The Last Year/Decade a United "Hellenic Front" Could Defeat Rome?

[RINO Tom]

We all know that Rome eventually conquered Greece and much of the Hellenic world that formed after Alexander's conquests.  The following points also seem to be largely agreed upon by historians:

1) The Roman Republic of Alexander's day (330s and 320s BC) was no match for the behemoth Alexander had built.

2) By the time of Cleopatra and the final years of Ptolemaic Egypt (40s and 30s BC), the writing was on the wall for the Hellenic world, and Rome had a clear path to dominating the classical world.

I know, I know - the Greeks and Hellenic states were famously divided, and an alliance holding together was unlikely.  (Alexander's successors literally behaved as if they were post-history and that the only battle ever to be fought again was which Macadonian/Greek/Hellenic leader would rule everything.)  However, IF these Hellenic kingdoms had decided that a rival Hellenic state was better than Roman occupation, what was the last year or decade in which they would have had the collective power to stop any increase in Roman influence in the Eastern Mediterranian?

Thanks, as always, for all you smart responders!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The most powerful Hellenistic state was that of the Seleucids, so you're looking for the point at which they ceased to be a serious threat to Roman ambitions in the region, which would be after the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC. Mind you, they would never have (and never did) seriously co-operated with any other state except as part of a strategy to annex everything in sight for themselves, which is the whole problem here, particularly as the Republic, at this stage, avoided formal annexation in the region, preferring client states and puppet kingdoms.

[Orser67]

Not quite exactly what you're asking, but I've always seen the turning point in Roman power as the end of the Second Punic War (so ~200 BC). Having gained de facto control over the western Mediterranean by eliminating Carthage as a major threat, the Romans had a free hand to slowly expand into the divided eastern Mediterranean. But I'm not sure if Roman conquest of the entire region was truly inevitable until Roman victory in the Third Macedon War (168 BC) and the continuing deterioration of the Seleucid Empire in the decades after the Battle of Magnesia.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Hot take: the fact that the Romans began to rely on educated Greek slaves for almost everything, and that even as early as Hadrian they allowed their own peninsula to be ignored in favour of Greece means they did actually defeat Rome culturally.

But I can't imagine the post-Alexander kingdoms uniting to defeat Rome, even if they were given the benefit of hindsight. The most unity the seluccids and Macedons had was when they mutually ate up Egyptian territory, which was considered so craven the weaker Hellenic states literally invited the Romans in; the old Greek city states didn't care for being dominated by the smelly Macedonians anyway; Ptolomeic Egypt had been a meme state for years and so on. I guess the last chance to militarily forge an alliance between Hellenic states was the mithradatic wars, but they weren't accidently a fun time for the greeks.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hot take: the fact that the Romans began to rely on educated Greek slaves for almost everything, and that even as early as Hadrian they allowed their own peninsula to be ignored in favour of Greece means they did actually defeat Rome culturally.

Not so hot take. It's been conventional wisdom since Horace.

[Blue3]

There actually isn't a lot of history out there on what Greece was like under the Romans, is there?

[RINO Tom]

There actually isn't a lot of history out there on what Greece was like under the Romans, is there?

No, and it sucks!  I assume, given the continued prominence of Greek language in the East, it was not much different?  I have long wanted to know, however, when Greeks started truly identifying as Romans.  Sparta was still revolting well into the Roman Era, yet the Byzantines called themselves Romans right up to the end, and many of their descendants did for centuries after.  I’m inclined to say that it was with the adoption of Christianity in the region (I do know being a “Hellene” in the post-476 AD Eastern Roman Empire was used as a synonym for still being a pagan, rather than being an ethnic Greek), but I wish there was more material to read.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I thought Sparta had become little more than a tourist trap by the Roman era, its military exploits long lost to the winds.

[RINO Tom]

I thought Sparta had become little more than a tourist trap by the Roman era, its military exploits long lost to the winds.

I mean, I think the resistance was crushed easily, but I thought I read somewhere that they hung onto a “Hellene” identity longer than other Greek areas.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I thought Sparta had become little more than a tourist trap by the Roman era, its military exploits long lost to the winds.

