Could the Romans have defeated Alexander's army ?

[TheJim]

I did. My point still stands. But since you're spoiling for an argument, I'll drop it.



You mean the six pages of 200+ word posts? Perhaps next time.

More to the point: last I checked, this is a public forum, I'm a member, and you don't appear to be an admin. So maybe not so bossy?

~ Dani ~

On most threads it's pretty much fine to just read the OP and then post, but on ones with a developing debate, it becomes irritating for the people who have already gone over the points that you bring up which have long since been proved redundant, because you didn't read it. I'm not trying to bash you, I'm simply saying that in a structured debate, you can't join in without knowing the stage that it is at. If I want to contribute my opinion, I will always read the material first so as not to re-hash any points that others have already made and have been soundly refuted. It's a waste of mine and everyone else's time.

Read through this thread, I'm not actively trying to start arguments, I'm posting in a thread which was made to be a subject of discussion and debate, and after posting my argument and the supporting evidence and reasoning, using a scientific method of removing as many variables as possible, I am now free to discuss any further points that people bring up.

[TTRouble]

Hi Jim

Just to be clear as you've asked for some clarification the battlefield's are the same, so the phalanx units would still be vunerable across uneven ground, and like you suggested there's the possiblity that the left hand side of the phalanx could still be forming up, etc. so open to the same kind of rapid attacks that the Roman legions aganist the phalanx.

Now with regards to the left hand side of the phalanx, would the Thessalian cavalry, heavy/light infantry and skirmishers have been in position before hand and thus able to enagage any unexpected attacks or wait to take up position? Its clear that Phillip II/Alex's phalanagites were multi-skilled professional soldiers being able to fight as peltasts, phalangites or hoplites when required, unlike majority of Philip V's phalanx who were simply pikemen, so would these "foot companions" have crumbled in the same way if the legions were able to attack into the flanks of the phalanx as it was lining up or opened up as the phalanx was moving across uneven ground? If they did crumble would the Thessalian cavalry/heavy/light infantry to the rear and left flank be able to save the day ?

TTRouble

[eskil]

Firstly, most of this is irrelevant, since the question (paraphrased) is :

"Could the Romans have beated ALEXANDER's army AT THE BATTLE OF CYNOSCEPHALAE"

remember if that if we are talking about this particular battle that it wasn't the roman legion who broke through the macedonian army... but an elephant's charge...
even a fully formed phalanx could have trouble dealing with them ... now try to think if a phalanz with their lance still up and in loose formation could have dealed with them

[TheJim]

Hi Jim

Just to be clear as you've asked for some clarification the battlefield's are the same, so the phalanx units would still be vunerable across uneven ground, and like you suggested there's the possiblity that the left hand side of the phalanx could still be forming up, etc. so open to the same kind of rapid attacks that the Roman legions aganist the phalanx.

Now with regards to the left hand side of the phalanx, would the Thessalian cavalry, heavy/light infantry and skirmishers have been in position before hand and thus able to enagage any unexpected attacks or wait to take up position? Its clear that Phillip II/Alex's phalanagites were multi-skilled professional soldiers being able to fight as peltasts, phalangites or hoplites when required, unlike majority of Philip V's phalanx who were simply pikemen, so would these "foot companions" have crumbled in the same way if the legions were able to attack into the flanks of the phalanx as it was lining up or opened up as the phalanx was moving across uneven ground? If they did crumble would the Thessalian cavalry/heavy/light infantry to the rear and left flank be able to save the day ?

TTRouble

Ahh, this makes it more interesting.

I addressed these points a few posts back. As I said, it simply depends on whether or not the left could hold. Which is something we have no way of knowing. I would say that if it did, probable Macedonian victory, if it didn't, almost definite Roman victory.

With this new information I'd be more likely to bet on the Romans, tbh, but it's too close a call with too many variables to accurately speculate on.

[century x]

Romans had superior tactics and discipline. The flexibility of a roman legion is an important key also the Phalanx formation was very rigid and once setup for the initial battle it is almost impossible to re form. So the Romans with their cohorts can do circles around the phalanx formation and decimate them from behind.

