Seleukid Study Day V: and the Seleukid East. Seleukid Study Group, Société d'études latines ‘Latomus’ & Chaire d’histoire romaine à l’Université libre de Bruxelles, 21.09.2015–23.09.2015.

Reviewed by David Engels

Published on H-Soz-u-Kult (December, 2015)

Previous Seleukid Study Days focussed on the investigated an intriguing prophecy (attested by creation of the royal (and queenly) personae, the Phlegon of Tralles) that the fortune of the Ro‐ construction of dynastic bonds as well as the fos‐ mans, despite their victory at Thermopylai (191), tering of loyalties among the early Seleukids and would soon face a reversal. FUAD ALIDOUST their subjects and vassals. It was pointed out re‐ (Mainz) deconstructed Justin’s narrative of peatedly how important Mesopotamia and the Demetrios II Nikator by following up on anti- Iranian territories had been both for the tradi‐ Parthian stereotypes. CHIARA GRIGOLIN tions that their rule was embedded in and for the (Durham) argued that the creation of Seleukid tra‐ material resources they drew their strength from. ditions may date surprisingly late, such as the role Cf. http://seleucid-genealogy.com/ssg.html of the Zeus Eagle in ’s foundation myth, (16.12.2015). Continuing this line of argument, Se‐ which she referred to the Antonine cultural mi‐ leukid Study Day V questioned that the defeat at lieu. Due to some programme changes, only one the hand of the Romans at Magnesia (190) and the topic corresponded with the heading of panel III heavy peace conditions imposed on Antiochos III (“Symbolic Battles and the Representation of the at Apameia (188) doomed the Empire to collapse. Seleukids as Persians”). ERAN ALMAGOR The workshop not only tried to specify the impli‐ (Jerusalem) analysed the echoes of the Graeco- cations of the Roman victory, but also to elucidate Persian Wars in the literary treatments of the Ro‐ factors that strengthened or weakened the Se‐ man-Syrian War. His case-studies illustrated how leukids after Apameia. roles and perspectives could change in the gradu‐ The complex problem was approached in 21 al deployment of a literary tradition. In fact, all papers organized in fve panels. Panel I assem‐ papers hitherto mentioned supported the claim bled seven presentations of PhD projects, and that the literary tradition is too complex to be sub‐ thus inaugurated a planned sequence of doctoral divided into pro- and anti-Seleukid authors. study days sponsored by the Société Latomus. Four further papers (from panels I, II, III and Four of them pursued literary topics. MARIJN V) dealt with reception issues based on documen‐ VISSCHER (Durham) tried to enhance our under‐ tary evidence. GUNNAR DUMKE (Halle) discussed standing of Antiochos’ actions by highlighting the coins from Syrian Antioch which continued to de‐ heroic traditions which shaped the expectations pict Philip I until the Augustan age. This conun‐ of the king and his environment, and thus also his drum cautions us not to assume that all coin illus‐ political choices, or perhaps rather the way they trations had political messages; Dumke tried to were enacted. MARIE-ASTRID BUELENS (Brussels) explain the phenomenon within its broader mon‐ H-Net Reviews etary and economic contexts. CHRISTOPH pointed out that the new prominence of Zeus on MICHELS (Aachen) investigated the continuity the coinage of Antiochos IV responded to his East‐ and change of Hellenistic royalty after the expul‐ ern projects, but did not lead to discontinuing the sion of the Seleukids from Asia Minor. He argued more traditional dynastic Apollo imagery. BEN‐ not to overstate the peculiarities of the Attalids, JAMIN SCOLNIC (New Haven CT) tried to shed who, on balance, aptly continued previous kingly new light on the persecution of the Jews by the ex‐ models. In his study of the usurper Timarchos’ ample set by the Romans who had eradicated the coinage, SVYATOSLAV SMIRNOV (Moscow) argued Bacchan movement throughout Italy, when the fu‐ for a long Near Eastern tradition of representing ture Antiochos IV was still a prince in Roman cap‐ the royal power with a quadriga. GILLIAN RAM‐ tivity. Scolnic viewed the king’s relation with the SEY (Toronto) scrutinized Babylonian sources of senate as one of respect (even if this was backed the 140s and 130s which attest the ‘Four Generals not only by friendship relations, but also relied on in the Land’: these had been established by the Se‐ the potential threat that the release of his nephew leukids and maintained by the Parthians – yet an‐ Demetrios would have meant to his throne). other example illustrating the importance of de‐ ROLF STROOTMAN (Utrecht) (panel V), in centralized governmental structures as a particu‐ turn, interpreted the famous Procession at lar feature of Near Eastern Empires. Daphne as indicative of a revival of Seleukid ex‐ Many other papers looked at the immediate pansionism. Especially the Dionysian motifs were or indirect results of the Roman victory. Panel II explained as promising a successful campaign (“Short- and Long-Term Efects of the Treaty of into the East prior to a triumphal return to the Apameia”) started with two papers dedicated to west, with the latter implying the promise of lib‐ the immediate implications of the peace treaty. eration from the Roman yoke. ADRIAN DUMITRU (Bucharest) rehearsed its terri‐ DJ HOULE (Waterloo / Hamilton ON) (panel I) torial clause as reported by , namely that An‐ also took Daphne as his starting point, but rather tiochos was to withdraw ad Tanaim. While most for an analysis of the use of ethnics as descriptors scholars had regarded the River Don as irrelevant of military units under Antiochos IV, which were for the treaty and suggested to either interpret compared to the armies of Antiochos III at Raphia this as an alternative name for the Kalykadnos in and Magnesia. Houle emphasized not only the Kilikia or as an error for ad Taurum, Dumitru surprising rise in the number of “Macedonians”, plausibly claimed to maintain the transmitted but also the inclusion of so many ethnics relating text: the Romans, besides taking away most of to areas north or west of the Taurus (Mysians, Asia Minor from Antiochos, also insisted that he Cretans, Galatians). He tentatively concluded that might not return to Europe along the northern Seleukid army units, which often functioned in coast of the Black Sea. NICHOLAS SEKUNDA combination with colonial settlements, flled their (Gdansk) scrutinized the several attestations of ranks locally. In the discussion, it was cautioned war elephants in the Seleukid army after not to talk of “pseudo-ethnics”, but rather to be Apameia, suggesting that Rome did not have a sensitive to deliberative ethnic constructs with problem with this, at least until the end of Antio‐ far-reaching implications. Similarly, DAVID EN‐ chos IV’s life. GELS (Brussels) enquired into the lack of evidence The latter king was the focus of several fur‐ for Babylonian military units in the Seleukid ther papers, foremost in panel V (“Continuity, Re‐ army – despite the fact that Mesopotamia was the vival and Change under Antiochos IV and His Suc‐ least-contested territory of Seleukid rule for near‐ cessors”). KYLE ERICKSON (Lampeter, Wales) ly two centuries. Either, he concluded, we contin‐

