Rome vs Alexander the Great | Epic 18k Cinematic Total War Battle - Alternate History
video description
Date: 2024-03-30
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 35
history
Great work, very plausible.
As said in other commentaries, at Cannes, Hannibal and the Romans used similar tactics as Alexander and the romans do in this video.
Some side remarks:
1) Alexander died in 323 B. C. He would have invaded Italy around 320 B. C. The second Samnite war had begun in 327 B. C. The battle of the Caudine Forks had taken place in 321B. C. the stra tegic situation of Roma was rather weak. And, in the hypothesis of a Macedonian invasion, there was a true possibility of an intervention by the Etruscans and the Gauls of Northern Italy.
2) It has been said that before he died, Alexander was preparing a campaign against Cartago (from memory, sorry. Anyway, at this time, Cartago land forces were tied in Sicily, and of a rather uncertain quality. Cartago strength was at sea but the Greek fleets would have been more than a match.
3) One key factor would have been the attitude of the Greek cities of Italy and Sicily, as Pyrrhus experimented between 280 and 275 B. C. At the time of Alexander, these cities were not conscious
4) Livy arguments, in his book IX, chapters 17 and following, about the reasons of a victory of Roma against Alexander deserve to be examined.
First, for Livy, the qualities of the Roman generals of his time were on the par with Alexander qualities. And the Roman army is far superior to the armies of Darius or India. Uncertain about the first point, true about the second one. But the weakness of the Roman army is its cavalry and that would have been fatal against Alexander tactics, much more elaborated than the roman ones.
Second, Alexander of 320 B. C. is no more Alexander of his victories, as he was out of control, a strong alcoholic, and prone to fits of rage. And he has become a tyrant. Not false.
Third, the Roman demography and its allies allow it to mobilize more men than Alexander. If a Roman army was destroyed, another one could be levied. Alexander strengths would have been limited. And the attitude of the other Italian people would have been uncertain. True.
Quater, Cartago would have helped Roma. Probably true, but Cartago effectiveness would have been limited, pending the attitude of the Greek cities.
I would conclude that Alexander would have won the first battle, but without any certainty about the final victory.
reply
Great work, very plausible.
As said in other commentaries, at Cannes, Hannibal and the Romans used similar tactics as Alexander and the romans do in this video.
Some side remarks:
1) Alexander died in 323 B. C. He would have invaded Italy around 320 B. C. The second Samnite war had begun in 327 B. C. The battle of the Caudine Forks had taken place in 321B. C. the stra tegic situation of Roma was rather weak. And, in the hypothesis of a Macedonian invasion, there was a true possibility of an intervention by the Etruscans and the Gauls of Northern Italy.
2) It has been said that before he died, Alexander was preparing a campaign against Cartago (from memory, sorry. Anyway, at this time, Cartago land forces were tied in Sicily, and of a rather uncertain quality. Cartago strength was at sea but the Greek fleets would have been more than a match.
3) One key factor would have been the attitude of the Greek cities of Italy and Sicily, as Pyrrhus experimented between 280 and 275 B. C. At the time of Alexander, these cities were not conscious
4) Livy arguments, in his book IX, chapters 17 and following, about the reasons of a victory of Roma against Alexander deserve to be examined.
First, for Livy, the qualities of the Roman generals of his time were on the par with Alexander qualities. And the Roman army is far superior to the armies of Darius or India. Uncertain about the first point, true about the second one. But the weakness of the Roman army is its cavalry and that would have been fatal against Alexander tactics, much more elaborated than the roman ones.
Second, Alexander of 320 B. C. is no more Alexander of his victories, as he was out of control, a strong alcoholic, and prone to fits of rage. And he has become a tyrant. Not false.
Third, the Roman demography and its allies allow it to mobilize more men than Alexander. If a Roman army was destroyed, another one could be levied. Alexander strengths would have been limited. And the attitude of the other Italian people would have been uncertain. True.
Quater, Cartago would have helped Roma. Probably true, but Cartago effectiveness would have been limited, pending the attitude of the Greek cities.
I would conclude that Alexander would have won the first battle, but without any certainty about the final victory.
reply
jaobidan2358
If Alexander would've chosen to fight the Romans in Campania, he would've had nothing but hills to fight on. The Macedonian Phalanxes wouldn't have even been able to form up, let alone move, and the hammer and anvil tactic would've been impossible to pull off. Italian terrain was the sole reason the Latin, Etruscan and Native Italian tribes abandoned the phalanx formation. The manipular formation was the evolutionary byproduct of that terrain and out maneuvered the phalanx formation into extinction on Italian soil. Alexander was so successful in the Middle East b/c of the flat terrain he fought on. He failed miserably in India among the dense forests of the jungle. Terrain in ancient warfare determined the outcome 90% of the time.