Romans 1 Alexander 0

[TheJim]

Romans had superior tactics and discipline. The flexibility of a roman legion is an important key also the Phalanx formation was very rigid and once setup for the initial battle it is almost impossible to re form. So the Romans with their cohorts can do circles around the phalanx formation and decimate them from behind.

Romans 1 Alexander 0

No. Maniples 1 Phalanx 0

As I have explained in my previous posts,

Polybian legion 0 Alexandrain combined arms 1

[SAINTS975]

I agree Roman army is more flexible, but what about Alexander's calvary, wouldn't that be a problem for the infantry?
Alexander was very renowned for his ability to use phalanx and calvary, where as the Romans were known for its brute force and defeating an army by manpower.

[DarthLazy]

Why are the armies of the diadochi even being mentioned when the thread says " Could the romans have defeated Alexander's army? "

And the Alexandrian phalanx was just as, and I dare say, even more flexible than the legions, and, If persia has been conquered, why would he not have 50000 archers from the east to complement his already huge army ?

And these are not baseless words, every phalangite could do a dual role as a swordsman or hoplite, and was also well able to do damage with a javelin.

[medievaldude]

remember if that if we are talking about this particular battle that it wasn't the roman legion who broke through the macedonian army... but an elephant's charge...
even a fully formed phalanx could have trouble dealing with them ... now try to think if a phalanz with their lance still up and in loose formation could have dealed with them

Alexanders Persani archers, Cretan archers, could medal around with them. And do you have any idea of the Peltast? They would whreck havoc to the elephants like what happened at Zama .. With the additional Prodromoi the elephants with only last for the first phase of battle.

Remember Hydaspes?

[DarthLazy]

Why wont Alex have elephants of his own, remember, he owns the whole damn persian empire , that equals a reall really big army.

[SimpleCourage47]

Also his (Alexander) elephants would be Indian elephants, i'm assuming the Romans where from Africa.

[AgentGB]

im bored gonna join in on this argument

I think the romans would have beaten Alexander and his army, Macedonian tactics are too rigid, persian are to unreliable if they were fighting alongside each other in this argument? thats just a flank waiting to give way, and if both sides were using elephants, Alexanders wouldn't count for nothing, as the romans fought in maniples, and would have used scipio tactic of allowing the elephants to travel throught the roman lines, while being engaged with pilum from the side (moving from a checker board formation into long columns) Elephants were kinda a one way/one use sort of thing, once you commit the elephants they only go one way, and thats the quickest way out of the battle. Where as the Roman elephants would have given the macedon phalax formation a real bad day.

Also there things like romans swapping troops around on the actual battleline, so there were always fresh troops enagaging the enemy line while other retired, at first using young fresh recruits (young & energetic) as the main battle line to wear down the enemy (hastati), then while the slugfest was going on, would change them for the Principles (experienced and skilled), who would then start to make an impact consolidating the ground gained getting past the spear points, and finally making the phalax formation of little use, while the romans carried big shields, with small stabbing swords who excel at close quater. Then there was the Triarii the roman elite, who would have caused some serious hurt. At the same time remember that each one of these soliders carried two pilums, which would have either killed, wounded the enemy, or rendered any shields that the macedons used useless. Any javelins thrown by the Macedons could be thrown back also.

Also this is all after the roman elephants had countered charged after the failed Macedon elephant charge

Romans are far superior, better equipped, better trained, more agiles, and less likely to rout, has there formations allowed for them to be surrounded, meaning a flank was less likely to give way before a macedon one would.

Also taking into consideration, that romans often hired mercenaries who specialised in a certain role such as cavarly etc, at the same time paying the enemys to defect

Also Alexanders army were getting a bit disgruntled after marching thru persia, and onto india, so things may have been on a decline, after so much war and expansion in such a short period of time. They were knackered, so he probably wouldn't have had his veterans from those campaigns with him when marching on the romans, but new non battle harden troops.

