Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Alexander the Great vs The Roman

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
  Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Alexander the Great vs The Roman
    Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 13:35
Originally posted by Kamikaze 738

Originally posted by Justinian

I don't think it has been addressed before but would alexander have mercenary cavalry like steppe archers?


Well you have to say what time period you are using for Alexander's fight against the Romans. If you say before the conquest of the Persian Empire than its more likely no, but if you say after the conquest of the Persian Empire then it could be a possibility that some kind of steppe horseman mercenary could be used since Alexander did encounter alot of those kind of people fighting on horseback. And of course if you say after India then Alexander would have elephants in his disposal to use against the Romans... but then again weather that would be devastating to the Romans we have to find a date for the Romans too like before or after their encounter with Hannibal (their first experience against elephants) or the Marius Reforms etc...


Curtius and Polyainos both state he used 1000  Scythian mounted archers  shortly after Gaugamela. By the time he invadedIndia he had recruited Bactrian, Sogdian, Saka and Dahai mounted  archers.
Back to Top
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
  Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 13:44
Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator

I'm trying to remember if Alexander had any kind of mobile artillery, I'm tempted to say no.
 
He had large and cumbersome siege engines which he used most memorabily to besige Helicarnassos which was then under control of Memnon of Rhodes, a Persian vassal, but nothing light and anti-infantry, like the Roman ballistae and light catapults. Naturally, the Hypaspist formations will be another feather in Alexander's cap, but they can hardly compare with the excellence and professional standard of the multi-role legionaries. I think that some missile cavalry from the Roman commander could probably do some damage to those.


He also used artillery in the field. Catapults were recorded twice; on both occasions it was to cover river crossings in Illyria and Scythia. In a what if scenario, there's nothing to stop him using them against the Romans.
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 06:56

Yes, but still no Balistae, which is the main piece that I was talking about. I think that much of this is based on our stereotypes - we have been brought up hearing of "Alexander the Great's" seemingly endless power. Although he was historically a brilliant general, some people seem to forget that he could occasionally make mistakes LOL.

The cavalry archers would be a decisive blow to the Romans indeed, Challenger 2, but the Romans overall would have in this battle much better heavy infantry than the Spartans. It doesn't matter who commands it at this stage - the Phalanx was inherantly an outdated system. Alexander would give it a bit of a kick, but these two periods which were are comparing are vasting different in technological and strategic development, despite who's commanding them.

Back to Top
Kamikaze 738 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 26-Mar-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 463
  Quote Kamikaze 738 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 22:06
Originally posted by Challenger2

Originally posted by Kamikaze 738

Originally posted by Justinian

I don't think it has been addressed before but would alexander have mercenary cavalry like steppe archers?


Well you have to say what time period you are using for Alexander's fight against the Romans. If you say before the conquest of the Persian Empire than its more likely no, but if you say after the conquest of the Persian Empire then it could be a possibility that some kind of steppe horseman mercenary could be used since Alexander did encounter alot of those kind of people fighting on horseback. And of course if you say after India then Alexander would have elephants in his disposal to use against the Romans... but then again weather that would be devastating to the Romans we have to find a date for the Romans too like before or after their encounter with Hannibal (their first experience against elephants) or the Marius Reforms etc...


Curtius and Polyainos both state he used 1000  Scythian mounted archers  shortly after Gaugamela. By the time he invadedIndia he had recruited Bactrian, Sogdian, Saka and Dahai mounted  archers.


Was there any battle that the mounted archers were used during Alexander's campaign?
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 18:20
I really wouldn't be suprised if he did - Porus lent him some men after the battle of the Hypasties river in India, which could have been horse archers, and his visits to Afghanistan could have resulting in a few auxilaries
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 09:27
One thing to consider is what exactly is meant by 'defeat Roman'?  If by 'defeat' you mean on the battle field, then I agree with previous comments that with his disciplined heavy cav Alexander 'owns' the Romans.  Alexander's forces would have been capable of inflicting a crushing battlefield defeat on the Romans as Hannibal did at Cannae.  Now, if you're talking about a entire campaign to conquer Italy, that might be a different story.  I still believe that Alexander was capable of it but in that sense Rome would have been a 'tougher nut to crack' than anything Alexander faced in the east. 
Back to Top
Kamikaze 738 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 26-Mar-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 463
  Quote Kamikaze 738 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 17:48
Originally posted by deadkenny

I still believe that Alexander was capable of it but in that sense Rome would have been a 'tougher nut to crack' than anything Alexander faced in the east. 


But you must know that during the time Alexander was alive, Rome was still very small and nothing like it was later, the Greeks still control some colonies in southern Italy and Sicily. But if you look at an accurate historical scenario, before Alexander would even consider taken Rome, he was to capture Carthage and defeat the Carthaginians. If that happens then Rome is basically surrounded by Alexander's forces and it doesnt look like Rome could withstand Alexander's might for that long.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 18:03
Of course I was implicitly assuming that the question was about Alexander facing a later day Rome.  If the question was about Alexander going after Rome instead of or before going east, then we're not talking about the same 'Rome'.
Back to Top
Brainstorm View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 407
  Quote Brainstorm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 09:02
Alexander's phalanx was much different than those of the hellenistic armies ar.200 BC. when Romans faced them.

It was divided in small  taxeis and chiliarchiai of 1000 men.
On the other hand later phalanxes were divided into 2 keras ("horns") .

Macedonian spear- sarissa- grew as time was passing from 4,5-6m at Alexanders time to 6,5-7 m ,so it was heavier.

Alexander's men were well trained ,as they could quickly perform manoeuvres ,even to reverse their front.
Later phalanxes could move only forward,or hardly backward.

All these made phalanx less mobile,easy to crack and so to be crushed.

Additionally Hetairoi were a huge plus for Alexander-since Roman cavalry was inferior.
http://protostrator.blogspot.com
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 23:39
If I was Alexander, I might go for different question... how can he make the Romans to join him? Alexander leading Roman armies would be pretty interesting army...
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.080 seconds.