pothos.org

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:52 pm**

Don't get a persecution complex, Robbie; but there are several factors which would make Alexander's western adventure more difficult. The lack of a good coastal road, the opposition of a naval power which could not be defeated by taking their land bases, supply issues and political fragmentation have all been mentioned, but consider the men themselves, the army that crossed the Hellespont was greatly different from that which refused to cross the Hyphasis; and their replacements were defeated by the Greek coalition. Of course nothing is certain, but in Asia Alexander only attacks across wasteland once the central power is broken in this instance he would be attacking across an obstacle as dangerous as Gedrosia before engaging the enemy; not that that enemy was as dangerous as all that, they had been defeated many times by the Greeks of Sicily but the Karthaginian navy was a force to be reckoned with and capable of interrupting his supply lines.

Pyrrhos found that the Greeks would not suffer an ego, it is doubtful that Alexander would have found ready allies among the western Greeks; Rome only triumphed against Karthage by winning the Numidians to their side; did the Alexander of 323 possess the diplomatic skills? The fiasco of the Exiles' Decree suggests not.

What ifs are interesting (after all how else can one allegedly apply the lessons of history?) Unfortunately, they depend on the factors one chooses to include; Rommel thought his three divisions would tip the balance against the USSR where three hundred were being minced up; it's eye of the beholder city, man

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2013 5:40 pm**

First of all, don't take this reply in the wrong way,

I'm merely retorting here... I can't just sit still... lower your sarissas

Xenophon, you wrote:
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, my knowledge doesn't run that deep, I prostrate myself before you, then, Xenophon almighty... Paralus didn't mention anything about my admiration of Alexander - he spoke of Lane Fox. So Fox's stock hasn't risen that much in your eyes, then? Well, he was only personal advisor to Stone on the movie set, and he only holds an Oxford research fellowship..

Robin Lane Fox on Alexander vs Rome:

"Alex was not in the least worried by Rome ...if they sent him an embassy to Babylon they were probably worried by him....I think the phalanx under Alex ,with the cavalry above all ,might have beaten the Romans ...Alex wd not have been caught on terrain as bad as at Pydna ...and he was SO inventive ,with the Sh Bearers and Cavalry at their peak...King Perseus was not in his class and even so the Romans had problems..."

You said:
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.

Check out Xerxes... what about the roman army at Cannae... countless other examples... Now, if Rome, could refill and recuperate manpower and losses, then why couldn't Alexander? Rome was stubborn, yes? but believe me, Alexander was ten times worse. He'd never, ever have given up, and in his own words, "the more difficult something is, the more important it is to accomplish it".

Magnesia? That was not a major army... sources are discrepant as ever on the figures.

If alexander had gone after the Romans as the were in his lifetime he would have most likely crushed them, mainly because their armies were still hoplite based being very similar to what Alexander was used to fighting in greece and so he would know how to effectively counter them.
Also there would have been plenty of neighbouring peoples that would have happily joined Alexander against the Romans such as the Samintes and Latins.

Also, I think a lot of people are making the mistake of veiwing the Romans of Alexanders time in light of their acheivements later in history, there was nothing special about the Romans in this time, they didn't use innovative new tactics, they weren't anymore better at fighting than other peoples, their population wasn't particularly bigger than others, they weren't anymore diplomatically cunning. Rome was still literally fighting for her life at the age of Alexander, internal strife and external threats...

What they were was a smallish regional power among others jostling for power, three years before Alexanders death they became involved in the Second Samnite war, it took 22 years for them bring it to an end and even then the Samnites were not completely defeated. If it took them that long to defeat a group of (admittedly tenacious) mountain tribes how would you expect them to do the same against a newly arisen superpower at the peak of its strength with thousands of harderned veterans lead by generals experienced in combating numerous battle tactics including those very similar to the ones the Romans used at the time.

At best they would have fought a few battles before conceeding defeat and become a client state, at worst if they were stubborn and resisted to the very end Alexander might have made a example of them and razed Rome to the ground like he did with Tyre and Thebes.
Believe me, Alexander would have found a way... he always did...

Also, Alexander knew of the situation with Rome and Carthage but wasn't in the least worried... it was way down on the to-do list...

Fortune is nothing more than a case of preparation meets opportunity....

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2013 5:51 pm**

Well, Agesilaos... we can't say anything for certain... Alexander was an extraordinary man, and who knows how he would've dealt with the situation... who can say?