But these are all whats and if's going off the last argument, with to many variables to take into consideration, but looking at Romes track record, they were always at war with someone, and usually more then one enemy at a time, but always prevailed, showing a greater perseverance has a nation, where as when Alexander died, everything he worked for fell apart

[SimpleCourage47]

I think your underestimating the flexibility of an Alexanders Phalanx's as oppose to the later diadochi such as Philip V whose formations where very rigid. Alexander had great infantry that could play multiple roles, his pezhetairoi were not just pike men. Alexander also has infantry such as the hypaspistai and Agrianian troops. The point about the Persians is also stereotyping, if Alexander had Persians infantry then they would be trained to fight in some form of Greek manner, be it hoplite or pike phalanx or as light infantry that would be better equipped than they were under the like of Darius.

Another thing is your assuming Alexander would simply charge his elephants forward as if he was playing rtw and smash the Romans, i think he would use them alittle more intelligently. Your also missing the out the cavalry, Alexander had some of the best cavalry in the world before he conquered Persia, after that he had access to more great cavalry and archers.

Alexander's army was very well trained,could adapt to any situation,terrain,enemy, also they unlikley to rout under pressure, think of Parmenion on the left flank at Gaugamela or when fighting Porus and his Indian elehphants at the river Hydaspes. Alexander had a host of great commanders under him, Craterous,Seleucus, Ptolemy, Perdicas, Antigonus even Cassander where all very capable. Plus his army was only in mutiny in india, after returning home for awhile they would be happy again and willing to go forward again i believe.

All in all, an Alexander combined hammer and anvil strategy would be able to overcome the Romans. Sure the maniples can move around, act on their own, use a flow of fresh troops but part of the army is going to be stuck against the pike men, while the rest is going to be fighting with the other infantry, all the while Alexander's cavalry would have finished off the roman counterparts and have a nice rear to attack, Alexanders missile troops will deal with any elephants that try to break his lines and Alexander still has his own to use.

[AgentGB]

yeah mabey so, but elephants would probably have been used by both sides in the intial start of the battle, as once battle lines have formed there a danger to both sides, and romans had more ways to skin a cat, and may have used flaming pigs, again canceling out the macedon elephants and encouraging them to "run amok" mabey going headlong back at there own lines. Also taking into consideratin that Alexander was very offensive in almost every engagement, he would have probably made the first move with the tactic you suggested, "hammer and anvil"

Sorry wasn't sterotyping the Persians has to be fodder, and although trained in greek military tactics, wouldn't have been as good as there greek counterparts, also surely the training of persians would have been frowned upon by most of the macedon hierarchy under Alexander, so support from commanders would have been a bit cloudy? Although Alexander was willing to accept other cultures, to fellow greeks they weren't, where as the romans had an eye for spotting talent within nations they fought and used that to complement there army also, again although not accepted as romans, they had more tolerance or admiration for other cultures if they had certain skills.

Alexander may have used archers, but they wouldn't have won him the battle, if the macedons could defend agasint persian archers while using a slower moving formation, surely the romans would have held there own.

Has for Alexander having superior cavalry, im sure the roman general would have hugged the barrier of the map to stop a cavalry attack

tbh dude, going off the first post and trying to keep within the timeline of use of tactics and resources available to both sides is tricky as i get my timeline mixed up, romans may have been beaten, if alexander had the full support of his commanders, had good logistics like the romans had and were able to amass these troops, he'll probably have beaten them with sheer numbers, with persians making up the majority of alexander army, It depends, but if rome had its greek allies "aetolian league" then countering even the best cav wouldn't have been a problem for the romans due to fielding greek hoplites and mabey postioning them on the flanks and to the rear so they can't be turnt as easy, im a bit of a armchair general, but im sure a roman general at the time would have known of the threat of enemy cav and countered for it appropriately. The romans had a knack for having off thought of everything to the smallest detail wheather its engineering or in military, and weren't shy off adopting over cultures methods or military prowness.

But as we can only measure the sizes of the empire, had it been if alexander maintain the persian empire, and the roman had decided to engage on such mountainous terrain while being outnumbered, you don't have to be alexander to win that battle.

