This blog post, courtesy of Rogueclassicism, is really just a look at Toybee's well-known speculation, but probably worth a quick skim.
All the best
What if Alexander had lived?
Moderator: pothos moderators
Re: What if Alexander had lived?
I read long ago the whole chapter of Toynbee's "If Alexander the Great had lived", and found it very interesting. This article covers only a small portion of Alexander's further conquests, and by no means the most important one. Had Alexander lived on thirty years more, as Toynbee imagined, the Greek influence on South Italy would be more impressive and lasting, and I think Rome perhaps would be absorbed in Greek world, not the opposite. Remember that Aristoteles already called Rome 'a Greek polis'.
Re: What if Alexander had lived?
But Alexander did plan to conquer the Mediterranean Basin? Anyway, his testament called for it.
I don't think the romans would've stood a chance; all you need is take a look at Pyrrhus and his victories against them. Besides, Alexander was a better general, and his macedonian army was far better as well; the incomparably well-drilled foot companions, his cavalry, and last but certainly not least - the Shield bearers! Ergo, if Pyrrhus could make the headway which he did, then no doubt Alexander would've as well, and he'd do a better job, too.
I don't think the romans would've stood a chance; all you need is take a look at Pyrrhus and his victories against them. Besides, Alexander was a better general, and his macedonian army was far better as well; the incomparably well-drilled foot companions, his cavalry, and last but certainly not least - the Shield bearers! Ergo, if Pyrrhus could make the headway which he did, then no doubt Alexander would've as well, and he'd do a better job, too.
Re: What if Alexander had lived?
The topic of this thread is an old, old question. For example Livy considered this first piece of 'alternate history' at Book IX.17-19, and came to the opposite conclusion - namely that Alexander III could not possibly conquer Rome, had he lived and brought his army West. He pointed out that Alexander was but one man, while contemporary Rome had many undefeated Generals -so that if Alexander was killed, the war would be over, but not if even several Roman Generals died. That Alexander had shown he already succumbed to 'overwhelming prosperity' with his almost nightly carousings. As Livy says, what if every day his love of wine grew stronger? And his truculent and fiery anger ? His increasingly tyrranical behaviour ? Next, Livy points out that the Romans had all but inexhaustible manpower reserves - some 250,000 men apart from allies - against, say, Alexander's no more than 50,000. It was primarily this factor which defeated both Pyrrhus and Hannibal. Next, Livy looks at armament, and points out that no Macedonian Phalanx type army ever defeated a Roman one ( I'll come back to Pyrrhus in a moment). He even points out that disasters such as Caudium ( Samnite wars) and Cannae ( against Hannibal) did not bring Rome to its knees - they just stubbornly refused to make peace, kept fighting and ultimately overpowered their foes. Then he points out that the first Punic War lasted 24 years - a war against Alexander might well have outlasted his lifetime ! Not to mention that Carthage was a Roman ally at the time, particularly against Greeks.....
I am inclined to agree with Livy - even Alexander in his prime could not have overpowered Rome. His uncle, Alexander of Epirus, died fighting in Italy and is supposed to have remarked that he had gone west to the 'men's room' to fight, while his famous nephew had gone east to the 'womens room'.
As to Pyrrhus, some of the ancients believed him to have been the best General in purely military terms, with Hannibal second and Scipio third. (Plutarch,"Lives" Pyrrhus and Scipio).
Regarding Pyrrhus' 'victories' against Rome, they have famously given rise to the phrase "Pyrrhic victory" to mean a costly and indecisive draw. At the first battle, Heraclea, the Romans first encountered elephants and their effects on cavalry - but the screams of a wounded elephant caused the herd to turn on their own army, depriving Pyrrhus of a decisive victory. At Asculum Pyrrhus and his Italian allies drove the Romans back to their camp, but suffered heavily doing so.They were unable to accomplish anything thereafter that campaign. Having suffered heavy losses to Carthage at sea, Pyrrhus met the Romans once more at 'Maleventum'-changed to 'Beneventum' after the battle - so you can imagine the outcome. Pyrrhus used a night march to outflank the Romans. Dawn came before the Epirots were in position and the outflanking force was duly defeated, followed by a major battle where once again stampeded elephants proved Pyrrhus' downfall. He withdrew from Italy, never to return.
