Opinions?
First poster to confuse this battle of Thermopylae with another gets to wear the dunces hat!
Praeses
What would have happend if the Romans lost the Battle of Thermopylae?
Opinions?
First poster to confuse this battle of Thermopylae with another gets to wear the dunces hat!
Hammer & Sickle - Karacharovo
And I drank it strait down.
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: What would have happend if the Romans lost the Battle of Thermopylae?
I know this, the hun vs. romans battle of thermopalyae in 447
answer = athens and corinthus wouldn't have been sacked
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: What would have happend if the Romans lost the Battle of Thermopylae?
Flavius Aetius may have had to intervene, but he couldn't because he was fighting the first alanic war at this point.
Civitate
Re: What would have happend if the Romans lost the Battle of Thermopylae?
omg lol Hookah you're so stupid the Romans never fought there. It was only 300 Spartans vs a million Persians.
wtf Romans lol. L2History.
In seriousness, it would've meant the Selucids didn't lose the war, atleast as they had. Their naval situation wasn't faring well at all so there was no hope of attacking the Romans on the Italian peninsula: Antiochus' best hope was to simply hold Greece.
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: What would have happend if the Romans lost the Battle of Thermopylae?
The Romans did, fight a battle of thermopolaye during attila's invasion of greece in 447.
Civitate
Re: What would have happend if the Romans lost the Battle of Thermopylae?
Are we not discussing the Romans vs Selucid (Antiochus) battle?
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: What would have happend if the Romans lost the Battle of Thermopylae?
Probably not, I'm pretty sure we're discussing the one with attila.
Praeses
Re: What would have happend if the Romans lost the Battle of Thermopylae?
Its the Seleucid one, I've been writing an essay on Greek colonization today and I was intrigued.
Hammer & Sickle - Karacharovo
And I drank it strait down.
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: What would have happend if the Romans lost the Battle of Thermopylae?
Oh... I'm outta this conversation then...
Praeses
Re: What would have happend if the Romans lost the Battle of Thermopylae?
Not old school enough?Originally Posted by Magistri Militum FlaviusAetius
Hammer & Sickle - Karacharovo
And I drank it strait down.
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: What would have happend if the Romans lost the Battle of Thermopylae?
No, I don't study much about the greeks.
Rex Regum
Re: What would have happend if the Romans lost the Battle of Thermopylae?
Nothing serious..
As I remember Antiochos had landed in Greece with a small part of his army and he had been spending time with a nice cheek he found there, rather than giving attention in subduing cities and searching for allies.. When the Romans were alerted, they brought a few Legions in Greece and Antiochos was so shocked that he took his disorganized army and fortified Thermopylae.. It was a rather uninteresting battle.. Antiochos just lost the few areas he had gained control of and the Romans just made their presence in Greece even stronger.. If Antiochos had won this battle, the Romans would have just send a few more Legions and they would have crushed Antiochos.. Really, the Roman Republic was no much for the Seleucids.. If not even the Kingdom of Macedonia could not defend Greece from the Romans I don't see how a small expedition force led by Antiochos the Great could do that.. The Greek world was divided at that time and even if the Seleucids had won, I don't think they would have gained support from any Greek states.. The Macedonian Kingdom had apparently allied itself with the Romans, along with Pergamon, Rhodes and the Aetolians if I'm not mistaken.. With a too weak presence in Greece and a serious lack of allies the Seleucids wouldn't have lasted too long..
Anyway, some historians believe that Antiochos wanted to consolidate his presence in Greece and launch an expedition against Rome from there (just like Mithridates the Pontic King).. It would have been an expedition similar to that of Pyrrhos with the difference that Antiochos had zero hope to succeed because the Roman state was much stronger than it was during Pyrrhos' time and there were no free Greek cities in South Italy to support him like they had (kinda) supported Pyrrhos..
Last edited by Manuel I Komnenos; July 29, 2010 at 07:42 PM.
Under the patronage of Emperor Maximinus Thrax
"Steps to be taken in case Russia should be forced out of war considered. Various movements [of ] troops to and from different fronts necessary to meeting possible contingencies discussed. Conference also weighed political, economic, and moral effect both upon Central and Allied powers under most unfavorable aspect from Allied point of view. General conclusions reached were necessity for adoption of purely defensive attitude on all secondary fronts and withdrawing surplus troops for duty on western front. By thus strengthening western front [those attending] believed Allies could hold until American forces arrive in numbers sufficient to gain ascendancy."
~General Pershing, report to Washington, 26 July 1917
Protector Domesticus
Re: What would have happend if the Romans lost the Battle of Thermopylae?
The Achaean Leageau invited Antiochos, right?
May I suggest ya'll get back on topic. Talk about Napoleon's ethnicity in another thread, this thread is about a leashed penis...
Biarchus
Re: What would have happend if the Romans lost the Battle of Thermopylae?
Mhm.
The action at Thermopylai is an odd one because it's very difficult to judge how the patres conscripti would have responded to Antiochos' contestation of Greece. After all, the Senate had, on the advice of Flamininus, withdrawn the legions and "freed the Greeks" scant years before - part of the reason why Antiochos shipped his army in in the first place! Would the defeat of a Roman army have given the Romans a spur towards even deeper involvement in the war, or would they have decided it was too much trouble? The question's not as simple as it appears, due to Rome's already strange actions in Greece during the previous decade, and the multitude of security commitments on Rome's other frontiers (in Spain and northern Italy especially) that were draining Roman manpower.
Even if the Romans did redouble their military efforts in Greece, presuming Antiochos were to be reinforced by Polyxenidas and his fleet, the military outcome of a Roman-Seleukid struggle is still very much up in the air. On the one hand, Antiochos arguably had a better opportunity to conclusively defeat Rome in a war than had Hannibal (see e.g. Grainger 2002). On the other, it's still in friggin' Greece, and if Rome lost there they wouldn't have lost a whole lot.
I dunno, you could plausibly take this in several different directions. This period's generally a pretty good starting point for ATLs, and this PoD is no exception.
Let them eat cock!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
