sylla
-
Posts
1,011 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by sylla
-
-
What would have happened if only Brutus had stabbed Caesar? Assume Brutus had a sharp dagger. Assume a level terrain on the Senate floor. Assume Caesar had no missle support standing by.
I tend to agree with Donald Earl: "Caesar... projected an invasion to Rarthia. Had he lived to carry out this design, the result would almost certainly have been total defeat for the Roman Armiy".
I've been moderating this forum for 3 years. This question comes up again and again (as someone mentioned), and far from being the grand question in classical history, it seems like the most useless one.As the whole historic fiction literature; for the record, we entirely agree.
Ah, yes, the lay out of the Senate floor is crucial, evidently.I think this discussion is actually good fun. But then I haven't been bored to death yet by it for 3 years.
Formosus
That's a good point too.
Because the Romans never faced a competently led phalanx "in its prime."Now that is an open question.
Out of fiction, Romans actually came very close of fighting the Hellenistic King Alexander when he invaded Italy ... Alexander Molossus of Epirus, the quasi-Macedonian uncle and brother-in-law of the contemporary homonymous Great King of Macedonia.
H even attacked the Samnites (at almost the same time than the Romans did) and signed a treaty with the Senate. The available evidence suggests that Alexander Magnus has left the western conquests for his Epirote relatives; Roman historians were well aware that they were at the brink of facing phalanges in its prime when Molossus was opportunely killed by a solitary assesin, as predicted by the Zeus oracle in Dodona if we believe in Livy, who unsurprisingly adds Molossus would have been defeated had he faced the Romans.
-
Lovely stuff - but it might not be wise to read it before going to bed...
Was the cradle of civilization also the birthplace of atrocity? Historians have been researching the most extreme forms of torture in the ancient world. Among other things, they have found that, back then, "sitting in the tub" was actually a pretty nasty way to kick the bucket.
A new book, "Extreme Formen von Gewalt in Bild und Text des Altertums" (Extreme Violence in the Visuals and Texts of Antiquity) by Martin Zimmerman, a professor of ancient history in Munich, looks at current research into the kinds of violence that inspired "loathing, dread, horror and disgust."
Full review here.
It's not hard to find many serious and careful scholar reviews on the social and cultural implications of the use of torture all along history.
Schulz's article and (as far as I can tell) Zimmerman
-
The city is named after a ruler.
Antiochia.
-
I'm proud of both my parents, and I happen to be a second-generation atheist.
-- Nephele
...as is my daughter. I am the first generation, in this case!
I must agree with Formosus, though. Religion tends to perpetuate itself far more efficiently than Atheism, and the views of the small minority of the truly devout tend to drown out the views of the (recently estimated) 30% who are knowingly or otherwise atheist, and the other 65% who really dont care. On the other hand, no atheist so far as I am aware was ever a suicide bomber who murdered other atheists, who happened to believe in a different kind of atheism... so there is no self destructivity built into the atheist psyche! all mind boggling stuff.Getting back to topic, I am somewhat puzzled as to why this fossil, beautiful and intact as it is, is being lauded as 'the missing link' or as a revolutionary find of a human ancestor. Surely, any primate fossil (and there must be at least a few)
from 40 million BCE or before must, by definition, be a human ancestor - Just like the mammalian reptiles of the Triassic, or the lungfish of the Devonian. The intense debate usually surfaces much more recently, when one tries to untangle the branches of the hominid line.
Personally, I dont like the term 'missing link'. For me the fossil chain from distinctly ape-like to definitely, albeit primitively human, seems more or less continuous.
Maybe we should move this debate to THIS THREAD.
As usual, the main problem when comparing atheists and religious people ("theists") is in the basic definitions.
First of all; what is God? Any God.
Even more important; what do regular people think God is?
My personal experience is that, by using more or less stringent criteria, both active theists and active atheists are minority.
The vast majority of regular people would be more aptly described as passive agnostics; personally, they couldn't care less if any divinity exists at all.
-
No good arguing with me on that point.
You know, Biology is not Philosophy; it's hard science.
If you don't know what evolution is, there's no way you can disguise it by circular argumentation.