The factors that defeated Pyrrhus and Hannibal, both arguably better commanders than Alexander ( see reference to Plutarch above) would have defeated him too, no matter what.
Those interested in Pyrrhus can find a whole issue of 'Ancient Warfare' magazine Vol VI issue 4 devoted to him. Back-issues are available here:
http://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/cm ... ssues.html
I am inclined to agree with Livy - even Alexander in his prime could not have overpowered Rome. His uncle, Alexander of Epirus, died fighting in Italy and is supposed to have remarked that he had gone west to the 'men's room' to fight, while his famous nephew had gone east to the 'womens room'.
As to Pyrrhus, some of the ancients believed him to have been the best General in purely military terms, with Hannibal second and Scipio third. (Plutarch,"Lives" Pyrrhus and Scipio).
Regarding Pyrrhus' 'victories' against Rome, they have famously given rise to the phrase "Pyrrhic victory" to mean a costly and indecisive draw. At the first battle, Heraclea, the Romans first encountered elephants and their effects on cavalry - but the screams of a wounded elephant caused the herd to turn on their own army, depriving Pyrrhus of a decisive victory. At Asculum Pyrrhus and his Italian allies drove the Romans back to their camp, but suffered heavily doing so.They were unable to accomplish anything thereafter that campaign. Having suffered heavy losses to Carthage at sea, Pyrrhus met the Romans once more at 'Maleventum'-changed to 'Beneventum' after the battle - so you can imagine the outcome. Pyrrhus used a night march to outflank the Romans. Dawn came before the Epirots were in position and the outflanking force was duly defeated, followed by a major battle where once again stampeded elephants proved Pyrrhus' downfall. He withdrew from Italy, never to return.
The factors that defeated Pyrrhus and Hannibal, both arguably better commanders than Alexander ( see reference to Plutarch above) would have defeated him too, no matter what.
Those interested in Pyrrhus can find a whole issue of 'Ancient Warfare' magazine Vol VI issue 4 devoted to him. Back-issues are available here:
http://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/cm ... ssues.html
Re: What if Alexander had lived?
The famous "digression" on Alexander. It should always be read for exactly what it is.
Livy, born in 59 BCE (Jerome, Olympiad 180.2 ) wrote under Octavian in the shadow of the interminable Triumvir Wars. His "world view" is obviously going to be coloured by the times in which he lives; a time of complete Roman dominance after the extinction of the Hellenistic monarchies. If Polybius sought (on behalf of his Greek readers) to explain the reasons for this situation - for how Rome, in such a short time, came to dominate the oikoumene - Livy certainly did not; Livy knew and Octavian embodied it: Roman manpower, virtus and valour.
Alexander was a figure well known to Romans and imitatio Alexandri is a common theme (most clearly in Pompey). Livy seems to have well known his Cleitarchus as all the various negative and exaggerated topoi relating to Alexander are given a full airing (alcoholic, megalomania, eastern despotism, etc). For Livy (and Augustus one suspects) such reverence and imitation was unnecessary if not unbecoming. In a world dominated by one power - Rome - and ruled by one exceptional emperor (by his own propaganda), forelock tugging to and the aping of a long-departed king of a defeated, inferior power was somewhat anachronistic if not downright embarrassing. Rome, clearly, had many a general the equal of Alexander: it had to; witness her deeds and worldly position.
The digression is excellent Roman nationalism / propaganda. Like the best propaganda it must maintain the basis of truth whilst exaggerating those topoi that deprecate the Macedonian. Here all the great "eastern truisms" are run. Thus we have the effeminate Asian armies that surrendered at the sight of a sarisa and which will now come west with him (Carrhae conveniently forgotten after the buying back of the lost Roman standards). Effete, defeated men of abasement and luxury who will be led by an Alexander so corrupted by these easy eastern successes (and the excesses and debasement which came with it) that he is now a caricature of the eastern despots he replaced. Such a man had the east gifted to him by sheer fortune. Such a man is not to be feared nor is he to be revered and his polyglot army of decadent eastern levies the less so.
