One of my favourite Roman legends is that of Antiochus' son Antichous IV's attempted invasion of Egypt, which was stopped when he was confronted by the Roman senator Gaius Popilius Laenas who had been sent as an envoy by the senate and did not have an army. According to Livy, Popilius handed Antiochus a decree from the senate and then drew a circle in the sand around Antiochus and said he had to issue a reply before stepping out of it. Some speculate that this is the origin for the term "drawing a line in the sand". Either way, Antiochos agreed to the terms of the senate, withdrew from Egypt and demonstrated that Rome could exert influence solely through using the threat of its military power.
@@freddekl1102 I heard that the Roman envoy had drawn a circle around the king and said an answer was needed before the king stepped outside the circle. But there are always many stories to every incident and as time goes by they chang and get added too, etc. I'm sure someone somewhere in the history of man, drew a line in the sand long before it happened at the Alamo. And who is to say it was actually said there? It is recorded as legend, no where is it written down.
Rome's greatest generation. Survived the Hannibalic War and was apart of the rapid expansion of the Republic into the Greek East, taking on powerful and established superpowers like the Antigonids, Seleucids, and Greek confederations.
gabriel belmont well the lack of knowledge and a suitable system to controll an Empire was something to be seen in Greek Empires. Seleucids shrinked so fast
A shockingly overlooked battle that opened the gates of the East and its rich lands to the Romans, money which would provide the financial backbone of the Empire. The world would be a very different place if Antiochus had beaten the Romans here.
Podcast_Anon That is a logic solution and I myself always look at such things this was but remmeber three defeats Rome suffered from the hand of the Carthaginians. It is said that Rome lost 25% of engire male population in the battle of cannae(70 000) and still won the war. Therefore this defeat could stop them but we cant say that for sure ;)
If Antiochos has won this battle, the Romans would have just come back the next year with another army and a better general. And again and again until victory. They are Romans of the Republican era, ask Hannibal about them giving up and accepting peace terms haha.
A shallow viewpoint that does not have any basis in most of Rome's history. Rome didn't give up against Hannibal because it was fighting for its very survival, and more importantly the logistics of raising more legions was easy due to fighting in Italy itself. Losing a 50,000 man army in Asia Minor (Which would have doomed regional allies like Pergamon) would have been much more difficult and less incentivized (See Rome's wars with Mithradates VI of Pontus, Parthians, Dacians, Germanic tribes, Julius Caesars disastrous British invasion). Thats not to say that Rome would never try to push east again, but Rome was not some horde of endlessly respawning army stacks immune to supply lines and political considerations like a Goddamn Total War game.
Romans suffered several defeats in Asia. What they simply did is to return with a better army a year later, or to wait for the death of the enemy and insert themself in the battle for the succession. It's the advantage of having an organized state structure not depending on the presence of a single strong personality.
I think this treaty was informed by the peace after the first Punic war. Carthaginians were not limited in their advance in Spain and Africa, became too strong and the second war happened. Rome learned that lesson.
@Omoxi Imis Excuse me, you forget simple principle Art of War that superior military power is not enough to win the war. Enemy defeated in the battle have to stop fight, ask for peace, capitulate or somehow withdraw from war. When he does not do that, then military superior side can not win the war. You can won many battles, but finally lost the war. You can be defeated in many battles and won the war. This was case Rome vs Carthage in Second Punic War or opposite case Rome vs German tribes east of Rhine. Superior military power is not enough to score victory in the war. Enemy defeated in the battle should make possible to get victory for winners. This mean defeated power allow other power get victory.
@maciejl20 Yes, that was a case. Seleucid weak inside power can not lost battles and still wage war against stubborn Rome. Defeated in battlefield Seleucid lost heart to continue the war and this allow achieve victory for Rome.
@maciejl20 I mean it practically pushed the Seleucid empire into collapse. It just needed a little more push to put them in the brink of collapse, split them to few smaller kingdoms which will became Rome vassals etc" i mean rome did. Most Of Anatolia became roman puppets and the Seleucid empire never recovered.
Believe it or not, I was telling my friend about it the other day - that is the problem with the education system, we are not taught to think like that. And I was telling him about exactly that as an example.
I’m here to watch this video because I just learned it from a different source and was interested in this oh so important battle..I haven’t seen it yet..but it seems crazy that Seleucus( or I guess Antiochus) didnt win with Hannibal on his side..I’m guessing “the great” didnt listen to Hannibal and suffered..lets find out!!
As promised, we are remaking older documentaries to be on par with our current standards. Don't worry, the new one should be released on Sunday. :-) You can support our work via Patreon: www.patreon.com/KingsandGenerals or Paypal: paypal.me/kingsandgenerals
Just a heads up mate, at 1:33 the narrator's voice is cut off when saying 'One of Alexander's Generals managed to found' and instead he says ' One of Alexander's managed to found'. Great work though, enjoying the content.
Thanks for the wonderful documentary, I really love your videos. Unfotunately, I dont have the money to support your patreon, because I'm a broke 17 yrs old.
Great video, but there is a mistake on the map... After the battle at Cynos Kefales, Rome pushed Macedonia out of Thessaly and generally of all its positions gained by Phillip II, in South Greece. Even the region of Orestis in western Macedonia declared independent. That was inslulting for the Macedonian kings as this region with the city of Argos Orestikon was considered the crandle of the Argead dynasty who built Macedonia in the past. So the political vacuum that Antiochos found and tried to exploit was the independent Thessaly and Euboia (and not Macedonian possesions anymore as depicted on the map in this video at the time Antiochos arrived in Greece).
I love the Seleucids man, they're the most interesting empire to me. Their east meets west fusion of art, religion and culture is fascinating. Look at the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms that were spawned from them for instance.
Corrider 11- I agree 100%. Arabia, Carthage, and Rome would have been invaded if he hadn’t died. And his Heir to throne probably would’ve attacked India again.
Hi guys thank you for all of your efforts its been fun to watch.Just wanted to give extra information.Magnesia city is in Aydın not Manisa.I can say it is closer to Ephesos(in a city called Selcuk between Aydin and İzmir provinces) than it is to Sardes(in a city called Salihli belonging to Manisa province but really close to the other side of the İzmir border) just to give you guys the idea.Just trying to add little extra i hope you guys keep enjoying what you are doing:)
I remember reading somewhere that as the Seleucid phalanx retreated, it formed pike squares and was in good order until the elephants, positioned in the center of the squares, panicked and caused the formations to break. If they hadn't, I imagine Antiochus might have been able to extricate the core of his army mostly intact, and might have been granted a reprieve to try again later.
Antiochos restored the Seleucid Empire in a way no other seleucid king managed since Seleukos and showed great energy and administrative capabilities... It's not quite fair to just judge him on his military defeats against the romans when so many established powers lost against them at the time. Antiochos was not a military genius and unfortunately for him couldn't find a solution to the problems the Empire faced every succession but given the situation when he came to power and what he's achieved, he certainly ranks amongst one of the greatest hellenic kings. but anyway, great video! It might have been interesting to mention how the romans learned how to deal with elephants during the punic wars and how the elephants retreat caused disruption in the seleucid phalanx at the beginning of the battle.
YourNemesis23 Antiochus lost the battle of Raphia and made peace with Ptolemy IV of Egypt. He used the following years to reform his heavy cavalry and won the next war against Egypt. He was quite descent commander until he moved to Greece. There he fell in love with a much younger lady and became careless. His mind was elsewhere and that is why, he made some very stupid mistakes. Even if he was not a military genius, he had Hannibal around him for a while. I'm pretty sure, he'd ask him, how the vast Roman army was defeated at Cannae and how Scipio managed to defeat Hannibal at Zama. But instead of learning from the good and the bad decisions of Hannibal, Antiochus repeated his mistake and did not used the elephants properly. On the top of that, he used all of his remaining heavy cavalry and some other troops to chase the broken soldiers of the Roman left flank and to capture their camp, leaving the flanks of his phalanx troops unprotected. Obviously, he was thinking about the young lady at that time - there is no other explanation! :-) I apologise for my English, I know it is not 100% correct. Peace! :-)
Veni, Vidi, Vici! I hope that such high quality material continues to exist from this fantastic channel. I am impressed with the improvements that you have made, though I still love the original version.
