Did Romans know about Alexander the Great?

[Sergey Lenkov]

Of course they knew. I mean: did they know about him in times of his glory?
Reading Titus Livy I was strucked by his alternative history thoughts:
if Alexander in his time would go to Italy, the Romans would crush him (History, book 9;17-18). In 9 (18:6) Lyvy wrote that the Romans never heard of Alexander back in time of his rule. Is that possible?
What do you think about it? Did you see other information anythere?

[Jona Lendering]

Of course they knew. I mean: did they know about him in times of his glory?

Livy's chapters are a rhetorical exercise, not real history. Arrian says (Anabasis 7.15.5-6) that a Roman embassy saluted Alexander in Babylon, and I think that it is a credible story; after all, Rome was allied in those years to Alexander of Molossis, brother-in-law of the great Alex.

[Sergey Lenkov]

Thank you!
I suppose that of course they should know about Alexander from the people from Greek cities in Italy, but Roman embassy in Babylon... Of course they knew...

[Araujo]

Following Arrian, Alexander warned the romans of their conquests to the south coast of Italy. Tarentum and Crotona were old allies of some greek states, which were know subdued to Macedonia and to Alexander. In 326 BC, Napoli is conquered by the young Republic, which seems to grow even more every day. In 324 BC, the young macedonian king, victorious from his campaigns in the East, warns the romans of their expansion to the South, saying that they should not attack Tarentum or the south greek colonies in Magna Graecia. Probably the ambicious romans ignored the warning of the macedonians, and they didn't respond to it.
It's also true that the romans could send some many ambassadors to Babylonia to apologize to the victorious heroe. Livy could say that Alexander would be crushed in Italy, and that's quite true, I'd say. The Italian fields are not as plain as the greek, asian or egyptian fields, and the macedonian phalanxes couldn't fight in irregular field. On the other hand, the roman army was much more mobile than the hoplites, defeating them most probably if the macedonians ever invaded Italy. We can see that decades after, when Pyrrhus of Epirus was defeated in Beneventum and Ausculum by the romans. Pyrrhus was almost as good as Alexander in commanding troops, and his warriors were known to be invencible. Obviously they were defeated and in 270 BC the romans controled the entire Italian Peninsula.

[taira1180]

Alexander didn't stick to a tactic, he improvised depending the land and the enemy. See his campaigns in Bactria and India. Besides, at the time of Alexander life, Roman manpower was lesser than in Pyrus time: the conquest of the latins was fresh and they could have revolted if Alexander appeared.
Of course we won't be ever sure: a tempest could destroy the macedonian fleet, a lucky veles could struck Alexander, etc.

[Jona Lendering]

Livy could say that Alexander would be crushed in Italy, and that's quite true, I'd say. The Italian fields are not as plain as the greek, asian or egyptian fields, and the macedonian phalanxes couldn't fight in irregular field. On the other hand, the roman army was much more mobile than the hoplites, defeating them most probably if the macedonians ever invaded Italy. We can see that decades after, when Pyrrhus of Epirus was defeated in Beneventum and Ausculum by the romans. Pyrrhus was almost as good as Alexander in commanding troops, and his warriors were known to be invencible.

I have to disagree. Pyrrhus won his battles, until he tried to liberate Sicily from Carthaginian control, and instead lost his army. Had he concentrated on Rome, he might have won the war; it was an act of hybris to go to Sicily. I also think that the genocidal tactics Alexander had developed in Sogdia and the Punjab might have served him well in Italy.

That being said, I agree that Alexander would have been unable to subdue Rome, but for the same reasons as why Sogdia and the Punjab remained essentially unconquered: as long as Alexander was there, the people feared him and obeyed, but once he was gone, they revolted. When Alexander died, Sogdia had been in open revolt for more than two years; Nearchus was forced to leave Patala before he had planned to do so; and after the dead of one of the satraps of India, no substitute was sent. I think a similar scenario applies to Italy.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I really don't see how someone could say definitively that the Romans of 320BC would crush Alexander. Sure, the Macedonian army at Gaugamela would have been very vulnerable to the Roman maniple, but Alexander had modified his army considerably by the end of his conquests, and was making plans to experiment even further when he died. His army by the end of their Punjab adventures was very flexible and experienced in many different techniques, tactical situations, and methods of war - certainly more experienced than a typical Republican levy army. I could easily see Alexander pulling off a victory similar to Cannae and because of South Italy's ties to Greece they would have been more likely to go over to his side, rather than later when they refused to do so for Hannibal. Also, Alexander would not have tried to end the war for favorable terms like Hannibal - Alexander wanted conquest, not trade - he would have moved on Rome herself soon after the victory at his "Cannae" and soon after securing the allegiance of the Italiot Greeks. Then, of course, I could see a fluke where Alexander is struck down by a lucky sling bullet right at the moment of victory, so...

[Jona Lendering]

I really don't see how someone could say definitively that the Romans of 320BC would crush Alexander. Sure, the Macedonian army at Gaugamela would have been very vulnerable to the Roman maniple, but Alexander had modified his army considerably by the end of his conquests, and was making plans to experiment even further when he died. His army by the end of their Punjab adventures was very flexible and experienced in many different techniques, tactical situations, and methods of war - certainly more experienced than a typical Republican levy army. I could easily see Alexander pulling off a victory similar to Cannae and because of South Italy's ties to Greece they would have been more likely to go over to his side, rather than later when they refused to do so for Hannibal. Also, Alexander would not have tried to end the war for favorable terms like Hannibal - Alexander wanted conquest, not trade - he would have moved on Rome herself soon after the victory at his "Cannae" and soon after securing the allegiance of the Italiot Greeks. Then, of course, I could see a fluke where Alexander is struck down by a lucky sling bullet right at the moment of victory, so...