The truth comes in the form of the long supply lines and the lack of true bases of operation for Alexander (a fact which determined Hannibal's entire strategy in Italy); in the manpower resources of Rome and of the danger of defeat for Alexander so far from 'home" (though these self same dangers obtained for the eastern anabasis).
The artifice lies in the comparison. The Rome which Livy lauds in contrast to Alexander is the Rome of his own day. The Rome of Alexander's day was far from the Rome of which Livy writes much in the way that the Macedon of Alexander's day was very far from the Macedon of Alexander I.
Livy, born in 59 BCE (Jerome, Olympiad 180.2 ) wrote under Octavian in the shadow of the interminable Triumvir Wars. His "world view" is obviously going to be coloured by the times in which he lives; a time of complete Roman dominance after the extinction of the Hellenistic monarchies. If Polybius sought (on behalf of his Greek readers) to explain the reasons for this situation - for how Rome, in such a short time, came to dominate the oikoumene - Livy certainly did not; Livy knew and Octavian embodied it: Roman manpower, virtus and valour.
Alexander was a figure well known to Romans and imitatio Alexandri is a common theme (most clearly in Pompey). Livy seems to have well known his Cleitarchus as all the various negative and exaggerated topoi relating to Alexander are given a full airing (alcoholic, megalomania, eastern despotism, etc). For Livy (and Augustus one suspects) such reverence and imitation was unnecessary if not unbecoming. In a world dominated by one power - Rome - and ruled by one exceptional emperor (by his own propaganda), forelock tugging to and the aping of a long-departed king of a defeated, inferior power was somewhat anachronistic if not downright embarrassing. Rome, clearly, had many a general the equal of Alexander: it had to; witness her deeds and worldly position.
The digression is excellent Roman nationalism / propaganda. Like the best propaganda it must maintain the basis of truth whilst exaggerating those topoi that deprecate the Macedonian. Here all the great "eastern truisms" are run. Thus we have the effeminate Asian armies that surrendered at the sight of a sarisa and which will now come west with him (Carrhae conveniently forgotten after the buying back of the lost Roman standards). Effete, defeated men of abasement and luxury who will be led by an Alexander so corrupted by these easy eastern successes (and the excesses and debasement which came with it) that he is now a caricature of the eastern despots he replaced. Such a man had the east gifted to him by sheer fortune. Such a man is not to be feared nor is he to be revered and his polyglot army of decadent eastern levies the less so.
The truth comes in the form of the long supply lines and the lack of true bases of operation for Alexander (a fact which determined Hannibal's entire strategy in Italy); in the manpower resources of Rome and of the danger of defeat for Alexander so far from 'home" (though these self same dangers obtained for the eastern anabasis).
The artifice lies in the comparison. The Rome which Livy lauds in contrast to Alexander is the Rome of his own day. The Rome of Alexander's day was far from the Rome of which Livy writes much in the way that the Macedon of Alexander's day was very far from the Macedon of Alexander I.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Academia.edu
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Academia.edu
Re: What if Alexander had lived?
I totally agree with Paralus: the Livy "digression is excellent Roman nationalism/propaganda", so it is unfit to be used for historical purposes.
As to the question about the best general of all the ancient ones, there are two interesting quotes from Lucian ('True History' 2,9, and 'Dialogues of the Dead' 25): here the author makes Alexander the first, prior to Hannibal (first quote) and to Hannibal and Scipio (second quote).
As to the question about the best general of all the ancient ones, there are two interesting quotes from Lucian ('True History' 2,9, and 'Dialogues of the Dead' 25): here the author makes Alexander the first, prior to Hannibal (first quote) and to Hannibal and Scipio (second quote).
Re: What if Alexander had lived?
