Which had the better army Alexander the great or the Roman army?

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2004

Answers

with question if there was a battle with the romans as oppose to alexander the great empire it would likely be the winner would be alexander since we could see that alexander's exploit conquered lands from the greek city states up to the boundaries of asia-minor and India in which the romans never had conquered. The whole persian empire was not suceeded by the romans. We could also see that the hellenistic empires was divided into the family of the diadochi. If it where in Alexander's time when the whole army was still intact it would be crushed by the might force of alexander coming from the persian integrees, macedonian regulars and indian fousatta. Rome as history says was always been sack by neighboring tribe while in the lifetime of alexander's and even philip macedonia was never been sacked.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2005

The romans had no time to study macedonian army. Pyrrhus was around during the successor wars and was championed by Ptolemy. Now alexander while great general he never really fought anyone who had just as good equipment who had a decent general themselves and troops who where equaly as well trained. The persian armies where poorly armed and trained the battle of Gaugamela 3/4 of the persian troops did not even see battle which inculded the famous immortals.

So we do not know how alexander would have stood up to the legions of caesar who also had a great battle at the seige of alesia where caesar had to fight against 150,000 celts with 40,0000 men form his front and rear flanks caesar also took very little in the way of causlities. Caesar also one ups alexander in the fact that caesar went up against one of the greatest generals of his time in pompey the great who had more legions who where eqaul as well trained as Caesars.

A battle between alexander and caesar would have been quite amazing in that both where great generals and both have skilled and well trained armies to try and predicte an outcome is hard if not impossable.

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2004

Actualy at the battle of Gougemala Alexander had 45,000 men and Darius had 100,000 men. At the battle of Issus, Alexander had 30,000 men and Darius had 130,000 men. Alexander slaughtered both armies and lost very little of his own men.

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2004

Alexander the great. Remember the battle at Gaugamila when Alexander was won 1.700.000 Persans with only 60.000 Greeks!!!!!!!!!

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2004

Hannibal admired Alexanders tactics and incorparated them into his plans and kicked the shit out of the romans. If a man trying to fight like Alexander was so successful, then the real Alexander would be much better! Plus Alexander was much better at siege than Hannibal, so he would have torn Rome to the ground. It took Rome 40 years to conquer most of Britain.. it took Alexander 11 years to conquer most of the known world!

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2004

Alexander the Great like his father Philip was very innovative - and surely after encountering a Roman army - what ever the outcome - would have adapted his army to fight this new foe. Their are very few generals that could match Alexander on physical courage and leadership-military genius. One of the reasons Alexander defeated all armies he came across was that they had the latest technology and some of the best battle tactics of the time.

Thus if Alexander had the latest technology of the roman period and advanced battle tactics there is a good chance he would defeat them. The Germanic tribes defeated the Romans with Guerilla warfare tactics - but would be unlikely to defeat the romans on a open plain.

However like Hanibal - even if Alexander defeated the Romans - if he did not capitalize on his victory quickly he would eventually lose. - It would be most likely that the Roman machine would regroup. The Romans as a collective people and modern style government were very clever -- most likely if they lost to Alexander - they would try and knock out his supply routes -send spies to cause carnage etc... We see this repeated by the Romans even against the most deadly enemies.

Thus Unless Alexander totally took out the Romans and took over Rome itself in one fierce swoop - I believe it is unlikely that even Alexander would beat the Romans in a long drawn out war.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2004

"No One" of 06-10-04 forgets "Aimless" of 06-08-04's selection of a 50BCE date for the Romans: Caius Iulius Caesar is in his prime, so the question becomes also (in addition to armies & tactical systems) one of generalship. "No One" should not be so hasty to suggest that Alexander would have defeated Caesar, and in fact the match may well have been epic, Alexander being a master of mobile offensives and Caesar (and his army) being a master of positional defensive warfare. ... Marc.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2004

Don't you dare disagree with Aimless. at least you got your name description right NO ONE

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2004

I disagree with aimeless, I am sure that Alexander's superior leadership and tactical skills could have deafeted the more "modern" roman army.

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2004

History is littered with invincible armies that were eventually vanquished by a foe who developed a novel combination of weapons and tactics that showed up the weak points in the 'better' army. The Greeks did this to the Persians, who were considered an unstoppable juggernaut at the time.

By the time the Romans came along, the world had had centuries to probe at the weaknesses in the Macedonian system of weapons and tactics and had learned a lot about how to defeat them. The Romans actually met a Macedonian army, led by Pyrrhus. Pyrrhus expended so much of his resources in driving back the Roman army on that day that his "victory" soon became a byword for a loss disguised as a victory.

So, for reasons that had nothing to do with superior discipline or leadership, it must be conceded that the Romans of 50BC would have defeated Alexander's army of 330BC.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2004

You should ask Aimeless theat tricky question

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2004

Alaxander was certainly a more succesful general than any romans

فرقہ غیر مقلدین
مقلد ghayr muqallideen

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2004