DOCSLIB.ORG

The Seleucid Empire – My Brother’S Keeper

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Seleucid Empire – My Brother’S Keeper 057: The Seleucid Empire – My Brother’s Keeper It is July in the year 246 BC, and King Antiochus II of the Seleucid Empire has suddenly died at the age of 40 in the city of Ephesus in Asia Minor, having ruled since 261.1 His death was sudden and unexpected, and rumors of poison swirled about. Some ancient writers like Appian, Pliny the Elder and Porphyrius lay the blame directly on the feet of Antiochus’ first wife, Laodice I, whom he was visiting at the time.2 She is said to have been driven to act by jealousy and insecurity after being divorced by Antiochus so he could take the hand of Ptolemy II’s daughter Berenice as his new wife following the end of the 2nd Syrian War in 253/252. As much as a “scorned lover” trope makes for excellent storytelling, it is more than likely just that, a trope. While a couple of ancient historians and writers accuse Laodice of killing Antiochus, no contemporary writings found in the Babylonian Chronicles or Astronomical Diaries make mention of foul play, and some like Eusebius merely states that he fell ill and died.3 Death by disease in the ancient world could come swiftly and unexpectedly, even in the prime of one’s life and with access to the best doctors. As I also explained in the last episode, too much importance might be placed upon the Seleucid-Ptolemaic marriage alliance following the 2nd Syrian War, and Laodice probably did not undergo any loss of status given the polygamous nature of Hellenistic monarchies.4 Much of the blame seems to be unwarranted, and a similar comparison could be drawn between Laodice and Livia Augusta, the wife of the Emperor Augustus and alleged poisoner in the eyes of Roman historians like Tacitus and Cassius Dio. In addition, several of our surviving histories are likely based on an original work by Phylarchus, a historian of the Ptolemaic court who was looking blame the Seleucids as instigators of the 3rd Syrian War. Still, even if she didn’t murder Antiochus, queen Laodice was more than willing to get her hands a bit dirty. Laodice was the mother of two boys named Seleucus and Antiochus, but Berenice had just given birth to a son shortly before Antiochus II’s death. Laodice needed to act before anything could be done to threaten her children’s access to the throne (and by extension, her own safety). Since he was the eldest male of the dynasty, Seleucus (now Seleucus II) was proclaimed king by his mother, though in all likelihood he had been proclaimed as joint king prior to his father’s passing as per Seleucid custom.5 Being in Antioch, Berenice would not have heard about the king’s death for at least several weeks, but when she did she tried to gather any support that she could.6 Even with this cry for help, mother and child were soon set upon by assassins and murdered on the initiative of Seleucus, Laodice, or perhaps 1 Babylonian King’s List 6, Obv 11.; BCHP 10 Rev.5-6 ; Eusebius, Chronicles, Pg. 251 2 Appian, Syrian Wars, 65; Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 7.53; Porphyrius, Fragments, 43 3 Eusebius, Chronicles, Pg. 251 4 Coşkun, A. “Laodike I, Berenike Phernophoros, Dynastic Murders, and the Outbreak of the Third Syrian War (253-246 BC)” in “Seleukid Royal Women: Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire” edited by Coşkun, A. and McAuley, A. Pgs. 116-118 5 BCHP 10 Rev.5-6; Coşkun, A., “The War of Brothers, the Third Syrian War, and the Battle of Ankyra (246-241 BC)” in “The Seleukid Empire, 281-222 BC: War Within the Family” Pg. 202; Coşkun, A. “Laodike I, Berenike Phernophoros, Dynastic Murders, and the Outbreak of the Third Syrian War (253-246 BC)” in “Seleukid Royal Women: Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire” edited by Coşkun, A. and McAuley, A. Pg. 119 6 P. Gurob (P.Petrie II, 45; III, 144); Justin, Epitome, 27.1 both of them.7 Brutal? Certainly, though well within the normal course of royal politics during the Hellenistic period. Though the threat to their legitimacy was now gone, it appears that Berenice’s pleas would be posthumously answered by her brother Ptolemy III Euergetes, the new king of Egypt following Ptolemy II’s death earlier that same year. The younger Ptolemy would declare war upon Seleucus and invaded Syria that September in order to protect his nephew and sister’s claims for the throne – at least, this is what surviving fragments of official Ptolemaic reports tell us.8 More than likely Ptolemy had been preparing for war since he took the diadem, given the remarkable speed with which the army had been assembled and marched across the