How to get a Diadochi strong enough to be a serious rival to the Romans?
Since the romans would enlist auxiliaries into their armies to a larger degree than the Diadochi would, that meant that they had a larger pool of manpower to draw upon.
The diadochi tradition of warfare followed the idea that they only recruited greeks or other hellenes to fight as foot companions/pikemen. It should be noted that this stood in contrast to what Alexander the Great did, as Alexander had 30,000 iranians trained as foot companions.
>>477634
Essentially this.
>be Seleucids
>have a manpower base of literally hundreds of thousands of fit adult men
>yeah nah we'll just use the 15,000 or so Macedonians and Greeks that were stupid enough to come out here and colonise these places as heavy infantry
>a couple of thousand non-Hellenes can be irregular javelinmen if they're good
>letting them share in the success of the army? What are you, mad?
>>477716
To be fair, if you start arming your subject peoples and including them on a more or less equal basis as your Greek elite, you'll probably find a bunch of independence movements springing up against your despotic Greek rule the second you turn around.
I mean, the Selucids had enough trouble with their subject peoples as it was, militarizing them seems like a huge risk to take, and could very easily blow up in your face.
>>477809
Basically The Seleucids just had too much clay. If it was Syria-only they would have had more chances I guess
>>477809
The natives had with the Seleucids hardly any problems.
>>479573
Yes but is this the case because they didn't use native auxiliaries?
No tyrant could beat Rome.
Roman organization won more wars than anything else.
A geeek monarch only cares for himself and his subjects couldnt care less whereas the Republican Romans had way better motivations.
>>480252
>the Republican Romans had way better motivations.
Making out with as much gold and influence as you could so you could have villas staffed with fresh boypussy?
>>480273
a man will do anything for boipussi. so much that he cannot be denied by even a man of equal strength. that is the power of boipussi
>>480273
Yes, but also the glory of Rome. The first nationalists were roman and many nations were birthed out of rome.
I'd say the germans of the 19th century got the que from their holy Roman predecessor who got their que rome.
No one really cared if their king lost a battle. He lost it. Not the people. If Romans lose, then its hit in the face to all of rome
>>480338
>The first nationalists were roman
If you ignore the Greek polis yes.
>>480381
True, but that's like the transential species from tribalism leading to more advanced form of nationilsim.
>>477170
Didn't they blow their collective wads in a series of succession wars?
Also if Hannibal himself can't turn shit around for you then something has to be wrong about with that society at its core.
>>480371
Bitch please. A godly monarch like Alexander commands a level of fidelity and enthusiasm that no Roman government could ever match. You would never have seen a Roman army break into murderous frenzy when their general was wounded.
Loyal soldiers identify with their monarch and are driven forward by a deep love and admiration for him. No Roman commander appointed by a Senate which the common soldier held in contempt could command that kind of devotion. The Diadochi got beat because they were not Alexander.
>>480427
>still salty after 2000 years
>>480338
Nationalism didn't exist then pleb
>>480442
Yeah no.
The Romans had idea of the public or general good.
They fought wars to get symbols of rome taken in battle from the previous war.
The idea of being a citizen of rome was a big deal and worth keeping exclusive to them, even the poor Romans.
They were at least planting the seeds of nationalist thought
>>480512
Nope
>>480535
Yeah.
>>480566
Maybe
>>477170
>How to get a Diadochi strong enough to be a serious rival to the Romans?
>How to get X to beat the unbeatable
>>480427
>You would never have seen a Roman army break into murderous frenzy when their general was wounded.
It is somehow bad that Legionaries possessed discipline and didn't go apeshit and throw away their convictions and loyalties as soon their leader falls?
>>480596
Right? I think I know why monoacfags always lose.
>>480590
>unbeatable
various Germanics, Huns, Mauretanians, Turks, and Arabs were able to do it just fine.
>>480627
>Forgets the Persians.
>>480931
I also forgot Nubians, Picts, Sarmatians, etc. But I think you get the point.
If the Romans faced off against Seleucus or any of the Diadochi, they would be crushed. Look at this map from 300 BC.
If you are talking about Antiochus III, then he lived over a hundred years after the death of Alexander and was Seleucus great-great-grandson. Not a Diadochi.
>>477170
If Pyrrhus had had more clay in Hellas before having to tackle Rome for Magna Graecia he'd have wiped the floor with the Latins.
