WI Macedonians win battle of Pydna in 168 BC?

In 22 June 168 Romans under the command of consul Aemilius Paulus clashed with Macedonians under King Perseus in the battle of Pydna.
The two armies appear quite evenly matched in numbers. The Romans had 29,000 men, of which 24,500 were infantry, including two legions (approximate strength 15.000 foot and horse). The Macedonians had 44,000 soldiers, of which 21,000 were phalangites. The cavalry forces were roughly equal, about 4,000 each. Macedonians advanced fast towards the Roman Legions and Consul Paulus was alarmed as he saw a wall of spears running towards his army Romans tried to beat down the enemy pikes or hack off their points, but with little success and were beaten back. Paulus thought of retreating but a sudden move from tribune C. Nasika who broke away from formation (it was his own initiative) with his cavalry and outflanked Macedonian Phalanx encouraged him to continue the battle and eventually win it...
WI Aemilius Paulus losted cmpletely his nerve and retreated and left Macedonians as victors? Could Rome returned and challenged him again? How is this altering History? Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
In the medium term, it would probably not make a big difference. Rome lost battles, but rarely conflicts, and the fundamentals of recruitment and political structure and culture still favour them.

In the short term, though, it is quite possible the Macedonian war will be abandoned and Greece stay outside the Roman ambit for long enough to also abort the Asian inheritance. That will have major butterflies flapping down the line.
 
In the medium term, it would probably not make a big difference. Rome lost battles, but rarely conflicts, and the fundamentals of recruitment and political structure and culture still favour them.

In the short term, though, it is quite possible the Macedonian war will be abandoned and Greece stay outside the Roman ambit for long enough to also abort the Asian inheritance. That will have major butterflies flapping down the line.

A potential Macedonian win in Pydna could have given Perseus enough time to forge alliances with the rest of Greeks in order to contain Roman "aggression" in case Romans strike back...
 
A potential Macedonian win in Pydna could have given Perseus enough time to forge alliances with the rest of Greeks in order to contain Roman "aggression" in case Romans strike back...

Yes, but for how long? Perseus is going to die, lose a war, or be deposed one day. his successor may or may not be his equal. The Roman republic with its huge manpower reservoir and war-hungry aristocracy will still be there. Between the end of the Second Punic War and the rise of the Sassanid dynasty, I don't think there is anyone who could realistically defeat Rome. Hinder, delay, divert, yes, but not decisively defeat.
 
In the long term, the result is inevitable. The Roman Republic may lose the battle, but it cannot lose the war. What may occur is temporary Roman withdrawal from Hellenic affairs, at most, but the end result will be the same. The Roman supremacy in manpower, resources, and, most importantly, the political will among the senatorial aristocracy to fight was simply too great for Macedon to withstand. The war may become larger and longer, but the end result of the conflict isn’t in doubt.

In the short term, what may well happen is that Perseus will be able to solidify his “royal coalition” with Antiochus IV Ephiphanes (although this is doubtful) and the other minor Hellenistic dynasts, as well as continuing to build up support in Greece proper. What may well happen is a larger war in the Hellenistic East, ranging Rome, Pergamon and Rhodes (with possibly the Ptolemaic empire) against Macedon, the Seleucid Empire, and possibly other minor kingdoms, a sort of combination of the Syrian war of 192-188 BC the Macedonian war, and the later war of 146 BC.

Its quite an interesting scenario actually.


Between the end of the Second Punic War and the rise of the Sassanid dynasty, I don't think there is anyone who could realistically defeat Rome. Hinder, delay, divert, yes, but not decisively defeat.

Even the Sassanians could never have entirely defeated the Roman Empire. They may well have been able to seize control of the Roman Near East, and defeat the Roman armies in the East, but the Roman advantage in population, and consequently manpower was simply too great.
 
Looking at the political situation at this time, Macedon would have to fight against the Pergame, Rhodes and Roman Fleet, in any case if he want ally with the Seleucids he will have to defeat quickly Pergame to get link with the seleucid reinforcements.

