Alexander could take Rome and Carthage easily. Before he died, he trained a massive new army that was supposed to push for new conquests. Plutarch said it was the strongest army in history, but they never got a chance to invade anyone. If the diadochi wars never occurred, the Macedonian Empire would be able to call far larger armies than the Roman’s. Also, remember that Alexander was the only classical general who crushed the Scythian horse archers, so he would have no problem with the Roman legions. And the elephants he faced in India were far bigger than the Carthaginian elephants. In conclusion, Alexander would easily win
Alexander had the best cavalry in the world at that point that's why he was able to deal with hirse archer rome on the other hand had to rely on finding good terrain in order to defeat them
I mean, the best comparison is to look at the Pyrrhic war. It didn’t happen that long after and did see a Macedonian-style army giving Rome a run for its money. Such a force with the backing of the peak Macedonian Empire instead of just Epirus and Magna Graecia would be tough to beat. Speaking of, in terms of alliance breakdowns, I think you do see something similar the the Pyrrhic War. Magna Graecia backs the Macedonians. The Italic states back the Romans (some of them grudgingly). Carthage supports the Romans once their interests in Sicily become threatened.
Yep, Pyrrhus only had the resources of Epirus to draw upon, and he still beat the Romans twice (albeit in such a way that he gave his name to the term Pyrrhic victory). Alexander's resources would have been magnitudes above what Pyrrhus was able to gather. Also, remember that Rome had grown quite a bit in the 43 years between Alexander's death and Pyrrhus' invasion - they basically just held Latium and Campania in 323 BC, while they controlled most of central Italy by 280 as the result of the Second and Third Samnite Wars.
To be fair your acting like the Roman Army of that day was the peak Roman army which isn't true the peak Roman army would still be defeated by Alexander but it would destroy his numbers and give him the hardest fight he could ever face if the Imperial Roman army were to have fought Alexander it would be a different story I think he would still win all battles barely but would probably end the war in stalemate his forces being decimated by the Romans, even after being destroyed completely they will keep coming back with more men and eventually Alexander would have to retreat but Rome would be too weak to advance bare in mind this is peak Rome during the Empire I'm talking about not Republican rising power Rome.
In high school I did a paper on Julius Caesar vs Alexander the Great. It ultimately came down to Caesar knowing Alexander tactics and the flexibly of the legion over the phalanx. With a weaker and less unified Rome like in this video then yes Alexander will win if he could convince Rome to surrender if not then it would be almost endless rebellions.
Yes I think of course Alexander would win in 350 bc because Rome was just starting. But if they were contemporaries at their peak than Rome would have won
@@marcobelli6856 I don't think Rome could have won even at it's peak. Hannibal was almost unstoppable against Rome, and you're saying Rome could have won against Alexander? Rome only wins when their enemies lack tactics or they have superior infantry(against Barbarians) or Calvary(against Hannibal). Alexander had better tactics, infantry and calvary😂
@@AkumaDaniel-dz1oe are you dumb you really think the Punic wars were Rome at his peak? They didn’t even control all of italy at the peak they had All of italy France England North Africa Greece Turkey…. Rome was the underdog at the start of the Punic wars Carthage was bigger richer more populated…. Rome peak his centuries after
@@AkumaDaniel-dz1oe Rome at its peak is immeasurably stronger than either Rome when it fought Carthage, OR Rome in this video. It simply has a much larger population and economy than Macedonia and will win in the end. If you want any classical era power to defeat peak Rome, it has to be China, or perhaps Rome itself via civil war.
@@plasmakitten4261 You make a valid point, yes. But imagine this: someone better than Hannibal beats Rome severally and then enters Italy. However unlike Hannibal, he has had the experience of subduing even extremely wealthy empires like Persia and India. He enters Italy and again unlike Hannibal, sets up bases and is also a genius at taking cities. That is unleashed on Rome for two years alone and you think they can stand🤣? Alexander's empire unlike the Diadochi would be extremely unified similar to Rome(check what Alexander plans had in store for unifying his empire before his death and tremble). Rome simply has no advantage!!! Name one that they would possess!!!
Please do a video where Macedonian empire fights an united Italian anti aggression pact and their ally Carthage. This can be equivalent of an antique world war. perhaps the Asian nations near Alexander's Empire can be involved too like Magadha or the Chinese states
At this point it is pretty interesting to consider since Rome would only be 50 years away from conquering the Italian Peninsula, likewise they were also completely psychotic at this time, where military losses didn't have any bearing on them given how great their leadership class was. But then again Alexander never lost a battle, he may have suffered great losses, but he himself never lost. I'd guess Alexander would start off with conquering Southern Italy, although he wouldn't enjoy popular support like Pyrrhus did since the Romans weren't a threat to Southern Italy, not that would necessarily stop him from making it a base of operations. Likewise I think Alexander would be perfectly capable of defeating the Romans in the field, I think where he may run into problems is the fact that they wouldn't given up and would have access to pretty decent manpower within their immediate vicinity although Alexander would be able to draw from Rome's enemies at this time for potential support. The Biggest problem Alexander would have would be logistics where while he may be able to live off the land for a time, eventually he'd have to draw support from his wider Empire, which would involve crossing the Adriatic; if campaigning continues through winter that could prove to be an issue, but then again Hannibal was able to last in Italy with virtually no support for over a decade. However, Alexanders men could potentially mutiny against him like see in Italy, if say this campaign used the Persians recruits he had been training it could be even more detrimental given that he would need to show his excellence in campaigns very quickly to prove his legitimacy them, especially given what their expectation of him would be. So while I don't think the Romans would necessarily be able to defeat Alexander per say, I would also say Alexander has a lot going against him when campaigning against the Romans.
