Rome vs Alexander the Great | Epic 18k Cinematic Total War Battle - Alternate History
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 дек 2022
- In this battle, you shall experience the epic clash between Rome and Alexander the Great in a battle that would shake the world. Imagine if Alexander did not die in Babylon and would return to Macedonia triumphant where he would stabilize the Greek world and expand his influence in the West, setting his sights on the Italian peninsula. Greek colonies already well established in the area, Alexander would try to gain their favor and intervene in the struggles between the expanding Roman republic and the Greek city states of Magna Graecia. Imagine Alexander bringing his veteran phalanx and companions army to Campania and facing the early Roman army, still using spears and being influenced by the Etruscan and Greek style of warfare. The early Hastati, Principe and Triarii supported by the Roman skirmishers and allied cavalry prepares to face the Macedonian war machine that was Alexander the Great. In this epic clash, Alexander plans to take on the Romans using and echelon formation with the left wing advanced more towards the enemy and flanked by Alexander himself and his famous Companion cavalry. Both of the phalanx wings are protected by Hypaspists (veteran shield-bearers) and slingers and archers support from the rear. Unfamiliar with the phalanx style of warfare, the Romans would have used their best tactic which was sheer force to push the center of the enemy army by throwing their Leves and Hastati first, then supported by the heavier Principes and the Triarii in the back lines as a last line of defense.
This is NOT a historical battle and is meant only to entertain the idea of Alexander the Great surviving and expanding his influence towards the West. This was realized using the Rome 2 Total War game.
Mods used in this battle:
Larger Battlefield And Further Deployment Zones
Alternate (Bigger) Unit Sizes Submod for Divide et Impera
Divide et Impera
Divide et Impera Extravaganza
Roman Legions for Divide et Impera
DEI Celtic Models Extravaganza
Roman Models Extravaganza 1.0.9
Ancient Generals
Commanders Remastered
#aditulaudis #cinematicbattle #rome2totalwar
Music:
Tyler Cunningham - The Companions
Tyler Cunningham - Glory to Rome
Tyler Cunningham - Adrianopole
Rome Total War Soundtrack 
Игры
Hope you enjoyed this one. Please make sure to support the channel by liking and commenting for the algorithm gods. Subscribe and activate notifications so you know when I am posting the next video.
Everyone Praaaaaiiiiiiiseeeee!!! To Aditu Laudis For this amazing video Praaaaiiiseeee everyone!!! Thanks x1000 for The effort of making Alexander vs Rome happen!! And Merry Christmas.
Game name
There were scientific evidence that Alexander suffered an illness or paralysis in coma that made his companions assumed he died, as the result Alexander was buried alive accidentally murdering him
I liked it but was a bit sad that you did not include asian troops like war elefants, babylonian or assyrian infantry and persian or cappadocian cavalry
Alexander would have avenged his counsin, Alexander the Mollosian, who was killed in Italy.
Had this actually happened, This would have been one of the greatest battles anywhere in the ancient world.
in my opinion if alexander didnt die rome wouldnt never be what they became , alexander would destroy them before they rise
It will a battle that people will less pay attention too since it will just be another city state that Alexander rekt
Alexanders companion cavalry was so elite it’s the first tiger tank of the ancient world.
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.
I have read that at the time of his return from India, Alexander was contemplating the idea of hollowing out the center of his phalanx and it is there archers would have been stationed, trained to fire arrows to fall just a short distance from his own front lines...imagine facing phalanx spears and arrows, at the same time....
The spanish "Tercios", pikes and musquetes........long range firepower of the time.
Θα ήτανε πραγματικά μία μεγάλη μάχη αλλά εάν δεν είχε πεθάνει ο Αλέξανδρος οι Ρωμαίοι δεν θα είχανε καμία απολύτως τύχη!!!!!
Where did you get that from? That sounds like a good counter to surprise the Romans in-case they use elephants (Battle Of Cynoscephalae)
Had Alexander lived longer , there would be no Rome.
Actually rome was defeated and weakened greatly by the germanic tribes and were very weak when Alexander the great rose to power
There would be no mauryans too
Most people only recognize the phalanx but Alexander had the vision to adopt other troops from conquered lands and incorporate them into his army. For one mounted archer's from the Persian empire. His original army also included the great fighting unit silver shields, slingers and they were as great at siege warfare as the Romans. It would have been a great war
no they wasnt as good as the romans at sieging thats the only false statement u just made
caesar and pompey would laugh at alexanders siege engineer crews
@@randomguy6152 what about Tyre Sogdian rock.
