Could Alexander the Great have defeated the Romans had he ventured into Italy?

Question

Having said that....why did Alexander not venture into Italy? Was he afraid?

Answer 1

He most certainly could have, but he had no reason to. Rome had not yet left its peninsula and was not a particularly prosperous area. All of the riches were to the east.

Answer 2

While Alexander was about Rome was still a small state, the reforms of marius had not taken place and was still had a citizen army (albeit they had taken Latium) Alexander had the best army (though Persia could boast the most expensive and had an able general been in command, may have proven too much for Alexander- people forget how large Persia is and how much money it could muster, this proves Persian military success and infrastructural prowess that remained in the Seleucid Kingdom). I think the question the was could Rome beat Alexanders Army if they both peaked at the same time, If not then it would have occured (though Pyrrus of Epirus (he had elephants too) was not easy, but overeached his resources, Credit to Rome and Italians). It is true Rome defeated Antiginod Macedonia at Cynocephalae (dogs head- if I spelt it right), though just by a thread by making the phalanx formation break. The Romans also defeated the Aeotolian league, Seleucid kingdom (aid) and later the Archaian league (Korinth was razed as a example) and Nabis of Sparta. The Romans had certainly proved resourceful. The Romans had a very dynamic style of warefare, while the Greek hoplite mainted a phalanx formation, to Kleomenes of Spartas credit adopted the Macedonian Sarissa. The Macedonian Phalanx had a fundamental flaw, it required strict for mation and it was weak on its right (people tend to walk left into their shields- eg Greek armies used to start askew so they would meet in the center). This had been supplemented by Cavalry, the Xerses note there is no good Cavalry in Greece but did have companion cavalry, and the only state Antiginod Macedonia had access to was Thessaly. Thankfully Rome was in a similar position. So this equals it out, the Macedonians used peltast, but considering Marius's Javlin I think Rome wins that dept. Neither side could boast specialised Archers (Cretan ones were particular reknown). I should note that Antiginod Macedonia made it a custom to have at least have a few Elephants. ROmes strength lay in dynamic formation, while Macedonian Phalanx lay in its formation. The battle certainly won out, Rome won but not decisive. Personally I would Go with Rome over Alexander, because of the ability to be dynamic offers weakness than the Right, which Alexander knew by his attempt to supplement this weakness with Cavalry. If Broken the Phalanx is done for as seen at Cynocephalae, the Romans can regroup and redeploy at speed, they knew this and speed is key to battle, the Phalanx was to slow and the Romans were quicker to deploy (one of the factors that led to the loss at Cynocephlae). This also assumes the Generals are more or less equal as discipline and all forces are equal on paper, with full unit strength (which rarely ever happens- somebodies always sick etc) and morale are held constant. As for a campaign into the west, doubtful maybe against Carthage, as stated Persia is the main prize. A unified Greece (though rare) did not have that Roman spirit of conquest, and fanatacism (again emphasise that is later on).

Answer 3

I disagree with Popeye!
Alexander's army was the best Greek army ever, extremely powerful and with above all with an ingénues leader.
He didn't manage to invade Italy simple because he died too soon. We could have had an extremely different world if the Greeks had decided to conquer Europe instead of Asia!
Italy at the time of Alexander was already controlled by Greeks states, the Etruscans and other small Italian tribes. Rome was a small town and it couldn't have possible pose as a threat!
You mention Pyrrhus (312-272 BC)
[(Greek: Πύρρος) , king of the Molossians (from ca. 297 BC), Epirus (306-301, 297-272 BC) and Macedon (288-284, 273-272 BC),]
For you information Pyrrhus did not run "as a dog" but crashed the Romans. He did suffered heavy casualties (were allegeable the term Pyrrhic) but his army was still able to destroy Rome. He abandoned the Roman campaign not for his loses but because he was engaged in a war with Carthage in Sicily and with the Gauls in Greece.
As for Romans they manage to defeat the Greek and the Hellenistic Greek states only because the Greeks had decline.
Constant wars between the states had led the Greek world to a fall.
Not to mention that Rome found Greeks heavily divided and it hit them one at a time.
First the Greek states of Italy, then Sicily, then Epirus and Macedon, later Achaick alliance then Corinth, then Hellenistic Syria and finally Hellenistic Egypt!
If the Romans had found the Greeks united and at their peak they probably would have suffered defeat!

Answer 4

Alexander could have easily defeated Rome considering that Rome was probably only a small village during Alexander's time. As to why he didn't invade Italy, who knows? Maybe he saw nothing of use there. The greater empires were in the East, therefore, so was the "glory".

Answer 5

Rome Hotelbye today is among the main tourist destinations of the planet, as a result of incalculable immensity of their archaeological and artwork pieces, as well as for the attraction of its distinctive traditions, the sweetness of their breathtaking opinions, and the majesty of its amazing parks. Among the things should see en Rome is Campo de'Fiori. Campo de'Fiori is a square square south of Piazza Navona applied as a marketplace through the day, and party central for college students and tourists at night. The name indicates “field of flowers” and was provided during the Middle Ages when the location was really a meadow. Yet another place worth visit is The Roman Forum. Positioned in the little area between the Palatine and Capitoline Hills, The Roman Forum was for centuries the teeming heart of ancient Rome and today is really a expansive destroy of architectural fragments

Answer 6

I will let Titus Livius the Roman historian who lived 2000 years ago ancer that question............The aspect of Italy would have struck him as very different from the India which he traversed in drunken revelry with an intoxicated army; he would have seen in the passes of Apulia and the mountains of Lucania the traces of the recent disaster which befell his house when his uncle Alexander, King of Epirus, perished. If Alexander had been worsted in one battle the war would have been over; what army could have broken the strength of Rome, when Caudium and Cannae failed to do so? Even if things had gone well with him at first, he would often have been tempted to wish that Persians and Indians and effeminate Asiatics were his foes, and would have confessed that his former wars had been waged against women, as Alexander of Epirus is reported to have said when after receiving his mortal wound he was comparing his own fortune with that of this very youth in his Asiatic campaigns. When I remember that in the first Punic war we fought at sea for twenty-four years, I think that Alexander would hardly have lived long enough to see one war through.

Answer 7

At the time, yes,.... he had score to settle with the Persians first, he would have got to Rome eventually had he lived.....However if your asking if Alexander at his peak could have defeated Rome at it's peak,In my opinion, no.

Answer 8

Didn't he loose against somebody else

And then after him just came the romans

There wasn't a battle between them

O wait you might be right i don't know

Answer 9

He was afraid of getting "whacked" by Tony Soprano!

Answer 10

there must have been apractical reason he didnt...if it was good enough for him its good enough for everyone else