-168.jpg

-168.jpg
 
Looking at the political situation at this time, Macedon would have to fight against the Pergame, Rhodes and Roman Fleet, in any case if he want ally with the Seleucids he will have to defeat quickly Pergame to get link with the seleucid reinforcements.

Not exactly. Eumenes II of Pergamon fell out of favor with Rome when the Republic suspected him of conspiring with Perseus. The Romans even made an attempt to suborn his brother, Attalus II as a pretender to the Pergamene throne. We might see Eumenes II deciding to ally with Perseus as a last resort, although this would be unlikely.
 
How about an alliance between Perseus and Egypt? If he tried hard he could include Seleucids too in the alliance... Though including Seleucids and Ptolemaic Egypt in an alliance would be extremely difficult i guess...
 
How about an alliance between Perseus and Egypt? If he tried hard he could include Seleucids too in the alliance... Though including Seleucids and Ptolemaic Egypt in an alliance would be extremely difficult i guess...
Adding Egypt to the equation could be interesting, but I doubt that this would help Perseus out much. The Egyptian political scene is facing a fair bit of intrigue, even if that is handwaved away I don't see the Ptolemies being very useful allies. But the fact is that Egypt is currently divided primarily between two brothers, Ptolemy VI and VIII, and both of them seem to have been on good terms with rome (IOTL Ptolemy VI went to rome and received the backing of the senate, while Ptolemy VIII for his part was friendly with rome, to the point where IIRC he bequeathed Cyrenaica to the republic). Long story short, Egypt probably is incapable of backing Perseus, and most likely lacks the will to do so.

In the long run, I think the romans win out in Greece, and sooner rather than later. The greeks are too divided, rome was too much potential for expansion, and the hellenistic phalanx is to cumbersome in the face of late-republican roman armies.
 
Adding Egypt to the equation could be interesting, but I doubt that this would help Perseus out much. The Egyptian political scene is facing a fair bit of intrigue, even if that is handwaved away I don't see the Ptolemies being very useful allies. But the fact is that Egypt is currently divided primarily between two brothers, Ptolemy VI and VIII, and both of them seem to have been on good terms with rome (IOTL Ptolemy VI went to rome and received the backing of the senate, while Ptolemy VIII for his part was friendly with rome, to the point where IIRC he bequeathed Cyrenaica to the republic). Long story short, Egypt probably is incapable of backing Perseus, and most likely lacks the will to do so.

Not to mention the fact that Rome has just saved the Ptolemaic Empire from conquest by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the infamous "Day of Eleusis". The Ptolemies were always the major Hellenistic power most friendly with Rome, so its dubious that they would risk everything in allying themselves to Perseus.

The ramifications of an alliance between Macedon, Pergamum, and the Seleucid Empire in the aftermath of a Macedonian victory at Pydna are quite interesting. In all probability Rome will still emerge victorious, but it would change the entire historical developement of the Roman empire in the eastern Mediterranean basin.
 
The more interesting possibility is if the Romans are defeated at Magnesia in 190 B.C. and Antiochus III cobbles together a near-Alexandrian empire as a result.

Without much of the wealth of the East siphoned off to Rome as a result of defeat, fuelling the Roman aristocratic desire for Oriental riches, and the money and the manpower concentrated instead in the hands of an old-fashioned Oriental Despot, the Seleucid domain (if it doesn't get bogged down in Greek squabbles or revolts all over the unwieldy empire) could mount a challenge to the Roman state for a while. Even in this scenario, I think the Seleucids' best bet would be to invade Italy, Pyrrhus-style, and hope various allies and proxies can destablise the Roman state enough for it to dissolve into its constituent pieces. I don't hold out much hope of this happening; and you can argue why would the Seleucids even bother anyway? Their focus was the 'centre' not the 'far west' of the Oikoumene...