It would be sublimely interesting to hear Alexander's own thoughts on this... but... wishful thinking, I guess...

Yes, indeed... here we are sitting and discussing all the what ifs, but has anyone ever stumbled upon the thought of what Alexander would have to say about this. My guess is, "Rome who?", Carthaginians what?"...

You guys don't seriously think that he would have backed an inch at the prospect of an Italic conquest had he set his mind on it? If anything, the foretaste of any hardships or drudgery would've whetted his appetite.

Btw, where's Marcus? It's his thread...

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:53 pm**

robbie wrote:Btw, where's Marcus? It's his thread...

I'm busy marking student assessments, Robbie!

I'll be back ...

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:31 pm**

Hey Marcus!

So nice to hear from you

I would love to have had a teacher like you back in school... you can bet I would've stayed on after class discussing Alexander with you

Can't wait to hear from you, cheers! .... Perhaps even get some support, I'm taking a beating here

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:35 am**

hiphys wrote: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).

That is inaccurate at the very least. This is a campaign conducted in the spring after Alexander's accession. We know that Attalos had been removed but, of the others (family threats and the accused murderers), we cannot say what if any position they had in the army. In fact it is highly unlikely that Alexander removed or replaced army commands wholesale. To do so would have created immense instability and Alexander was not in a position to do so. The army that went north with Alexander was Philip's army and had been mobilised for an attack on Persia. It follows that the command structure was almost certainly the same. Diodorus records the following at Chaeroneia (16.86.1):

...the king stationed his son Alexander, young in age but noted for his valour and swiftness of action, on one wing, placing beside him his most seasoned generals...

These generals are not named and need not be limited to Antipater and Parmenion. Indeed, it is likely one or more of these will have been Philip's adivisors, his somatophylakes. Balacrus, attested as somatophylax under Alexander and possibly 'inherited' from Philip, might well have been such. For all we know, Antigonus, coeval with Philip, may also have been. There are quite a number of generals ('marshals') attested in Alexander's army and there will have been just as many in Philip's. These generals will still have been in place and still have been part of Alexander's command structure in this first campaign.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:14 am**

robbie wrote:... Paralus didn't mention anything about my admiration of Alexander - he spoke of Lane Fox.

I implied that your view was similarly clouded given your continued quoting of Lane Fox (almost like an alter ego). Statements like "Alexander would have found a way... he always did..." for example, show such. I also gave the example of Richard Billows to illustrate how admiration can cloud judgement. In this Tarn was likely worse. Having decided that the Macedonian conqueror was a philosopher king bringing civilisation and a brotherhood of man, evidence to the contrary was ignored or explained away (sometimes painfully). Bagoas, the eunuch, did not exist for Tarn's pure Alexander.

robbie wrote:So Fox's stock hasn't risen that much in your eyes, then? Well, he was only personal advisor to Stone on the movie set, and he only holds an Oxford research fellowship..

Lane Fox will wear that film about his neck for all time, a fact he was gently reminded of in Sydney this past January several times. Whilst on Lane fox, in his Alexander the Great (p 334), says this of the army as it marches on India "The Foot Companions had abandoned the sarisa as too unwieldy for the mountainous ground and never used it with Alexander again." This is plainly wrong and is contradicted by the sources which describe the army using sarisas in India (particularly the massacre of the Indian mercenaries Diod.16.84.4). You quote Lane Fox as saying "Alex wd not have been caught on terrain as bad as at Pydna" yet this same Alexander managed to let Darius get both behind him and across his lines of communication and supply forcing him to fight on terrain likely worse than Pydna (even allowing for Polybius' exaggerated description). Such an error in Italy might have proven disastrous.

robbie wrote:Now, if Rome, could refill and recuperate manpower and losses, then why couldn't Alexander?

More than one here has been at pains explaining that it is Alexander who will have the problems of long supply and communications lines, not the Romans. Supply dictated Hannibal's entire strategy; it would dictate Alexander's. The Persians came to greif in Greece for similar reasons. Campaigns to Italy and - more so - Carthage necessitated supply by sea. The dangers of such are shown by the campaign of Antigonos against Egypt in 306. The fleet was Antigonos' supply line. When it foundered in rough weather so, too, did the invasion.

robbie wrote:Magnesia? That was not a major army... sources are discrepant as ever on the figures.

