NO Point Taking Rome First

[kennyxx]

Hi Porthonians I sometimes read in Pothos and other Scholars the argument Why didnt Alexander try the Romans.I think at the time of Alexander Rome was still inits infancy as a Military power even with wealth so what really was the point or incentive for Alexander to take Italy. I would say none.THe wealth riches and pewr was Persia and its empire so it bade sense to go for Persia.I dont really know what Alexander knew about Rome but even upto the time of Hannibal the Roman Armies were not as good untill Scipio altered changed and updated the Roman tactics to take Hannibal.I doubt at the time of 323 the Roman fighting machine was upto the Macedonians. Maybe a little too confident by the time Alexander was back to Babylon. Totally tooled up with money arms and resources I still feel at that time Alexander could have taken the Romans in his spare time.Kenny

[Paralus]

G'day Kenny.Ooh, now there is proposition. Where to start??
Firstly, Italy was indeed a prize. The riches of Magna Grecia and its cities attest to the wealth in metals and grains of the lower peninsular. Athens in the previous century had cast a wayward, lustful eye in this direction GÇô twice. The second time with disastrous results. The Greeks - and Alexander I'd wager - had little knowledge of the Romans at all. Polybius was still explaining their conquerers to them near two centuries later!That said, the first objective was always going to be Persia (unless provoked by some other). This for two reasons: firstly the Asia Minor region was heavily Greek settled and influenced and the propaganda of the "just and righteous" revenge neatly covered Macedonian imperialism; secondly, as you say, the immense wealth on offer.As to taking Rome in his spare time? As the Americans would say: I'll take that under advisement.
Pyhrrus, no mere condottiere, took a large army to the peninsular some forty five years after Alexander and, although winning his first two battles (technically anyway) lost near as many phalangites as the Romans legionaries. He of course lost the third encounter hands down: the Romans learnt. A roman gladius loose in the phalanx was occasion for slaughter Now, Pyhrrus GÇô though an extremely able and adept general GÇô was not Alexander. Nor were the phalangitis that he mustered Alexander's or Philip's phalangitis or "shield bearers" or royal squadron etc.
The "Roman experience" though pointed up the limitations of the Macedonian phalanx GÇô Alexander or no. It was a lesson the Romans GÇô though for a time hard pressed and near to panic GÇô repeated at Cynoscephale (198) and then delivered a master class in at Pydna in 168.

Several other Hellenistic monarchs GÇô in unfortunate procession GÇô failing to heed the lesson, subsequently went down to Roman maniples in exactly the same fashion.
Would Alexander have delivered the massive knockout blow needed to remove Rome from the card table?Paralus

[Paralus]

G'day Kenny.Ooh, now there is proposition. Where to start??
Firstly, Italy was indeed a prize. The riches of Magna Grecia and its cities attest to the wealth in metals and grains of the lower peninsular. Athens in the previous century had cast a wayward, lustful eye in this direction GÇô twice. The second time with disastrous results. The Greeks - and Alexander I'd wager - had little knowledge of the Romans at all. Polybius was still explaining their conquerers to them near two centuries later!That said, the first objective was always going to be Persia (unless provoked by some other). This for two reasons: firstly the Asia Minor region was heavily Greek settled and influenced and the propaganda of the "just and righteous" revenge neatly covered Macedonian imperialism; secondly, as you say, the immense wealth on offer.As to taking Rome in his spare time? As the Americans would say: I'll take that under advisement.
Pyhrrus, no mere condottiere, took a large army to the peninsular some forty five years after Alexander and, although winning his first two battles (technically anyway) lost near as many phalangites as the Romans legionaries. He of course lost the third encounter hands down: the Romans learnt. A roman gladius loose in the phalanx was occasion for slaughter Now, Pyhrrus GÇô though an extremely able and adept general GÇô was not Alexander. Nor were the phalangitis that he mustered Alexander's or Philip's phalangitis or "shield bearers" or royal squadron etc.
The "Roman experience" though pointed up the limitations of the Macedonian phalanx GÇô Alexander or no. It was a lesson the Romans GÇô though for a time hard pressed and near to panic GÇô repeated at Cynoscephale (198) and then delivered a master class in at Pydna in 168.

