# Talk:Battle of Magnesia

Even according to the External link provided the Romans only had 35,000. Is there a better breakdown somewhere, perhaps Livy, of the amount of troops from each side? Something more accurate that can be referenced and looked up? The way I would understand it there would have been something like 20,000 Roman and Italian infantry and professional for the league 15,000 military (total 35,000). I can NOT find any sources for this 50,000 number. How many Galatians were there for the Romans? Would it be right to say Hannibal, in 190 BC in Turkey, had 25,000 men and also 1,000 of steppe-nomad horse-archers and 6,000 of cavalry of cataphract armour? 64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Antiochos instead of Hannibal? --Kryston (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Article says Antiochus was accompanied by Africanus's old enemy Hannibal so I believe Hannibal had some portion of Antiochos' army or perhaps control of all the army of some 25K - 26K.
Does Livy have a better breakdown as to cavalry and troops on each side? 64.138.237.101 (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Look up Appianus. The source is given. Hannibal may have been given some kind of control, but according to the sources he had none at all, so this is the mainstream theory. Livy does not offer a better breakdown of the forces. GK1973 (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Livy gives an excellent breakdown of the forces, which I have provided the references for. I have updated and corrected the figures.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Good. Regarding the 50.000 I also know no source suggesting something like that, so you were absolutely correct to change it.GK1973 (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Grainger is as far as I know, the expert for the Roman-Syrian War. He claims, that Romans and Seleucids both had about 50.000 soldiers at the battle. Grainger comes to this conclusion - at least for the roman side - by adding the numbers of roman military units that Livius tells about in some earlier chapters of his book. --Kryston (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Grainger references most of his sources in the footnotes of each page mostly to Livy. So if Livy is his source, I'll just go straight to Livy and look it up myself. In Livy XXXVII 37 it says 60,000 infantry and 12,000 or more cavalry for king Antiochus. In Livy XXXVII 39 it give four legions of 5000 each, plus 3000 men, plus 3000 cavalry, 800 of which were furnished by Eumenes, plus  the Trallian and Cretan horse, each body numbering 500 troopers, plus a mixed force of Macedonians and Thracians, 2000 in all, who had followed as volunteers. 20,000 ( 4 X 5000) + 3,000 + 3,000 + 1,000 + 2,000 = 29,000. Looks close to about 30,000 to me - nowhere close to 50,000. I would trust Livy over Grainger, especially since Grainger uses Livy for his source.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Appian in History of Rome: The Syrian Wars also gives it as ...about 30,000 strong. He gives Antiochus as 70,000. --64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see the reconstruction of the battle by Ilkka Syvanne https://www.academia.edu/4169586/Syvanne_Battle_of_Magnesia
and a discussion at https://historum.com/t/battle-of-magnesia-near-roman-disaster.199169/
Apart from the army numbers quoted (Syvanne here follows Livy), which I disagree with, this is probably the best reconstruction of the battle, and shows that it wasnt the walkover Livy would have you believe, but a close run thing. Antiochus, far from being a rash commander, was a skilled and capable general.
As to the Roman army numbers, Livy seems to have overlooked the Italian alas assigned with the legions
A Republican legion of this peried usually comprised 1200  hastati, 1200 principes and 600 triarii plus 300 cavalry
(Peter Connolly - The Roman Army)
The Italian ala had a similar number of troops plus 900 cavalry.
So one legion would have 8400 infantry and 1200 cavalry (9600 men)
In times of emergency the the 4200 infantry component could be increased to 5000 men.
Such a reinforced legion would total 10,000 infantry and 1200 cavalry.
Rome had 4 legions at Magnesia. So 4 regular legions equals 33,600 infantry and 4,800 cavalry equals 38,400 men.
4 reinforced legions equals 40,000 infantry and 4800 cavalry.
Given that Antiochus was a major power at the time, and that Hannibal was at his court, it seems highly likely that the Romans would have beefed up their legions.
Add to this the Numidian, Pergamene, macedonian and Thracian troops also with the Roman army, and a total figure of over 50,000 is easily reached.
I have no difficulty believing both armies were of similar size.
As to casualties, they are pure Roman propoganda. Given the course of the battle, there is no way the Romans only sustained 300 casualties.