border.9 Peace treaties only lasted about as long as both signing parties were alive anyways, so Ptolemy Philadelphus’ death essentially guaranteed a renewal of hostilities.10 The troubles afflicting the Seleucid realm must have made it even more appealing for Ptolemy to invade when he did as well. A Seleucid governor of Ephesus named Sophron had taken control of the city in a coup in July or August. This was apparently a preemptive move to save himself from the plotting of Laodice according to the historian Phylarchus.11 Ptolemy would eventually be given Ephesus during the war, so it is very tempting to imagine backroom deals being cut between Sophron and the Egyptian court (though no direct evidence exists for this idea).12 The invasion of Syria was remarkably smooth: Euergetes almost certainly knew that Berenice and the boy were dead, but he chose to withhold this information from Berenice’s supporters who greeted him as far north as Seleucia-in-Pieria and even Antioch, places where he received a welcome as a defender of the true heir.13 It seems bizarre to think that Ptolemy faced almost no resistance bypassing the Seleucid Tetrapolis, and at some point he must have had to reveal his hand regarding his deceased sister and nephew.14 At what was clearly the lowest point for the Seleucid war effort (and arguably their lowest point across a century of Seleucid-Ptolemaic antagonism), Ptolemy and his army managed to cross the Euphrates River and besiege Babylon by December.15 While it certainly falls short of the boasts of Ptolemy’s propagandists who claim he campaigned in lands like Bactria and India, such an accomplishment was truly impressive –never before had the Egyptian army managed to penetrate this far into Seleucid territory.16 A fragment of the Babylonian chronicles gives us an account of the fighting that took place: Ptolemy and his commanders first besieged Seleucia-on-the-Euphrates before turning 7 Justin, Epitome, 27.1; Polyaenus, Stratagems, 8.50; Appian, Syrian Wars, 65 8 P. Gurob (P.Petrie II, 45; III, 144); Piejko, F. “Episodes from the Third Syrian War in a Gurob Papyrus, 246 BC”, Archiv fur Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete, 36, 13-27.; SEG 42.994 9 Coşkun, A., “The War of Brothers, the Third Syrian War, and the Battle of Ankyra (246-241 BC)” in “The Seleukid Empire, 281- 222 BC: War Within the Family” Pg.200 10 Grainger, J.D. “The Syrian Wars”, Pg. 154 11 Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, 13.593 12 Coşkun, A., “The War of Brothers, the Third Syrian War, and the Battle of Ankyra (246-241 BC)” in “The Seleukid Empire, 281- 222 BC: War Within the Family” Pg. 200 13 Justin, Epitome, 27.1 says 14 Grainger, J.D. “The Syrian Wars”, Pg.160 argues that Ptolemy may have been received as a visiting king and not as a conquering force, but I don’t agree with the logic. 15 Appian, Syrian Wars, 65; Grainger, J.D. “The Syrian Wars”, Pg.162 does not believe Ptolemy besieged Babylon. 16 OGIS 54; Polyaenus, Stratagems, 8.50 their attention to Babylon itself.17 Despite a defense by the Seleucid garrison, the Ptolemaic army (described as “Haneans”) managed to capture a part of the city, and massacred many of the refugees inside.18 Ptolemy had taken control over enough of Mesopotamia to warrant him installing a man named Xanthippus as his governor over the region.19 One of Seleucus’ subordinates, also named Seleucus, had attempted to drive off Ptolemy and Xanthippus’ siege of Babylon, but he and his troops had failed and were surrounded and slaughtered by late January or February of 246.20 The text cuts off at this point, and we are not sure how far Ptolemy got in his conquests, but he returned to Egypt in order to deal with some sort of internal strife by the middle of 246.21 At this rate though, he had taken much of Syria, Mesopotamia, and parts of Asia Minor. These were humiliating circumstances – where was Seleucus II during all of this? It appears that Seleucus was attempting to amass allies and armies, and hoping that his subordinates would be able to keep the Ptolemaic forces at bay for the time being. In Asia Minor, we see that Ptolemy experienced difficulties when the Macedonian king Antigonus II Gonatas had taken the opportunity to inflict a major defeat to the Ptolemaic navy near Egyptian holdings in the Aegean.22 Pro-Seleucid factions clashed with Ptolemaic factions in places like Smyrna and Magnesia-ad-Sipylos, the former of which was rewarded by Seleucus later on for its staunch loyalty to him as reported in a couple of inscriptions.23 Seleucus had also been able to build alliances with some of the local dynasts, marrying off his sisters to the Iranian kings of Pontus and Cappadocia.24 At some point in the early years of the war a massive fleet was organized to fight against the Ptolemaic naval hegemony, but a great storm tore the ships apart and nearly killed the young king.25 Despite this setback, Seleucus crossed the Taurus Mountains sometime in 244 to retake much of the Seleucis in Syria and his administration would be minting coins in Antioch by the end of the year, a victorious campaign that earned him the nickname Callinicus (beautiful victor).26 I hate having to repeat myself like a broken record, but unfortunately there are not enough sources to give any specifics beyond cursory descriptions and extrapolations for much of the war.