Several other Hellenistic monarchs GÇô in unfortunate procession GÇô failing to heed the lesson, subsequently went down to Roman maniples in exactly the same fashion.
Would Alexander have delivered the massive knockout blow needed to remove Rome from the card table?Paralus

[alejandro]

Hi Paralus,You said: GÇ£The "Roman experience" though pointed up the limitations of the Macedonian phalanx GÇô Alexander or noGÇ¥. And later on: GÇ£Would Alexander have delivered the massive knockout blow needed to remove Rome from the card table?GÇ¥I think both are connected.I have no knowledge of weaponry, and it may well be the case that the Romans found a (fool-proof) way of making the Macedonian phalanx useless, but whether it is Alexander or not the commander WILL (in my view, that is) play an important role, and here is where the connection with your later question is.Alexander may lose a battle against the Romans if his army (or one of its basic components, ie, the phalanx) were inherently inferior to theirs. But I will challenge strongly the idea of Alexander losing TWO battles to the Romans and I will certainly expect his conquering Rome at the end of the day. Alexander learned very early on about the different strengths of different units: he used Agranians as shock forces, Cretans as archers, Thessalians as cavalry. It could be claimed they were incorporated to the army by Philip, but Alexander understood the rationale for it and applied it himself when he added, for example, horse-riding archers after his encounter with the Scythians. He will certainly be able to learn from the defeat and adjust his army accordingly, and I am sure this (hypothetical) GÇ£blipGÇ¥ in his immaculate career would be just a learning experience.The only problem I can find in this situation is related to the political situation, ie, will he get the army support if it suffered a defeat in a foreign land? (Perdiccas in Egypt anyone?).But again, Alexander was a master strategos and tactician, so this defeat is (though not impossible) unlikely. And even if he gets into trouble he will not suffer a no-return defeat (think about the situation in Illyria (sp?) when he ordered the phalanx to make some flashy movements while in danger of a two-front attack and escaped unharmed). Also, had he invaded Italy, many peoples there would have offered support in order to eliminate their Roman enemies (as Omphis did against Porus in India), and part of this support will certainly be very valuable intelligence information about not only geography and logistics but also Roman tactics, thus allowing for proper planning before the battle.All the best,Alejandro

[alejandro]

Hi Paralus,You said: GÇ£The "Roman experience" though pointed up the limitations of the Macedonian phalanx GÇô Alexander or noGÇ¥. And later on: GÇ£Would Alexander have delivered the massive knockout blow needed to remove Rome from the card table?GÇ¥I think both are connected.I have no knowledge of weaponry, and it may well be the case that the Romans found a (fool-proof) way of making the Macedonian phalanx useless, but whether it is Alexander or not the commander WILL (in my view, that is) play an important role, and here is where the connection with your later question is.Alexander may lose a battle against the Romans if his army (or one of its basic components, ie, the phalanx) were inherently inferior to theirs. But I will challenge strongly the idea of Alexander losing TWO battles to the Romans and I will certainly expect his conquering Rome at the end of the day. Alexander learned very early on about the different strengths of different units: he used Agranians as shock forces, Cretans as archers, Thessalians as cavalry. It could be claimed they were incorporated to the army by Philip, but Alexander understood the rationale for it and applied it himself when he added, for example, horse-riding archers after his encounter with the Scythians. He will certainly be able to learn from the defeat and adjust his army accordingly, and I am sure this (hypothetical) GÇ£blipGÇ¥ in his immaculate career would be just a learning experience.The only problem I can find in this situation is related to the political situation, ie, will he get the army support if it suffered a defeat in a foreign land? (Perdiccas in Egypt anyone?).But again, Alexander was a master strategos and tactician, so this defeat is (though not impossible) unlikely. And even if he gets into trouble he will not suffer a no-return defeat (think about the situation in Illyria (sp?) when he ordered the phalanx to make some flashy movements while in danger of a two-front attack and escaped unharmed). Also, had he invaded Italy, many peoples there would have offered support in order to eliminate their Roman enemies (as Omphis did against Porus in India), and part of this support will certainly be very valuable intelligence information about not only geography and logistics but also Roman tactics, thus allowing for proper planning before the battle.All the best,Alejandro

[rjones2818]

Alejandro and all,I would think the question would be one of if Alexander could negate what was (again) a large population that could be drawn against for soldiers. The other question would be where he came up or crossed over from. If he took the time to deal with Carthage (either by conquest or diplomacy) and came up through the south of Italy, my guess is that he'd pick up even more troops willing to fight for him.My guess is that he wouldn't even lose a battle to the Romans. I'd even go so far as to say that he wouldn't even have to fight a battle against him and that the Romans would join the empire (perhaps in the hopes of biding time).Rex

[rjones2818]

Alejandro and all,I would think the question would be one of if Alexander could negate what was (again) a large population that could be drawn against for soldiers. The other question would be where he came up or crossed over from. If he took the time to deal with Carthage (either by conquest or diplomacy) and came up through the south of Italy, my guess is that he'd pick up even more troops willing to fight for him.My guess is that he wouldn't even lose a battle to the Romans. I'd even go so far as to say that he wouldn't even have to fight a battle against him and that the Romans would join the empire (perhaps in the hopes of biding time).Rex

