Seleucids at war with Rome in 168 BC?

In 168 BC, Antiochus IV of Syria invaded, and overran all Egypt, except for Alexandria, while his fleet captured Cyprus... Near Alexandria he was met by Gaius Popillius Laenas envoy of the Roman Senate, who told him that he must immediately withdraw from Egypt and Cyprus...
Antiochus replied that he would think of withdrawing... Laenas drew his sword then and carved a circle in the sand around Antiochus saying to him "Before u exit this circle i demand an answer for the Roman Senate!"
Antiochus then promised to withdraw from Egypt and Cyprus...
WI Antiochus defied Laenas's ultimatum and went to war with Rome? What happens then? Could Seleucids fight Rome effectively? Any thoughts?
 

Typo

Banned
At this point the Seleucids were probably doomed to lose to Rome in a war, and have been since 188 B.C.
 
Rome could have attacked Egypt and conquer it 150 years before OTL...
A hasty peace with the Romans could have left a crippled Seleucid Kingdom literally a vassal to the Roman Republic...
 
Rome could have attacked Egypt and conquer it 150 years before OTL...
A hasty peace with the Romans could have left a crippled Seleucid Kingdom literally a vassal to the Roman Republic...

Eh, then the Parthians snaffle it up.

I'm not sure the Seleucids are going to lose; the Selecuid monarch was adopting Roman military tactics and equipping legionaries. Combined with the other forces he had at his dispoal, it could be messy.
 

MrP

Banned
Hm, I knew 168 meant something - it's Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus' birth year. :)
 
This is one of Toynbee's possible turning points in Roman history. He envisioned a Roman Empire that stretched far into the East, encompassing all the land of the Selecuids circa 168 BC. He thought that it would short-circuit any Persian Empire, and with no peer competitor and control of the vast manpower and revenue of the East the Roman Empire would last longer. There would also be a lot more exchange with the East with that kind of direct control over the territory. With control over those resources, then when the Germanic invasions start the West could very well take it. The Empire would be so big that it could basically allow what would at that point be very peripheral territories be taken over by the Germans. What I'm thinking is that the Roman Empire would be much more resiliant with the manpower source in the East. The West fell because Italy got wreaked demographically and was no longer able to field unlimited armies (look at Roman Republican history, Rome wins wars cause it doesn't matter if they lose battles, they just keep coming. By the time the Germans show up, they aren't capable of fielding army after army, and once the professional Legions are beaten there is no fall-back). The East was occupied with its death struggle with the Persians and could never devote the long-term resources needed to permanently retake the West for the Empire. This East would be able to devote those resources, or would be occupied enough in the East that Roman "soft power" would end up bringing Europe under its sway. The Roman Empire is going to be an even bigger forum for the exchange of religious ideas in this TL, with the Greco-Roman tradition mixing not just with the Semetic peoples (Hebrews, Arabs) but also with the Eastern traditions of the Persians and with India. I going to guess that Christianity is not going to come out on top in the TL.

As a tiny piece of this potential TL: Maybe the Romans pick up iron plows from China, get them to Northern Europe, and are able to civilize the barbarian north?
 
The problem for the Seleucids here is that they had already lost to the Romans some decades before and in the meantime the Romans had only gotten stronger while the Seleucids had weakened...

On the other hand, the Romans were around that time pretty tied up with Macedonia...
 
do you mean when the seluecuids sended an army to support the Aotolians in their revolt the seluecuid army was slaughtered, or the battle at Magnesia.
 
Ok magnesia, that was a nice victory for rome. an idea for weakining rome let pergamum ally with the Seleucids instead of rome.
 
The problem for the Seleucids here is that they had already lost to the Romans some decades before and in the meantime the Romans had only gotten stronger while the Seleucids had weakened...

I dunno; they seem to have bounced back under this king; after all, he almost overran Egypt.
 

Typo

Banned
I think that's more because the Ptolemies of the era were already seriously weakened, both by internal strife and by the loss of territory in previous wars against the Seleucids.
 
I think that's more because the Ptolemies of the era were already seriously weakened, both by internal strife and by the loss of territory in previous wars against the Seleucids.​

A win is a win, Egypt was the breadbasket of the midd-east at the time & very wealthy. Takeing & holding egypt would give Seleucids a lot of money and renew their confidence.

They could field a bigger army too so individual Roman superiority wouldn’t matter even the best solders die when surrounded and hacked to bits by a mob.

 
I think that's more because the Ptolemies of the era were already seriously weakened, both by internal strife and by the loss of territory in previous wars against the Seleucids.

Sure, the Ptolemies had been weakened by internal fighting; but IMO there's a tendency to assume that the Hellenistic kingdoms were passively waiting around to get inveitably conquered by Rome, when they had ups and downs in terms of their powre.
 
Sure, the Ptolemies had been weakened by internal fighting; but IMO there's a tendency to assume that the Hellenistic kingdoms were passively waiting around to get inveitably conquered by Rome, when they had ups and downs in terms of their powre.

Thats right in 168BC the Seleucids would still be capable of fielding an effective military force, As long as they didn’t rely too heavily on the old hoplite tactics which were petty out-dated. And instead adopted a blend of the Roman/Parthian models.

Combining cataphract’s with Roman style-infantry would be very formidable.
 

Typo

Banned
A win is a win, Egypt was the breadbasket of the midd-east at the time & very wealthy. Takeing & holding egypt would give Seleucids a lot of money and renew their confidence.
They could field a bigger army too so individual Roman superiority wouldn’t matter even the best solders die when surrounded and hacked to bits by a mob.
The point is an defeating the Egyptians is not an indication that they will do well against Rome.

And the Hellenistic powers always had the weakness of over-reliance on its Greco-Macedonian population for military manpower, unlike Rome, which used non-citizen/non Italian troops far more.
 
The point is an defeating the Egyptians is not an indication that they will do well against Rome.

And the Hellenistic powers always had the weakness of over-reliance on its Greco-Macedonian population for military manpower, unlike Rome, which used non-citizen/non Italian troops far more.

Conquering Egypt would have given the Seleucids much stronger position (assuming it doesn’t rebel). And there’s no inherent reason a Seleucid army can’t defeat a roman one.

As for the Seleucid being over-reliant on its Greco-Macedonian manpower I don’t think this would be a serious problem the Greco-Macedonian’s may have be overlords/officer class. But the vast majority of the rank and file Seleucid army would have been hellenized easterners.

The Seleucids were a Greco-Persian empire not a Greco-Macedonian one. they had to adapt to local ways just as they tried to hellenize the locals & they had to use local manpower for the bulk of their army.

Otherwise the Selecid empire wouldnt have lasted a generation.
 
Top