The Battle of Magnesia

[Antiochus III]

I am actually not as well versed in this battle as I should be, but I would like to know more about it and have a good discussion.

 

Antiochus III

[caldrail]

Your namesake had been driven out of Greece after losing the the Battle of Thermopylae. In 190BC, whilst holed up in what is now Turkey, the romans advanced on him to force his hand before winter closed the campaign season (and possibly allow Antiochus to regroup and even find allies).

 

Before the battle Hannibal had sought a safe haven with Antiochus, who asked him whether his army would be enough for the Roman Republic, to which Hannibal replied, "Yes, enough for the Romans, however greedy they may be." Apparently neither Hannibal nor Scipio Africanus were present at the battle.

 

Antiochus had considerably more cavalry, and scythed chariots and elephants, but the restrictions of the battlefield meant he couldn't easily employ this advantage, but it appears the seleucid attack was succesful, forcing the roman infantry into retreat. however, the romans had encamped previously and this formed a redoubt which became the focus of a counter-attack. Once the elephants had been routed, the romans were able to assume control of the battlefield and the fighting eventually spread back to the seleucid camp before Antiochus's defeat.

 

Try this summation (allow for historical exaggeration) http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/se/~luv20009/Magnesia.html

Edited February 3, 2008 by caldrail

[M. Porcius Cato]

I am actually not as well versed in this battle as I should be, but I would like to know more about it and have a good discussion.

 

The best primary source of information about the Battle of Magnesia comes from Appian. A very nice, annotated version of Appian's Syriaca can be found at Livius.org, complete with images of the types of combatants that would be found at Magnesia.

[Gaius Octavius]

Didn't Hannibal urge a fleet on Antiochus?

 

Isn't that where the alleged meeting between Africanus and Hannibal occurred, and that Hannibal supposedly granted Africanus bragging rights as to who was the Greatest Captain ever?

Edited February 3, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[M. Porcius Cato]

Isn't that where the alleged meeting between Africanus and Hannibal occurred, and that Hannibal supposedly granted Africanus bragging rights as to who was the Greatest Captain ever?

 

Yes. From the Appian I linked to above:

It is said that at one of their meetings in the gymnasium Scipio and Hannibal had a conversation on the subject of generalship, in the presence of a number of bystanders, and that Scipio asked Hannibal whom he considered the greatest general, to which the latter replied, "Alexander of Macedonia."

To this Scipio assented since he also yielded the first place to Alexander. Then he asked Hannibal whom he placed next, and he replied, "Pyrrhus of Epirus," because he considered boldness the first qualification of a general; "for it would not be possible," he said, "to find two kings more enterprising than these."

 

Scipio was rather nettled by this, but nevertheless he asked Hannibal to whom he would give the third place, expecting that at least the third would be assigned to him; but Hannibal replied, "To myself; for when I was a young man I conquered Spain and crossed the Alps with an army, the first after Hercules. I invaded Italy and struck terror into all of you, laid waste 400 of your towns, and often put your city in extreme peril, all this time receiving neither money nor reinforcements from Carthage."

 

As Scipio saw that he was likely to prolong his self-laudation he said, laughing, "Where would you place yourself, Hannibal, if you had not been defeated by me?" Hannibal, now perceiving his jealousy, replied, "In that case I should have put myself before Alexander." Thus Hannibal continued his self-laudation, but flattered Scipio in a delicate manner by suggesting that he had conquered one who was the superior of Alexander.

[caldrail]

I think the most interesting aspect of this particular battle is that the romans were losing it. It was their ally, Eumenes, who turned it around with his cavalry.

[Antiochus III]

I read that the Roman line actually broke at one point, which is very interesting. I believe that Romans scattered various obastcles at the start of the battle to impede the chariots of Antiochus.

What do you think would have happened had he Romans lost? Do you thing the Romans were fully prepared(had all available men at the battle)? I personally think that the Romans didn't believe armies from Asia Minor/the Near East to be strong, and got used to defeating them easily. Did they thing Antiochus was a greater threat than Pontic armies?

 

Antiochus III

[caldrail]

Had the romans lost, it wouldn't have been a total disaster for them, other than a political reverse for those whose career depended on success. This battle was fought at the close of the campaigning season. Although its possible that Antiochus could have marched on Rome afterward he'd already retreated to lick his wounds after Thermopylae. My guess is that both sides would have regrouped for the next year, with perhaps some small territorial shuffling along the boundaries of their influence. As to whether the romans thought the seleucids were weak I can't say, but they knew they were weakened after their previous defeat (Antiochus had retreated a long way) and perhaps hoped to land a killer blow by attacking at Magnesia. Antiochus had at least enough savvy to reinforce his army in anticipation of roman attack.

[Antiochus III]

Had the romans lost, it wouldn't have been a total disaster for them, other than a political reverse for those whose career depended on success. This battle was fought at the close of the campaigning season. Although its possible that Antiochus could have marched on Rome afterward he'd already retreated to lick his wounds after Thermopylae. My guess is that both sides would have regrouped for the next year, with perhaps some small territorial shuffling along the boundaries of their influence. As to whether the romans thought the seleucids were weak I can't say, but they knew they were weakened after their previous defeat (Antiochus had retreated a long way) and perhaps hoped to land a killer blow by attacking at Magnesia. Antiochus had at least enough savvy to reinforce his army in anticipation of roman attack.

 

Why did Antiochus choose to fight at a place where his chariots and elephants would not be as useful? Also, what tactic did the Romans use to counteract cataphracts?

I heard Antiochus had a number of them at Magnesia.

 

Antiochus III

[caldrail]

After his defeat in Greece Antiochus had retired to his main army in Asia Minor, where he set up an entrenched camp protecting the approach to Sardis and his fleet base at Ephesos.

Wikpedia.com

 

The morning was wet and foggy. King Antiochus