-
I would it depends on what era of Roman soldier you are talking about. Marian/Caesar era, I would say the Cohort would have won. The Roman legion was structured down to the common foot soldier. The phalanx had structure, but not that far down. With the cohort having an elastic quality as someone mentioned, I think a section of the cohort could have easily outflanked the phalanx on the weaker right side. Remember, the phalanx needs to act and think as one. You couldn't have guys flipping that sarissa backwards while some pointed forward. The whole formation would fall apart. The Roman pilum could harass the Macedonians from the front while the smaller unit broke off and harassed the flank. Hands down, the cohort would win. It has speed, mobility, and adaptability. The phalanx relied heavily on the heavy cavalry. That is what made it so destructive. It was literally a moving wall of sharp points. It worked primarily off of the anvil/hammer principle. In essence, it only had one direction; forward. Cohort, hands down!
As it was, the Macedonian phalanges were utterly defeated by pre-Marian legions.
-
On a more serious note :
Is there a way we could compare the general living standard of the lowest class of free Romans, the 'capite censi' I believe, with that of slaves living in the same city, say in the household of a senator or an eques around the time of the early Principate ? This making abstraction of their respective legal status.
Or better, in how far was the lowest free citizen class actually protected by the laws that were supposed to protect them, compared with slaves. In other words, if you were a 'capito censo' and for some reason a senator had it in for you, in how far would being a free man actually have made any difference ?
On the other hand I am thinking about the fake Agrippa Postumus (there was also a fake Nero, also a slave if I am not mistaken). Clearly that guy was in collusion with some of the mightiest people in Rome. He even got Tiberius scared.
Laws and lawbooks don't tell us in how far they actually achieved the goal they were ment to achieve. To know that we should try to find out how everyday life was. Even though the Romans had a rather extensive set of laws, I think it was on many occasions and in particular circumstances still a pretty lawless society. Murders were pretty common, I believe, no doubt many going unsolved, as wel as summary executions.
And as an average citizen of the lower classes, or as a slave in the described circumstances, how often would you come into contact with the law or the justice system formally ? Not all that often, I think.
True, there must have been a huge difference in your living quality as a slave depending on the master you had, something that is almost impossible to quantify. And of course, many people will prefer to be a poor free man to being a well off slave.
Formosus
A far more serious note indeed; it deserves a most serious treatment.It might take some time.
IMHO The slave systems of Greek and Roman antiquity by WL Westermann is the obligatory reference text for us here, not only for its extensive research, unimpeachable reasoning and easy explanation, but also because it currently has OPEN FULL ACCESS.
Slavery is an incredible complex issue that embraces an immense range of seemingly divergent social structures, even within the same geographical and chronological context, the same in Rome as in Greece, and even in the XVIII century.
Its mere operative definition has been the object of much research; we don't have anything remotely similar nowadays. When you read about "modern slavery", it's mostly a metaphorical term for some kinds of human rights abuse, entirely different from the Classical concept.
As Slavery unavoidably implies the double condition of being simultaneously human and object to some extent, it deeply affected any imaginable social and legal aspect of the Roman life.
In a nutshell, Classical society, culture and economy cannot be understood without thoroughly dealing with this topic.
And, as you may have perceived by now, this topic fascinates me, even if I ignore so much about it.
-
Auschwitz was not primarily a labor camp but an extermination one. Romans did not engage in mass killing of slaves.
The victims of the Holocaust could do nothing to defend their lives, a roman slave had value for the owner and was not so eagerly disposed of, so if he did his job he could expect to live and even to gain his freedom. Laws, customs and morality provided the basis for master-slave relations and a brake for abuse.
At Auschwitz innocent people were killed while some of the roman slaves were criminals, others were enemies that have attacked Rome or rebels. For these people slavery was a punishment as today all states imprison criminals and in some states criminals are convicted to force labor.
As Holocaust denial seems to be banned in Romania, maybe we should continue this conversation by PM, if you like.
-
You are aware I take of the court cases in the south of the US concerning education and evolution? The debate is very much in existence. Scientific American magazine featured this story and included a report on two or three museums trumpeting their biblical science. Only a few weeks ago, I came across a glossy pamphlet in my local burger bar proclaiming that science is wrong and the earth is only 6000 years old. Believe me Sylla, the debate exists and isn't going to go away until the christian fundamentalists do.
Debate: "a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers".
You can debate science vs science or faith vs faith, because those would be homogenous propositions.
Science vs Faith is not a debate, no matter how those pamphlets call it.
Besides, "biblical science" is an oxymoron.
If you disagree, just post your operative definition for "debate", so each of us can select one; thanks in advance.
Not at all. A missing link is a fossil that connects two disparate branches of evolution in theory only (until a candidate is found). Only if you are responsible for two seperate descendant species could you possibly be considered.That's because you think that evolution goes there jumping from step to step; wrong. Mama ape didn't give birth to a baby human one day.