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Archaeology and History of Lydia from the Early Lydian Period to Late Antiquity (8Th Century B.C.-6Th Century A.D.)
    Dokuz Eylül University – DEU The Research Center for the Archaeology of Western Anatolia – EKVAM Colloquia Anatolica et Aegaea Congressus internationales Smyrnenses IX Archaeology and history of Lydia from the early Lydian period to late antiquity (8th century B.C.-6th century A.D.). An international symposium May 17-18, 2017 / Izmir, Turkey ABSTRACTS Edited by Ergün Laflı Gülseren Kan Şahin Last Update: 21/04/2017. Izmir, May 2017 Websites: https://independent.academia.edu/TheLydiaSymposium https://www.researchgate.net/profile/The_Lydia_Symposium 1 This symposium has been dedicated to Roberto Gusmani (1935-2009) and Peter Herrmann (1927-2002) due to their pioneering works on the archaeology and history of ancient Lydia. Fig. 1: Map of Lydia and neighbouring areas in western Asia Minor (S. Patacı, 2017). 2 Table of contents Ergün Laflı, An introduction to Lydian studies: Editorial remarks to the abstract booklet of the Lydia Symposium....................................................................................................................................................8-9. Nihal Akıllı, Protohistorical excavations at Hastane Höyük in Akhisar………………………………10. Sedat Akkurnaz, New examples of Archaic architectural terracottas from Lydia………………………..11. Gülseren Alkış Yazıcı, Some remarks on the ancient religions of Lydia……………………………….12. Elif Alten, Revolt of Achaeus against Antiochus III the Great and the siege of Sardis, based on classical textual, epigraphic and numismatic evidence………………………………………………………………....13. Gaetano Arena, Heleis: A chief doctor in Roman Lydia…….……………………………………....14. Ilias N. Arnaoutoglou, Κοινὸν, συμβίωσις: Associations in Hellenistic and Roman Lydia……….……..15. Eirini Artemi, The role of Ephesus in the late antiquity from the period of Diocletian to A.D. 449, the “Robber Synod”.……………………………………………………………………….………...16. Natalia S. Astashova, Anatolian pottery from Panticapaeum…………………………………….17-18. Ayşegül Aykurt, Minoan presence in western Anatolia……………………………………………...19.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ptolemies: an Unloved and Unknown Dynasty. Contributions to a Different Perspective and Approach
    THE PTOLEMIES: AN UNLOVED AND UNKNOWN DYNASTY. CONTRIBUTIONS TO A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE AND APPROACH JOSÉ DAS CANDEIAS SALES Universidade Aberta. Centro de História (University of Lisbon). Abstract: The fifteen Ptolemies that sat on the throne of Egypt between 305 B.C. (the date of assumption of basileia by Ptolemy I) and 30 B.C. (death of Cleopatra VII) are in most cases little known and, even in its most recognised bibliography, their work has been somewhat overlooked, unappreciated. Although boisterous and sometimes unloved, with the tumultuous and dissolute lives, their unbridled and unrepressed ambitions, the intrigues, the betrayals, the fratricides and the crimes that the members of this dynasty encouraged and practiced, the Ptolemies changed the Egyptian life in some aspects and were responsible for the last Pharaonic monuments which were left us, some of them still considered true masterpieces of Egyptian greatness. The Ptolemaic Period was indeed a paradoxical moment in the History of ancient Egypt, as it was with a genetically foreign dynasty (traditions, language, religion and culture) that the country, with its capital in Alexandria, met a considerable economic prosperity, a significant political and military power and an intense intellectual activity, and finally became part of the world and Mediterranean culture. The fifteen Ptolemies that succeeded to the throne of Egypt between 305 B.C. (date of assumption of basileia by Ptolemy I) and 30 B.C. (death of Cleopatra VII), after Alexander’s death and the division of his empire, are, in most cases, very poorly understood by the public and even in the literature on the topic.