[DarthLazy]

Again AgentGB you are talking about the Diadochi Phalanx, not the alexandrian phalanx

[medievaldude]

It depends, but if rome had its greek allies "aetolian league" then countering even the best cav wouldn't have been a problem for the romans due to fielding greek hoplites and mabey postioning them on the flanks and to the rear so they can't be turnt as easy.

The Makedonians with Philip II and Alexander defeated an hoplite centered army of Athenians and Thebans who's troops were way better than that of Aetolia.

but im sure a roman general at the time would have known of the threat of enemy cav and countered for it appropriately.

Romans armies weren't that good at countering the cavalry at the most during this time. Usually they would rely on alae cavalry, which is not always available.
After confrontation with the Parthians were such advancements to really counter them.

The romans had a knack for having off thought of everything to the smallest detail wheather its engineering or in military, and weren't shy off adopting over cultures methods or military prowness

That could be said to a lot of people....

[SimpleCourage47]

Indeed i think hoplites fighting for Rome would make no difference,at Chaeronea Alexander was said to have used the cavalry he was leading to break an infantry line, something never done back then, even if he didn't directly break the line front on he certainly would have hit them from the flank, this is the ore likely out of the two.

I think Rome has a great army capable of defeating almost anything thrown at it however when faced with a genius commander such as Alexander or Hannibal they tend to falter. As said Alexander's army was alot more flexible and capable of adapting to the situation, he had great support troops and knew how to use them, also his cavalry where the best around at the time, his archers would not i think impact much on the roman infantry but he'd more than likely use them to neutralize the roman elephants, and as i said above i believe he would use them much more intelligently than simply charging them, i think he would use them on his flanks if anything to deal with cavalry, Alexander had more experience fighting elephants than most roman commanders other than Scipio Africannus.

So again i say in a open field battle Alexander would win, in a war including sieges i again think he would win, no city could hold him out, look at what happened at Tyre when it resisted. Alexander was prepared like the Romans for anything, think of when he was campaigning north around the Danube, something i read was that the local tribes pushed burning carts down the mountain passes onto his men and Alexander having thought of this simply got his men to lye back first with their shields up covering them.

One more thing, Alexander was in charge, absolute king, he only ever suffered that one mutiny, he had i believe already started incorporating Persians into more greek style fighting, and judging by the fact that the Seleucid's were doing taking it even further not long after his death, that most the diadochi didn't have that much of a problem with it.

[eskil]

i have already heard many of you says alexander could have used the elephant a lot more efficiently... the hell hannibal made them charge frontally and he had a lot more experience dealing with this tipe of unit...now don't you think you are overstimating alexander a little
also don't forget that when alexander faced the elephant he sustained a lot of causalties... simply a phalanx it not suitable to face them
also its true that alexander phalanz was a lot more flessible... but this if we confront it with the counterpart of the time when the roman conquered grecia
even alexander army couldn't fight while moving on a rough terrain... even alexander army couldn't have survived to an outflanking... while rome even if outflanked could have resisted thanks to its manipular sistem
andas last thing its true that at cynoscepalae the roman's left wing was retreating but don't forget that the phalanz we are talking about was more powerful than the one used by alexnder since it had a lot more men in it that formed the phalanx... however it was also absolutely rigid... it couldn't manouver

[DarthLazy]

Well, the infantry would be roughly equal, with both sides having auxilliaries from roughly half the world. The cavalry is a bit tricky, the romans could hire gauls, spaniards and numidians, which I have no idea what that would do against companions and cataphracts and horse archers from the east. Im not that smart

[AgentGB]

its a shame we couldn't play out a simulation, set the forces for the romans & macedons, and have a pro alexander/roman player have at each other, but going off the original post, would it have not been a pure Roman Vs Macedon afair? So Alexander wouldn't have had his persian troops/elephants, or Iranian horse archers? Im all debated out tbh, gonna lick my wounds and rout from this debate until i get new material but i still reckon the romans would have won, i mean diadochi phalax or alexandrian phalax, the romans attempted to fight up hill against spear point, they were pushed back, but didn't yield. I mean common, i think thats quite admirable, the shock alone of having a wall of spears in your face marching towards you would make anyone seem helpless.