2 H-Net Reviews ue to stick to the mainstream view that the kings of the attested embassies. In the discussion, it was refused to arm their closest subjects out of mis‐ further stressed that the author of 1 Maccabees trust, or they did not hesitate to recruit Babyloni‐ nowhere expresses dissatisfaction with the Ro‐ ans into their Macedonian phalanx just as Houle mans, who, on the contrary, are represented as suggested for the Syrians, though the prosopo‐ tools of the divine providence. graphic evidence does not (yet) bolster the latter Only one paper gave a detailed diachronic ac‐ view. count of the demise of Seleukid rule: the study of Last but not least, several papers were inter‐ the inner-dynastic problems of the Seleukids by ested in the diplomacy with Rome (panel IV). RICHARD WENGHOFER (Nipissing ON) (panel II). OMAR COLORU (Nanterre) presented a structural That he minimized the impact of Apameia was analysis of Seleukid and Roman Diplomacy, also well in line with the other presentations which shedding light on the broader context of gather‐ pointed to the high potential of Antiochos IV. And ing and spreading information. Three presenta‐ the relative stability of Demetrios’ rule may give tions discussed the unique evidence for the further support to Wenghofer’s view that the friendship and alliance between the Jews and the amount of dynastic strife known to previous gen‐ Romans, which convey unique insights into the erations became unbearable with the successive Roman machinations that potentially destabilized marriage of Kleopatra Thea to three Seleukid pre‐ Seleukid rule without interfering physically. And tenders, resulting in multiple rivalling bloodlines. yet views on motivations and impact continue to This narrative formed the basis for the paradoxi‐ difer. ROBIN HÄMMERLING (Trier) (panel I) frst cal claim that Rome’s policy of holding potential approached the topic by contextualizing the rivals hostage efectively stabilized rather than treaty struck under Judas Maccabee with other weakened Seleukid dynastic rule, at least until diplomatic activities of the Romans. Similarly to 162 BC. EDWARD DĄBROWA (Cracow), who discussed the The discussions repeatedly returned to the friendly relations with Rome under John Treaty of Apameia. Participants could ultimately Hyrkanos and the lack thereof under Alexander not agree if it continued being in force after the Jannaios, he pointed out that the Maccabees in death of Antiochos III or not. Helpful were the fact expected military support, but that the Ro‐ suggestions to diferentiate, a) according to its in‐ mans fell short of delivering it. Hyrkanos still ap‐ dividual rulings (geographical implications, ele‐ proached the Romans, in order to have his territo‐ phants, ships, hostages, indemnity payments), b) rial expansions sanctioned, but in the face of Ro‐ the perspective of the versus the man inactivity, Jannaios decided to pass on this Seleukid court, and c) between a legal and a politi‐ kind of niceties. Diferently, ALTAY COŞKUN (Wa‐ cal validity. terloo ON) explained that all Jewish embassies to The proceedings are expected to be published Rome from Judas to Hyrkanos had the following by 2017 For more detailed summaries, see the conditions in common: the Maccabees had conference website http://www.altaycoskun.com/ achieved efective independence from the Se‐ conferences (16.12.2015). , when Seleukid Study leukids, and friendship with Rome was made or Day VI will take place at Nipissing, North Bay ON. renewed mainly to impress their neighbours, oc‐ Given that all previous Study Days paid much at‐ casionally even the Seleukids, if they were weak tention to strategies designed to create or enhance (e.g. Demetrios II), but most regularly the Jews legitimacy of Seleukid rule, the next gathering themselves, among whom many continued to op‐ will concentrate on the reception or respectively pose or at least question Maccabaean monarchy. on the rejection of such designs. The argument was based on a revised chronology

