WI: Romans Lose Battle of Pydna

So I was thinking about this today after finishing "Taken At The Flood" By Robin Waterfield (great book btw on the Roman conquest of Greece). What if Perseus had won the battle of Pydna decisively? He never wanted the war in the first place (despite what pro-Roman sources would have you believe, it was clearly the Romans who wanted the war, not Perseus), so I can see him trying to work out some sort of peace. Now any peace is not going to be very long lasting-it might at most last the rest of Perseus's reign (though that's unlikely IMO), if he plays a good client of Rome. Eventually though, Rome will prevail in the medium run.

However, the war would likely drag on a little bit before some sort of peace is reached. And this is why I really like this POD-by extending the war, it gives Antiochus IV the breathing space to invade and conquer Egypt, like he was poised to do in 168 before Gaius Laenas famously drew a circle around him and threatened him with war if he didn't pull back. Since that was (likely) after Pydna, and since Antiochus likely tried this stunt only because Rome was distracted, here he could press on and take over Egypt.


So what effect does this have on the future of Greece and the near east? A resurgent Seleucid Empire would be nice.
 
A resurgent Seleucid Empire would be nice.

Neil Young famously said, "It's better to burn out than to fade away"...
Your scenario sounds more glorious than the OTL downhill trajectory of the Seleucids having their butts kicked by the Maccabees, civil war, and general decay that plagued them in their last full century of existence before their collapse and irrelevance by the early years of the 1st C. BC.

Whatever Perseus does, independent Macedonia's days are numbered, of course.
 
Thumbs up for Macedonians (both Antigonid and Seleucid), but...

1. The battle should have taken place in more favorable area than outskirts of Pydna.

2. The Third Macedonian War would last a bit longer - up to one year or so - until the decisive victory of Romans in the next battle (I suppose there's only one POD).

2. Probably some minor states/tribes would side with Macedonia, maybe Orestis would be re-integrated with the rest of the kingdom. But we still need to remember about situation mentioned above (point 2.)

3. As for Antiochus IV and his Egypt campaign - no theatre of "Days of Eleusis" but the Roman policy would merely be postponed. It would be (a bit) harder for Romans to destroy new Seleucid (Syrian-Egyptian) empire, but still more than doable (with Demetrius held as a hostage and lower, but still a high probability of Maccabean revolt). We need to remember Antiochus died in 164, and those four years are a little amount of time to change the history - assuming Antiochus did not know what we know...
 
3. As for Antiochus IV and his Egypt campaign - no theatre of "Days of Eleusis" but the Roman policy would merely be postponed. It would be (a bit) harder for Romans to destroy new Seleucid (Syrian-Egyptian) empire, but still more than doable (with Demetrius held as a hostage and lower, but still a high probability of Maccabean revolt). We need to remember Antiochus died in 164, and those four years are a little amount of time to change the history - assuming Antiochus did not know what we know...
Antiochus died in 164 under highly unusual circumstances. There's zero reason to assume he would do so here.

Also, I am going to go against the grain here and say a Roman conquest of the Seleucids was far from inevitable, even after the defeat of Antiochus III. Mostly because it wasn't really the Romans that destroyed the Seleucids, but their utter failure to combat the Parthian threat successfully after Antiochus III. The Romans had little interest in destroying the Seleucids, or really in extending direct rule into Asia-they were more than happy with a policy of remote control. It should be noted that aside from expanding into asia Minor and Egypt, the Romans did not care what the Seleucids did, at least at this point (only when the Seleucids became far weaker and were incapable of even holding Mesopotamia).
 
Antiochus died in 164 under highly unusual circumstances. There's zero reason to assume he would do so here.

True, but that's another POD and if we do a 'wiffing' on that, we need to back it with a serious reason.

I've read about two causes of dath:

1. He died as a robber, like his father, trying to get 'easy money' to balance state budget (assuming he DID conquer Egypt he would not need to do so)

2. It was some years ago, but I recall W.W.Tarn wrote he probably died of some lung - or something like that - ilness - in that case there is no chance of POD.
 
Also, I am going to go against the grain here and say a Roman conquest of the Seleucids was far from inevitable, even after the defeat of Antiochus III. Mostly because it wasn't really the Romans that destroyed the Seleucids, but their utter failure to combat the Parthian threat successfully after Antiochus III. The Romans had little interest in destroying the Seleucids, or really in extending direct rule into Asia-they were more than happy with a policy of remote control. It should be noted that aside from expanding into asia Minor and Egypt, the Romans did not care what the Seleucids did, at least at this point (only when the Seleucids became far weaker and were incapable of even holding Mesopotamia).

True, Romans (during the republic) were not interested in direct rule over East (due to lack of sufficient number of people suitable for administrative purposes), and it took them some time to turn vassal states/regions into provincies (like Cyrenaica - about 20 years), but they did great with vassal states system (like they did in Italy until I. BC).

I cannot agree Romans had no interest in destroying the Seleucids. They did not want to turn Syria into a province too soon, but were more than happy to keep it in unstability, as a small country on the edge of anarchy, with no political meaning at all. They DID CARE about Seleucids, like any other vassal state, keeping it under control and not able to act.

1. They did make Seleucids pay an enormous tribute that had to destroy their economy for decades, making them unable to resist any other enemy (Parthians have grown rapidly between 185 and 165, and only about that last date Seleucids were able to react).

2. After Apamea (188 BC) Seleucids (although they retained the core of empire - lands of Cilicia, Syria, Judea, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia, Media and Babylonia) were just a vassal state, without a political meaning. The conquest of Egypt COULD change that, COULD gave the Seleucids a new quality. But it's not quite sure it WOULD'VE cause it.

3. Romans did help Demetrios to start a political crisis within the kingdom, as they did with other usurpers.

Turning Syria into province would be unneccesary for Romans in II BC, but they did it in 64, when they decided that direct rule was cheaper than anarchy.



I'm a huge fan of Seleucids, and I do see some possibilities. I think the 168 really could be the turning point...
But we do need stick to the fact Romans were vety very strong, unlike their rivals.

Unfortunately the strongest enemy of Rome - the Carthage - was among the first ones that were defeated (after 60 years of fighting).

But Seleucid Empire did not have ability to raise a second army after they lost the main battle. The conquest of Egypt would probably give them that ability (enough resources - money, men) to do so, although on a limited scale
 
Last edited:
Top