Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 7th, 2013, 05:43 AM   #71
Historian
Member of the Year
 
Joined: Sep 2011
From: Egotistical.Apes.Ruining.This.Habitat
Posts: 17,661
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
Nonsense, you're very intelligent. (Plus, you being a princess means my beheading if I say anything bad )
Haha thanks, how could you get beheaded that kind of flattery?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
Good question.

If we are talking bout 4th century Rome, I dont think they would have had the ability/resources to do this.

This is why it needs to be clairfied, if its Rome in general or around the period. If its 4th century Rome, then Alexander has his best chance to defeat it, especially given the fact that the manpower reserves may not be available to the Romans with them still being at war with the Latin league and other societies within Italy.
True, it does make a difference.

Personally I'm no expert on Rome so I am finding it a bit difficult to comprehend to be honest. In particular with no set time period. My knowledge on Rome is vague compared to Greece/Macedon as it is.
Brisieis is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 7th, 2013, 05:50 AM   #72

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 6,135
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisieis View Post
Haha thanks, how could you get beheaded that kind of flattery?
All part of my dastardly plans

Dick would be jealous



Quote:
True, it does make a difference.

Personally I'm no expert on Rome so I am finding it a bit difficult to comprehend to be honest. In particular with no set time period. My knowledge on Rome is vague compared to Greece/Macedon as it is.
Well, I respect your knoowledge all around, and particularly on Greece, thats why I thought the triumvirate would make the convo interesting.

That being said, Alexander would probably defeate the 4th century Romans after a hard fight. It wouldn't be easy, imo.

Anything after though, and Alci will be getting severe dbeates from me about the Romans not being defeated
Mangekyou is offline  
Old January 7th, 2013, 05:51 AM   #73
Historian
Member of the Year
 
Joined: Sep 2011
From: Egotistical.Apes.Ruining.This.Habitat
Posts: 17,661
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
All part of my dastardly plans

Dick would be jealous





Well, I respect your knoowledge all around, and particularly on Greece, thats why I thought the triumvirate would make the convo interesting.

That being said, Alexander would probably defeate the 4th century Romans after a hard fight. It wouldn't be easy, imo.

Anything after though, and Alci will be getting severe dbeates from me about the Romans not being defeated
What suddenly changed within the Roman army after the 4th century?
Brisieis is offline  
Old January 7th, 2013, 09:25 AM   #74

Micheal Weston's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 240

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisieis View Post
What suddenly changed within the Roman army after the 4th century?
Several advancement. I mean Rome itself is known for it's adaptability and willingness to absorb other cultures and ideas in order to benefit from it. They copied ships from Carthage, they copied the Gladius from Spain. Invented scutum for short range hitting (The center had a metal part to hit with). Invented formations like testudo. They invented those stair/bridges on their ships so they can engulf attacking enemy ships.

The Roman army was always changing to meet the needs of the enemy, time, and threat. In the beginning Roman's used Phalanx, then the Maniple which later developed in legions.

Not to mention as Rome's reach increased so this it's ability to draw allies from different corners of the empire, Numadia, Egypt, Gaulic..etc
Micheal Weston is offline  
Old January 7th, 2013, 12:53 PM   #75
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 101

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
Preatorian guards, ready to defend to the city.
but the preatorian guards are terrible.....they are probably the most usless miltary force ever raised
wigglywaffles is offline  
Old January 7th, 2013, 04:12 PM   #76

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 6,135
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisieis View Post
What suddenly changed within the Roman army after the 4th century?
In a nutshell

They gained control of Italy, which allowed them a bigger manpower base, and after fighting Pyrrhus and Hannibal, they demonstrated that they could absorb losses, and would not surrender, even threatened with extinction. The experience gained against Hannibal, allowed them to go on and dominate other foreign foes, until Marius reformed the army, which then allowed them a more flexible army.

Its not much of a nutshell, but once we find out whats going on with the op, then more can be explained.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wigglywaffles View Post
but the preatorian guards are terrible.....they are probably the most usless miltary force ever raised
They had their moments.
Mangekyou is offline  
Old January 7th, 2013, 04:14 PM   #77

benzev's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Scotland
Posts: 347

Quote:
Originally Posted by wigglywaffles View Post
but the preatorian guards are terrible.....they are probably the most usless miltary force ever raised
The period in questions predates even the earliest form of Praetorian Guard- a small personal bodyguard for generals in the field. The formal force you refer to arose under Augustus and assembled in a single camp under Tiberius.

I think the question as put must be restricted to opponents Alexander might notionally have faced, c335-315BCE approx.How Alexander might have fared against Scipio, Caesar or others is really another matter entirely. One might otherwise speculate on what might happen if he faced Napoleon or a Panzer division!

There are two possible approches-
a) What if Alexander had turned west instead of east, c 335 BCE and no invasion of Persia.
b) What if Alexander had lived longer than he did and turned west after subduing the east- c320-315BCE. This latter query was the one addressed by Livy in his digression.

In appraising either of these, we are hampered by uncertainty in Roman troop strength potentials, amongst other speculation. However, at Sentinum in 295 BCE, in extremis against a large coalition attempting to break her power, two Roman consular armies joined forces. If each were 2 Roman legions amd two of allies, plus cavalry, we are looking at about 45,000 men.

