Alexander the Great vs The Roman
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20730
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 05:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Alexander the Great vs The Roman
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Alexander the Great vs The Roman
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 16:07
|
Could Alexander the Great one of history's greatest military generals really beat the roman legions. The reason why i ask this is many always agree that the Roman Legion will always beat the Greek Phalanx but what if it was lead by Alexander the Great the man who perfected the phalanx. Could a mastermined of the battlefield outmanouver the great Roman Legion(Gaius Marius) by using the phalanx??
who would win??? |
Replies:
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 16:40
|
Republican Romans and Early Imps didn't like facing armies with masses of good cavalry. Alexander's army unlike later Macedonians had an abundance of cavalry, my guess it would be rather similar to Hannibal vs Rome. The phalanx would hold the Roman centre long enough for the Macedian cavalry to destroy the Roman cavalry in the flanks, get around behind them and annihilate them. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: LilLou
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 16:56
|
I agree with paul, only a good roman commander might be able to hold off alexander. ------------- Only God knows |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 17:34
|
Hmmm ... we have a fairly comparable situation actually, as Pyrrhus' tactics were much like those of Alexander's, including heavy reliance on cavalry - with a few additions, like elephants. The Romans beat them off, but not easily; they lost most of the early battles, and never actually managed to win even a single battle (they just accounted for themselves well, and basically drove Pyrrhus off by attrition).
Of course, in any time much later than that war, and the Roman doctrines had incorporated lessons from the war with Pyrrhus and were well capable of dealing with any Alexandrian style tactics. Caesar probably would have slaughtered Alexander, but it's not really a fair comparison; his army, technology, and doctrines were centuries ahead. |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 14:12
|
Alexander didn't stick with any style of tactics. He always adapted as the situations presented itself. He incorporated other type units into his army all the time. For example before he died he was very interested on he could get the full use out of elephants. He very well could of adopted the roman style had he seemed it necessary. Cavalry was always a big headache for the Romans and the Companions and other cavalry Alexander had absorbed were some of the finest. The romans strugled against the phalanx in later wars against Macedonia as well. Poor generalship,Cynoscephalae for example, was more of the reason for defeat then an outdated system. Not to mention the lack of cavalry. The Roman system was better then any for a long time but great generals consistently proved it could be beat. Hannibal did many times. There's no question Alexander could be the legions in battles. Not to sure he could beat Rome in a war though. Rome was something special in its peak centuries. It could rebound from defeats better then most of the empires in history ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 06:49
|
This thread belongs in historical amusement.
------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 19:04
|
Apart from the cavalry, 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. The Roman commander would need to decide the place and time for the battle and the Phalanx is not a formation that can easily adapt to it's terrain. ....But I would agree with edgewaters - it's just not a fair comparison. Also, ezycompany hasn't specified a general for the Romans and thats...kind of an important factor...
I'm doing a project on the 2nd Macedonian war, it's historial context and Titus Quinctitus Flamininus, and in all my research, all the sources point towards the system. The problem was a weakness in the Macedonian right flank which was marching it's phalanx to reorganise. The marching Phalanx had no cohesion and was promptly attacked by the legionaries and Titus's light assault troops. Both generals were extremely compitent commanders and had much experience on the field - it really was - if you read the battle's numerous descriptions in Polybius and Livy - the formation which the Greeks were using. Anyway, if it wasn't outdated, why did the Greeks move on to other kinds of units? ...Because they realised from their Roman defeats that it just wasn't going to stand up to multi-role troops like legionarries. Soon after that period in Greece's history, the whole of Greece has moved onto over forms of infantry, so there is something there to be seen...
------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 15:04
|
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. The achilles heal of the romans was for centuries their cavalry, against alexander they would go down hard. Even if its caesar leading the romans he would still lose. Alexander fought steppe archers and won, he fought heavy cavalry and won, he fought barbarians and won, he fought indian elephants and won, the romans would be the same only perhaps a harder fight. Alexander used the phallanx because phillip developed it and it was the most effective infantry formation of the time. If Alexander saw the roman system and thought it was better or could complement the phallanx he would adapt it instantly. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 16:22
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? ------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 18:30
Later cavalryless Macedonians using phalanx as a shock troop were defeated by Romans. Alexander used his phalanx asa holding force and his cavalry as the shock force.
Really the armies of Hannibal and Alexander were pretty similar. Excellent cavalry and a pike phalanx as a central holding force. Hannibal's army was maybe slightly better in quality but in was numerically heavily outnumbered. Alexander would have a had closer parity with the Romans in numbers.
In the battle's with Hannibal the Romans annihilated Hannibal's phalanx. It didn't do them any good. Their cavalry were destroyed by Hannibal's much sooner and they were flanked. The same would happen with Alexander.
It's the cavalry not the phalanx the Romans must answer. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 19:37
Yes, but the Carthagianians also had some excellent troops which were similar in ability and function to the Romans - so the Romans weren't exactly fighting a neo-Greek style army- it did have some developments as far as units go.
Also, about the cavalry- some of the Roman auxiliary cavalary (such as the Attalid cavalry which they used in the Syrian and Mithradic wars) was some pretty good stuff. The esquetarian cavalry were not bad, either, although there weren't a lot of them... ------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 14:44
You're right that he wouldn't have faced anything like the romans before, though he did face heavy infantry against persia. Darius had greek mercenaries who fought as hoplites I don't remember their number at the moment. (2,000-10,000 men?) Also a phallanx would not have an easy time defeating horse archers. But, overall you bring up good points. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 18:18
|
Also, the use of legionaries' pilae and the engineer corps' ballistae could be a serious threat to a slow moving phalanx. Alexander has nothing like legionaries, who are fairly fast and can perform multiple roles (except perhaps peltasts, but in hand-to-hand combat, they couldn't stand up to a legionary), nor does he have anything remotely like Ballistae- the Roman commander, provided that he has ballistae, can turn those hypatasts and hopites into - literally - kebabs with a few well-aimed bolts! Also, the legionaries can harrass 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! ------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 22:05
|
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.
Perhaps we should come up with the compositions of each army; the number of troops, the different types etc. That would be helpful to this discussion I think. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 09:45
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 13:32
|
I don't think it has been addressed before but would alexander have mercenary cavalry like steppe archers? ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 06:10
|
I reckon so- I mean, when he invaded India and beat Porus, Porus gave him Indian units, and earlier, in Afghanistan, he must have recruited some auxiliaries - any good general with ambitions like Alexanders' must have. ------------- |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 14:59
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... |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 15:41
|
Well, when we consider that the Scythians (who were people famous for their horse archery and related skills) were also present in Iran and Afghanistan (their homelands sweep around Geographically from Bulgaria, through central Asia to Iran), it's certainly quite possible. ------------- |
Posted By: conon394
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 11:03
|
I don’t think the case for 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. 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
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.
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 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. |
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 13:35
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. |
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 13:44
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. |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date 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 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. ------------- |
.Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 22:06
Was there any battle that the mounted archers were used during Alexander's campaign? |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date 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 ------------- |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date 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. |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 17:48
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. |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date 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'. |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date 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 |
Posted By: pekau
Date 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... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |