr formation to prevent an outflanking
    now you think alexander coul do the same i higly doubt that

  11. #71
    SimpleCourage47's Avatar Ducenarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    930

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    If your talking about Cynoscephalae then you need to watch the link i posted and listen to it. At no point did the Romans retreat to better ground, The two sides met not intentionally, skirmishes battle for the high ground, Romans driven back. Philip moves some of his phalanx's that are formed and ready to the higher ground and the Romans begin their attack, Macedonians drive them back. Other roman wing attacks the not fully formed up Macedonians on Philips opposite wing and likewise drive them back. One of Philips wings is driving the Romans back and therefore pushing forward the other is being driven back thus creating a gap which the Romans exploit.

    Also your numbers are ridiculously high the Macedonians, i have found the following range of figures:

    Both sides were roughly equally matched, mustering about 25'000 men each. - http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cynoscephalae.html

    When Flamininus began his march to Larisa he had under his command about 32,500 to 33,400 soldiers. Philip had about 16,000 heavy infantry in phalanx formation, 2,000 peltasts, 5,500 light infantry from Illyria, Thrace, and Crete, and 2,000 cavalry for 25,500 troops overall. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cynoscephalae

    Flaminius, the Roman general had around 30,000 soldiers. Philip V had approximately 22,500 forces. - http://rtw.heavengames.com/history/b...ae/index.shtml
    Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming.

  12. #72

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    Quote Originally Posted by WeAreODST11 View Post
    If your talking about Cynoscephalae then you need to watch the link i posted and listen to it. At no point did the Romans retreat to better ground, The two sides met not intentionally, skirmishes battle for the high ground, Romans driven back. Philip moves some of his phalanx's that are formed and ready to the higher ground and the Romans begin their attack, Macedonians drive them back. Other roman wing attacks the not fully formed up Macedonians on Philips opposite wing and likewise drive them back. One of Philips wings is driving the Romans back and therefore pushing forward the other is being driven back thus creating a gap which the Romans exploit.

    Also your numbers are ridiculously high the Macedonians, i have found the following range of figures:

    Both sides were roughly equally matched, mustering about 25'000 men each. - http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cynoscephalae.html

    When Flamininus began his march to Larisa he had under his command about 32,500 to 33,400 soldiers. Philip had about 16,000 heavy infantry in phalanx formation, 2,000 peltasts, 5,500 light infantry from Illyria, Thrace, and Crete, and 2,000 cavalry for 25,500 troops overall. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cynoscephalae

    Flaminius, the Roman general had around 30,000 soldiers. Philip V had approximately 22,500 forces. - http://rtw.heavengames.com/history/b...ae/index.shtml
    i was talking about pydna not Cynoscephalae

    and if i rember well the roman were driven back only durind the skirmishes... afterward durng the real battle their wing was simply pushed back...they dinn't broke through... and just to clarify a thing ... but to fight while slowly retreating for me is a tactic: i can't break through forntally so what if i cause their formation to loosen up or take time to outflank the static phalanx or more simply reduce their pushing power
    I 'dont understand why everyone think that slowly retreating is a sign of defeat... so are you sayng me that hannibal at cannae was on the verge of losing????
    Last edited by eskil; July 03, 2011 at 07:13 AM.

  13. #73
    medievaldude's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    North York, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,147

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    Other roman wing attacks the not fully formed up Macedonians on Philips opposite wing and likewise drive them back.
    It would have been way, better if they formed


    was talking about pydna not Cynoscephalae
    Funny ting is, this whole thread should be about Alexanders army against Flamininus.

    Rome beat them all.
    Rome didn't beat them all, but conquered a great number of them. You guys, know Later ROMAN EMPERORS came from lands of Rome's enemies

    Ductus Exemplo
    Fas est et ab hoste doceri !
    He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.
    Treat your men as you would your own beloved sons. And they will follow you into the deepest valley.

  14. #74

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    Quote Originally Posted by medievaldude View Post
    It would have been way, better if they formed




    Funny ting is, this whole thread should be about Alexanders army against Flamininus.



    Rome didn't beat them all, but conquered a great number of them. You guys, know Later ROMAN EMPERORS came from lands of Rome's enemies
    why flaminus ... at least we should consider scipio since is of the same time: i mean alexander was one of the greatest general of all time so we should at lest consider someone of the same height

  15. #75
    Clagius's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    frozen wasteland
    Posts
    1,773

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    I say Alexander was greatest general of all time, and none of those would have won him. Not even Caesar. If you knew, Alexander dreamed to attack Rome as well, I know he would have won. It's just about his soldiers' morale and terrain.