Absolutely: Sparta was finished as a serious military power before the rise of Macedonia, lost even its role as a local political player following the obliteration of its - by this point already rather small - army at Sellasia in 222 BC, and lost its independence after a characteristically blockheaded attempt to return to some sort of relevance backfired horrifically in 195 BC. As you say, by the imperial period it was a sort of early theme park in which the remaining citizens abused their children for the ghoulish amusement of rich Roman tourists.

[Blue3]

There actually isn't a lot of history out there on what Greece was like under the Romans, is there?

No, and it sucks!  I assume, given the continued prominence of Greek language in the East, it was not much different?  I have long wanted to know, however, when Greeks started truly identifying as Romans.  Sparta was still revolting well into the Roman Era, yet the Byzantines called themselves Romans right up to the end, and many of their descendants did for centuries after.  I’m inclined to say that it was with the adoption of Christianity in the region (I do know being a “Hellene” in the post-476 AD Eastern Roman Empire was used as a synonym for still being a pagan, rather than being an ethnic Greek), but I wish there was more material to read.

You'd think the Greek half of the Roman Empire would have the most records of Roman times, outside of Italy. Especially with how long Constantinople stood against the Ottomans and others. It's so odd.

[RINO Tom]

Thanks for all of the responses.  I guess, let me rephrase:

When was the last year/decade that the "Hellenic World" had more collective (if divided) power than the Roman Republic?  For example, I think it's indisputable that early on the Hellenistic states dwarfed Rome.  However, by the time that Rome annexed Ptolemaic Egypt, it wasn't very close at all in the other direction.

I feel to answer this question, I would have to have more knowledge about where populations were concentrated (and not just look at geographic spread of the states), but I know the east was generally more populated.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I suppose this is my chance to ask for a semi-comprehensive source on the the classical Mediterranean (or one of its constituent parts). I'm way behind on antiquity.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Thanks for all of the responses.  I guess, let me rephrase:

When was the last year/decade that the "Hellenic World" had more collective (if divided) power than the Roman Republic?  For example, I think it's indisputable that early on the Hellenistic states dwarfed Rome.  However, by the time that Rome annexed Ptolemaic Egypt, it wasn't very close at all in the other direction.

I feel to answer this question, I would have to have more knowledge about where populations were concentrated (and not just look at geographic spread of the states), but I know the east was generally more populated.

What do you mean by 'power'? Rome defeated the successor states because of its superior military and political organisation (at least Polybius thinks so). In terms of wealth and resources the east always significantly outstripped the west, but that wasn't always so important a military factor: think of Octavian defeating Antony or Constantine conquering the Empire starting from Britain and Gaul.

[RINO Tom]

^ In this case, I do mean strictly military power.  Rome has taken on a near mythical "persona" as an unstoppable, military-minded machine that was destined for the path it ended up taking.  However, I think during the early parts of the wars of the successors (of Alexander), there were multiple Hellenistic states that could have defeated Rome in battle (I mean, Pyrrhus more or less did, though we all know this gave birth to the term "Pyrrhic Victory" for a reason).  So, I am wondering when the last time someone living in part of the Hellenistic world would have looked over to Rome and rightly thought, "We can take those guys."  (I want to place a heavy emphasis on RIGHTLY thought. )

[Cassius]

^ In this case, I do mean strictly military power.  Rome has taken on a near mythical "persona" as an unstoppable, military-minded machine that was destined for the path it ended up taking.  However, I think during the early parts of the wars of the successors (of Alexander), there were multiple Hellenistic states that could have defeated Rome in battle (I mean, Pyrrhus more or less did, though we all know this gave birth to the term "Pyrrhic Victory" for a reason).  So, I am wondering when the last time someone living in part of the Hellenistic world would have looked over to Rome and rightly thought, "We can take those guys."  (I want to place a heavy emphasis on RIGHTLY thought. )

Issue with that is that that process happened very rapidly - Rome was not really relevant in the East prior to its first war with Macedon, and I doubt any of the Hellenistic powers bar Philip V paid it much mind, but then in the space of a decade it successfully humbled two of the big three successor kingdoms (Macedon and Antiochus’ Seleucid polity) and established itself as the key player in Greece. It was a pretty rapid shift.