Whilst I agree on the tactical advantage of the legion over the phalanx, at this point the Marian reforms haven't happened yet so the Roman army is more of a citizen militia than the professional legions of popular conception. Still very capable but not quite as awe-inspiring. That and Alexander's other more flexible units like the Hypaspists, the Thracians and the Companion Cavalry give him a wider range of weapons in his arsenal.
The fact that Livy underestimates Alexander’s use of Persian and Egyptian forces is exactly why Alexander would win. That assumption would end up being Rome’s undoing.
I feel like Livy was considering a Rome way further along that what would have actually been there at the time. If we're talking about a Rome from the 2nd punic war of course all he said is true, superior tactics, superior to even numbers, home advantage etc. but thinking Rome could do that more than 100 years earlier is very optimistic... I can only see them winning if Alexander dies or every possible ally includung Carthage actually helps and just starve the Macedonians out of resources until they have to leave Italian soil.
The only reason Alexander didn't was because the real wealth at the time existed in the east . Italy was considered backwater and poor . It is also why Alexander didn't push in Balkans or illyria .
Nobody beats Alexander in open battle. He had an innate instinct for the tides of battle, he literally fought all his battles on his enemies terms, which were unpredictable conflicts in which stratagem will only take you so far. Plus Alexander’s bravery transcends that of every roman general. I don’t think there is was any army that could withstand the overwhelming ferocity of Alexander’s companion cavalry charge, led by he himself. On top of that he was winning one on one duels with prestigious enemy warriors, giving him an even more physiological advantage over his enemy.
Speaking of adapting and succession of military commanders, were there instances where Rome/Eastern Rome/Byzantium was destroyed internally by this kind of process? For example, when they elected the incompetent Phocas, which in turn led to the Arab conquests of the Middle-East, or when the Byzantines had civil strife when the Turks conquered Asia Minior following the battle of Manzikert and Romanos' capture and execution by the Byzantines, leading to years of civil strife before Alexios I restored order?
Actually tactics wouldn’t be a problem since the legions weren’t at that time and if it was set in the future when they were, Alexander would likely have different units or else it you be unfair, like trying to put a army in 1900 against a modern army.
Yes! Although Rome was a weak third-rate power in Alexander's lifetime, he had supposedly heard of them and fighting abilities, and was interested in testing his phalanx against them following the completion of the consolidation of his Persian possessions. But, of course, his chance never came, so we'll never know for sure. It seems doubtful that Rome at that time could have won, though.
I have to rebut Livy's point about the legions. Rome had not yet adopted the maniple system at the time Alexander died. That would only happen during the Samnite wars about ten years later. That is more than enough time for Alexander to land in Italy and face a Roman enemy which also uses phalanx soldiers. So the infantry would be roughly equal, where it not for the fact that Macedonian phalangites had been refined under Philip II, and drilled in the famous hammer and anvil tactic. Which is where the Romans come up woefully short: cavalry. The Romans simply cannot equal the Macedonians in terms of horsemanship, and were often reliant on mercenaries and auxiliaries for scouting, harassing and charging the enemy from horseback. Only at this point in Roman history, they are confined to Italy, and the quality of any available hired cavalry would not be too different from the regular equites of Rome. So even without the numbers of the east, I would give this point to Alexander in its entirety.
Alexander would have brought many Asiatic horse archers like the ones he used at the Hydaspes to Italy. They would have peppered the legions long before the phalanx and cavalry engaged. Hannibal crushed the legions when Rome was a lot more powerful due to his professional army vs citizen army, and would have won the war had carthage sent reinforcements and supported him. This would not have been an issue for Alexander against a much weaker Rome. I believe Rome would have accepted vassalage without a fight and then waited it out until the macedonian empire would eventually splinter after the death of Alexander due to an eventual assassination. Then Rome would have continued on its course to empire. Alexander surviving 323 BC and threatening Italy would have just delayed roman unification of Italy by one generation.
Alexander's biggest advantage over every enemy, and I mean every, is that he was extremely innovative. He fought a multitude of enemies employing different tactics, and Alexander understood them well and defeated them, never losing once. Yes, Romans learned from defeats, but guess what, Alexander didn't need defeats to learn. He was so uncannily intuitive. Homefield advantage? You're talking as if Alexander achieved all his conquests on his homefield. He literally outmaouevered his foes in their own backyard. Also post Alexander the phalanx became a bunch of levy troops with increased sarissa lengths which made them very sluggish. Alexanders phalanx was a discipled and drilled force with smaller sarissa and extremely manoueverable. The phalanx of the Diadochi devolved into the Peloponnesian war tactics phalanx on phalanx clashes. While Alexander was a combined arms genius. The ratio of cavalry to infantry in Alexanders armys was 1 is to 5 while in the Diadochi armies it was 1 is to 10 or less. Also Alexander was quick to seemlessly incorporate local tactics to his own forces, like Agrianian light troops and horse archers and guess what he didn't include? Elephants. That's right, while most Diadochi heavily invested in Elephants, Alexander somehow saw their weaknesses and unreliability. So, once again he was extremely smart when he considered what to include and what not to, when it came to complimenting his army. I have no doubt Alexander would have even included a bunch of flexible manipular troops to his army if he saw their strengths despite defeating them (similar to how he acknowledged the strengths of various tactics he overcame).
Yep, he also had the Hypaspists, who, while historians disagree on what exactly they looked like, would certainly be better at fighting in the uneven terrain of Italy.
Not really considering that all the successors went to war against each other in anatolia leaving the eastern parts unattended ,and as we see none revolted
Did Livy really say that Alexander couldn't have conquered the Rome of the past? Or did he mean the Rome of his day. There is a huge difference between those two entities. You seem to go for the first alternative, and personally I am not so sure you are right.
