sign in sign up
<<
Home , Elam, Parni, Seleucid army, Seleucid Empire, Syrian Wars

1

Seleucids third century; (especially Books 36–40 on the Roman war against Antiochos III); ROLF STROOTMAN and for the late third and early second centuries BCE. Later Seleucid history must The Seleucid (312–64 BCE) was the be reconstructed mainly from and largest of the three Macedonian the first two books of the . Valuable that emerged after the death of the additional evidence is provided by coins (see Great. It was created by SELEUKOS I NIKATOR Houghton and Lorber 2003; Houghton, Lor- (“the Victorious”), from his satrapy of ber, and Hoover 2008); inscriptions from , incorporating and transforming Greek cities, particularly in Minor (Orth the infrastructure of the preceding Achaemenid 1977; Ma 2002); and Babylonian Empire. The Seleucid kingdom was an arche- texts (Oelsner 1986; Boiy 2004). Archaeology typal imperial state: a huge, composite entity suffers from the later overbuilding of Seleucid characterized by wide ethnic, cultural, reli- sites in the western parts of the empire and gious, and political diversity. The empire in a relative disinterest in the Seleucid period in its heyday stretched from the Pamir Mountains and ; this situation has somewhat to the , reaching its greatest extent improved in the past decades (see below). around 200 BCE under Antiochos III the Great. In modern scholarship, the From ca. 150 BCE, the empire rapidly declined. is a somewhat controversial subject. From the Its core territories were taken over by the early nineteenth century, historians considered Romans and especially the PARTHIANS, until in the Seleucids in terms of an antithesis of east 64 BCE the Seleucid Dynasty disappeared from and west. Thus Bevan (1902) notoriously history virtually unnoticed. found that the Seleucids’ chief claim to fame The Seleucid state was in essence a was spreading Greek (“European”) vitality in military organization exacting tribute. Kingship the indolent east; but he also believed that in was charismatic and intensely martial (see KING- time the Seleucids themselves became oriental- SHIP, HELLENISTIC). The ’s heroic ethos ized and that the resulting “decadence” was the required of the king to be a successful war principal cause of their decline. Although such leader able to defend the interests of his blatant orientalism has now become uncom- followers and the cities under his protection. mon, the history of the Seleucid east is still Imperial ideology was universalistic, the self- mostly viewed as a continuation of Classical presentation of the Seleucid monarch a con- Greek history. This view also dominates orien- tinuation and elaboration of the age-old Near tal studies, where the Macedonian period is Eastern notion of a . often considered an anomalous interlude in the history of the , better passed over quickly or left to classicists entirely. SOURCES AND APPROACHES A “postcolonial” reaction in the 1980s and 1990s advanced the conception of the Seleucid Information about the Seleucids in the literary Empire as essentially an “eastern” imperial sources is scant and uneven. What material culture (see i.a. Kuhrt and Sherwin-White exists is predominantly written from a Medi- 1993). This approach, however, has so far terranean perspective and rarely pays attention been unable to explain the empire’s evident to Seleucid affairs beyond Asia Minor and the Greco-Macedonian characteristics and more- . Of importance are in particular over has kept the discussion confined to the Diodorus (Books 18 and following); , explicative cadre of an east – west dichotomy, whose contains the only continu- encouraging teleological questions of continu- ous account of the dynasty’s history in the ity and change. In the twenty-first century, the

The Encyclopedia of , First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 6119–6125. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09215 2 empire is becoming more an object of study governed the Upper Satrapies as co-ruler in its own right. Archaeology too has in the since 292, strengthening the oasis of past decades began to yield new insights into and rebuilding Baktra () as the eastern- the empire with important excavations at i.a. most Seleucid capital. Antiochos I more Merv, Jebel Khalid in northern , than his father organized and consolidated several sites in (Downey 1988: 131–6), Seleucid rule, posthumously deifying his father and on the island of Falaika in the . and establishing the . This first continuous system of year reckoning in his- tory, with the beginning of Seleukos’ reign in HISTORY (312–311 BCE) as Year 1, presented the establishment of the Seleucid Empire as The Seleucid state grew from the Babylonian history starting anew. In Antiochos’ reign too satrapy awarded to Seleukos by the Treaty of began the long and violent rivalry with the Triparadeisos in 320 BCE (see TRIPARADEISOS, over possession of the Mediterra- TREATY OF). By means of conquest and diplo- nean seaports. Seleucid–Ptolemaic enmity macy, Seleukos first established his rule in the resulted between 274 and 145 in at least seven eastern satrapies of the former Achaemenid wars, known today as the SYRIAN WARS – a mis- Empire, securing the support of the eastern nomer, since much more was at stake than aristocracies who would provide his dynasty merely conflicting interests in (Koile) . with cavalry for the next one and a half Following the badly documented reign of century. His marriage to Apame, an Iranian ANTIOCHOS II THEOS (261–246), the empire suf- princess from , presumably helped fered a temporary setback under SELEUKOS II structuring negotiations with these local aris- KALLINIKOS, who spent his entire reign desper- tocracies. In India he made an alliance with the ately trying to keep his ancestral domains Mauryan king CHANDRAGUPTA, who supplied together. His rule began with a severe succes- him with a large number of war elephants in sion crisis in which III intervened in return for territorial concessions. Seleukos favor of the infant son of his sister, Laodike, the then returned to the west to establish his hege- second wife of ANTIOCHOS II (see LAODIKE, WIFE OF mony in Syria and , defeating his rival ANTIOCHOS II). In this conflict, known as the ANTIGONOS I MONOPHTHALMOS in the battle of Third Syrian or Laodikean War (246–241) Ipsos (301) (see IPSOS, BATTLE OF). In 281 (see SYRIAN WARS), several Levantine cities fell Seleukos gained Asia Minor and the Macedo- into the hands of Ptolemy, whose troops nian kingship when he defeated Lysimachos at advanced as far as Babylonia before being Kouropedion (see KOUROPEDION, BATTLE OF). His forced to retreat to . Immediately after death in 281 led to uprisings in the west and this war, a conflict broke out between Seleukos prevented the annexation of and and his brother, ANTIOCHOS HIERAX (“The Macedon. Hawk”), who had established himself as rival Seleukos’ son and successor ANTIOCHOS I king in Asia Minor. This was the first serious SOTER, who reigned until 261, restored Seleucid outbreak of the dynastic infighting that would rule in the west but had to accept the de plague the empire especially in the second cen- facto autonomy of and PONTOS. The tury. The War of the Brothers lasted with inter- Greek cities of Asia Minor hailed him as vals from 239 to 228 and brought the empire to savior, apparently after his somewhat elusive the brink of collapse. At this time, too, victory over the in the so-called a nomad people known as the migrated Battle of the Elephants. In the east, Antiochos from to northern Iran, and settled like his father maintained strong (family) in the Seleucid province of Hyrkania and later bonds with the Iranian nobility. The son of (and hence are known as the Par- an Iranian noblewoman, Antiochos had thians). Distracted by his brother’s growing 3 power, Seleukos accepted their presence and Egypt. His efforts to restore Seleucid authority formally installed their leader Arsaces (I) as in the east and perhaps to prepare for a new vassal king. His return to the west, however, war against Rome ended with his premature offered Diodotos (I), the of and death in Iran in 164. After his short but Sogdia, the opportunity to proclaim himself remarkable reign, political decline accelerated king. and the Parthians took over the role of the After the short reign of SELEUKOS III KERAUNOS Ptolemies as the Seleucids’ principal military (226–223), Seleucid authority in the Upper antagonists. Satrapies was reasserted by ANTIOCHOS III During the last century of its existence, MEGAS (223–187), under whose reign the succession wars between two rival branches of empire reached its greatest extent. Despite the royal family destroyed the empire from being defeated by the Ptolemies in the Fourth within. While all around vassal rulers Syrian War (219–217) (see RAPHIA, BATTLE asserted their independence, the Parthian OF), Antiochos in 211 embarked on a successful king Mithradates I took possession of prolonged campaign through Iran, Bactria, in 148 and Babylonia in 141. Attempts at and India, where he collected tribute and reconquest by Demetrios II Nikator in 140/39 picked up new war elephants. In the Fifth and by the energetic Antiochos VII Sidetes Syrian War (202–195), Antiochos inflicted in 130/29 both failed (see DEMETRIOS II; a crushing defeat on the Ptolemies at the Battle ANTIOCHOS VII). The permanent loss of Iran of Panion (200), occupied and the and Mesopotamia to the Parthians effectively Ptolemaic possessions in Asia Minor, and terminated the existence of the Seleucid state annexed Thrace. Further westward expansion as an empire. The dynasty lingered on for came to a sudden halt when Seleucid expan- another sixty-five years. At the beginning of sion in provoked war with Rome. The the last century BCE, all that remained of the Roman legions drove Antiochos back to Asia Kingdom of Asia was a small state in northern Minor, where they decisively defeated him at Syria, fractured by civil war. After a brief the in 189. The peace treaty occupation of Syria by the Armenian king concluded at the following year forced TIGRANES, the Roman general abolished Antiochos to give up Asia Minor and his Med- the monarchy without a blow in 64/3 BCE, iterranean fleet, and to pay a huge indemnity turning Syria into a . Rome (see APAMEA, PEACE OF). Contrary to a once initially preserved a reorganized version of