Evolution is happening all the time; the change of one species into another is a looong gradual transition. We're little different from our parents and offspring. It's a never-ending "chain", and each one of us is a "link" (yes, even the dead ends).
By "us" I mean "living beings" (even the quasi-living Virus).
Here is an excellent example: please read it carefully.
If you disagree, please post your source. Thanks in advance.
-
Sylla you say that the Jews at Auschwitz that you mentioned in your first post were only doing forced labor, possibly they lived better then roman slaves and slavery it's a worse crime then exterminating people.
Interesting but dangerous opinions as Holocaust denial it's a crime in some places more bent on political correctness then you. For your courage in defending free speech I give you a roman salute!
Thanks for the salute, but you are misquoting me; just check out my post. I said what I said; no less, no more.
Lets repeat my first post as clear as possible; the denial of the suffering of the slaves, Roman or otherwise (for example, by you) is as absurd as the denial of the pain of the victims of the Holocaust.
("Reductio ad Nazium", said you)
Crystal clear now?
-
A little digression on the Nazi forced labor system may be in order.
The first full year of WWII (1940) when the blitzkrieg crushed France and Germany was still supplied by the neutral USSR, its Gross Domestic Product was 387 billion dollars (adjusted to 1990) and produced 1,788 tank and armored vehicles.
Four years later, in the brink of total military defeat and in spite of millions of casualties, immense material losses, absolute economic isolation, the constant advance and territorial gains of the Allies in al the fronts and the heavy permanent bombardment, Germany was still able to increase 13% its GDM and more than eleven times its tank production relative to 1940.
Such economic
-
Joke or not (who cares?):
The historian and author Ronald Syme (The Roman Revolution) viewed the period from Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon until Augustus Caesar's victory not as two independent civil wars but as a unified Revolution...The Caesarian War was a conflict between two former partners that were unable to continue sharing the rule of the already subjugated Roman Republic; as it was inherited by Pompey's sons, technically it continued even after the idus of March (as long as Sextus Pompey was still active) mixing itself with ulterior conflicts.
The War(s) after Caesar's death were actually a series of at least three related but independent conflicts;
- the Perusine War,
- the Triumvirs versus the Liberatores,
- the final match between Anthony and Octavius.
...which saw one oligarchy being replaced by another.The Roman Republic was indeed an aristocratic oligarchy, even if with prominent democratic features that cannot be ignored.
On the other hand, the rule of Caesar, Augustus and their successors was an unqualified monarchy, not an oligarchy.
-
The life of Antiochus got a touch of tragedy at the summit of his career, in the seventh year of his reign, when he add the epithet Nikephoros ("bearer of victory") to his titles; he had just seized Memphis and Cyprus after his victorious second Egyptian campaign, profiting from the political instability of that Kingdom, then under two Ptolemies and one Cleopatra. Antiochus was marching on Alexandria, seemingly unstoppable; he was then on the verge of unifying the two remaining major Hellenistic kingdoms, an achievement that would have surpassed even those from his father.
However, this was the same year of the definitive Macedonian defeat by Paullus in Pydna; as it was, the immediate Roman diplomatic intervention would entirely turn the tables, and Antiochus' utter humiliation under an isolated Roman senator would became the hallmark of his reign.
Here comes the famous account of the episode of Popillius Laenas by Polybius of Megalopolis, who was politically active at the time (29;27):
At the time when Antiochus approached Ptolemy and meant to occupy Pelusium, Caius Popilius Laenas, the Roman commander, on Antiochus greeting him from a distance and then holding out his hand, handed to the king, as he had it by him, the copy of the senatus-consultum, and told him to read it first, not thinking it proper, as it seems to me, to make the conventional sign of friendship before he knew if the intentions of him who was greeting him were friendly or hostile.
But when the king, after reading it, said he would like to communicate with his friends about this intelligence, Popilius acted in a manner which was thought to be offensive and exceedingly arrogant.
He was carrying a stick cut from a vine, and with this he drew a circle round Antiochus and told him he must remain inside this circle until he gave his decision about the contents of the letter.
The king was astonished at this authoritative proceeding, but, after a few moments' hesitation, said he would do all that the Romans demanded.
Upon this Popilius and his suite all grasped him by the hand and greeted him warmly.
The letter ordered him to put an end at once to the war with Ptolemy.