This, I read this passage in Livy a few weeks ago, and although there are arguments to be made for Rome to succeed against Alexander, the ones he gave were, uh, not particularly good.
I think he could have conquered Rome, but I don't know if he wanted to, I think it's likely that he would have conquered regions like India or even Africa, Rome wasn't a big deal at that time either
Alexander would steamroll Rome, Alexander died in 323, had he not died of an illness and attacked Rome, Rome wouldn’t have the manpower to compete, they still a regional power at the time. They hadn’t taken half of Italy yet.
I say no, not without adaptation (that Rome would be afforded as well) Luckily, we have an answer for this; the Pyrrhic War. And Macedonian strats got clowned on. Badly.
Alexander claps the Romans, he was the ancient era's Napoleon and could probably adapt to any tech advantage from the Romans or even adapt them for himself
*Alexander the Great VS Julius Caesar?* Oh nah mate, the Greek armies vs Roman Legions would be so skewed. Alexander's finest Macedonian unit versus Caeser's *Legio X Equestrius* would be epic to see, but Alexander looses. Now, if Alexander was a Roman General? Shoot.... he'd have a Greek-raised Legion, and modifed auxiliaries to fit his Macedonian preferences. And boom, that's it, all of Rome's enemies to the East gotta face "The Great" man himself.
Another very interesting hypothetical concerns India - Alexander didn't reach the "real" India -he only got as far as the Indus Valley and a lot of this is in Pakistan and not India. The Ganges Valley (arguably the real India) was ruled by the Rana dynasty (I think that's what it was called" and from what I can gather this dynasty and its current maharajah was highly unpopular with the Indians largely because of the lowly birth of the founder. So if Alexander had continued into the Ganges Valley would the Indians have deserted to him en masse or would they have rallied behind their ruler?
Same with modern Macedonia -came into existence when communism in the Balkans collapsed in late 1980's and still causes a bitter controversy between slavic Macedonians (north Macedonia) and Greek region of Macedonia.@@afridge8608
Big mistake of Alexander to enter so deep in Asia. He should keep Minor Asia as Darius have offered him (and his daughter) plus money and then with Eastern borders covered to move to the West. The Greeks were very few in population terms for Asia lands that Alexander conquered and very far from Greece. In Minor Asia were already Greek colonies and also in Sicily and south Italian peninsula (known as Grecia Mare, Μεγάλη Ελλάδα). If you add the Balkans at least till the Danube river you have a big empire with many Greeks and Greece as an epicenter so would be easier to Hellenised the rest of population (like what happened in Minor Asia). Another benefit would be that without knowing he would have annihilate Rome before even becoming an empire....
Alexander never even conquered Asia. He reached at the border of India and got defeated there and went back to Babylon. Then he died two years later. Who taught you that he went deep into Asia? WTF
Livy was a jingoist Latin writer who suffered complexes of inferiority in front of the Greeks. Of course he would claim that Romans would easily beat Alexander the Great. Back in reality, it took Romans nearly 1 century to conquer the Greeks in spite of the fact that about 50% of Greek states were actually allied to them (!!!) and in spite of the fact that Greeks were in terminal decline after centuries of inner fratricidal warfare (far more than the wars among the Latins) .Even when Rome faced Hannibal's Carthage, the latter was also in terminal decline - just to give a comparison, when Carthage attacked Syracuse in 480 BC they sent 300,000 men, more than 200 military vessels and four digits of cargo ships, a massive army. But when Hannibal attacked Rome he merely had an army of 50,000 mercenaries and no fleet, utterly ridiculous and still Romans struggled - they lost all battles embarassingly losing overall more than a 100,000 men (a total disgrace) and then only drawing the last battle of Zama. Pathetic. The single reason Rome won was their .... overpopulation. The performance of legions against the Greek phalanxes was also as woeful as the performance of against Hannibal. They had fought Pyrrhus of Epirus losing every single battle and drawing in the last at Beneventum (calling it a victory just because Pyrrhus packed up and left), and this even if for Pyrrhus the Romans was a secondary front when his main one was against the Carthagenians of western Sicily, hence he had to move up and down -- so pathetic were Romans that they could not close the clamp with their Carthagenian allies. They failed miserably for 2 years to besiege Syracuse (a city in terminall decline after centuries of warfare with Carthage) and they had to have the Iberian mercenaries from within open up the outer walls for them to enter. Then in every single (literatly, this is not a kind of saying, thiis is literally every single) battle against mainland Greek armies and against the Seleucid Empire in Minor asia, the Roman legions failed miserably to perform agains the phalanxes and the battles were won for the Roman side almost singlehanded by their pro-Roman Greek allies who operated on the battlefield independently under their own generals, namely the Aetolians and Thessalians in mainland Greece and the Pergamians in Minor Asia. And of course much of the Roman fleets in Greece were actualy the Rhodian fleets. So no, there is not a chance that the inept republican legions could do anything against Alexander the Great. In realitty Allexander the Great would smash the Romans and the Carthagenians together even if they were lead by Ceasar and Hannibal together. No comparison.
Rome was not that powerful in the fourth century BCE. During the wars of Alexander, the dead had to be replaced over time and his supply of new recruits did not run dry and the Romans used a phalanx before developing their legion system and this so far enough back in time to questions what methods they actually mastered against someone as formidable as Alexander. Alexander would still push over the Hindu Kush mountains and defeat Poros first, so would only amass a western invasion if he lived beyond his 33rd birthday. That changes history in an unpredictable way and perhaps he would of lived ton 60 and conquered Italy before then.
Livy is the worst person to use as some sort of authority on military matters. The very foundation of this video is flawed. Great way to start an argument by using a person who had zero military experience as your foil.