reply
If Alexander would've chosen to fight the Romans in Campania, he would've had nothing but hills to fight on. The Macedonian Phalanxes wouldn't have even been able to form up, let alone move, and the hammer and anvil tactic would've been impossible to pull off. Italian terrain was the sole reason the Latin, Etruscan and Native Italian tribes abandoned the phalanx formation. The manipular formation was the evolutionary byproduct of that terrain and out maneuvered the phalanx formation into extinction on Italian soil. Alexander was so successful in the Middle East b/c of the flat terrain he fought on. He failed miserably in India among the dense forests of the jungle. Terrain in ancient warfare determined the outcome 90% of the time.
reply
thetr00per30
The battle of phalanx vs legion played out many times. Leadership was always the deciding factor. For all the advantages of the legion its great weakness for a thousand years would be leadership. Unless the Romans were commanded by an equally accomplished commander Alexander would prevail above the adversity. There are plenty of examples of legions defeating phalanx most notably at Cynoscephalae but when the phalanx was victorious it was always with good leadership vs weak roman commanders.
reply
The battle of phalanx vs legion played out many times. Leadership was always the deciding factor. For all the advantages of the legion its great weakness for a thousand years would be leadership. Unless the Romans were commanded by an equally accomplished commander Alexander would prevail above the adversity. There are plenty of examples of legions defeating phalanx most notably at Cynoscephalae but when the phalanx was victorious it was always with good leadership vs weak roman commanders.
reply
greggcal4583
Fascinating. Was there a Roman general alive then of any stature to take on Alexander It's rather an unfair battle when on one side you have one of the greatest generals of the Ancient world and on the other side. no one of import. How would a Caesar or maybe a Sulla have done Also, I do not believe that Rome would have stayed a vassal state of the Greeks for too long. Any nation that could withstand the devastation of Cannae is not one to live on its knees under a foreign power.
reply
Fascinating. Was there a Roman general alive then of any stature to take on Alexander It's rather an unfair battle when on one side you have one of the greatest generals of the Ancient world and on the other side. no one of import. How would a Caesar or maybe a Sulla have done Also, I do not believe that Rome would have stayed a vassal state of the Greeks for too long. Any nation that could withstand the devastation of Cannae is not one to live on its knees under a foreign power.
reply
MrSpock-ww3qt
Great video Aditu. The battle went as I predicted it would.
Noone had seen a strategist like Alexander up until now, and the Romans of this time would have fought to a set system they had been using for many years.
Alexander being the stategeist and overall commander of his troops would have been able to modify his battle lines, and battle tactics to suit, much like Hannibal did against Rome a century or 2 later.
reply
Great video Aditu. The battle went as I predicted it would.
Noone had seen a strategist like Alexander up until now, and the Romans of this time would have fought to a set system they had been using for many years.
Alexander being the stategeist and overall commander of his troops would have been able to modify his battle lines, and battle tactics to suit, much like Hannibal did against Rome a century or 2 later.
reply
history
I feel like in a singular battle like this the Greeks would win on flat terrain, but in a war Rome would triumph. I mean how many armies they kept putting against Hannibal despite fiull complete defeats, not close battles like this. Also in Punic war 1 they rebuilt fleets 5 times due to storms, etc. Roman grit and determination would win the war eventually.
reply
I feel like in a singular battle like this the Greeks would win on flat terrain, but in a war Rome would triumph. I mean how many armies they kept putting against Hannibal despite fiull complete defeats, not close battles like this. Also in Punic war 1 they rebuilt fleets 5 times due to storms, etc. Roman grit and determination would win the war eventually.
reply
flaviusaetius8042
Alexander would have conquered the Roman Republic at his time easily. But what about the roman army at the time of Caesar How would a battle between a roman army under Caesar vs a macedonian army under Alexander end Lucius Aemilius Paullus defeated Perseus, but would Caesar defeat Alexander It would be a duel of Titans, like Achilles vs Hector.
reply
Alexander would have conquered the Roman Republic at his time easily. But what about the roman army at the time of Caesar How would a battle between a roman army under Caesar vs a macedonian army under Alexander end Lucius Aemilius Paullus defeated Perseus, but would Caesar defeat Alexander It would be a duel of Titans, like Achilles vs Hector.
reply
user-ho1sr6my5x
I an hypothetical scenario that Alexander was fighting with the romans in his era would definitely won. Alexander fought a lot of battles with many different enemies and always had prevailed. He didn't have problem to read the enemy and find the best strategy. And last but not least he was going to bring in Italy at least 150 k of veterans.
reply
I an hypothetical scenario that Alexander was fighting with the romans in his era would definitely won. Alexander fought a lot of battles with many different enemies and always had prevailed. He didn't have problem to read the enemy and find the best strategy. And last but not least he was going to bring in Italy at least 150 k of veterans.
reply
Cleisthenes607
The Romans would keep fighting until the won. Those early republican Romans were a different breed. Alexander of Epirus (Alexander the Great's Uncle) who fought in Italy whilst Alexander the Great went east said of his nephew, I fought men (Italic tribes) whilst he fought only women (Persians.
reply
The Romans would keep fighting until the won. Those early republican Romans were a different breed. Alexander of Epirus (Alexander the Great's Uncle) who fought in Italy whilst Alexander the Great went east said of his nephew, I fought men (Italic tribes) whilst he fought only women (Persians.
reply
1167400
Very nice but some mistakes.
