Final Thoughts on Historical Speculation

Ever wondered why the Romans were defeated in the Tutterburg forest? what secrets lie buried in prehistoric Ireland? or what made Alexander truly great with a subscription to History hit You can explore our ancient past alongside the world's leading historians and archaeologists. You'll also unlock hundreds of hours of original documentaries with a brand new release every single week covering everything from the ancient world to World War two. Just visit historyhit dot com slash suubbscribe. Alexander the Great and the Romans Two Titanic names from ancient history Two Empire Builders Alexander began in northern Greece and conquered the mighty Persian Empire, marching his troops as far east as India The Romans began in central Italy and gradually expanded to dominate the Mediterranean world and beyond, conquering kingdoms in the process that had owed their creation to Alexander's actions centuries before Now the Romans never fought Alexander in battle, but many certainly thought about it. Intellectuals pondered what would have happened if Alexander had not died that fateful day in Babylon, aged just, and had instead headed west with his all conquering army, crossing over into southern Italy, intent on expanding his empire even further Would the Romans have had enough to stop him? It's a scenario that one Roman historian in particular thought at length about. His name was Titus Livius B known as Living who concluded that the Romans would have won, that they would have beaten Alexander even back then Welcome to the Ancients. I'm Tristan Hughes, your host, and in this episode, we're going to delve into this much discussed and debated hypothetical scenario. What if Alexander the Great had invaded Italy? What if he had fought Rome? Is Livy's argument credible To discuss this with me is Dr. Steeood Braant, prorofessor of History at Cairnne University and an expert on the Roman Republic and its military. Deeal, welcome back to the show. It has been too long and it' great to have you back. It has been too long and it's marvelous to be back We could have talked to you about so many different things, but I love this idea that you put forward, which is this question of what would have happened if Alexander the Great had invaded Italy and fought the Romans? And this is something that people love discussing even today, this hypothetical scenario that sadly never came to be Maybe not sadly, but the Isn it sad, right. Sadly for the video gamers, right? Be I mean, there are entire games of like civilization or video games that they create where you get to have these fictional battles between, you know, a German panzer unit and, you, an elephant core, you know or whatever it may be. But yeah, it' you know, I pose the question to you of course I got in way over my head because you know a lot about Alexandra a lot more than I do But it's the first alternate history in history. Livia's question, what would have happened if Alexander had invaded Rome? I can't think of one before that. No, I can't either. And yes, by doing it this way, it means that I'm going to be chatting a little bit more than usual. So thank you very much for that, Steel. You're bringing me out from just being the interviewer in today's episode But if we delve into the context straight away, so The story of Alexander the Great in the late fourth century BC and his reign from three hundred and thirty six to three hundred and twenty three BC Let's set the context first of all with what the state of Rome is as at that time and then I'll go on with explaining Alexander. So Ste, first of all, tell us through The Roman Republic in around three hundred twenty three three hundred and twenty BC, what do we know about the Roman Republic at that time? Well what's interesting about Rome is there are a couple of really big parallels that match up with what's going on in the East and particularly in Greece So Rome and Athens Both supposedly become a Rublic around the same time and five, ten, five hundred nine BC And then know Athens has this like marvelous first hundred years. Rome is like the opposite. They have a horrible first hundred years. they're actually they have kings when they expel them It's like a hundred years of' just not doing well And then two big things happen They're churning out their Republican structure trying to figure out how to manage that They're also trying to figure out how do we have a Republican army with like citizen soldiers that are to fight for a repepublic and not a king. And the two big events that that sort of are the watershed that make Rome into a great power in central Italy is they besiege and capture Their number one rival. Now there're supposedly this takes place over ten years. They they take it out in ten years It's probably someone's looking at the Trojan warar and looking back on it. But they figure out we going to pay people from people who aren't fighting to fight and that's how we're going to take the city in. So they start figuring out siege craft. So they take the city and that's good for them and they figure out siege craft and they figure out How do we keep an army in the field over the winter? And then the second thing that happens is a disaster The Gauls swoop down, wipe out a Roman army, which basically just kind of pulls a mighty Python and runs away All right, It's like where the rabbit comes out and everyone just runs. That's exactly what happens And then these gauls like inhabit most of the city, not the capital line And so this is embarrassing. It's humiliation. Maybe they get some Maybe they have some guerrilla warfare afterwards that does well but it's huge embarrassment But what they learn out of that is, okay, we need walls And we need to learn how to defend ourselves. So that sets them up for what's kind of the magical fourth century. And what happens after that is they start consolidating control in Italy. And then we've got three more big events that happen before Alexander So if he's coming around three hundred twenty one or thereabout. so He doesn't die in Babylon. if he's coming. And the three hundred twent s or three hundred ten s. There are a couple of other big things that have happened. The first thing is that Rome has fought the Samnites and their first war. Now they've been allies with the Samnites and the Samnites are these people They're in like the lower portion, the lower center of the Apennine mountain, that spine that goes along Italy. And they figure out These guys are really good at fighting in the mountains. We're used to fighting people like the Latins or the Etruscans pseudo hopplight style warfare in the planes And they fight really well in the mountains and so we can't neither us can defeat the other. It's kind of like the Pelopnesia war Athens has the fleet and Sparta has The land force, like neither side can defeat the other. And so one of the they decide the only way to beat the same nightes is we've got totally reform our military. and we'll get into that later. So they start reforming their military and the three hundred forty is in three hundred thirtyies. Then the other big thing, it's almost simultaneously is their system of alliances breaks down And they go into a war with their number one allies, the people who are just like them, they like brothers or cousins The Latins, all the stories about Rome. They start in like the latium plane And so they've got their really close nebors, the Etrcans to the north and've got their Latins to the south These Allies fight each other in really similar format, and it's a really bloody war. It's really short But at the end of it, Rome establishes itself as the unquestioned head of a Federation. But it's a really different kind of federation. ' it's a federation that says, okay, we want you to be a part of our new order and we're going to start with you Latins who are really close to us. So we're going to give you Roman law. We're going to give you Roman privileges. We're connect roads to you. We're gonna to have colonies. someome are Latin colonies which are really nice and poshed. Some are Roman colonies which are like tiny places nobody wants to go but they put the poor citizens there from Rome. So they create a system of colonizing and then they create a system where you can be a treaty ally with Rome, which is great, you'll be a part of the Federation. But if you are a Latin ally, you have a better status. And then if you're like a half citizen, you have an even better status. So they started extending Roman law and privileges throughout Italy, central Italy in this really systematic way. and that's revolutionary in terms of their regime And then the third thing that happens, the last thing I should say that happens because I've lost count But the last thing is that we're in the they're in the middle of the struggle of the orrders, which is Rome's internal. struggle. So the Roman Federation solves external question and they've got the military reforms that have been going on the fourth century as well But internally, they've had a group of nobles that have traditionally had most of the power. but over the last like hundred years An group, the plebs basically everyone else, is gaining more and more power And by the time we get to two hundred and eighty seven very end of this process, but you've had some major changes in the three hundred twent s. You have the plebeians attaining almost all the priesthoods, almost all the offices. so Rome has a Republican structure that we'll get into a little bit later. So they they have a Senate, they have two consuls who are kind of like two presidents for a year and then they have different kinds of assemblies. And this struggle of the orrders is winding down. When Alexander, if he had invaded, the struggle of the orders is almost nearly resolved. And the most important thing that has just happened is in three hundred twenty six, Rome has come up with an ingenious military idea We have consuls, two guys who go out and they fight and they lead our armies. Well now we have bigger armies for reasons I'll go into later But we need to have pro consonsuls and we need to have people who used to be consuls or used to be prietors, used to be magistrates leading army. So they're just going to stay in their position and they'll be able to maintain a siege or stay in the field and they'll be able to