pothos.org

A quote from Pausanias:GÇ£Prokles of Carthage gave higher marks for good luck and glittering successes to PhilipGÇÖs son Alexander, but for infantry and cavalry tactics and for inventive generalship he reckoned Pyrros was the better man.GÇ¥Messenia, 4.35Thoughts anyone?

Well I think the phrase 'Pyrrhic victory' says it all, doesn't it!?I'd have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Prokles.Kit.

Hmmm, Alexander never had to face the Romans...

Come on, give me a break! The Romans were a joke, they went up against garbage. The Celts SMASHED the Romans at the Battle of Allia in 390 BCE. In 386 BC invading Gallic Senones tribesmen reached as far south as Rome, sacking and burning the city before being driven out after an occupation of 7 months by a small group Romans who hold out in a stronghold on the Capitolene hill. It wasn't until 282 BCE the Romans where able to reduce the threat of Gallic invasions.
The Samnites and Etruscans and others paid homage to Alexander in Babylon. They were convinced being allied with Alexander would have gave them predomination over Rome and the Roman rise to power would have been impossible in the near future.

Rome Rome Rome.At the time of Alexander Rome was nothing,it has been asked about Alexander taking the Romans instead of Persia.Its really simple Alexander went for the creme de la creme, What was the point taking Rome at tha6t time, the wealth power and fame was to take Persia.If Alexander had gone west I feel Alexander would have taken it swiftly.As Andrew said the Romans fought there share of inept mobs who couldnt fight,only to paint them selves and make menacing noises.But when the did come against able commanders they took there fair share of beatings.Spartacus,Hannibal and Attila to name a few,the Romans could not have held or beaten such a proffesional and disciplined army with a leader of brilliance in command, and there was no one better strategically or militaristic than Alexanders.How long could the Roman legions have held once Alexanders companions had anhialated the useless horse owning rich who could afford to sit on a horse.We only have to listen to testaments of Caesar,Hannibal and Napoleon real military experts to know who was the best.RegardsKenny

I think the general consensus is most correct- during the time of the Diadochs the celts also managed to cut down the Macedonian phalanx which opened up opportunities for Pyrrhus to subsequently rule Macedonia for a while. The quality of the phalangites were most questionable with most of the seasoned soldiers spent in the civil war.On the otherhand I do believe the Romans would have made a much tougher foe than the Persians- though Alex would've almost certainly prevail but not so swiftly...the Roman cavalry at the time was neither good quality nor numerous- no match against Alex's favorite shock weapon (cavalry). However they can also muster large numbers in infantry and that is a lot better quality than Persian's.One must bear in mind the armament of Roman infantry shield was also superior- they were able to hold the phalanx whilst at the battle of Charonea even the Theban Sacred Band was swiftly cut down with the Macedonian pike harpooning through more than one men with shields and all.A good analogy for the three infantry would be Persian's light armed troops likened to paper, the phalanx being scissors and Roman Maniples hammer. The Roman's shorter weaponry would've been a lot less suitable to hold off Persian cavalry and chase the more mobile light infantry, but effective to hold off the phalanx. The phalanx was perfect to hold off the only apparent strength of Persians- cavalry but can crack if pressured enough before the sheer wall of Roman shields locked in tortoise formation.

Rome wasn't a superior force during the time of Alexander and if you think they could have won against the Persian army I have some beautiful beach front property in NW Montana I'd love to sell ya.By the way, during the battle of Chaeronea, Philip began an orderly withdrawal or the wheel maneuver of his right wing enticing the Athenians foward which created a breach in their line. It appeared the battle was going poorly for Philip as the Athenians were successful in their initial attacks against his right wing cavalry. Philip was able to check the Athenian advance only by unleashing his powerful phalanx at the right moment, when the enemy's left phalanx became separated from the center. It has also been recorded that Philip was able to rout the enemy left wing and pivot left into the enemy center because Alexander had vigorously charged the Sacred Band and killed them to the last man (Dodge 129). Alexander's companions and his command of the Thessalian cavalry were not using pikes! They carried a long spear (Xyston) made of strong cornel wood and a short, stabbing sword (Xiphos).

Were the Romans, at Alexander's time, using the Legion system? I think not. I think they were armed and were fighting a Hoplite-like kind of warfare...

I agree at the time of Alex the legion system was no where near fully developed- the only reference to draw on would be when they were against Pyrrhus- still more than several decades later but by that time they most certainly were not fighting as hoplites but were using pila and a short sword (not yet a Gladius). But it was more or less a maniple system. I was merely making reference that their shields were able to hold the phalanx and the methods they used/ replaced the hoplite system with were much better to tackle the phalanx than the Persians. Please note my paper(Persia), stone (Maniple)and scissors (Phalanx) analogy so I was by no means suggesting that the Romans were better than the Persians- only that their systems/arms would have been more effective against Alex (they evolved it to counter the hoplites used by Etruscans). Persia may be a greater power in economics/ numbers but battle outcomes are more dependent on skilled generalship, arms/methods.

The Romans were using manipular tactics from the reforms of Camillus c.360 BC tactics which were developed to counter Gallic ferocity rather than hoplites.It is disingenuous to say that Rome had earlier been a military third rater, Macedonia had earlier been conquered variously by the Illyrians, Thracians, Persians, The Olynthian League, Thebes etc previous weakness does not mean that strength will not emerge. If we are comparing Pyrrhus with Alexander then we have to consider how he would have fared against the Rome that Pyrrhus faced and I doubt he would have done better; though I still rate him the better general; Pyrrhus' early and final campaigns demonstrate poor judgement that one could never impute to Alexander.Finally, it is well to remember that the sources are generally hostile to Pyrrhus so their judgements must be used with caution.

Thank you for your correction & more balanced line of logic, unlike the mindless worship of beastfulness and plain ignorance of Yiannis. However to say that the Etruscans (the overthrow of which was behind the founding of Rome) did not play a part in the development of Rome's distinct military systems may be streching it a bit.I guess we agree overall on other matters. But in answer to the original question Pyrrhus's techniques lacked Alexander's imagination and was probably no better than the subsequent Hasdrubal (similar techniques with central phalanx flanked by elephants/cavalry). From the look of it he could have been defeated by Scipio in a similar manner had the two met...

Thank you for your correction & more balanced line of logic, unlike the mindless worship of beastfulness and plain ignorance of Yiannis. However to say that the Etruscans (the overthrow of which was behind the founding of Rome) did not play a part in the development of Rome's distinct military systems may be streching it a bit.I guess we agree overall on other matters. But in answer to the original question Pyrrhus's techniques lacked Alexander's imagination and was probably no better than the subsequent Hasdrubal (similar techniques with central phalanx flanked by elephants/cavalry). From the look of it he could have been defeated by Scipio in a similar manner had the two met...