Even if this was a remake of an older vid, it's still the first one I watched from you guys and is thus my favorite, even if the ending makes me sad. It got me hooked on this era and I binged all the Diadochi content, which has become my favs too, including the podcast. Now I see you are making a new Diadochi series, which is amazing, but I'll wait until it's finished.
Thank you very much for remaking old content! I was very interested in the previous videos but as a non-native english speaker the previous narrator (the one with the strong accent) made it very difficult to understand some parts (no offense for the accent guy =P).
I'm so proud of the progress Kings and Generals has made throughout the year. If I weren't such a poor bastard I'd definetely support your channel on patreon.
The Phalanx was one of the most effective military formation if done correctly (High risk, high reward). What baffles me the most is.. The Greek states had plenty of years to at least revolutionize the Phalanx, they had the time to make it less risky and yet, the main weakness was still there. It seems that Alexander was the only one (I might be wrong of course) who at least tried to make it a bit flexible by extending and bending his extreme left or right flanks . For example in Gaugamela, he made a semi arc in his extreme left to avoid being out-flanked and even had reserve phalanx at the rear.
I concur wholeheartedly. It became more of an attack based infantry unit with the inclusion of longer sarissas and was used to essentially steamroll opposition. This was counter to what Phillip and Alexander utilised it for which was the classic "hammer and anvil" tactic. Both Phil and Alex used the phalanx largely to pin the enemy infantry in place whilst more maneuverable units like cavalry, hypaspists et al. were used to attack the weak points of the enemy army. Then the rout would begin and THEN the phalanx would proceed to steamroll the enemy. Both Cynoscephalae and Pydna were evidence that it was the phalanx that lead the attack, and it was because of this that it was ultimately exposed but for different reasons. Cynoscephalae it was split up in wings. Phillips Vs right didn't wait for the left to form. Pydna, it chased the Romans into uneven terrain. If this was Alexander or Phillip II in each battle, both instances would not have happened. It seems like later generals (including Pyrrhus) adopted the phalanx to be THE primary attack force as opposed to be used to pin the enemy in place to allow for more flexible units and the use of COMBINED ARMS to fully take advantage of the Macedonian style of battle. If this doctrine was adhered to, I believe the Romans would have failed in their conquest of Greece. Also, in terms of this particular battle (Magnesia), by stacking elephants among the phalanx, that was another massive tactical blunder of Antiochus and that was always bound to fail. I am more than sure Hannibal would have advised against this due to his loss at Zama in 202 BC with how is hastily trained elephants only harmed his army. I also wonder how desperate Hannibal had to be to use them given he had to leave behind all of his cavalry forces when he left Italy in 203 BC. Hannibal was also unlucky at Zama. It would have been interesting to see how he employed the 4000 Macedonian phalangists that Phillip V of Macedon sent him. I think they fought in the first line, and orderly retreated when both second lines clashed. Perhaps if he employed them as a rear guard to 'about face', then he may have thwarted the returning cavalry at Zama when he was allegedly dominating the Romans when his 3rd line of veterans clashed with the newly formed single line of Romans. Even if Hannibal won at Zama, Carthage was on its knees. Carthage would have had to try and re-conquer Iberia and regain the territories it had lost. Rome had all of Italy, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily and now Iberia. Carthage would have sued for peace but on more favourable terms. Perhaps it would have better commanded Numidia after Zama under Sypahx if they won at Zama. Carthage's economy was still prosperous and maybe it could have rebuilt its navy... Hannibal would have likely become Suffet as he did in the aftermath of the Second Punic War but would have exerted more control and perhaps would have allied with Antiochus or Phillip and strategize a combined invasion of Italy a few years later. But... who knows?
@@bombasticbadassbrigade3552 I absolutely agree with you in everything and would like to add , that Romans would have failed if the Hellenic world understood what is happening , they all underestimated the Romans and they were never united ..Romans used Greeks against Greeks brilliantly they used the weakest point of the Greeks better than anyone and this is the inability to be united . ..they even controlled the sea with the help of Rhodes and what is not mentioned in the video is Eumenes and Pergamon which basically won them the battle of Magnesia
Thank you very much! :-) I am really unhappy that we have very few viewers from France. I will be very grateful if you share our videos on Napoleon. :-)
Haha you deserve more viewers that's true ! I'll share your videos for sure. Keep on producing these great contents guys ! PS: what country do you come from ?
I hereby request more Roman battles and campaign's, including early Republic history. I know you are all very busy so I won't be irritating. Damned good stuff as always.
The reality is that the greek cities/states in mainland Greece were internally deeply divided. Class warfare was a common phenomenon. The common people sided with Antiochus as a savior but the rich (especially the lords of Achean league) were backed by the Romans to hold their riches and their power... That's why they put their states in line with the Romans. Titus Livius (XXXV, 34, 3) wrote: "It is known to everybody that at the states the noblemen and all the well-established men were supporting an aliance with the Romans and they are satisfied with the current situation , but the common folk and all those that the works do not coresponds to their wills, want a general transformation."
You know, during Greek war of independence in 1821, the first phase was great success and then Greeks started a bad civil war. Then there were some successes again and went to freedom but also support from Europeans was important in the Battle of Navarino to go to freedom. Greeks had to pay for the support heavily, Greece turned into a German-ruled state with a German king Otto, and the dept of that period was repaid in full by Greece in the 1990s!
That's a human problem, not only a Greek one. Every cultural or ethnic group tends to be its' own worst enemy ... We just have the most possibilities of conflict with those that are closest to us - which tends to be other people that are much like us. Even though nationalism was a huge ideology in the last century and a great number of powers tried to unite their people under one banner, few actually managed to do so, and those that did mostly did so through brute force. The thought of a whole group of people being a team, a family even is great - but often enough there are enough opportunists or people that flat out don't care at all - and at some point you have to ask yourself the question whether the cause is worth the price you have to pay in your peoples' blood ... given that outcomes are never certain and foreign powers have all incentive to hinder unifications ...
Antiochus the third was a vainglorious cavalry commander and as i have gathered from multiple sources understandably overconfident in this battle considering the size of his forces. On a more positive note for the Seleucid right, three thousand cataphacts smashed an entire legion. I'm quite sure if Aniochus was as gifted Megas Alexandros he would have sent the romans packing.) It was said that the Seleucid Army was an extraordinary sight to behold with their exotic regalia and wide variety of units.
you guys should consider a best of: featuring the triarri or any other elite ancient units. a series including the best actions each were involved in and there roles in said actions
What I don't really understand but seems to be their strongest factor is the Romans seemed so good at recovering from devastating defeats that cripple other kingdoms/empire.
Great! this was fun to watch. The music volume was perfect this time :DDDD could perfectly hear your voice. I like that you give all the context before the battle and do not just focus on the battle but gives a more broader picture of history. Also, i think it would be really nice if you guys do your videos in series, i would love to watch what happened next after this period of time. This would be more fun than game of thrones xDD
Thank you! :-) History is nothing with context. :-) Yes, we are planning to move to a more serial release schedule. For now, we have 2 series (Napoleonic Wars and the Ottoman empire) and are planning more.
Cool story, there is a large town right outside the city of Thessaloniki called Nea Magnisia (new magnesia) and yes they originate from minor Asia from the city of Magnisia
217 BC: Antiochus III loses the Battle of Raphia by pushing too far away from thecenter to assist them. Antiochus III in 190 BC: Wanna see me do it again?
Very good video, I would appreciate if you could enable Spanish subtitles in the rest of your videos, the content is very good indeed and that is why it is valued even more. Greetings from Peru from a passionate about Ancient History.
Well, school starts in 23 minutes and I'm beginning to question whether I should be here. Then I hear Senpai Devinu's voice, and I know I made the right decision.
Your videos are best battle videos on youtube! Please make a video on the war between Seleucus I Nicator and Chandragupt Maurya (The Seleucid - Mauryan War).
