The Last Year/Decade a United "Hellenic Front" Could Defeat Rome?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Asked a friend doing a PhD in the Hellenistic period this question: he said that after Ptolemy III's naval defeat at Andros ~245 BC none of the Hellenistic Kingdoms had any ability to project power into the western Med. After that the level of force commitment needed would have left anyone who tried too weak on other fronts and vulnerable to attack from their neighbours.

A lot of the problem is that to defeat Rome you probably have to near as well take the city itself, otherwise Terminator-like they will keep sending army after army against you. Not even Hannibal rampaging around Italy for years and destroying several legions put that much of a dent in Rome's warmaking ability, so even if pressed Rome could attrit its enemies and wait for the "united front" to fall apart diplomatically.

[RINO Tom]

^ Awesome, thank you for sharing!  Yeah, 245 BC is a very interesting year that I could definitely believe.  I feel that too often the arguments for an inevitable Rome of sorts rely on what actually happened in our own timeline.  Yes, the legion proved superior.  Yes, the patriotic fervor and perseverance of the Romans was truly unique.  However, I still think there were obviously times when a given Hellenic power (much less a coalition) could have steamrolled Rome.  I mean, few credible voices would endorse Rome defeating Alexander, and regardless of the losses he took, they DIDN'T really defeat Pyrrhus.

Looking at the world map in 245 BC, it looks like a perfect balance of power "on paper," as Rome has now defeated Magna Graecia, yet there are still numerous large Hellenistic kingdoms alive and well.  Thanks again!

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I mean, few credible voices would endorse Rome defeating Alexander.

In the last years of his life Alexander built a navy (that was used to reduce Athens in the Lamian War) and it's speculated that he was planning an invasion of Magna Graeca, Italy proper and/or Carthage. Livy speculates about this happening and has Rome beating Alexander, because of course.

[RINO Tom]

I mean, few credible voices would endorse Rome defeating Alexander.

In the last years of his life Alexander built a navy (that was used to reduce Athens in the Lamian War) and it's speculated that he was planning an invasion of Magna Graeca, Italy proper and/or Carthage. Livy speculates about this happening and has Rome beating Alexander, because of course.

Haha, I have read that, and I did laugh when I came across that primary source, whenever that was.  I wouldn't even necessarily put my money on Alexander conquering Rome, as it was indeed starting to gain its strength and its patriotic fervor/ability to replenish its forces and persevere were damn near unrivaled, but it annoys me when people look back on Rome's dominance as inevitable; I find that it is a huge insult to the Romans, who defied quite a few long odds and easily could have never become the global civilization they were.  Alexander could have at least confined them to a client state, IMO, and I do believe there was a good chunk of time after his death where several Hellenistic powers, in their own rights, were more powerful than Rome.