The Ancients - What If Alexander Fought Rome?

Episode Date: May 14, 2026

Rome vs Alexander. It's a counterfactual of suitably epic proportions, fit for movie theatres and sprawling strategy video games. What would've happen had the great Macedonian general not perished in Babylon and advanced on an emerging Roman Republic?Tristan Hughes is joined by Roman historian and friend of the show Steele Brand to ask - what would’ve happened had Alexander invaded Italy? They explore the work of Roman historian Livy, who wrote about this very scenario - would Rome have had enough to resist the mighty legions of an undefeated Macedonia, even before it had really started to forge it's empire? From the sparkling phalanxes of Alexander’s Asian realm to the Rome’s countless mass of citizen soldiers, find out which of these titans of history achieves ancient world domination.MOREAlexander the Great: Lord of AsiaListen on AppleListen on SpotifyThe Battle of Phillipi: Death of the Roman RepublicListen on AppleListen on SpotifyPresented by Tristan Hughes. Audio editor is Aidan Lonergan. Producer is Joseph Knight. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.All music courtesy of Epidemic SoundsThe Ancients is a History Hit podcast.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ever wondered why the Romans were defeated in the Tudorburg 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 II.

Just visit historyhit.com slash subscribe. 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 32, 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, better known as Livy, 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. Steele Brandt, Professor of History at Cairn University and an expert on the Roman Republic and its military.

Steele, welcome back to the show. It has been too long and it's 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, you know, this question of what would have happened if Alexander the Great had invaded Italy and fought the Romans. And this is something that, you know, people love discussing even today, this hypothetical scenario that sadly never came to be. Maybe not sadly, but yes, never came to be. Is it sad? Right. Sadly for the video gamers, right. Because I mean, there are entire games of like civilization or video games. games that they create where you get to have these fictional battles between, you know, a German Panzer unit and, you know, an elephant corps, you know, or whatever it may be. But yeah, it's, you know, I pose the question to you. And of course, I got it way over my head because

you know a lot about Alexander a lot more than I do. But it's the first alternate history in history. Livy'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, means that I'm going to be chatting a little bit more than usual. So thank you very much for that, Steele. 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 4th century BC and his reign from 336 to 323 BC, let's set the context first of all with what the state of Rome is at that time, and then I'll go on with explaining Alexander. So, Steele,

First of all, tell us through the Roman Republic in around 323, 320 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 republic around the same time in 510, 509 BC. And then Athens has this marvelous first 100 years. Rome is like the opposite. They have horrible first hundred years. They're actually, they have kings when they expel them. It's like a hundred years. It's just not doing well. And then two big things happen. They're turning 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 the fight for a Republican, not a king. And the two big events 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, they supposedly this takes place over 10 years. Baye, they take it out in 10 years, and probably someone's looking at the Trojan War and looking back on it. But they figure out we need to pay people from people who aren't fighting to fight, and that's how we're going to take the city. So they start figuring out siegecraft. So they take the city, and that's good for them. And they figure out siegecraft, 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

on Monty Python and runs away. It's like the rabbit comes out and everyone just runs. That's exactly what happens. And then these Gauls inhabit most of the city, not the capital line. And so this is embarrassing. It's a humiliation. Maybe they have some guerrilla warfare afterwards that does well. But it's a 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, that'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 would have come. So if he's coming around 321 or thereabouts, so he doesn't die in Babylon, if he's coming in the 320s or 310s, there are a couple of other big things that have happened. The first thing is that Rome has fought the Samnites in their first war. Now, they've been allies with the Samnites, and the Samnites are these people that are in, like, the lower portion, the lower center of the Apennine Mountain, that's 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 in like the Latins or the Etruscans and pseudo-Hoplite-style warfare in the plains. And they fight really well in the mountains. And so we can't, neither of us can defeat the other. It's kind of like the Peloponnesian War. Athens has the fleet and Sparta has the land force. Like neither side can defeat the other.

And so one of this, they decide the only way to beat the same night is we've got to totally reform our military. And we'll get into that later. So they start reforming their military in the 340s and 330s. Then the other big thing that'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're like brothers or cousins, the Latins. All the stories about Rome, they start in like the Latium plain. And so they've got their really close neighbors, the Etruscans to the north, and they've got their Latins to the south. And they've got their And 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 because 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 Roma law. We're going to give you Roman privileges.