    [Show full text]
  • Ptolemaic Foundations in Asia Minor and the Aegean As the Lagids’ Political Tool
    ELECTRUM * Vol. 20 (2013): 57–76 doi: 10.4467/20800909EL.13.004.1433 PTOLEMAIC FOUNDATIONS IN ASIA MINOR AND THE AEGEAN AS THE LAGIDS’ POLITICAL TOOL Tomasz Grabowski Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Kraków Abstract: The Ptolemaic colonisation in Asia Minor and the Aegean region was a signifi cant tool which served the politics of the dynasty that actively participated in the fi ght for hegemony over the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea basin. In order to specify the role which the settlements founded by the Lagids played in their politics, it is of considerable importance to establish as precise dating of the foundations as possible. It seems legitimate to acknowledge that Ptolemy II possessed a well-thought-out plan, which, apart from the purely strategic aspects of founding new settlements, was also heavily charged with the propaganda issues which were connected with the cult of Arsinoe II. Key words: Ptolemies, foundations, Asia Minor, Aegean. Settlement of new cities was a signifi cant tool used by the Hellenistic kings to achieve various goals: political and economic. The process of colonisation was begun by Alex- ander the Great, who settled several cities which were named Alexandrias after him. The process was successfully continued by the diadochs, and subsequently by the follow- ing rulers of the monarchies which emerged after the demise of Alexander’s state. The new settlements were established not only by the representatives of the most powerful dynasties: the Seleucids, the Ptolemies and the Antigonids, but also by the rulers of the smaller states. The kings of Pergamum of the Attalid dynasty were considerably active in this fi eld, but the rulers of Bithynia, Pontus and Cappadocia were also successful in this process.1 Very few regions of the time remained beyond the colonisation activity of the Hellenistic kings.
    [Show full text]
  • Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult
    ΑΡΣΙΝΟΗ ΕΥΠΛΟΙΑ Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult Carlos Francis Robinson Bachelor of Arts (Hons. 1) A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2019 Historical and Philosophical Inquiry Abstract Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult By the early Hellenistic period a trend was emerging in which royal women were deified as Aphrodite. In a unique innovation, Queen Arsinoë II of Egypt (c. 316 – 270 BC) was deified as the maritime Aphrodite, and was associated with the cult titles Euploia, Akraia, and Galenaië. It was the important study of Robert (1966) which identified that the poets Posidippus and Callimachus were honouring Arsinoë II as the maritime Aphrodite. This thesis examines how this new third-century BC cult of ‘Arsinoë Aphrodite’ adopted aspects of Greek cults of the maritime Aphrodite, creating a new derivative cult. The main historical sources for this cult are the epigrams of Posidippus and Callimachus, including a relatively new epigram (Posidippus AB 39) published in 2001. This thesis demonstrates that the new cult of Arsinoë Aphrodite utilised existing traditions, such as: Aphrodite’s role as patron of fleets, the practice of dedications to Aphrodite by admirals, the use of invocations before sailing, and the practice of marine dedications such as shells. In this way the Ptolemies incorporated existing religious traditions into a new form of ruler cult. This study is the first attempt to trace the direct relationship between Ptolemaic ruler cult and existing traditions of the maritime Aphrodite, and deepens our understanding of the strategies of ruler cult adopted in the early Hellenistic period.