1) Roman legion at this time was 5 lines
2) probably no pila
3) Companions fought in wedge formations; Thessalians in rhomboid formations.
4) Alexander would have many varied and excellent light cavalry- horse archers, Paonians, Persian light cavalry etc.
reply
Very nice but some mistakes.
1) Roman legion at this time was 5 lines
2) probably no pila
3) Companions fought in wedge formations; Thessalians in rhomboid formations.
4) Alexander would have many varied and excellent light cavalry- horse archers, Paonians, Persian light cavalry etc.
reply
stefanalbu9227
A lot of men. they've killed many animals. they are not good anymore. thier souls are almost bad. so now. in this historical movie. because there are a lot of men. they kill each other. Don't kill animals. or eat meat. only twice a week. Don't eat meat every day. don't be that bad
reply
A lot of men. they've killed many animals. they are not good anymore. thier souls are almost bad. so now. in this historical movie. because there are a lot of men. they kill each other. Don't kill animals. or eat meat. only twice a week. Don't eat meat every day. don't be that bad
reply
Donnachaidh07
This is better than many battle scenes in movies. lol
Amazing!
The Macedonia Phalanx was like an ancient tank with hundreds of long spear tips. It would push the enemy and cut them to pieces, who couldn't reach the Macedonians because of the long spears.
reply
This is better than many battle scenes in movies. lol
Amazing!
The Macedonia Phalanx was like an ancient tank with hundreds of long spear tips. It would push the enemy and cut them to pieces, who couldn't reach the Macedonians because of the long spears.
reply
history
The kingdom of Carthage had vested interests in Western Sicily, and would have allied with Rome against Alexander's Roman invasion. This alternative battle history should include the Carthaginian navy and army as fighting on the side of the Romans.
reply
The kingdom of Carthage had vested interests in Western Sicily, and would have allied with Rome against Alexander's Roman invasion. This alternative battle history should include the Carthaginian navy and army as fighting on the side of the Romans.
reply
history
Watching from Greece. hi everybody.
Great video.
From all the men of the era he was the only one who could fight back against the great Roman empire.
'Alexander the great
his name struck fear into hearts of men'.
reply
Watching from Greece. hi everybody.
Great video.
From all the men of the era he was the only one who could fight back against the great Roman empire.
'Alexander the great
his name struck fear into hearts of men'.
reply
darioalexander303
In the reality Rome had defeated a weakened Macedon. Imagine what woukd happened if they tried to attack Alexander's Macedon. The romans would have prayed to Zeus and raised sculptures of Megas Alexandros.
reply
In the reality Rome had defeated a weakened Macedon. Imagine what woukd happened if they tried to attack Alexander's Macedon. The romans would have prayed to Zeus and raised sculptures of Megas Alexandros.
reply
marioduva1411
This video was made for an audience of Greek Macedonian because reality was different, Alexander wanted land and easy pickings, Rome would have made him just like his cousin Pyrrhus of eperus, irrelevant
reply
This video was made for an audience of Greek Macedonian because reality was different, Alexander wanted land and easy pickings, Rome would have made him just like his cousin Pyrrhus of eperus, irrelevant
reply
yveeo. 7163
Well it true that the roman army calvary was weak that why they introduced foreign calvary. So to make this a fair fight the roman calvary should be made up of gaulic, germanic or even Greek calvary.
reply
Well it true that the roman army calvary was weak that why they introduced foreign calvary. So to make this a fair fight the roman calvary should be made up of gaulic, germanic or even Greek calvary.
reply
history
Alexander the Great was a military genius. He was an absolutely brilliant tactician and strategist. He was also highly adaptable as well. Alexander the Great would have absolutely destroyed the Romans.
reply
Alexander the Great was a military genius. He was an absolutely brilliant tactician and strategist. He was also highly adaptable as well. Alexander the Great would have absolutely destroyed the Romans.
reply
user-tm2zn5vy8y
Una batalla asi ls ganaria alejandro. pero di lad legiones fueran de tipo imperial e incluso republicanas bajo cesar julio los rimanos ganan seguro. vean ejemplos de pidna cinoscefalos etc.