What the video kind of skipped over on why the Romans easily won the Battle of Thermopylae was due to political subversion of Greece. Antiochus did not want to be seen as a tyrannical conqueror of Greece as that would throw the rest of the Greek states right back into Roman arms. He came with a limited advance force believing he could rally fellow Greeks to his cause and supplement his army from the Peloponnese. Antiochus's Seleukid army (The pronunciation is "Se-loo-kid", not "Sel-you-sid") paused at the battlefield of Cynoscephalae where the Romans had defeated the Macedonian king Phillip V earlier and found the dead still unburied. He made a magnificent funeral for the fallen Greek troops on the battlefield and made it clear that HE was the true rampart of Greece. This pompous act turned Phillip V over to the Roman side. Antiochus' decision to withdraw was due to intentional obfuscation and false reports by pro-Roman agents. The 2,000 man Roman advance force lit hundreds of fires and made a loud show of their camp to inflate their perceived size. The larger concern to Antiochus was that he believed that Phillip V had arrived with the Romans and would supplement the Roman legion with a Macedonian phalanx. He did not feel that his relatively small force could hold up against such a combined attack on the flat Thessalian plain. After this, Anitochus and his men withdrew to the island of Euboia and spent the fall and winter months in luxury at the city of Chalcis. The allure of the culture and atmosphere was strong. There was so much lack of discipline due to the relaxation and pleasurable women they kept the company of that the men's morale had withered away. Antiochus himself fell in love with a local girl. It was almost more of a spring resort than a regrouping. When the campaigning season started again, Antiochus broke off his engagement to a young woman and tried to discipline his men. Thereafter, he chose deliberately to make a defiant stand at Thermoyplae, juxtaposing the Romans as the barbarian Persian invaders. His tactics were sound and his main force was beating the Romans back. The only mistake he made was trusting the defense of the important passes with unreliable allied infantry instead of his own and did not utilize enough lines of communication to maintain contact with those isolated units. The force that Antiochus was with lacked discipline and began withdrawing believing what happened two centuries earlier would repeat despite still having an advantage. This withdrawal ironically is what got them all killed or captured. At Magnesia, Antiochus' position was sound. But he unfortunately made the same mistake he made against Ptolemy IV at Raphia. He personally commanded his right wing on an epic Alexandrian charge that sent the enemy reeling back. But he allowed himself in his confidence and blood lust to wander too far from the battlefield as his left wing was being overran by panicked animals that threw them in disarray. Once he realized his mistake and began to wheel left and counterattack the Roman center, it was too late. He won his glory but lost the battle as a result. If he had followed Alexander's example and focused on wheeling left to break the center from their flank, he might well have clutched victory from the jaws of defeat in the same Alexander had done at Gaugemela. This is one of those occasions where I really wish the opponents of Rome had succeeded. There was literally every justifiable reason for Antiochus the Great to win and unite the Hellenic world finally for the first time 140 years. Rome was like Russia, using double agents and subversive political tactics to create conflict and division politically in the lands they were invading to obfuscate the situation and took advantage of. The Romans never really respected the Greeks, believed themselves far superior while engaging in full cultural appropriation, using Greek myths for their own gods and imitated many of their customs without ever really respecting their advances in philosophy and literature. Really was not until the far later under the Emperor Hadrian that Rome ever looked back on Greece with any respect.
@@waqarsaleem8611 "Aren't Americans doing the same now, setting entire middle east on blaze while sitting thousands of miles away and are keeping up with the Kardashians? " That's not really the same thing. US is not there because they just want to troll people and want to prepare for conquest or something. If they are, they are not doing a very good job. I mean the British, Romans and Greeks would have conquered the whole region by now. Besides, why focus on Middle East? Because of oil? There is oil in other countries too like Norway and Venezuela! There are also no religious fanatics there! Africa is rich in natural resources and pretty unstable too. Why isn't US invading them? How much territory has US conquered in the last 10 years? You know, for supposed "imperalists" they kinda suck at it. Maybe they should study Caesar and learn a thing or two from him. No, the US is in the middle east because they want to destroy the fanatic terrorists who hate the west and who want to kill as many people as possible. Iraq war may be deeply unpopular now, but many people conveniently forget that it was very popular at the beginning with many European countries supporting it. And no wonder. Saddam had started 2 wars, broke international treaties, funded terrorists, and chemical bombed his own people. It's not like the Middle East was a perfectly peaceful place before 2003. You can debate how the US tactics work of course, but that is a different thing, though I would argue that the US has learned a lot since 2003 and its operations in the middle east have been much more effective.
"This is one of those occasions where I really wish the opponents of Rome had succeeded." Well, I don't really know if we over 2000 years later can really judge these things. I doubt Antiochus wanted to conquer Greece out of benevolence. I mean large part of greeks didn't even want him to come and "liberate" them. And I doubt that it ultimately mattered much to ordinary greek citizen whether a Roman or a Greek was collecting his taxes and recruiting him to fight in wars. Probably thought "different face, same BS". And it's not like the Romans were sending greeks to concentration camps or something.
Alexander would have been COMPLETELY ashamed of the Diadochi.,, He would have definetely taken on the Romans, on the flat terrain northern to Larissa and not flee to Euboia like a coward. What a shame.
It's wild to think how one battle can end an empire of such land mass, though I suppose the Seleucid Empire was never built to last such an organized and tough opponent
@@historyrepeat402 the HRE had been a loose confederation of states for a number of decades by then, one could argue it essentially died during the 30 years war, but yes, that was a momentous, "changing of the guard" esque battle
@@jonnywieger I’m not just saying this, you could make the exact same argument for the Seleucid empire, one founded on conquest and held together by conquest and convenience for local rulers. Which like the confederation of the rhine was easily organized following Seleucid loss of prestige/collapse.
So, Devin is the narrator. :-) Otherwise, the channel belongs to us. We are two friends. We do the research, we write the script, and then we create the video together. And answer the comments. :-)
@@ImperialDiecast an empire which fell apart when Alexander died, while Roman Empire lasted for thousands of eventful years and has everyone craving for it's legacy
By the time of Rome, heck, by the time of Filip II (father of Alexander the Great), Sparta had made itself irrelevant. Low birth rates and decadence made it so that they couldn't muster an army or really defend itself. It turned into a small provincial town in the Morean peninsula, only a remnant of what had once been the terror of the Greek world.
@@ajavierb2078 After the end of the 2nd punic war he became a leader in Carthage. He introduced a wide range of political and economic reforms that limited the power of the 104 and cracked down on corruption. Whilst this made Carthage rich again it upset many who lost money and power. This group appeals to Rome with the storey that Hannibal is trying to influence the other states to attack Rome and that now having this wealth Hannibal will raise new forces against them. Hannibal gets wind of this and leaves Carthage for Asia minor.
Romans at that time had great experience in dealing with these kinds of charges (right after the defeat of Carthage). If they had messed up the charge the paniced elephants could have run straight into the own phalanx and wrecked the battle-order. I guess noone wanted to give the order, since the king was out playing in the Roman camp. Looking at ancient battles so many mistakes were made because the leader was fighting on the flanks instead of commanding from the middle. Same thing happened to Rome against Hannibal.
Maybe because they were aware of the Romans easily handling elephants that are charging head on, just like they did at the battle of Zama a decade earlier.
@@ayushkumar-bg1xf not really, the selecuds used north african elephanst, I'm not a dumbass, this channel gives poor info from trashy sources i swear!, i dunno why this channel gives a bunch of lies
This was an interesting video. Always nice to know more about the conflict Roman had with the Seleucid Empire. My compliments to those who made this video a reality.
Parthians (an iranian eastern tribe) later freed Persia from Seleucid control and defeated roman expansion into middle east, romans experienced a warfare they werent used to and got destroyed at Battle of Carrhae. The battle was seen as one of the most crushing defeats in roman history. Parthians outnumbered four to one used horse archers which forced romans into an advancing testudo formation which limited their melee combat ability and Parthian cataphracts used this opportunity to charge in and inflict heavy losses, it is said a cataphract was able to kill multiple romans in one go and had great protection in melee combat, romans didnt know how to counter them efficiently.
At the time sure. But the Romans rebounded from the losses. It was a back and forth war for centuries that tired the Persians/Parthians/Sassanids and the Romans which let the Muslim Conquerors get in for the killing blow against the Persians and pushed the Romans out of the Middle East for the most part.
You know, back in my day, we didn't resolve our Syrian wars with dronestrikes 'n crap. We got down there, sacked some cities, and really showed 'em what for! Now we got these sissies saying "OH, THAT'S A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION." Well I say that's stupid.
