Skip to content

JA5. Roman Conquest of Syria and Egypt

Statement

Rome’s conquest of Syria and Egypt further extended its control in Asia and Africa. Based on your understanding of the two conquests, answer any one of the following questions.

Put yourself in the position of Antiochus III of the Seleucid Empire of Syria.

  • How would you have acted differently in order to avoid conflict with Rome?

Answer

After securing most of the Italian peninsula and defeating the Carthaginians in the Punic Wars, Rome turned its attention to the east in order to punish the Macedonians who had allied with Carthage. The Seleucid Empire, formed under one of Alexander the Great’s heirs, Antiochus III, was a major power stretching from India to the Aegean Sea. Antiochus III allied with Philip V of Macedon and Hannibal of Carthage to challenge Rome’s dominance in the eastern Mediterranean (Kings and Generals, 2017).

Both allies of Antiochus III, Philip V of Macedon and Hannibal of Carthage, sought to revenge Rome for their previous defeats; and while the Seleucid was relatively strong and far from Roma attention; the allies pushed Antiochus III to fight Romm on the Greek mainland. Antiochus III moved his forces to Greece in 192 BC and suffered two defeats before retreating back to Asia Minor. Then, the Romans pressed on Asia Minor and defeated Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC. The Romans imposed harsh terms on Antiochus III, forcing him to pay a large indemnity and surrender his territories in Asia Minor (UNRV, 2024).

Antiochus III could have avoided conflict with Rome by not listening to Philip V and Hannibal. The Seleucid Empire was a powerful state, and relatively distant from Rome separated by strong geographical barriers like the Aegean and Mediterranean seas. Antiochus III should have focused on building his defenses around Asia Minor rather than crossing to mainland Greece. He could have also sought to negotiate with Rome to avoid conflict, as the Romans were not interested in fighting the Seleucids and their main beef was the Macedonians and Carthaginians. He already had a vast empire and should have focused on building the empire from the inside rather than engaging in external conflicts, knowing that building a strong internal would give him better chances when negotiating with Rome, or even deter Rome from attacking him at all.

In terms of military tactics, Antiochus III could have avoided fighting the Romans in open battle on a strange territory, as the Romans were known for their superior military tactics and discipline. He could have waited for the Romans on the shores of Asia Minor, relying on his strong navy to repel any Roman invasion. He could have sent small partisan forces to engage with the Romans and gather intelligence on their movements and tactics, especially knowing that the lack of intelligence was the main reason for the two defeats he suffered in Greece (Kings and Generals, 2017). He could have also sought to build alliances with other states in the region to counter the Roman threat, with many empires and states looking for revenge against Rome.

To conclude, Antiochus’s wars with Rome were a complete disaster; the Seleucid Empire lost its armies, territories, and prestige. Antiochus III could have avoided conflict with Rome by not listening to his allies, focusing on building his defenses, negotiating with Romans, and avoiding facing them in an open battle. The Syrian War could have changed the face of history if it had been avoided, or if its results were different, but I believe that Antiochus III behaved to the best of his abilities and knowledge at the time, and it is hard for me to suggest a better course of action just 2000 years later.

Word Count: 556.

References

‌ ‌