[kennyxx]

Michael.Alej and RexFantastic responses all to my original post. Michael I take on board your notion about the Macedonian Phalanx been rigid. I think the difference with all the points taken are that Alexanders was not rigid nor predictable as Alej say He had the ability to adapt and incorporate to any situation. And with his forsight and intelligence briefings I am sure befor the first battle Alexander would be aware of Roman tactics and battle formations.Its fare to say that the Roman armies without the outsatnding Generals could be called rigid and somewhat predictable. They were that inept and predicatable that Hannibal lulled them again and again into Ambush. Until over a period of Time Scipio worked his out and adapted his own tactics to defaet him.Nemerous Roman legions throughout the Roman empire were massacred and lost. Mainly due to incompetent or over confident generals. Not all of Romes Generals were great generals. It would have taken A roman general of at least Caesars Calibre to level the odds wioth Alexander.A less able commander wouldnt know which way to turn.Kenny.Indeed other than a high class Roman general Alexander would take the Romans in his tea break.

[kennyxx]

Michael.Alej and RexFantastic responses all to my original post. Michael I take on board your notion about the Macedonian Phalanx been rigid. I think the difference with all the points taken are that Alexanders was not rigid nor predictable as Alej say He had the ability to adapt and incorporate to any situation. And with his forsight and intelligence briefings I am sure befor the first battle Alexander would be aware of Roman tactics and battle formations.Its fare to say that the Roman armies without the outsatnding Generals could be called rigid and somewhat predictable. They were that inept and predicatable that Hannibal lulled them again and again into Ambush. Until over a period of Time Scipio worked his out and adapted his own tactics to defaet him.Nemerous Roman legions throughout the Roman empire were massacred and lost. Mainly due to incompetent or over confident generals. Not all of Romes Generals were great generals. It would have taken A roman general of at least Caesars Calibre to level the odds wioth Alexander.A less able commander wouldnt know which way to turn.Kenny.Indeed other than a high class Roman general Alexander would take the Romans in his tea break.

[Paralus]

G'day allThe generalship of Alexander GÇô and of his high command GÇô is not in question. As with all hypotheticals, it becomes an issue of extrapolation and personal view.On the issue of Carthage/Sicily/Italy and the invasion from the south, the attitude of the Italian Greeks and the Sicilians (to the only such attempt we have GÇô Pyhrrus) was decidedly lukewarm. The Tarentines wanted out (and they'd asked for help GÇô you'd think they'd learnt from the Alexander of Epirus affair fifty years prior) and the Sicilians GÇô having had enough of tyrants recently GÇô made alliance with Rome (as did Carthage). In fact Pyhrrus guaranteed the advancement of Roman Italian ambitionIt is true that Alexander used the elements of his army inherited from Philip in specific ways. The oft called Ghurkhas (the Agrianes) were a case in point. As to the Thessalians as cavalry and Cretans as archers, that's a bit like using tanks as tanks and guns to fire bullets: it's what they were. Mounted archers GÇô yes. Not a sight one associates with Greek armaments.My readings of Roman history lead me to believe the Romans were not ever likely to "join" anyone's empire. Nor did they much demonstrate a time biding mentality (unless there was no other choice). Their dealings with the Greeks GÇô up to and including the "First Macedonian War" GÇô bespeak a lack of engagement and intent. Their dealings with perceived threats (such as Pyhrrus, Philip V, Perseus and Antiochus III) were rather different."...the situation in Illyria (sp?) when he ordered the phalanx to make some flashy movements while in danger of a two-front attack and escaped unharmed)."Quite so. The major problem (militarily) is the nature of the phalanx. We can only assume that the phalanx that Alexander would take to Italy was as well drilled as that above (the Silver Sields no doubt) inherited from Philip. Regardless, canny Roman generals learned the failings of both elephants (Manius Curius Dentatus, Beneventum 276) and the phalanx (Flamininus, 198 and Paullus, 168). Philip V actually went quite close to annihilating Flamininus untlil the phalanx was drawn too far forward, opened and slaughtered from within and the flanks. Paullus, having gone to "school" on the preceding, simply drew Perseus onto unsuitable ground, opened cracks and used mobile cohorts (squares) to attack the flanks.Cont.... (pardon)

[Paralus]