This was in Historical Battles of Rome Total War where you had to defeat Silver Seleucids with Purple Republican Romans, lol. How could you forget... :)
He mentioned that Romans declared that they had saved the Greeks, but he did not mention from what. The Romans said they saved the Greeks from the Illyrians.
Suicidecomma Letter from Skanderbeg (Gerg Kastrioti) to the Prince of Taranto. October 31 1460 "Moreover, you scorned our people, and compared the Albanese to sheep, and according to your custom think of us with insults. Nor have you shown yourself to have any knowledge of my race. Our elders were Epirotes, where this Pirro came from, whose force could scarcely support the Romans. This Pirro, who Taranto and many other places of Italy held back with armies. I do not have to speak for the Epiroti. They are very much stronger men than your Tarantini, a species of wet men who are born only to fish. If you want to say that Albania is part of Macedonia I would concede that a lot more of our ancestors were nobles who went as far as India under Alexander the Great and defeated all those peoples with incredible difficulty. From those men come these who you called sheep. But the nature of things is not changed. Why do your men run away in the faces of sheep?"
Pellazget 123 The Greeks add "us" or "os" at the end of most names like the Serbs add "vic" at the end of names. Like the king of Dardania "Bardhyllus" who's original name is "Bardhylli" and means white star in Albanian. "Ditus" which originally is "Dita" which means "day" in Albanian. One of the first recorded king of the Illyrians or Dorians: "Hyllus" which in Albanian is Hylli and have the meaning "star". Even the name of "Jesus" has the influence. The Quran refer to him as "Esa". Everytime you see names ending with "vic" know it is added in by the Serbs, and everytime you see a name with "us" at the end know it has been added in by the Greeks.
A minor point, but I have heard Antiochus pronounced "Ann-tie-oh-kuss" as well as "Anti-oh-kuss." IDK which is right, or if they are both guesses. Greek is Greek to me.
Try to look at such words as non English words what they actually are. Most of the time "a" is pronounced as in alpha, "e" as in leg, "i" as in still, "c" as class, "ch" gives me headache it's either k or kh(Spanish/Russian h).
Fred Fisher It's simple. Cicero is supposed to be pronounced Kikero. Over time latin was pretty much lost so nobody really remembered much from it, Shakespeare's plays proposed the "s" sounds for C's instead of K's, and that caught on.
Nice nice. I knew I saw this battle before somewhere ;) if everything goes right, I will send the translation for nigbolu tomorrow. Sorry for taking so long :(
One of my favourite Roman legends is that of Antiochus' son Antichous IV's attempted invasion of Egypt, which was stopped when he was confronted by the Roman senator Gaius Popilius Laenas who had been sent as an envoy by the senate and did not have an army. According to Livy, Popilius handed Antiochus a decree from the senate and then drew a circle in the sand around Antiochus and said he had to issue a reply before stepping out of it. Some speculate that this is the origin for the term "drawing a line in the sand". Either way, Antiochos agreed to the terms of the senate, withdrew from Egypt and demonstrated that Rome could exert influence solely through using the threat of its military power.
Incredible
Quick google search showed me that this phrase originates from battle of Alamo, which is much more believable
Good anecdote nonetheless
@@freddekl1102 I heard that the Roman envoy had drawn a circle around the king and said an answer was needed before the king stepped outside the circle. But there are always many stories to every incident and as time goes by they chang and get added too, etc. I'm sure someone somewhere in the history of man, drew a line in the sand long before it happened at the Alamo. And who is to say it was actually said there? It is recorded as legend, no where is it written down.
Antiochus IV's troops lost to Judah Maccabee, his brothers in the Maccabeean revolt.
Rome's greatest generation. Survived the Hannibalic War and was apart of the rapid expansion of the Republic into the Greek East, taking on powerful and established superpowers like the Antigonids, Seleucids, and Greek confederations.
Every generation of Rome had something given and taken from them but the men and women of the 200s BCE took much more than they gave.
Seleucids and superpower ?
Mehrdad B
Well their power was great
But wasn.t leaded by the most competent guy around
gabriel belmont well the lack of knowledge and a suitable system to controll an Empire was something to be seen in Greek Empires. Seleucids shrinked so fast
Mehrdad B
Kinda...
A shockingly overlooked battle that opened the gates of the East and its rich lands to the Romans, money which would provide the financial backbone of the Empire. The world would be a very different place if Antiochus had beaten the Romans here.
Podcast_Anon That is a logic solution and I myself always look at such things this was but remmeber three defeats Rome suffered from the hand of the Carthaginians. It is said that Rome lost 25% of engire male population in the battle of cannae(70 000) and still won the war. Therefore this defeat could stop them but we cant say that for sure ;)
If Antiochos has won this battle, the Romans would have just come back the next year with another army and a better general. And again and again until victory. They are Romans of the Republican era, ask Hannibal about them giving up and accepting peace terms haha.
A shallow viewpoint that does not have any basis in most of Rome's history. Rome didn't give up against Hannibal because it was fighting for its very survival, and more importantly the logistics of raising more legions was easy due to fighting in Italy itself. Losing a 50,000 man army in Asia Minor (Which would have doomed regional allies like Pergamon) would have been much more difficult and less incentivized (See Rome's wars with Mithradates VI of Pontus, Parthians, Dacians, Germanic tribes, Julius Caesars disastrous British invasion). Thats not to say that Rome would never try to push east again, but Rome was not some horde of endlessly respawning army stacks immune to supply lines and political considerations like a Goddamn Total War game.
Romans suffered several defeats in Asia. What they simply did is to return with a better army a year later, or to wait for the death of the enemy and insert themself in the battle for the succession. It's the advantage of having an organized state structure not depending on the presence of a single strong personality.
J C Rome never gave up. Rome is still alive in the Vatican. The goths, Normans and Germans saved Rome from the byzantine hegemony. Roma is Roma.
Holy shit, that treaty was absolutely crushing. Wow
I think this treaty was informed by the peace after the first Punic war. Carthaginians were not limited in their advance in Spain and Africa, became too strong and the second war happened. Rome learned that lesson.
Vae Victis.
@Omoxi Imis
Excuse me, you forget simple principle Art of War that superior military power is not enough to win the war. Enemy defeated in the battle have to stop fight, ask for peace, capitulate or somehow withdraw from war. When he does not do that, then military superior side can not win the war. You can won many battles, but finally lost the war. You can be defeated in many battles and won the war.
This was case Rome vs Carthage in Second Punic War or opposite case Rome vs German tribes east of Rhine. Superior military power is not enough to score victory in the war. Enemy defeated in the battle should make possible to get victory for winners.
This mean defeated power allow other power get victory.
@maciejl20
Yes, that was a case. Seleucid weak inside power can not lost battles and still wage war against stubborn Rome. Defeated in battlefield Seleucid lost heart to continue the war and this allow achieve victory for Rome.
@maciejl20 I mean it practically pushed the Seleucid empire into collapse.
It just needed a little more push to put them in the brink of collapse, split them to few smaller kingdoms which will became Rome vassals etc" i mean rome did. Most Of Anatolia became roman puppets and the Seleucid empire never recovered.
Ah, a cold beer and a good documentary. This made my day.
Enjoy :)
Dude you're cringey af.
Andrew C you’re commenting on a 2 year old comment about someone enjoying a beer and a documentary thus starting problems for no reason...
@@praetorian9823 Lol, I didn't even get a notification for his comment. If not for you I wouldn't even know his sorry ass even exist.
Kamil Szadkowski I’m just upset I typed “your” instead of “you’re”
I never made the connection that the Seleucids and Carthage coexisted around the same time.
Believe it or not, I was telling my friend about it the other day - that is the problem with the education system, we are not taught to think like that. And I was telling him about exactly that as an example.
Its called a gap in history all done deliberately.
I’m here to watch this video because I just learned it from a different source and was interested in this oh so important battle..I haven’t seen it yet..but it seems crazy that Seleucus( or I guess Antiochus) didnt win with Hannibal on his side..I’m guessing “the great” didnt listen to Hannibal and suffered..lets find out!!
why?
Have you ever played Rome total war lmao?
You guys are the greatest thing ever happened to us, the history nerds! Thank you so much! Keep on with the excelent work
Happy to hear that, since we are also history nerds! :-) Thanks for being with us!
