Hannibal and Magnesia - Questions

**iberus_generalis** · 09-22-2006, 14:26

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

**fallen851** · 09-23-2006, 05:30

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...

**CountArach** · 09-23-2006, 05:36

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.

**fallen851** · 09-23-2006, 05:46

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.

**CountArach** · 09-23-2006, 08:53

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.

**Krusader** · 09-23-2006, 10:34

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.

**CountArach** · 09-23-2006, 11:00

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.