@@williamgeorge2433 yeah he did a few amazing engineering feats, but engineering warfare evolved by the point of roman dominance, the romans were better engineers than they were fighters if u ask some people and siege warfare is underrated yet 1 of the most important parts of caesars era due to the fact any people who didnt know how to siege was basically dying and anyone who knew how to siege whether they were in gaul, germania, persia they were dominant due to being 1 of the few who can siege out massive walls
@@randomguy6152Hannibal couldn't beat Rome because he couldn't take a fortified city. If Alexander had lived another 10 years he definitely would have taken Rome and there wouldn't have been a Roman empire.
@@williamgeorge2433 in alexanders time rome was still really weak rome didnt have real walls until they got sacked so yeah alexander would have walked over and slapped them
hannibal is a prime example of states that didnt have enough engineering ability failing hard it was proven in this time of warfare if you had no advanced siege ability you will lose against any nation with great city building ability and if you were good at taking down cities your army would usually get crushed by the horse archer army
The Romans first from all called the Alexander "Magno" that mean "Great" and the romans they self said "if Alexander had live more, we did not became empire".
Well said
In Spanish, we know Alexander as Alejandro Magno!
But Alexander the Great died, intoxicated by his own chalice of power and ignorance, philosophical, spiritual and human. And while his generals divided his empire, which would be ephemeral, Rome was waiting for its moment to take the baton of Western civilization.
@@umfilhodedeustotalmenteama5522 Rome was waiting for nothing.
@@umfilhodedeustotalmenteama5522sopa do macaco?
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.
I’m the Rome player here, I see a lot of people saying Rome would’ve won. That is not true AT ALL. Alexander himself was leading in this alt history, when Macedonian armies are in their prime. We are also talking about a rome in the 300s which was still not the Rome we know, and the Rome people think of is still much later.
Alexander would lose the war no question. Sorry.
@@mRoPainTrain You didn’t read anything I said, and you clearly haven’t studied history either if you think he would loose to a 300’s BC rome
@@TheOfficalBiggestBird it's called manpower
@@mRoPainTrain I’m sorry, but real life doesn’t work like eu4
@@mRoPainTrain Rome at this era did not have much manpower.
It did not even rule all of Italy.
No way that Alexander has 10,000 men for that battle if didn’t die when he came back from India, he would have over 250k men , all Greek , Egyptian, Persian, some men from Italy and maybe Cartage too , Rome would have been crushed in that battle, if Rome fought against Cartage was hard, against Alexander even worse
Ironically ,had Alexander lived Longer Would of Probably invaded Rome,Which was a tough Small City State ,But a Minor player in Global politics of the Time....I Think The Romans Always Thought Alexander The Great the Yardstick to be measured on,and it Was Alexanders former Territories in North Africa and the Near East The Romans Most Prized Above All when they finally conquered them ....Alexander The Greats War/Battle tactics Are Still Taught in Every Major Military School..
Dud que gran idea la de las batallas en realidad alternativas, eres un genio!! Se nota que te esforzaste mucho, buen trabajo bro
If Alexander invaded Rome the world today would be different
You would be speaking Greek today.
Alexander's era phalanx was like Brazil in 1970 or 1982 or 2002 ...Macedonian Phalanx of Phillip V that fought the Roman Legions were more like Brazil 2014 or 2022
As a Brazilian I agree
You couldn't describe it better,also as a greek i give it to romans for the feign retreat which split the Macedonian lines and beat the unbeatable until then phalanx
As Brazilian, I say: true story👍
But Alexander the Great died, intoxicated by his own chalice of power and ignorance, philosophical, spiritual and human. And while his generals divided his empire, which would be ephemeral, Rome was waiting for its moment to take the baton of Western civilization.
It was alexander that was the missing piece of the Macedonian army. It's hard to say who would have won with caesar vs alexander. It's completely different types of warfare. Alexander was a brilliant tactician but so wad caesar with the way he approached supplies forts positioning his army.
Also don't forget Phillip V lost against a pre Marian army. If he would have face legionaries with better cavalry snd tactics it would be much harder.
The spanish writer Javier Negrete imagined this battle in the novel "Alejandro Magno y las Águilas de Roma"
Nice video!
Thank you!
Brilliant vid, well researched and great fun to watch. Thank you.
Please keep up the great work.
Many thanks!
Getting better with the edits and general feel of the videos 👏🏻
Thank you man!
