Battle of Ipsus
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: All Battles Project
Forum Discription: Forum for the All Battles military history project
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21103
Printed Date: 10-Jun-2024 at 04:22
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Battle of Ipsus
Posted By: Justinian
Subject: Battle of Ipsus
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 02:37
|
I was suprised not to find a topic on this battle. It occured in 310 b.c. between antigonus and his son demetrius on one side against seleucus and lysimachus. Antigonus' strength has been estimated at 70,000 to 80,000 with 75 elephants. The force under lysimachus and seleucus to be less in numbers, perhaps 60,000 to 70,000, but with 500 elephants courtesy of Chandragupta Maurya.
The result of the battle was victory for seleucus and lysimachus and defeat and death for antigonus.
What are peoples opinions on this battle? What do you think would have happened if Antigonus would have won? Perhaps keeping the empire of alexander intact? ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 02:48
|
I think that the Antigonids could have kept Alexander's empire alive, but not for any longer than the Seleucids. Within 150 years or so, even if they expanded outwards a bit, the empire would have fell victim to Rome. The Seleucids had a very good power base, and a huge one at that. In between the Mediterranean and India, they could get a vast array of troops and a stack of elephants (as they did, through treaties with the Mauryans). Selecus got his empire up and running very well, and his was arguably the most powerful of the diadochi. I believe they beat the Ptolemies in war, involving battles such as Raphia, after Selecus had died, under Antiochus III. This was approaching their demise, as Antiochus, who lost Raphia but won the war, was also the loser at Magnesia (vs. Romans). So to be honest, the Seleucids are the rightful victors, as it was a good strategy on Selecus and Lysimachus's part. I think the Seleucids got more out of their empire, than the Antigonids would have if Ipsus had gone their way - but that's just my thoughts. (I am rather partial towards the Seleucid empire). I must say though, it would have been mighty interesting if the Diadochi had come to terms and united...even more so if they'd allied with Carthage, against Rome........ ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 02:48
|
Not a chance... there were still other Diadochi kingdoms there and about... it failed because of... (Knights, bring out that stupid quote you once told me)...
------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 03:48
|
Along what lines was this quote you speak of, Rider?
------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 01:38
You bring up some interesting points, I wonder though if the antigonids win at ipsus they can concentrate on ptolemy then the far east. I would think their chances would increase a good amount if ipsus is a victory, seleucus, lysimachus and cassander would be all but neutralized for a while with just ptolemy left excluding the far east territories. I disagree about them inevitably falling to the romans. There have been some lively discussions about alexander versus hannibal and the romans on other threads and my point has been that it may seem like it was inevitable that the romans would beat the hellenistic empires however, the successors were impoverished and were never able to meet the romans with strong cavalry or their best infantry. If the entire or most of alexanders empire is united I would think it could field strong armies with a strong cavalry arm. Being able to properly execute the good old hammer and anvil tactics of alexander and phillip with perhaps some newer modifications. I agree that with the death of antigonus, seleucus was the strongest of the diadochi, only ptolemy could compete. Yes it was rather like a see-saw in regards to the ptolemaics and seleucids, often times it was the seleucids soundly beating the ptolemaics. (they almost conquered egypt several times if I am not mistaken) I would say the seleucids were experiencing a revival under antiochus he had secured the eastern borders with parthia, bactria and india and was overall successful against the ptolemaics; until he was defeated by the romans. After this everyone rebelled and he would have had to repeat his previous achievements all over again. I can completely understand the partiality to the seleucids, I am rather partial to them myself.  The diadochi allied to the carthaginians, now that is interesting. Hannibal had tried to get Phillip V of macedon involved in his war with rome but nothing really concrete ever came of it except rome going after phillip once hannibal was defeated. Talk about a what if.------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|