    [Show full text]
  • 9 · the Growth of an Empirical Cartography in Hellenistic Greece
    9 · The Growth of an Empirical Cartography in Hellenistic Greece PREPARED BY THE EDITORS FROM MATERIALS SUPPLIED BY GERMAINE AUJAe There is no complete break between the development of That such a change should occur is due both to po­ cartography in classical and in Hellenistic Greece. In litical and military factors and to cultural developments contrast to many periods in the ancient and medieval within Greek society as a whole. With respect to the world, we are able to reconstruct throughout the Greek latter, we can see how Greek cartography started to be period-and indeed into the Roman-a continuum in influenced by a new infrastructure for learning that had cartographic thought and practice. Certainly the a profound effect on the growth of formalized know­ achievements of the third century B.C. in Alexandria had ledge in general. Of particular importance for the history been prepared for and made possible by the scientific of the map was the growth of Alexandria as a major progress of the fourth century. Eudoxus, as we have seen, center of learning, far surpassing in this respect the had already formulated the geocentric hypothesis in Macedonian court at Pella. It was at Alexandria that mathematical models; and he had also translated his Euclid's famous school of geometry flourished in the concepts into celestial globes that may be regarded as reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.). And it anticipating the sphairopoiia. 1 By the beginning of the was at Alexandria that this Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy I Hellenistic period there had been developed not only the Soter, a companion of Alexander, had founded the li­ various celestial globes, but also systems of concentric brary, soon to become famous throughout the Mediter­ spheres, together with maps of the inhabited world that ranean world.
    [Show full text]
  • GODDESS of LOVE and MISTRESS of the SEA P. Goodspeed 101 Is
    GODDESS OF LOVE AND MISTRESS OF THE SEA NOTES ON A HELLENISTIC HYMN TO ARSINOE-APHRODITE (P. LIT. GOODSP. 2, I-IV)* Abstract: This article analyses one of the hexametric poems copied on a 2nd-century AD papyrus, possibly from Hermupolis, P. Lit. Good- speed 2: a Hellenistic hymn to Aphrodite celebrated as a patroness of the sea and of wedded love. This portrayal of the goddess perfectly fits with Ptolemaic royal propaganda in the 3rd century BC. The address to ’Arsinóa Ptolema[ì] (II 5) reveals that the goddess is here worshipped as a divine image of a queen Arsinoe, most probably Arsinoe II Phila- delphos, who had strong links with key figures of the Ptolemaic navy. The hymn is compared with contemporary Alexandrian poetry, such as the epigrams of the Milan papyrus P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309. Some hypo- theses are also presented on the context of the composition and the per- formance of the hymn (a Cypriot cult of Arsinoe Philadelphos?). THE PAPYRUS P. Goodspeed 101 is a fragment of a papyrus roll composed by a series of II AD documents pasted together1. On the verso, on twelve fragmentary * This article is an expanded and modified version of a short paper I presented at the conference La cultura ellenistica: il libro, l’opera letteraria e l’esegesi antica, Università di Roma, Tor Vergata, 22-24 September 2003. I wish to thank the anonymous readers and the editors of Ancient Society for useful comments and suggestions. Abbreviations: CA = J.U. POWELL, Collectanea Alexandrina. Reliquiae minores poetarum Graecorum aetatis Ptolemaicae 323-146 a.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Daniel Pembroke Bible Chapel Mark Floyd – 2010 August 22 Message No
    Daniel Pembroke Bible Chapel Mark Floyd – 2010 August 22 Message No. DAN-12 The Key to Prophetic Revelation Prophecies About The Nations (Daniel 11) SUMMARY The revelations of Chapter 11 were given to Daniel by an angel (introduced in Chapter 10) in the third year of the reign of the Persian ruler Cyrus II (~ 536 BC; 10:1; Ezra 1:1). The prophecies of verses 2-35 predict the rise and fall of several rulers of the Persian and Greek empires over a ~ 365 year period (529-164 BC). Ultimately, verses 36-45 predict the rise and fall of a future satanic ruler that will exist at Israel’s end time, just prior to the second coming of Christ to establish His kingdom on earth. Four Persian Rulers (2; 529-465 BC) this prophecy predicts the rise and fall of four Persian rulers that came after Cyrus II and Darius the Mede: o Cambyses (529-522 BC) o Smerdis (522-521 BC) o Darius Hystaspes (521-486 BC; Ezra 5-6) o Xerxes I (486-465 BC) . also known as “Ahaseurus” (Esther 1) . used his riches to lead a disastrous expedition against Greece in 480 BC Alexander the Great (3-4; 336-323 BC) conquered Persia and established the Greek empire his reign was brief, dying at age 32, and leaving no heir his kingdom was divided amongst his generals, eventually leading to four weaker rulers/kingdoms: o Cassander – Macedonia/Greece o Lysimachus – Thrace and Asia Minor (Bithynia) o Ptolemy I – Egypt, Palestine and Arabia) o Seleucus – Syria, Babylonia and east to India Pembroke Bible Chapel Mark Floyd – 2010 August 22 Message No.