lead the armies because the Roman armies are growing too. So we don't just have two consuls who are always leading Roman armies in the field. We also now from both plebeians and patricians, we have pro consuls. and that means you can have maybe up to four or even five or six commanders in the field at a time that all basically have the same level of legitimacy Even though the consuls are going to be the ones in charge at the top, proconsuls have just as much authority in the field and are kind of like independent branches. ro are Pretty good place. at around three hundred twenty, but not a perfect place. So they're a rising power. Okay. Well, I'll just sort of stop there and we'll give you a chance to explain what's going on with all the amazing accomplishments of the Macedonians. Well, I can't do them all. I must admit otherwise we'll be here for hours. But I think I want to kick this off also by saying that you know, as all of that change is happening for Rome, in Italy stealed It's not as if the Greeks have no idea about it at all. I mean, the Greeks have been trading in Italy. they've got their big cities in the south of Italy, you know for centuries by this point. And so you can imagine that stories of this slow rise of this new power in central Italy would be filtering back to mainland Greece and city states and probably even the Macedonian court as well, the Royal court. but it's interesting to also highlight that before I delve into Alexander's story is that The Greeks would have known of the Romans and what they were doing at this time even though still in their eye, In their mindset, it is a sideshow compared to you know the great superpower of the time, which is to their east, which is the Persian Empire Yes. it's the Italis. So there's the Italics. These are the mountain peoples that are in Italy, but then they're distingued from the Italis and these are the Greeks in the South. Culture for Rome comes from two places. It's either the Etruscans in the North. We're not entirely certain who they have been related to where they come from or the Italis to the south, and they had this like rich deep culture from these Greek colonies. And when they look on the Lucanians or the Samnites or any of the Oscans or the Romans The Greeks are like many these guys are crazy barbarians. They're so backwards. Of course, theyre call the personons barbarians too. I think the persononss probably have a much better claim to civilization than that. You know, and you should mention three hundred thirty eight, you know, three hundred thirty eight BC this is this is another one of these parallel years This is the year when Macedon takes control of the Greek cities to the south.. And it's largely due to Alexander that he's successful at the Battle of Kyrnenaa under the comm overall command of his father, of course. And this is the exact same year that Rome becomes the hegemon in Italy. So again, it's these parallel stories. And so it would have been interesting to see if Alexander had survived. Yeah, absolutely. And kind the Greek views of Romans as barbarians and then Roman views of Greeks and Persians as barbarians, It's a classic trope you see again and again and again trying to claim that their civilization is superior. Yeah And so on, as we'll probably delve into as we get on But yes, let's set the scene for Alexander the Great. So Long story short, in his well, he comes to the throne in three hundred and thirty six, he dies three hundred and twenty three. So in his thirteen year reign He conquers the superpower of the time, which is the Achaemid Persian Empire. You know he marches into Asia, he invades Persian territory in three hundred thirty four BC and over the next Well it's less than a decade in fact, because he's already defeated the Persian king of Kings Darius before three hundred and twenty four BC. Darius is dead by that time. But he beats Darius in two big major battles, the Battle of Issus and then the Battle of Galgameeda, the final climactic clash between the two in three hundred thirty one BC in what is today northern Iraq But before then, he's fought a series of other battles, he's laid siege to prominent settlements. Of course, he's taken over important places that will become central in the story of the Hellenistic period that follows like Egypt and later Founding Alexandria that will become one of the great centers of ancient history, And then After taking over or the Persian Administrative capitals, alm said Persian cities, but that would be wrong. The Persian administrative capitals are the great cities like Babylon, Sza then the Great Persian center of Perosesepolis and then Egbatana. So these core centers of the Persian Empire He catches up with the last Persian king of Kings Darias, who is killed by one of his subordinates as he's trying to flee east into Monde Afghanistan to continue the fight But Alexander with his army continues to press on from there, so he has What I would say is the hardest fighting of his whole career in What is modern day Afghanistan and Uzbekistan? I'm sure that sounds familiar. Yeah He's fighting there for a few years. It's very, very difficult and there are a few setbacks there as well with some of his subordinates. You get disgruntled soldiers as well But he ultimately reaches an agreement. He marries a local princess who's the daughter of one of the most prominent figures in the region, a man called Oxyes and this woman called Rxana And then that last kind of great stage in Alexander's military campaigning, which is he crosses the Hindu Kush into India And you know, this was seen as when the Persian Empire was at its height under let's say Darius the Great, More than a century earlier, this was like the largest extent was also Persian territories down the Indus River Valley So he gets the Andnders River Valley, gets the Hyphassis river, where his soldiers famously say they won't go any further, a bit of a debate whether he decides to turn around on his own accord or if the soldiers force Alexander to turn around But he does turn around marches his army down the Indus River Valley He then has this terrible logistics nightmare of crossing the Grorosian desert where he loses a lot of Maybe notice treats, but a lot of the camp followers, a lot of people along with this army that is probably nearing Maybe not at a hundred thousand, but it's certainly between this. fifty into a hundred thousand soldiers by this time. And it's an incredibly diverse army by this time as well. It's not just the Macedonian soldiers that you picture with Alexander the Great from great epic movies like the two thousand four Colin Farrell Epic. with the Irish accents and so on. That's another story. And then he finally returns to Mesopotamia. He will ultimately end up in the great city of Babylon, one of the greatest cities of the ancient world, where he will die aged thirty two in early June three two, three BC, a big debate whether he's poisoned or he. dies of illness, I think it's very much The latter that he dies of illness But that is the empire that he rules that You know, he conquered that the Macedonians You know, which you got toa remember as well some thirty or so years earlier were very much At the back end of the Greek world, they were really struggling as a kingdom. They weren't the most prominent in mainland Greece and then Alexander's father Philip rises into prominence and then all of a sudden Within Alexander's A thirteen year reign or so are they control an empire unlike anything the Macedonians or Greeks in general, ancient Greeks in general had ever ruled over before. An incredibly diverse one too, stretching from India. You've got Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, you've got the traditional you've got Egypt and that Long really respected ancient culture of Egypt in their ranks as well likeike it's a new world for the Macedonians Alexander's army when he dies Probably as mentioned, maybe around seventy thousand He still has about fifteen thousand of his core Macedonian troops left You might think of the iconic Macedonian infantry with their long pikes and their small shields in big phalanx formations But you're also seeing at this time an evolution in Alexander's thinking. You see it in the military, as I'll get into now, but also in how he views running this empire, you know, taking over the Persian empire. in the fact that he's incorporating many Persian units into his army He's bringing in units which are beyond, you know, Persia as well. He's got Syian Horse archers. you've got Indian war elephants. you've probably got Anatolian troops there and also troops which are very much plain to their own strengths fighting techniques that they've been you know using decades if not centuries by that point, whether it's light infantry, heavy cavalry, light cavalry with javelins and so on But at the same time, also bringing certain troops in to fight in the Macedonian manner, there's story of a Persian phalanx of thirty thousand men There's a story of a mixed phhanx as well So you' got all of that stuff. That's Alexander's army. He's becoming more Persian in his outlook as well that he's trying to figure out how to rule over You know, this formidable empire that he did actually greatly admire And there's a lot of Admiration for the Persians and how they ruled Also respecting local cultures like in Egypt, there's a famous depiction of Alexander as an Egyptian pharaohan Luxw today at the heart of one of the temples But if we focus on his army itself, one of the other keys to its success Throughout his reign has been Alexander's dependable commanders beneath him, like you've got your Pdicus, your Cratarus, your Ptolemy, your Lysimachus, and the like. They are all either in Babylon O or in different parts of Alexander's emmpire at that time doing what he wants them to do. So he's got those capable commanders right next to him If Alexander the Great doesn't fall in and die in three to three BC, His empire still looks really strong. In many ways, you can say that he is the thread that is holding it all together and that's epitomized by several revolts that do break out when he does die But if he doesn't I mean, there's no reason to suggest that those rebellions would break out because people do fear Alexander. He's a megalomaniac by this point. He's a brilliant warlord. He's won all of these