That is, quite frankly, an amazing claim. This was a Seleucid army on its home turf defending its empire with secure internal lines of communication and supply. It numbered something near to 70,000 and included a 16,000 man phalanx and an indeterminate corps of Argyraspids (the number is not given - they were some 8,000 or so strong at Raphia). Just what might you describe as a major army?

robbie wrote:Also, Alexander knew of the situation with Rome and Carthage but wasn't in the least worried... it was way down on the to-do list... ?

Yet the sources make plain he was assembling an armament just for this campaign.

robbie wrote: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?

Which 10,000 Immortals of just which Darius are these?

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:26 pm**

see below in blue, there is so much here that is just plain WRONG....

robbie wrote:First of all, don't take this reply in the wrong way, I'm merely retorting here... I can't just sit still... lower your sarissas

Xenophon, you wrote:
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, my knowledge doesn't run that deep, I prostrate myself before you, then, Xenophon almighty... Paralus didn't mention anything about my admiration of Alexander - he spoke of Lane Fox. So Fox's stock hasn't risen that much in your eyes, then? Well, he was only personal advisor to Stone on the movie set, and he only holds an Oxford research fellowship..
Paralus didn't need to mention your admiration of Alexander - it is all too obvious from what you write. Equally sarcasm is hardly appropriate to someone who takes the trouble and time to try and explain some ancient historical and military realities to you.Did you know the word 'sarcasm' is derived from the Greek for biting one's lip in rage? BTW, what has advising a movie or an Oxford research fellowship to do with knowledge of matters ancient or military ? It has already been pointed out that Lane-Fox's views on subjects military are not entirely sound.....

Robin Lane Fox on Alexander vs Rome:

"Alex was not in the least worried by Rome ...if they sent him an embassy to Babylon they were probably worried by him....I think the phalanx under Alex ,with the cavalry above all ,might have beaten the Romans ...Alex wd not have been caught on terrain as bad as at Pydna ...and he was SO inventive ,with the Sh Bearers and Cavalry at their peak...King Perseus was not in his class and even so the Romans had problems..."

He should know better. The supposed embassy from Rome is obvious fiction, and Roman propaganda at that. Alexander is painted as an admirer of the Romans. Here's another piece of advice for you, young Robbie. Read the primary sources yourself. Here's what Arrian says[VII.15]
"Of the men who have written the history of Alexander, Aristus and Asclepiades alone say that the Romans also sent an embassy to him, and that when he met their embassy, he predicted something of the future power of Rome, observing both the attire of the men, their love of labour, and their devotion to freedom. At the same time he made urgent inquiries
about their political constitution. This incident I have recorded neither as certainly authentic nor as altogether incredible; but none of the Roman writers have made any mention of this embassy having been despatched to Alexander ; nor of those who have written an account of Alexander's actions, has either Ptolemy, son of Lagus, or Aristobulus mentioned it. With these authors I am generally inclined to agree. Nor does it seem likely that the Roman republic, which was at that time remarkable
for its love of liberty, would send an embassy to a foreign king, especially to a place so far away from their own land, when they were not compelled to do so by fear or any hope of advantage, being of all the people in the world the most averse to Kings, the very word being anathema to them"

Arrian clearly didn't believe in any Roman embassy, and neither should we, Robin Lane-Fox notwithstanding

You said:
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.

Check out Xerxes... what about the roman army at Cannae... countless other examples... Now, if Rome, could refill and recuperate manpower and losses, then why couldn't Alexander? Rome was stubborn, yes? but believe me, Alexander was ten times worse. He'd never, ever have given up, and in his own words, "the more difficult something is, the more important it is to accomplish it".
The case of Xerxes proves my point. We don't know the size of his army other than "very large by Greek standards." It required a large fleet to keep it supplied, and after Salamis and the loss of naval superiority, Xerxes had no option but to smartly evacuate most of his "very large army" - not to mention the budding revolts in Asia Minor, revolts being another factor that would have plagued Alexander, as Agesilaus has alluded to. The Roman army at Cannae was one of those exceptions that prove/test the rule. It numbered 80,000 odd, and could not have stayed together long for the logistic reasons I referred to - that's why Roman armies operated separately, and came together briefly for major battles e.g. Sentinum, Telamon, Trasimene, Cannae etc.
There are not "countless other examples" - that's just a baseless assertion....not to mention that I said 'generally' knowing there were exceptions.