reply
Una batalla asi ls ganaria alejandro. pero di lad legiones fueran de tipo imperial e incluso republicanas bajo cesar julio los rimanos ganan seguro. vean ejemplos de pidna cinoscefalos etc.
reply
user-tm2zn5vy8y
Cuando los romanos desarrollaron la legion inentaron la formacion perfecta para luchar con srma blanca. el sistema de luchas por filas y sl relevo era perfecto. era una maquinaria
reply
Cuando los romanos desarrollaron la legion inentaron la formacion perfecta para luchar con srma blanca. el sistema de luchas por filas y sl relevo era perfecto. era una maquinaria
reply
danielsalazar6211
What if Alexander met Julius Caesar in a battle, who would've won
Would his phalanx matched Caesar's legions
Would Alexander's companions fought Caesar's Gauls cavalry
reply
What if Alexander met Julius Caesar in a battle, who would've won
Would his phalanx matched Caesar's legions
Would Alexander's companions fought Caesar's Gauls cavalry
reply
JoseSanchez-vd9qz
Simply outstanding, and the outcome is exactly as I have always imagined. In fact, in the real clashes between phalanx and legion it was the leadership which decided.
reply
Simply outstanding, and the outcome is exactly as I have always imagined. In fact, in the real clashes between phalanx and legion it was the leadership which decided.
reply
Lauradtp75
But did it really happen Alexander himself fighted against Romans Or were Macedonian who fighted against Romans but without Alexander who was already dead Thanks
reply
But did it really happen Alexander himself fighted against Romans Or were Macedonian who fighted against Romans but without Alexander who was already dead Thanks
reply
edwardwinder7877
The phalanx spear could only move forward so Romans would keep out they way as much then cut the Macedonia army to pieces roman army to good for them
reply
The phalanx spear could only move forward so Romans would keep out they way as much then cut the Macedonia army to pieces roman army to good for them
reply
blueartist1000
Rome was in its infancy Greece was at its height. level the playing field Alex was go the way of Hannibal! Look at what happened to Pyrrhus.
reply
Rome was in its infancy Greece was at its height. level the playing field Alex was go the way of Hannibal! Look at what happened to Pyrrhus.
reply
history
Sinceramente. No creo que Alejandro. Hubiera. Derrotado. Totalmente a Roma. Quien. Poseia. Muchos recursos. Y tropas veteranas.
reply
Sinceramente. No creo que Alejandro. Hubiera. Derrotado. Totalmente a Roma. Quien. Poseia. Muchos recursos. Y tropas veteranas.
reply
user-tm2zn5vy8y
Esto esta mal hecho. dos ejercito de menos de 10000 no ovupan tanto espacio. solo son dos legiones. ocupsn muy poco
reply
Esto esta mal hecho. dos ejercito de menos de 10000 no ovupan tanto espacio. solo son dos legiones. ocupsn muy poco
reply
user-un6wc1lw3s
Can you make a video where Alexander fights Rome when they conquered the whole peninsula or all the lower half
reply
Can you make a video where Alexander fights Rome when they conquered the whole peninsula or all the lower half
reply
user-tm2zn5vy8y
El unico que gano a la legion con falange tipo macedonica gue snibal en cannas y habria que matizarlo mucho.
reply
El unico que gano a la legion con falange tipo macedonica gue snibal en cannas y habria que matizarlo mucho.
reply
user-tm2zn5vy8y
Los romanos de esta periodo uraban lavgalsnde griega clasica con escudo redondo hoplon y lanza de acometida
reply
Los romanos de esta periodo uraban lavgalsnde griega clasica con escudo redondo hoplon y lanza de acometida
reply
hroververi728
That was Alexander' s plans and big dream! But the hierateion- priests of Babylon murdered- poissoned him.
reply
That was Alexander' s plans and big dream! But the hierateion- priests of Babylon murdered- poissoned him.
reply
jakethomas3205
Alexander new the importance of Cavalry. Rome did not, hence the defeat of Crassus by the Parthians.
reply
Alexander new the importance of Cavalry. Rome did not, hence the defeat of Crassus by the Parthians.
reply
asenpavlov6678
Nobody can say who would win such an eventual battle! We can just suppose. But The video is great!
reply
Nobody can say who would win such an eventual battle! We can just suppose. But The video is great!
reply
VikingRik
Brilliant vid, well researched and great fun to watch. Thank you.
Please keep up the great work.
reply
Brilliant vid, well researched and great fun to watch. Thank you.
Please keep up the great work.
reply
fatihamediani6718
Khaled bin Al-Waleed is stronger than the Persians, the Romans, and Alexander the Great
reply
Khaled bin Al-Waleed is stronger than the Persians, the Romans, and Alexander the Great
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
6:46
