Is there any way to make battles more strategically decisive?

[abou]

Back to off topic for a moment:

Is the result of the war not easier to understand if Magnesia were interpreted as the decisive defeat as what it is described by Livius and Arrian?

Easier, but not true. I could say the sun rises because some guy in a chariot rides across the sky every day... that's what certain myths tell us. Doesn't mean it's true.

Hint: you should take this as an indication of what I think about at least Livy.*

Maybe there were more Roman soldiers involved (but mosty all the Greek wars after 200 were fought with the normal two legion consular armies) and their losses higher. And I'm with you that the Seleucid casualties may be exaggerated.

Normal Consular armies were four legions: two Roman legions and two allied legions.

But after the phalanx was broken by the own elephants and the Roman attack against the already scattered formation a general pursuit of the fleeing soldiers took place. Such routs normally result in a great number of casualties. So a great loss of phalangite core troops is entirely possible.

Sure, but you don't chase routing infantry with heavy infantry. You also underestimate the scare factor of elephants and the lightness of the phalangite equipment; especially so once the sarissa is dropped. If you are running with just a helmet, linothorax, small shield, and a sheathed sword you can be quite adroit.

The break of the Roman left wing and the flight towards the Roman camp was different. The Roman army was not decisively scattered and the cataphracts had to remain carefully in a kind of order, otherwise the pursuit could have resulted in disaster.

Not decisively scattered? The whole legion (possibly two) routed immediately after or slightly before the charge hit. The Principes and Triarii ran without even being touched.

The Roman army on the other hand after Magnesia soon marched against the fortresses of the Galatians and won again great victories. That would not have been possible if the army had been weakened by great losses in the war against Antiochos.

Well, they did take a very roundabout way around that nice fortress with that garrison I mentioned in an earlier post so as to invade Galatia, which never had a very large population. Maybe Anthony could provide evidence to the contrary, but they never seemed to me to be very large.

Livy only mention 200 casualties for the Roman - preposterous! The routed legion alone would have accounted for way more than that.

The general problem of the Hellenistic kingdoms after 200 was that they faced first the battle hardened Roman soldiers of the last years of the Punic war together with extremely experienced officers and later the growing paranoia of the Roman state who saw menaces all around which did not exist.

Many of the legions sent to fight Antiochos would have been freshly recruited. In fact, we are told so by Livy in earlier sections of many legions being newly raised for various reasons - legions that would have gone to Greece and Asia Minor. Also, I think you are totally discounting the military of Antiochos. Although not all of them were constantly deployed, we are talking about a military that Antiochos had been using for over thirty years - a fair amount of which were full-time, professional soldiers. If any army could be counted as the best trained and maintained military of the Mediterranean (if not the world) it was the Seleukid military.


* The thing with Livy is that he can tell if an event happened, but if he starts describing events, thoughts, actions, etc he is full of it. For example, he can tell you where a new army was raised, but sometimes completely makes up the reason for it (e.g. he will say an army was raised to protect Italy from invasion via Greece, but the army will be deployed on the wrong side of Italy). He can tell you a meeting took place, but will make up entirely what was said, which often contradicts events before and after. He can tell you where and when a battle took place and who was fighting against whom, but he will butcher the numbers. Livy was concerned with writing a romantic and patriotic account of Rome, not a solid, historically accurate picture of events. I know I haven't really addressed what Arrian says, but I believe he based his account off of Livy and Polybios, which only goes so far. Besides, I'm angrier at Livy... man I hate reading him; especially in Latin. Milky richness my ass.

So, at some point he was broke. And thanks for the information.

Not necessarily. After Magnesia he continued to fund Aitolia in its fight against Rome. Between that and the indemnity he may have felt a little crunch, but nothing so constricting as bankruptcy. The reason for his looting of the temple in Susa was probably to fund a new eastern campaign against Parthia and Baktria after they revolted upon hearing the news of Magnesia.