Rome wasn't just 'stubborn', their point blank policy was never to negotiate for peace while an enemy stood on Italian soil. As Livy pointed out, Alexander couldn't afford to leave his Empire for very long, let alone a time period like the 24 years Rome fought Carthage in the First Punic War.

And conquering Rome wasn't just 'difficult', it was impossible, for all the reasons referred to here already and then some.

Magnesia? That was not a major army... sources are discrepant as ever on the figures.
There are just two sources for Magnesia - Livy XXXVII.39-44 and Appian 'Syriaca' 30-36. They both broadly agree that the Romans numbered some 30,000 or so and the Antiochids roughly 70,000 aprox. - and both Livy and Appian were drawing on a single source, likely Polybius....so no major discrepancies

If alexander had gone after the Romans as the were in his lifetime he would have most likely crushed them, mainly because their armies were still hoplite based being very similar to what Alexander was used to fighting in greece and so he would know how to effectively counter them.
Also there would have been plenty of neighbouring peoples that would have happily joined Alexander against the Romans such as the Samintes and Latins.
Where are you getting this stuff from ? Making it up ? Please check your facts before posting misinformation like this ! The Romans abandoned Hoplite-type armies circa 500-450 BC. The Roman army of Alexander's day consisted of the familiar 'triplex acies'/triple lines, the first two pila armed, the last spear armed - exactly the type of Roman Army in fact that was never decisively beaten by ANY Macedonian style phalanx army !]Livy VIII.8.3]
As to Samnites and Latins, that is pure wishful thinking, it is perhaps more likely that they would have stayed allies of Rome against a foreign invader, just as they did against Hannibal. Certainly Pyrrhus had southern Italian allies, or more correctly, Pyrrhus was the ally of the southern Italians against Rome, and it did not end well for either of them !

Also, I think a lot of people are making the mistake of veiwing the Romans of Alexanders time in light of their acheivements later in history, there was nothing special about the Romans in this time, they didn't use innovative new tactics, they weren't anymore better at fighting than other peoples, their population wasn't particularly bigger than others, they weren't anymore diplomatically cunning. Rome was still literally fighting for her life at the age of Alexander, internal strife and external threats...
Again, completely wrong ! In Alexander's period the Roman census showed they could potentially raise some 250,000 'heavy infantry', and with their allies, double this. Even Alexander, the richest despot in the world, could not raise so many phalangites. Notice that at the end of his reign, he was reduced to filling his ranks with inferior Persian archers. There were simply not enough skilled artisans in his empire to make so many sets of 'hopla'. Even if he could have raised, trained and equipped so many phalangites, he could not transport them, or feed them.

What they were was a smallish regional power among others jostling for power, three years before Alexanders death they became involved in the Second Samnite war, it took 22 years for them bring it to an end and even then the Samnites were not completely defeated. If it took them that long to defeat a group of (admittedly tenacious) mountain tribes how would you expect them to do the same against a newly arisen superpower at the peak of its strength with thousands of harderned veterans lead by generals experienced in combating numerous battle tactics including those very similar to the ones the Romans used at the time.
'thousands' of battle hardened veterans were nowhere near enough to defeat Rome. At the Caudine forks in 321 BC, a 'double' Consular army was forced to surrender to the Samnites and "pass under the yoke". It made no difference, the Samnites succumbed to Rome. The Romans suffered three horrific defeats to Hannibal - at Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae - it made no difference. Hannibal, the greatest general in history, and Carthage were defeated by Rome. And see above, Alexander had NOT met the tactics of Rome, who were NEVER decisively beaten by a Macedonian phalanx.

At best they would have fought a few battles before conceeding defeat and become a client state, at worst if they were stubborn and resisted to the very end Alexander might have made a example of them and razed Rome to the ground like he did with Tyre and Thebes.
Believe me, Alexander would have found a way... he always did...
Against a power that never surrendered, never even negotiated ? Rome, in Alexander's day was far bigger than Tyre or Thebes! ( see census figures above) These assertions of yours are nonsense.

Also, Alexander knew of the situation with Rome and Carthage but wasn't in the least worried... it was way down on the to-do list...
The point being that Alexander could never have defeated either, let alone both in alliance.....