I suppose this is my chance to ask for a semi-comprehensive source on the the classical Mediterranean (or one of its constituent parts). I'm way behind on antiquity.

Depends what you’re looking for; the gold standard, in my view, would be the Cambridge Ancient History, which consists of fourteen chunky volumes covering the period from near-prehistory up until the reign of the Emperor Justinian, but those will be expensive (unless you could get access to Cambridge Core via a university account or something) and will probably take about as long to read as the period that they cover lasted for.

Some good alternatives (ie written for a predominantly popular audience, but nonetheless written by reputable scholars) include Robin Lane Fox’s the Classical World, Donald Kagan’s three volume history of the Peloponnesian War, Robin Waterfield’s Dividing the Spoils and Taken at the Flood (covering the wars of Alexander’s successors and the Roman conquest of Greece respectively) and anything by Adrian Goldsworthy (who primarily covers the late Roman Republic and Empire. I’d also recommend the works of Mikhail Rostovtzeff and Moses Finley on the Roman economy, even though both are pretty dated (do not take any of Rostovtzeff’s theorising at face value in particular). Also, whilst there are a fair few people on the discipline nowadays who can get very sniffy about this, there’s no better substitute for getting a grounding in some of the major historical events than reading some of the primary (or near-primary sources); Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Livy, Sallust, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plutarch etc. They may not be ideal sources but given the fact that they continue to underpin so much of the study of the ancient world I’d recommend taking a look. You can either find them for free (albeit with dated translations) at Perseus.tufts.org, or you can probably pick them up reasonably cheaply online or at a good bookshop.

[Kingpoleon]

About 245 BC. Antigonus II Gonatas was a great leader, and he could have feasibly intervened during the First Punic War. Particularly if Ptolemy III and his Greek allies, IE Rhodes, had been willing to join with him. If I’m remembering correctly, his son was a pretty good general.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I suppose this is my chance to ask for a semi-comprehensive source on the the classical Mediterranean (or one of its constituent parts). I'm way behind on antiquity.

I've been listening to the audiobook of Tony Spawforth's recent The Story of Greece and Rome.  It's an enjoyable, concise overview with an emphasis on the archaeological record and cross-cultural contacts.

[YPestis25]

I think this is a very interesting topic, and there are many factors to consider when answering the question.

The Eastern Mediterranean, populated with large cities, had significantly more wealth and population than the Western Mediterranean. I think then we can say that the Hellenistic states together probably had more latent power than the Roman Republic into the 2nd century BCE.

The major problems facing the Hellenistic states when facing Rome would have to be sclerotic and unwieldy state institutions. This is most evident with Ptolemaic Egypt, where Greek administration had allowed one of the richest economic areas of the ancient Mediterranean to stagnate. As others have mentioned though, when a successor state found itself with a competent ruler, it was capable of fairly astonishing displays of strength. The Seleucid Empire is most obvious example of this, and they went through a few cycles of decline and renewal, the last renewal of course being with Antiochus III, who before his defeat at Magnesia managed to restore Seleucid control to eastern Iran, Bactria, Parthia, and central Asia Minor.

So I guess then we have to decide what scale we need to actually defeat Rome. If Antiochus had managed to win the Battle of Magnesia, I suppose it is possible that the powers could have agreed to a status-quo antebellum in the area, with Rome having influence over the Greek cities of Greece proper, and the Seleucids controlling the states east of the Aegean. But this isn't really a defeat of Rome as much as it would be avoided disaster for the Seleucids. Eventually, Rome would return, or the Seleucids would find themselves with a weak king, or both, and Roman hegemony in the East would begin, which gets to the root of the problem facing nearly every state which fought the Roman Republic. Rome was willing and able to absorb disastrous losses of life and continue to fight, while it often only took one or two crushing defeats for their enemies to fold. For the Seleucids, Thermopylae, Magnesia, and the destruction of their fleet left them unable to continue the fight, and in the Treaty of Apamea, they had to abandon their territory west of the Taurus Mountains and their power in the East subsequently began to disintegrate.