So, as a fixed number of days were allowed to him, he led his army back to Syria, deeply hurt and complaining indeed, but yielding to circumstances for the present. Popilius after arranging matters in Alexandria and exhorting the two kings there to act in common, ordering them also to send Polyaratus to Rome, sailed for Cyprus, wishing to lose no time in expelling the Syrian troops that were in the island.
When they arrived, finding that Ptolemy's generals had been defeated and that the affairs of Cyprus were generally in a topsy-turvy state, they soon made the Syrian army retire from the country, and waited until the troops took ship for Syria.
In this way the Romans saved the kingdom of Ptolemy, which had almost been crushed out of existence: Fortune having so directed the matter of Perseus and Macedonia that when the position of Alexandria and the whole of Egypt was almost desperate, all was again set right simply owing to the fact that the fate of Perseus had been decided. For had this not been so, and had not Antiochus been certain of it, he would never, I think, have obeyed the Roman behests.
-
This report is everywhere.
As paleontology goes, it seems like great stuff, and the "Lemur" and "Tarsius" advocates will certainly have a good time.
But the main conclusion of this and many similar articles ("the latest fossil find is likely to ignite further the debate between evolutionists... and creationists)" is simply ludicrous; there has never been such kind of "debate". Science and faith play in different dimensions; period. This only shows the ignorance of the average media.
The mere title of this article is absurd too; paleontology must unavoidably "draw conclusions based on a limited fossil record", just because the vast majority (99.9999.... %) of us, living beings, will not make it to the fossil record, for any reason. Only the fossilized
-
I'm afraid that I have fallen behind in the discussion the last two days and will not be able to re-read it all. Sylla would you still like my WWII argument in a Pm?
Of course, my horse.
-
I can cite several scholarly sources for the information I provided here regarding slave names in ancient Rome, one of which being Iiro Kajanto, The Latin Cognomina.
Examples of the "-por" ending on Roman slave names can be found in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. The custom of calling slaves "Marpor" or "Marcipor" (from Marcus), "Gaipor" (from Gaius), "Naepor" (from Gnaeus), "Olipor" (from Aulus), "Publipor" (from Publius), and so on, pretty much died out by the end of the Republic.
-- Nephele
Thanks, Nephele.
The slave systems of Greek and Roman antiquity by WL Westermann also mentioned it, even if briefly (ie, CIL VI, 30914 for "Gaipor" & 9430 for "Naepor").
-
Indeed !
But I have read some books about his relationship with Rome and with Judaea, I will list if you want
Please do! It will be greatly appreciated.
well -
The Hellenistic world and the coming of Rome by Erich S. Gruen, chapters 15 to 17
The Hellenistic world from Alexander to the the Roman conquest by M. M. Austin, chapter 5
The Cambridge history of Judaism by William David, chapter 8 "Antiochus IV"
Also there is - Edwin Robert Bevan, The House of Seleucus, 2 vol. (1902; reprinted 1966), considered as the primary source in English
O. Morkolm, Antiochus IV of Syria (1966) - Seems to be a full biography
And Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids by Bezalel Bar-Kochva
My two cents:
Good news is that, as this Antiochus Epiphanes (beware; his father was homonymous) was both a relevant classical and biblical character, he is depicted in multiple reviews.
Bad news is that he is a Biblical character, so the depictions are theologically biased more often than not.
Specific biographies seem to be uncommon; however, any decent Classical or religious (both Jewish and Christian) encyclopedia have extensive material on this guy and his time. Some examples: BK Waltke, "Antiochus IV Epiphanes"; in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia; I Gafni, "Antiochus" and LH Feldman, "Hellenism", both in Encyclopedia Judaica .
There are many excellent reviews about the Jews under the Hellenistic rule, but the standard reference text on Antiochus IV seems to still be Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, by Victor Tcherikover (1959); English translation by S. Appelbaum. Philadelphia:Jewish Publication Society of America, 1961. Additionally, Tcherikover authored or co-authored many books, chapters and articles on the same topic.
A History of Israel from Alexander the Great to Bar Kockba by H Jagersma (1985).may be added to CC list above too.
The most relevant primary source is Polybious, especially books XXVI, 10 and XXXI, 3-4;; other important Classical sources are Livy, book XLI, 19-20 and Diodorus. books XXIX, 32 and XXXI, 16, 1-2..
Antiochus is also mentioned by Appian, Josephus, Asconius, Cicero, Plutarch, Porphiry, Valerius Maximus, Justin, Zonaras and Malalas, among others.
