Hannibal and Magnesia - Questions

I was looking up the Battle of Magnesia, and the leader of the Seleucid Empire asks Hannibal if the army he raised will be enough for the Romans.

Hannibal responds "Yes, enough for the Romans, however greedy they may be."

Excuse my ignorance, what did Hannibal mean? Was he simply saying that army could beat the Romans? Or was he making a joke?

And why didn't Antiochus let him command the army, instead of personally chasing the Roman cavalry off the field and foolishly following them to the ends of the earth instead of commanding his army?

Thanks for any info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

And why didn't Antiochus let him command the army, instead of personally chasing the Roman cavalry off the field and foolishly following them to the ends of the earth instead of commanding his army?

---

Not sure about the first part, but this can be fielded by simple logic.

What happens if Hannibal wins? It is likely the Army owuld love this man, and hail him as a conqueror. Now, what if Hannibal decides he likes the power and then takes over from Antiochus? Antiochus hence losses his Kingdom, something he obviously doesn't want.

If memory serves me, Antiochus wanted to be the next Alexander the Great, so lead his Cavalry from the front. Unforunately he wasn't as good as Alexander and his army was ruined while he was gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

I was looking up the Battle of Magnesia, and the leader of the Seleucid Empire asks Hannibal if the army he raised will be enough for the Romans.

Hannibal responds "Yes, enough for the Romans, however greedy they may be."

Excuse my ignorance, what did Hannibal mean? Was he simply saying that army could beat the Romans? Or was he making a joke?

---

The seleucids soldiers where richly adorned with gold, silver etc making them very impressive to look at, Antiochos though that Hannibal and the Romans would be impressed by such wealth.

i'd say its almost certainly a fabricated statement, put into the mouth of Hannibal, as a way to trash the East for trading fighting skill for opulence (the charge usually levelled by the Easterners in the West). I think it pretty much means "yes, your soldiers are enough for the Romans to devour, no matter how greedy they may be, because plundering your defeated army would be equal to plundering a great city." You could give a few spins on it, but I'd say its generally safe to assume that its meant in a negative way, and that Hannibal didn't actually say it.

I always thought that Hannibal was sarcastically remarking that the Seleucid army had more than enough men for the Romans to slaughter, no matter how great their greed for bloodshed.

i for one when read that statement thought, that hannibal knew from the start they couldn't win against the new roman armies, something he perceived still during the battle of Zama...and the highly adorned statement is quite a sarcastic remark, cuz i've read some essays on hannibal, and although he was a son of Carthage, all rich and all, he fought like his soldiers, and stayed by them, he was not a opulent man, moreover, he dispised such opulence...for him, wealth was to be used for something, and not to adorn soldiers... and even if hannibal had lead the seleucids, i don't think they would have won...the roman war machine was too strong, and had learned quite a few tricks in the war against hannibal...so much that they outhanniballed hannibal at his own game at zama...after zama and the defeat of carthage, and his provoked flight of carthage, was a man without home, no roots, and some say a broken man...although he was still hannibal at Seleucia, i don't think he would have been able to lead them to victory...his grief, and hatret for rome were too big for him to think straight during combat... but sure he could still organize armies...to me the greedy nation on earth, is a double remark...a remark to his hatret of Rome, and a sarcastic remark at the almost jokingly and richly adorned army of seleucia

I don't really think Hannibal even believed he could win at Zama. He had little time to prepare a decent force (a lot of his infantry was well below the quality of the Roman infantry), his cavalry was outnumbered (his usual strength), and he couldn't really pick the battlefield and stage an ambush, as he had at Trebia, Lake Trasimene, and Cannae (where he created an ambush -like situation with his troops on the flank wrapping around the Romans). I think he was hoping to pull a rabbit out of the hat.

Now if Antiochus had just wheeled his cavalry into the rear of the Roman infantry (like Scipio at Zama for instance), he might have won the battle of Magnesia...

Quote:

---

Now if Antiochus has just wheeled him cavalry into the rear of the Roman infantry (like Scipio at Zama for instance), he might have won the battle of Magnesia...

---

I don't agree with this. Think about it. The Triarii were most probably unengaged. These men alone would probably be able to take the charge, and then if some reinforcements are fed into that combat, there would be no hope for Antiochus (plus he would die).

Also the Roman Infantry probably would have been able to cut a path through the opposing Infantry, and then wheel back around and take on Antiochus. Also the Roman Cavalry may have rallied and supported the Triarii.

Ultimately the battle was probably a forgone conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I don't agree with this. Think about it. The Triarii were most probably unengaged. These men alone would probably be able to take the charge, and then if some reinforcements are fed into that combat, there would be no hope for Antiochus (plus he would die).