I highly doubt Alexander the Great could win. I do think he was a great commander but his victories were in large part due to his well trained and blooded veterans who were on the brink of mutiny by the end of the Persian war. He would have had to at the very least raise entirely new armies of different ethnic groups with language and goal differences that would severely limit his new armies efficency. He could undoubtedly rampage across Italy for a while like the second Punic War but after his death whenever that may be it is almost a certainty that the Empire would fracture and Greece would eventually suffer a fate similar to Carthage. Alexander was in my mind probably the best General in history but his Empire was built on shaky foundations and would be unable to survive under its own weight without someone like him at the head of it.
Alexander would have crushed rome if he did come back from the east his army had multiple veterans,he had number advantage,far better cavalry plus he would have had an easy time finding allies in italy even if we ignore the greeks already there who too could offer him supplies and their forces
@@wankawanka3053 As I said the troops that conquered the Persian Empire were done. They didn't want to fight anymore and Alexander was forced to quit his march towards the 'Encircling Sea' a mayor point as it is believed to be the reason for the march across the desert as a form of punishment. That army regardless of timeline changes wanted to go home and Alexander had no realistic means of keeping them. So the vast majority of his veteran soldiers are not even there when this theoretical invasion happens. As for the Greek cities in Italy. They were not 'Greek' in the modern sense of the word. They had Greek heritage but their nationalistic views would be placed on their own cities and states. Like Sparta and Athens. They were from the same heritage but their own personal view was that they were Spartan/Athenian first so without a genuine reason for the Italian Greeks to back him he would be seen as an invader by some and a liberator by others. Conquering one large Empire is vastly easier than dealing with many smaller states with their own goals and ambitions. If he did enter Italy it would be akin to the Romans entering Germania. Could the Romans have won? Yes but was it politically and financially viable? No.
@@kristiancusack7355 You are wrong once again. Alexander's army wasn't done not even close as we see the very same men immediately start waging wars after his death. Half of his army was also his age with an exception being the silver shields. The greeks of italy would have proven to be allies most importantly Taras and syracuse , Taras had asked multiple Greek rulers to aid them in the war against the Italic , from Alexander the Molossian, Archidamus iii of Sparta and finally Pyrrhus , many of them were under samnite threats soI could see them asking for Alexander's help ,I never said anything about them being greek would be a reason for them to ally with him but given already existing history it's quite possible. Far more possible than all of italy uniting to fight alexander that's for sure "conquering a vast empire is far easier than small states" is this some kind of a joke or did you fell asleep when alexander and his dad were dealing with the thracians, the illyrians and the other greeks?All of them were smaller states with their own armies and tactics and we know how that ended. At the time we are speaking around 323 these states had been at war for some years now with the romans suffering their most humilating defeat at the hands of the samnite in caudine forks in 321 and then not waging a war against them until 316 bc italy and germania are too way different things that's a pointless comparison. Italy doesn't have huge forest, 99% war like tribes people, cold climates like germania . Italy has only some scattered tribes , some city states and some small mountains(compared to the ones in bactria for example) in other words i just described you the balkans ... italy unlike germania allows you to invade it through the sea and open multiple fronts and it's far smaller than germania i could go on but i hope that you realised why the germania=italy example is terrible
Alexander could take Rome and Carthage easily. Before he died, he trained a massive new army that was supposed to push for new conquests. Plutarch said it was the strongest army in history, but they never got a chance to invade anyone. If the diadochi wars never occurred, the Macedonian Empire would be able to call far larger armies than the Roman’s. Also, remember that Alexander was the only classical general who crushed the Scythian horse archers, so he would have no problem with the Roman legions. And the elephants he faced in India were far bigger than the Carthaginian elephants. In conclusion, Alexander would easily win
Alexander was so op he had to be nerfed by alcoholism and removed from the latest patch.
I'd pit Alexandros's Macedonian armies against the Qin Shihuangdi's standard Chinese Imperial armies
Come on guys you know very well Alexander is the best general in the world and is tru
Alexander had the best cavalry in the world at that point that's why he was able to deal with hirse archer rome on the other hand had to rely on finding good terrain in order to defeat them
bruh you are meat riding Alexander more than roxalana
We need more collabs with Livy
Livy - Herodotus collab when
Livy Rosman💀
@@stupiditiusmaximusGotham chess is so disrespectful towards new players
@@stupiditiusmaximusGotham chess fans never fail to mention Gotham chess
@@TbV-st8efwhat?
Livy has been REAL quiet since this dropped....
Main protagonism doesn't exi-
Yes it doesn't
@@Ghostfire666what does that even mean? what are you talking about??
Someone has early access
so true
It doesn’t. Stop pretending it does
I mean, the best comparison is to look at the Pyrrhic war. It didn’t happen that long after and did see a Macedonian-style army giving Rome a run for its money. Such a force with the backing of the peak Macedonian Empire instead of just Epirus and Magna Graecia would be tough to beat.
Speaking of, in terms of alliance breakdowns, I think you do see something similar the the Pyrrhic War. Magna Graecia backs the Macedonians. The Italic states back the Romans (some of them grudgingly). Carthage supports the Romans once their interests in Sicily become threatened.
Yep, Pyrrhus only had the resources of Epirus to draw upon, and he still beat the Romans twice (albeit in such a way that he gave his name to the term Pyrrhic victory). Alexander's resources would have been magnitudes above what Pyrrhus was able to gather. Also, remember that Rome had grown quite a bit in the 43 years between Alexander's death and Pyrrhus' invasion - they basically just held Latium and Campania in 323 BC, while they controlled most of central Italy by 280 as the result of the Second and Third Samnite Wars.