As promised, we are remaking older documentaries to be on par with our current standards. Don't worry, the new one should be released on Sunday. :-) You can support our work via Patreon: www.patreon.com/KingsandGenerals or Paypal: paypal.me/kingsandgenerals
Just a heads up mate, at 1:33 the narrator's voice is cut off when saying 'One of Alexander's Generals managed to found' and instead he says ' One of Alexander's managed to found'.
Great work though, enjoying the content.
Is it just me or is there a desync between the video and the narrator from 07:00 'till the end?
Kings and Generals
Good work keep it up !
Thanks for the wonderful documentary, I really love your videos. Unfotunately, I dont have the money to support your patreon, because I'm a broke 17 yrs old.
+Rahmani Dibansa that is ok. Just by watching, liking and sharing you can help us quite a bit! We love all our viewers!
Love your graphic displays and unit IDs, so much easier to follow the narration of these battles
Thanks! New videos are much better!
Great video, but there is a mistake on the map... After the battle at Cynos Kefales, Rome pushed Macedonia out of Thessaly and generally of all its positions gained by Phillip II, in South Greece. Even the region of Orestis in western Macedonia declared independent. That was inslulting for the Macedonian kings as this region with the city of Argos Orestikon was considered the crandle of the Argead dynasty who built Macedonia in the past. So the political vacuum that Antiochos found and tried to exploit was the independent Thessaly and Euboia (and not Macedonian possesions anymore as depicted on the map in this video at the time Antiochos arrived in Greece).
When you are larping as Leonidas so hard, you loose the same way at the same location
Learn the difference between loose and lose. It's embarrassing.
@@joemama7163this is why no one loves you
Remaking your own videos due no longer being satisfied by its quality. High standards, right there.
+Richardsen thank you for noticing that!
I love the Seleucids man, they're the most interesting empire to me. Their east meets west fusion of art, religion and culture is fascinating. Look at the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms that were spawned from them for instance.
I know right my empire’s amazing
Corrider 11- damn it I suppose you’re right lol
Corrider 11- I agree 100%. Arabia, Carthage, and Rome would have been invaded if he hadn’t died. And his Heir to throne probably would’ve attacked India again.
Hi guys thank you for all of your efforts its been fun to watch.Just wanted to give extra information.Magnesia city is in Aydın not Manisa.I can say it is closer to Ephesos(in a city called Selcuk between Aydin and İzmir provinces) than it is to Sardes(in a city called Salihli belonging to Manisa province but really close to the other side of the İzmir border) just to give you guys the idea.Just trying to add little extra i hope you guys keep enjoying what you are doing:)
That moment when you try to zoom the screen and realize that you are in youtube and not in Crussaders Kings 2.
Hopefully, it means that you were immersed in the video. :-)
Because of ck2, I'm interested in this things.
You guys are a gift for history buffs.
Thank you!
I remember reading somewhere that as the Seleucid phalanx retreated, it formed pike squares and was in good order until the elephants, positioned in the center of the squares, panicked and caused the formations to break. If they hadn't, I imagine Antiochus might have been able to extricate the core of his army mostly intact, and might have been granted a reprieve to try again later.
Empire for sale, in bad condition, needs new king and army
Antiochus wasn't that bad. :-) But that was him at his worst.
I have it on good authority that he covered the cost of his war indemnity by selling his dignity.
Antiochos restored the Seleucid Empire in a way no other seleucid king managed since Seleukos and showed great energy and administrative capabilities... It's not quite fair to just judge him on his military defeats against the romans when so many established powers lost against them at the time. Antiochos was not a military genius and unfortunately for him couldn't find a solution to the problems the Empire faced every succession but given the situation when he came to power and what he's achieved, he certainly ranks amongst one of the greatest hellenic kings. but anyway, great video! It might have been interesting to mention how the romans learned how to deal with elephants during the punic wars and how the elephants retreat caused disruption in the seleucid phalanx at the beginning of the battle.
If we wanted a failed state, we'd go to Carthage.
YourNemesis23 Antiochus lost the battle of Raphia and made peace with Ptolemy IV of Egypt. He used the following years to reform his heavy cavalry and won the next war against Egypt. He was quite descent commander until he moved to Greece. There he fell in love with a much younger lady and became careless. His mind was elsewhere and that is why, he made some very stupid mistakes. Even if he was not a military genius, he had Hannibal around him for a while. I'm pretty sure, he'd ask him, how the vast Roman army was defeated at Cannae and how Scipio managed to defeat Hannibal at Zama. But instead of learning from the good and the bad decisions of Hannibal, Antiochus repeated his mistake and did not used the elephants properly. On the top of that, he used all of his remaining heavy cavalry and some other troops to chase the broken soldiers of the Roman left flank and to capture their camp, leaving the flanks of his phalanx troops unprotected. Obviously, he was thinking about the young lady at that time - there is no other explanation! :-) I apologise for my English, I know it is not 100% correct. Peace! :-)
In case anyone's wondering, this is Antiochus III, aka The Great. The bad guy from the Hanukkah stories was his son, Antiochus IV.
It's really nice to remake the old videos, and replace them with a higher quality ones, thanks.
Thank you for watching!
Veni, Vidi, Vici! I hope that such high quality material continues to exist from this fantastic channel. I am impressed with the improvements that you have made, though I still love the original version.
Thank you, my friend! :-)
Even if this was a remake of an older vid, it's still the first one I watched from you guys and is thus my favorite, even if the ending makes me sad. It got me hooked on this era and I binged all the Diadochi content, which has become my favs too, including the podcast. Now I see you are making a new Diadochi series, which is amazing, but I'll wait until it's finished.
Thank you very much for remaking old content! I was very interested in the previous videos but as a non-native english speaker the previous narrator (the one with the strong accent) made it very difficult to understand some parts (no offense for the accent guy =P).
+Rebel Scum none taken :)
I'm so proud of the progress Kings and Generals has made throughout the year. If I weren't such a poor bastard I'd definetely support your channel on patreon.
The thought itself is enough. Hope you will have it better in the future, good luck!
@@KingsandGenerals Thank you!!!
The Phalanx was one of the most effective military formation if done correctly (High risk, high reward). What baffles me the most is.. The Greek states had plenty of years to at least revolutionize the Phalanx, they had the time to make it less risky and yet, the main weakness was still there. It seems that Alexander was the only one (I might be wrong of course) who at least tried to make it a bit flexible by extending and bending his extreme left or right flanks .
For example in Gaugamela, he made a semi arc in his extreme left to avoid being out-flanked and even had reserve phalanx at the rear.
I concur wholeheartedly. It became more of an attack based infantry unit with the inclusion of longer sarissas and was used to essentially steamroll opposition. This was counter to what Phillip and Alexander utilised it for which was the classic "hammer and anvil" tactic. Both Phil and Alex used the phalanx largely to pin the enemy infantry in place whilst more maneuverable units like cavalry, hypaspists et al. were used to attack the weak points of the enemy army. Then the rout would begin and THEN the phalanx would proceed to steamroll the enemy. Both Cynoscephalae and Pydna were evidence that it was the phalanx that lead the attack, and it was because of this that it was ultimately exposed but for different reasons. Cynoscephalae it was split up in wings. Phillips Vs right didn't wait for the left to form. Pydna, it chased the Romans into uneven terrain. If this was Alexander or Phillip II in each battle, both instances would not have happened. It seems like later generals (including Pyrrhus) adopted the phalanx to be THE primary attack force as opposed to be used to pin the enemy in place to allow for more flexible units and the use of COMBINED ARMS to fully take advantage of the Macedonian style of battle. If this doctrine was adhered to, I believe the Romans would have failed in their conquest of Greece. Also, in terms of this particular battle (Magnesia), by stacking elephants among the phalanx, that was another massive tactical blunder of Antiochus and that was always bound to fail.