battles. and it's fair to say that whether it's peopleople who are angry against Macedonian hegemony in Athens in the West or soldiers who have been told they have to stay in Afghanistan and be a garrison there in the far East. They're probably not going to rebel if they haven't heard word that Alexander the Great has died So he's got ambitions. there's a story that he wants to know The next campaign would be The coastline of Arabia and taking over the rich trading cities on the Arabian coastline, which we connect in with the luscious market of Egypt and all the way to the Red Sea And there's also one last point I will mention because I think this is important for where we're going to go He apparently also orders the building around this time of a new massive fleet of some a thousand ships to be built in the eastern Mediterranean which I also find very, very interesting indeed, which I think will be interesting as we get kind of like to the next stage of what if Alexander Now that he's residing in Babylon, maybe Arabia is his first pointter call But even if he wants to move his actual center to somewhere like Babylon D really have designs ultimately to campaign. further west, but still that is the world of Alexander in three hundred and twenty three BC. I hope that was okay to follow No absolutely really well put you can see the ingredients of success that he has already built if he wants to turn west with the way that you just described it. Yeah. And I think one other thing to say is obviously the wars of the success of that breakup when he dies is because there's no clear air If he hasn't died at that time One of his wives, the aforementioned Roxana, this princess from Uzbekistan She is pregnant at the time that Alexander did die, so if he didn't, and she ges birth to a son, which is Alexander IV. So Alexander will also have a legitimate heir at that time too still a kid, but Alexander does also now have a child and he's also married to two more Persian princesses who he can Puming hed planned to have more children with. so that's a that's another fun fact. Shall we now dove into this idea that Should we do about like three hundred and twenty two or three hundred and twenty one BC just to say that maybe he's gone and campaigned in Arabia for a bit and he's come back and it's now looking potentially to go Westwards Do we have any idea what the Romans thought of Alexander the Great and his campaigns? L at that time, arere there any contemporary references, like any idea maybe I can't think of a Roman embassy being sent to Alexander the Great, but surely evenven when they're growing in Italy, they must have been hearing what this This Macedonian king doing a bit further east We know that they're going to have embassies after their struggle with Paris. So I think Yeah. So we've've we've already introduced Here's the story downt to around the three hundred twenty s And then I think what during the three hundred twenties, there are two stories that inform us, the two main events that inform us about how Rome would have performed and that's the second and third Samnite wars and then the war with Pyrus. and Pyrus, the so called heir of Alexander seems to have that tactical genius that Alexander has, but not the political diplomatic genius and he's really charismatic and not as charismatic as Alexander. I'm not sure who can be as charismatic as Alexander, except for perhaps Julia Caesar. So we know that when they do have a major interaction with someone like Alexander, Pyrus, when they that's when we have the first embassies that go abroad. And this so They know of what's going on. They have heard of it. There have been Hellenistic adventurers. So we've got about half a dozen of these guys. There's in Syracuse. you have tyrants that pop up from time to time. There have been Spartan Kings that have intervened And when Alexander the Melotian, for example, the king of Epirus, when he goes over to Ital, he gets killed there And you know, he famously writes back it sounds misogynistic today, but he famously writes back and said Alexander had had no idea that he's only been fighting women up to this point in time The point being, Th these Italian peoples are crazy and they're like they're they're tough now. he's not being fair because I think you can actually make a pretty good comparison between the Eastern S traraps and the Indus River Valley civilizations. I think that's the kind of situation Alexander would have found himself. in Italy Akedi And in some ways what we have with the big battles within the Persian Empire, Mesopotamia, the Levant, those the fertile crescent that's that's a totally different. That's apples to apples, but orice apples to oranges. But I think the Those hither regions out that are so mountainous out in the easastern Satrapees, that that Alexander the Melotia needed to know that Alexander has fought people that tough Oh yeah, like besieging rock fortresses again and again and again. and then of course, like the Indian kings and all their war elephants and the like, somethinghing that the Romans have never encountered before. But no, let's say would because Alexander when he' in three hundred twenty three BC is he also has elephants in his army, which is very interesting But I was thinking Alexander almost certainly he would have known of the Romans. He would have heard of what was happening in Italy, because partly of what he mentioned of this other Alexander, this Alexander the Melotsian, who'd already died by this point fighting, trying to carve out his own empire in southern Italy. who was also Alexander the Great uncle So there's a familiar link there as well. So although Alexander the Molotian doesn't fight Rome directly, he fights the other Italian peoples, I'm sure he would have heard that there were these things happening initially further to the west. He would have known of the Romans, I think, probably wouldn't have thought too much of them. But he would have released heard of them. So Let's say that he wants to March' armies west h we theorise on that first of all? because Steel. if I think of Alexander the Melossian and then I think of Pyrhus later And also with that what I mentioned earlier with like, It seems that Alexander did want to build a big fleet in the eastern Mediterranean. then it would seem the most logical thing If he wanted to invade Italy that he would start from the boot of Italy and work his way up. I think we have to agree. That's how every single Hellenistic adventurer starts to build out, whether you're Syracuse is trying to build a Hellenistic empire. You do this by starting with those wealthy Greek city states, which provide wealth, they provide a base for logistics. cultural place to go after. you typically don't into like territory where you have no logistical chain where you cut off your supply lines. So yeah, he's Also there are going to be perils if you go into the Terranean Sea. and I'll talk about this when we get to Allies, which is somewhere where Rome has a distinctive advantage You're going to have the Etruscans and more importantly the card the Jennians are going to have to deal with. And the Syracuseans, the None of the hellenistic adventurers, Paris the cannot, cannot crack that Carthaginian nut. The Carthaginians are just too tough. They've got a huge Navy as well. So yeah, you got to go from your base of support. in Illyria or Epirus and then move over to either the heel of the boot or somewhere else probably Tarrentum. Turrentum is always eager to take in someone to go fight against the The Italics And that's the big g city state in southern Italy at the time and the one that has also not been taken over by the Italians at that time, unlike places like ped him or piced him and the like a bit further north. So it makes sense that if Alexander did invade Italy if he would have It makes sense he landed somewhere near Terentum get their supply chains from there then and then March inland towards Roman territory would begin, I presume. And at that time, it seemed so is roughly the borders of Roman territory and let's say hypothetical idea about three hundred twenty is this kind of Is the southern end of Roman influence kind of in that central Apernines area? Well, in three hundred twenty, the first people that he's going to have to deal with are going to be the Samnites because it's from three hundred twenty six to three hundred four that Rome is fighting its war with the sand mines after they've almost certainly after they've begun a serious m A series of major reforms that had transformed the army from simply phalanx tyight heavyfantry to a hybrid heavy infantry that emphasizes javelins, which I think it's a Maybe it' Javelin that kills Alexander.'s Javelin that kills one of one of those Hellenistic adventures. Menion. Yes, it is Y., which that tells you something that because that's one of their primary weapons that they're fighting with So I think what if we're going to imagine a scenario, it almost may even be better to think of it as the The Samnites have already been conquered by Rome or the Samnites have to make a choice. do they alle with Rome or do they alle with Alexander? And that I think is That's a really tough question to answer The Lanians, the Oscans, they don't like the Italis and they're going to see a hellenistic adventure as some Greek empire builder who's going to interfere with their independence But that's interesting. Do you think that would be the case even with Alexander and his formidable reputation and you know with more than fifty thousand soldiers presumably coming over? including Persians, including these massive beasts that no one has ever seen before in his army Do you still think there is an Italian kind of an Italic an Oscan idea in their mindset that you they would still fight against it I think that' the that's the story we see up until that point in time with the adventurers who are overlapping with Alexander. And and what what that happens with Piris. I think many of the Italis, if not all, maybe not three Maybe not regggin, what we don't really know They're going to go with The Hellenistic adventure. They don't have capable armies themselves ' beset by the Italic tribes. But there's always been this The Greeks in the South have always been opposed by the Ouscans who are moving down into the plains. I don't see them capitulating to Alexander, I