widespread belief, the loss of Asia Minor was the imperial vassal state system as it had exis- no fatal catastrophe for the Seleucids (Kuhrt ted under the later Seleucids, taking over and Sherwin-White 1993; Grainger 2002), the Seleucids’ role as protectors of cities. In although it still was a severe blow to Seleucid Mesopotamia and Iran the PARTHIAN KINGS, too, power and the charisma of its warrior-king, took on the role of the Seleucids as imperial inciting dangerous uprisings elsewhere in the suzerains over a patchwork of peoples and empire (Antiochos soon after died fighting in polities. Elam) and leaving Rome as the only super- power in the Mediterranean (see ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS). MONARCHY, COURT, AND ARMY ANTIOCHOS IV EPIPHANES (“God Manifest”; 170–164) reorganized the empire and The empire in its heyday had no fixed capital. campaigned against the Ptolemies in Egypt, King, court, and army traveled around almost laying SIEGE to and probably being continually in pursuit of glory and booty, crowned pharaoh in Memphis. Parthian and to (re)affirm the ruler’s charisma as expansion in Iran forced him to accept Great King by ritually demonstrating his a humiliating Roman ultimatum to abandon splendor and military might. Along the Royal 4

Road, the main east–west artery, the Seleucids Typical for Seleucid armies was furthermore maintained various palaces for their peripa- the employment of large numbers of horse- tetic court, including those at in , men, including Iranian and the in Syria, Seleukeia in Babylonia, dreaded armored . Ekbatana and Hekatompylos in Iran, and Baktra (and perhaps Aı¨ Khanoum) in present-day . THE SELEUCID STATE Since the posthumous deification of Seleukos Nikator, most Seleucid kings became Like most empires, the Seleucid state was gods after death. Antiochos I was awarded essentially a military organization aiming at divine honors during his lifetime by the collecting resources (manpower, food supplies, Greek cities of Asia Minor. The divine status timber, and metals) for its war making, and of the Seleucids also was apparent from their the extraction of the capital needed to finance close association with , who was not the empire’s military apparatus and the gifts merely the ancestor of the dynasty but also and status expenditures with which the loyalty the father of Seleukos I. Apollo remained the of cities and powerful individuals was secured. tutelary deity of the Seleucid family, depicted Good relations with cities – the markets on the reverse of royal coins, until under where surpluses were collected and turned Antiochos IV Zeus, too, was put to the fore as into coin – were therefore the key prerequisite a symbol of Seleucid power (other heraldic for the practice of empire. emblems of the dynasty, favored particularly Geopolitically speaking, the empire was a in the Early Empire, were the horse, the patchwork of varying forms of control arranged , and the anchor). In ca. 200, a cen- around several clusters of cities: tralized “state cult” for the reigning couple Minor, Syria, Babylonia, Susiana (Elam), (Antiochos III and Laodike) was established. Media, and Bactria. These core were At the center of the empire were the connected by land routes protected by chains so-called FRIENDS OF THE KING (see COURT, of fortresses and fortified cities. The many cities HELLENISTIC). They were predominantly founded (or refounded) by Alexander and espe- and Macedonians from civic elite families, cially Seleukos I constituted the cornerstones associated with the royal family by means of of Seleucid imperial rule (see FOUNDATIONS (fictive) kinship and ritualized guest-friendship, (HELLENISTIC)). In addition, military colonies, and acting as intermediaries between the known as katoikia in Asia Minor, were founded monarchy and the cities. and garrisoned by Macedonians who received Although warfare in the Hellenistic Age was land from the crown in exchange for military mainly siege warfare, the empire for major service. Sometimes, as in the case of Dura- campaigns was able to assemble formidable Europos in northern Mesopotamia, such field armies of 60,000 to 80,000 men (see fortresses developed into flourishing cities. ARMY, HELLENISTIC). The core was a professional Greek and non-Greek cities alike were standing army of Macedonian-style guard approached in accordance with local expecta- infantry known as the Silver Shields, various tions. Particularly, kings approached cities cavalry guard units, and war elephants. To through the patronage of, and participation these could be added regiments in, local cults. They paid for the maintenance consisting of military settlers who were given of temples, provided offerings, and when pre- farmland in return for military service and sent partook in the rituals in person – for whose loyalty to the dynasty was proverbial. instance Antiochos III performing the role of Vast numbers of light infantry, allied troops a “traditional” Babylonian king in the and mercenaries, were levied on an ad Festival or Antiochos IV making offer- hoc basis for major military campaigns. ings to in the Temple of . 5