Still Rome didn’t hear no bell.
To be fair your acting like the Roman Army of that day was the peak Roman army which isn't true the peak Roman army would still be defeated by Alexander but it would destroy his numbers and give him the hardest fight he could ever face if the Imperial Roman army were to have fought Alexander it would be a different story I think he would still win all battles barely but would probably end the war in stalemate his forces being decimated by the Romans, even after being destroyed completely they will keep coming back with more men and eventually Alexander would have to retreat but Rome would be too weak to advance bare in mind this is peak Rome during the Empire I'm talking about not Republican rising power Rome.
but wih a better pyrrhus , with better army and resources fighting a weaker rome
I would love more of this idea of you debating people from the time itself :D, what ive seen so far it seems really cool!
Basically, imagine a better Pyrrhus with a far bigger army and empire supplying him. It doesn't end well for the Romans.
I am dieing of laughter when you said Livy (I thought it was going to be a TH-camr)
In high school I did a paper on Julius Caesar vs Alexander the Great. It ultimately came down to Caesar knowing Alexander tactics and the flexibly of the legion over the phalanx. With a weaker and less unified Rome like in this video then yes Alexander will win if he could convince Rome to surrender if not then it would be almost endless rebellions.
Yes I think of course Alexander would win in 350 bc because Rome was just starting. But if they were contemporaries at their peak than Rome would have won
@@marcobelli6856 I don't think Rome could have won even at it's peak. Hannibal was almost unstoppable against Rome, and you're saying Rome could have won against Alexander? Rome only wins when their enemies lack tactics or they have superior infantry(against Barbarians) or Calvary(against Hannibal). Alexander had better tactics, infantry and calvary😂
@@AkumaDaniel-dz1oe are you dumb you really think the Punic wars were Rome at his peak? They didn’t even control all of italy at the peak they had All of italy France England North Africa Greece Turkey…. Rome was the underdog at the start of the Punic wars Carthage was bigger richer more populated…. Rome peak his centuries after
@@AkumaDaniel-dz1oe Rome at its peak is immeasurably stronger than either Rome when it fought Carthage, OR Rome in this video. It simply has a much larger population and economy than Macedonia and will win in the end. If you want any classical era power to defeat peak Rome, it has to be China, or perhaps Rome itself via civil war.
@@plasmakitten4261 You make a valid point, yes. But imagine this: someone better than Hannibal beats Rome severally and then enters Italy. However unlike Hannibal, he has had the experience of subduing even extremely wealthy empires like Persia and India. He enters Italy and again unlike Hannibal, sets up bases and is also a genius at taking cities. That is unleashed on Rome for two years alone and you think they can stand🤣? Alexander's empire unlike the Diadochi would be extremely unified similar to Rome(check what Alexander plans had in store for unifying his empire before his death and tremble). Rome simply has no advantage!!! Name one that they would possess!!!
Please do a video where Macedonian empire fights an united Italian anti aggression pact and their ally Carthage. This can be equivalent of an antique world war. perhaps the Asian nations near Alexander's Empire can be involved too like Magadha or the Chinese states
Good job with the teacher look!
PH could probably nail any kind of look
Ghosty cameo goes hard 🗿
Banger as usual
Awesome video
At this point it is pretty interesting to consider since Rome would only be 50 years away from conquering the Italian Peninsula, likewise they were also completely psychotic at this time, where military losses didn't have any bearing on them given how great their leadership class was. But then again Alexander never lost a battle, he may have suffered great losses, but he himself never lost. I'd guess Alexander would start off with conquering Southern Italy, although he wouldn't enjoy popular support like Pyrrhus did since the Romans weren't a threat to Southern Italy, not that would necessarily stop him from making it a base of operations. Likewise I think Alexander would be perfectly capable of defeating the Romans in the field, I think where he may run into problems is the fact that they wouldn't given up and would have access to pretty decent manpower within their immediate vicinity although Alexander would be able to draw from Rome's enemies at this time for potential support. The Biggest problem Alexander would have would be logistics where while he may be able to live off the land for a time, eventually he'd have to draw support from his wider Empire, which would involve crossing the Adriatic; if campaigning continues through winter that could prove to be an issue, but then again Hannibal was able to last in Italy with virtually no support for over a decade. However, Alexanders men could potentially mutiny against him like see in Italy, if say this campaign used the Persians recruits he had been training it could be even more detrimental given that he would need to show his excellence in campaigns very quickly to prove his legitimacy them, especially given what their expectation of him would be. So while I don't think the Romans would necessarily be able to defeat Alexander per say, I would also say Alexander has a lot going against him when campaigning against the Romans.
I feel like people have forgotten just how OP Alexander was.
He had plot armor
15:15 Augustus is pro-panda that’s awesome! (Typo pun aside, did the romans know about pandas?)
Europe knew about pandas only from 1869 when a French sailor brought back the skin of a panda from China
Whilst I agree on the tactical advantage of the legion over the phalanx, at this point the Marian reforms haven't happened yet so the Roman army is more of a citizen militia than the professional legions of popular conception. Still very capable but not quite as awe-inspiring. That and Alexander's other more flexible units like the Hypaspists, the Thracians and the Companion Cavalry give him a wider range of weapons in his arsenal.
Alexander: Nah, I'd win
...Dutch Jerma?
So then it’s Kiema
Love your content 😊😊❤❤❤❤
Ooooh I've been watching your main channel for ages but this is the first time I've found this one
The fact that Livy underestimates Alexander’s use of Persian and Egyptian forces is exactly why Alexander would win. That assumption would end up being Rome’s undoing.