Xenophon, you said :
The factors that defeated Pyrrhus and Hannibal, both arguably better commanders than Alexander ( see reference to Plutarch above) would have defeated him too, no matter what.
OK, those are very, very bold words... and to be frank, I think you're wrong. And many, many more would back me up on this one. Granted, Rome did have profuse man reserves - so what? You don't think Alexander would been able to muster armies of equal size? You don't think he would be able to draw upon manpower as well, after having conquered so many people? Really, come on...
You have to remember the age at which Alexander reached his goals, 25 years old. He was 25 at Gaugamela, 23 at Issus, 21 at Granicus. He was at 16 years old left in charge of Macedonia as a regent. During this time he quelled a pretty big revolt, the Maedi, captured the city and established a Greek colony, naming it Alexandroupolis. At 18 he was commander of the left wing holding the flank against the Thebans at Chaeronea. Alexander was both a strategical and tactical genius. He was so inventive, and could adapt and react accordingly on the spot! Talk about ice running through his veins.
Also, remember, the romans Hannibal encountered were the predecessors of Marius's legions; they inhabited the scene BEFORE Marius's REFORMED legions entered; ergo, they weren't as skilled.
And the Pincer movement Hannibal executed at Cannae was introduced by the Greeks at the battle of Marathon hundreds of years before.
Alexander inherited a great army, yes, but that doesn't mean you're automatically great - history's proven that time and again. If you have a great guitar, it doesn't necessarily make you a great guitarist.
And once again, we enter the topic of the inferiority of Alexander's opponents... I was just waiting for it... once and for all, Alexander faced VARIED opponents, fierce, tough-as-hell soldiers, on all kinds of imaginable of terrains. The heavy armoured persian cataphracts, tough greek mercenaries, Indian warriors. They were all armoured according to circumstances, varied and diversified. Did anyone forget the 10 000 immortals of Darius? Did anyone forget the elephants at Jhelum?
Or what about the psidians at the battle of Sagalassos? fierce warriors marked by courage and determination. The romans could never subdue them but treated their lands as a client state. Alexander beat them...
Or what about the nomadic Scythian horsemen whose EXTRAORDINARY and valiant cavalry skills and horse nomads' way of life spread to a place called... Mongolia?
Friends, remember the persian cavalry was considered one of histories finest.
Again, in the words of Robin Lane Fox:
"He would’ve made mincemeat of any Roman who came over the hill,” says biographer Lane Fox. “Julius Caesar would’ve gone straight back home as fast as his horse could carry him.”
The romans wouldn't have stood a chance. Presented with a united front, the romans would probably see the war taken to their doorstep, plus they'd never engage an empire of that size, not while still in the infancy of their rise, anyway. If anything, the macedonian empire would've stretched westward and taken the Italic peninsula, Carthage etc step by step. And they would've done it smartly, entering Italy from different strategic and geographical points enveloping the whole of the roman forces. If that, contrary to expectation, would not have born any fruit, believe me, they'd just fill up and have another go! You know that roman ambassadors visited with Alexander in Babylon? - which would lead me to believe that they were worried.
The factors that defeated Pyrrhus and Hannibal, both arguably better commanders than Alexander ( see reference to Plutarch above) would have defeated him too, no matter what.
OK, those are very, very bold words... and to be frank, I think you're wrong. And many, many more would back me up on this one. Granted, Rome did have profuse man reserves - so what? You don't think Alexander would been able to muster armies of equal size? You don't think he would be able to draw upon manpower as well, after having conquered so many people? Really, come on...
You have to remember the age at which Alexander reached his goals, 25 years old. He was 25 at Gaugamela, 23 at Issus, 21 at Granicus. He was at 16 years old left in charge of Macedonia as a regent. During this time he quelled a pretty big revolt, the Maedi, captured the city and established a Greek colony, naming it Alexandroupolis. At 18 he was commander of the left wing holding the flank against the Thebans at Chaeronea. Alexander was both a strategical and tactical genius. He was so inventive, and could adapt and react accordingly on the spot! Talk about ice running through his veins.