Back to the topic, if we consider a defeat preserving Hellenic "home rule," then as Crabcake said, it was probably Magnesia, though I think that would have only delayed the inevitable. To actually try to find a time when the Hellenic states could have destroyed Rome, we have to look farther back, perhaps even to Pyrrhus, who with more focus could have done serious damage. After Rome had unified the Italian peninsula, I think the challenges of fighting a distant campaign, in need of significant seaborne resupply would have been too great to destroy the Republic.   

[The Mikado]

Several people here have mentioned the Mithridatic Wars, which are actually really telling on this. Mithridates was the last credible challenge to Roman power from the Hellenistic world and he was only able to even pretend to be a credible challenge because Rome was in a cycle of intermittent civil wars the entire time that led to the Romans periodically losing interest with Mithridates. Rome effectively beat Mithridates with one hand tied behind its back because it never really put the full focus of its strength behind the various campaigns against him until the very end.

It says a lot about how strong Rome had become at that point that they could conduct a major war like that as a total afterthought and get to the "oh, is Mithridates still out there? I guess we could launch another campaign" stage.

[RINO Tom]

Bump!

I just watched a series by the YouTube channel Kings and Generals on the Wars of the Diadochi, and it really does seem that the Hellenic world saw Alexander's conquests as the ushering in of a truly new world order and therefore saw their wars against each other as the battle for control of everything.  I would love to see some primary sources on some of their reactions as they finally realized that Rome now represented a truly equal rival from the west.

It seems that by the time of the Battle of Ipsus (301 BC), a growing Rome was still no match for the Antigonids, Seleucids or Ptolemies, and they likely were still behind the Macedonian kingdoms, too.  By the time of the Pyrrhic Wars (280-275 BC), I would also say it is pretty clear that any alliance of Hellenic kingdoms could have defeated Rome, as Pyrrhus literally beat the Romans every time he fought them but couldn't continue due to the losses incurred - it seems sufficient help from another Hellenistic kingdom could have done the trick.  It seems that this question gets very interesting/up in the air some time between ~260 BC and ~190 BC, after which point it seems clear that Rome is somewhat unrivaled in military strength.

[Cassius]

Thinking again about this topic, I’m not convinced that a ‘United Hellenic Front’ could have ever beaten the Romans, for the simple reason that the latter’s military system was better than that of the Hellenistic powers. Racking my brains back to undergrad, I can only think of one case where the Romans were worsted by a Hellenistic power, the Pyrrhic War, and of course that is where we get the term ‘Pyrrhic victory’ from so even that’s contestable.

I suppose, regarding the Roman military system, the Romans were deficient in cavalry, something they were usually able to remedy by using allied troops (see Eumenes at Magnesia), so perhaps if they had been deprived of good allied cavalry this might have made the difference, given that the Seleucids in particular had a variety of very good mounted troops. I still think the superiority of the manipular  system over the phalanx would’ve told in the end (see Cynoscephalae for the textbook example of this).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, the long-standing tendency (still aggressively asserted by a remarkable number of bores) to assume that armies based around the pike phalanx were superior to all other armies in the ancient world does rather fly in the face of such things as 'facts' and 'evidence'.

[Cassius]

Yes, the long-standing tendency (still aggressively asserted by a remarkable number of bores) to assume that armies based around the pike phalanx were superior to all other armies in the ancient world does rather fly in the face of such things as 'facts' and 'evidence'.

Wehraboos of Classics.

[RINO Tom]

Yes, the long-standing tendency (still aggressively asserted by a remarkable number of bores) to assume that armies based around the pike phalanx were superior to all other armies in the ancient world does rather fly in the face of such things as 'facts' and 'evidence'.

I don't think one has to think that to entertain an alternate history where Rome was not inevitable to conquer most of the known world, something I personally find an annoying assumption on behalf of those discussing history.  However, Cassius' post was definitely interesting.