We'll connect roads to you. We're going to have colonies. Some are Latin colonies, which are really nice and posh. 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, it'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 they're in the middle of the struggle of the orders, which is Rome's internal struggle. So the Roman Federation solves that external question. And they've got the military reforms that have been going on in 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 100 years, another group, the plebs, basically everyone else, is gaining more and more power. And by the time we get to

287 at the very end of this process, but you've got some major changes in the 320s, 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 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 orders 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 326, 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 consoles. And we need to have

people who used to be consuls or used to be priors, used to be magistrate 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 Plobians and patricians, we have pro-consuls and that means you can have maybe up to four, 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, pro-consuls have just as much authority. in the field and are kind of like independent branches. So Rome's at a pretty good place at around

320, 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 steel, 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

courts 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 side show compared to the great superpower of the time, which is to their east, which is the Persian Empire. Yes, it's the Italians. So there's the italics. These are the mountain peoples that are in Italy, but then they're distinguished from the Italiansets, and these are the Greeks in the South. And the culture for Rome comes from two places. It's either the Etruscans and the North. We're not entirely certain who they have been related to where they come from or the Italians to the South. And they had this 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, man, these guys are crazy barbarians. They're so backwards. Of course, they call the Persians barbarians too. I think the Persians probably have a much better claim to civilizations than that. But you should mention 338. You know, 338 BC.

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 Chironia under the 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 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. 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 336, he dies 323. So in his 13-year reign, he conquers the superpower of the time, which is the Achaemenid Persian Empire. You know, he marches into Asia, he invades Persian territory in 334 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 324 BC. Darius is dead by that time, but he beats Darius in two big major battles, the Battle of Isis and then the Battle of Galgamel, the final climactic clash between the two

in 331 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 centres of ancient history. And then after taking over the Persian administrative capitals, I almost said Persian cities, but that would be wrong. The Persian administrative capitals, the great cities, like Babylon, Susa, then the great Persian centre of Persepolis and then Ekbatana. So these core centres of the Persian Empire, he catches up with the last Persian king of kings, Darias, who has killed,

by one of his subordinates as he's trying to flee east into Monday 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. 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, man called Oxyartis and this woman called Roxana. And then that last kind of great stage in Alexander's military campaigning, which is he crosses the Hindukush 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 Indus River Valley, gets the high Fasasas 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. He marches his army down the Indus River Valley. He then has this terrible logistics nightmare of crossing the Godrosian desert where he loses a lot of, maybe not his troops, but a lot of the camp followers, a lot of people along with this army that is probably nearing, maybe not at a lot of, hundred thousand, but it's certainly between, let's say, 50 and 100,000 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 2004 Colin Farrell epic, with the Irish accents and so on. But 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 age 32 in early June 323 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 he conquered, that the Macedonians,

which you've got to remember as well, some 30 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 Father Philip rises them to prominence and then all of a sudden, within Alexander's 13-year reign or so, 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, stretched 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. Like it's a new world for the Macedonians, Alexander's army when he dies, probably, as mentioned, maybe around 70,000. He still has about 15,000 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 Scythian horse arches. You've got Indian war elephants. You've probably got Anatolian troops there.

And also troops which are very much playing to their own strengths, fighting techniques that they've been, you know, using for 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 a story of a Persian phalanx of 30,000 men, there's a story of a mixed phalanx as well. So you've got all of that stuff. That's Alexander's army. He's becoming more Persian in his outlook as well, and he's trying to figure out how to rule over this formidable empire that he did actually greatly admire. And there's a lot of admiration for the Persians and how they rule.

also respecting local cultures like in Egypt. There's a famous depiction of Alexander as an Egyptian pharaoh and Luxor 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 Perdicus, your Cratorus, your Ptolemy, your Lycemicus and the like. They are all either in Babylon or in different parts of Alexander's empire 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 ill and die in 3-2-3 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 people who are angry against Macedonian hegemony in Athens in the West, or Greek 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 now. The next campaign would be the coastline of Arabia and taking over the rich trading cities and the Arabian coastline. which really connect him 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 1,000 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 point of call, but even if he wants to move his actual center to somewhere like Babylon, did he have designs ultimately to campaign further west? But still, that is the world of Alexander in 323 BC. I hope that was okay to follow. Oh, 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 break up 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's pregnant at the time that Alexander did die. So if he didn't, and she gives birth to his son, which is Alexander IV. So Alexander will also have a legitimate air 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 presume he planned to have more children with. So that's a, that's another fun fact. Shall we now delve into this idea that, should we do about like 32 or 321 BC, just to say that maybe he's gone and campaigned in Arabia for a bit and he's come back?