mean, Alexander's going to have to go and fight into the mountains. Now how well is he going to do? It's going to be hard. It's going to be the same trouble that the Roman Empire later had with the Germans, no big settlements What city do you attack? There're just there are very few of them hard to wrestle with. They fight guerilla style, they have uh, they have They have like a large ov ovular shield and then they throw javelins Battles that they fight usually last in the hours. A phhalenx battle is Gsh, an hour long phalx battle's a really long phalenx battle Why? Because there's a lot of give and take, a lot of back and forth, a lot of movement in and out of a battle because're it's a missile battle. Most of the battle is a missile battle until they come to close So I mean it's really hard to say what the Sam Knites would have done. I almost just think that we should kind of consider the Samnites are already conquered or the Samnites U They're going to resist Alexander. in which case, he's going to have to deal with them before he even gets to the Roman Republic. Or if we're thinking along the lines of if he's coming in the three hundred twent s, it's also pretty logical to think the Romans have an alliance with the Samlites in the three hundred fifties They'd renew that alliance after the first after the first Samnite warar in the three hundred and fortyies. I think it stands to reason that in the face of a grave threat, the Samnites and the Romans are going to set aside their differences. and they're going we're going to reorge that alliance which they've had for decades And I think that's going to present a problem for Alexander because he's going to have to deal with the buffer of the Sandmites before he gets to Roman Republic. Now he's coming later after the secondcond Samnite War when Rome is clearly won and it's over. He's going to have the same night says Allies and this is the situation Hannibal Barco finds himself in when he goes into Italy. aboutbout a century later. So fight for us and then and then we'll fight for you, but Alexander, please like kind of help us restore at least a degree of freedom right and exactly If the attacks before the secondecond Saminaite warar, I think the Sandnites joined with Rome. If you attacks after the secondecond Saminaite War, I think the Sandnites probably join. with Alexander. But by this point in time Rome is gosh, they're battle tested in their own way just as much as Alexander has been. and they've got more alliances throughout All of Italy, so they're in a stronger position as well Well, shall we now kind of let's say the Alexander the Great and his army has reached a. There's a Roman army opposing him or kind of reach Roman territory in Italy. Of course, thiss never happened and we welcome Ii welcome, I'm sure we both welcome lots of comments to this video. This is just our thoughts on the matter and we're going to delve through it But this was a big matter of conversation in ancient Roman educated circles, I guess, because who is this Writer, this historian, who envisages who tries to put out give us a scenario of what would have happened if Alexander had fought the Romans And this is Titus Livy. So my wife calls him the angel on my shoulder. She calls Polybius the devil on my shoulder because one of them is a bookist nerd who like hangs out in the libraries during the time of Augustus and then the other is disli. swashbuckling adventure thinks, you know that you should be a Homeric hero and that's Polybius. But Livy probably asks the first alternate history in history. And that's exciting. We don't know of anyone before who said, what if this would have happened?'s In popular cuggles, it's all the rage, video games it's all the rage. like what would have happened if this that or the other had happened It's in some scholarly circles, the fact that Livy is asking an alternate history is it's kind of it's kind of annoying. Historians aren't supposed to do that thing that sort of thing But I think Livy is absolutely spot on I think that a historian always has to be thinking in terms of an alternate history. And here's why I don't think you can do good history unless you understand the question Well What if this didn't happen hadn't happened So if I'm going to teach a class, I'm going to teach a class about Alfred the Great, okay, like the greatest statesman to ever live I teach the class and everyone already knows the outcome in my freshman class, where I just presume that everyone's going to figure out what happens That's no good. But if you can put someone in the shoes of Alfred the Great, you can put someone in the shoes of like, oh my gosh, he goes into exile. He loses, you know, Anglo American civilization as we know, it is doomed. If you can put them in that situation, then they'll really feel what it's like to be under the attack by the Vikings or they'll really feel what it's like If you are hamerbing and you're beset by all these people and, you're not going to be the guy that's the main base of the Middle Bronze Age That's not how it happens. He does become the face of the Middle Bronze Age. Alfred does end up defeating the Vikings. So I think that's part of what a historian does is any situation that he looks at He has to look at alternatives like becausecause the people who are living through history Alph the Great, he doesn't know what it's gonna happen. Hamarami doesn't know that he's actually going to be the one who builds an empire in the Middle Bronze Age. Jesus of Nazareth, it doesn't look like to anyone else that he's going to be the founder of this like huge religion of Christianity. and Roman Empire doesn it's not even really noticed for a century So I think that's really it's really important for historians to actually appreciate the value of alternate history. And so that's what Livvy's doing here. And Livy's alternate history basasically poses this question, what if he had attacked? and it's around three hundred and twenty one because he's actually timed to this at a time when Rome is at a horrible They got trapped in Samniam Deepen like at the caodine forks, and an entire army had to surrender was massively embarrassing. The sandites probably should have wiped out the Roman army. But and he pauses right there and says, Okaykay, what this like horrible moment in the secondecond Sammite War. What if Alexander. had invaded the Roman Republic. And that's that's then he sets this up and then he kind of teases out He raises questions like, well, what about the regime? Like who owns the superior political structure What about manpower? Wh has better situation in terms of manpower. What about the capabilities of commanders? What about the equipment that they fight with He works through most of this Being Livy, he focuses a little more on like the character of Alexander and he's got some generalizations in there, which I think you will properly critique But I would argue on balance in the end, Livy probably comes to the right conclusion. I'm telling you I'm keeping you my heads up where I'm going go. But I think you leads to the right conclusion, but that's why you're here. You're going to push back on me and explain why may you's just dead wrong But is it also fair to sayf toe when Livy's writing this? Is he writing the first century BC so a bit later? is that the idea? Yes, Yes. And do feel Is he also being a bit of a popular historian? Is he giving the people what they want? So is this idea that this question was being thrown around by lots of elite Romans who greatly admired Alexander the Great, but still wanted themselves to be seen as even greater this idea Well, there's one theory that it was a schoolbys exercise, which tells you It's really this is actually really popular. Not only is it sort of people are are swimming in these waters in popular circles, but it's something that the educated elites are training the next generation with. So it's possible that Livy's like, o, I really liked what I wrote you know about this. I'm just gonna tuck it in. it fits into this spot right here. There are all sorts of theories as well because it's a little different for Livy to include it. But yes, it's definitely a popular question. But I think it's an important question because for Livy comes down to The most important question, what is the nature of autocratic rule? What makes Republic strong What is the situation of Rome now that we have transitioned from a republic to a monarchy because he's thinking about it in terms of the Roman Republic hass not died and the Roman Empire with its first emperor Augustus is now a very different kind of animal That's not just popular history, that's really good history because it's using history to ask the most important questions Absolute king, absolute monarch versus Roman Republic isn't it at the same time Well shall we go through Livy's digression? Bs by bits theme by theme and we can debate each part of it and then see how we end up at the end But still, I'm sure you probably know the text a little better than me. I've got excerpts here as well to help us along the way But would you like to start us off? I mean, how does Livy begin this digression. what Things does he focus on first of all Well, what he's concerned with is 'cause he's writing right at the beginning of the secondecond Samnite warar And what he's concerned with is Ram in this really bad situation Do they actually have the stuff to be able to beat Alexander? And so he says, Well, we're going to look at three questions and this is what he says. So this is like Book nine, chapter seventeen He says, The things which tell most in war are The numbers and courage of the troops. the ability of the commanders and fortune who has such a potent influence over human affairs, especially those of war I love that he includes fortune here. It's an ongoing theme for classical historians As we'll see with fortune Alexander in some ways, is a master class in forortune And for the most part Now, he he overcomes enormous challenges. no question about them Fortune smiles on Alexander and for a guy he hardly ever loses a battle. This is this some would say he never loses battle So that's that's going to be important for him. But he and that's what he's going to spend most of his time talking about. and he's going to do it by looking at the abilities of the commanders Now what is terrific