As for Perseus, in 168 B.C., I'd love to think of a scenario where he could use clever plotting and divide and rule to break up the Roman Republic - but I can't because it just seems so unlikely and so fanciful. As another poster has pointed out, with good advice, and clever geopolitical manoeuvring, he could check the Republic for the rest of his life, maybe even his son's - but then what happens when an incompetent successor comes to the throne of Macedon? Something very like what happened IOTL I suspect...
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I highly doubt there would be any withdrawal of Rome from Hellenic affairs on account of a defeat. As has been stated, Rome often lost battles, but it never lost wars. Such a defeat would merely fill them with a desire to seek revenge in order to save face, and countless senators would have fervently desired to command the army that would seek such vengeance, as it would add to their own glory and hence political power.

The only consequence of this POD would be that Rome raises another army, comes back, and fights again. If it loses again, read the previous sentence over again. Keep repeating until Rome wins.
 
Rome had vast reserves of manpower, but the traditional and favoured source of its armies, being the citizen small landowners, was beginning to dry up in this period. Extended military service after the Second Punic War would force soldiers to leave their lands for years at a time. With the fields untended, the patriotic obligation would force soldiers into debt, and their lands confiscated by the time they returned, and sent them to try and make a living in the cities. Until the Marian Reforms at the end of the Second Century BCE, senators would have rely on urban poor in addition to the dwindeling number of smallholders, and equip them out of their own pockets. Rome at this period was lucky in some of it's generals, because if the Macedonians or the Seleucids had better luck against them, no amount of hastily trained urban poor or resentful Socii troops would have been of much use against the Diadochi states without the leadership of generals the calibre of the Scipiones, Lucius Mummius, or Quintus Caecilius Metellus.
 
Last edited:
As for the discussion of an "incompetent successor" to Perseus, Perseus himself was pretty damn incompetent. Instead of Perseus, have a Perseus* get raised to the Macedonian throne who is willing to deal with the other Diadochi, and you will get Rome to conquer Macedon 20 years later. But you might save the other Diadochi and allow them to act as a bulwark when Rome has to pause during the crises of the late second and early first centuries BC.
 
I rather think that Kingdom of Macedon in the reign of Perseus was living on borrowed time. The Seleucid Empire and the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt, being further from Rome, much larger in terms of territory, far richer and more populous than the Hellenistic states in eastern Europe or Anatolia, concievibly have the best chances to avert their destruction by Rome in the long-term. In the previous century, alot of people from Greece and Macedon had emigrated to Asia and Egypt in the decades following Alexander's conquests. Macedon made up the shortfall in its citizen body by recruiting Illyrian and Thracian migrants whom originally fled from the Celtic invasions that occured between 281-279 BCE.
 
Last edited:
As for the discussion of an "incompetent successor" to Perseus, Perseus himself was pretty damn incompetent. Instead of Perseus, have a Perseus* get raised to the Macedonian throne who is willing to deal with the other Diadochi, and you will get Rome to conquer Macedon 20 years later. But you might save the other Diadochi and allow them to act as a bulwark when Rome has to pause during the crises of the late second and early first centuries BC.

All this POD needs is a really competent ruler who could unite all the Hellenistic Kingdoms against Rome... The crucial question though is who is this ruler???
 
All this POD needs is a really competent ruler who could unite all the Hellenistic Kingdoms against Rome... The crucial question though is who is this ruler???
An entirely reunited Hellenistic world is probably too much to ask for after the defeat of Antigonus at Ipsus, and arguably even this is too late. Maybe a union of a few kingdoms is possible (though Rome isnt going to like this), and maybe a surviving Antigonid state in Anatolia is possible. But once Antigonus dies at Ipsus, the last realistic hope for a united successor's empire is a foregone conclusion.
 
The nearest any Hellenistic monarch ever came to re-uniting the entire Alexandrine empire was in 168 BC, when Antiochus IV Epiphanes had conquered the entirey of the Ptolemaic Empire, with only Alexandria holding out. However, Antiochus was halted at the gates of Alexandria by Popillius Lænas, the Roman envoy, and Rome was close to defeating the Macedonians at Pydna, so it is clearly too late. The only other possible situation was in 145 BC, when Ptolemy VI Philometor was offered the Seleucid crown after the death of Alexander Balas, but turned it down in favor Demetrius II Nicator, and died soon afterwards.
 
Top