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.
My money is on Alexander, Rome was no where near in it's prime in 300 BC.
Unlike hannibal you can bet that alexanders enginers would have brought the walls of rome down.
For sure
The Greeks had sent an envoy to Hannibal to offer him aid when he besieged Rome. Hannibal accepted. The Greek envoy was captured by the Romans before he could get back to Greece. This is where one man's fate changed the entire course of history.
But Alexander the Great died, intoxicated by his own chalice of power and ignorance, philosophical, spiritual and human. And while his generals divided his empire, which would be ephemeral, Rome was waiting for its moment to take the baton of Western civilization.
@@umfilhodedeustotalmenteama5522 👍🏻
Very beautiful! Makes me feel so good. Nothing but action all over - brutality and aggression has nothing to do with the situation we are witnessing in this video. The only things we are seeing is: "protection of Pride and Dignity of a Nation". No pain and no psychological pressure, but in contrast an enormous amount of "Courage and Pride as well as unlimited Freedom of expression of all kinds". This is the only place where "Death" stays far - far away from participants. The situation in this video is not as tragic as it looks, completely contrary to the fact - it is very refreshing!
Thank you for the kind words
Fue un gran guerrero y un estratega cómo pocos no por nada fue Alejandro el Grande, y siempre a la frente de las batallas.
Great video & Happy holidays my friend!!! 15:07
Happy holidays!
This is a great video keep them coming :)
Thank you! Will do!
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'.
He would’ve never been able to fight the Roman Empire, his corpse would probably be decomposed after like 300 years. This was the Roman Republic, and the republic was considered small compared to the empire. The Roman Republic was not as great, and the Roman Empire was like 300 years after Alexander’s historical death.
@@elizabethboggs4272 i think you're wrong.Roman wasn't republic at the time.
Without good cavalry the phalanx was nothing and Alexander was one of the greatest cavalry commanders in history.
The Romans saw Pyrrhus of Epirus - of Pyrrhic victory fame - who was a cousin of Alexander's as the closest they would ever get to answering the question. Unsurprisingly, the Romans were convinced they'd have won against Alexander, too.
Pyrrhus as competent as he was was nowhere near Alexander in military skills and tactics and did not have the resources that Alexander would be able to bring in Italy... Had alexander survived and landed in italy Rome would undoubtedly become a vassal state
@@konstantinosangelopoulos5367 I think it's also important to recognise the bravery & capability of his army.Alexander's tactical leadership,were obviously great but the utter fighting spirit of his Companions & men were necessary to make those shock charges & carry the day.
Alexander literally had the resources of all of Asia, how does Pyrrhus even compare?!
And the Romans lost 2 of 3 battles against Pyhrros.
*Pyrrhos*
Impressive !!
Glory to the Macedonian Greek army and its mighty leader Μέγα Αλέξανδρο 🇬🇷☀️
The truth is that Alexander had nothing with the greeks,only his secretary Eumenes.
No one can beat Alexander.
Это сделала Индия
@@Regionnnn The elephants did it
Hannibal could have done it with tactics of Cannae but if Alexander takes the bait
Roman legion defeat Macedon falage many time. The best military unit of the past
@@Regionnnn на самом деле Александр никогда не проигрывал битвы в Индии, его армия была истощена и хотела вернуться домой, поэтому они подняли мятеж у реки Гипасис (Беас).
Η φάλαγγα αν γινη η μάχη σε πεδιάδα και φυλάς τα νώτα σου και τα πλάγια, δεν έχει αντίπαλο. Γι αυτό και έχασε ο Φίλιππος ο Ε. Παρασύρθηκε από την κατηφόρα στο βουνό και παρεμβληθηκαν οι Ρωμαίοι.
Rappelant remarquablement l'épopée de Gaugamèles vers la conquête du monde du plus audacieux des conquérants, les visuels et les perspectives sont immergeant ⚔️👏
Thank you for the comment. Glad you liked the video.
Batalha espetacular, as lanças de 6 metros do exército macedônico e uma vantagem muito grande.
"Parabéns pelo vídeo"
Thanks Andrew
But Alexander the Great died, intoxicated by his own chalice of power and ignorance, philosophical, spiritual and human. And while his generals divided his empire, which would be ephemeral, Rome was waiting for its moment to take the baton of Western civilization.
Уже много времени ищу битву Македонского против Великого Кентала. Очень хочется увидеть честную трактовку этого сражения. Хочется посмотреть какой Александр великий в этом сражении.