Right. And he's now looking potentially to go westwards. Do we have any idea what the Romans thought of Alexander the Great and his campaigns? Like at that time, are there any contemporary references? Like any idea, maybe, I can't think of a Roman embassy being sent to Alexander the Great, But surely, even when they're growing in Italy, they must have been hearing what this Macedonian king was doing a bit further east. We know that they're going to have embassies after they're a struggle with Pyrrhus. So I think, you know, so we've already introduced the, here's the story down to around the 320s.

And then I think what during the 320s, there are two stories that inform us, the two main events that inform us about how really. would have performed, and that's the second and third Sam Knight Wars, and then the war with Pyrrhus. And Pyrrhus, the so-called Arab Alexander, seems to have that tactical genius that Alexander has, but not the political diplomatic genius. And he's really charismatic, but not as charismatic as Alexander. I'm not sure who can be as charismatic as Alexander, except for perhaps Julius Caesar. So we know that when they do have a major interaction with someone like Alexander, Pyrrhus, that that's when they, that's when we had the first embassies that, that go abroad. And this, so they, 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 Molotian, for example, the king of Everest, when he goes over to Italy, 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. And the point being, these Italian peoples are crazy. And then they're like, they're tough. Now, he's not being fair because I think you could actually make a pretty good comparison between the Eastern satraps and the Indus River Valley

civilizations. I think that's the kind of situation Alexander would have found himself in Italy. Oh, competing. In some ways. what we have with the big battles within the the the Persian Empire Mesopotamia, the Levant, those those the fertile crescent that's got that's a totally different that's apples to apples but apples to apples but I think the those hither regions out that are so mountainous out in the eastern satrapies that that that Alexander the Molotian needed to know that Alexander has fought people that tough oh yeah like beseeching rock fortresses again and again and again and then of course, like the Indian kings and all their war elephants and the like, something that the Romans

had never encountered before. But no, let's say, it would soon. Because Alexander, when he, in 323 BC, he also has elephants in his army, which is very interesting. But I also think, yeah, 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 Melosian, 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 familial link there. as well. So although Alexander the Miloshan doesn't fight Rome directly, he fights the other Italian peoples, I'm sure he would have heard that there were these things happening in Italy further

to the West. So he would have known of the Romans, I think. Probably wouldn't have thought too much of them. But he would have at least heard of them. So let's say that he wants to march his armies west. Shall we theorise on that first of all? Because still, if I think of Alexander the Mollushan, and then I think of Pyrrhus 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 a Syracusan trying to build a Hellenistic empire. you do this by starting with those wealthy Greek city states, which provide wealth. They provide based for logistics. They're a cultural place to go after. You typically don't go into territory where you have no logistical chain, where you cut off your supply lines. So, yeah, he's also going to be perils if you go into the Terranian 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 Carthaginians are going to have to deal with. And the Syracusans, none of the Hellenistic adventurers, Paris, that they cannot, they cannot crack that Carthaginian nut. The Carthaginians are just too tough. They've got a huge Navy as well. So yeah, you've 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 Tarentum. Turnton is always eager to take in someone to go fight against the Italics. And that's the big Greek city state in southern Italy at the time, and the one that is also not been taken over by the Italians at that time,

unlike places like Pistam or Pistam and the like a bit further north. So it makes sense that if Alexander did evade Italy, if he would have, it makes sense he land somewhere near Terentum, you know, get their supply chains from there, and then march inland towards Roman. territory would begin, I presume. And at that time, as you mentioned, so is roughly the borders of Roman territory, and let's say hypothetical idea about 320, is this kind of, is the southern end of Roman influence kind of in that central Apennines area? Well, in 320, the first people that he's going to

