WI: Antiochus III wins the Battle of Magnesia?

In 190 BC, after being expelled from Greece, Antiochus III met the consular Roman army at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC. The Seleucids outnumbered the Romans by a margin of 2;1, according to some sources, and Antiochus had around 54 elephants and a significant number of war chariots. Despite this, the flexible manipular formation of the Romans totally destroyed Antiochus' army while Antiochus was on the Seleucid right flank attacking the Romans, and Antiochus had to retreat, subsequently abandoning Asia Minor in the Treaty of Apamea. What if Antiochus had won the battle and totally annihilated the Romans? Will they try again? Do the Seleucids have a chance? What happens in the east?
 
What the phalanx had to do with losing the battle? Eumenes turned the Seleucid left flank thanks to the disarray caused to it by their own scythed chariots, Antiochus on the right Seleucid flank turned the Romans opposite him but instead of wheeling to hit their center pursued them to their camp and then lost his time there... cavalry can't attack fortifications. At the same time the supposedly incapable phalanx kept her ground while being attacked both frontaly and by Eumenes on flank and lost cohesion only when the elephants Antiochus had put between her taxeis rampaged.

Hannibal's supposed quip the Antiochus deployment was quite enough for the Romans no matter how greedy they were was not much off the mark. Just remove the chariots and put the elephants at the flanks were they were supposed to be and the Seleucids turn BOTH Roman flanks. Which gives every prospect for a crushing Roman/Pergamene defeat. Now the Romans could replace the losses if they are determined to continue the war but this won't be happening overnight while Antiochus probably has enough time to destroy Pergamus in the aftermath of the battle.
 
Top