What a great battle to watch. Only if Alexander could match up with Caesar or Scipio Africanus.
Great video. Thx from de history lovers.
it would be perfect if you had greek forces alongside some persian units like archers , skythian cavalary or probavly some war elephants on Alexanders army just like the Hellenistic kingdoms did🔥🔥
Makes a cinematic between Alexander of Macedonia and the Aztec, Mayan and Inca empires of Mesoamerica. I say this because Alexander was visionary and most likely would move his forces there. also china and japan
Wow, I wasn't expecting anyone to suggest that. Not sure if there are mods that allow me to put Macedonia against Aztecs... But interesting idea nonetheless
Superb!!
Thank you! Cheers!
AwesomeX1000.
Mega nice
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...
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.
thanks!
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.
real input man! Some great points! Thank you.
Alexander was training troops from the conquered territories and was incorporating them into his army. He would not have a manpower shortage.
@@williamgeorge2433 Yes but Roma was on its own playground. Alexander renforts had to walk hundreds or thousands of kilometers and to cross to Italy, despite the opposition of Roma and Cartago fleets. Logistics limited the size of armies.
Roma and its allies could routinely field 40 000 men, and more in times of needs, with up to three armies operating at the same time, on 3 different theaters, cf. for instance, "a companion to the Roman army", p. 51 and followings.
Amazing
Thanks
I enjoyed this. It would be cool if you had the Romans march against the incoming missles in Testudo though. The front lines of the maniples were to spread apart to really sell the feel. Thanks for your hard work anyway.
Noted! And thanks
But Alexander the Great died, intoxicated by his own chalice of power and ignorance, philosophical, spiritual and human. And while his generals divided his empire, which would be ephemeral, Rome was waiting for its moment to take the baton of Western civilization.
Nobody can say who would win such an eventual battle! We can just suppose.....But The video is great!
Thanks
It's very interesting to consider historical Ifs.
Alexander could beat any foe,including the Romans,for his Forte was the Elite Cavalry,meaning the Right Wing,from the flank/rear!That 10,000 cavalry beat 1,000,000 Persians!!The phalanx was just the main battle line,meant as a diversion for lightweights...!
Alexandre eo general copiado por todos o cara era foda e acho que manteria seu título de nunca perde uma guerra. Ganhou tanto q seu exército enjoo de ganha
Você poderia fazer um vídeo da batalha de Lugdunum?
Tge Rome of Alexander's era was far from the colossal military machine we know. So I think Alexander would have steamrolled them even worse then this.
I was trying to be respectful :P
it was a very young rome against a macedonian kingdom at the height of its splendour, rome had recently revolutionized its army with marcus furius camillo, but if we put the imperial legions against that macedonian army, the romans would win without problems
A fascinating encounter. I would always give Rome the edge but it’s early Rome so . . .
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.
I like this.
I'm happy you've enjoyed it
I rarely feel sorry for the Romans, but I feel pretty sorry for them in this situation. Just sue for peace, Romans. In a few centuries you'll be massive Alexander fan boys anyway.
Haha
What graphics card do you have? I want one.!!!
Haha, it's the rtx 3080
This is Divide et Impera mod isnt it? Looks great!
Yes, Gio D :)
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.
Maybe Caesar vs Alexander in a future battle? :P
Сципион Африканский разорвал бы Александра на куски так же, как он разорвал на куски Ганнибала
Alexander vs Carthage next? 😎
Hmm
good
Thanks
For these battles do you fight against the AI or have a friend playing the enemy?
Sometimes AI, but mostly with my good friend Gaius Iulius Caesar who is always in the comments here :)
Рим совершенная военная машина,Александр гений ,фаланга ходячая крепость,слабое место у Рима голова,Ставлю на Александра он гений,
That's what I think too. But some others in the comments do have a point by saying that Rome's power was not in its general but in its military system as a whole.
Can you make a video where Alexander fights Rome when they conquered the whole peninsula or all the lower half
La duda queda en el aire.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
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.
Alexander was invincible but Caesar would have inflicted heavy damage
Santiago Posteguillo likes this
how you managed to get that Alexander model with those ripped arms?
