pothos.org

So, I’ve recently been delving into the world of roman intervention in the greek world, and all the conflicts/battles that accompanied it. I know of the disastrous macedonian defeats like Cynoscephalae, Pydna, Magnesia etc. Could someone please provide battles the macedonians/Seleucids/etc actually won against the romans?

Hi, thanks for your post. I doubt there is anyone still around who could answer your query, but I could try looking for you.

Hi thanks! What do you mean? Have ppl left this forum?

Yes, I'm afraid. There have been a couple of deaths in the last few years but there are very few members left who still contribute. Alexander doesn't seem to be a particularly hot topic these days!

Anyway, I was thinking about your query and a starting point might be Heckel's Who's Who. There is an online copy here https://archive.org/details/whoiswho_202205, but there are other options to download it. It mostly deals with events in Alexander's lifetime, but by looking at the Diadochi, it might give you some hints as where to look. The William Smith Dictionary will cover much more of the Roman period https://archive.org/details/newclassicaldict00anthiala and should point you in the direction of where to look.

PS I have moved this post to the Diadochi section.

Thank you for your reply! I will check the links. Speaking of members, where are Paralus, Xenophon and Agesilaos?

Paralus hasn't been around for about a year. Sadly, Xenophon and Agesilaos both passed away. All are missed!

I am so saddened to hear this.I know I had wonderful correspondence with them in my past threads many years ago. I guess they now have all the answers to everything they ever wanted to know about Alexander, now that they entered the heavenly realm

Hypaspist wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:45 am Thank you for your reply! I will check the links. Speaking of members, where are Paralus, Xenophon and Agesilaos?

Agesiloas and Xenophon are very sadly missed. My personal conversations with both particularly so. Despite my own health issues I'm still about - just occupied with "real world" problems involving a retirement not actually chosen. In reality, my absences have more to do with the death of those two as much activity was generated via the "three stooges". Not quite the same with one stooge!

That said, there are Macedonian victories against the Romans under both Philip V and his son, Perseus. Livy records several under Perseus which I would need to find for you. None of these are of the scale of Kynoskephalai or Pydna, but victories none the less. The Romans were not invincible. It is well to bear in mind that at Kynoskephalai less than half of Philip's forces were engaged in the actual battle and that less than half had an unprotected left flank. The rest of the army were either taken while attempting to deploy or on the march. Pydna, on the other hand, was a disaster foisted on the Macedonians by a king who'd simply forgotten what combined arms was.

Hello Paralus!! So good to hear from you! I dont think think you remember me but I posted a few posts many years ago. Sorry for not responding to you reply, I have not been very active here. Say, I had a question about Magnesia, that battle bothers me much.

1. What went wrong there? What should Antiochos have done instead?
2. Do you think Hannibal advised Antiochos much in terms of tactics or could Antioch have been too proud to accept advise?

All the best, Rob

I do indeed remember - Alzheimer's has as yet not found me.

Well now, there are two questions which might occasion rivers of ink. Second first. Hannibal is not attested at the battle and there is scant reference to him before it. He is last heard of having been defeated by the Rhodians and Romans at sea and is bottled up in Lycia / Pamphylia (Liv 37.22.2-24.13; App. Syrr. 22). Hannibal's constant advice to Anticohos was that, should he be bent on taking on Rome, to do so in Italy (how unsurprising App. Syrr. 7-8). This comes twice: before the invasion of Greece and during it. One suspects that will have been as successful as Hannibal's original invasion. Antiochos was no dill. Were Hannibal available to him, any advice on the Roman army and tactics will have been valuable - particularly Africanus. Both Livy and Appian preserve the story that Scipio was a member of a delegation sent to Antiochos to assess his intentions and strength. This story tells of Scipio and the Romans drviving a wedge between Antiochos and Hannibal (Liv 35.14.1-4; App. Syrr. 9-10). The common source of this is near certainly Polybius who presents a summary out of context (3.11).

To the first question, given the accounts of the battle it is difficult to say. There is a strong Polybian tone of condemnation in Appian and Livy regarding Antiochos' use of scythe bearing chariots and his deployment of his phalanx. Overlaying this is - to me - a strong Attalid influence in the source tradition relied upon by the common source, Polybius. Reading both Appian and Livy one gets the strong impression that were it not for the perspicacious actions of Eumenes, the day will have been lost to Rome. It is Eumenes that destroys Antiochos' left wing and takes out his "sham" chariots. It is also Attalos, Eumenes' brother stationed with him, who brilliantly surmises the severe trouble (rout) the Roman left is in and rallies to its rescue. Michael Taylor is surely on the money with his paper (Anatolian Studies 66 (2016): 81–90) on the Pergamon Plaque commemorating this. This was Pergamon's "Marathon".

I cannot see the benefit in the deployment of two (or 22) elephants between the ten units of the phalanx deployed 32 deep and 50 wide. This only invites disaster and was surely Polybius' criticism leading to the echoes of such in Livy (37.42.3-5) and, especially, Appian (Syrr.35). Polybius was also dismissive of Antiochos' use of chariots and other "sham" troops on the left given the flavour of Livy and Appian. Still, the main criticism is in the use of his phalanx.

All that said, Antiochos executed the perfect charge on the Roman left. It is often said that he repeated his failure at Raphia but the two have much in common. The Lagid camp was close in the Lagid left rear at Raphia preventing a roll up. So too here: the Roman camp is in close proximity to its battle line. Livy's language is clear that Antiochos was not engaged in some endless direct pursuit straight ahead. Livy describes Antiochos' charge as:
"nec a fronte tantum instabat, sed circumito a flumine cornu iam ab latere urgebat" / "nor did he charge from the front alone, but encircling them from the river was already pressing on from the flank". Antiochos was rolling up the Roman left, a process of driving forward and from the flank. A great discussion can be found in Galili's Raphia, 217 BCE, Revisited in Scripta Classica Israelica. Vol 3, 1977.