that I think that he does? He goes into the commanders and he spends a great deal of time on that talks about the current generation of Romans. and he lists about a dozen these generation of Romans. So I talked about this already how The Romans have two annually elected consoles, but they also have pro consoles and pro proiders. Well, these are the guys who are going to be commanding the Rban armies. Okay. He mentions a couple of other great commanders in history, Pompey the Great. Livy's takaking a risk here playing up Pompey the Great so much for his patron because his patron's father fought against adoptive father fought against Pompey the Great but Livy is in some ways very Republican. He mentioned Cyrus And he says, Cyrus, Pompey the Great Alexander They're great. But hey, we got a dozen of the leading Romans and they're just the leading ones that I care to mention And they're just as good. And then he goes back and he talks about they are building on other generations and he talks about the Juni, the Valeri, the Fabby, the Quinti, the Corneli, and Camillis. Camillus is this famous T of the century commander who like helped Rome recover after the sack of Rome and was instrumental in the destruction of the city of AE. And then after that so who he's played up, okay, you've got your one great commander Masedon and here I think you will appropriately critique him. So after this, he then he transitions and it's kind of jarring. he transitions to start mocking Darius and how Darius is nothing compared to these Roman commanders. And then you see what he's doing with that when he shifts to chapter eighteen. He says that Alexander for all his qualities has basically become Darious. and he indulg he's now indulging in persononal vices, of course The famous personal vice that everyone knows about, the famous incident is when he kills Clydus the Black I mean it's like the worst moment. posossibly also the death of Philotus and then the just execution of Perminium because he's the father of Phyilotus. So there are these things that happen right about the same time And what Livy is saying is, well, that's what we would expect. That's what an autocrat ruling in the Persian manor is going to do. He's going to become Persian. Now. Mivy's kind of cheating here because he's already answered his question before we can get to it because Alexander by becoming like Darius has become a monarch who is destined to like luxury and vice and what happens in Babylon, we kind of would expect to happen R right. So he's in some ways, he kind of cheats us out out of what could have been a really fun question by just zeroing in on Alexander But I think he's on to something that if we just look at this from a military perspective, we'll come back to that But that's why he concludes with basically for that first section is Masedon's problem is that one man's greatness, its success depends on one man's greatness and the temporary favor of fortune And almost as an aside, he finishes it out in two relatively short paragraphs in chapter nineteen about the number of the courage and the panoply of the troops. Now this is what we would have wanted him to spend most of his time on, right? As you know military historians or people who are you know, Building out a video game where you're going to have Alexander invade Rome or someone who's going to make a movie about a what if would have happened or a scholar looking at you a fine tuned answer to this question. But he does raise some really good points. He is using his own census numbers where he talks about how many troops that they have. He does go into some of the details about the Roman fighting style, how they've got that hybrid heavy infantry with light infantry capabilities And then so he gets it the numbers. He talks about the Romans are just as courageous as the Macedonians. I think that's probably fair. I think both sides can be ferocious and war And then he closes with fortune. And this is another one of these questions where It doesn't look favorably on the Macedonians because fortune has got to keep Alexander alive for a long time Now One thing that I'll close with this that I think that he probably should have mentioned is he should have thought of Julius Caesar Fortune did not smile on the Republic with Julius Caesar. That guy survived a lot decades of fighting. and it was sort of extraordinary that he did. and that's another example of Alexander. and we can't forget that Juliia Caesar because he survives either brings down the Republic delivers it a moral blow or nearly brings down the Republic, which then you know is finished off by his adoptive son and who does he model himself on? Alexander the Great Stee, that was a very very fair assessment of those passages. and I see your points. I'm going to start off by agreeing with you on a couple of things. First off is that idea very much of fortune. and you are quite right. Although Alexander the Great was an extraordinary military commander And we can't take anything away from that. He was incredibly lucky. People always kind of say, you know, he died so young And I always know shout back while he was lucky to live as long as he actually did with all of the fighting he did. That hellenistic warlord charismatic general style of leadership where you're expected to be leading from the front in all of your battles, whether it's an open pitched battle, like the Battle of Galgamil and so on leading his cavalry in a charge. or assorting settlements being one of the first to climb up the ladder to attack the settlements. know Alexander In many cases, he's there with his men. He suffers several big war wounds But he ultimately does pull through even though some wall wounds are really bad. And I think it is fair to say by three hundred and twenty three BC He's not the same Alexander the Great as he did when he invaded the Persian Empire. You he's got these injuries. I think he's quite quite a fair bit he's less healthy than he was and he's more more of a megalomaniac at this time However whereere I take issue with Livy right at the start, is him picking out particular examples, particular cases, well known stories from Alexander's career and using them to say that he has become less of a formidable figure than he was in the past He singles out this idea. There's a few ons. he talks about, you know, all of his heavy drinking. You know, and that was a key reason why he wasn't the Alexander that they would have faced after he'd conquered the Persian Empire was not as great as he would they would have faced if it was earlier on. I think that's nonsense because he's fight he's heavy drinking is part of Macedonian Lee culture from beginning to end with Alexander this idea of him killing his close companions in the kind of how There are a couple of great stories you mentioned Cllytus the Black and also the Phyotus affair and for lototus and Parminial Alexander was doing away with potential rivals from his earliest days as King of Macedonia, getting rid of rivals. Macedonian succession is incredibly bloody. and The court of Fional politics of the Macedonians ensures that once in a while, you know, people stars will rise and fall The story of Cltos the Black, of course is one where they drink too much and then it ends with Clelytus the Black's death, which is sad and Alexander expresses great sorrow. after the death of his great friend for several days. But in other cases where he does away with certain former allies, there is normally a political reason behind it So I think Livy just using those examples to say to kind of deride Alexander's not as formidable a general as he had been. In the past, I don't think it's fair on its own. We also have examples. I mean just before Alexander the Great did die where he's leading campaigns against mountain tribes in the nearby Zagros mountains and exacting revenge against them, still proving he's got what it takes. he fights these Indian kings, especially King Porus at the Battle of the Hydaspes after the Cletos affair and all of that. I think Livy's portrayal that, you know, Alexander's effectively become more feminine, more Persian by this time and using that as an excuse, along with these other things to say that he wasn't as great as he once was is just the Romans wanting to deride Persians and the people in the East Even though it's not that black and white, it's once again heralding back to this idea that Alexander in their eyes was becoming more of a barbarian evenven though actually Alexander was adopting these certain Persian practices because he had to because first of all, he admires Persian culture. The Macedonians knew of Persian culture long before Alexander the Great, he had interactions with Persian diplomats and so on long before he conquers them And he's got to deal with all of these people that were in the Persian Empire. And that includes, know for those people You know, u respecting their practices, they're respecting their gods, what they believed in. He does the same in Egypt and so on. So I take issue with that as Livy kind of tryed to deride Alexander straight away My last point I'll make on that section stilleel is coming back to the Roman commommander's thing that you kicked it all off with saying how great Livy saying how great these Roman commanders were and that there's only one Alexander And I do completely agree with that. If Alexander the Great dies when they're campaigning in Italy You know, you've lost your king. The generals around Alexander If at this time his young kid is is there still only an infant child There's every chance that they decide just to retreat from Italy and then to fight as they will do in the actualars of the suuccessors, they'll fight over what they see as the mostalu valuable parts of Alexander the Great's Empire Ptolemy will end up probably in Egypt again, or something like that The issue I take with that statement is this Roman idea that their commanders, you know Although Alexander was absolutely incredible, at the end of the day, they had more commanders who were better than Alexander's commanders, which I take massive issue with. because It's clear Alexander the Great's success is dependent on his generals Alexander takes the limelight, but without his key commanders, I've mentioned the names earlier like Perdicus and Cratrus and Ptolemy and so on. who also are like Alexandria