All very true; he would have won any battle. But Alexander was unable to win the hearts of the people. By the end of his reign, he had already lost control of Sogdia and the three Indian satrapies, and Craterus had had to suppress several revolts in eastern Iran. His empire was already suffering from overstretch.

[Araujo]

I have to disagree. Pyrrhus won his battles, until he tried to liberate Sicily from Carthaginian control, and instead lost his army. Had he concentrated on Rome, he might have won the war; it was an act of hybris to go to Sicily. I also think that the genocidal tactics Alexander had developed in Sogdia and the Punjab might have served him well in Italy.

That being said, I agree that Alexander would have been unable to subdue Rome, but for the same reasons as why Sogdia and the Punjab remained essentially unconquered: as long as Alexander was there, the people feared him and obeyed, but once he was gone, they revolted. When Alexander died, Sogdia had been in open revolt for more than two years; Nearchus was forced to leave Patala before he had planned to do so; and after the dead of one of the satraps of India, no substitute was sent. I think a similar scenario applies to Italy.

The truth is that the romans were not still the invencible machine they would become after the Second Punic War, but the truth is that Pyrrhus was almost the same military genius as Alexander was but he praticly only defeated the romans because of the shock that his disciplined troops caused on Rome's troops on that time. The romans had never seen a phalanx, or at least they hadn't fought against any. Now, the greatest military commander of his age comes to Italy with an army to be known as invencible... and remember that Pyrrhus got elephants from India. Elephants that soon as they were near the romans, these barbarians who had never those great animals would imediatly flee from the battlefield. There is a story, which Livy passed to us, that in some meeting between a delegation from the Senate of Rome, directed by Scipio Africanus, and Hannibal, at Ephesus,

Africanus asked who, in Hannibal's thought, was the greatest commander of all times. Hannibal answered: «Alexander... for with a little force of men he destroyed armies of uncountable numbers of men, and because he passed unknown lands...» Then he asked who would Hannibal put into second place, and Hannibal said: «Pyrrhus. He was the first to teach the art of establishing a camp. Besides that, never other man showed such capacity in the choosing of the terrain or in the disposal of his troops. He had the art of gaining men to his side...» [...]b

This can either truth either fictional, but the point is that even Hannibal (one of the greatest military commanders of all times) choosed Pyrrhus as the second greatest commander and Pyrrhus lost. I don't think that it was Pyrrhus' expedition to Sicily which made him lose the war. Somehow, the epirotes only won the first battles because of the appearence of shock they showed in front of the romans. While the greeks/epirotes fought with long sarissa, 5 to 7m tall, the romans only fought with fragile pila who made their enemies laugh. The animosity of the epirotes below the roman eyes would seem to encourage the romans to flee, and in the first battles the appearence of the epirote armies - the sarissa, the long phalanxes and the elephants - would seem to put to run the entire roman legions. The tactic didn't work for long and the epirotes were soon defeated.
I also disagree that Pyrrhus didn't lose his battles in Italy because of his losses in Sicily. He had good reasons to go to Sicily: the romans didn't stop training more legions to send against him, he had no reinforcements from Greece or Tarentum and the carthaginians were far worse than romans on land. Besides, the mercenaries who fought in the carthaginians' lines were not as loyal as the strict, disciplined and "proud to be romans" roman legionaries. Pyrrhus could once see a chance to gain the support of Syracuse and the other Sicilian Greek colonies and to defeat a powerful roman ally who seemed to only get sea power. I don't really see how Pyrrhus was defeated against those barbarians of Carthage, but the truth is that his loss in Sicily was only a little more to encourage his defeat and flee to Epirus again.
Now, Alexander fought in a more heroic, tradicional way. He commanded his troops even more bravely than Pyrrhus (who said to be his heir and descendent, even in those ways) and was a great stratego, sure about it. But the point is that fear caused more on enemies' eyes than a possible, true defeat. The persians were led by fool men: first an idiotic Memnon of Rhodes, at Granicus, then one of Darius' proud satraps, and then the own Darius. The greek phalanx was far better than the persian armies, I do not doubt it - see the battles os Marathon, Salamina or Plataea -, but could an army of 40 000 men destroy the uncountable armies of more than 1 million men in Asia? Probably Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela were true fields to demonstrate Alexander's capability of making war, of leading his men up to battle and of gaining victory, but could he gain also those victories at Bactria or Sogdiana? Truly that would seem to much impossible, even for a lucky man as Alexander ("fortune favours the bold"). Alexander was blinded by the ancient tales of Homer about Achilles or Hector, and he was true proud of himself and of Greece to let the persians beat him at any battlefield. India and the eastern satrapies were a completely different thing. The rest of the Persian Empire had lost its' king, Darius III Codomanus, and they were beginning to fight each other by order of each satrap. Alexander immediatly conquered those lands. India? I don't think so. The Battle of Hydaspes was almost a disaster for Alexander, himself was going to die if it wasn't his men. It was the fear that Alexander had caused in Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela and the destruction of Thebes, Gaza and Persepolis which caused his enemies to be defeated. I truly think it was because of this that the great Megas Alexandros continued to expand his kingdom further east, to the "end" of the known world.