I feel like Livy was considering a Rome way further along that what would have actually been there at the time. If we're talking about a Rome from the 2nd punic war of course all he said is true, superior tactics, superior to even numbers, home advantage etc. but thinking Rome could do that more than 100 years earlier is very optimistic... I can only see them winning if Alexander dies or every possible ally includung Carthage actually helps and just starve the Macedonians out of resources until they have to leave Italian soil.
Alexander's empire would splinter as well.
Great video
Great video 👍
The Patrick Bateman hair
Livy has been real quiet since this video was dropped
Great, I want to see more of this
The only reason Alexander didn't was because the real wealth at the time existed in the east . Italy was considered backwater and poor . It is also why Alexander didn't push in Balkans or illyria .
Nobody beats Alexander in open battle. He had an innate instinct for the tides of battle, he literally fought all his battles on his enemies terms, which were unpredictable conflicts in which stratagem will only take you so far. Plus Alexander’s bravery transcends that of every roman general. I don’t think there is was any army that could withstand the overwhelming ferocity of Alexander’s companion cavalry charge, led by he himself. On top of that he was winning one on one duels with prestigious enemy warriors, giving him an even more physiological advantage over his enemy.
Something to think about
When augustus became emperor he was 32
When alexander died he was 32
No, Alexander was 33.
Which book are you citing from Livy’s History of Rome?
Speaking of adapting and succession of military commanders, were there instances where Rome/Eastern Rome/Byzantium was destroyed internally by this kind of process? For example, when they elected the incompetent Phocas, which in turn led to the Arab conquests of the Middle-East, or when the Byzantines had civil strife when the Turks conquered Asia Minior following the battle of Manzikert and Romanos' capture and execution by the Byzantines, leading to years of civil strife before Alexios I restored order?
Actually tactics wouldn’t be a problem since the legions weren’t at that time and if it was set in the future when they were, Alexander would likely have different units or else it you be unfair, like trying to put a army in 1900 against a modern army.
Yes! Although Rome was a weak third-rate power in Alexander's lifetime, he had supposedly heard of them and fighting abilities, and was interested in testing his phalanx against them following the completion of the consolidation of his Persian possessions. But, of course, his chance never came, so we'll never know for sure. It seems doubtful that Rome at that time could have won, though.
I have to rebut Livy's point about the legions. Rome had not yet adopted the maniple system at the time Alexander died. That would only happen during the Samnite wars about ten years later. That is more than enough time for Alexander to land in Italy and face a Roman enemy which also uses phalanx soldiers. So the infantry would be roughly equal, where it not for the fact that Macedonian phalangites had been refined under Philip II, and drilled in the famous hammer and anvil tactic. Which is where the Romans come up woefully short: cavalry. The Romans simply cannot equal the Macedonians in terms of horsemanship, and were often reliant on mercenaries and auxiliaries for scouting, harassing and charging the enemy from horseback. Only at this point in Roman history, they are confined to Italy, and the quality of any available hired cavalry would not be too different from the regular equites of Rome. So even without the numbers of the east, I would give this point to Alexander in its entirety.
Alexander would have brought many Asiatic horse archers like the ones he used at the Hydaspes to Italy. They would have peppered the legions long before the phalanx and cavalry engaged. Hannibal crushed the legions when Rome was a lot more powerful due to his professional army vs citizen army, and would have won the war had carthage sent reinforcements and supported him. This would not have been an issue for Alexander against a much weaker Rome. I believe Rome would have accepted vassalage without a fight and then waited it out until the macedonian empire would eventually splinter after the death of Alexander due to an eventual assassination. Then Rome would have continued on its course to empire. Alexander surviving 323 BC and threatening Italy would have just delayed roman unification of Italy by one generation.
Now pit some historic premodern western empire's contemporary comparisons against far eastern empires!
Alexander's biggest advantage over every enemy, and I mean every, is that he was extremely innovative. He fought a multitude of enemies employing different tactics, and Alexander understood them well and defeated them, never losing once. Yes, Romans learned from defeats, but guess what, Alexander didn't need defeats to learn. He was so uncannily intuitive.
Homefield advantage? You're talking as if Alexander achieved all his conquests on his homefield. He literally outmaouevered his foes in their own backyard.
Also post Alexander the phalanx became a bunch of levy troops with increased sarissa lengths which made them very sluggish. Alexanders phalanx was a discipled and drilled force with smaller sarissa and extremely manoueverable. The phalanx of the Diadochi devolved into the Peloponnesian war tactics phalanx on phalanx clashes. While Alexander was a combined arms genius. The ratio of cavalry to infantry in Alexanders armys was 1 is to 5 while in the Diadochi armies it was 1 is to 10 or less.
Also Alexander was quick to seemlessly incorporate local tactics to his own forces, like Agrianian light troops and horse archers and guess what he didn't include? Elephants. That's right, while most Diadochi heavily invested in Elephants, Alexander somehow saw their weaknesses and unreliability. So, once again he was extremely smart when he considered what to include and what not to, when it came to complimenting his army. I have no doubt Alexander would have even included a bunch of flexible manipular troops to his army if he saw their strengths despite defeating them (similar to how he acknowledged the strengths of various tactics he overcame).
Yep, he also had the Hypaspists, who, while historians disagree on what exactly they looked like, would certainly be better at fighting in the uneven terrain of Italy.
I love how half of Livy's argument is calling his opponents pussies.
Livy: "Come at me you lily-livered pansies!"
When I saw the thumbnail I thought you were jerma985
*Ab urbe condita, not "Ub", that's the most basic smh.
But Macedonia will need to leave many troops in persia to maintain control of the region
Not really considering that all the successors went to war against each other in anatolia leaving the eastern parts unattended ,and as we see none revolted
Did Livy really say that Alexander couldn't have conquered the Rome of the past? Or did he mean the Rome of his day. There is a huge difference between those two entities. You seem to go for the first alternative, and personally I am not so sure you are right.