have to deal with are going to be the Samnites, because it's from 326 to 304 that Rome is fighting its war with the Sandites, almost certainly after they've begun a serious, a series of major reforms that had transformed their army from simply phalanx-type heavy infantry to a hybrid heavy infantry that emphasizes javelins, which I think it's maybe a javelin that kills Alexander. It's a javelin that kills one of those Hellenistic adventures. The Miloian, yes, it is, yes, yes. Which that's, that tells you something that's 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 allie with Rome or do they ally with Alexander? And that I think is a, that's a really tough question to answer. The Licanians, the Oscans, they don't like the Italians. And they're going to see a Hellenistic adventurer 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 50,000 soldiers presumably coming over, you know, including Persians, including these massive beasts that no one has ever seen before in his army? Do you still think there is an Italian, an Italic and Oscan idea in their mindset that, you know, they would still fight against it? I think that's the story we see up until that point in time with the adventurers who are

overlapping with Alexander and what that happens with Pyrrhus. I think many of the Italians, if not all, maybe not three, maybe not Reagan, but we don't really know. They're going to go with the Hellenistic adventure. They don't have capable armies themselves. They're beset by the Italic tribes. But there's always been this, the Greeks in the south have always been opposed by the Oscans 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. Like, what city do you attack? They're just, there are very few of them. They're hard to wrestle with. They fight guerrilla style. They have, they have like a large ovular, ovular shield, and then they throw javelins. The battles that they fight usually last in the hours.

Phalanx battle is, I mean, gosh, an hour-long phalanx battles, a really long phalanx 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 it's a missile battle. Most of the battles, a missile battle until they come to close. So, I mean, it's really hard to say what the Sam Knights would have done. I almost just think that we should kind of consider the Samites are already conquered or the Sam Knights, they're going to resist Alexander, in which case he's going to have to deal with them before he even gets the Roman Republic. Or if we're thinking along the lines of if he's coming in the 320s, it's also pretty logical to think the Romans have an alliance with the Samnites in the 350s.

They renew that alliance after the first Pune or after the first Samnite war in the 340s. I think it stands the 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 to, we're going to reforge that alliance, which they've had for decades. And I think that's the same. going to present a problem for Alexander because he's going to have to deal with the buffer of the Samnites before he gets to the Roman Republic. Now, if he's coming later, after the second Samnite War, when Rome is clearly won and it's over, he's going to have the same knights as allies. And this is the situation that Hannibal Barka finds himself in when he goes into Italy

about a century later. So fight for us and then, and then like, we'll fight for you, but Alexander please, like, kind of help us restore our, or at least a degree of freedom, right? And, um, exactly. So if he attacks before the second Samnite War, I think the Saminites join with Rome. If he attacks after the Second Samnite War, I think the Saminites 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 that Alexander, the great and his army has reached, let's say, there's a Roman army,

posing him or like kind of reached Roman territory in Italy. And of course this never happened and we welcome, I welcome, I'm sure we both welcome lots of comments to this video. This is just our thoughts on the mat 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? Yeah, 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 bookish nerd who like hangs out in the libraries during the time of Augustus. And then the other is this like swashbuckling adventurer 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? Now it's in popular circles. It's all the rage. 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 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 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 hadn't happened? It 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, and 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, oh, that's no good. But if you can put someone in the shoes at Alfred the Great, you can put someone in the shoes of like, oh my gosh, she 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 hammer-robbing and you're beset by all these people, and you're not going to be the guy that's the main face of the middle Bronze Age. But 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. Because the people who are living through history, Alfred the Great, he doesn't know.

it's going to happen. Hamarabi doesn't know that he's actually going to be the one who builds an empire in the Middle Brontage. Jesus of Nazareth, it doesn't look like to anyone else that he's going to be the founder of this huge religion of Christianity. Roman Empire doesn't, it's not even really noticed for a century. So I think that's really important for historians to actually appreciate the value of alternate history. And so that's what Livy's doing here. And Livy's alternate history basically poses this question, what if he had attacked, and it's around 321, because he's actually timed this at a time when Rome is at a horrible, they got trapped in Samnium, deep in, like at the Caudine Forks, and an entire army had to surrender. It was massively embarrassing. The Saminites

probably should have wiped out the Roman army. But, and he pauses right there and says, okay, well, at this like horrible moment in the second Samnite War, what if Alexander had invaded the Roman Republic. And then he sets this up and then he kind of teases out. He raises questions like, well, what about the regime? Like, who has the superior, like, political structure? What about manpower? Who has the better situation in terms of manpower? What about the capabilities of commanders? And what about the equipment that they fight with? He works through most of this. And 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, uh, I would