Also, remember, the romans Hannibal encountered were the predecessors of Marius's legions; they inhabited the scene BEFORE Marius's REFORMED legions entered; ergo, they weren't as skilled.
And the Pincer movement Hannibal executed at Cannae was introduced by the Greeks at the battle of Marathon hundreds of years before.
Alexander inherited a great army, yes, but that doesn't mean you're automatically great - history's proven that time and again. If you have a great guitar, it doesn't necessarily make you a great guitarist.
And once again, we enter the topic of the inferiority of Alexander's opponents... I was just waiting for it... once and for all, Alexander faced VARIED opponents, fierce, tough-as-hell soldiers, on all kinds of imaginable of terrains. The heavy armoured persian cataphracts, tough greek mercenaries, Indian warriors. They were all armoured according to circumstances, varied and diversified. Did anyone forget the 10 000 immortals of Darius? Did anyone forget the elephants at Jhelum?
Or what about the psidians at the battle of Sagalassos? fierce warriors marked by courage and determination. The romans could never subdue them but treated their lands as a client state. Alexander beat them...
Or what about the nomadic Scythian horsemen whose EXTRAORDINARY and valiant cavalry skills and horse nomads' way of life spread to a place called... Mongolia?
Friends, remember the persian cavalry was considered one of histories finest.
Again, in the words of Robin Lane Fox:
"He would’ve made mincemeat of any Roman who came over the hill,” says biographer Lane Fox. “Julius Caesar would’ve gone straight back home as fast as his horse could carry him.”
The romans wouldn't have stood a chance. Presented with a united front, the romans would probably see the war taken to their doorstep, plus they'd never engage an empire of that size, not while still in the infancy of their rise, anyway. If anything, the macedonian empire would've stretched westward and taken the Italic peninsula, Carthage etc step by step. And they would've done it smartly, entering Italy from different strategic and geographical points enveloping the whole of the roman forces. If that, contrary to expectation, would not have born any fruit, believe me, they'd just fill up and have another go! You know that roman ambassadors visited with Alexander in Babylon? - which would lead me to believe that they were worried.
Last edited by robbie on Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: What if Alexander had lived?
Paralus, you said:
Rome, clearly, had many a general the equal of Alexander: it had to; witness her deeds and worldly position.
Now, forgive me, it's late when penning these words and I've had a long day, hence the apparent confusion or misinterpretation of your statement. I take it, that when writing those words, you meant for them to be tinted in the spirit of sarcasm and hyperbolic "hot air" sprung from the opinion of Livy?
The romans couldn't even produce a general of the same caliber as Philip. He was a genius. And Lane Fox thinks he MIGHT have beaten Hannibal.
Rome, clearly, had many a general the equal of Alexander: it had to; witness her deeds and worldly position.
Now, forgive me, it's late when penning these words and I've had a long day, hence the apparent confusion or misinterpretation of your statement. I take it, that when writing those words, you meant for them to be tinted in the spirit of sarcasm and hyperbolic "hot air" sprung from the opinion of Livy?
The romans couldn't even produce a general of the same caliber as Philip. He was a genius. And Lane Fox thinks he MIGHT have beaten Hannibal.
Re: What if Alexander had lived?
That would be correct.robbie wrote:Paralus, you said:
Rome, clearly, had many a general the equal of Alexander: it had to; witness her deeds and worldly position.
Now, forgive me, it's late when penning these words and I've had a long day, hence the apparent confusion or misinterpretation of your statement. I take it, that when writing those words, you meant for them to be tinted in the spirit of sarcasm and hyperbolic "hot air" sprung from the opinion of Livy?