I am more than sure Hannibal would have advised against this due to his loss at Zama in 202 BC with how is hastily trained elephants only harmed his army. I also wonder how desperate Hannibal had to be to use them given he had to leave behind all of his cavalry forces when he left Italy in 203 BC. Hannibal was also unlucky at Zama. It would have been interesting to see how he employed the 4000 Macedonian phalangists that Phillip V of Macedon sent him. I think they fought in the first line, and orderly retreated when both second lines clashed. Perhaps if he employed them as a rear guard to 'about face', then he may have thwarted the returning cavalry at Zama when he was allegedly dominating the Romans when his 3rd line of veterans clashed with the newly formed single line of Romans. Even if Hannibal won at Zama, Carthage was on its knees. Carthage would have had to try and re-conquer Iberia and regain the territories it had lost. Rome had all of Italy, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily and now Iberia. Carthage would have sued for peace but on more favourable terms. Perhaps it would have better commanded Numidia after Zama under Sypahx if they won at Zama. Carthage's economy was still prosperous and maybe it could have rebuilt its navy... Hannibal would have likely become Suffet as he did in the aftermath of the Second Punic War but would have exerted more control and perhaps would have allied with Antiochus or Phillip and strategize a combined invasion of Italy a few years later. But... who knows?
@@bombasticbadassbrigade3552 I absolutely agree with you in everything and would like to add , that Romans would have failed if the Hellenic world understood what is happening , they all underestimated the Romans and they were never united ..Romans used Greeks against Greeks brilliantly they used the weakest point of the Greeks better than anyone and this is the inability to be united . ..they even controlled the sea with the help of Rhodes and what is not mentioned in the video is Eumenes and Pergamon which basically won them the battle of Magnesia
Excellent job guys ! As an absolute fan of ancient Rome and as a French, your current contents are delightful for me 😉
Thank you very much! :-) I am really unhappy that we have very few viewers from France. I will be very grateful if you share our videos on Napoleon. :-)
Haha you deserve more viewers that's true ! I'll share your videos for sure. Keep on producing these great contents guys ! PS: what country do you come from ?
Thank you very much! :-)
Canada.
Can you guys make a video or a series of videos about Cyrus the great? That will be very interesting. Great job once again we really enjoy your vids !
I hereby request more Roman battles and campaign's, including early Republic history.
I know you are all very busy so I won't be irritating.
Damned good stuff as always.
There will be more!
Yo greece couldn’t you be united for just ONCE. I mean come on, destroying yourself like this?
That is the beauty and the curse of the relative freedom of the city-states.
The reality is that the greek cities/states in mainland Greece were internally deeply divided. Class warfare was a common phenomenon. The common people sided with Antiochus as a savior but the rich (especially the lords of Achean league) were backed by the Romans to hold their riches and their power... That's why they put their states in line with the Romans. Titus Livius (XXXV, 34, 3) wrote: "It is known to everybody that at the states the noblemen and all the well-established men were supporting an aliance with the Romans and they are satisfied with the current situation , but the common folk and all those that the works do not coresponds to their wills, want a general transformation."
@@giorgosbookhunter4215 kaló
You know, during Greek war of independence in 1821, the first phase was great success and then Greeks started a bad civil war. Then there were some successes again and went to freedom but also support from Europeans was important in the Battle of Navarino to go to freedom. Greeks had to pay for the support heavily, Greece turned into a German-ruled state with a German king Otto, and the dept of that period was repaid in full by Greece in the 1990s!
That's a human problem, not only a Greek one. Every cultural or ethnic group tends to be its' own worst enemy ... We just have the most possibilities of conflict with those that are closest to us - which tends to be other people that are much like us.
Even though nationalism was a huge ideology in the last century and a great number of powers tried to unite their people under one banner, few actually managed to do so, and those that did mostly did so through brute force. The thought of a whole group of people being a team, a family even is great - but often enough there are enough opportunists or people that flat out don't care at all - and at some point you have to ask yourself the question whether the cause is worth the price you have to pay in your peoples' blood ... given that outcomes are never certain and foreign powers have all incentive to hinder unifications ...
This was a fantastic video Devin! This critical battle is often overlooked: it signaled the fact that Rome was the unrivaled global superpower.
Antiochus the third was a vainglorious cavalry commander and as i have gathered from multiple sources understandably overconfident in this battle considering the size of his forces. On a more positive note for the Seleucid right, three thousand cataphacts smashed an entire legion. I'm quite sure if Aniochus was as gifted Megas Alexandros he would have sent the romans packing.) It was said that the Seleucid Army was an extraordinary sight to behold with their exotic regalia and wide variety of units.
Frey Jepson that’s 3000 super heavy cavalry vs 4000 foot soldiers, not that great of a feat
@@craezee247 It was the first time in history cavalry of any type effectively broke a disciplined body of troops. It was a feat.
@@craezee247 Actually, A legion is about 4800-5000 men. Maybe the cavalry done it because the legons were hastati and unexperienced. who knows?
Love that you guys are redoing these!!!! So much better quality
Kings and Generals, Love your channel! 15 years ago I'd be much more interested in high school history class...
Thank you! Same here, to be honest :-)
I so love this channel…one of my favorites!
Thanks!
Together with you l learn history again Thunk you so much
Thank you very much! :-)
Great choice on doing the remakes, really worth the additional effort you put in.
+Chris Heerema Thank you! :-)
I love how many documentaries use footage from the Total War Series.
Check them out if you havent already
Love the visual maps. Shows the strategy of both army's.
Can you cover the Bulgarian-Byzantine war of 917?I forgot the name of the battle but it’s very interesting and the first of its kind.
Achelous. Yes, we are planning to. :-)
This is fantastic work! Reminds me of the documentary series that was made with RTW1 on the History Channel.
Yep, Decisive Battles are one of our inspirations. :-)
could you imagine the sight of those two massive armies forming up? Wish I could have been there to watch from a safe distance.
I have thought about that :-)
I always wondered how they engaged, because Rome and atilla don’t show an accurate representation
you guys should consider a best of: featuring the triarri or any other elite ancient units. a series including the best actions each were involved in and there roles in said actions
Can you please do more polls? They're cool and it's nice to see other people's view on them
Yes, planning to. :-) Love engaging with our viewers. :-)
Love finding Battles I missed!
Love that you are commenting on them. :-)
What I don't really understand but seems to be their strongest factor is the Romans seemed so good at recovering from devastating defeats that cripple other kingdoms/empire.
I guess, we will need to make a video about that.
Great! this was fun to watch. The music volume was perfect this time :DDDD could perfectly hear your voice.
I like that you give all the context before the battle and do not just focus on the battle but gives a more broader picture of history.
Also, i think it would be really nice if you guys do your videos in series, i would love to watch what happened next after this period of time. This would be more fun than game of thrones xDD
Thank you! :-) History is nothing with context. :-)
Yes, we are planning to move to a more serial release schedule. For now, we have 2 series (Napoleonic Wars and the Ottoman empire) and are planning more.
Kings and Generals. Yes please. That would be awesome. God damn you guys are my inspiration
That is great! :-)
Best historical chanel of youtube
Way to 100.000 subscribers🔜🔒❤
Thank you, good sir! :-)
Bro he doesn't deserve it at all
Love your content always looking forward to new video's even if its a remake.
Thank you for kind words and watching :)
Cool story, there is a large town right outside the city of Thessaloniki called Nea Magnisia (new magnesia) and yes they originate from minor Asia from the city of Magnisia
Yes, there were at least 3 Magnesias, if I am not mistakes :-)
Kings and Generals Well the only one i know is the one i mentioned (btw my brother was in nea magnisia soccer club for a year)
Love the remakes!!
More on the way. :-)
217 BC: Antiochus III loses the Battle of Raphia by pushing too far away from thecenter to assist them.
Antiochus III in 190 BC: Wanna see me do it again?
Very good video, I would appreciate if you could enable Spanish subtitles in the rest of your videos, the content is very good indeed and that is why it is valued even more.
Greetings from Peru from a passionate about Ancient History.
Well, school starts in 23 minutes and I'm beginning to question whether I should be here.
Then I hear Senpai Devinu's voice, and I know I made the right decision.
It is good that Senpai Devinu noticed us. :-)
Just remember to give me a large bag of fries with that BigMac :-P
BeWater It's usually people that go to university n' shit that end up in McDonalds.
Great remake!
I’m reading Livy’s account just now when I stumbled upon this:-)
Good :-)
Nailed it. Awesome video!
Thank you for watching :)
Battle!!! Please do the battle of lützen
Planned. :-)
+Kings and Generals tariq bin ziyad batlle of andalusia grenada pls
Your videos are best battle videos on youtube! Please make a video on the war between Seleucus I Nicator and Chandragupt Maurya (The Seleucid - Mauryan War).