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar of Roman Events
    Introduction Steve Worboys and I began this calendar in 1980 or 1981 when we discovered that the exact dates of many events survive from Roman antiquity, the most famous being the ides of March murder of Caesar. Flipping through a few books on Roman history revealed a handful of dates, and we believed that to fill every day of the year would certainly be impossible. From 1981 until 1989 I kept the calendar, adding dates as I ran across them. In 1989 I typed the list into the computer and we began again to plunder books and journals for dates, this time recording sources. Since then I have worked and reworked the Calendar, revising old entries and adding many, many more. The Roman Calendar The calendar was reformed twice, once by Caesar in 46 BC and later by Augustus in 8 BC. Each of these reforms is described in A. K. Michels’ book The Calendar of the Roman Republic. In an ordinary pre-Julian year, the number of days in each month was as follows: 29 January 31 May 29 September 28 February 29 June 31 October 31 March 31 Quintilis (July) 29 November 29 April 29 Sextilis (August) 29 December. The Romans did not number the days of the months consecutively. They reckoned backwards from three fixed points: The kalends, the nones, and the ides. The kalends is the first day of the month. For months with 31 days the nones fall on the 7th and the ides the 15th. For other months the nones fall on the 5th and the ides on the 13th.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ptolemaic Sea Empire
    chapter 5 The Ptolemaic Sea Empire Rolf Strootman Introduction: Empire or “Overseas Possessions”? In 1982, archaeologists of the State Hermitage Museum excavated a sanctu- ary at the site of Nymphaion on the eastern shore of the Crimea. The sanctu- ary had been in use from ca. 325 bce until its sudden abandonment around 250 bce.1 An inscription found in situ associates the site with Aphrodite and Apollo, and with a powerful local dynasty, the Spartokids.2 Built upon a rocky promontory overlooking the Kimmerian Bosporos near the port of Panti- kapaion (the seat of the Spartokids), the sanctuary clearly was linked to the sea. Most remarkable among the remains were two polychrome plastered walls covered with graffiti depicting more than 80 ships—both war galleys and cargo vessels under sail— of varying size and quality, as well as images of animals and people. The most likely interpretation of the ship images is that they were connected to votive offerings made to Aphrodite (or Apollo) in return for safe voyages.3 Most noticeable among the graffiti is a detailed, ca. 1.15 m. wide drawing of a warship, dated by the excavators to ca. 275–250, and inscribed on its prow with the name “Isis” (ΙΣΙΣ).4 The ship is commonly 1 All dates hereafter will be Before Common Era. I am grateful to Christelle Fischer-Bovet’s for her generous and critical comments. 2 SEG xxxviii 752; xxxix 701; the inscription mentions Pairisades ii, King of the Bosporos (r. 284/3– 245), and his brother. Kimmerian Bosporos is the ancient Greek name for the Chan- nel now known as the Strait of Kerch, and by extension the entire Crimea/ Sea of Azov region; see Wallace 2012 with basic bibliography.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 8 Antiochus I, Antiochus IV And
