Going against my History Professor

[Frostwulf]

Magnesia-Ad-Sipylum(190,December)
War against Antiochus
John Drogo Montagu-"Battles of the Greek & Roman Worlds"

"Having robbed Antiochus of any control at sea, the Romans were bent on completing the destruction with a victory on land. Although the king had a large force of 60,000 foot and 12,000 horse he was apprehensive. He withdrew across the river Phrygius [Kum Cay] and established a strongly fortified encampment near Magnesia-ad-Sipylum[Manisa]. The consular army, with a total strength of about 30,000 advanced across the river and encamped about 2 to 3 miles away from the enemy. After several days of inaction in which the king refused to accept any challenge, the consul moved his camp nearer to the enemy and lined up for battle with his left wing against the river. The king accepted the challenge for fear of shame. The action started on the Roman right wing which was opposed by a mixed mass of light cavalry, preceded by scythed chariots and camels. Eumenes II, on the Roman right, took the initiative by sending his slingers and archers against the chariots, creating panic in the horses and disrupting the enemy wing. a charge by his cavalry followed and extended the disorder, which spread to include the whole of the flank. The Roman legions seized the opportunity to make a direct frontal attack on the enemy phalanx, which was in the centre of their line with elephants posted between the sections. In the meantime, Antiochus, who was in command of a large body of elite cavalry on the right wing, had noted that the enemy had thought it unnecessary to post any cavalry on their left, which was covered by the river. He executed the manoeuvre on which he had staked his chances by charging the infantry and outflanking them along the riverside and then driving them back to their camp. In this extended pursuit he threw away any chance of victory by failing to support his phalanx in its hour of need. It was driven back behind the rampart. Attalus who was with his brother Eumenes on the Roman right, saw the situation on the opposite flank along the river. Being at that time unengaged, he charged across the field to the assistance of the camp guard and forced Antiochus back. The king, seeing that his whole army was giving way, fled. His reputed losses were 50,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry against a loss on the Roman side of 350 men. After this total disaster Antiochus sent envoys to sue for peace."
Livy 37: 37(6)-44(2); Appian, Syrian Wars, 30-36

-pg. 131-132

[Intranetusa]

My history teacher is just like that - except he goes by the popular conception that the Gauls/Germans/etc were all naked uncivilized barbarians...which is far worse


He literally stated that barbarians were all smelly, diseased ridden savages who never bathed (even though they had soap - whereas Romans aristocrats used olive oil >.>)

[Watchman]

He literally stated that barbarians were all smelly, diseased ridden savages who never bathed

That is, sadly, a rather accurate description of later Medieval Europeans...

[Centurion Crastinus]

I would just suck it up and hold your tongue. No use pissing off the man and making enemies with him. But, if you have an "A" in the class, what is the worst he can do. If you do confront him, be sure to be tactful and respectful.

[abou]

Anubis, ask your professor if he has read The Roman War of Antiochos the Great by Grainger. It is relatively new so it is distinctly possible that he hasn't, but Grainger's work certainly helps answer some questions and is well grounded.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

That is, sadly, a rather accurate description of later Medieval Europeans...

yup .. so who were the greater barbarians in the matter of washing themselfs .. the gauls in 1rst century BC or the knights in 11th century AD

[Tellos Athenaios]

That's an easy one. The knights.

[Watchman]

It's more like a win by default really.

[Intranetusa]

yup .. so who were the greater barbarians in the matter of washing themselfs .. the gauls in 1rst century BC or the knights in 11th century AD

Didn't the medieval Europeans believe that taking bathes would wash away your soul - so they would never take baths? :/ ??

whereas the Gauls actually had soap...

[delablake]

yup .. so who were the greater barbarians in the matter of washing themselfs .. the gauls in 1rst century BC or the knights in 11th century AD

every EB player knows the Gauls had soap-makers

[NeoSpartan]

Hannibal kicked butt in Canea, but he had 4 problems that stopped him from winning.

1. Rome did NOT agree to negociate a surrender, or terms for peace. THAT was Hannibal's aim. Anyother kingdom would have negociated some kind of settlement after such a crushing defeat.

2. He was not strong enough to besiege Rome WHILE at the same time being in hostile territory, and no supply lines.

3. He NEVER recieved reinforcements from either Carthege or Phillip V. Instead he was left to his own accord, in hostile land, with an enemy that refused to engage him.