in that they fight from the front. They they know Alexander's battle plan. Alexander relies on them to lead troops in Battle and on campaigns. You know By the time Alexander the Great dies, they are the most formidable commanders, the most capable They are arrogant as figures as well, but they're very confident figures. That the world has ever seen Yes Alexander dies, these generals will almost certainly fight amongst themselves But you You can't accept this idea that the Roman commanders like pitted one againgst, let's say, one Roman commander pitted against one of Alexander the Great's leading generals This idea that they were just as much of a match I'd have a great debate with because I think they would have struggled against Epererdicus, against Atolemy. I know then you can bring Pyrhus in later and explain that, but Pyrh just beat them in a battle, you know, clearly and then The Per oficture that's another story So those are my small retorts to what you said there's do. I agree with you in some of the things O other things I take issue with how Livies with how Livy's presenting it Yeah, Livia's question is We know how it works out. We know that the Macedonian successor kingdoms they lose to Rome We know that the Macedonian failing charts in the long run, they cannot defeat the Roman leegions. So the question is can Masenon at the height of its power under its greatest general defeat Rome at the very beginning of its power Now that tells you a lot about how great Rome is going to become Is Alexander the best general of the day? I think we have to say yes. It simply based on his list of accomplishments Is he extraordinary in every single thing that he does No. I think it's a combination of capabilities that he has We could take, for example, just one, just one of the dozen guys that Livy mentions. and if we have a dozen leading Consuls and senators We have dozens and dozens others that could also serve this in this role because Rome is this that Rome at this point in time has created a structure where if you want to be a leading public and representative You have to lead men in combat for a decade of fighting. You have to go out to battle every single day year Just like for example, the commanders of Alexander, I do think we have the same kind of qualities both sides. I disagree with Livy that everyone's as great as Alexander. But I think Livy has a point because if we just take Quintus Fabius Maximus, one of these guys Quintinus Stevby Max is really honest, the either grandather, great grandfather of the famous guy Fhi Tannibal He is a master of deception. He dashes through the Cameian forest based on excellent guide from someone who knew the area that knew his brother. He surprises the Etruscans. He attacks them at night, He defeats them He steals his own men by not telling them in a different battle that you have reinforcements coming, you're all on your own. and if you don't defeat the enemy, they're going to destroy you And that allows them to pluck up their courage and go fight the enemy knowing full well that the reinforcements are actually going to hit them in the rear if he hadn't, one had the foresight to make sure he knew the reinforcements were coming and put a contingent of men behind the hills. But then two knew his own men well enough to know. if they know that, they're not going to fight the way they need to for us to win the battle. He would not have been successful. That's just great generalship When he's a really old man Quintus Fabius Maximus is fighting with his With his fellow Publius Dechiusmos and the two have been frequently in the same They've served like three times as consoles together, both sensors together So the families clearly they're close. Ones a Bbian, family, onees a patrian P'ul be is Dechyus moose. He's no Darius. His whole family has this tradition where they devote themselves to to if there's if a battle is going badly They go through really quick rites with a priest that is next to them and then they go like charge into an enemy formation and devote themselves to the gods. Now this is like totally foolharty. It's not good strategy. But this is not Darius running off so we can fight another day. There's wisdom to doing that But in this case, you don't Romans have no shortage of people who are willing to die in battle. But what's interesting about this battle, the Battle of Centinum is So Decchius Mus has now effectively killed himself in battle and that side of the battle is not going well. Quintus Fabius Maximus has the foresight and the wisdom. He's holding the line on the other. He peels off a part of the rear of his forces, basically turns it into a reserve and sends them to go reinforce Pubiast Dekchias Mus's forces. And then he sends he pes off another portion to go and assist the cavalry and hit the Samnite in the rear. And then he slowly doggedly approaches the Samnite camp, but as he's like wiping out the forces. and he prohibits his men from sacking the camp. That's really hard to do Really, really hard to do That shows you this commander knows like he has ironclad control of his men. and There are examples, Manlius Torquatus, he executes his own son for disobeying his orders. This is how ironclad the Romans saw aity But there's just one example of one guy And he's just one out of a dozen and that dozen has other dozens And so I think the point that Livy makes is Alexander's got to live Gott to live No Roman commander needs to live. We can lose apupius Dechusus. We could even lose a Fabius. But if Alexander's dead So I did some calculating. Among his, if we take about thirty of his Hellenistic commanders Um, or the members of the Royal House, successors of the next generation The members of the companions, we got about thirty of these guys that are the leaders when he dies. Six of them are killed in action fighting one. nineteen of them are murdered, assassinated, executed or die in exile. Only four or five of them Die. Natural causes. What does that mean That means if the Macedonians lose their leader, they will devour one another. What do these dozen guys do We have about twenty triumphs. These are giant military parades where a commander comes back. And he like they celebrate his victory and they celebrate each other when they're a victory Every single battle they fight, they have to fight with a colleague. They have to work with it. Sometimes they hate each other, but that's how you fight Republican warfare Alexander cannot die. When he dies, that's it. it's over The Romans on the other hand, like if they lose a commander They're never going to run out of commanders. And here's the other big problem we should probably get to this soon is they're also never going to run. It's just not going to happen For my valiant defence of Alexander's commanders, that is something that I can't refute is that if Alexander the Great dies, these generals will turn on themselves, especially with that open question of who is the next heir after Alexander the Great and the bloody violent nature of Macedonian succession full stop. rememember that famous saying that Later given to Alexander the Great on his deathbed, who'd you give it to the strongest? Now we didn't say that, but it's added later in hindsight of knowing of all the chaos that will erupt following his death One further point I will give to that, which actually strengthens your case, which would have shown the troubles That would have happened if Alexander the Great had died when he was fighting the Romans and how quickly that Army could easily have disintegrated and gone home is that wear in other occasions and we know actually when Alexander the Great does die. that there are certain people in his empire That, see it as the opportunity to revolt and rise up. And you know, they are not content with being under Macedonian overordship. So you will have the issues of these Macedonian generals who I still stick to, each and every one of them was probably more experienced and more formidable than the Roman commanders they would have been facing. But you know, they would have been straight awayay trying to get a piece of the imperial pie and then wanting to prove themselves in battles by defeating you issues that they would have had in the new parts of that empire that they were ruling And quite frankly, an idea of continuing a fight against a Roman people that you know, are proving pretty obstinate and actually have a surprising amount of troops. would have been low on their list of priorities to do something else. So I do completely agree with what you were saying there So shall we move then on that next p part. So I think we covered everything from that first section of Livy have we still now? The size of the armies and the quality of the troops. So what does Livvy say now as we kind of go into that? If we imagine these armies up against each other. He doesn't go into enough detail with the infantry, but he gives us enough detail and his readers would have known what they're talking about because the army that he's describing in the first century had just come into being when he's talking about Alexander. which is why this is a really good point for him to do the Alexander digression That's just when those military reforms have happened So as I pointed out, I think in terms of regime design and in terms of U Commanders and commanders working together, I think Rome is the advantage. In terms of tactics At best for R, it's a mixed bag. I really think in the end that's probably not the best the case. So let's just look at Stiechcraft, for example. Stiegecraft, which Livy doesn't talk about that much. Romans have a few examples. They kind of finish the siege of V, but it takes a long time. They besiege some small Sam night cities, but I mean Alexander the siege of Pelium Matus, Halicarnassus tire on the building of two moles out to out to I mean, nothing like that had ever been done. The Soggian rock, the rock of Coranas, there's no question. When it comes to siegecraft Macedonians have the advantage, o. Cavalry Romans famously have horrible cavalry. They've got like three they only they have a fraction of the cavalry. Now they have allies who have cavalry, but when that cavalry faces Paris's cavalry and Hannibal's cavalry, they don't do well. Romans don't get good cavalry until later By contrast Alexander in like Cyrnea, Issis, Gagamella and