    Dodd, Rebecca (2009) Coinage and conflict: the manipulation of Seleucid political imagery. PhD thesis. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/938/ Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Glasgow Theses Service http://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] Coinage and Conflict: The Manipulation of Seleucid Political Imagery Rebecca Dodd University of Glasgow Department of Classics Degree of PhD Table of Contents Abstract Introduction………………………………………………………………….………..…4 Chapter 1 Civic Autonomy and the Seleucid Kings: The Numismatic Evidence ………14 Chapter 2 Alexander’s Influence on Seleucid Portraiture ……………………………...49 Chapter 3 Warfare and Seleucid Coinage ………………………………………...…….57 Chapter 4 Coinages of the Seleucid Usurpers …………………………………...……..65 Chapter 5 Variation in Seleucid Portraiture: Politics, War, Usurpation, and Local Autonomy ………………………………………………………………………….……121 Chapter 6 Parthians, Apotheosis and political unrest: the beards of Seleucus II and Demetrius II ……………………………………………………………………….……131 Chapter 7 Antiochus III and Antiochus
    [Show full text]
  • SELEUKID STUDY DAY VII 'Warfare, Military & Society in the Seleukid
    SELEUKID STUDY DAY VII ‘Warfare, Military & Society in the Seleukid Kingdom’ (Sunday, 28 July to Sunday, 4 August 2019) Abstracts Almagor, Eran, Jerusalem, Israel ([email protected]) Plutarch (Life of Demetrius) and Others on the Battles of Ipsos and Kyrrhestika This paper aims to re-discuss the depiction of the Battles of Ipsos (301) and Kyrrhestika (285) as they are found in Plutarch’s Life of Demetrios (chs. 28–29 and 48–49 respectively), the main or only source for both military engagements. It purports to explore the information provided by Plutarch and to offer a reconstruction of the battle’s stages, in particular with regard to the feasible role (and number) of elephants employed. This conjecture will be made also with relation to proposals concerning Plutarch’s ultimate source as a means to better understand the battles. A comparison will be made with the descriptions of Ipsos by Diodoros (and scattered details found in other authors) and of Kyrrhestika by Polyainos. One of the points to be made is the extent to which Plutarch’s depictions echo each other and serve as a literary closure in his work: the first battle saw the end of Antigonos, the second the political end of Demetrios, his son. As the winner in both battles, Seleukos plays the role of the protagonist’s rival and limit. Berzon, Catherine, Moscow, Russia ([email protected]) The War between Demetrios I and Alexander Balas in the Light of Classical and Cuneiform Evidence The paper is concerned with the chronology and crucial events of the war between King Demetrios I Soter and the usurper Alexander Balas.
    [Show full text]
  • The Writings in the Book of Truth
    The Writings in the Book of Truth Daniel 11 The Historical Background At the time of Daniel: Cyrus II the Great and the four kings after him: 1. Cambyses II (530-522 B.C.) V. 2 2. Pseudo-Smerdis (522 B.C.) 3. Darius the Great (521-486 B.C.) 4. Xerxis the Great (486-465 B.C.) – The richest king in Persia who stirred war against Greece V. 3-4 Alexander the Great of the Grecian Kingdom. His kingdom was divided into four kingdoms after his death Kings of the South (Egypt) Kings of the North (Syria) V. 5 Ptolemy I Soter (305-283 B.C.) Seleucus I Nicator (305-281 B.C.) Ptolemy II Philadelphus (284-246 B.C.): Gave his daughter, Berenice, Antiochus II Soter (281-261 B.C.) V. 6 to marry Antiochus II Theos Antiochus II Theos (261-246 B.C.) – Divorced his wife Laodice to marry Berenice V. 7-9 Ptolemy III Euergetes (246-222 B.C.) Seleucus II Callinicus (246-225 B.C.) Seleucus III Ceraunus (225-223 B.c.), first son of Callinicus; he was murdered V. 10-12 Ptolemy IV Philopator (222-204 B.C) Antiochus III the Great, second Son of Callinicus (223-187 B.C.) Antiochus III the Great Ptolemy V. Epiphanes (204-180 B.C.) – Married Cleopatra I around V. 13-19 - Gave his daughter, Cleopatra I, to be Epiphanes’ wife (V. 17) the age of 16 - Defeated by the Roman commander, Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (V. 18) Seleucus IV Philopator (187-175 B.C.) - Trying to raise taxes for the Romans by sending his minister, Heliodorus, as “exactor V.
    [Show full text]