On Robin Lane Fox, I'd be a little careful: admiration can cloud one's judgement. A more recent example would be Billows' Antigonus Monophthalmus and the Creation of the Hellenistic Sate. A extremely good book - with many detailed socio-political analyses and an indispensable prosopography - but which fails its author's hope, expressed in the preface, that admiration does not colour the work at various stages. A good, general pointer might be in the introduction (p.4, my italics):
Even accepting (and I utterly do not) - for the sake of Billows' argument - that the Diadochoi were all happy to recognise each other as part "co-rulers" of Empire with "recognised territories", this is wrong and the sources contradict it. 311 is the "Peace of the Dynasts" involving Lysimachus, Cassander and, at his own late request, Ptolemy. Singularly left out is Seleucus in Babylonia. This "peace" (ditched near as soon as the ink had dried on papyrus and likely before chisel had etched stone) was nothing more than political expediency. Antigonus had been fighting a land and naval war on three fronts; a war prohibitively expensive in men, money and armament. He'd failed twice to detach the allies from each other (Ecregma - Ptolemy and the Hellespont - Cassander) and the war drifted. The clue is provided by Diodorus (19.100.3-4):Analysis of the course of events shows that Antigonus's aims and ambitions changed and developed during the years 323-301; that as late as 311 he was ready and willing to accept peers as independent rulers of parts of the Macedonian Empire, confining his interests to western Asia Minor and Greece; and that he never entertained serious ambitions to rule the far east.
Antigonus now had a fourth front. Note, too, the concern for the "upper satrapies". For Billows, an admirer of his subject, this is all a function of hindsight value judgements (by the sources) and the influence of tragic drama ("pride goeth before the fall"). Such a silver bullet can, and is, deployed to kill off much "adverse" press in the sources.For there came to him at this time a dispatch-bearer with a letter from Nicanor, the general of Media and the upper satrapies. In this letter was written an account of Seleucus' march inland and of the disasters that had been suffered in connection with him. Therefore Antigonus, worried about the upper satrapies, sent his son Demetrius with five thousand Macedonian and ten thousand mercenary foot-soldiers and four thousand horse; and he ordered him to go up as far as Babylon and then, after recovering the satrapy, to come down to the sea at full speed.
Robin Lane Fox, with respect to Alexander, is no different.
Last edited by Paralus on Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Academia.edu
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Academia.edu
Re: What if Alexander had lived?
Paralus wrote:
And the underlying truth, as Pyrrhus and later Hannibal learned to their cost, is that a number of factors, including some not mentioned by Livy, such as the terrain - for the most part mountainous, as the Allies would find out to their cost as late as World War II - would mean that no matter how brilliant a General Alexander was ( and in that regard, neither his strategies or his tactics indicate particular brilliance in my view, and many others both ancient and modern), he could not have defeated Rome, who already held sway over most of Italy.
I paraphrased Livy's 'alternate history' in order to keep the post relatively short, and could have continued it, but Paralus has kindly provided a commentary on Livy with which I entirely agree.The famous "digression" on Alexander. It should always be read for exactly what it is.....The digression is excellent Roman nationalism / propaganda. Like the best propaganda it must maintain the basis of truth whilst exaggerating those topoi that deprecate the Macedonian. Here all the great "eastern truisms" are run.
And the underlying truth, as Pyrrhus and later Hannibal learned to their cost, is that a number of factors, including some not mentioned by Livy, such as the terrain - for the most part mountainous, as the Allies would find out to their cost as late as World War II - would mean that no matter how brilliant a General Alexander was ( and in that regard, neither his strategies or his tactics indicate particular brilliance in my view, and many others both ancient and modern), he could not have defeated Rome, who already held sway over most of Italy.
Re: What if Alexander had lived?
Robbie wrote:
Military fact 1: Ancient armies were generally unable to exceed approximately 50,000 men for logistic reasons. This is all the more so in a mountainous country like Greece or Italy. Nobody in ancient times could, or did, bring more than that many invaders to Italy and keep them supplied in a hostile country. As Livy points out, Alexander's vast Eastern manpower was useless.
Military fact 2: Rome was able to field several such armies, all supplied from friendly territory.