argue, on balance, in the end, Livy probably comes to the right conclusion. I'm telling you, I'm giving you my head up of where I'm going to go. But I think he leads to the right conclusion, but that's why you're here. You're going to push back on me and explain why he's just dead wrong. But is it also fair to say, Steele, when Livy's writing this, is he writing the first century BC, so a bit later, is that the idea? Yes, yes. And do you feel like, 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 were 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 schoolboys exercise, which tells you it's really, this is actually really popular. Not only is it sort of people are swimming in these waters in popular circles, but it's something that the educated elites are training the next generation with. And it's possible that Livy's like, oh, I really liked what I wrote, you know, about this. I'm just going to tuck it in. It fits into this spot right here. There are all sorts of theories.

Because it's a little different for Libby to include it. But yes, it's definitely a popular question. But I think it's an important question because for Livy, it 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 has 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 bit by bit, 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 because he's right at the beginning of the second Sam Knight War. And what he's concerned, with is Rome 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, this is book nine chapter 17. 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. And as we'll see with fortune, Alexander in some ways is a master

class in fortune. And for the most part, good fortune. Now, he's, he overcomes enormous challenges. No question about that. But fortune smiles on Alexander. And for a guy, he hardly ever loses a battle. Some would say he never loses a battle. So that's the, that's going to be a important for him. And that's what he's going to spend most of his time talking about. He's going to do it by looking at the abilities of the commanders. Now, what is terrific that I think that he does? So he goes into the commanders and he spends a great deal of time on that. He talks about the current generation of Romans. And he lists about a dozen of these generations of Romans. So I talked about this already, how the Romans have two annually elected consuls, but they also have pro-consuls and pro-priders.

Well, these are the guys who are going to be commanding the Roman armies. Okay. He mentions a couple of other great commanders in history, Pompey the Great. Livie's taking 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's 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 Fabi, the Quinti, the Cornelie, and Camillus.

Camillus is this famous turn of the century commander who helped Rome recover after the sack of Rome and was instrumental in the destruction of the city of Valle. And then after that, so he's played up, okay, you've got your one great commander, Macedon. 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 18. He says that Alexander, for all his qualities, has basically become Darius. And he indulged, he's now indulging in personal vices.

And of course, the famous personal vice that everyone knows about. the famous incident is when he kills Clydes the Black. Yes. It's like this the worst moment, possibly also the death of Philotis and then the just execution of Permanium because he's the father of Philotus. 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 manner is going to do.

He's going to become Persian. Now, Livy'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 luxury and vice and what happens in Babylon, we kind of would expect to happen. So he's, in some ways, he kind of cheats us 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, but we'll come back to that. But that's what he concludes with basically that first section is Macedon'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 19 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 military historians or people who are 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 know, 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 into 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 in 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 Julius Caesar, because he survives, either brings down the Republic, delivers it a moral blow, or nearly brings down the Republic, which then is finished off by his adoptive son. And who does he model himself on Alexander the Great? Still, 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 of 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 would always kind of say, you know, he died so young. And I always now shout back when 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 Galgamelor 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. 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 war wounds are really bad.

And I think it is fair to say that by 323 BC, he is not the same Alexander the Great as he did when he invaded the Persian Empire. He's got these injuries. I think he's quite a fair bit. He's less healthy than he was. And he's more of a megalomaniac at this time. However, where 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 ones 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 conquer the Persian Empire was not as great as he would have

they would have faced if it was earlier on I think that's nonsense because he's heavy drinking is part of Macedonia league culture from beginning to end with Alexander

this idea of him killing his close companions and the kind of how there are a couple of great stories he mentioned Clytus the Black and also the Philotus affair and for Lotus and Parmenion. But 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 factional politics of the Macedonians ensures that once in a while, you know, people, stars will rise and fall. The story of Clitus the Black, of course, is one where they drink too much and then it ends with Clitus the Black's death, which is sad. And Alexander expresses great sorrow after his story. 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 is 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 Hydaspies, after the Clytus affair and all of that. So I think Livy's portrayal that, you know, Alexander's effectively become like more effeminate, 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 the 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, even 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, you know, for those people, you know, 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 trying to deride Alexander straight away. My last point I'll make on that section, steel, is coming back to the Roman commanders thing that you kicked it all off with, living, 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 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 actual wars of the successes.