G'day allThe generalship of Alexander GÇô and of his high command GÇô is not in question. As with all hypotheticals, it becomes an issue of extrapolation and personal view.On the issue of Carthage/Sicily/Italy and the invasion from the south, the attitude of the Italian Greeks and the Sicilians (to the only such attempt we have GÇô Pyhrrus) was decidedly lukewarm. The Tarentines wanted out (and they'd asked for help GÇô you'd think they'd learnt from the Alexander of Epirus affair fifty years prior) and the Sicilians GÇô having had enough of tyrants recently GÇô made alliance with Rome (as did Carthage). In fact Pyhrrus guaranteed the advancement of Roman Italian ambitionIt is true that Alexander used the elements of his army inherited from Philip in specific ways. The oft called Ghurkhas (the Agrianes) were a case in point. As to the Thessalians as cavalry and Cretans as archers, that's a bit like using tanks as tanks and guns to fire bullets: it's what they were. Mounted archers GÇô yes. Not a sight one associates with Greek armaments.My readings of Roman history lead me to believe the Romans were not ever likely to "join" anyone's empire. Nor did they much demonstrate a time biding mentality (unless there was no other choice). Their dealings with the Greeks GÇô up to and including the "First Macedonian War" GÇô bespeak a lack of engagement and intent. Their dealings with perceived threats (such as Pyhrrus, Philip V, Perseus and Antiochus III) were rather different."...the situation in Illyria (sp?) when he ordered the phalanx to make some flashy movements while in danger of a two-front attack and escaped unharmed)."Quite so. The major problem (militarily) is the nature of the phalanx. We can only assume that the phalanx that Alexander would take to Italy was as well drilled as that above (the Silver Sields no doubt) inherited from Philip. Regardless, canny Roman generals learned the failings of both elephants (Manius Curius Dentatus, Beneventum 276) and the phalanx (Flamininus, 198 and Paullus, 168). Philip V actually went quite close to annihilating Flamininus untlil the phalanx was drawn too far forward, opened and slaughtered from within and the flanks. Paullus, having gone to "school" on the preceding, simply drew Perseus onto unsuitable ground, opened cracks and used mobile cohorts (squares) to attack the flanks.Cont.... (pardon)

[Paralus]

The Greeks, by and large were very slow to adapt or change the nature of their armies. The Anatolians and Achaeans did not adopt the Macedonian phalanx until the late third century.I suspect that Alexander may have prevailed. The certainty in this is that he would not be facing an ailing Achaemenid Empire and mostly outdated armament, but a strong and growing force with plentiful manpower. And one that had finished (for the time being) with its Latin and Samnite problems.Pardon the length, a little difficult to reply to all points in a shorter form. Will end now lest this slide toward "polemic".Paralus.

[Paralus]

The Greeks, by and large were very slow to adapt or change the nature of their armies. The Anatolians and Achaeans did not adopt the Macedonian phalanx until the late third century.I suspect that Alexander may have prevailed. The certainty in this is that he would not be facing an ailing Achaemenid Empire and mostly outdated armament, but a strong and growing force with plentiful manpower. And one that had finished (for the time being) with its Latin and Samnite problems.Pardon the length, a little difficult to reply to all points in a shorter form. Will end now lest this slide toward "polemic".Paralus.

[kennyxx]

Michael View the tactics.Romans generall attacked on masswuth the Infantry cutting a hammer blow and rolloing over the enemeis with > fairly useles rich boys affording horses to form cavarly at that time roman cavalry was no real force. Hannubal luleedthe entire legionar force to be drawn into a box then smashed from all sides/ fairly useles rich boys affording horses to form cavarly at that time roman cavalry was no real force. Hannubal luleedthe entire legionar force to be drawn into a box then smashed from all sides/ fairly useles rich boys affording horses to form cavarly at that time roman cavalry was no real force. Hannubal luleedthe entire legionar force to be drawn into a box then smashed from all sides/Alexander could hold a rock solid centarad defence and smash the Roman cavarly like taking candy from a baby . Then the Romans would be at Alexanders mercy from the rear.. Sorry Michael they would have neede Gaus Julius Caesar at that particilar time for the battle to have been credidle all other generals would have lost and lost wellKennyJust in time to get back for the barbe

[kennyxx]

Michael View the tactics.Romans generall attacked on masswuth the Infantry cutting a hammer blow and rolloing over the enemeis with > fairly useles rich boys affording horses to form cavarly at that time roman cavalry was no real force. Hannubal luleedthe entire legionar force to be drawn into a box then smashed from all sides/ fairly useles rich boys affording horses to form cavarly at that time roman cavalry was no real force. Hannubal luleedthe entire legionar force to be drawn into a box then smashed from all sides/ fairly useles rich boys affording horses to form cavarly at that time roman cavalry was no real force. Hannubal luleedthe entire legionar force to be drawn into a box then smashed from all sides/Alexander could hold a rock solid centarad defence and smash the Roman cavarly like taking candy from a baby . Then the Romans would be at Alexanders mercy from the rear.. Sorry Michael they would have neede Gaus Julius Caesar at that particilar time for the battle to have been credidle all other generals would have lost and lost wellKennyJust in time to get back for the barbe