It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Could Alexander have conquered Italy?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 12:09 AM
I remember the in the Movie "Alexander",Alexander the Great said that He would campaign in Italy with His dying lover(if He recovered). Do You think He could have conquered Italy in the period around 323 BC?

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 02:27 AM
It wouldn't have surprised me. I dislike the way Alexander died - to be a great warrior and to die of illness seems like a cheat, IMO.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:06 AM
alexander the great would have conquered everything. He was the first of a new breed of generals who would use theire imagination to think up strategy and not just dive straight in.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:08 AM
I think Alexander would have been initially successful but the Roman's would have worn him down in time.

It would have been interesting to see how he dealt with the other unconquered areas of the Eastern/central med.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:33 PM

Rome was a real mess. About 40 years before his birth, the Gauls sacked Rome and Rome began a series of wars as she tried to expand. Along their European frontier, there was a series of revolts that kept the army running. Rome also expands south to the rest of Italy... but nobody's terribly happy to see them coming. If he'd timed his attack during the Second Sammite war, then he would have caught Rome with her forces somewhat overextended... he could have bargained with the Etruscans in 311 BC. With those three fources and the Hernici revolting, Rome would have eventually fallen.

HOWEVER... Rome had been using Greek military tactics (the phalanx) and abandoned them after the sack of Rome by the Gauls. They added new types of armament (triarii, rorarii, accensii, hsati, and principes -- each with different experience and different types of weapons and armor.) This added flexibility to their abilities.

Alexander was quite heavily "into" the phalanx, though he also used the "flying wedge"

His overall strategy was to use his flexible phalanxes to force the enemy to try and adapt to new types of attack and to force them onto ground that was not easy to fight from. Rome may have gotten some of the same tactics from the Samnites.

I think it would depend on who he came up against. There are no notable military leaders (that I can find) from that era, so it's hard to directly compare tactics with tactics. But Alexander was a solid strategist and the Romans tended to get a bit cocky. I'd give odds to Alexander, but not overwhelming odds.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:55 PM
reply to post by Byrd

The Gauls were tough,They invaded Greece and sacked Athens.

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:11 PM
I think the lack of a major general against someone with Alexander's reputation would instantly put them at a disadvantage.

Alexander made himself a legend in his own time. I would expect the plebs would have just stood around waiting for the news that rome had fallen to him.

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 05:22 AM
I think Alexander would have faired as did Hannibal. Able to win the big battles but unable to beseige and take the cities while the Romans picked at him for years. As shown by history once Alexander was gone the empire fell apart while the Roman's could lose leaders and men and just keep going. They had 'strategic depth' while Alexander was a one man show.

new topics

top topics


log in