Firstly, Antiochus' charge broke the entire Roman left flank (essentially half their army) and chased them back to their camp (which was briefly occupied). You then have the battle at the Roman camp, the battles on the Seleucid left flank (which saw the phalanx adopt a square formation), the reluctance of the Romans to close with the phalanx till the elephants disrupted its formation, and then the battle at the seleucid camp. The Romans were beaten back 3 times before finally entering the camp and only took it after a hard fight.
So casualties on both sides would have been in the thousands. Syvanne makes the point that days after the battle, the Seleucid heralds found the Romans still burying their dead. 203.129.31.169 (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
oops, forgot to include the 1200 velites in the Legion breakdown..so one legion is
1200 hastati
1200 principes
600 triarii
1200 velites
Plus 300 cavalry
4200 infantry
300 cav
Latin ala is 4200 infantry and 900 cavalry
Total legion - 8400 infantry, 1200 cavalry - 9,600 men 2405:6E00:229:7BFB:48F4:1B9:87F8:5088 (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Just to make it sure: Grainger doubts the numbers that Livius gives in the chapter of the battle. At Thermopylae the Romans outnumbered the Seleucids, what is always a wise strategy. Livius tells about the different Roman units, that are transferred later on to Greece. By adding those, so Grainger claims, it would be possible to form an army of much more that 30.000. It wouldn't be very wise of the Romans to leave soldiers back in Greece, when the are awaiting a big battle in Asia. As far as I know, Livius mostly uses Polybios as his source. The different units Livius is telling about seem to be very exact and beliveable. The final numbers of the battle strength aren't. Livius as an author isn't the most neutral. He is a bit POV, in Wikipedia-speech. --Kryston (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
One more thing: You said, you "go straight to Livy and look it up myself". This will mess up with Wikipedia:No original research. We are forced to use secondary sources like Grainger and others and aren't allowed to use the the primary sources. An expert on the theme should tell, if a primary source is believable or not. This is not my idea, but policy of Wikipedia. --Kryston (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Obviously you know a lot more about this kind of stuff than I do, as I am new at this. Go ahead and put whatever number you feel is most appropriate for the Roman side and I will agree with it. I did notice that Livy's viewpoint is a bit slanted towards the Romans. Thanks for your input. --64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Citing Livy and Arrian is the rational thing to do here. Citing any other numbers which are not supported by the sources, most historians do agree with the numbers given by the ancients, should be done correctly. In the Battle of the Hydaspes article for example, we mentioned Green's hypothesis, but did not promote it as mainstream as is the case here too. Modern scholars mostly rely on the numbers given by the ancients and then only disagree when there are obvious exaggerations, as is the case with the Persian host of Xerxes in Greece or Darius in Gaugamela and even then things are not clear. Here, there is no such exaggeration, although there have been suggestions that Antiochus' army was in fact smaller. I admit to not having read Grainger, but I have read enough on the era to know that this is not the prevalent theory. I suggest we use Grainger's numbers as an extreme maximum of the Roman forces inside the text and not in the table.
I have now read Grainger's analysis and I have many objections to it but this does not matter here. What matters is that he himself admits that his theory is not supported by the rest of the academic community (p.321, ...accepted without discussion by Bar Kotchva and by other moderns...). Yet the very proposal that a consular army of the 2nd century BC could be as large as a combined consular army is very radical... Moreover, he also brings the number of the Seleucid forces to 50.000 total, a number I have seen supported multiple times, claiming that it was the Romans who actually had numerical superiority, at least in quality troops.