The main religious sources are the Book of Daniel, the four Macabees, Eusebius and many Christian Chronicons.
-
Here's what I wrote in the Crucifixion thread a few days ago ( May, 16th ).
'' I have come across plenty of indications, though not immediately from Roman times, that more humane slave owners often treated their slaves as much as children than as anything else. Children who were told to do what they were told to do, or else ... ''
Maybe this sheds some more light on the question :
NAMES OF SLAVES - Officially slaves did not have their own names; but used their owner's praenomen with the suffix "por" from "puer" or boy. For example, Gallipor, adopted from owner's praenomen of Gallio, Cassipor / Cassius, Flavipor / Flavius, Marcipor / Marcus, etc. Later it became fashionable to give them Greek names, often followed by a form of the owner's name. A freed slave generally assumed his former master's praenomen and nomen, with his original or personal name as a cognomen, but some chose their own praenomen.
http://www.legionxxiv.org/nomens/
Formosus
A good point, Formosus.
Additionally, the Romans also gave their slaves names such as Avitus ("Grandfatherly") and Paternus ("Fatherly"), perhaps in a condescending manner much like the "Uncles" and "Mammies" of America's antebellum South. (And there I go, drawing a despised parallel between ancient Rome and latter-day America. Live with it, y'all.
)An exposed child rescued and brought up as a slave might be named (perhaps in an affectionate way) Inventus (meaning "discovered").
Pejorative cognomina were not found among freedmen as much as among their former masters. The noblest Roman was proud of his name indicating his lisp, or baldness, or bow-leggedness -- whether he actually bore those attributes or not. Slaves, on the other hand -- particularly decorative house slaves -- were more often given attractive names.
-- Nephele
We better hold our horses for a moment.
It's an unsourced statement from a reenactment group.
Does anyone know a primary source for this?
-
The French author Henry de Montepelant saw this period as a model for understanding the politics of power.
Can you give us any more information on monsieur Montepelant?
Google search of this name matchs no documents.
(I mean, if this is not a joke).
-
The Roman Empire (Paul veyne) has a very down to earth personal viewpoint and interestingly says that the only thing we have today that comes closest to Roman slavery is racism.
Yes, this is interesting, answers my questions. "The master could free his child, but he could not acknowledge or adopt it: law and society was adamant on this point." Slavery in the US and in much of the Western Hemisphere was founded on race. This is a major difference from the Roman institution. Thanks for your response to my questions!
Veyne was misquoted out of context above: the actual phrase (pg. 52) is "Today's closest psychological analogy to ancient slavery is racism".
Some lines below, Veyne adds "Their ethnic origin was of no significance".
As a whole, this chapter is a nice introduction to our topic.
At least for the first couple of centuries, Western Hemisphere's slaveowners had obvious physical traits that allowed an easy visual disticntion between slaves and non-slaves in their geographical context.
The Romans and their neighbors never had such advantage; Verres could explain the crucifixion of some Roman citizens by pretending that he believed they were runaway slaves.
-
Depictions of Bacchus on a cross, however, are sometimes found, dating from the 2nd century. They even show the very familiar 'slump' of the knees to one side, seen so often in later crucifixes. (yes, I can provide references and pictures if required).
Please do. I never heard about this before.
Please look here, Kosmo. The website in the link shows a plaster cast of a crucified figure with the names Orpheus and Bacchus clearly inscribed in greek. http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9856
Thank you!
I agree there's plenty of evidence on potential multiple synchretism for the early Roman Empire, Christianity included.
However, the same as Kosmo, this is news to me.
I'm aware that Dionysius (or at least one of his avatars) was ripped in pieces by the Titans; never heard anything on crucifixion.
Probably I missed something; but I suppose the plaster cast is not by itself considered an evidence, even with such clear Greek inscription with the name of two divinities (why are both there?)
This image is already available in en.wikipedia as "Dionysus Crucifixion.gif" (why can't it be Orpheus?). Strangely, it is not linked to any text page.
Where was the original piece found? How was it dated to the 2nd Century? Are there more of them? Any additional information?
Plainly, how do we know it's not just a forgery?
Thanks in advance for any reference and information,
-
If we are judging from the moral point of view of modernity we can issue a general condemnation of slavery. If we are trying to understand the past (and the present) then we must look at that almost infinite diversity of this social issue.
Actually, at the beginning slavery was the moral option for the war captives; the alternative was anihilation.