Also the Roman Infantry probably would have been able to cut a path through the opposing Infantry, and then wheel back around and take on Antiochus. Also the Roman Cavalry may have rallied and supported the Triarii.

Ultimately the battle was probably a forgone conclusion.

---

Well, I think it is the fact they would have been surrounded, the morale issue raised by this. The Roman army could have fought its way out of Cannae, but it paniced at the prospect of being surrounded. This likely would happen again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

i'd say its almost certainly a fabricated statement, put into the mouth of Hannibal, as a way to trash the East for trading fighting skill for opulence (the charge usually levelled by the Easterners in the West). I think it pretty much means "yes, your soldiers are enough for the Romans to devour, no matter how greedy they may be, because plundering your defeated army would be equal to plundering a great city." You could give a few spins on it, but I'd say its generally safe to assume that its meant in a negative way, and that Hannibal didn't actually say it.

---

Exactly. I had my class read those lines (from Aulus Gellius, by the way) this summer. I thought it was sorta funny - they didn't really laugh though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

Well, I think it is the fact they would have been surrounded, the morale issue raised by this. The Roman army could have fought its way out of Cannae, but it paniced at the prospect of being surrounded. This likely would happen again.

---

In the Battle of Trebia, the Romans were completely surrounded by Hannibal, yet the Van fought their way clear of the fighting and managed to escape. I believe a similar thing would have occured.

Also remember that at this time the Roman Armies were Veteran. They had seen a lot of fighting of the previous years and the quality of the commanders was pretty much at its peak. Whereas on the other hand, the Syrians may have seen some fighting recently, but probably not on this scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

In the Battle of Trebia, the Romans were completely surrounded by Hannibal, yet the Van fought their way clear of the fighting and managed to escape. I believe a similar thing would have occured.

Also remember that at this time the Roman Armies were Veteran. They had seen a lot of fighting of the previous years and the quality of the commanders was pretty much at its peak. Whereas on the other hand, the Syrians may have seen some fighting recently, but probably not on this scale.

---

True, but remember that the Romans did not underestimate the Argyraspidai or Silver Shields. I think I read one passage where they didn't exactly cherish the idea of going up against them.

The main reason for the Seleukids losing that battle IMO was Antiochus who was to busy behaving like Alexander and not commanding his armies, instead charging ahead with his cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

True, but remember that the Romans did not underestimate the Argyraspidai or Silver Shields. I think I read one passage where they didn't exactly cherish the idea of going up against them.

The main reason for the Seleukids losing that battle IMO was Antiochus who was to busy behaving like Alexander and not commanding his armies, instead charging ahead with his cavalry.

---

What source is that? I wouldn't mind reading it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

What source is that? I wouldn't mind reading it.

---

I will try to find it. Probably in Bar-Kochvas book, but I remember him quoting an ancient source.

Note, they did not fear the Argyraspidai, but they seemed to have respect for them. That is what I understood by the passage I read.

Found it:

Appian

Quote:

---

[35] The Macedonian phalanx, which had been stationed between the two bodies of horse in a narrow space in the form of a square, when denuded of cavalry on either side, had opened to receive the light-armed troops, who had been skirmishing in front, and closed again. Thus crowded together, Domitius easily enclosed them with his numerous light cavalry. Having no opportunity to charge or even to deploy their dense mass, they began to suffer severely; and they were indignant that military experience availed them nothing, exposed as they were on all sides to the weapons of the enemy. Nevertheless, they presented their thick-set pikes on all four sides. They challenged the Romans to close combat and preserved at all times the appearance of being about to charge. Yet they did not advance, because they were foot-soldiers and heavily armed, and saw that the enemy were mounted. Most of all they feared to relax their close formation lest they might not readily bring it together again. The Romans did not come to close quarters nor approach them because they feared the discipline, the solidity, and the desperation of this veteran corps ; but circled around them and assailed them with javelins and arrows, none of which missed their mark in the dense mass, who could neither turn the missiles aside nor dodge them. After suffering severely in this way they yielded to necessity and fell back step by step, but with a bold front, in perfect order and still formidable to the Romans. The latter kept their distance and continued to circle around and wound them, until the elephants inside the Macedonian phalanx became excited and unmanageable. Then the phalanx broke into disorderly flight.