It's a mod
"However, the forces at work in the Mediterranean could not have avoided each other for long. The First Greco-Roman War began in 300 BCE, the flashpoint centering on the control of Campania. The Romans had long considered the region part of their cultural sphere of influence, having a firm grip on the trade routes to and from the area. Alexander III of Macedon, the unassailable and unquestioned master of the Greek world at that time, asserted that the colonies in Italia fell under Macedonic protection. With diplomacy failing, Alexander III quietly assembled a task force to stand and fight, if the petulant Romans decided to take the prize by force. His instincts once again proved fortuitous, as the Macedonians received word of a Roman strike force crossing the border as they disembarked their ships. The war to decide the fate of the Mediterranean had begun."
Love this
Unstoppable Force meets Immovable Object.
Великий Александр полководец от Бога!
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.
True
That was Alexander' s plans and big dream! But the hierateion- priests of Babylon murdered- poissoned him...
Good video, is right the Alexander army is the best than roman army first system (Hasyati, Principes, triarii, equites) but with imperial roman army is better than because the formation are very efficacity.
Belle vidéo c'est vrai que l'armée d'Alexandre est meilleur que l'armée romaine dans premier système (Hasyati, principes, tripartite et equitès) mais pas pour l'armée Impérial romaine ou la formation est plus efficace.
If Alexander didn't die he would expand the Macedonian Empire from the Italian peninsula to the Indus plus another of his plans was to conquer Arabia, and Carthage, and circumnavigate Africa!
Maybe another video of Alexander against Carthage :P
Number one you do not take a phalynx head on. You HOLD them or at least occupy them and work to get flank. Phalynx do not turn very well. And if you know anything about Alexander you know his cavalry is going to beat up on yours. So use your cavalry to at least keep them occupied and try to draw them away from the main battle so you CAN get a flank.
In any case good luck against Alexander.
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.
Problem is Rome was little more than just another Italic Tribe during Alexander's lifetime. There would be no War, no huge reserves of Manpower to replenish Legions. The Romans had not yet even adopted the Manipular Legio system of combat yet. They were still fighting in much the same way as the Greeks in a basic phalanx. Alexander would have steam rolled them, and that would have been the end of it. The Macedonians of Alexander's time wouldn't have needed nice flat ground either, he had already poven adept at fighting in Mountainous terrain & employed more tactically flexible troopers then the later iterations of Macedonian Armies would later on. The Macedonians Armies the Romans fought later on were shadows of their former-selves having been adapted to the Hellenistic in fighting from the Diadochi or Successor Kingdom conflicts. The first Silver Shields under Alexander were the Hypaspysts not the Sarrissa Pikemen. Alexander had an elite shock core of flexible infantry not just Sarrissa pikemen. If Alexander had invaded Italia it would have been lights out no contest. Rome was no where near it's strength of Manpower or even Tactics that it was by the time of the Punic Wars which would follow almost a Century after Alexanders death.
@@rcmunro22 Literally a generation later they saw of Phrrus of Epirus who and during Alexander's life Italic tribes saw off his Uncle Alexander of Epirus. The republican Romans were a different breed and would have outlast the drunkard.
@@Cleisthenes607 If by a generation you mean half a Century later. Also Pyrrhus's army was no where near the size or the the experience of Alexander's. Pyyrhus almost did the early republic in as it was so instead of 270 BC if Alexander had shown up around 320 BC with a far larger more experienced Army with better equipment and troops it would have been a lights out campaign. Pyyrhus's army at full strength were around 40,000. Alexander had at least twice that Macedonian troops alone & far more experienced with better equiped troops back before Roma had the manpower. The Pyyrhic wars were right around the time Roma finally started to have large manpower reserves which how they barely survived Pyyrhus. Even then it took the Romans many months to call up fresh armies to fight Pyyrhus. Alexander would have been on top of Rome long before new armies could be assembled given his nack for lighting campaigns. Your dreaming. All the Pyyrhic wars showed was how vunerable the Republic was at that point to a Hellenistic style army. Pikes, Elite Hypastpyst, War Elephants & Shock Cavalry were too much for the early republic and the only reason it survived it was they just kept calling up more men to replace their loses. Pyyrhus at the head of a small Epirot kingdom could not, he had a very limited manpower pool. Alexander's cavalry would have been far superior to Pyyrhus's as well.
@@rcmunro22 The Romans conquered every single one of the Hellenic successors/ The Romans had manpower, a will of iron and the ability to learn and adapt. War elephants and a bunch of asiatics bristling under Macedonian rule wouldn't help Alexander, he'd be struggling against the Romans whilst his provinces in the east rebel as they did over and over again in Bactria and during Alexander's own lifetime his Uncle Alexander I of Epirus died in Italy fighting Italic tribes, and this is what he said:.