There were no deliberate attempts to “Helle- SEE ALSO: Antioch in Syria; Apamea, Syria; nize” the population, but civic elites often Seleukeia; Syrian wars. assumed a double identity, such as Greek- Babylonian or Greek-Jewish, to express their allegiance to the empire, so that in the course REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS of time a supranational imperial culture came Aperghis, M. (2004) The Seleukid royal economy: into existence based on the Hellenic culture of the finances and financial administration of the the court. Seleukid Empire. Cambridge. Urbanized areas were loosely administered Bar-Kochva, B. (1976) The : by centrally appointed military organisation and tactics in the great campaigns. known variously as strate¯goi or . They Cambridge. were entrusted with collecting tribute, levying Bar-Kochva, B. (1989) Judas Maccabaeus: troops, and keeping the peace. In rural areas the Jewish struggle against the Seleucids. local, particularly Iranian, aristocracies remained Cambridge. in control of military resources. Maintaining Bevan, E. R. (1902) The House of Seleucus. good relations with them, too, was of pivotal London. Bickerman, E. J. (1938) Institutions des importance for the empire. Cities moreover Se´leucides. Paris. were more or less autonomous, and various Bickerman, E. J. (1983) “The Seleucid period.” In remote and thinly populated areas within the E. Yarshater, ed., The Cambridge , empire’s “borders” were never fully pacified. vol. 2: The Seleucid, Parthian, and Sasanian From ca. 250 BCE onward, the Seleucid periods: 3–12. Cambridge. Empire gradually transformed into a hege- Bilde, P. et al., eds. (1990) Religion and religious monial power loosely uniting a growing num- practice in the Seleucid kingdom. Aarhus. ber of autonomous vassal states and small Boiy, T. (2004) Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic princedoms around a more or less directly Babylon. Leuven. controlled imperial core consisting of Iraq Capdetrey, L. (2007) Le pouvoir se´leucide. Territoire, and Syria. This process began immediately administration, finances d’un royaume helle´nistique (312–129 avant J.C.). Rennes. after the death of Seleukos, but the most Cohen, G. M. (1978) The Seleucid colonies: studies in prolific kingmaker was Antiochos III – hence founding, administration, and organization. presumably the pronunciation of his status of Wiesbaden. Great King in his official Greek title of Megas, Cohen, G. M. (2006) The Hellenistic settlements in “the Great.” The bonds between the imperial Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North . Berkeley. family and the various vassal were Downey, S. B. (1988) Mesopotamian religious cemented with gifts and dynastic marriages. architecture: Alexander through the Parthians. Seleucid weakness in the mid-third and second Princeton. half of the second century led to increasing Ehling, K. (2008) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte autonomy of these vassals – first in Asia spa¨ten Seleukiden (164–63 v. Chr.). Vom Minor (, Bithynia, and Pontos), then Tode des Antiochos IV. bis zur Einrichtung der in northern Iran and Bactria, and finally along Provinz Syria unter Pompeius. Stuttgart. the fringes of the Fertile (i.a. Judaea, Grainger, J. D. (1997) A Seleukid prosopography and gazetteer. Leiden. Kommagene, , Charakene, , and Habicht, C. (1989) “The Seleucids and their rivals.” various autonomous city states ruled by In Cambridge ancient history, vol. 8: 324–87. local dynasts). Ironically, it was one of these 2nd ed. Cambridge. vassal polities – the Parthian monarchy – that Heinen, H. (1984) “The Syrian-Egyptian Wars would eventually terminate and take over and the new kingdoms of Asia Minor.” In the Seleucid kingdom’s position as the principal Cambridge ancient history, vol. 7.1: 412–45. imperial power in the Middle East. 2nd ed. Cambridge. 6

Holt, F. L. (1999) Thundering Zeus: the making of Lerner, J. D. (1999) The impact of Seleucid decline on Hellenistic Bactria. Berkeley. the eastern : the foundations of Houghton, A. and Lorber, C. (2003) Seleucid coins: Arsacid Parthia and Graeco-Bactria. Stuttgart. a comprehensive catalogue. Part I: Ma, J. (2002) Antiochos III and the cities of Seleucus I–Antiochus III. western Asia Minor. Oxford. New York. Mehl, A. (1986) Seleukos Nikator und sein Reich. I: Houghton, A., Lorber, C. C., and Hoover O. D. Seleukos’ Leben und die Entwicklung seiner (2008) Seleucid coins: a comprehensive catalogue. Machtposition. Leuven. Part 2: Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII. Oelsner, J. (1986) Materialien zur babylonischen New York. Gesellschaft und Kultur in hellenistischer Zeit. Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S., eds. (1987) Budapest. Hellenism in the East: the interaction of Greek Orth, W. (1977) Ko¨niglicher Machtanspruch und and non-Greek civilizations from Syria to Central sta¨dtische Freiheit. Untersuchungen zu Asia after Alexander. London. politischen Beziehungen zwischen den ersten Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S. (1993) From Seleukidenherrschern (Seleukos I., Antiochos I., Samarkhand to Sardis: a new approach to the Antiochos II) und den Sta¨dten des westlichen Seleucid Empire. London. Kleinasien. Munich.