pothos.org

I watched a documentary on Hannibal vs Rome at Cannae. An absolute perfect victory there. What tactics would Alexander use if we timeswapped him? If memory serves me right (I could be deadwrong here) Hannibal knew a lot of his forces were not on par with the roman legionnaires, thus he had to device a clever plan? Also, he knew he had to destroy the roman army once and for all. So how would Alexander fare? Perhaps unfair to compare two armies a century apart? The problem as I see it is that Alexander would totally view his forces as on par with the roman army, and he would have total confidence in them. So, my issue here is that I think that Alex would take them on head to head, a real clash in other words, a total bloodbath. I have trouble viewing him devising ambushes on the flanks like Hannibal did at Cannae. However, he could have been worried too by legions and subsequently devised different tactics. Just my opinion here, what do you think?

Hi, sorry I know very little about Cannae, but it is my understanding that half the Roman infantry were poorly trained, and some of the commanders, at best, amateurs.

I don't think Alexander would have been lured into a position where his troops couldn't be effectively deployed and enveloped by the Carthaginians. He would have spotted the potential danger and made contingency plans, maybe holding back troops for a second wave to break the Carthaginian centre, or making a counter-move on the flanks maybe. He might even have seen the trap and refused to engage. I really don't know enough to say!

As about Alexander and Rome ... Javier Negrete, Alejandro Magno y las 'aquilas de Roma

Thank you, Alexias. But I was wondering how Alex would fare against the roman army at Cannae?

I really think it's an impossible question to answer, as the Roman army was a very different beast by that time than it had been before Hannibal began his campaign. At the end of the day, Alexander never had to face the Roman army in any form, so we cannot say how he would have fared against the pre-Hannibal army, let alone the army that faced Hannibal at Cannae. The Romans were certainly very different from the Persians, Sogdians, Bactrians, Indians, etc. ... but were they demonstrably 'better' or 'worse'?

If I were pushed to answer, I would suggest that Alexander *would* have prevailed, simply because Hannibal did - Alexander's ability to read a battlefield, and choose and adapt his tactics, suggests that he would have had the same level of success that Hannibal did, because the Roman war machine was not adaptable enough - and, as already pointed out, the system of recruitment and leadership appointment was too rigid (and not meritocratic). However, I'd rather not be pushed to answer ...

system1988 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 8:43 pm As about Alexander and Rome ... Javier Negrete, Alejandro Magno y las 'aquilas de Roma

Unfortunately I can't find an English translation of this! There only seems to be French and Greek from the original Spanish.

Hypaspist wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:54 pm Thank you, Alexias. But I was wondering how Alex would fare against the roman army at Cannae?

Would the Macedonian sarissas have been able to penetrate the heavy, overlapping, body shields of the Romans? I am really not sure - and it has undoubtedly been argued to death elsewhere, but the Romans struggled against the phalanx at Pydna (168 BC) and it was the uneven ground that broke the cohesion of the phalanx at that battle. Did the Romans have the heavy shields at Cannae, or were they later? At Cannae they may not have had the discipline to withstand the sarissa phalanx. As for the cavalry, I think the Companions would have beaten the Roman cavalry hands down - until the Romans started using stirrups, but that was several centuries away. Doubtless someone will say that that this is all rubbish, but at their peak, the experience, discipline and overwhelming confidence, as well as their confidence in their commanders and in Alexander, would have made Alexander's army very difficult for anyone to beat.

There is also an Italian translation of Negrete's book :'Alessandro e l'aquila di Roma'. I read it, but it's useless for a strategic comparison between Alexander and the Romans. I found it definitely boring.

hiphys wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:21 am There is also an Italian translation of Negrete's book :'Alessandro e l'aquila di Roma'. I read it, but it's useless for a strategic comparison between Alexander and the Romans. I found it definitely boring.

I won't be reading that, then!

About the novel ' Alejandro Magno y las aguilas de Roma'
Opinions are of course always subjective...I am of the opinion that the novel is not only not boring (!!!) but provides high quality scientific knowledge on topic such as astronomy ,martial arts, ways of life , religion customs, and a myriad of things of Macedonian , Romans and of other populations that lived in Italy during the 3 cent.BC The book would be a sort of achievement only for that matter ... The reader anxiously wants to know how Alexander will defeat the Romans , something which Alexander certainly achieves thanks to his superior intelligence.The plot is exciting and all the characters are developed wonderfully in many sub-stories .In the 575 pages (Greek edition) we find the brilliant Alexander again , but also we feel his psycological decline after the death of his lover , and his physical decline after so many cruel battles.

Dear Marco since you can read in Spanish ,Greek , French or Italian try to read at least one page of this novel in a bookstore ... (why pay after all ?)

Alexias wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 3:41 pm

Hypaspist wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:54 pm Thank you, Alexias. But I was wondering how Alex would fare against the roman army at Cannae?

Would the Macedonian sarissas have been able to penetrate the heavy, overlapping, body shields of the Romans? I am really not sure - and it has undoubtedly been argued to death elsewhere, but the Romans struggled against the phalanx at Pydna (168 BC) and it was the uneven ground that broke the cohesion of the phalanx at that battle. Did the Romans have the heavy shields at Cannae, or were they later?

The mid republican Roman legionaries at Cannae will have utilised the scutum - the shield we are familiar with. This shield and Roman armour were not proof against the Macedonian sarissa. At Kynoskephalai the peltasts (sarissa armed elite troops) and that part of the right of the phalanx that Philip was able to get into order had the Roman left on the point of rout. Polybius (18.25.2 & 4) notes the following:

Philip's right wing acquitted themselves splendidly in the battle, as they were charging from higher ground and were superior in the weight of their formation, the nature of their arms (my emphasis) also giving them a decided advantage on the present occasion [...] Flamininus, seeing that his men could not sustain the charge of the phalanx, but that since his left was being forced back, some of them having already perished and others retreating slowly...

The result of this is that the Roman left was on the point of rout, as Polybius lets slip when he describes the result of the phalanx being taken in the rear, panicking and fleeing (18.26.4):

As it is impossible for the phalanx to turn right about face or to fight man to man, he now pressed his attack home, killing those he found in his way, who were incapable of protecting themselves, until the whole Macedonian force were compelled to throw away their shields and take to flight, attacked now also by the troops who had yielded before their frontal charge and who now turned and faced them... (my emphasis).

More pointedly (yes, I went there) is the gruesome portrait of Plutarch when describing the fate of a Roman ala at Pydna (Amel. 20.3-4):

For the Romans tried to thrust aside the long spears of their enemies with their swords, or to crowd them back with their shields, or to seize and put them by with their very hands; 4 while the Macedonians, holding them firmly advanced with both hands, and piercing those who fell upon them, armour and all, since neither shield nor breastplate could resist the force of the Macedonian long spear, hurled headlong back the Pelignians and Marrucinians, who, with no consideration but with animal fury rushed upon the strokes that met them, and a certain death.

Essentially, the first line of the allied legion spitted themselves on the sarissai of the phalanx, Plutarch describing it as "cut to pieces".