Alexander and Rome

Okay. My question is. How could Alexander do in 12 Years what it took the Romans centuries to do? Conquer the world(more or less at the time) Im ean he was before the Romans. They should have been more well up than he was. The beat Macedonia and Greece. So they were supperior. Why did they not Conquer the world in 4 years? Or at least  faster than they did

As he beat the Persians he pretty much absorbed their already large empire. Once he stepped out of their control he slowed down considerably and had he gone into Europe or continued through India he may not of gained such rapid success. He was one man also. Rome's history is filled with alot of leaders. Some good some bad. Alexander's empire died with him.

Alexander's empire would have stayed together had there been an heir. Without an heir, the strongest generals had to fend for themselves. I think that a real tribute to Alexander's success was that the region stayed in Grecian control rather than reverting back to eastern rulers.

Alexander was one man who had virtually unlimited power. he controlled the resources of Macedon and was the supreme authority in his army. Alexander had his pretense for war, and the region he conquered was one nation; he never had to politick his way around to conjure up new pretenses for wars later.

Alexander was an open imperialist, shamelessly pursuing his aim. Rome only expanded when she felt threatened. Except Caesar, and he was able to conquer quite a bit in his few years like Alexander did.    

 The speed of conquest isnt always important or that impressive, the instant collapse of the unified empire Alexander had controlled is testament to its weakness. Alexander left a great legacy, but the Diodochi were often to busy squabbling with each other to be considered great in their own right. Seleucia simply to large, the Ptolemies soon found themselves without an effective Greek army, Macedon a backwater.

 Roman expansion came in spurts, sometimes decades apart, but over centuries it swallowed up the Latins, then the Greeks of Southern Italy, Sicily, the North Italian Gauls, Illyria, Spain and so on. Ballooning out from Italy, incorporating each people it conquered into one entity, consolidating some of its territory and retaining it for over six hundred years or if in some instances over 1200+ years if we include the Byzantine empire.

 Rome didnt always have to conquer, it didnt need to obliterate Carthage in the 3rd Punic war, didnt need to attempt the conquest of Germania, conquer Britain and so on. Some places were conquered for greed, the ambition of generals or politicians, an emperors desperate attempt to gain popularity.

 Alexander achieved something remarkable, but it simply didnt last, Rome did what nobody else had done before or has to this present day repeated.

I would find different reasons for Roman conquests. In fact most of the conquests during Republic were not planned conquests and many were conducted against the will of Senate. It was the greed of glory and greed of gold of Roman politicians/generals who were looking for their own profits enlarging the borders of the Empire. Just look what Caesar did in Gaul, it wasnt a result of the conquering policy of Roman state, it was just the action of one man who wasnt even supposed to conquer anything but only to govern and defend his provinces.

Alexander only had to deal with the Persians, the people already conquered by the persaisn and some Indian tribes. Rome however had to deal with the varios Italian peoples, Carthage, The Celts, The Gauls, the Britons, The Germanic tribes, The Greeks and others. so i can see why it took Rome longer

Originally posted by Greek Hoplite   No you are wrong .Alexander as the leader of the pan-hellenic alliance( Greece at that age was not one state, there were city states for example Athens,Sparta,Thebes etc or Kingdoms Macedonia,Epirus etc) invated in Persian empire to take revenge for the destructions which Persians caused in Greece during Persian wars (490-479BC) and to liberate the Greek cities at the coast of Ionia(Asia Minor).Alexander succed his goal but if hadnt achivied the destruction of the persian empire ,Persians would still be a threat for Greeks at the following years. (sorry for some wrongs im not anglo-saxon)

Mr.Bush writing?
Attack to prevent attack?
Smells like Israel in Lebanon.

This was Alexander's propaganda of course.
I think the biggest motivation of Alexander was his personal ambition.

Anyway-Alexanewr and Rome....In some sources (i guess Diodorus-but i m not sure),its written that the aim of Alexander's plans for conquest were after Arabian peninsula,the rest of Mediterranean and then Rome.

But i m not sure that Rome was so significant in 4th century to be aim of Alexander's plan-it seems to me rather an addition of writers of Roman era..


Edited by Digenis - 30-Jul-2006 at 13:55

479 BC: The last military involvement of Persians in Greece.
334 BC: Attack of Greeks under Alexander.

This is about 150 years after.In the meantime the Persians just were trying to keep Greeks divided ,in order not to rise in power(using diplomacy and money).
Its like an invasion today,to revenge smth happened in 1850 (!)

Alexander first fought the northern Balcanic nations: Triballoi,Getai,Scyths
Then Southern Greek Polis
Then Persians
Then several Scythic tribes.
Then Indians.

All these from 336-323 BC.
Rome was fighting with the nations mentioned above for centuries.