Trajan's army vs Alexander's army at Gaugemala

Nov 2014
377
ph
#1
If the 2 were to encounter one another in a terrain like Pydna who would win, the Romans slightly outnumber the Macedons at 60000, and they have their Sarmatian and Numidian auxillia, to counter the Companion cavalry, on the other hand Alexander is not careless enough to mishandle his phalanx on broken terrain and let the Romans exploit his gaps, but then Trajan was pretty decent commander , the Proncipate army was a step up from the Persians.
 
May 2018
646
Michigan
#2
Not an expert on Alexander or Trajan, but I wonder how much of a factor 500 years of tech would matter. Certainly, less than a 2019 army facing a 1519 army, but I would guess it would still matter.

Unfortunately, there isn't nearly as much info available on Trajan than there is, say, Julius Caesar.
 
Likes: Aemilianus
Mar 2018
708
UK
#3
The quality of the armies themselves is not the primary decider of battles. Logistics, the morale built up over a campaign, the wider strategic settings and a million over factors are too important to discard. While these kind of questions might be fun, we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking it's serious history.

So just for fun, I'd say the Romans would win. We know that inferior Roman armies were able to beat pikemen; and did so on a large majority of occasions. We have no evidence that Alexander would be good against the sort of training and equipment that the Romans were yielding. As for tech, I believe that the quality of iron/steel had improved considerably, as well as the industrial capacity to mass produce it. A Roman legionary under Trajan would have been immeasurably better armoured than a phallangite under Alexander.
 

Mrbsct

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
2,620
USA
#4
The Romans and Italians of the Repbulic had cavalry similar to the Macedonians being able to challenge them at Heraclea. However, barbarian cavalry(Gauls, Iberians, Numidians) were simply more efficient since there was more of them. The plains of Italy and Greece had too little horses to form a sustainable cavalry force. This could be shown in Cannae where the more numerical Carthagian cavalry would beat the Romans with variety. Now the Romans in this scenario being Imperial would have used Gallic, Numidian, Dalmatian cavalry along with possibily some Sarmatian mercenaries and could recruit more than the Macedonians.

Add that to artillery(Carroballista), Syrian archers, and skirmishers with glandes, the Romans simply have Alexander in a bag. The Macedonian cavalry charge into a block of resistance, Alexander dies. The Roman missile troops fire up breaking up the Greek javelin throwers. Then the Legionaires move up to deal with the phalanx. They fight well, but the Roman cavalry then comes up and breaks up the battle, Zama style.
 

Similar History Discussions