3 H-Net Reviews

Conference overview: Altay Coşkun (Waterloo ON): Simon Mac‐ Marijn S. Visscher (Durham): Antiochos the cabee, Friendship with Rome and Seleukid Disin‐ Great as Hellenistic Poet? Acts of Kingship and the tegration: a Case-Study of Triangular Diplomacy Literary Tradition (142/41 BC) DJ Houle (Waterloo / Hamilton ON): Livy's Edward Dąbrowa (Cracow): The Seleukids, Ethnics and the Soldiers of Antiochos III and IV Rome and the Jews (134-76 BC) Marie-Astrid Buelens (Brussels): Antiochos Gillian Ramsey (Toronto): ‘The Four Generals fuit, Rome aussi ? La bataille des Thermopyles et in the Land’: Late Seleukid Administration in son issue alternative dans un fragment oraculaire Babylonia de Phlégon de Tralles (FGrH 257 F 36 III) Benjamin Scolnic (New Haven CT): Reading Fuad Alidoust (Mainz): Justin’s Representa‐ backwards: Antiochos IV’s Relationship with tion of Demetrios II. Nikator and His View on the Rome and Its Implications for his Persecution of Parthians the Jews Robin Hämmerling (Trier): On Hasmonean- Kyle Erickson (Lampeter, Wales): Antiochos Roman Diplomacy from Judas Maccabee to Simon IV and Apollo and Its Impact on the Seleukid Empire Svyatoslav Smirnov (Moscow): Timarchos – Gunnar R. Dumke (Halle): Becoming Roman – Satrap, Rebel and King in the Hellenistic East Staying Seleukid? The Posthumous Philip Coinage Rolf Strootman (Utrecht): Antiochos IV’s Pro‐ Reconsidered cession at Daphne as a Manifestation of the Re‐ Chiara Grigolin (Durham): Antioch’s Founda‐ vival of Seleukid Expansionism tion Myth and the Antonine Cultural Milieu Adrian Dumitru (Bucharest): The Territorial Clause in the Treaty of Apameia Nicholas Sekunda (Gdansk): The Seleukid Ele‐ phant Corps after Apameia Richard Wenghofer (Nipissing ON): The Fail‐ ure of Kinship Diplomacy among the Later Se‐ leukid Kings Christoph Michels (Aachen): From One Hege‐ mon to the Next? The Kingdoms of Anatolia after Apameia Eran Almagor (Jerusalem): Echoes of the Graeco-Persian Wars in the Roman-Syrian War in Greece (with an Emphasis on Plut. Cat. Mai. 12-14) David Engels (Brussels): Mais où sont donc passés les soldats babyloniens des Séleucides? Omar Coloru (Nanterre): Seleukid Diplomacy, the and the Circulation of Infor‐ mation

4 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/

Citation: David Engels. Review of Seleukid Study Day V: Rome and the Seleukid East. H-Soz-u-Kult, H-Net Reviews. December, 2015.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=45818

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

5