Hellenistic conquest of the Roman Republic?

[Westphalian]

Under which circumstances could a Hellenistic power (beginning with a longer-lived Alexander the Great himself) defeat and subjugate the Roman Republic, perhaps even giving the city of Rome the Carthage or Thebes treatment; ie destruction of the buildings and enslavement of the surviving population.

I know there are the Livy fans who maintain that Rome would have won any conflict, but then Livy has been accused of writing propaganda.

AFAIK, the main points of contention are:
Tactics: Was the legion as categorically superior to the phalanx as often claimed?
Diplomacy: Were the Latin and other Italic allies of the RR as steadfast as often claimed? Or might some of them have turned against Rome?
Logistics: Would bringing enough high quality troops and equipment to the field against the manpower of Rome be possible for any Hellenistic monarch?
Technics: How good was the Servian Wall compared to other city walls that were breached during the wars of the diadochs?

Is there any reqasonable speculation how Italy after a Hellenistic conquest would have looked? I assume that the cities of Magna Graecia would have enjoyed a nominal autonomy inside a construction like the League of Corinth, and lots of military settlements north of the line Taras-Kyme.

Just a a first suggestion to get the ball rolling: AtG survives the fever/poison and successfully circumnavigates the Arabian peninsula in c.320. After that, in c.317 the first attempt to punish Cathage for their earlier support of Tyre fails because of Punic maritime superiority and long macedonian support lines. So, in the late 310s, AtG starts a new attempt, this time by browbeating Sicily and South Italy into supporting his army. After a squabble over the city of Neapolis and Alexander's earlier misfortune against Carthage, Rome feels safe to demand that the Macedonians leave Italian soil immediately.

Wiki map:

 

[MarkA]

Alexander himself with his 'new model army' of the mixed phalanx and heavy cavalry invade at the height of Appius Claudius' power.

Does the latter initially fight and then accept Alex' terms of Rome becoming his ally in the west and dominating in Alexander's name or does Rome continue with their long standing alliance with Carthage against the Macedonian threat?

If the first, then Rome is technically defeated by a Hellenistic power but retains its independence to a very large degree. There may not even be a Macedonian garrison on the Capitol.

If the latter, it does not seem likely that a Rome and Carthage alliance could win against the greatest general of all time.

 

[katchen]

Does Alexander conquer Rome and Carthage before or after turning his attention to Persia and the East?

 

[Grouchio]

Or do the samnites massacre the Romans at caudine forks in 321?

 

[Westphalian]

Or do the samnites massacre the Romans at caudine forks in 321?

IIRC, we do not even know how many soldiers took part in that "battle", so I am not sure if it would be enough to weaken Rome decisively. Maybe it will just anger them.

 

[Grouchio]

Um, from my own research, it would've killed enough Romans to heavily cripple Rome, allowing pyrrhus to easily axe them.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

AFAIK, the main points of contention are:
Tactics: Was the legion as categorically superior to the phalanx as often claimed?

Not necessarily if the phalanx is under the right commander. Pyrrhus, for all his shortcomings, did manage to beat the Romans a few times.

Diplomacy: Were the Latin and other Italic allies of the RR as steadfast as often claimed? Or might some of them have turned against Rome?

The Latin allies: Most definitely. The Italian allies: Not so much. There is definitely a weakness to exploit there, though how large I don't know.

Logistics: Would bringing enough high quality troops and equipment to the field against the manpower of Rome be possible for any Hellenistic monarch?

Absolutely. Especially if its someone like Alexander The Great, or, just as likely, if the Tarentines provide a safe landing ground (and since it would likely be Tarentines calling for intervention that provokes a hellenistic monarch to come over, thats assured).

Technics: How good was the Servian Wall compared to other city walls that were breached during the wars of the diadochs?

Well Demetrius The Besieger was called the Besieger for a reason... He might be bold enough to give the Servian Walls a go, and possibly with a little luck, he could win. But the problem isn't necessarily the Servian Walls, but the fact that an army besieging Rome is vulnerable to being attacked/surrounded from an army outside of Rome.

Is there any reqasonable speculation how Italy after a Hellenistic conquest would have looked? I assume that the cities of Magna Graecia would have enjoyed a nominal autonomy inside a construction like the League of Corinth, and lots of military settlements north of the line Taras-Kyme.

I wouldn't be surprised that following a destruction of Rome (if it got that far, it's far more likely Rome accepts some form of peace, like they nearly did with Pyrrhus, which would create an entirely different situation), the Magna Graecians would say "Thank you very much, now please leave" and possibly revolt if they don't. Given the track record, they would probably force them out too...

Just a a first suggestion to get the ball rolling: AtG survives the fever/poison and successfully circumnavigates the Arabian peninsula in c.320. After that, in c.317 the first attempt to punish Cathage for their earlier support of Tyre fails because of Punic maritime superiority and long macedonian support lines. So, in the late 310s, AtG starts a new attempt, this time by browbeating Sicily and South Italy into supporting his army. After a squabble over the city of Neapolis and Alexander's earlier misfortune against Carthage, Rome feels safe to demand that the Macedonians leave Italian soil immediately.

Hmm. It's likely that this was Alexander's initial strategy to begin with: win the support of the Magna Graecians and swiftly conquer Sicily (not hard, Pyrrhus made it all the way to Lillybaeum without any major navy). I don't think Rome's suicidal enough though to demand Alexander leave-a better way to provoke Alexander is to get the Samnites to entice him into joining them on an attack on Rome (as he would know, or at least be informed, Rome claimed to be on a spot Heracles stopped by, and of course, the descendants of Troy, longtime enemies of the Greeks).

Though the Samnites still might be allied to Rome at this time, so another option is to get the Magna Graecians to convince him to attack the Samnites, and the Romans join, with the understanding that they are in this war together with the support of Carthage.

Or have a Tyre situation: Alexander demands entry into the city, the Romans refuse, and boom, Alexander has his justification.


Hope this helped.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Um, from my own research, it would've killed enough Romans to heavily cripple Rome, allowing pyrrhus to easily axe them.

Not really enough to cripple them. Rome didn't have the manpower it would have later on, but it still boasted sizable numbers and a strong loyalty of the Latins. COnsidering that a peace would immediately follow this (to the Samnites advantage of course) it would gain the Romans time to recoup their forces.

 

[Grouchio]

How else would you prevent the Roman unification, hoh?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

How else would you prevent the Roman unification, hoh?

You can still prevent Rome from defeating the Samnites with a Caudine Forks POD, but I was just pointing out that that is not the be all end all. Probably the best early POD (other than the sack of Rome) is the Latin war from 340-338.

 

[Velasco]

A successful Antonios and Cleopatra defeat and slaw Octavian at Actium, subsequently conquering Rome and subjugating the Republic as a vassal city-state to their new Mediterranean-wide empire.