Would Alexander the Great Have Performed Better than Antiochus?

Would Alexander the Great Have Performed Better than Antiochus?

  • Alexander would of performed far better

    Votes: 15 68.2%
  • Alexander would of performed somewhat better

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Alexander would of performed about the same

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Alexander would of performed somewhat worse

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • Alexander would of performed far worse

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    22
Would Alexander the Great Have Performed Better than Antiochus?

Just finished reading Antiochus the Great by Michael Taylor which covers the interesting life of Seleucid King Antiochus III. Antiochus largely based himself on his Macedonian ancestor Alexander the Great and sought to expand his empire in a similar manner. During his thirty six year reign, Antiochus fought numerous campaigns to varying success and was ultimately defeated by the Romans.

My question is would Alexander the Great have performed better in Antiochus' place? Would he have been able to effectively deal with the his numerous foes: Molon of Media, Achaeus of Sardis, Bactrians, Egyptians and Romans? Or instead do you think Antiochus performed about as best that can be expected and Alexander would of only achieved similar results.

220px-225fkr.jpg

Seleucid Kingdom at the time of Antiochus' accession to the throne.

220px-194fkr.JPG

Seleucid Kingdom after Antiochus' the wars of expansion


250px-Treaty_of_Apamea.png

Lost territory after Treaty of Apamea
 
Last edited:
Very hard to say. Antiochus was operating in a different time against much more powerful adversaries. I do however believe that the Macedonian system created by Alexander was capable, on the right terrain, of defeating the Romans. The Phalanx on flat ground with flank protection proved capable of holding the Roman Legions in place. With sufficient elite cavalry, which Alexander had, and Antiochus and Epirus didn't, victory would have been possible. The Macendonian phalanx was undone by either terrain or a lack of quality cavalry. Although Antiochus handled his cavalry poorly at Magnesia. And for that reason Alex gets the nod.
 
Very hard to say. Antiochus was operating in a different time against much more powerful adversaries. I do however believe that the Macedonian system created by Alexander was capable, on the right terrain, of defeating the Romans. The Phalanx on flat ground with flank protection proved capable of holding the Roman Legions in place. With sufficient elite cavalry, which Alexander had, and Antiochus and Epirus didn't, victory would have been possible. The Macendonian phalanx was undone by either terrain or a lack of quality cavalry. Although Antiochus handled his cavalry poorly at Magnesia. And for that reason Alex gets the nod.

IIRC, besides the cavalry, Alexander had elite infantry "striking force" ("Silver shields"?) that could attack outside of phalanx formation. These troops are seemingly missing in the armies of his successors.
 
IIRC, besides the cavalry, Alexander had elite infantry "striking force" ("Silver shields"?) that could attack outside of phalanx formation. These troops are seemingly missing in the armies of his successors.
I don't think you can say that; if you look at the order of battle Livy gives for Magnesia, for example, the troops of the pike phalanx only account for 16,000 out of well over 50,000 men. All the Successor states retained large forces of non phalanx infantry, as well as excellent cavalry. In fact, you could argue that the cavalry at Magnesia was too good, as they broke the infantry on the Roman left and chased them all the way to their camp, preventing them from playing any further part in the battle. Really, I have to chalk up Rome's success against Antiochus to simple contingency. He did not use the excellent cavalry at his disposal in the best way, the scythed chariots were not well handled, the war elephants were not optimally deployed, his line was too long for there to be any coordination between the wings.
 
Top