This, I read this passage in Livy a few weeks ago, and although there are arguments to be made for Rome to succeed against Alexander, the ones he gave were, uh, not particularly good.
OK, but could he have taken Rome at a point when Rome was stronger how about after the Punic wars or romes height
I think he could have conquered Rome, but I don't know if he wanted to, I think it's likely that he would have conquered regions like India or even Africa, Rome wasn't a big deal at that time either
weird that livy hasnt responded to this vid yet.
Good haircut
You ar the great
this is.. a debate with a like 1000+ years old dead person?.. huh.
Alexander would steamroll Rome, Alexander died in 323, had he not died of an illness and attacked Rome, Rome wouldn’t have the manpower to compete, they still a regional power at the time. They hadn’t taken half of Italy yet.
Rome wasn't a regional power lmao, it was a very small state.
@@genovayork2468 that fits the description, regional, they were a snot on the map.
@@scorpionfiresome3834 You don't know what a power is lmao.
@@genovayork2468 you don’t know what context is lmao
@@scorpionfiresome3834 Your argument being?
I say no, not without adaptation (that Rome would be afforded as well)
Luckily, we have an answer for this; the Pyrrhic War. And Macedonian strats got clowned on. Badly.
Alexander claps the Romans, he was the ancient era's Napoleon and could probably adapt to any tech advantage from the Romans or even adapt them for himself
Holy shit you look so dutch
*Alexander the Great VS Julius Caesar?*
Oh nah mate, the Greek armies vs Roman Legions would be so skewed. Alexander's finest Macedonian unit versus Caeser's *Legio X Equestrius* would be epic to see, but Alexander looses.
Now, if Alexander was a Roman General? Shoot.... he'd have a Greek-raised Legion, and modifed auxiliaries to fit his Macedonian preferences. And boom, that's it, all of Rome's enemies to the East gotta face "The Great" man himself.
Face reveal!!!
He face revealed 2 months ago
@@shineshrineplface reveal 2.0
OMG HIS FACE!!!
He has revealed his face before
@@TheAurelianProject ik it’s just very rare
I fought the Rome and the Rome won! - most of Ancient Med history.
Hi
Not 'ub' but 'ab'
waw, not so bad on the eyes
livy to alexander: you cannot win because you gay
Would
so true
Another very interesting hypothetical concerns India - Alexander didn't reach the "real" India -he only got as far as the Indus Valley and a lot of this is in Pakistan and not India. The Ganges Valley (arguably the real India) was ruled by the Rana dynasty (I think that's what it was called" and from what I can gather this dynasty and its current maharajah was highly unpopular with the Indians largely because of the lowly birth of the founder. So if Alexander had continued into the Ganges Valley would the Indians have deserted to him en masse or would they have rallied behind their ruler?
The Nanda dynasty ruled the Magadhan Empire lmao.😂
Pakistan and india, the countries, are relatively new concepts. My grandma is literally older than both countries
Thanks I was writing from the top of my head and couldn't remember the name!But would they have defeated Alexander?@@GenovaYork24
Same with modern Macedonia -came into existence when communism in the Balkans collapsed in late 1980's and still causes a bitter controversy between slavic Macedonians (north Macedonia) and Greek region of Macedonia.@@afridge8608
That was india back then
Didn't he want to conquer India first.
Big mistake of Alexander to enter so deep in Asia.
He should keep Minor Asia as Darius have offered him (and his daughter) plus money and then with Eastern borders covered to move to the West.
The Greeks were very few in population terms for Asia lands that Alexander conquered and very far from Greece.
In Minor Asia were already Greek colonies and also in Sicily and south Italian peninsula (known as Grecia Mare, Μεγάλη Ελλάδα).
If you add the Balkans at least till the Danube river you have a big empire with many Greeks and Greece as an epicenter so would be easier to Hellenised the rest of population (like what happened in Minor Asia).
Another benefit would be that without knowing he would have annihilate Rome before even becoming an empire....
Alexander never even conquered Asia. He reached at the border of India and got defeated there and went back to Babylon. Then he died two years later. Who taught you that he went deep into Asia? WTF
@@James-sn5mg , άσε μας ρε άσχετε.....
Livy was a jingoist Latin writer who suffered complexes of inferiority in front of the Greeks. Of course he would claim that Romans would easily beat Alexander the Great. Back in reality, it took Romans nearly 1 century to conquer the Greeks in spite of the fact that about 50% of Greek states were actually allied to them (!!!) and in spite of the fact that Greeks were in terminal decline after centuries of inner fratricidal warfare (far more than the wars among the Latins) .Even when Rome faced Hannibal's Carthage, the latter was also in terminal decline - just to give a comparison, when Carthage attacked Syracuse in 480 BC they sent 300,000 men, more than 200 military vessels and four digits of cargo ships, a massive army. But when Hannibal attacked Rome he merely had an army of 50,000 mercenaries and no fleet, utterly ridiculous and still Romans struggled - they lost all battles embarassingly losing overall more than a 100,000 men (a total disgrace) and then only drawing the last battle of Zama. Pathetic. The single reason Rome won was their .... overpopulation.