Livy speculates on what would have been the outcome of a military showdown between Alexander the Great and the Roman Republic. He reports that as Alexander of Epirus (Alexander the Great's Uncle who was fighting in Italy whilst Alexander the Great was conquering Persia) lay mortally wounded on the battlefield at Pandosia he compared his fortunes to those of his famous nephew and said that the latter "waged war against women".
"n it survived it was they just kept calling up more men to replace their loses"
Exactly, Romans don't surrender and they have unlimited manpower. The Persians broke after two major battles, you could fight twenty battles against the Romans they not giving up. Look at the disasters they faced in the first punic war and they still kept fighting. They could outlast Alexander and suffer multiple defeats but they only need to beat Alexander once to break him.
@@Cleisthenes607 They didn't in 320 BC. That's the point. Roma had no robust manpower pools to call upon back then. They also faced the weakest of the Hellenistic Kingdom in Epirus by the time they did. The Epirot kingdom was a small Kingdom and had the least manpower to draw upon. It was the weakest of the Hellenstic powers and gave the Early Republic a run for it's money.
Sure the later Republic beat what was left of the Kingdoms after centuries of in fighting among the Successor Kingdoms.
If Alexander marched on Italia back during his lifetime & there had been no Successor Conflict eating up Hellenistic manpower & changing their tactics and equipment to deal with Pike vs Pike combat the Early Republic would have been squashed.
To think otherwise is just fan boying over the Romans or your just ill informed.
Also, early rome had more losses than Alexander ever
What mod s changes the textures of the horses?
I'm not sure if it changes textures of horses, but I mainly use Divide et Impera mod
Greek King Alexander himself almost had lost in front of Ancient Indian King Porus and had to tie up with the king Porus.
Rome after this defeat: I didn't hear no bell
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?
I love the ahoo's
:)
I don't understand who is the winner, it must be Alexander
yes!
@@AdituLaudisMMXXI Good's Video thanks
Пожалуйста, умоляю тебя,сними видео про осаду Константинополя арабами 711 года
Ну пжжжжж
Alexander would have defeated Rome in his time he had experienced season veterans and roman generals were still learning how to battle and were really in their infacy , but if Alexander were facing Caesar's legions it would have been different more disiplined proffesional soldiers were his legions , even the prophet Daniel was given a vision by God's Angel and he saw an unusual terrible beast which was the Roman legions who in the future were to become the greatest land military force ever according to Daniel 7:7 the rest was history
If Alexander had gone first west instead of east he wouldn't have to fight Cesar because he wouldn't exist.
Eh i don't like comparing two different eras armies the closest that we can have is Alexander going west instead if east
Фантазии автора!
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.
Interesting thought
No armies or generals are really however strong can predict victory in battles. It depends on the overall plan of a Creator GOD so He decides who will win in-spite of weakness or overwhelming forces.
It's NOT Aoo Aoo Aoo. This is the sound of the WOLF. It's AAAAAAAHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
when will the next
This weekend.
Всё просто,
Александр решает дело.
Well, Alexander did go to Italy with his army in 334 BC......... but it was another one, Alexander I of Epirus, who was the brother of Olympia of Epirus, mother of Alexander III of Macedon (Megas).
He was not as lucky though, the samnites were some tough fuckers, even more in that era, when they were at their best, and it´s rather unknown if the epeirotes had adopted the pike phalanx at this point from the macedonians, but most likely they did not yet.
Interesting point. Seeing that the Samnites were some worthy opponents
You are forgetting that the Macedonian army of Alexander had a lot of veterans of Phillip's time and it was much stronger than the epirotes
@@wankawanka3053 Veterans or not is not the relevant point, but whether or not the epeirotes of Alexander I of Epirus were pikemen.
Who knew that Alexander sounded like Triumph the insult comic dog
Ни в одном историческом романе этой битвы нет да и не могло быть. В тот период римляне были только в стадии становления и не могли вести завоевательных походов за за пределами Апенинского полуострова. Александр мог только воевать с соседними племенами и греками
Думаю, скорее всего битва при Киноскефалах бы точно так же и закончилась, если бы фалангу не обошли)
The Roman maniple formation only came later. They did not have this military tactic in 300 BC
But Alexander the Great died, intoxicated by his own chalice of power and ignorance, philosophical, spiritual and human. And while his generals divided his empire, which would be ephemeral, Rome was waiting for its moment to take the baton of Western civilization.
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.
interesting point
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.