In 192 BCE, the ancient world was split into two spheres of influence: Roman and Seleucid. Rome in 192, had just come off their exhausting 17 war with Carthage, yet still found the will power to engage in greek affairs. Meanwhile, the Seleucids under the able rule of Antiochus III, had reclaimed the mantle of strongest successor kingdom after their victory over Egypt in 200 BCE, and the reconquest of Parthia and Bactria. Antiochus no doubt fancied himself becoming the next Alexander the Great, and made plans to expand into Greece and Thrace. I am no historian, but even a lay person could see that a conflict was brewing between the two rising superpowers that occupy roughly the same geographical area. I personally see a conflict between the Romans and Seleucids as inevitable, as both had interests that were conflicting and neither had the sense enough to back down. Here are some scenarios that I put forward: A Seleucid victory At best I see the Seleucids fighting the Romans to a standstill in Asia Minor, and holding on to their Anatolian possessions. If the Seleucids played their cards right they could potentially defeat a Roman army in Anatolia as logistics would always render a Roman army in that area to be small in size. I don't see the Seleucids being able to hold onto Greece or Thrace simply due to the fact that they would not only have to win, but over win against the Romans. The Roman's at this point had a much larger manpower pool than the Seleucids did. At their height under Antiochus III the Seleucids were able to assemble an army of nearly 100,000 men. While impressive for a hellenistic army, it pales in comparison to the potential 750,000 man power pool that the Romans had during the 2nd Punic war. TLDR- A best case scenario for the Seleucids would be a status quo ante bellum. A Roman Victory Not really speculation as this is what occurred in real life. Rome defeated a Seleucid army at Thermopylae, and drove the Seleucids out of Greece and Thrace. Rome along with it's allies landed an army in Asia Minor and won an impressive victory at the battle of Magnesia against a numerically superior force. The battle was closely contested and could have been won by the Seleucids, had Antiochus's calvary swung behind the Roman center instead of pursuing the shattered Roman right flank. Modern estimates for the battle of Magnesia are 5,000 Roman dead and 10,000 Seleucid dead; the battle was a disaster for the Seleucids but not an all out massacre. As far as battlefield tactics goes, the Romans had it in the bag. Rome had experience with dealing with the Macedonian style phalanx as far back as the 270's BCE with Pyrrhus, and had recently defeated Philip V's army only a few years prior to war with the Seleucids. While on the flip side, the Seleucids has zero experience in dealing with a Roman style army. In addition, while both states had a competent officer class, the Romans by virtue of having their incompetent leadership massacred repeatedly by Hannibal during the 2nd Punic war, probably had more experienced and merit based officers in their ranks by 192 BCE. Again, just an interesting scenario that I put together of what could have occurred, and ultimately what did occur. Now some coins! Basileus Antiochus III Megas of the Seleucid Empire Syria, Antiochus III; 223-187 BC. Antioch on the Orontes, Series I, c. 223-211/10 BC, Tetradrachm, 16.96g. SC-1042.1; Newell WSM-1051. Obv: Diademed head of Antiochus III r., with youthful features, no sideburn, hair in bangs over forehead, dotted border. Rx: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ on r., ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ on l., Apollo, slight drapery on r. thigh, seated l. on omphalos, testing arrow and resting l. hand on grounded bow with grip marked by row of pellets; control marks in outer l. field.. EF / VF I absolutely love the style on this tetradrachm. Definitely one of my favorite coins to date! VS The Roman Republic ANONYMOUS Denarius. After 211 BC. Rome mint. Obv/ Helmeted head of Roma right, wearing single drop earring and pearl necklace; X (mark of value) to left. Rev/ The Dioscuri on horseback riding right, each holding couched spear, and wearing chlamys, cuirass, and a pileus surmounted by star; ROMA in relief in linear frame in exergue. Cat: Crawford 53/2; Sydenham 311; RBW 193 Silver (Ar) 3,8g - 21mm. Nice patina. My first Roman Republic denarius, and a beautiful one at that. I wouldn't mind getting a few coins of the later Republic when the wheels really started falling off the bus.
I wonder why you imagine the Seleucids could only muster 100,000 troops. It basically covers the old Persian empire. This empire, (empire of 10,000 valleys), could muster much more than that. Maybe the Seleucids only had 100,000 Greek troops, but a smarter play for them, (I agree stalemate is best they could hope for), would be to work on gathering indigenous troops. Imagine what the Seleucid army would have been like if they were able to convince the Parni to join, having tens of thousands of Central Asian cavalry available. The Parthians by themselves held off the Roman Empire, (even more forces available), for centuries.