Even so, when you look closely, you can almost always find some kind of social awareness from the masters about the moral complexity of slavery; this was especially confusing for the Romans, given the relatively high expectation for the average slave of being freed some day. It was an eternal nightmare for the Roman legislators.
Where you can find an universal agreement is in the moral condemnation of the own slavery; no population was ever proud of being slaves.
Even if it usually had the upper hand, the Roman army was in no way invincible; unsurprisingly, Roman captives were regularly enslaved by their enemies if they didn't get a ransom first; as it may have been expected, the enslavement of Roman citizens was particularly prevalent across the first and second Punic Wars.
We certainly live in an atypical era; slavery was still an almost universal option two centuries ago.
The change was not physiological; our ancestors were not born to be slaves.
The change was cultural, and it's easy to forget that it was not spontaneous or gratuitous; or that no social phenomenom has ever caused so much pain and suffering to so many of our ancestors.
It
-
No offence but you are wrong at this point. Being a Jew in Auschwitz and a slave in Rome isn't even comparable. I don't really know how to begin my argument and will have to return tonight when I'm back from Ostia.Oh, Reductio ad Nazium, elegant!
Slavery in the Old World was never like in Uncle Tom's Cabin.
Also, choosing your sexual partners, especially for females, it's a recent trend and is still far from universal.
No offense taken.
BTW, I'm not sure which one is implied to be in a worse position, the Old World slave or Uncle Tom, the slave in Rome or the Jew in Auschwitz. My own guess is that it was a quite personal issue that varied ad infinitum for any given individual.
Slavery is human beings considered as property, a fascinating issue that modifies virtually any imaginable aspect of the affected societies; law, religion, economy, family, politics, culture, to name a few.
Its diversity has been almost infinite; from the prisoners
-
Anyway I believe that we are putting too much weight on the word slave. I've always had the feeling that slaves should be considered more as another class in society, just as rich, poor and patricians. Live as a slave could differ just as much as life as a free man.
Indeed. Slaves vs. free it's misleading. Slaves often are like freedman and often freedman are clients of their former owner, but in Rome everybody, not only freedman, had a patron. So, slave, freedman, client are different but related. Children and wifes are also a lot like slaves.
And as FV mentioned most ottoman sultans were sons of slave mothers and those mothers called "valide sultan" played a huge role at the court.
That would be like saying that being a Jew or a Gipsy in Auschwitz was no big deal, as you could always become the warden's lover.
People, you must be joking; nuff' said.
Roman Cohort versus a Macedonian Phalanx.
in Gloria Exercitus - 'Glory of the Army'
Posted · Edited by sylla
I tend to agree with Donald Earl: "Caesar... projected an invasion to Rarthia. Had he lived to carry out this design, the result would almost certainly have been total defeat for the Roman Armiy".
As the whole historic fiction literature; for the record, we entirely agree.
That's a good point too.
Now that is an open question.
Out of fiction, Romans actually came very close of fighting the Hellenistic King Alexander when he invaded Italy ... Alexander Molossus of Epirus, the quasi-Macedonian uncle and brother-in-law of the contemporary homonymous Great King of Macedonia.
He even attacked the Samnites (at almost the same time than the Romans did) and signed a treaty with the Senate.
The available evidence suggests that Alexander Magnus had left the western conquests for his Epirote relatives; Roman historians were well aware that they were at the brink of facing phalanges "in its prime" when Molossus was opportunely killed by a solitary assassin, as predicted by the Zeus oracle in Dodona if we believe in Livy, who unsurprisingly adds Molossus would have been defeated had he faced the Romans.
Highly unlikely; the Romans that eventually conquered the West were as hellenophiles as the Macedonians, if not even more.
Now with Pyrrhus (Alexander Magnus' cousin) we certainly have a phalanx "in its prime"; he was not "easily" defeated at all; the added forces of Rome and Carthage (the Western Mediterranean superpowers) plus minor allies were required. Each of both Superpowers could easily outnumber any army that Epirus and its Greek allies would have been able to levy. That Pyrrhus was eventually routed when he exhausted his resources, by Dentatus or anyone else, was no surprise; the amazing fact is that so many years were required.
I have still to see any objective military analysis that effectively documents such downward evolution.
As usual when we try anachronic comparisons, the conclusions are up even before the questions were asked. Such comparisons are heavily biased by the value judgements of later sources; it is unquestionably stated in advance that Alex III was a winner and Phil V was a loser.