---

There is what Appian wrote. Although it might be that Appian overestimated their worth as well. Here is what Bar-Kochva wrote at page 96 in his book The Seleucid Army:

Quote:

---

Appian's comment on the caution displayed by the legions in approaching the phalanx at Magnesia 'fearing the experience ... of the trained men' (Syr. 35(182)) is obviously his own and not Polybius', and consequently must not be taken to imply a high standard of training: as has already been indicated, Appian consistently presents the Seleucid phalanx and infantry Guard as the true successors of Alexander's celebrated contingents (cf. p.237 n.56 below)

---

So either, the Argyraspidai were realy well-experienced and veterans and the Romans were weary of them due to this.
Or it was Appians overestimation due to them having the same name as the contingent under Alexander and thus something he wrote and might not have happened at all.

Tend to agree to the latter tbh.

My impression is that the Argyraspidai were probably the only Seleukid soldiers who could near the Roman legionaries in terms of discipline, morale and training, but the Romans were still better. In this engagement it was the style of fighting which hampered them. But ofc, Im biased as hell.
Sig image & title ~D

you krazy kataphractophile!

in my mind, that passage from Arrian is almost certainly referring to the citizen phalanx of 16,000, in the Seleukid center. the argyraspidai probably advanced against the Roman left along with Antiochos' cavalry, defeated their opposition, failed to take the Roman camp, and withdrew from the field with Antiochos. their numbers are never given in the battle lineups...I think Bar Kochva is presumptuous to say there are 10,000 and that they are being used as phalangites. I tend to think they were fighting more as hypaspistai among cavalry and heavy Gallic troops, and that their numbers were likely depleted by several thousand in the previous campaign in Greece.

But that's not all that crucial to the present discussion. I have a question that is, though: what is the source for Hannibal's statement? Wasn't he with the fleet?

INteresting read, thanks for posting that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

Found it:

Appian



There is what Appian wrote. Although it might be that Appian overestimated their worth as well. Here is what Bar-Kochva wrote at page 96 in his book The Seleucid Army:



So either, the Argyraspidai were realy well-experienced and veterans and the Romans were weary of them due to this.
Or it was Appians overestimation due to them having the same name as the contingent under Alexander and thus something he wrote and might not have happened at all.

Tend to agree to the latter tbh.

My impression is that the Argyraspidai were probably the only Seleukid soldiers who could near the Roman legionaries in terms of discipline, morale and training, but the Romans were still better. In this engagement it was the style of fighting which hampered them. But ofc, Im biased as hell.
Sig image & title ~D

---

Quote:

---

Nevertheless, they presented their thick-set pikes on all four sides

---

Well, that is interesting.

ah, aulus gellius, thanks ta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cataphract_Of_The_City

Well, that is interesting.

---

I believe it implies that they formed up with 4 divisions, each pointing a seperate direction, adn then just stood their ground. Perhaps it is intended to be something like the Schiltrom from BI though.

The sheer weight advantage of Antiochus' forces should have meant they could have won against the Romans if Antiochus hadn't been such a fool. He lost Raphia for the same reason.

If he would have sat there and just challenged the Romans to a battle of grinding the Romans would have lost, just from sheer exhaustion of facing 70,000 men with a mere 20,000 or so.

I somewhat disagree again.

Consider that Roman armies generally had more than half their army in reserve. Lets assume that the Average Roman soldier was far superior to the average Opposing soldier.

This would mean that they could win the vast majority of the early combats. Once these were over, the reserves could take the place of the lines in front of them, and the survivors of the other lines could take regain their energy behind the currently engaged lines.

The Roman armies at this point in time were disciplined enough to allow this. Also after several victories in combats, the morale of the opposing army would be greatly lowered, and the Romans wouild ahve enhanced morale.

Ultimately the Romans would take plenty of casualties, but they would probably come out on top.

first off, 70000 v 20000 is not hardly accurate. The Romans had closer to the neighborhood of 50,000 at the battle, and 70,000 is almost certainly 20 to 30 thousand too many. the problem in the battle for the Seleukids was this:
1) on their left, the chariots failed, and allowed the Roman right to follow up successfully by disordering the Sel. right in their retreat
2) on their right, Antiochos was successful against the equivalent in numbers of at least two full legions (10,000 men or more), but was not able to manage the rest of the battle because he was in pursuit (he had the same problem at Raphia, and apparently failed to learn his lesson)
3) in the center, the pike phalanx never advances, and is enveloped by the light infantry and light cavalry of the Roman army, which then wears down the pike phalanx from a distance (those dishonorable Romans!), and eventually weakens it enough for the legions in the center of the Roman line to move in for mop up work.

Edit: the problem with the "challenge" method: its not that the Romans were necessarily more skilled, because a well-maintained phalanx would wear out the Romans before they could even come into contact. The problem at Magnesia was that the phalanx was far too small to face even half of the Roman front (16,000 men, or 26,000 at most, packed 32 ranks deep, in close order), and would quickly have been flanked in a grinding match.