What if Alexander the Great had fought the Romans instead of the Persians?

What would have happened if Alexander chose to head west to fight the Romans instead of the Achaemenid Empire?

Well due to how small Rome was at the time. I believe Alexander's smarts and war tactics would have probably killed the Romans.

Alexander could've conquered both Rome and Persia alike, since Rome was so small and Persia was getting it's ass whooped, maybe Alexander would've got holdings in Asia and Italy.

If he didn't die young he could've made one of the biggest empires ever made.

True.

Macedonia, simply because Rome at that time was not the Rome at the height of its power. No contest.

After Alexander subdues the rebelling city-states in 335 BCE, he sails his army towards the Greek colonies of Magna Graecia, to prepare for an invasion of the Italian Peninsula. This mirrors Pyrrhus’ invasion from our timeline, but here, the Romans have a strong enemy in the Samnites and the Etruscans are a much more significant threat.

If Alexander plays his cards right, he could take over Samnium, Rome, and the Etruscan cities within a few years. He might also launch a Balkan campaign to link up his Italian territories with his territories in Thrace. By the time of Alexander’s death, the Empire stretches across all of Europe. The Wars of the Diodachi still take place, but they are centered around Europe. Carthage could potentially fill this power vacuum like Rome did, but it would be difficult for a state more interested in money than in conquering new lands.

Rome was nothing at that point

like it was legit a speck on the world stage

if Alexander invaded rome before conquering persia, yes he surely would've crushed them quite severely (imagine the fall of Kiev to the mongols but x100 times worse for Rome).

If it was after Alexander conquered persia, different story. Alexander's army had only seen the deserts, jungles, and scrublands of the middle east, egypt, and India. They had no real experience fighting on hilly italian terrain.

Rome, however, had time and time again been able to ward off invaders and was currently in the second samnite war. They were both equally battle hardened, but Alexander's men were exhausted and the romans had, just like Hannibal had said, nearly endless Manpower pools to pull from as they had many vassals and allies, all of whom had plenty troops and men to give to the fight. Alexander however, would be far from home, far from supply and in really hostile territory as even the Magna Grecians only wanted Pyrrhus to help because they didn't want Rome to bother them. Because of Rome not being a threat as of right now, they simply refuse to give Alexander any help.

It would a bloody, bloody war and many cities and towns would be burned because of Italian defiance and how Alexander handled Defiance. Perhaps it would be a decade-long, but in the end, Alexander would have no choice but to retreat.

Remember, at this time, Italy wanted no foreign rulers and there were far more fearsome people to fight before Alexander even got close to the romans (the samnites are a major one) by the time he was even near Roman territory, his men would be exhausted of the bloodshed and mutiny.

so really, IMHO, Alexander would've lost against Rome if this was after he conquered Persia, and just barely win (or lose) if it was after he became king.

hope you loved this answer. bye!

TFW you necropost and don't even notice it. XD

Tigerdovefan34 wrote:TFW you necropost and don't even notice it. XD

I noticed