4. His enemy only punished anyone who helped Hannibal. Therefore, Hannibla was unable to keep Italian people under his command when his army was elsewhere. (hannibal knew that IF he spread his forces to "secure" those italic people's loyalty his army would be destroyed by a larger roman force).

In other words... without support from the outside Hannibal was encaged in Italy, all he could do was roam around, pillage and whatnot.

[Intranetusa]

^ Yup, Italians did not defect to Hannibal's side as he had hoped due - due to Romans granting their allies citizenship and a large portion of Hannibal's army composed of "unappealing" barbarian mercenaries out to plunder.

[Sarkiss]

Hannibal kicked butt in Canea, but he had 4 problems that stopped him from winning.

1. Rome did NOT agree to negociate a surrender, or terms for peace. THAT was Hannibal's aim. Anyother kingdom would have negociated some kind of settlement after such a crushing defeat.

2. He was not strong enough to besiege Rome WHILE at the same time being in hostile territory, and no supply lines.

3. He NEVER recieved reinforcements from either Carthege or Phillip V. Instead he was left to his own accord, in hostile land, with an enemy that refused to engage him.

4. His enemy only punished anyone who helped Hannibal. Therefore, Hannibla was unable to keep Italian people under his command when his army was elsewhere. (hannibal knew that IF he spread his forces to "secure" those italic people's loyalty his army would be destroyed by a larger roman force).

In other words... without support from the outside Hannibal was encaged in Italy, all he could do was roam around, pillage and whatnot.

yep, keeping all those Southern cities garrisoned and running from one place to another was a real pain in the butt. thus reiforcements would make a difference. he could not, with a little he had, even succeed in helping besieged Capuans never mind march on Rome itself, which he eventually did to no effect.
Romes stubborn attitude really messed things up. it was complete opposite of Carthaginian reaction to when Scipio set foot in Africa. this Roman stubbornness and punishment of those ready to flee and surrender, really is what saved them in crucial moment.

[Jaywalker-Jack]

That is, sadly, a rather accurate description of later Medieval Europeans...

If you have to live rough its actualy in your best interests not to wash too often. Grease keeps you warm!

[Sarkiss]

Magnesia-Ad-Sipylum(190,December)
War against Antiochus
John Drogo Montagu-"Battles of the Greek & Roman Worlds"
-pg. 131-132

Livy you say? him, Appian, Plutarch... Roman propagandists.
i am not going to argue about what happened at Magnesia, but from a little research i have done on Roman - Armenian war it is amazing how different the numbers given by above mentioned big mouth "historians" and other sources can turn out to be.
a good example is battle of Tigranokert. both Plutatch and Appian give Armenian side a number of over quarter of a million:
Appian - 250000 foot and 50000 horse.
Plutarch - 55000 horse, 20000 slingers and archers, 150000 heavy infantry, etc, etc.
whilst there is one refference that has always been overlooked:
Phlegon of Tralles:
"At that time [ie. the 177th Olympiad, 72-69 BC] Lucullus was besieging Amisus, but having left Murena with two legions to carry on the siege, he himself set out with three others against the territory of the Cabiri, where he went into winter quarters. He also ordered Hadrian to make war against Mithradates, who was defeated... In the fourth year of this Olympiad Tigranes and Mithradates, having collected an army of 40,000 foot and 30,000 horse, who were drawn up in the Roman order of battle, engaged Lucullus and were defeated; Tigranes lost 5000 killed, (on contrary to over 100000 dead Armenians with only 5 Roman dead and 100 wounded according to Plutarch!) a large number of prisoners, besides a promiscuous rabble".

[Boyar Son]

Sarkiss-" who were drawn up in the Roman order of battle"

is this true that the pontic forces at one time decided to use Roman battle order? (checker board formation)

[Sarkiss]

Sarkiss-" who were drawn up in the Roman order of battle"

is this true that the pontic forces at one time decided to use Roman battle order? (checker board formation)

combined Pontic-Armenian forces were.
Mithridates had some Roman officers sent by Sertorius from Spain. they helped to train Pontic infantry in Roman fashion, which was later applied to some extend to the Armenian forces as well.