Fortune is nothing more than a case of preparation meets opportunity....
I'm afraid you see Alexander and his capabilities through rose-coloured glasses. Try looking through the cold hard facts of reality. Since you find yourself in a minority, and since I have made my point that even 'invincible' Alexander could never have conquered Italy, if only for logistic reasons, I will withdraw from this thread, to see if other, wiser, heads may persuade you to study ancient military history more diligently, so that you may separate fantasy from fact.....

PS: I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ARMORED INDIANS ??

Ee...rr..rr, yes you did!

The heavy armoured persian cataphracts, tough greek mercenaries, Indian warriors. They were all armoured according to circumstances, varied and diversified.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:39 pm**

I never said that there were no Philip's generals at all in Alexander's Balkan expedition; I only mentioned the most famous Antipater and Parmenio. I neither said there were no other good Philip's general, or official (or even soldier) in Alexander's Army: indeed I think Alexander's Army were the same as Philip's. Yet we must remember what Leosthenes (or elsewere Demades) said of Macedonian Army after Alexander's death:"...his forces, as they wandered here and there and fell foul of their own efforts, were like the Cyclops after his blinding, groping about everywhere with his hands, which were directed at no certain goal; even thus did that vast throng roam about with no safe footing, blundering through want of a leader." (Plutarch, Moralia 336 f).
By the way we'd remember also that the first landing in Asia Minor by Philip and his generals wasn't too successful: the king didn't carry out even the siege of Perinthos and Byzantium.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:16 pm**

Listen, Xenophon...

I don't feel like carrying on this dialogue with you - it could go on forever. If you had a bad day or something, well that's too bad.

But, please, don't say that it was IMPOSSIBLE for him to do it - you don't know that, OK? The turn of events could unfold in innumerable ways. You are being extremely presumptuous and narrow-minded in your view. You are not dictating reality, OK - you are merely expressing your point of view. Don't talk to me about fantasy and reality - at least I'm not the one making my case out to be written in stone. You are acting as if you held the final results - and you are NOT, again.

You are forgetting that Rome was in fact defeated and subsequently collapsed. And I should think that they were more powerful at that point in time than in Alexander's day.

Alexander's Rome was not the same as Hannibal's.

Since Alexander already entertained the notion of going west, he would have to know the situation, and yet he wasn't deterred. And far more spectacular things have happened in history than Rome being conquered.

OK, I may be biased, but so are you my friend when remarking that Hannibal is the greatest general in history. When you made that comment, that's when I realized that it's pointless debating. I'm withdrawing from this thread as well.

For what it's worth, I still appreciate your time and effort.

ps. there were lightly armored Indian spearmen mixed in.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:11 pm**

hiphys wrote:I never said that there were no Philip's generals at all in Alexander's Balkan expedition; I only mentioned the most famous Antipater and Parmenio.

It was the way you wrote it "there were no Philip's generals..." the two in parenthesis I took to be examples.

hiphys wrote:Yet we must remember what Leosthenes (or elsewere Demades) said of Macedonian Army after Alexander's death:"...his forces, as they wandered here and there and fell foul of their own efforts, were like the Cyclops after his blinding, groping about everywhere with his hands, which were directed at no certain goal; even thus did that vast throng roam about with no safe footing, blundering through want of a leader." (Plutarch, Moralia 336 f).

This, by the leader of the Greek army in the "Hellenic War" or the Athenian politician scheming with Aetolia and Perdiccas to overthrow Antipater? There would be no agenda here would there?

hiphys wrote:By the way we'd remember also that the first landing in Asia Minor by Philip and his generals wasn't too successful: the king didn't carry out even the siege of Perinthos and Byzantium.

We'd also remember the relieving force sent to Marakanda by Alexander that wasn't too successful; the ill conceived first attack on the Persian Gates that wasn't too successful or the Gedrosian crossing which wasn't a highlight. We might also remember the marching away from Halicarnassus, the citadels of which hadn't been carried by siege (Arr. 1.23.1-6).

robbie wrote:You are forgetting that Rome was in fact defeated and subsequently collapsed. And I should think that they were more powerful at that point in time than in Alexander's day.

Some seven hundred years later? That's a worse comparison than Livy's.

robbie wrote:...that Hannibal is the greatest general in history. When you made that comment, that's when I realized that it's pointless debating.

It never does to upset fandom Xenophon. In any case, the "what if" is pointless not only for the fact that the two cannot be equated but, once it comes down to individuals (as it now has), it will always degenerate to the "Beatles" are better than "the Stones".