They'll fight over what they see as the most valuable parts of Alexander the Great 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 success is dependent on his generals. Alexander takes the limelight, but without his key commanders, I've mentioned the names earlier, like Perdicus and Craterus and Ptolemy and so on, who also are like Alexander in that they fight from the front, 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 can't accept this idea that the Roman commanders, like, pitted one against, 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 a Perdicus, against Ptolemy. I know then you can

bring Pyrrhus in later and explain that, but Pyrrhus just beat them in a battle, you know, clearly and then the Pyrruch, but that's another story. So those are my small retorts to what you said there, still. I agree with you in some of the things, on other things I take issue with how Livy's presenting it. Yeah, Livy'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 phylusin phylus in the long run, they cannot defeat the Roman legions. So the question is, can Massanon 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. But is Alexander the best general of the day? I think we have to

say yes. It's 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 in this role. Because Rome is this, Rome at this point in time, has created a structure where if you want to be a leading Republican representative,

you have to lead men in combat for a decade of fighting. You have to go out to battle every single year, just like, for example, the commanders of Alexander, I do think we have the same kind of qualities on 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, Quintus Fabius Maximus, Roli Anus, either grandfather, great-grandfather, the famous guy, Phi Tannibal. He is a master of deception. He dashes through the Cominian 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. But if he hadn't won, had the foresight to make sure he knew the reinforcements were coming and put a contingent of me. 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 fellow Publius Decius Moos. And the two have been frequently in the same, they've served like three times as consuls together, both censors together. So the families clearly are, they're close. One's a Pobuio and family, one's a patrician. Well, Pubius dechius 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 rights 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 foolhardy. It's not good strategy. But this is not Darius running off so he can fight another day. There's wisdom to doing that. But in this case, you don't, this, this,

Romans have no shortage of people who are willing to die. in battle. But what's interesting about this battle, the Battle of Semptinum, is so Decius Moose is 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. It basically turns it into a reserve and sends them to go reinforce Pubius Decius' forces. And then he sends it, he peels off another portion to go and assist the cavalry and hit the Sammite in the rear. And then he slowly, doggily, approaches the Samnine camp, but as he's like wiping out the forces, and he prohibits his men

from sack in 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, manliest Torquatus. He executes his own son for disobeying his orders. This is how ironclad the Romans saw authority. 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. He's got to live. No Roman commander needs to live. We can lose a Publius decusmos. We could even lose a Fabius. But if Alexander's dead, so I did some calculating, among his, if we take about 30 of his Hellenistic commanders or the members of the Royal House, successors of the next generation, the members of the

companions. We got about 30 of these guys that are the leaders when he dies. Six of them are killed in action fighting one another. Yeah. Nineteen of them are murdered, assassinated, executed, or die in exile. Only four or five of them die natural causes. What does that mean? It means if the Macedonians lose their leader, they will devour one another. What do these dozen guys do? we have about 20 triumphs. These are giant military parades where a commander comes back and they celebrate his victory

and they celebrate each other when they are victorious. 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. But the Romans, on the other hand, if they lose a commander, they're never going to run out of command. And here's the other big problem. We should probably get to this soon is they're also never going to run out of infantrymen. It's just not going to happen.

For my valiant defense 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. Remember that famous saying, that is late. given to Alexander the Great on his deathbed, who do you give it to the strongest? Now, he 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 we hear 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 overlordship. 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 away trying to get a piece of the imperial part. and then wanting to prove themselves in battle by defeating 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 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. Shall we move then on to that next part?

Because I think we covered everything from that first section of Livy, have we still on now? the size of the armies and the quality of the troops. So what does Livy 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. This is why this is a really good point for him to do the Alexander digression, because 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 the commanders and commanders working together, I think Rome is the advantage. In terms of tactics, at best for Rome, 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 siegecraft, for example. Siegecraft, which Livy doesn't talk about that much. Romans have a few examples, though, to kind of finish the siege of A.E., but it takes a long time. They beseech some small Semite cities. But, I mean, Alexander's, the siege of Pelium, Miletus, Halicarnassus, tire, the building of two moles out to, out to, I mean, nothing like that had ever been done. The Sogian rock, the rock of Corianas, there's no question. When it comes to siegecraft, the Macedonians have the advantage.