Exellent video!
Thank you :)
Such a great piece of history I have wanted to know more about after first playing Rome Total war (1) - thank you.
Thank you for watching! :-)
What the video kind of skipped over on why the Romans easily won the Battle of Thermopylae was due to political subversion of Greece. Antiochus did not want to be seen as a tyrannical conqueror of Greece as that would throw the rest of the Greek states right back into Roman arms. He came with a limited advance force believing he could rally fellow Greeks to his cause and supplement his army from the Peloponnese. Antiochus's Seleukid army (The pronunciation is "Se-loo-kid", not "Sel-you-sid") paused at the battlefield of Cynoscephalae where the Romans had defeated the Macedonian king Phillip V earlier and found the dead still unburied. He made a magnificent funeral for the fallen Greek troops on the battlefield and made it clear that HE was the true rampart of Greece. This pompous act turned Phillip V over to the Roman side.
Antiochus' decision to withdraw was due to intentional obfuscation and false reports by pro-Roman agents. The 2,000 man Roman advance force lit hundreds of fires and made a loud show of their camp to inflate their perceived size. The larger concern to Antiochus was that he believed that Phillip V had arrived with the Romans and would supplement the Roman legion with a Macedonian phalanx. He did not feel that his relatively small force could hold up against such a combined attack on the flat Thessalian plain. After this, Anitochus and his men withdrew to the island of Euboia and spent the fall and winter months in luxury at the city of Chalcis. The allure of the culture and atmosphere was strong. There was so much lack of discipline due to the relaxation and pleasurable women they kept the company of that the men's morale had withered away. Antiochus himself fell in love with a local girl. It was almost more of a spring resort than a regrouping. When the campaigning season started again, Antiochus broke off his engagement to a young woman and tried to discipline his men. Thereafter, he chose deliberately to make a defiant stand at Thermoyplae, juxtaposing the Romans as the barbarian Persian invaders. His tactics were sound and his main force was beating the Romans back. The only mistake he made was trusting the defense of the important passes with unreliable allied infantry instead of his own and did not utilize enough lines of communication to maintain contact with those isolated units. The force that Antiochus was with lacked discipline and began withdrawing believing what happened two centuries earlier would repeat despite still having an advantage. This withdrawal ironically is what got them all killed or captured.
At Magnesia, Antiochus' position was sound. But he unfortunately made the same mistake he made against Ptolemy IV at Raphia. He personally commanded his right wing on an epic Alexandrian charge that sent the enemy reeling back. But he allowed himself in his confidence and blood lust to wander too far from the battlefield as his left wing was being overran by panicked animals that threw them in disarray. Once he realized his mistake and began to wheel left and counterattack the Roman center, it was too late. He won his glory but lost the battle as a result. If he had followed Alexander's example and focused on wheeling left to break the center from their flank, he might well have clutched victory from the jaws of defeat in the same Alexander had done at Gaugemela.
This is one of those occasions where I really wish the opponents of Rome had succeeded. There was literally every justifiable reason for Antiochus the Great to win and unite the Hellenic world finally for the first time 140 years. Rome was like Russia, using double agents and subversive political tactics to create conflict and division politically in the lands they were invading to obfuscate the situation and took advantage of. The Romans never really respected the Greeks, believed themselves far superior while engaging in full cultural appropriation, using Greek myths for their own gods and imitated many of their customs without ever really respecting their advances in philosophy and literature. Really was not until the far later under the Emperor Hadrian that Rome ever looked back on Greece with any respect.
@@kippesnikkel5217 thanks for putting the greek nationalist to their place
@@waqarsaleem8611
"Aren't Americans doing the same now, setting entire middle east on blaze while sitting thousands of miles away and are keeping up with the Kardashians? "
That's not really the same thing. US is not there because they just want to troll people and want to prepare for conquest or something. If they are, they are not doing a very good job. I mean the British, Romans and Greeks would have conquered the whole region by now. Besides, why focus on Middle East? Because of oil? There is oil in other countries too like Norway and Venezuela! There are also no religious fanatics there! Africa is rich in natural resources and pretty unstable too. Why isn't US invading them? How much territory has US conquered in the last 10 years? You know, for supposed "imperalists" they kinda suck at it. Maybe they should study Caesar and learn a thing or two from him.
No, the US is in the middle east because they want to destroy the fanatic terrorists who hate the west and who want to kill as many people as possible. Iraq war may be deeply unpopular now, but many people conveniently forget that it was very popular at the beginning with many European countries supporting it. And no wonder. Saddam had started 2 wars, broke international treaties, funded terrorists, and chemical bombed his own people. It's not like the Middle East was a perfectly peaceful place before 2003. You can debate how the US tactics work of course, but that is a different thing, though I would argue that the US has learned a lot since 2003 and its operations in the middle east have been much more effective.
"This is one of those occasions where I really wish the opponents of Rome had succeeded."
Well, I don't really know if we over 2000 years later can really judge these things. I doubt Antiochus wanted to conquer Greece out of benevolence. I mean large part of greeks didn't even want him to come and "liberate" them. And I doubt that it ultimately mattered much to ordinary greek citizen whether a Roman or a Greek was collecting his taxes and recruiting him to fight in wars. Probably thought "different face, same BS". And it's not like the Romans were sending greeks to concentration camps or something.
@@kippesnikkel5217 lol Romans beating Alexander u are hilarious 😂😂😂
@@kippesnikkel5217 it was Romans begging Alexander shortly before his campaign to stop Pyrrhus from invading Italy, lol
Your videos are amazing! Your documentries look very professional! I like Roman history. Thanks for uploading!
I'm pretty damn sure the Bosphorus is not where you seem to think it is. Nice animation thought.
Mistakes are made sometimes. :-) Thank you!
the best channel on youtube imo
Alexander would have been COMPLETELY ashamed of the Diadochi.,, He would have definetely taken on the Romans, on the flat terrain northern to Larissa and not flee to Euboia like a coward. What a shame.
That is an interesting "what if" scenario. :-)
Lets face it Alexander would have gotten crushed by the Sons of The Twins
Great remake product! Very high product!
It's wild to think how one battle can end an empire of such land mass, though I suppose the Seleucid Empire was never built to last such an organized and tough opponent
The battle of Austerlitz ended the Holy Roman Empire, think about that
@@historyrepeat402 the HRE had been a loose confederation of states for a number of decades by then, one could argue it essentially died during the 30 years war, but yes, that was a momentous, "changing of the guard" esque battle
@@jonnywieger I’m not just saying this, you could make the exact same argument for the Seleucid empire, one founded on conquest and held together by conquest and convenience for local rulers. Which like the confederation of the rhine was easily organized following Seleucid loss of prestige/collapse.
@@historyrepeat402 the Successor kingdoms will live on forever in our dreams haha
@@jonnywieger amen to that, the land of Elephant kings and Pharaohs easily capture one’s imagination
Great work as always my friend
Thank you, my friend! :-)
Can i ask you something ladd?
Sure, go ahead.
What is your part in those videos? I know the narrator is OfficiallyDevin but im not sure about you mate
So, Devin is the narrator. :-) Otherwise, the channel belongs to us. We are two friends. We do the research, we write the script, and then we create the video together. And answer the comments. :-)
The Romans would have never conquered Hellenic lands if the the Greeks didn't have the habit of fighting each other!
True I agree Alexanders successors are so O.p they conquered some parts of India and whole middle east
Yeah, I guess their mythology really is human like for this reason, but they barely held unity ever and that was their downfall
Officially devin making history, makes my day
Devin is helping us with the narration... :-)
Do you can make a video About Bactrian Kingdom or Kushan Empire
Thanks 🌹
Thank you very much for watching! Which battle would you like to see concerning these two empires?
Have north korea an internet??
Love this channel..very informative
+jason russell thank you very much!
If only Hannibal had been at the height of his strategic powers during this war. Just imagine Cannae Hannibal, commanding this army.
@@rocdaneweracap yeah and we will not here to write those texts
Keep coping
You guys are really amazing.Keep up that fantastic work.By the way I love Cornelius Scipio.One of my most favourite Roman generals.
Imagine though if the Greeks were united as one instead of helping Roman's and fighting each other
Greeks? United?