GK1973 (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

However you wish to change the wording or numbers I will agree with, since it is pretty obvious you know much more on this stuff than I do.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Very good improvement to "The two Armies".--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I see argyraspides were used in this battle. Apparently Livy refers to them as the "royal cohort" in the army of Antiochus. What portion would you guess they were in this battle? Do you know any etymology on this word? --64.138.237.101 (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
They are not the well known infantry argyraspides, an elite corpse of Alexander and the Successors, but a cavalry unit Appian calls in Greek "ippeis argyraspides", in the translation of Livy above, they are also named. We don't know their number although they might account for the difference of 1.000 between Appian's account and that of Livy's regarding the horse archers next to them. Maybe Livy somehow got the numbers wrong and there were 1.000 silvershields and 200 horse archers. On the other hand, Appian also does not mention their number, so maybe they were not numbered in the primary sources either. Who knows... GK1973 (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just now came across this of Grainger on page 318 which speaks of full-time Seleukid argyraspides 10,000 strong.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Based on Grainger page 320 would this sentence be correct, even if NOT real good English: Administration of the legion 20,000 Italian infantry with recruitments for the legion 15,000 Italian infantry, volunteer 5,000, with the legion historically 10,000. Apparently he based this on Livy 37.39 and others.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Humor me on this, for there is a definite reason I am asking of the NOT so perfect English sentences. Based on Grainger page 319 would the following sentences be accurace. Grammer and sentence structure aside, does it at least look accurace. Also for Antiocho, which was writing history about the same time with Marcus Baebius Tamphilus as some think, 25,000 (10,000 Seleukid argyraspides plus about 15,000 citizen phalanx) and also 1000 royal horse guards and 6,000 of cavalry for armour, 3,000 on the life of Galatians and other light works of the soldiers. Not looking for it to be reworded, thanks anyway. Lets just say for argument's sake I may have found this in an allegory that is very old - centuries before Grainger. Entertain me: is it accurace on the numbers?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry.. are you writing some kind of paper in another language based on Grainger's numbers?
1. Administration of the legion 20,000. If you mean "Manpower of a single legion" this is incorrect. If you mean "Manpower of a consular army (2 legions)" this is a good approxmation. Bear in mind that a single Roman legion's strength, at the time in qustion, in numbers was 1.200 hatati, 1.200 principes, 600 triarii (that is 3000 heavy infantry), 1.200 velites and 300 cavalry, in all 4.500. An allied legion had double that cavalry, so 4.800. In time of duress, the Romans reinforced thir legions with 600 more men, making a full stength, reinforced Roman, non-allied legion 5.100 men strong. Each Roman legion was accompannied by an allied legion, so a "double legion" Romans + Allies would be 9.300 or 9.900 men. To such legions constituted a cnsular army, the greatest force to be entrusted to a single consul. In times of great turmoil and then only within Italian soil, the two consuls would be able to form a combined army of 4 legions. More than that only fought in Cannae against Hannibal.
As for the rest, do you only speak about the Italian forces in Magnesia only? Grainger insists that most Italians who set foot on Greece were at Magnesia, but, Romans were very strict with the organization of their forces. In my opinion, the legions were reinforced legions and most other recruits-volunteers etc would have been left as garisons, operating in some minor front, manning warships (huge numbers were demanded for that) or simply sent back home or away on leave. In barren numbers, Grainger adds 23.000 men to the 20,000 of the legions, but what amazes me is that he is certain that these men are all heavy infantry, which is also kind of absurd... The 15.000 he numbers is the supposed initial strength of the two allied legions and not reinforcements. See the numbers again.
Next the numbers of the Seleucids... this 25.000 is not correct. The phalanx at Magnesia was 16.000, NOT 25.000. You might be mixed up with Antiochus' phalanx at Raphia against Ptolemy (217 BC). The royal guard at Magnesia was 2.000 men strong (agema), the cataphracts indeed 6.000, the Galatian INFANTRY 3000, there was also some Galatian cavalry and as the ancients say at least part of the cataphracts were also Galatians (which is admitedly strange...). 
