The battle of Magnesia

[Caesar CXXXVII]

One thing is beyond doubt - After 12/190 Rome was the master of the western world . There wasn't any political entity that could challenge her supremacy . But we have a historical perspective that the Romans and their

neighbors did not have in 01/189 .

The question is what the Romans and Antiochus III thought after the Battle and what was the real situation . For example, Briscoe said the the battle was decisive (not in terms of numbers, Livius numbers are nonesense) and the Seleucid empire was on her knees and could not continue the war . Greinger said that Antiochus III was beaten but not decisively and was able to continue the war, he choose to minimize his loses and went for an agreement .

 

Your opinion ?

Edited February 9, 2009 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Pompieus]

While Livy's number (50,000 dead) is probably high, there is little doubt that casualties among the most important part of the Seleucid army, the greeks of the phalanx and "Silver Shields", were very severe at Magnesia. And since after the battle Antiochus was cut off from the recruiting grounds of Greece and Asia Minor, there was no way for him to replace them. The strength of the Seleucid monarchy rested on the army, the core of which was drawn from the Greek settlers in Anatolia, Syria and Mesopotamia, the Seleucids never really won the full support of the Iranian aristocracy. When these troops were decimated at Magnesia Antiochus probably had no option but to negotiate. In fact, the Eastern provinces that had recently been recovered (Armenia, Parthia and Bactria) broke away soon after the defeat.

[Kosmo]

Both sides decided after Magnesia that peace was better. Seleucids lost soldiers, their holdings in Asia Minor and had to pay a huge amount of money to the romans so their position was seriously weakened. Still, dynastic problems and the growing power of Parthians and Armenians and other rebels like the Jews are to blame for the failure of that state. Rome and Syria never went to war with each other again.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Please elaborate about the relationship between Antiochus III and the Iranian aristocracy . Did the later understood the effects of the battle ? How much support they gave to the king before the battle and how it changed ?

 

Thanks

Edited March 8, 2009 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Pompieus]

The Persian empire was based upon the Iranian nobility who lived with their retainers in fortified strongholds on their estates worked by serf peasants much like medieval barons in europe. It was these nobles and their retainers who provided the persian army with its cavalry - the best in Asia.

 

Alexander apparently was trying to perpetuate this relationship, but when Seleucus and Antiochus succeeded to the asian part of Alexanders empire, they decided, like the Ptolemies in Egypt, that they must rely on the Macedonian and Greek elements for their rule. They settled as many Macedonians and Greeks as possible in numerous military colonies, turning southern asia minor, northern Syria and, to a lesser extent, parts of Babylonia and the eastern regions into Macedonian-Greek provinces in asia. These settlers, along with natives who accepted hellenization, provided the bureaucracy and the reserves of the Seleucid army and were very loyal to the dynasty, while all that was expected of the native elements, including the Iranians, was passive acquiescence.

 

This at least is the theory of Tarn, Rostovstiev and Cary. Their evidence is the ease with which various satrapies set up their own dynasties (Cappodicia, Pontus, Elymais, Parthia, Bactria) as soon as central control and the Seleucid army dissappeared (as it did after Magnesia), and the relatively small numbers of Iranian cavalry attested in the Seleucid armies by Livy and Polybius (only 1000 or so at Magnesia) while the Bactrian kingdom of Euthydemus, Demetrius, Eucratides et al, which apparently did gain the loyalty of the Iranian nobles, mustered more than 10000 to oppose Antiochus III in 208 BC, and enough to split away and "conquer" half of India after 189.

 

A little thin pehaps...what do you think?

Edited March 8, 2009 by Pompieus

[Caesar CXXXVII]

The Persian empire was based upon the Iranian nobility who lived with their retainers in fortified strongholds on their estates worked by serf peasants much like medieval barons in europe. It was these nobles and their retainers who provided the persian army with its cavalry - the best in Asia.

 

Alexander apparently was trying to perpetuate this relationship, but when Seleucus and Antiochus succeeded to the asian part of Alexanders empire, they decided, like the Ptolemies in Egypt, that they must rely on the Macedonian and Greek elements for their rule. They settled as many Macedonians and Greeks as possible in numerous military colonies, turning southern asia minor, northern Syria and, to a lesser extent, parts of Babylonia and the eastern regions into Macedonian-Greek provinces in asia. These settlers, along with natives who accepted hellenization, provided the bureaucracy and the reserves of the Seleucid army and were very loyal to the dynasty, while all that was expected of the native elements, including the Iranians, was passive acquiescence.

 

This at least is the theory of Tarn, Rostovstiev and Cary. Their evidence is the ease with which various satrapies set up their own dynasties (Cappodicia, Pontus, Elymais, Parthia, Bactria) as soon as central control and the Seleucid army dissappeared (as it did after Magnesia), and the relatively small numbers of Iranian cavalry attested in the Seleucid armies by Livy and Polybius (only 1000 or so at Magnesia) while the Bactrian kingdom of Euthydemus, Demetrius, Eucratides et al, which apparently did gain the loyalty of the Iranian nobles, mustered more than 10000 to oppose Antiochus III in 208 BC, and enough to split away and "conquer" half of India after 189.

 

A little thin pehaps...what do you think?

 

 

Thanks Pompey, I got the idea .

Could you recommend a book about the Seleucid rule in the east ?

[Pompieus]

Well, there's Tarns "Hellenistic Civilization" and the first chapter of "Greeks in Bactria and India"; Rostovstzevs "Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World" and his Chapter in Cambridge Ancient History Vol VII. But these are all pretty heavy going and VERY OLD - dating back to the 1920's. There must be some new stuff out there. I havn't been able to get hold of the applicable volume of the new edition of the Cambridge Ancient History yet, it usually has a good bibliography.

[Kosmo]

Check the review part of this site and you should get your answer. I know a couple reviews about the Seleucids.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Kosmo

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Check the review part of this site and you should get your answer. I know a couple reviews about the Seleucids.

 

 

Please direct me to the reviews, if it's no bother . What is wrong with Tarns ?