Apparently Alexander wanted to conquer the western Mediterranean and even made preparations shortly before his death...

Apparently Alexander wanted to conquer the western Mediterranean and even made preparations shortly before his death. Do you think he would have been successful at that had he lived longer?

I thought he was planning expeditions into Arabia before he died no??

What if he just split up and conquered all of Arabia, India to around the Indus, North Africa to a border around the Sahara, Europe to a vague border in the far north, the Caucasus, and more?

I just read Waterfield's Dividing the Spoils about the Successor kingdoms and in that book it says Alexander wanted to conquer the western Mediterranean and southern Italy (can't find the page rn)

The Phalanx would lose to the maniple. Then again Rome always had a garbage cavalry so it could go either way.

Rome was borderline irrelevant during the time of Alexander m8, they probably would have been fucked.

To be honest, I doubt he would. Not that I don't think he couldn't beat the Romans, the Carthaginians, or anyone else in the Western Med should push come to shove, but he had gobbled up a colossal amount of land, and he was already showing signs of friction and rebellion in his lifetime, which exploded into rampant secessionism and the Diodochi wars when he died. Had he lived, I doubt it would have been *as* bad, but I'm certain he would have to spend considerable amounts of time, energy, wealth, and manpower putting down the inevitable revolts that he would generate against his rule.


Rome hadn't adopted the manipular system by 323 B.C. Alexander is also capable of calling up enormous reserves of manpower and people with a waide array of tactical skills, should his empire remain stable.

>Rome hadn't adopted the manipular system by 323 B.C
Wasn't he going for Arabia next though?
I was also going under the assumption that he would take a break since his soldiers mutinied.

>Wasn't he going for Arabia next though?
Hard to say. What biographies we have of him are centuries after the fact, and list all sorts of other expeditions. Arabia, Sicily, Italy, and north to beat up the Scythians are all mentioned. The last seems a bit ridiculous, as they're poor and hard to track down, but the others all seem more or less equally plausible.

>I was also going under the assumption that he would take a break since his soldiers mutinied.
You do have that, but you also have mention of raising fresh forces from Greece and the Levant who didn't go on the campaign to India to be fitted out for a campaign somewhere. And, like I mentioned upthread, there's always the possibility of a revolt somewhere he's already conquered forcing him to either stay home or at least divert forces to keep what he's already got.

Rome almost fucking surrendered to Pyrrhus decades later from a much stronger position. So Alexander wouldn't have any trouble stomping Rome.

Pyrrhus was a better general than Alexander though

Not him, but you're basing that interesting appraisal on what exactly?

Dissent is not the same as open rebellion, alexander was well known for making examples. I seriously doubt anyone would have the balls to oppose him without an enormous amount of support. Perhaps if he were to get his ass kicked repeatedly in battle, but considering how much damage pyrrhus did with a fraction of his power, I don't see alexander losing to rome or carthage. As for arabia, weren't they mostly separate tribes at this point?

Alexander is one of the best generals of all time but his main reason for success was all due to his father. Philip made the Macedonian army what it was. It's not really hard to conquer when you have your father's generals and his superior army.

>As for arabia, weren't they mostly separate tribes at this point?

The only thing worth taking would be Arabia Felix in Yemen.

So what? I'll agree with you on the Phillip being underrated, and that Alexander's major contribution to military theory off of the base of his father is some superior pursuit tactics. But Pyrrhos didn't invent the tactics he used, the training method of his armies, or the political framework of Epiros or the other polities he strongarmed into helping him. On what possible basis can you say he's a better general than Alexander?

The only difference between the two is that Alexander had luck on his side

Pyrrhus has a tiny army, 1/5th that of Alexander, he didn't have the backing of the entire Balkans, he didn't have Alexander's officer corps, and he didn't have Alexander's engineering corps.
People WAY over estimate the Roman style of warfare. Is it flexible and effective? yes, but so is a proper phalanx. The maniple wasn't some bane of the phalanx. The phalanx simply requires a bare minimum of men to operate effectively. Not to mention later iterations of Macedonian phalanx weren't as professional and generals didn't use combined arms combat as effectively.

So you're saying Alexander had a better army? Doesn't that still make him more capable of conquering the Romans??? It also doesn't prove that Pyrrhus was better.

This is absolute bullshit

Pyrrhos was enormously lucky. Do you think the opportunity to stage a coup in Macedonia and walk off with a good chunk of their treasury happens to just anyone?

To be fair, people always overlook some of the raw power of the manipular system. After Pyrrhos fucked off back home, Rome moved against Tarentum, a Greek city state in Italy with a very Greek style phalanx, and crushed them easily, no fancy tactics involved.

Yes, we're all well aware of the initial setbacks in battles like Cynoscephalae and Pydna, but they won those battles anyway, and with relatively light losses even in the cohorts that faced off against the pikes.

Both generals were undefeated.
Alexander fought in many more battles.
Alexander had a much greater effect on the world (Pyrrhus was compared to Alexander).
Pyrrhus overextended himself on 3 different campaigns and was forced to retreat on each one, all within Southern Italy and the Balkans. Alexander may have overextended himself once, half a continent away from Macedon.

>People WAY over estimate the Roman style of warfare.
THIS. Strength of Roman military was in logistics and resources. Tactically they were good of course, but they were far from unbeatable (in set-piece battle).

Why does everyone forget the battle of Beneventum?

>To be fair, people always overlook some of the raw power of the manipular system. After Pyrrhos fucked off back home, Rome moved against Tarentum, a Greek city state in Italy with a very Greek style phalanx, and crushed them easily, no fancy tactics involved.
You don't think it had anything to do with the sheer numbers? Pyrrhus was outnumbered before he even landed in Italy, and it only got worse for Tarentum after he left. Honestly the roman army could have spit over the walls and the city would have flooded.

Because there's no clear consensus

I'd have to doublecheck my books, but I don't think so. Rome was simultaneously putting down another Samnite insurgency/revolt/whatever you want to call it, and drawing up troops for a campaign against Rhegium and their defecting troops there. I don't think they sent more than a single legion to subdue Tarentum.

On how big of a battle it was and some details of the action. Every ancient writer who mentions it does so as a Roman victory, and Cassius Dio, Plutarch, and Dionysus of Helicarnassus all mention it.

Whoops, hit enter too soon. Even if you doubt the existence of Beneventum, Pyrrhus also lost at Sparta and had failures at Lilybaeum and the strait of Messina.

Its not a question of could he, its a question of should he

Because people always say he's undefeated for some reason i just forgot.
I was counting the failure at Sparta a "retreat", i forgot about Lilybaeum but I'd consider it the same. He judged that Lilybaeum was too strong to take so he lifted the siege before any serious engagement took place. That counts as another time he overextended himself. The strait of Messina was a naval ambush of troops transports...was Pyrrhus also an admiral?
In any case, Pyrrhus overextended himself 4 times and actually lost a battle. So yeah, even more strikes against him.
As a note: I personally dont consider giving up on a siege a "defeat" in cases like this because I don't think it reflects on the ability of a general. If other count these as "defeats" I can't really argue.

>Every ancient writer who mentions it does so as a Roman victory

And hilariously Pyrrhus lost less men than Romans in every one of the three battles fought.