Page 1 of 1
Livy and the Romans
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:00 pm
by rocktupac
Does anyone else think, as Livy wrote, that the Romans would have beaten Alexander and his army had the two came to battle? Livy makes some harsh critcisms of Alexander and his troops in his history of Rome (9.17-19), undoubtedly biased but were they justified? Any reactions to this alternative history?
Here We GO Again
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:01 pm
by jasonxx
Hail
Ive had many debates with Paralus about this and I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
I firmly believe Would have easily Crushed the Romans up to Scipio Africanus. Then it would have been a little more difficat. At the time of Alexander Rome was in its early days. So much so that Carthage was the pre eminent power befor Rome started getting the busness.
The Roman War Machine in my opinion learned most of its military lessons from the Stompings Hannibal gave them. Before Scipio satrted thinking this guy out Hannibal smashed every Roman army put before him. At his death Alexander had the money and rsorces to take Rome before supper.
If the so called Alexander journals did exist and he was mind set on Carthage. Strategically that for me wraps up a Western Conquest. The hardest Western nut at that time for Alexander was indeed Carthage. Its wealth and above all itsMaritime Power and its strategic positioning. Tells up more about Alexanders foreward thinking. I as I believe he would take Carthage he could hit Western Europe from 2 sides.
He would have total control of the Aegean.Game set and match.
Later Generals Caesar etc would be of similar military genious then I think its a case of personal choice. Paralus always insist the Phalanx to oRigid for the Roman Legions but I argue Alexander was always thinking altering adapting situations. Above all he had the best Cavalry the West has ever seen. And we know through history. That the Romans were not invincible ask Augustus about his lost legions and the Legions slaughtered by Spartacus.
Finally Hannibal had the Romans by the balls. He wasted his victories and waited for Rome to Surrender. 10 years he loitered in Italy waiting.
After Canea Alexander would have his siege engines outside Rome before you could say. I fancy a Caesar Salad. He would have throttled Rome into surrender.
Kenny
Julius Caesar vs Alexander
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:48 pm
by dean
Hi,
yep- rumble in the jungle,
this would be an interesting scenario- I think that here lady fortune would have the last say. Neither leaders rely on great numbers of troops but more on tactical acumen and planning- it would be a very hard to decide who would have been the "winner"?
Best regards,
Dean
Once more good Romans: unto the breach!
Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:44 pm
by Paralus
Ahh Kenny, for old time's sake, I couldn't resist. Once more unto the (phalanx) breach. Plutarch, Flamininus 8. 1-5:
The parties sent out on either side for purposes of ambush and reconnaissance encountered one another in a very short time and went to fighting near what are called the Cynoscephalae, or Dog's Heads. These are the sharp tops of hills lying close together alongside one another, and got their name from a resemblance in their shape. As was natural on a field so difficult, each party sending out aid from their camps to those who from time to time were getting the worst of it and retreating, until at last, when the air cleared up and they could see what was going on, they engaged with all their forces.
With his right wing, then, Philip had the advantage, since from higher ground he threw his entire phalanx upon the Romans, who could not withstand the weight of its interlocking shields and the sharpness of its projecting pikes; but his left wing was broken up and scattered along the hills, and Titus, despairing of his defeated wing, rode swiftly along to the other, and with it fell upon the Macedonians. These were unable to hold their phalanx together and maintain the depth of its formation (which was the main source of their strength), being prevented by the roughness and irregularity of the ground, while for fighting man to man they had armour which was too cumbersome and heavy. For the phalanx is like an animal of invincible strength as long as it is one body and can keep its shields locked together in a single formation; but when it has been broken up into its parts, each of its fighting men loses also his individual force, as well because of the manner in which he is armed as because his strength lies in the mutual support of the parts of the whole body rather than in himself. This wing of the Macedonians being routed, some of the Romans pursued the fugitives, while others dashed out upon the flank of the 5enemy who were still fighting and cut them down, so that very soon their victorious wing also faced about, threw away their weapons, and fled. The result was that no fewer than eight thousand Macedonians were slain, and five thousand were taken prisoners.
I shall have to find the quote – from Plutarch too I think – wherein Pyrrhus, encountering the Roman consular army for the first time, remarks along the lines of: "these aren't barbarians as we think. They are armored barbarians unlike those of the east". That will, of course, be a convoluted recollection, but, I shall assiduously search the Paralus Library of Congress for the correct wording!
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:19 am
by marcus
I don't usually bother with the "would the Romans have beaten Alexander?" question, but as I was reading through these posts I suddenly thought, prompted by Kenny's post: "
which Romans?"
Those who were contemporary with Alexander - my money's on Alexander. I'm not sure that Scipio Africanus would have posed too much trouble, but we can speculate all we like. Caesar and Alexander would have been a great battle to watch and the victor could have been either of them; but there were *plenty* of Roman generals, before and afterwards, who would have crumpled before Alexander.
Then again, Roman armour was much better than that of Alexander's army ... But Alexander used more cavalry ... But the Romans wore better shoes ... But Alexander had a mole above his left shoulder-blade* ... But the Romans spoke Latin ...
That's why I think it's an impossible question to answer ... which is why I don't usually get involved.
* I just made that up for the sake of the point I'm making - please don't start taking it as gospel, and please don't think it needs to be on the Internet Myths page!
ATB
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:13 am
by jasonxx
Marcus your spot on when saying which Roamns. And Paralus is walking with closed eyes. Basically he is measuring the Macedonian leaders that met the Romans as if they were Alexander.
Just be cause the Average English Commisioned officer who may be no good is at the command as the Brittish Square or thin line. Doesnt mean he will use them as well as Kitchener or Wellington.
For Paralus to think the Romans of his time would cause him problems. He either underates Alexander or has been hit on the head with a cricket ball. Paralus please stop everating the Romans. Europe is littered with incompetent roman Cammanders and legions. Alexander adds an extra dimension to any battle.
No lesser commanders than a Julius Caesar could do then its pay your money and take your choice.
Kenny
Jousting....
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:01 am
by Paralus
Ahhh, Kenny. We could go at this forever.
Like another fictional argument by a fictional character though..................
I love it!