The performance of legions against the Greek phalanxes was also as woeful as the performance of against Hannibal. They had fought Pyrrhus of Epirus losing every single battle and drawing in the last at Beneventum (calling it a victory just because Pyrrhus packed up and left), and this even if for Pyrrhus the Romans was a secondary front when his main one was against the Carthagenians of western Sicily, hence he had to move up and down -- so pathetic were Romans that they could not close the clamp with their Carthagenian allies. They failed miserably for 2 years to besiege Syracuse (a city in terminall decline after centuries of warfare with Carthage) and they had to have the Iberian mercenaries from within open up the outer walls for them to enter. Then in every single (literatly, this is not a kind of saying, thiis is literally every single) battle against mainland Greek armies and against the Seleucid Empire in Minor asia, the Roman legions failed miserably to perform agains the phalanxes and the battles were won for the Roman side almost singlehanded by their pro-Roman Greek allies who operated on the battlefield independently under their own generals, namely the Aetolians and Thessalians in mainland Greece and the Pergamians in Minor Asia. And of course much of the Roman fleets in Greece were actualy the Rhodian fleets.
So no, there is not a chance that the inept republican legions could do anything against Alexander the Great. In realitty Allexander the Great would smash the Romans and the Carthagenians together even if they were lead by Ceasar and Hannibal together. No comparison.
cool
Rome was not that powerful in the fourth century BCE. During the wars of Alexander, the dead had to be replaced over time and his supply of new recruits did not run dry and the Romans used a phalanx before developing their legion system and this so far enough back in time to questions what methods they actually mastered against someone as formidable as Alexander. Alexander would still push over the Hindu Kush mountains and defeat Poros first, so would only amass a western invasion if he lived beyond his 33rd birthday. That changes history in an unpredictable way and perhaps he would of lived ton 60 and conquered Italy before then.
OXE
FACE REVIWEL
He has revealed his face before
@@TheAurelianProject where? I never see his face before
Livy is the worst person to use as some sort of authority on military matters. The very foundation of this video is flawed. Great way to start an argument by using a person who had zero military experience as your foil.
Propanda lol
Alexander's empire was much smaller than Achaemenid empire, anyway, Greeks are better than the Seljuk Turks or Rashidun caliphate
No the Romans defeated the Macedonians not only by tactics but shear infantry
Yes after Alexanders death 😅 during his lifetime rome wouldn't bstand a chance
@@wankawanka3053 agreed
Usa? 666 3M
Ab Urbe Condita... Impassable to convoy... ReBUT these arguments...
You don't seem well fit to be taking these questions on.
I highly doubt Alexander the Great could win.
I do think he was a great commander but his victories were in large part due to his well trained and blooded veterans who were on the brink of mutiny by the end of the Persian war.
He would have had to at the very least raise entirely new armies of different ethnic groups with language and goal differences that would severely limit his new armies efficency.
He could undoubtedly rampage across Italy for a while like the second Punic War but after his death whenever that may be it is almost a certainty that the Empire would fracture and Greece would eventually suffer a fate similar to Carthage.
Alexander was in my mind probably the best General in history but his Empire was built on shaky foundations and would be unable to survive under its own weight without someone like him at the head of it.
Alexander would have crushed rome if he did come back from the east his army had multiple veterans,he had number advantage,far better cavalry plus he would have had an easy time finding allies in italy even if we ignore the greeks already there who too could offer him supplies and their forces
@@wankawanka3053 As I said the troops that conquered the Persian Empire were done. They didn't want to fight anymore and Alexander was forced to quit his march towards the 'Encircling Sea' a mayor point as it is believed to be the reason for the march across the desert as a form of punishment.
That army regardless of timeline changes wanted to go home and Alexander had no realistic means of keeping them. So the vast majority of his veteran soldiers are not even there when this theoretical invasion happens.
As for the Greek cities in Italy. They were not 'Greek' in the modern sense of the word. They had Greek heritage but their nationalistic views would be placed on their own cities and states. Like Sparta and Athens. They were from the same heritage but their own personal view was that they were Spartan/Athenian first so without a genuine reason for the Italian Greeks to back him he would be seen as an invader by some and a liberator by others.
Conquering one large Empire is vastly easier than dealing with many smaller states with their own goals and ambitions.
If he did enter Italy it would be akin to the Romans entering Germania. Could the Romans have won? Yes but was it politically and financially viable? No.
@@kristiancusack7355 You are wrong once again. Alexander's army wasn't done not even close as we see the very same men immediately start waging wars after his death. Half of his army was also his age with an exception being the silver shields.
The greeks of italy would have proven to be allies most importantly Taras and syracuse , Taras had asked multiple Greek rulers to aid them in the war against the Italic , from Alexander the Molossian, Archidamus iii of Sparta and finally Pyrrhus , many of them were under samnite threats soI could see them asking for Alexander's help ,I never said anything about them being greek would be a reason for them to ally with him but given already existing history it's quite possible. Far more possible than all of italy uniting to fight alexander that's for sure
"conquering a vast empire is far easier than small states" is this some kind of a joke or did you fell asleep when alexander and his dad were dealing with the thracians, the illyrians and the other greeks?All of them were smaller states with their own armies and tactics and we know how that ended. At the time we are speaking around 323 these states had been at war for some years now with the romans suffering their most humilating defeat at the hands of the samnite in caudine forks in 321 and then not waging a war against them until 316 bc
italy and germania are too way different things that's a pointless comparison. Italy doesn't have huge forest, 99% war like tribes people, cold climates like germania . Italy has only some scattered tribes , some city states and some small mountains(compared to the ones in bactria for example) in other words i just described you the balkans ...
italy unlike germania allows you to invade it through the sea and open multiple fronts and it's far smaller than germania
i could go on but i hope that you realised why the germania=italy example is terrible
U r cute
Holy shit everything in this is a-historical. And stupid.
Rome would have gotten whooped. They were still using the phalanx during this time period .
walmart armchair historian /j
Just looks Macedonians War, how Romans just press the Macedonian unrelentlessly
Different rome , different Macedonia, different time period , if Alexander had crossed to Italy instead of asia rome would have been flattened