In his digression on Alexander, Livy unsurprisingly thinks that Rome would defeat Alexander in a hypothetical war. In his introduction, he offers three metrics to use in judging war: “the numbers and courage of the troops, the ability of the commanders, and Fortune” (9.16). In the digression itself, Livy historicizes both Alexander and notable Roman generals, then addresses the specifics of the Macedonian and Roman armies. In my view, Livy makes many credible and valid arguments, but I think he is biased since he is writing during Augustus’s Golden Age, which includes the Pax Romana and a cohesive Rome.
First, Livy claims that Alexander died too young to experience any downfall. This is valid point. As evidence, he references Cyrus’s fall, which according to Livy was the result of his lengthy life. However, Livy also lists the Roman generals with whom Alexander would have fought. He claims that “every one of these men was Alexander’s equal in courage and ability” (9.17). Without knowing Livy’s sources, I find it hard to trust this claim.
Second, Alexander was not fit for grand success. Livy accuses him of having “forgotten his native Macedonia” and “becoming Persian in character”. In Livy’s time under the Principate, the idea of being Roman meant a lot to people and kept Rome together as one. Therefore, these accusations against Alexander would be very disgraceful for any Roman general. Continuing his diatribe, Livy writes that Alexander was harsh, a drunk, and self-proclaimed divine. Livy uses these arguments to attack the reputation of Alexander, rather than the very thing that has prompted his digression. Livy’s ad hominem does successfully degrade Alexander’s reputation. Livy also concludes this first section with rational reasons why comparisons of Alexander and Rom are invalid. He writes, “they are comparing the actions of one individual, and he a youth, with the achievements of a people who have had 800 years of war” (9.18). In addition, the governmental structures vary greatly with Alexander being king and consuls being a 2 year term leadership position, governed by the Senate.
Third, Livy finally addresses the specific militaristic aspects of his hypothetical war. He begins with previously stated key metric, numbers. During the revolts of the Latin league, ten legions were raised. On average, each legion was around 5,000 men, so 10 legions would be around 50,000 men. Livy compares this number to Alexander’s mere 30,000 men and 4000 Thracian cavalry. Livy also reminds us that “the Romans had a reserve to draw upon at home, but Alexander, warring on a foreign soil, would have found his army diminished by the wastage of war, as happened afterwards to Hannibal” (9.19) Although brief, this mention of Hannibal, a foreign invader king similar to Alexander in that sense, shows that Rome has warded off previously strong foreign invaders. Livy also argues that Roman weapons would have been superior to the Macedonian sarissa and small shield. He states that the Roman large shield, the “scutum”, and javelin would have given the Romans an advantage in combat. In addition, the Roman military strategy allowed for more maneuvering and less rigidity. The Romans had centuries divided up in their armies so they could have a more complex strategy than the Macedonian phalanx. Also, Livy briefly mentions that Roman soldiers were most resilient and hardest working of all (9.19). This last claim seems to be rooted in Livy’s patriotism and belief that Alexander “traversed in drunken revelry with an intoxicated army” (9.17).
Lastly, I agree with Livy that Alexander would have wished “that Persians and Indians and effeminate Asiatic were his foes” (9.19). Personally, I think Alexander’s conquests are impressive, but he was certainly not fighting Roman-caliber enemies the entire time. Regarding Livy’s arguments, I am not convinced that he fully understood the militaristic capabilities of civil war ridden Rome. In sum, I think Livy makes valid points against Alexander and in support for Roman military valor, but fails to prove why his audience should trust him.
Healy: Rise of Rome Blog 