Alexander vs Rome and Carthage

Alexander lives long enough to stabilize his empire including the coastline of Arabia now at the age of 45 with a proper heir Alexander sets his eyes westward. How would Rome and Carthage react?
 
I'd say if you want a nice analog of that, look at OTL Pyrrhic War. Pyrrhus was every bit the general Alexander was (strategist is another matter, but both were roughly equal when it came to tactics). Their armies were constituted of roughly the same core of a Macedonian phanlanx with native tribes thrown in for additional support. Pyrrhus led from the front, just like Alexander, and could inspire his troops the same way Alexander could.

I believe that even Alexander had his limits. Even if he had lived, if he had tried to subjugate Rome (who, although busy conquering the Samnites during this period, was still a force to be reckoned with). The resilence of the Roman state saved them in the Pyrrhic War and I think that it would be the case again with the armies of Alexander. The Greeks were just too overextended. I don't think Alexander being at the front will work miracles by itself. Pyrrhus was the most celebrated general of his day, and he didn't fare very well in the long run.

Perhaps one thing Alexander does have in his favor, however, is that the most powerful city in Magna Graecia, Tarentum, is still at the zenith of its power, and not in the slow but inexorable decline it was in when it called upon Pyrrhus for aid.

Perhaps Alexander can pull it off. Pyrrhus nearly did.
 
Alexander died before he could complete his military reforms. This included giving the phalanx considerable missile power by incorporating eastern bowmen in the formation. Alexander would also have a LOT more cavalry at his disposal and was intending to use them in the main battle formations. Light, heavy and missile cavalry units to be used as both shock troops in the charge, missile troops to break formations before the charge and light scouting and pursuit cavalry would almost certainly destroy any opposition he was likely to meet after his reforms were complete.

Rome almost certainly sent a group of senators to Alexander's court after his great victories. The purpose of their visit is unknown since it appears to have been supressed. Were they there to offer an alliance, submit or just size up this new threat?

Politically Rome was quite sophisticated. I suspect the most likely course would be for Rome to offer an alliance and put its considerable political and military resources at Alexander's disposal in return for a share of the booty and quasi-independence in their immediate sphere of influence. Even accepting a permanent Imperial representative and a token garrison of the representatives guards is possible but less likely.
 
Well I would think Rome's political response would depend on the military situation, ie if they can win the first battle or it looks like militarily they stand a good chance.

If you compare Alexander's armies as relatively similar to Pyrrhus, if I remember my ancient Greek and Roman warfare class correctly, the Roman's didnt have too much difficulty w/beating Pyrrhus' actual troops, (esp as hilly terrain doesnt lend itself too well to phalanx warfare) but the Romans had never seen war elephants before, which spooked their calvary and started a rout. This actually led to some rather creative war machines that didnt really work out for them.

So if Alexander brings a decent number of elephants or (more than Pyrrhus), he could have a lot of success and conquer Rome assuming that he has a lot of free resources and his empire isnt too overstretched. If he doesn't, Rome could hold out as early legions are still nothing to scoff at (as Pyrrhus discovered) and certainly has its advantages (there are a lot of hills in Italy...)
 
I think the biggest difference between Pyrrhus and Alexander is that Alexander would be able to bring much more resources to bear against the Romans. After all he has an empire stretching all the way into the Punjab, not a small state in a poor region of Greece.

So the thing which crippled Pyrrhus' war, his heavy losses even when victorious, would not apply for Alexander. He could just call up more reinforcements. And then more.

Pyrrhus also had the bad luck of going to war just after Rome had finished her war with the Etruscans and Samnites, giving her a uncommitted but veteran army for use against the Greeks. Had he struck a few years earlier, he could have allied with Rome's enemies and accomplished more.
 
Well I would think Rome's political response would depend on the military situation, ie if they can win the first battle or it looks like militarily they stand a good chance.

If you compare Alexander's armies as relatively similar to Pyrrhus, if I remember my ancient Greek and Roman warfare class correctly, the Roman's didnt have too much difficulty w/beating Pyrrhus' actual troops, (esp as hilly terrain doesnt lend itself too well to phalanx warfare) but the Romans had never seen war elephants before, which spooked their calvary and started a rout. This actually led to some rather creative war machines that didnt really work out for them.

So if Alexander brings a decent number of elephants or (more than Pyrrhus), he could have a lot of success and conquer Rome assuming that he has a lot of free resources and his empire isnt too overstretched. If he doesn't, Rome could hold out as early legions are still nothing to scoff at (as Pyrrhus discovered) and certainly has its advantages (there are a lot of hills in Italy...)

My point is that the Successor armies were not anything like Alexander's army. The phalanax was slow, cumbersome and there appears to have been a distinct lack of the flexibility and speed that marked Alexander's successes.

After Alexander implemented his reforms, the later army would be completely different to the one he conquered the Persian Empire with. It would be larger, have more missile strength, be faster and more flexible and still have the heavy cavalry and phalanx. In other words, everything the Romans (and everybody else) did not cope well against.
 
This is a very interesting idea, to say the least. In my mind, it's a toss-up. While Alexander was a good general and his army could have been better, the Romans are not people to give up easy. Roman mindset at this time is that if you haven't burnt Rome herself to the ground yet, then the war isn't over. Also, even these earlier Roman legions had no problems beating any of the Successor phalanx armies. So, I really don't know who would win. It would be quite a sight to see them battle it out. Just thought I'd put in my 2 cents
 
My point is that the Successor armies were not anything like Alexander's army. The phalanax was slow, cumbersome and there appears to have been a distinct lack of the flexibility and speed that marked Alexander's successes.

After Alexander implemented his reforms, the later army would be completely different to the one he conquered the Persian Empire with. It would be larger, have more missile strength, be faster and more flexible and still have the heavy cavalry and phalanx. In other words, everything the Romans (and everybody else) did not cope well against.

Well...to be honest missile strength has never really been all that decisive in the warfare of the period...its a nice support boost, but nothing to be win at. The only effective use of it was w/light calvary harrassment but even Crassus' defeat at Carrhae by Parthia was more a result of treachury (native calvary desertion) which resulting in him basically ahving no calvary then the overwhelming effectiveness of missile weapons.

As for Alexander, his main strategy in every one of his major battles is use the phalanx to hold the enemy army and then attack the leader/flank w/the companion calvary. Adding more calvary is useful, but not overly gamechanging. Calvary are far less effective in the hilly terrain/forests of Italy as you have less maneuverability and well alexander already had awesome calvary.

In short, I dont think those reforms make as much of a difference as say how many war elephants alexander brings.
 
By the 320s/310s BC Roman army still hadn't fully developed its famous military system - this is a critical difference between the Rome of Alexander's time and the Rome of Pyrrhus' time... I would suggest that the Romans wouldn't be able to stand up to Alexander as well as they did to Pyrrhus. Furthermore, in Alexander's time Rome was locked in a death struggle with the Samnites and was nowhere near ultimate victory. Alexander would have encountered Rome in a weakened state, and if he allied himself with the Samnites I can't imagine the Romans driving him off.
 
Top