Granicus it's four lightning strikes into the weak spot up from a gap that he has pulled and he that's how he wins the battles with his we call it heavy cavalry, but it's not really heavyavalry compared to the heavry cavalry that comes later So I think in terms of cavalry, we have to give the advantage again to Alexander Armor We have the first armor in history. Alexander's going be, he uses elephants really fast. So he's going to be using elephants Proably if he comes and attacks Rome. This is what Pyus does. We know how that turns out twoo battles, the Romans are like, oh my gosh, they don't know what to do. They try all sorts of things with the elephants the horses or something They try these like flaming wagons, which don't work. And in the end the last battle, they kind of figure out light infantry throwing javelins at elephants' faces, the elephants don't do well But I think we're going to have to give the advantage there as well. Okay, now infantry. this is where Livy focuses Given that Alexander has got to come to Italy and fight in the mountains and the plains of Italy, this is where Rome always prioritizes heavy infantry Their leegionaries become the best infantry soldiers on the planet This is where I actually think Rome is going to give them a run for their money. When they approach a Macedonian army, they hurl javelins. and then when they get close, they rely on individual combat. So when they approach like any force, it's we're fighting as a unit and we still have their units. But when Sield meets shield and hike meets Glaadius, and by this point in time they're probably using something like this straight sword, but it's not the Spanish sword. We're going to have a really tough fight between these two guys. And infantry like phalanx versus legionary They are draws on balance until we get to the second century and this is where The Romans are victorious. and the reason they get victorious twice in the second century, the Battle of Kinoskephalai and the Battle of Pitna, is that Palanx cannot handle holding its body together. When you put an individual legionary versus an individual phalan giant, it's no contest. The leegionary always wins because he can fight as an individual, which again is very So I would say in terms of heavy infantry, I'd give a slight advantage to Ram, but that means I think on balance In terms of tactus and technology, Macedonians have the advantage when it comes to overall capability I think you're right with the cavalry as well, you know, that is the real kind of you know, a part of the shock, you know, one of the big impact things of Alexander the Grace's Army. I completely take your point about the infantry. What I would say in return to that is With Pidna and Cinocephali, you know, the phalangites that they're facing are not the phalangeites of Alexander the Great in the fact that I think it depends on which phalangeis the Romans would have been facing becausecause within Alexander the Great's arrmy in this hypothetical scenario There would have been Sessian troops the so called the famous silver shields that had fought in all of these different Um All of these different terrain types were probably also at times depending on the situation, they could fight with a shorter spear and shield, not always the long pike and shield and they kind of adapt to the situation there. I don't say if it's the jungle but you know, the difficult terrain of the Indus River Valley and over there as well. And even early in Alexander the Great' reign in Thrace, they fight in difficult terrain and they beat the Thracians on a couple of occasions. I will also say just with the experience of the silver shields and some of the phalangis, that I don't think it's straight, it would always be the case that the Romans with their with their system you know, would always have the upper hand even in more difficult terrain. I would agree with that with other stuff, but I just want to put that small retort in there I agree with that. I would have to concede that the Macedonian army because they also have that flexible unit, those flexible units you just described, I think they're going to win most battles against the Romans. and this is what happens when Pyrus they the Romans This is important. They inflict enormous casualties on Pyrus. Yes. But they don't win a single battle with them. The best they can do is a stalemate in the final battle, But they do hold their own don't end up holding the field. So yeah, think I think when the battle the battle' fought, I think the Romans probably lose. But Pyrus is an interesting example, isn't it? But you do because you see Roman progress so clearly there Battle of Heracleer at the star is, I think pretty clear it is a clear victory for Pirrus, although even at that battle, he loses quite a few of his key troops. And he almost get killed. It's only becauseress somebody else and Alexander's not going to do that. So if we were if we game if we war game that, Alexander's dead because the because the Romans do what he does to Darius, go straight for the, you know, the head of the snake, they're going to do that to him and he's not going to dress somebody else up like Perus would probably So you know but' I still maintain that I will still concede that the Romans are probably going to lose against a Macedonian army in a pitch battle orry'm not' not I don't want to have that hope you're quite. So than you thank you for that. I appreciate that I was like asking him is like it's I said that's the Pr victory I' then better vvent to me say this steright because because you can see that there is the There is that, the Romans are certainly learning. so I don't think it's too far fetched to say that maybe they would have done the same with Alexander, which kind of brings me to the next point With the Romans you always think of they have that grit, they keep being able to raise soldiers, they'll be able to keep coming back Shall we talk about that next? becausecause this would be something completely alvien to Alexander the Great and the Macedonians who would expect, you know, win a couple of battles They'll surrender. we take over. but it sounds with the Romans even at this stage, it would be different This is, I think the decisive factor. Okaykay. This is where we look into strategic considerations Logistics, Alexander's got the advantage. his father had done a brilliant job The Romans aren going to have exxcellence in logistical like modifications until we get to a couple of centuries down the road where you're getting rid of your camp followers, getting rid of carts oxen and you're reducing it to two weeks packs. Romans can be quick Pinch But the logistic system of the Macedonians favors the Macedonians. Terrain, on the other hand is going to favor The Romans because this is their home turf and they know how to fight in both the plains and the mountains. But what really matters is the bigger strategy. So weve got tactics, weve got operations, strategic concerns. And this is where I think we have to look at the Roman Federation And we had to look at the Roman Republic. And there both the regime of the Federation and the Republican regime itself These are going to be superior. They're going to be more resilient best that Macedon can hope for in terms of the Roman Federation As they arrive and they peel off some of the Sam Kights or the Sam Knights. They're going to get some of the Greek cities to the south They're probably not going to get the Northern Italics. They're not going to win over the Etruscans. They will certainly not win over the Latins and they're definitely not going to win over the Carthaginians, which have had like hundreds of years of treaties. Carthage does not want to see any more Greeks in or Macedonians over there So most of the Allies are going to stick with Rome and this is how it always ends up happening throughout Roman history. People keep thinking that they're going toing peel allies away. And what they don't realize is every allies is making this question is asking themselves this question. Okay, I've already been beaten by Rome This guy's coming along and he's going to help us out But if he helps us out Is he going to give me the autonomy that Rome gives me? Is he going to give me the Roman law and the Roman rights that they give me? I don't necessarily like being under Roman authority. but you know what? they're not that bad of a master. But I think this guy iss going to be a horrible master compared to him. So why in the world would I fight with him? And what if this guy loses? thenen I'm going to have a worse situation with Rome Everyone's always making this calculus. so unless you're someone like the Samnites, you really, really value your independence and you just fought against them, you are not going to go with an invader. That's why they never do. Paris can't pull them away. Hannibal can't pull them away. No one can pull them away. Alexander's not going to do it either. In fact, they're going to look at his fancy ideas of monarchy and say, I don't think so. That's not how we do politics here We're tribal, we're federal, we're conffederated. you keep that stuff out in the east. Okay, so that's the structure overall of the Federation. Now the Republic itself, The Republic is a nut that no one can crack throughout ancient history. That Roman Republic, it generates so many citizens by bringing all of its citizen soldiers, as many citizens as possible into the Roman Republican structure So Macedon has levies, but they really rely on that really sharp warrior class to win their battles. Whereas Rome was like, no, we have farmers and they're citizens. We made farmers citizens. Now let's make these citizens soldiers. And we're going to train them to do thatm on the farm by working hard and by going and fighting people out in the mountains every year. And we're just going to do this for the entirety of our existence There's like five to ten percent of years when Romans boys And young men aren't going out and fighting battles out because we have all the campaign records. They know how to fight just as ferociously as a Macedonian. And so these boys are allght are taught how to fight. And then when it gets to fighting for their republic, they just that's what we do. We serve the family, we serve the Republic. that's what I do. ye You can defeat a Roman army. Alexander's going to