Military fact 3: Despite what you say, Persian infantry were largely 'light' and unarmoured, and it had been apparent since Marathon that 'heavy' armoured infantry were superior to these. Darius' defeat came largely from the fact that while he could get excellent cavalry, he could never get enough good, 'heavy', infantry i.e. Greek mercenaries. On the contrary, contemporary Roman infantry were 'heavy' and every bit as good Macedonian ones. As I said, no Macedonian-type phalanx ever scored a decisive win over Roman 'heavy' infantry.
As to Alexander's age, up until Chaeronea, he was closely guided/supervised by Philip's experienced generals ( see e.g. Diodorus XVI.86.1-4). What makes you think Alexander was "both a strategical and tactical genius" ? Alexander owed his conquest of Persia largely to 'Fortune', as many of our sources point out - or 'luck' as we would say, which is why the conquest was never repeated, despite many tries by Successors and Romans.
And not least of his 'Fortune' was surviving his reckless heroics. Almost getting himself killed a number of times is hardly the mark of a "military genius". It could all have ended so easily at Granicus, but for Cleitus, and we'd be going "Alexander who?"
As to the Legions, they continually evolved and there was no 'watershed' at Marius' rather illusory reforms. Arguably, the most 'professional' Legions were those circa 200-140 BC, who took out Carthage, Macedon, the Gauls ( who destroyed Macedon) the Seleucids ( At Magnesia they beat just such a huge manpower army as you postulate for Alexander, but which he couldn't possibly field in Italy ) etc
As to "heavy armoured cataphracts" they didn't exist in Alexander's day, only their predecessors, javelin armed cavalry with bronze, open-faced helmets and rudimentary small amounts of horse armour (parapleuridia) - and even these were restricted to Satraps and Great King's bodyguards - the vast majority of Darius' cavalry were unarmoured. Greek mercenaries I have already discussed - never enough of them. Armoured Indians ? I don't think so ! Only Kings and their bodyguards, if that.
It is always futile and pointless to argue "what ifs" of history ( but fun ! ), but as Paralus pointed out, in addition to the propaganda of the patriotic Livy, there are sound military truths underlying what he says.
Alexander could never have conquered Rome for sound military reasons, no matter how brilliant a General you might think he was.
Alexander's achievements are unique , but not because he was the best Commander in history - he was 'good' certainly, but not by any means the greatest in military terms.........there were many other factors at work in his favour
It is hard to know where to begin, considering that it is already apparent from the above alone that your knowledge of matters military is not very deep. I fear that, as Paralus has pointed out of others, your views of Alexander's abilities are coloured by admiration, rather like Lane-Fox's views - by the way, as Paralus has hinted, some of his views on matters military are a little peculiar to say the least.OK, those are very, very bold words... and to be frank, I think you're wrong. And many, many more would back me up on this one. Granted, Rome did have profuse man reserves - so what? You don't think Alexander would been able to muster armies of equal size? You don't think he would be able to draw upon manpower as well, after having conquered so many people? Really, come on...
Military fact 1: Ancient armies were generally unable to exceed approximately 50,000 men for logistic reasons. This is all the more so in a mountainous country like Greece or Italy. Nobody in ancient times could, or did, bring more than that many invaders to Italy and keep them supplied in a hostile country. As Livy points out, Alexander's vast Eastern manpower was useless.
Military fact 2: Rome was able to field several such armies, all supplied from friendly territory.
Military fact 3: Despite what you say, Persian infantry were largely 'light' and unarmoured, and it had been apparent since Marathon that 'heavy' armoured infantry were superior to these. Darius' defeat came largely from the fact that while he could get excellent cavalry, he could never get enough good, 'heavy', infantry i.e. Greek mercenaries. On the contrary, contemporary Roman infantry were 'heavy' and every bit as good Macedonian ones. As I said, no Macedonian-type phalanx ever scored a decisive win over Roman 'heavy' infantry.
As to Alexander's age, up until Chaeronea, he was closely guided/supervised by Philip's experienced generals ( see e.g. Diodorus XVI.86.1-4). What makes you think Alexander was "both a strategical and tactical genius" ? Alexander owed his conquest of Persia largely to 'Fortune', as many of our sources point out - or 'luck' as we would say, which is why the conquest was never repeated, despite many tries by Successors and Romans.
