Hannibal and Magnesia - Questions

[Zastrow]

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.

[CountArach]

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.

[paullus]

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.