Alexander the Great vs The Roman

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...

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'.

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. 

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?

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.

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.

 

I don�t think the case for Rome is as strong as you assume.

 

First, you seem to assuming that all Roman armies of every era had the artillery kit of the legions from the height of the Imperial era. (Say 0 -100 AD) � which is simply incorrect. Rome was not a significant produce or innovator of artillery until the very late Republic and in reality only during the Imperial period did Rome produce any significant improvements in artillery � before than the Hellenistic world was clearly far superior to Rome in terms of Artillery use. 

 

Given that the original post seems to post a Roman legions from the era of Marius I see no reason why Alexander would have equal at worst and in reality far superior Artillery.

 

In particular Alexander did have light artillery and used it in the field on several occasions � in Scythia (Arrian 4.4 for example) and in his early campaigns in the Balkans. Indeed the ideal was well establish in Greece seeing as his father suffered one of his worst defeats at the hands of Greeks when the Phocians used light artillery against him.

 

Alexander's heavy phalanxes to the point of defeat as long as they have good cavalry cover surrounding them - and horse archers could do very nicely!

 

It seems a bit silly to posit that the Romans would win on account of superior cavalry � Alexander always maintained a robust mix of cavalry and in far more numbers than a typical Roman force. If you are going to give the Romans a cavalry advantage by suggesting they would have allied cavalry from Macedonian or Greek successor states, it seems only fair to suggest Alexander, a better general by far than Pyrrhuss would not also use Italian infantry to counter the supposed flexibility advantage of the Romans.

 

the Romans would have no problem whatsover with slaughtering the Phalanx - provided that they were not on completely flat ground and that the Romans had both light and heavy infantry (heavy to attack the Phalanx from the front and light (Hastatii and other Assault troops) to go around the side and flank them, sandwiching them between both lines of Romans.

 

Problem is that sounds good, but against a competent commander neither of the typical CW legion better ideals worked: At Zama for example head to head the legions neither flanked nor used the pilum to break Hannibal phalanx.

 

On a general note I think your allowing the brittle late successor kingdoms with there tiny armies to color the much more dynamic, professional force of Philip and Alexander�s day. You are ignoring for example the numerous occasions when Alexander phalanx infantry demonstrated that it could operate in rough terrain or showed that it could march quickly and deploy effectively (or night assaults, river crossing in the face of infantry resistance, city assaults) with several different weapons � short spears, sword or javelins etc.   In Curtius� description of the duel between Coragus and Dioxippus the Macedonian is noted as bringing all his usual weapons � javelin/short spear, sarissa and sword, not just a sarissa.

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...

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

Actually Alexander did have an elite corps of infantry that were somewhat similar to legionaries, the various hypaspist formations.  He used them for attacking cities the first over the walls.  I agree that the ballistae would be unpleasant to say the least.  I'm trying to remember if Alexander had any kind of mobile artillery, I'm tempted to say no.  So you're right that will be a problem.  I think we can agree that like the romans versus hannibal it comes down to what happens to the cavalry encounters.  I think who wins the cavalry duel and more important still if they are able to control their cavalry after victory and hit the flank or rear of the enemy, well we know what usually happens then.

Originally posted by Earl Aster Paul and Gundamor are right on the money, Alexander adopted tactics that would win, he would find the romans weaknesses before battle and exploit them.    I see where you're coming from, Justinian, but frankly, Alexander would have faced nothing like the Romans before, so it's really a pretty pointless comparison. He couldn't have exploited their weaknesses because he wouldn't have faced anyone like them before. Also, all of the military unit types that you mentioned before can be easily defeated with a Phalanx and none of them are heavy infantry - doesn't that say something when you consider that ultimatley the Greek armies were beaten by the Roman's adaptable heavy infantry?