Appraising case a), it seems very unlikely this would have occurred. Greeks were united under Macedonian hegemony for a war of revenge and it was hoped, much booty against a Persia perceived as weak. Turning west would hardly have appealed on either ground and certainly the glory by comparison, for the young Alexander, would have been paltry. If he had heard of Rome at all, it would have been as an undistinguised central Italian state. Nevertheless, had he come over, he would no doubt have allied with the Greek cities of Southern Italy and hit the Samnites and others hard.

Eventually, as at Sentinum, Italians would have realised conquest was the agenda. As in the second punic war, I think it unlikely they would have preferred foreign overlordship to Italian, and might eventually have allied to fight the Macedonians. There might have been a Roman-Samnite alliance. Alexander might have brought 40,000 men, plus Italian allies, less losses and garrisons. Whether he could have avaoided fighting in broken terrain is unclear, but if he wished to conquer the land, he would have had to eventually. His army was primarily suited to even terrain however.
Aleander might have aimed for Capua, then Rome, and there is a real chance he might have succeeded. Alexander wouldnt have conbquered so much, or gained such booty and glory, but he might have destroyed the nascent power of the Roman Republic first.

In case b), Alexander hads acceess to new troops from various locations but still had to hold what he had gained. His best veterans had retired and the new troops might not have been of the same standard. If he were coming, most of the west would have known and it is probable that there would have been an alliance in place against him as he landed. This might well include the Carthaginians, with their naval power, as Sicily would have been a prime target.Rome's power woule that that much stronger and Alexander might well have found effective conquests just too difficult and costly.
benzev is offline  
Old January 8th, 2013, 01:57 AM   #78
Historian
Member of the Year
 
Joined: Sep 2011
From: Egotistical.Apes.Ruining.This.Habitat
Posts: 17,661
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micheal Weston View Post
Several advancement. I mean Rome itself is known for it's adaptability and willingness to absorb other cultures and ideas in order to benefit from it. They copied ships from Carthage, they copied the Gladius from Spain. Invented scutum for short range hitting (The center had a metal part to hit with). Invented formations like testudo. They invented those stair/bridges on their ships so they can engulf attacking enemy ships.

The Roman army was always changing to meet the needs of the enemy, time, and threat. In the beginning Roman's used Phalanx, then the Maniple which later developed in legions.

Not to mention as Rome's reach increased so this it's ability to draw allies from different corners of the empire, Numadia, Egypt, Gaulic..etc
Thanks guys, dates are not my best thing when reading about history. I really must learn more about Rome, I don't know enough as I should but I guess it is a huge subject really.
Brisieis is offline  
Old January 8th, 2013, 12:32 PM   #79

Zarin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,465

If one is only talking about the contemporary time period in which Alexander existed, around 330 BCE, then he most certainly would have defeated this very provincial people. One who would have been no match to his genius nor his resources. However, if a later Era in Roman history is selected, this becomes far more speculative. Much of what the Romans knew came from their knowledge of people who preceded their rise to power. And the Romans were very imitative and quite innovative as well. Much of what the Romans knew militarily originated from the world which Alexander the Great created and the Romans admired him greatly. It would have been essentially a "walk" for Alexander once his troops arrived in Italy if this confrontation had actually occurred. This was when Rome was very young. Remember that only 50 years prior to Alexander, the Romans were defeated by the Gauls under Brennan and they sacked and looted the city. This does not auger well for any civilization that could be so easily conquered by barbarian tribes. Especially if confronted by the technologies and resources of Alexander the Great. Mercifully, the Romans were spared this encounter by Alexander's death.

Last edited by Zarin; January 8th, 2013 at 12:43 PM.
Zarin is offline  
Old January 8th, 2013, 03:37 PM   #80

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 6,135
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarin View Post
If one is only talking about the contemporary time period in which Alexander existed, around 330 BCE, then he most certainly would have defeated this very provincial people. One who would have been no match to his genius nor his resources. However, if a later Era in Roman history is selected, this becomes far more speculative. Much of what the Romans knew came from their knowledge of people who preceded their rise to power. And the Romans were very imitative and quite innovative as well. Much of what the Romans knew militarily originated from the world which Alexander the Great created and the Romans admired him greatly. It would have been essentially a "walk" for Alexander once his troops arrived in Italy if this confrontation had actually occurred. This was when Rome was very young. Remember that only 50 years prior to Alexander, the Romans were defeated by the Gauls under Brennan and they sacked and looted the city. This does not auger well for any civilization that could be so easily conquered by barbarian tribes. Especially if confronted by the technologies and resources of Alexander the Great. Mercifully, the Romans were spared this encounter by Alexander's death.
You seemed to have mellowed in your "old age"

I expected a far more resolute and destructive post from you
Mangekyou is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
alexander, defeated, romans


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do you think the Romans could have defeated Germania? Emperor Trajan Speculative History 44 November 24th, 2012 04:01 AM
Regarding numbers of the defeated... Darth Roach War and Military History 4 October 18th, 2011 06:27 PM
What if the Celtic Gaul's had United and defeated the Romans? Eshkar Speculative History 7 June 24th, 2011 10:46 AM
Romans or Alexander vs Chinese reubengwapo Speculative History 36 October 9th, 2009 02:12 PM
Caesar Defeated CelticBard Speculative History 6 May 10th, 2009 04:03 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.