defeat a Roman army. but Livy's right, you got two hundred thousand two hundred fifty thousand or so Roman citizens that Rome can pull from. So when Pyrus wipes out one army or defeats, he doesn't wipe out, defeats one army, the next year he comes back and his advisor Kinnus says like, they're like the hydra. They just keep growing heads. they just keep Generating armies. And so that's exactly what would have happened. He would have defeated one army, but then another army is going to show up and these guys are eager to get into the fight and they're going to slog it out. And when they fight, because they're mostly heavy infantry, you got to kill every single heavy infantryman. You got to kill the commanders because they don't want to go back home and say, I was the coward who didn't fight because that's not good for their family and they're not going to rise to the consulship And all the boys want to be the guys who can go back and tell a good story. So they're going to see a lot of them die, which means they're going to be killing a lot of Macedonians. And that's going to be unpleasant. So they have a political culture. that has taught boys not only how to die for their Republic, but far more important, how to kill for their republic. and they've got this enormous manpower base that no one figures out how to beat. So you will beat and people do this over and over again. like the Viantines, they beat the Romans over and over again. The Sanites, they beat the Romans over and over again. The Carthaginianians, purist, they beat the Romans over and over again. You can win battles against the Romans. cannot win wars because their federation is too appealing. to others who want to make treaties with them or start working the way of to citizenship cannot beat Roman citizen soldiers who are just going to keep killing and dying for their republic because it's their republic. They've got a stake in it and that's what determines whether they're honorable and whether they get to protect things like the farm that they have Well, it seems inevitable then that a war between Alexander the Great and Rome will be a hard, hard slog from a Macedonian point of view. And as you say, Alexander has to keep living yes to also keep being invested in this war and not decide actually I need to go elsewhere in my empire because the longer it goes on The more likely there will be problems elsewhere emerging that he has to deal with. I would posit this to you If he was able to keep winning a few victories And he did manage to take Rome Do you think that would be like the capitulation of Rome Yeah, I mean if he's able to take Rome, but I think he's going to have to get through so many armies to get to that point that he's besieging Rome That's going to be tough. And what we find is Piruses, you know approaches Rome, we're told. Hannibal approaches Rome neeither of them take seriously the idea of besieging R It does have a good defense defensive system with its walls, but it's the Roman armies and the Allied armies because by this point in time, every Roman army has an equal number of allies to they're coming from Latium they're comeing from Eturia C from other places. Yeah. I mean, the question is and this would this would be the advice that someomeone should probably give Alexander is You've got to win every battle You going to stay alive You've got to get to Rome through harrowing territory basically with, you know, by cutting off your supply lines and then you've got beseseiege the city and then take it You also have to convince everyone with you that it's worth it. because why would Why these mastedities are going to go? They don't like being in Afghanistan and India and Soagdia and Bakria. Why in the world are they going to go to Italy? I mean, maybe they would arrive at Tarrentum or Thuri and think, okay, yeah, this is cultured, right? But then they're going to get to like the Sannite Federation. like, why are we here? There's just there's nothing there's nothing great wooden temples with like Wooden statues up on the likeike why why are we doing this? And that but that's what he's got to do to be able to win. Still it's been absolutely great. We we don't have much time left, but I guess it's Well, we both know, don't we that in Livy's account, he comes to the conclusion that the Romans would have won, doesn't he He does. Yes, we would expect that. We expect for a Roman to say that He doesn't even admit that Alexander would win a battle. He just says the Romans would have won the war, which I think is a a little harsh on as we've discussed. And I think he's wrong with some things saying that Alexander could only bring thirty thousand If he had any Persians in his army or Indians that they would be more of a hindrance than good, which is just absolute nonsense. But still, yes, the overarching point kind of a lines of what you're saying that kind of the the strength of the Roman military system To wrap it all up stilleel If we were to transport you back into the Roman camp and to give you know almost like it ass a military advisor to the Romans when they hear that Alexander the Great is coming. If you were advising the Romans on how to fight Alexander the Great In let's say three hundred and twenty, three hundred and twenty one BC What would you say to them? I would definitely be channeling. Quintus Fabius Maxus, my favorite room and statesman so the great grand son or grandson of Rellianus with the advice that I gave. and I think they're comparable to circumstances. I would say these guys are really dangerous. do not want to give him an advantage Do not allow imppetuosity or desire for glory or competitiveness with your colleagues. To force you into a battle, and you need to recognize how dangerous this guy is. He will probably defeat you in battle. But You have to fight him because that's what keeps your allies with you. showing that you fight And you've got to slog it out. And you have to kill as many of the enemy as possible in these slogging battles Roman citizen soldiers. They're not the best soldiers on the planet, but they know not how a slog because that's what they do on their farms, it's what they do in the Republic tell them You have to keep fighting. because all you have to do is make him lose. Enough soldiers, enough Macedonians that they lose the will to fight All you have to do is to make him lose one or two battles and that's the end And if the fighting gets so intense, go for him, go for Alexander, brring him in invite him to come in and attack the consul. If you kill Alexander, it's done. It's over. These guys are going to have to flee. to fight him in only advantageous circumstances, shadow him everywhere he goes. fight him Whenever you can when you think that you can do enough damage to him or possibly even head off the snake because if he's bogged down, the Macedonians lose. If he's dead, he' the Macedonians lose. If They lose won two battles. The Macedonians lose All you have to do is slug it out kill the king and also kill the commanders and I guess I said, as we've mentioned already, you know the nature of Hellenistic warfare of the Macedonian war machine Alexandrier and his commanders They will be there and in the action. they will be fighting, almost certainly. so the Romans could easily get the opportunity to take them out like if they am. so wished Still, this has been absolutely fascinating. Is there anything else you'd like to mention about Livy and this hypothetical scenario before we completely wrap up? Because you know we could talk for hours about this stuff. We could disagree about some stuff, but I'm sure we'll also agree on so much of it No, I think that and I agree, I mean, we could just keep going on on and on about it I feel like we've hardly even scratched the surface of the different arguments that we could make. I mean the one I'd give one piece of encouraging advice to anyone who is a history teacher Consider like putting your consider what Levy does is really important any idea of exploring how things could have turned out differently. When you teach, like think about our Putting yourself in the mindset of say, for example, a George Washington And what happens if he doesn't keep the Revolutionary Army in the field And like bring your students into that and like have them always have that mindset that you're putting yourselves in the situation of whoever it is, the person that you're teaching about And what they'll discover is your students really get in touch with what matters and with the drama and the emotions and the dangers of the moment. And that's the best thing you can do because history is just stories about people like you and me who live before us, and it's the best stories that teach us the best things And I also think this is such a wonderful case in which to, you know It's a fun topic. And it's a way, in my opinionast to engage with them With you, the listener. you know, whoever's listening in because I'd love toar what you guys think about this. Would you be Team Alexander or Team Rome? What do you think about this hypothetical scenario There are no wrong answers. I'd love to hear what you think and you know what might have happened. So as Steel mentioned, we have just scratched the surface of so many arguments. we could make so many more, but we do have to call time. We've been going for well over an hour now. But it is a fun, it is fun once in a while. to ask hypothetical questions like this and have a pololite discussion Still, I couldn't think for a better man to get on the show to talk through this topic and it just goes me to say thank you so much for taking the time back on the ancients. Oh, it's been wonderful being here, thank you so much for asking me to come Well there you go. There was Dr. Steeel Brand returning to the show to talk through this much discussed and debated hypothetical scenario since ancient times What if Alexander the Great had invaded Italy What if Alexander hadought Rome You know my thoughts? You know Steeel's thoughts Let us know your thoughts in the comments. Do you think the Romans really could have stood a chance back then We'd love to hear from you and let us know whether you would like us to do more of these hypothetical what if episodes in the future. What ideas for those you might have to In the meantime, thank you so much for listening to this episode of The Ancients