WI Seleucids engage to war with Rome in 169 BC?

In 168 BC Antiochus IV of Seleucids took Ptolemy VI (who was his nephew) under his guardianship, giving him effective control of Egypt. However, this was unacceptable to the people of Alexandria who responded by proclaiming Ptolemy VIII Physcon as sole king. Antiochus besieged Alexandria but he was unable to cut communications to the city and he also needed to deal with a revolt in Judaea so, at the end of 169, he withdrew his army. In his absence, Ptolemy VI and his brother were reconciled. Antiochus, angered at his loss of control over the king, invaded again. The Egyptians sent to Rome asking for help and the Senate despatched Consul Gaius Popillius Laenas to Alexandria. Meanwhile, Antiochus had seized Cyprus and Memphis and was marching on Alexandria. At Eleusis, on the outskirts of the capital, he met Popilius Laenas, with whom he had been friends during his stay in Rome.On being confronted with the Roman demands that he abort his attack on Alexandria, Antiochus played for time; Popillius Laenas is supposed to have drawn a circle around the king in the sand with his cane, and ordered him not to move out of it until a firm answer had been given. The Syrians withdrew under diplomatic pressure from Rome...
WI Antiochus in an arrogant move defied Rome and attacked Alexandria? What is Rome's reaction to that? How is this altering History? Any thoughts?
 
Could the Seleucid phalanx defeat an early Roman Legion in 169 BC? Would a potential Roman defeat shattered Roman Republic?
 

Typo

Banned
Seleucid almost certainly lose, they have already lost one war against Rome, and probably will again given the loss of anatolia and the need to fight in Egypt at the same time.

At this point Roman hegemony was probably inevitable.
 

Typo

Banned
Post-Alexander Hellenistic armies, including the Seleucids always lacked horses. I believe while Alexander had nearly 1/4 of his army mounted, the successor states would have around 1/10. Elephants and chariots, while impressive, didn't do any of the Hellenistic powers any more good than they did the Persians.
 
Post-Alexander Hellenistic armies, including the Seleucids always lacked horses. I believe while Alexander had nearly 1/4 of his army mounted, the successor states would have around 1/10. Elephants and chariots, while impressive, didn't do any of the Hellenistic powers any more good than they did the Persians.

The Persian and Bactrian cavlaries were not that bad the Persian Kings did much to strenghten the cavlary there were never as good as the Scythians or Sarmatians but still quite good.
 
Hellenistic Phalanx was quite effective against early Roman Legions... Dont forget that in the battle of Pydna Consul Aemilus Paulus was surprised and almost scared when he faced Macedonian phalanxes in this battle in 168 BC... All he got to see was a large wall of spears running towards his Legions... It was only that his cavalry Tribune Cornelius Nasika that saved him by breaking away from formation and attacked Macedonian flank...
I think that Romans could beat Seleucids only if they had sufficient cavalry with them...
 
Top