Posted: **Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:25 am**

Oh dear ! I see the irony of my tongue-in-cheek throwaway remark, given the topic of Alexander as 'best' General, about "Hannibal, the greatest General in History " was too subtle for some, and that more than one was hooked !!

Earlier I pointed out ;

It is always futile and pointless to argue "what ifs" of history

....and the same is true of trying to argue 'best General', for the situations facing every General are so vastly different that trying to compare them is equally futile and pointless....

Posted: **Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:35 am**

Paralus, you great gallar, The Stones produced better songs than The Beatles but The Beatles produced more consistent albums; and neither are as good as AC/DC!

Re the Leosthenes/Demades quote, I think that the intent was not that the Macedonian army under Antipatros was blundering about but that as the Empire was fracturing there were a mess of conflicting aims among the Marshals; which makes me consider it suspect since this situation really occurs after both men's deaths, unless it is wishful thinking.

'What ifs' are not by their nature 'futile', if they illuminate the choices open to the participants; but this takes alot more thought than normal reconstruction and a broader knowledge base. Superlatives are no substitutes for evidence, and whilst I can appreciate how Xenophon's comments might be taken as aggresive much of what he has said is correct. The sensible response is not to leave the thread, however, but to separate the cogent points and see if they hold water if they do then you need to modify your position to take them into account. I never tire of recommending Engel's 'Alexander the Great and the logistics of the Macedonian army', there are howlers therein, but it is a preliminary study and as such is a relatively painless introduction to the most important factor in warfare - supply.

Study Agathokles' campaign in Africa, in Diodoros XIX, and ask how Alexander could have overcome the factors which defeated him. Forget Rome, Karthage was the main target after Arabia.

If you insist on the Alexander versus Rome scenario, and let's face it he could change his mind, especially if he had been forced into returning to Greece by the political disturbances there; so, you have to sort out just how he would make a settlement and how that might pan out. Then you have to get him across to Italy Pyrrhos can provide a parallel always with a weather eye on supply. Also you need to become an expert on the political situation in Rome, the psychology of both sides, any allies they might gain; the list could go on but I submit that the background reading required to actually approach this 'What If?', could certainly see you through several modules of a degree course so the question is not necessarily 'futile'.

As a general rule, it is much better to read the sources oneself, in the original language is an advantage; it is never sufficient to say that your opinion is that of an academic, not even the sainted Brian Bosworth, blessed be his name; it is necessary to credit any theory you are using, however, especially if you go on to criticise it, that is just being polite, and it allows the original to be checked; it is possible to misread things after all (this is one of those irregular verbs - I misread, you misunderstand, he misrepresents!

).

Citation may be a chore on a site such as this but ones opinions will be more respected if the ancient evidence can be cited and most can be cut and pasted into a 'quote' box.

I hope you read this as an encouragement rather than criticism.

Posted: **Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:24 pm**

Paralus wrote:
robbie wrote:You are forgetting that Rome was in fact defeated and subsequently collapsed. And I should think that they were more powerful at that point in time than in Alexander's day.
Some seven hundred years later? That's a worse comparison than Livy's.

Not least because it's arguable whether Rome was, indeed, more powerful at its defeat than it had been in Alexander's day. (Not least because it depends on which "defeat" and "collapse" is meant. I assume that of the 5th century is meant; but it could be any one of three or four subsequent ones, when the Empire was centred around Constantinople ...)

Posted: **Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:10 am**

Popping in for a moment to ask a related "what if" question. What if Alexander had attacked Rome from the north? What if he had taken his army back through Persia and the Hellespont, through Macedonia and Illyria? Do you think he could have conquered the Celts - or part of them - and then successfully attacked Rome via the northern route, as was done later in history? I have no opinion on this, not having studied much of Roman history. I was simply wondering what anyone else here thinks about this.

Best regards,

pothos.org

What if Alexander had lived?

Re: What if Alexander had lived?

Re: What if Alexander had lived?

Re: What if Alexander had lived?

Re: What if Alexander had lived?

Re: What if Alexander had lived?

Re: What if Alexander had lived?

Re: What if Alexander had lived?

Re: What if Alexander had lived?

Re: What if Alexander had lived?

Re: What if Alexander had lived?

Re: What if Alexander had lived?

Re: What if Alexander had lived?

Re: What if Alexander had lived?

Re: What if Alexander had lived?

Re: What if Alexander had lived?