And not least of his 'Fortune' was surviving his reckless heroics. Almost getting himself killed a number of times is hardly the mark of a "military genius". It could all have ended so easily at Granicus, but for Cleitus, and we'd be going "Alexander who?"
As to the Legions, they continually evolved and there was no 'watershed' at Marius' rather illusory reforms. Arguably, the most 'professional' Legions were those circa 200-140 BC, who took out Carthage, Macedon, the Gauls ( who destroyed Macedon) the Seleucids ( At Magnesia they beat just such a huge manpower army as you postulate for Alexander, but which he couldn't possibly field in Italy ) etc
As to "heavy armoured cataphracts" they didn't exist in Alexander's day, only their predecessors, javelin armed cavalry with bronze, open-faced helmets and rudimentary small amounts of horse armour (parapleuridia) - and even these were restricted to Satraps and Great King's bodyguards - the vast majority of Darius' cavalry were unarmoured. Greek mercenaries I have already discussed - never enough of them. Armoured Indians ? I don't think so ! Only Kings and their bodyguards, if that.
It is always futile and pointless to argue "what ifs" of history ( but fun ! ), but as Paralus pointed out, in addition to the propaganda of the patriotic Livy, there are sound military truths underlying what he says.
Alexander could never have conquered Rome for sound military reasons, no matter how brilliant a General you might think he was.
Alexander's achievements are unique , but not because he was the best Commander in history - he was 'good' certainly, but not by any means the greatest in military terms.........there were many other factors at work in his favour
Re: What if Alexander had lived?
Hi, Xenophon
You way be right as far as Alexander's abilities are concerned, but I think you are still arguing from the standpoint of Rome in the 1st century BC. The question is, would Rome of the 4th century BC, only just beginning its rise to power and without the large manpower resources it began to acquire with its expansion in the 3rd century, have been able to withstand the Macedonians? Rome in the 4th century was scarcely a city that would cause Alexander concern.
You way be right as far as Alexander's abilities are concerned, but I think you are still arguing from the standpoint of Rome in the 1st century BC. The question is, would Rome of the 4th century BC, only just beginning its rise to power and without the large manpower resources it began to acquire with its expansion in the 3rd century, have been able to withstand the Macedonians? Rome in the 4th century was scarcely a city that would cause Alexander concern.
Re: What if Alexander had lived?
What tends to get forgotten is that Rome was not on Alexander's immediate to do list; his armament was set to roll against Karthage. We have the evidence of Agathokles' campaign for comparison; again it looks like supply considerations would have undone him, unless he decided to secure Sicily he would be faced with a naval supply line of prodigious length fighting the major naval power in the Western Med. So far from the Imperial centre Greece may have revolted anyway, the Odrysai were already in arms and the Upper Satrapies restive. So whilst I agree Rome was not yet the power that confronted Pyrrhos, Alexander would not have got to fight them.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Re: What if Alexander had lived?
If there was ever a general who fought (and won) in a lot of different terrains, Alexander was the one!
I beg Xenophon to watch the Balkan expedition in 335: there were no Philip's generals (Antipater was in Pella, Parmenio in Asia Minor), yet Alexander won the worst enemies of Macedon, who defeated his ancestors many times (Perdiccas III was killed).
And what about the Afghanistan conquest after two years fightings? Ask U.R.S.S. and U.S.A. of our times...
I beg Xenophon to watch the Balkan expedition in 335: there were no Philip's generals (Antipater was in Pella, Parmenio in Asia Minor), yet Alexander won the worst enemies of Macedon, who defeated his ancestors many times (Perdiccas III was killed).
And what about the Afghanistan conquest after two years fightings? Ask U.R.S.S. and U.S.A. of our times...
Re: What if Alexander had lived?
Dear Hiphys
I salute you. I thought it was getting to look more and more a case of my battling against everyone else on this thread.
appreciate the support.
I salute you. I thought it was getting to look more and more a case of my battling against everyone else on this thread.
appreciate the support.