@medoraman The Hellenistic kingdoms were pretty ethnocentric when compared to other armies throughout history. While the Seleucids were not as bad as the Ptolemies in that regard, they certainly did not train locals to fight in the Phalanx. Antiochus’s army at Magnesia numbered at 70,000 and did include galatian’s and eastern horse archers, but the core of the army was the Greek phalanx and Calvary. For the Seleucids to start conscripting non Greeks into the phalanx would be a major departure of ideology and tradition. I agree though, it’s stupid! I am reminded of a similar situation with the British empire in WW1 that constantly had manpower shortages in 1917 and 1918, but was adamant not to allow the millions of African colonial troops to fight in Europe.
True. However, if he truly considered to be an Alexander, he should have learned from Alexander too. Alexander at the time of his death had swapped out a large percentage of his army for Persian troops. Heck, I believe it was Persian troops under Alex's control that put down and slaughtered the rebelling Greek settlers in Bactria that were producing the first coins ever struck in this area of the world, (pre-Sophytes coinage of Athenian owl imitations).
There are no atheists or racists in foxholes. When we went to the Persian Gulf, few attended religious services. Near the end before we came home 80% of the unit was there. Same with racism/sexism. It all disappears when the "us versus them" means the US versus an enemy.
Great tetradrachm and denarius @Magnus Maximus! And a nice write up. Antiochos III did good against the Romans in the beginning but made a stupid decision for the Battle of Thermopylae which eventually let to his failure in the Battle of Magnesia. My tetradrachm showing an older Antiochos III. It is 2 series later after your coin (your is Series 1) Antiochos III Megas (223 - 187 B.C.). AR Tetradrachm. Antioch mint. Series 3, circa 204–197 B.C. Obverse: Diademed head of Antiochos III to right. Reverse: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOY. Apollo seated left on omphalos, holding arrow in his right hand and resting his left on grounded bow; to outer left, bow in bowcase. Reference: SC 1044.5a; Le Rider series 3-4, obv. A12; BMC 27; HGC 9, 447u. 17.07g
Like the Romans and many other Hellenic kingdoms, all the auxiliary groups were mercenaries and natives, which could sometimes even outnumber the Hellenic phalanx core.
Congrats on your first RR denarius (and it goes without saying great tetradrachm). I found myself spending time on this same time period over the last couple of weeks. This coin seemed to deserve posting here (although I've already over-posted this coin today). Seleukid Kingdom, Antiochos III Megas, 223-187 BC, Antioch Obv: diademed head right Rev: [AN]TIOXOY - [ΒΑ]ΣΙΛΕΩΣ, Apollo on omphalos seated left Size: 16mm, 2.45g You can never have too many RR's from my view: Anonymous Roman Republic Trident Series, AR Denarius, Rome, 206-195 BC Obv: Helmeted head of Roma, X behind Rev: The Dioscuri riding right, trident right below horses, ROMA within linear frame in exergue Ref: Crawford 115/1; Sydenham 268a
Just dazzling examples Here's a mini of mine that I don't believe I've ever shared: Antiochus III 223-187 BCE, AE. Right: Head L. to the right. Reverse: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ/ANTIOXOY Apollo standing on the left, holding an arrow and a bow placed on the ground. Left, [..] Over Δ/M. Ref.: Houghton, 70 var; SNG Spaer 579 var; SC 1055/1e var.. Funny enough, just posted this old gal in the indestructable gobstopper thread: ANONYMOUS. RR Denarius (206-195 BCE). Mint: Rome. Obv: Helmeted head of Roma right; X (mark of value) to left. Rev: ROMA. The Dioscuri on horses rearing right, each holding spear; prow below. Crawford 114/1. 3.7 g. 19 mm.
Congrats on the Coins and great write-up. Personally, the Romans already figgerred out the phalanx through many battles prior to sparring with Ant III. If they had not won that battle, the Republic would had come back, and come back, and come back until they won. I regret that I do not have Antiochos III. Here are a couple of mine from the Crawford 53 series. DENARIUS RR Anon 190 BCE AR den 20.9mm 3.7g Rome Hd Roma R X - Dioscuri riding spears, stars ROMA tablet Cr 53-2 x20 VICTORIATUS (appropriate) RR Victoriatus after 211 BCE Jupiter Victory Trophy VF Craw 53-1 Syd 83
Came home from a long day at work and was treated by this “feller”. I must say that the engravers at Antioch really outdid themselves on this coin.