Questions about the battle of Pandosia

[Coluber]

The alternate timelines which fascinate me the most are those concerning antiquity, and of course, Rome. I've seen at least one thread here in which it was speculated what Europe would be without the Roman Empire, so this may seem like a repeat (but I assure you, it is not).
Anyhoo, I've been wondering about unknown battles of the past, one of which was the battle of Pandosia. For those few of you who don't know, Alexander the Great had an uncle called Alexander I, king of Epirus. He intended to conquer the west in the same way his nephew was conquering the east (so says that most reliable of sources - wikipedia). Honestly I don't know how far he intended to go - I assume he would conquer southern Italy and at least half of Sicily. That all went down the drain however when he lost his life at Pandosia.
What would have happened had he won? Would Epirus continue to conquer Italy? Would the Epirot monarchy survive past 233 b.C? Would Pyrrhus adopt the Italian maniple and incorporate it into his military? Would Hannibal fight a war against Epirus instead of Rome? Would Rome even last?
I'm so very curious about this.
That being said, I don't believe for one second that Epirus would conquer western Europe. I mean, come on.

 

[Sertorius126]

I think Epirus would stop at modern day Naples but continue expanding into eastern Italy on the coast, maybe he could’ve taken some ports in Dalmatia and Istria as well, I don’t see him incorporating Italian tactics into his military but it would be plausible of him to take inspiration from some of them to make new ones, more in line with his people.
Carthage would steam roll Epirus if a war was fought in my opinion, but I don’t see it very likely to happen, probably they would’ve made a quick war to conquer the rest of Sicily and some Italian ports but that’s it, Epirus wouldn’t be a direct threat to Carthage and a Roman-Punic alliance would be probable, the Romans would expand North conquering northern Italy, southern France and maybe even Iberia and Dalmatia.
We would see a more diverse Southern Europe, with the Romans and the Carthaginians ruling the Mediterranean and coming to a clash around Julius Caesar’s era, we would see a different impact of Jesus as well, since the Romans probably wouldn’t control Palestine but let’s not get into that since the thread is based around Epirus.

Why would the Romans leave Epirus in peace though? They would certainly try to expand all over Italy, and a war with Epirus, like the war against Taranto IOTL, would be unavoidable. There’s also no guarantee that Epirus could hold southern Italy all the way to the third century. Epirus suffered from civil strife aplenty in its history, it was a highly unstable kingdom which only shined through the efforts of brilliant kings, it would just take an incompetent ruler, or two princeling bitterly fighting between themselves, and the Lucanians and Bruttians would be quick to revolt and oust the Epirotes, presumably with Roman help.

 

[Coluber]

Why would the Romans leave Epirus in peace though? They would certainly try to expand all over Italy, and a war with Epirus, like the war against Taranto IOTL, would be unavoidable. There’s also no guarantee that Epirus could hold southern Italy all the way to the third century. Epirus suffered from civil strife aplenty in its history, it was a highly unstable kingdom which only shined through the efforts of brilliant kings, it would just take an incompetent ruler, or two princeling bitterly fighting between themselves, and the Lucanians and Bruttians would be quick to revolt and oust the Epirotes, presumably with Roman help.

Well, given the information that that most reliable source of information *coughcough* *gag* Wikipedia, perhaps if Alexander of Epirus had lived a bit longer, maybe the situation would have been different. Perhaps there would have been less strife within Epirus itself, and southern Italy would be more securely controlled. (especially given that there would be more Italiots - perhaps?)

 

[Coluber]

Carthage would steam roll Epirus if a war was fought in my opinion, but I don’t see it very likely to happen, probably they would’ve made a quick war to conquer the rest of Sicily and some Italian ports but that’s it, Epirus wouldn’t be a direct threat to Carthage and a Roman-Punic alliance would be probable, the Romans would expand North conquering northern Italy, southern France and maybe even Iberia and Dalmatia.

But what if Pyrrhus - or whomever would succeed a more successful Alexander I, was more victorious before the Romans? According to that most reliable *gag* website wikipedia:

Lastly, the battle is generally credited as the one which showed the Romans how to defeat Greek armies.

From wikipedia. Yeah. The king of reliable info. Yeah.

 

[Sertorius126]

Well, given the information that that most reliable source of information *coughcough* *gag* Wikipedia, perhaps if Alexander of Epirus had lived a bit longer, maybe the situation would have been different. Perhaps there would have been less strife within Epirus itself, and southern Italy would be more securely controlled. (especially given that there would be more Italiots - perhaps?)

More Italiots would make things harder, not easier. The Romans had to fight three wars against the Samnites, the latter two especially lengthy, and a war against Taranto, the Lucanians, the Bruttians and the Samnites, who were also aided by Pyrrhus, to finally submit the Italiots in Southern Italy, and even then they would still cause problems during the Second Punic War. Plus, more than once the Romans came close to lose. There’s a good number of reasons for how they pulled all of that off, superior military, an ethos inclined towards warfare, glory and patriotism, ruthlessness and unwillingness to compromise, the wider distribution of Roman citizenship, coupled with the foundation of colonies and careful politics, and, lastly, simple proximity. Epirus would need to equal all of this to succeed, and I honestly don’t think it would. Civil strife could be eradicated by a strong central authority, but I fail to see how Epirus would attain that, considering that all tribal kingdoms, which attached authority to the person and not to the role, were filled with civil strife. Macedonia, with all its splendor and cultural enhancement starting from Philip II, took ages to evolve from a tribal outlook, it didn’t until Antigonus Gonata finally seized the throne. Epirus would need to be ruled by one strong ruler after another, for a long period, and to absorb some of the monarchical trait of a Hellenistic kingdom, which I doubt would have happened in any case.

 

[Sertorius126]

But what if Pyrrhus - or whomever would succeed a more successful Alexander I, was more victorious before the Romans? According to that most reliable *gag* website wikipedia:

Lastly, the battle is generally credited as the one which showed the Romans how to defeat Greek armies.

From wikipedia. Yeah. The king of reliable info. Yeah.

Man, the sheer amount of BS you can find in that site is amazing. Still, the battle is good proof that, overral, Roman military was superior to Greek military even back then. You want Epirus to win against the Romans and hold Southern Italy? Epirus needs to ditch the phalanx, amongst other things.