rivals for empire: carthage, macedon, the seleucids 113

Rivals for empire: Carthage, Macedon, the Seleucids

james thorne

1. Setting: The Mediterranean Powers after Alexander1

Livy, following his narrative for 318 bc, digresses to ponder: what would have been the outcome had Alexander lived on and marched on the West? His conclusion is unsurprising: a sad fate for Alexander at the hands of the great Roman fathers of the era, especially if the fearsome republic of Car- thage ‘joined to Rome by an ancient treaty’ had been brought into play (9.17–19). The annalist’s confidence in the strength of an as yet adolescent Roman empire need not concern us; the striking thing, in terms of the ancient Mediterranean’s international relations, is that he thinks of just three great powers. If such a simple situation did exist in 323, it disappeared quickly, only to reappear briefly at the beginning of the 2nd century. From 323 the Macedonian-cum-Persian empire disintegrated into five major parts, then reconsolidated to the three I will discuss in this chapter (under the Antigonids, Seleucids, and Ptolemies); eventually the last of these col- lapsed, and Carthage was eliminated. This left Rome, Philip V, and Antio- chus III to confront each other after 200. Of the three eastern powers, that of Ptolemaic Egypt was the earliest to emerge. Alexander’s general Ptolemy ruled initially as governor after Alex- ander’s death, but afterwards as king (304–281). Just three further Ptol- emies spanned the rest of the century down to 204, giving an impression of great stability, whose underlying fragility was exposed only in the late years of Ptolemy IV. Antigonus ‘the One-Eyed’, by 315, held Asia and , provoking the other successor-generals into coalitions to contain him. His opponents included Ptolemy and Seleucus, satrap of Babylonia.2 Antigonus then con- centrated on western expansion, and in 306 proclaimed himself and his son Demetrius kings, a move soon imitated by the other successors. After

1 Important literary sources for the period from Alexander’s death to the ascension of Philip V and Antiochus III are: Appian, Syrian Wars, 55-66 (brief); Diodorus Siculus 18–20 (323–302 BC, full) and 21–27 (301-205 BC, fragmentary); Justin 13–18 and 22–28. 2 Diod. 19.55-56; Wheatley 2002. 114 james thorne the octogenarian Antigonus’ death in battle at Ipsus in in 301, fur- ther struggles over Asia Minor and Macedon climaxed with Demetrius’ defeat by Seleucus in 285, but his son, Antigonus II Gonatas, exploited the chaos following the Gauls’ eruption into Greece in 279 to establish the dynasty in Macedonia, his status secure by 271. As to the third of the pow- ers, Seleucus was king following Antigonus’ example from 304, but the Seleucids dated their new era from their earlier recapture of Babylon, mak- ing 312 Year 1. a pact with Antigonus in 308 enabled Seleucus’ consolidation and reconquest of the depths of Asia; ca. 305–303 he forged a marriage alliance with Chandragupta, and received war elephants which he em- ployed at Ipsus. Ipsus brought Seleucus’ territory to the Mediterranean: on the one hand this established a highly contentious frontier with Ptolemy; on the other it brought under control the area which Seleucus would most transform with cities (below). Seleucus also seems at the end of his life to have cherished the idea of ruling over Macedonians in Macedonia proper. He found a pretext to invade Asia Minor, and in 281 defeated his rival at Corupedium. Though he himself was assassinated before he could make good his aspirations, he brought about (1) the greatest extent of the Seleu- cid empire, stretching from the Aegean to the Hindu Kush; and (2) a Mace- donian kingdom confined mainly to Europe, and soon to be under Antigonid control. What of Rome and Carthage in the generation after Alexander? Roman expansion was tentative at best: in 321, the Samnites were sending the Ro- mans under the yoke at the Caudine Forks; and in 315, they devastated Latium. However, the years 315–312 saw a change of fortunes across the world, so that by the time Seleucus regained Babylon, the Romans had started constructing the Appian Way into Campania, and were confident enough to fight on other fronts as well.3 With the conquest of Etruria and Umbria, Roman control of peninsular Italy was in sight, save the cities of Magna Graecia in the south. If Rome was quickly acquiring a compact land empire, the empire which Carthage had more slowly accumulated was the opposite: far-flung, although communications were facilitated by the sea she commanded. Libya (i.e. the broader hinterland of Carthage) and Sardinia she asserted to be her private property: thus Polybius on her Roman treaty of 348 (3.24.14). But his claim that by 264 she had reduced ‘a great part of Spain

3 Cornell 1995, 354.