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 Cavalry and Hannibal's cavalry, they don't do well. Romans don't get good cavalry until later. By contrast, Alexander in like Chironaea, Isis, Gagamela, and Granicus, it's four lightning strikes into the weak spot up from a gap that he is pulled and he, that's how he wins the battles with his, we call it heavy cavalry, but it's not really heavy cavalry compared to the

heavily cavalry 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 is going to be, he uses elephants really fast. So he's going to be using elephants probably if he comes and attacks Rome. This is what Pyrrhus does. We know how that turns out.

Two battles, the Romans are like, oh my gosh, they don't know what to do. They try all sorts of things with elephants. The horses are something. They try some wagons. 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.

And 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 legionaries become the best infantry soldiers on the planet. This is where I actually think Rome's 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 shield meets shield and Pike meets Gladius, and by this point in time,

they're probably using something like the straight sword, but it's not the Spanish sword. But 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 Kinakephala and the Battle of Piedna, is that phalanx cannot handle holding its body together. And when you put an individual legionary versus an individual phalangite, it's no contest. The legionary always wins because he can fight as an individual, which again is very Republican. So I would say in terms of heavy infantry, I'd give a slight advantage.

to Rome. But that means, I think, on balance, then in terms of tactics and technology, the 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 Great Sarmie. I completely take your point about the infantry. What I would say in return to that is with Pidner and Sinocephali, you know, the phalanjites that they're facing are not the phalanjites of Alexander the Great. In the fact that I think it depends on which phalangites the Romans would have been facing. Because within Alexander the Great's Army, in this hypothetical scenario,

there would have been certain troops, like the so-called the famous silver shields, that had fought in all of these different, 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 through the, I don't see if it's the jungle

but you know the difficult terrain of the Indus River Valley and over there as well and even earlier in Alexander the Great Terrain in Thrace they fight in difficult terrain and they beat the Thracians on a couple of occasions so I will also say just with the experience of the silver shields and some of the phalanjites

that I don't think it's straight. It would always be the case that the Romans, with their system, you know, would always have the upper hand, even in more difficult terrain. I would agree with it 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 that you just described,

I think they're going to win most battles against the Romans. And this is what happens when Pyrrhus attacks. the Romans, this is important, they inflict enormous casualties on Pyrrhus. 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. They don't end up holding the field.

So yeah, I think when the battle, the battles 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, Bastel of Heraclayer at the start is, I think, pretty clear. a clear victory for Pyrrhus, although even at that battle, he loses quite a few of his key troops. And he almost gets killed. It's only because he dresses somebody else. And Alexander's not going to do that. No. 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 Pyrrhus would, probably. So, you know, but it's, I still maintain that.

I will still concede that the Romans are probably going to lose against the Macedonian army in a pitch battle. Sorry, I'm not, I don't want to have that hope. You're quite right. So thank you. Thank you for that. I appreciate that. Asculum is like it's, I said, that's the Pyrrhic victory. And then Benevent me say this day.

Right. Because you can see that there is that, there is that. The Romans are certainly learning. So I don't think it's too far fetch to say that maybe they would have done the same with Alexander, which kind of brings me to their next point. With the Romans, you always think of like 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? Because this would be something completely alien to Alexander the Great and the Macedonians 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. Okay, this is where we look into strategic considerations. Logistics, Alexander's got the advantage.

His father had done a brilliant job. The Romans aren't going to have that excellence in logistical, like modifications until we get to a couple of centuries down the road, where you're getting rid of your camp followers, you're getting rid of carts and oxen, and you're reducing it to two weeks packs. Romans can be quick in a 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 we've got tactics, we've got operations, strategic concerns. And this is where I think we have to look at the Roman Federation and we have to look at the Roman Republic. And they're both the regime of the Federation and the Republican regime itself, these are going to be superior. They're going to be more resilient. The best that Macedon can hope for

in terms of the Roman Federation is they arrive and they peel off some of the Samnites or the Samnites, 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 went 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 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 to peel allies away, and what they don't realize is every allies 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's 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? Then 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 confederated. 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 is like, no, we have farmers and their citizens. We've made farmer citizens. Now let's make these citizens soldiers. And we're going to train them to do that 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 10 percent of years when Roman 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 all taught how to 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. And that's what I just.

do. So yeah, you can defeat a Roman army. Alexander's going to defeat a Roman army. But Livy's right, you got 200,000, 250,000 or so Roman citizens that Rome can pull from. So when Pyrrhus wipes out one army, he doesn't wipe it out, defeats one army, the next year he comes back and his advisor, Kenneus is 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've 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 consul ship. And all the boys want to be the guys who can go back and tell a good story. So you'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 Sandmites, they beat the Romans over and over again.