Nuh-uh
they were under alexander. thats why they managed to create an empire in 10 years which took the romans 300 years
@@ImperialDiecast an empire which fell apart when Alexander died, while Roman Empire lasted for thousands of eventful years and has everyone craving for it's legacy
@@satriaputrapratama4703 Diadochi is Macedonian Empire for me.
Look at what happened to Persia.
The best RUclips channel
Thank you very much!
I have a question, in minute 2:53 i think, it says battle of sparta, or something like this. In that battle, Sparta was conquered? Goood video
very easily conquered
BoxStudioExecutive ok i thought that the time sparta fell was in the nabis war
Sparta could mobilise less than 1000 men. The days of glory were long gone.
By the time of Rome, heck, by the time of Filip II (father of Alexander the Great), Sparta had made itself irrelevant. Low birth rates and decadence made it so that they couldn't muster an army or really defend itself. It turned into a small provincial town in the Morean peninsula, only a remnant of what had once been the terror of the Greek world.
GardEngebretsen yes, i know. I saw historia civilis' video
Awesome content. Loved it.
Thank you very much, more on the way!
if antiacus listened to hannibal barca results may be different
Yeah, I always wondered why Hannibal wasn't allowed to lead the army.
He did however, taking command the Seleucid navy but lost one battle or two unfortunately.
I did not know hannibal was there. Whats was he doing in asia minor?
@@ajavierb2078 he wasnt killed after the fall of carthage empire he fleed to the east.
@@ajavierb2078 After the end of the 2nd punic war he became a leader in Carthage. He introduced a wide range of political and economic reforms that limited the power of the 104 and cracked down on corruption. Whilst this made Carthage rich again it upset many who lost money and power. This group appeals to Rome with the storey that Hannibal is trying to influence the other states to attack Rome and that now having this wealth Hannibal will raise new forces against them. Hannibal gets wind of this and leaves Carthage for Asia minor.
Another amazing video
Thanks!
syria of stronk remove pizza
That is a new one. :-)
Awesome! I would love to see more content! Glad to hear! Specially Greece content! Haha
More content on its way. :-)
Antiochius be like
"Ooh boy i Will destroy romans"
"Oh shet the romans, boys run away"
omg your videos are amazing... keep up the great work!!!
Thank you very much! We are planning to! :-)
Why the heck didnt the Seleucids charge with their elephants?
"That is what we do" :-)
Romans at that time had great experience in dealing with these kinds of charges (right after the defeat of Carthage). If they had messed up the charge the paniced elephants could have run straight into the own phalanx and wrecked the battle-order.
I guess noone wanted to give the order, since the king was out playing in the Roman camp. Looking at ancient battles so many mistakes were made because the leader was fighting on the flanks instead of commanding from the middle. Same thing happened to Rome against Hannibal.
Maybe because they were aware of the Romans easily handling elephants that are charging head on, just like they did at the battle of Zama a decade earlier.
@@ayushkumar-bg1xf you got poor history man, sorry
@@ayushkumar-bg1xf not really, the selecuds used north african elephanst, I'm not a dumbass, this channel gives poor info from trashy sources i swear!, i dunno why this channel gives a bunch of lies
This was an interesting video. Always nice to know more about the conflict Roman had with the Seleucid Empire. My compliments to those who made this video a reality.
Parthians (an iranian eastern tribe) later freed Persia from Seleucid control and defeated roman expansion into middle east, romans experienced a warfare they werent used to and got destroyed at Battle of Carrhae. The battle was seen as one of the most crushing defeats in roman history. Parthians outnumbered four to one used horse archers which forced romans into an advancing testudo formation which limited their melee combat ability and Parthian cataphracts used this opportunity to charge in and inflict heavy losses, it is said a cataphract was able to kill multiple romans in one go and had great protection in melee combat, romans didnt know how to counter them efficiently.
At the time sure. But the Romans rebounded from the losses. It was a back and forth war for centuries that tired the Persians/Parthians/Sassanids and the Romans which let the Muslim Conquerors get in for the killing blow against the Persians and pushed the Romans out of the Middle East for the most part.
the best history channel
You know, back in my day, we didn't resolve our Syrian wars with dronestrikes 'n crap.
We got down there, sacked some cities, and really showed 'em what for!
Now we got these sissies saying "OH, THAT'S A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION."
Well I say that's stupid.
Kaiser Nikolaus idiot
Back in the days of Rome the Syrian wars were fought in Anatolia and Greece, not in Syria.
Majority of the Syrian Wars were fought between Egypt and the Seleucids, mostly in Syria and overall Levant.
If we just charged into a city it would be like the battle of the somme ffs lol
shut up you subhuman shit
Well done..nice work...
Thanks! :-)
Funny, never heard about this battle ^^
One of the classical battles of the Antiquity. :-)
Kings and Generals Did you guys ever made a video about something in ww1/ww2?
We have decided not to move beyond the WWI for now. :-)
This was in Historical Battles of Rome Total War where you had to defeat Silver Seleucids with Purple Republican Romans, lol. How could you forget... :)
:-)
I thought I recognized your voice. Keep up the good work on both channels
You ignored everything about why Romans conquered the Illyrians
+Illyrian Warrior
they conquered them for the same reason they conquered everyone else: land, slaves and resources...
Voltage Drop
No. They conquered them because the Illyrians plundered the Adriatic sea, according to history.
He mentioned that Romans declared that they had saved the Greeks, but he did not mention from what. The Romans said they saved the Greeks from the Illyrians.
Suicidecomma
Letter from Skanderbeg (Gerg Kastrioti) to the Prince of Taranto. October 31 1460
"Moreover, you scorned our people, and compared the Albanese to sheep, and according to your custom think of us with insults. Nor have you shown yourself to have any knowledge of my race. Our elders were Epirotes, where this Pirro came from, whose force could scarcely support the Romans. This Pirro, who Taranto and many other places of Italy held back with armies. I do not have to speak for the Epiroti. They are very much stronger men than your Tarantini, a species of wet men who are born only to fish. If you want to say that Albania is part of Macedonia I would concede that a lot more of our ancestors were nobles who went as far as India under Alexander the Great and defeated all those peoples with incredible difficulty. From those men come these who you called sheep. But the nature of things is not changed. Why do your men run away in the faces of sheep?"
Pellazget 123
The Greeks add "us" or "os" at the end of most names like the Serbs add "vic" at the end of names. Like the king of Dardania "Bardhyllus" who's original name is "Bardhylli" and means white star in Albanian. "Ditus" which originally is "Dita" which means "day" in Albanian. One of the first recorded king of the Illyrians or Dorians: "Hyllus" which in Albanian is Hylli and have the meaning "star". Even the name of "Jesus" has the influence. The Quran refer to him as "Esa". Everytime you see names ending with "vic" know it is added in by the Serbs, and everytime you see a name with "us" at the end know it has been added in by the Greeks.
Is this one of the best channels on youtube or what? Optimis Optimus..
Ahh yes BC and AD the correct terms.
Best channel ever.
WOW, this guy is still called ' Antiochius the GREAT ' ! L O L !!!
Well, he had some big victories in the East and South. :-)
Kings and Generals Yup, but he scrwed things up !
A minor point, but I have heard Antiochus pronounced "Ann-tie-oh-kuss" as well as "Anti-oh-kuss." IDK which is right, or if they are both guesses. Greek is Greek to me.
I have encountered both.
Try to look at such words as non English words what they actually are. Most of the time "a" is pronounced as in alpha, "e" as in leg, "i" as in still, "c" as class, "ch" gives me headache it's either k or kh(Spanish/Russian h).
Gotta love the strategic study of Warfare. It's beautiful~
Seleucid is pronounced "Suh-loo-kid". C's in latin/Greek are pronounced like K's.
Thank you!
in Greek it is like that : empire of Selefkithon
Fred Fisher It's simple. Cicero is supposed to be pronounced Kikero. Over time latin was pretty much lost so nobody really remembered much from it, Shakespeare's plays proposed the "s" sounds for C's instead of K's, and that caught on.
The English names don't use the Greek/Latin grammar. So the C will be like the English C and not the hard Greek one.
Nice nice. I knew I saw this battle before somewhere ;) if everything goes right, I will send the translation for nigbolu tomorrow. Sorry for taking so long :(
Thank you very much! Don't worry about it! :-)