  16. #76

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    Not to throw a socket in the wrench, but...

    Ghengis Khan vs. Alexander?

    Crusades
    Historical fiction - Fifty Tales from Rome


    Can YOU dance like the Cookie Man?
    Improbe amor quid non mortalia pectora cogis? - The Aeneid
    I run an Asteroid mining website. Visit it before James Cameron takes it from me.

  17. #77

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylonian View Post
    I say Alexander was greatest general of all time, and none of those would have won him. Not even Caesar. If you knew, Alexander dreamed to attack Rome as well, I know he would have won. It's just about his soldiers' morale and terrain.
    well of course... afterall at that time rome was nothing more than a village...
    its the same if we ask ourself alexander could have won a war aginst the roman empire at it fullest ...No


    Quote Originally Posted by chaplain118 View Post
    Not to throw a socket in the wrench, but...

    Ghengis Khan vs. Alexander?
    of course gengis
    and i thimk caesar could have won aginst alex

  18. #78

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    Quote Originally Posted by chaplain118 View Post
    Not to throw a socket in the wrench, but...

    Ghengis Khan vs. Alexander?
    Chingghis by a loooooooooooooong shot (if supported by all his generals, of course). i really don't understand all this love for Alex. it's not like he defeated some host of military geniuses or another empire with some incredibly well-oiled military machine that was even close to his (which was pretty much invented and perfected by his father. a man that gets far too little recognition when it comes to the great Macedonian empire). imho, guys like Hannibal, Scipio, Khalid ibn al-Walid or Subutai were better tacticians. i'd also like to know what would've been of Pyrrhus if he wasn't smashed by a brick

    @Medieval dude: exactly, it's about "Alexander's army" NOT Alex himself. only his soldiers/army composition. so don't try to be a smart-ass since you brought up the man himself probably more time than every other poster combined.

    back to topic, i'd still give the edge to Flaminius since of the little i read of both commanders he seemed like more capable than Phillip V
    "Name none of the fallen, for they stood in our place, and stand there still in each moment of our lives. Let my death hold no glory, and let me die forgotten and unknown. Let it not be said that I was one among the dead to accuse the living."

  19. #79
    medievaldude's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    North York, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,147

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    Wow, this thread has gone off-topic really..


    smart-ass
    So, what are you then? Calling me names puff, call me medievaldude and next time keep your mouth-shut.

    Quote Originally Posted by smartypants
    "Alexander's army" NOT Alex himself.
    An Alexandrian Army needs the command of Alexander, Philip II or Alexanders lower-ranking commanders. Because their are differences between Hellenistic and Philip II's phalanx. In both who role is what, how much are deployed, the sarrisa and other key figures. If left in the hands of, Philip V it will be used like the phalanx as of late 3rd and 2nd century phalanx tactics.
    Last edited by medievaldude; July 03, 2011 at 11:30 AM.

    Ductus Exemplo
    Fas est et ab hoste doceri !
    He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.
    Treat your men as you would your own beloved sons. And they will follow you into the deepest valley.

  20. #80
    SimpleCourage47's Avatar Ducenarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    930

    Default Re: Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

    Quote Originally Posted by eskil View Post
    i was talking about pydna not Cynoscephalae

    and if i rember well the roman were driven back only durind the skirmishes... afterward durng the real battle their wing was simply pushed back...they dinn't broke through... and just to clarify a thing ... but to fight while slowly retreating for me is a tactic: i can't break through forntally so what if i cause their formation to loosen up or take time to outflank the static phalanx or more simply reduce their pushing power
    I 'dont understand why everyone think that slowly retreating is a sign of defeat... so are you sayng me that hannibal at cannae was on the verge of losing????
    My mistake but your Roman figures are still wrong 38,000 is more accurate. None the less the Romans at Cynoscephalea were driven back by the phalanx, pushed back would be a better phrase actually but non the less the Romans were forced into going backwards and suffered plenty casualties doing so, it wasn't a tactical retreat here as it was at Pydna. Roman victory was only achieved due to the phalanx on Philips other wing not being formed up properly and having proper support from infantry and cavalry. These are mistake Alexander would not make and therefore i believe this would have been what made Alexander the ultimate victor.

    As for the Genghis khan shout, who knows, i don't know much about his tactics but i'm guessing it was horse archer and heavy cav based which would take apart both a phalanx and a legion.
    Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming.

Posting Permissions

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