The Carthaginians, Pyrrhus, they beat the Romans over and over again. You can win battles against Romans. You cannot win wars because their federation is too appealing to others who want to make treaties with them or start working the way up to citizenship. And you cannot beat Roman citizens 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 would be a hard, hard, hard. slog from a Macedonian point of view. And as you say, Alexander has to keep living. He has 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. But 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 able to take Rome, but I think, 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, Pyrrhus goes, you know, approaches Rome, we're told Hannibal approaches Rome. Neither of them take seriously the idea of besieging Rome.

It does have a good defense, a 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. So they're coming from Latium, they're coming from Atruria, come from other places. Yeah, I mean, the question is, and this would be the advice that someone should probably give Alexander is you've got to win every battle. You've got 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 to besieze the city and then take it. but you also have to convince everyone with you that it's worth it. Because why are these Macedonia is going to go?

They don't like being in Afghanistan and India and Sogdia and Bactria. Why are in the world they're going to go to Italy? I mean, maybe they would arrive at Tarentum or Thuri and think, okay, yeah, this is culture, right? But then they're going to get to like the Sandite Federation. It's like, why are we here? There's just, there's nothing great of wooden temples with like wooden statues up on like, why are we doing this? but that's what he's got to do to be able to win.

Still, it's been absolutely great. We don't have much time left, but I guess it's a, 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, and we would expect that. We would expect for a Roman to say that. He doesn't even admit that Alexander would win a battle, and he just says the Romans would have won the war, which I think is a little harsh on him, as we've discussed, and I think he's wrong on something saying that Alexander could only bring 30,000,

and 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 aligns of what you're saying, the strength of the Roman military system. To wrap it all up, steel, if we were able to transport you back

into the Roman camp and to give, you know, almost like as a military advisor to the Romans when they hear that Alexander the Great is coming, I mean, if you were advising the Romans on how to fight Alexander the Great, in, let's say, 320, 321 BC, what would you say to them?

I would definitely be channeling Quintus Fabius Maximus, my favorite Roman statesman, so the great-grandson or grandson of Relianas, with the advice that I gave. And I think they're comparable as circumstances. I would say, this guy's really dangerous. You do not want to give him an advantage. do not allow impetuosity 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

is 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. And Roman citizen soldiers, they're not the best soldiers on the planet, but they know how to slog because that's what they do on their farms. It's what they do in the republic. And I would 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. Bring him in and invite him to come in and attack the console. 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,

and fight him whenever you can, when you think that you can do enough damage to him or possibly even cut the head off the snake. Because if he's bogged down, the Macedonians lose. If he's dead, the Macedonians lose. If they lose one, two battles, the Macedonians lose. All you have to do is slog it out. Kill the king.

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 Alexander and his commanders they will be there in the action they will be fighting almost certainly so the Romans could easily get the opportunity to take them out like if they um so wished still this has been absolutely fascinating is there anything else you'd like to mention about livi in 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're also agree on so much of it. No, I think that the, and I agree, I mean, we could just keep going on and on about that. 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 and the idea of exploring how things could have turned out differently. When you teach, like, think, about 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 once you'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 as 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 opinion, least to engage with you, with you, the listener, you know, whoever's listening in because I'd love to hear 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 Steele mentioned, we have just scratched the surface of so many arguments. We can 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 polite discussion. Still, I couldn't think of the better man to get on the show to talk through this topic. And it just goes to me to say, thank you so much for taking the time to come back on the ancients. Oh, it's been one rule. being here. Thank you so much for asking me to come. Well, there you go. There was Dr. Steele 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 had fought Rome? You know my thoughts? You know Steele's thoughts. And 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. Please make sure to follow the show on Spotify or wherever you get to your podcasts.

That really helps us. You'll be doing us a big favour. If you'd be kind enough to leave us a rating as well, well, we'd really appreciate that. Lastly, don't forget, you can also sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries with a new release every week. sign up at historyhit.com slash subscribe. That's all for me. I'll see you in the next episode.