I do not know whether I have helped you with what you need, if you have some more specific questions, I will be happy to answer them. GK1973 (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Grainger on 
page 360 it says Pulcher had a small force of 2,000 infantry. Looking at the reference of Livy 36.10.13-14 provided it shows Pulcher saving the city of Larisa (at that time then not involved in the Battle of Magnesia) from the larger Aetolian force of 3000 infantry and 200 cavalry by displaying a ruse. Can the city or territory he saved be referrred to as a periphery? Based on about 30,000 for the Romans and 70,000 for the Seleucid Empire then there was about 100,000 involved and some 50,000 killed men of Antiochus. Then hypothetically speaking would this statement be correct, even if NOT real good English? There has been taught some explanations on one hundred thousand and fifty thousand killed with some others captured. I assume you are from Europe someplace? --64.138.237.101 (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The idea of 50,000 killed comes from Livy 37.44 however I do not plan on changing anything. I certainly will agree with whatever you wish to update as I can see you are far more knowledable on this stuff than myself. This is just for my curiosity if you think the above sentence is correct, based on Livy only.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
No, "periphery" cannot be used in connection with any ancient region. Unfortunately I do not understand the sentence There has been taught some explanations on one hundred thousand and fifty thousand killed with some others captured.. Do you maybe want to say sth like "According to the sources and modern calculations about 100.000 men participated in this battle..."? GK1973 (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your sentence certainly makes much more sense. --64.138.237.101 (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
While your correctly structured sentence does make sense, you will have to agree that according to Livy there were 50,000 killed and also many others killed. Not that I want to change anything along these lines, its just the way I see it based on what Livy alone said.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not doubt the 50.000 killed, thus the ... I just restructured your "first" sentence. GK1973 (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you updated and did an excellent improvement to The Two Armies there was lost the references I had originally to Livy. Should there be replacement references as footnotes, perhaps to Granger (or Livy), to show where the information came from. Perhaps also the wording of In all, both writers agree... might be better worded along the lines of Livy and Appian agree... with two footnotes of them saying this at the end of the sentence. The next sentence of Grainger should probably have a footnote also. Its not that I am disagreeing with you on these, its just that I feel important (potentially controversial) facts like this should be backed up with footnotes to quench any future agruments. Can the 35,000 in the Box be changed to 30,000 to match  the Roman army was about 30.000 strong.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Changed the 35.000 Roman force. Will add references in the near future. Appian and Livy have been called by name within the text so I do not think that we should repet their names again GK1973 (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. --64.138.237.101 (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and put in the references, since it looked like you had stopped editing the article - for your approval.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

only 350 romans vs 50,000 Seleucids casualties ? obviously these figures comes from exaggerated primary sources and are unrealistic, do we have any modern estimated for the casualties ? الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, these are not far fetched casualties for such battles. Most casualties by far were made during the flight of armies and not during the fight itself. Of course you should also keep in mind that only half of the Roman army were Romans and so some casualties are not reported regarding the non Roman allies (apart from the Pergamenese horse), maybe a hundred or more. The battle itself was a relatively short one and the only reason why the Romans actually had so many casualties was that the phalanx and cataphracts pushed them at first. GK1973 (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I have updated info box using [1] this sources, its already cited in the references but its estimated were misquoted i hv corrected them. also this book gives some estimates regarding casualties i hv also updated them. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't use Grainger's numbers. His estimations are considered extreme and he lacks any arguments for how he arrives at them, apart from the fact that he cannot believe them. His work is not accepted as "modern estimates" but is considered worth reading. As you might already have seen, we have used his work as an alternative theory and I suggest you add his casualty proposal in the same manner instead of fully incorporating them in the table. We can discuss casualties in ancient battles if you like and look through Grainger's arguments but I think that putting them in the article as an alternative (extreme) theory will suffice and make you happy. GK1973 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I hv searched a bit and found tht John D. Grainger hv wrote 16 books, which are printed by reputed publishers, this makes him reliable enough, more over as u may know we cant judge scholars here, he gave his estimates and tht are up till now only available modern estimates, if u think his theories are extreme etc, then u can help by providing some other modern sources that gives modern estimates. It will be good to have a whole range of modern estimates. like Battle of Yarmouk
As for casualties in ancient battles, then there is one general rule, which is universal, and its that their figures are always exaggerated in primary sources and we all know why. wikipedia history article are therefore suggested to use modern scholarly works.
waiting for ur other sources, i will also trying finding some.
الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, he himself disappointedly states that his views are not shared by other modern scholars. His analysis of Magnesia is extreme. He first proposes that the Romans were actually more than the Seleucids and then he ascribes only 10.000 casualties to the Seleucid side (far to few by any standards.. just the phalanx was 16.000 and according to the sources there was a slaughter) and then he ascribes 5.000!!!!!! to the Roman side??!!! 5.000 men is a huge number to ascribe to the victors of a relatively short battle in which the right Roman wing (the Greek allies) swiftly beat their opponents after the flight of the chariots and the comeback of the legions in the center and left... Actually there is no other modern (or older) historian who accepts Grainger's theories and as I already said he disappointedly admits it so... I still do not know of any other historians accepting Grainger's numbers both regarding the forces and the casualties (p.321, ...accepted without discussion by Bar Kotchva and by other moderns...). He is extreme with his numbers. Nevertheless, I have no trouble putting his numbers within the text but not in the table unless you can bring forward at least one other historian who has adopted Grainger's numbers. It's not too much to ask, is it? The same discussion was made regarding Grainger's numbers concerning the forces of the combatants and we agreed to treat the issue as suggested. As for other sources... any book mentioning the battle offers the numbers proposed by the sources, some with reluctancy. GK1973 (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

i will try finding some, meanwhile if u hv any modern estimates on this battle thn u can add them at least thy would be better then misleading primary sources.
الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I will, although the numbers given by the ancients are not irrational. 500 dead for a victor in such battles are even thought of as many while 70% casualties in a battle that ended up with half of the force being pursued by fresh cavalry and half being surrounded in a great plain with not many safe routs of escape is normal. GK1973 (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

so far after a little search, [2] i found this, the author of it also hv a critical view of the numbers given by primary source livy.
will do more search tomorrow,
الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
My favorite (over Livy) Appian (Syriaca.XXXVI) gives 50.000 dead and captured which is also my proposal and what most historians, among which Bar Kotchva (The Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids, p.38) agree upon.
N. Rosenstein in his Rome at War (p.111, 2004) argues that the number of 324 Romans mentioned by both Livy and Appian as casualties is correct disparaging Klotz, who supports that the number should only apply to the Roman citizens and not to the allied legions.
Hobbes (Essential Militaria, Facts,Legends and Curiosities about Warfare through the Ages, p.71) sticks to Livy's numbers in his short account of the battle (350-50.000 dead)
etc. 
I would stick to this numbers saying Roman casualties - at least 324 Roman and 15 Pergamenese dead / Seleucid casualties 50.000 dead and captured. 
5.000 on the Roman side and 10.000 on the Seleucid are truly extreme... GK1973 (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yep , your source is also Kotchva who agrees with Appian (my view also). GK1973 (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So I read in the first paragraph of the 2 armies that Hannibal was with Antiochus at Magnesia. I do not see Hannibal as one of the commanders, nevertheless this is false. Hannibal was with the Seleucid fleet at Eurymedon and after suffering a defeat at the hans of the Rhodians and Romans he quickly fled to Crete and therefore was not at Magnesia for several reasons as follows:
-He was with the fleet and then after retreating landed in Crete.
-He did not trust Antiochus and foresaw that he would be defeated.
-Antiochus did not value him and he figurd he would be placed in a weak command as Antiochus had done when he placed Hannibal as commander of the fleet but made him share command with another. The other instance is when Antiochus disregarded HAnnibal's plan to invade Italy because he knew that if Antiochus invaded Greece he would surely lose.
-Hannibal believed that Antiochus would have no problems with handing Hannibal over to the Romans
and in conclusion I will change the part where it says that Hannibal was at Magnesia.
Cauca50 (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Regards "Behind them, Scipio held his 16 elephants in reserve, fully aware that the African elephants could not face the larger Indian stock on equal terms."
I'm not sure of the source of this, or other plausible explanations for the deployment so I don't want to WP:Be bold. However, the articles on the African and Indian elephants state that the African elephant is approximately 0.5m taller and a ton heavier than the Indian elephant. Doug (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, in the classical age is was common to believe, that the Asian elephants were bigger than the Africans. Why? Just guessing: Perhaps in that time "African elephant" meant the African forest elephant. --Kryston (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed this 'animated image' of the battle from the article:

There are obvious issues with this, starting with it's colour choice, which almost certainly violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility guidelines. Frankly, if someone told me it was designed to introduce epileptic fits, I'd have difficulty arguing. It also, as an endless loop, utterly fails to actually convey any useful information about the battle, given the lack of any indication of where the starting point is supposed to be. Blocks shuffling about and disappearing in a blur aren't even remotely appropriate means to convey useful information, and I sincerely hope that had the image been in place when the 'good article' review took place (which seems not to be the case) it would have been rejected. If a pictorial depiction of movements within the battle are necessary, there are many much better ways than this to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I highly agree. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)