Seleucid Study Day III: War within the Family: The First Century of Seleucid Rule. Bordeaux: Seleucid Study Group, Classical Press of Wales, Université de Bordeaux III, 05.09.2012-07.09.2012. Reviewed by Altay Coskun Published on H-Soz-u-Kult (October, 2012) As hosts of the VIIth Celtic Conference of Clas‐ convenor KYLE ERICKSON (Lampeter) identified sics Cf. the program of VIIth CCC: various desiderata: frst the necessity to more sys‐ http://www.ucd.ie/t4cm/Vi‐ tematically integrate into the picture the satrapies ieme%20Celtic%20Conference%20in%20Classics%20July%202012.pdfeast of the Euphrates as well as to analyse the (11.10.2012). , Anton Powell (Classical Press of continuity and ruptures in the transition from the Wales, Swansea) and Jean Yvonneau (University Achaemenid to the Seleucid Empires; secondly, to of Bordeaux III) invited the Seleucid Study Group focus more strongly on the periods intervening to organize a panel on the early Seleucid Kingdom between the rules of Seleucus I (320/311-281) and (3rd century BC). After previous gatherings at Ex‐ Antiochus III (223-187); and thirdly to reconsider eter and Waterloo in 2011, this meeting was the the roles of Seleucid royal women. third in a (counted) series dedicated to a collabo‐ Mitchell’s paper highlighted caution in using rative and interdisciplinary research agenda on a simple model of subjugation by suggesting a one of the most under-explored world empires. In new approach to Macedonian colonies in Asia Mi‐ fact, the roots of this joint effort goes back to pre‐ nor. Most of them had not been initiated and or‐ vious conferences in Exeter (2008) and Waterloo ganized by Hellenistic kings but were owed to (2010), as STEPHEN MITCHELL (Exeter) explained Greek or Macedonian private initiatives mainly in his welcome address. Cf. Tagungsbericht Seleu‐ during the years 325-275. A strong argument is cid Study Day I. 15.08.2011, Exeter, in: H-Soz-u- that early colonies of central Anatolia were not Kult, 27.10.2011, http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu- named after kings but leaders of the settlers, as berlin.de/tagungsberichte/id=3866 (11.10.2012), was the case with Dorylaeum or Themisonium. including a reference to the Seleucid Dissolution The kings very often did no more than, at a later Conference at Exeter (2008), and: Tagungsbericht stage, sanctioning and perhaps even privileging Seleucid Study Day II. 09.11.2011, Waterloo, On‐ those settlements that were mainly beneficial to tario, in: H-Soz-u-Kult, 09.01.2012, http:// extending their control into the non-Hellenized hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/tagungsberichte/ areas. id=3979 (11.10.2012) on the previous Seleucid LAURENT CAPEDETREY (Bordeaux) offered Study Days. For the report on the Hellenistic 3rd-century case studies on local autonomous Workshop at Waterloo (2010), cf. WIHS Newsletter rules in Asia Minor by dynasts without the royal 1, 2011 http://wihs.uwaterloo.ca/sites/ca.wihs/files/ title. Admittedly, the ferce competition among the Hellenistic%20Newsletter.pdf#page=3 Hellenistic kings for the control of that area was (11.10.2012). In his introductory note, the panel certainly an important condition for the growth H-Net Reviews of power that Olympichus of Caria and Phil‐ tional ‘Apollo-on-the-Omphalus’ type, whereas Se‐ hetaerus of Pergamum acquired. But Capedetrey leucus altered the reverse iconography to that of refused to equate such ‘feudal’ structures simply ‘Apollo-leaning-on-the-tripod’. Furthermore, the with weakness of the monarch or to explain the ideological interpretations of the coinage all can later dissolution of the empire with structures es‐ be explained by Hierax’s cultivation of his ances‐ tablished in or even prior to the 3rd century. tors’ images, a practice not followed by his broth‐ Those dynasts rather fulfilled a similar function er. as the vassal kings that were needed to rule an JOHN R. HOLTON (Edinburgh) analysed the empire as vast and heterogeneous as that of the Seleucid concept of the jointly ruling son. While Seleucids. joint-kingship had been a success for Seleucus I ALTAY COSKUN (Waterloo) reconsidered the and his son Antiochus I, the latter’s succession af‐ ‘War of Brothers’ whose traditional reconstruc‐ ter his father’s death in 281 was still troubled. But tion is based on Justin (27): Antiochus Hierax re‐ the most notable case of failure was the execution volted against Seleucus II (246-225) and defeated of Seleucus, son of Antiochus I, before he was re‐ him at Ancyra only after Ptolemy III Euergetes placed by the other son Antiochus II as joint-king. had withdrawn from the Third Syrian War Holton pointed out that previous cases of joint (246-241). But Porphyry more convincingly dates kingship differed substantially in nature, whereas the domestic frictions prior to Euergetes’ invasion the Spartan constitution or the couple Antigonus I of Syria. As a result, Euergetes did not open the / Demetrius I came closest to the Seleucid model. war in defence of his sister Berenice Phernopho‐ It was argued that Seleucid joint-kingship was at rus, but rather to seize a three-fold opportunity least in its ideological design a relation of two for military gains: the usurpation of Andragoras equals, thus potentially giving rise to – equally in Parthia (247), the betrayal of Ephesus by the Se‐ harmful – ambition or suspicion. While not origi‐ leucid strategos Sophron, and the dynastic strife nal, joint-kingship was rare before the Hellenistic in 246. New light was also shed on the shifting al‐ world, and thus in some ways an aberration in legiances of the Tolistobogian and Tectosagen the structuring of royal power. Galatians, the Mithridatids, the Attalids, and the ALEX MCAULEY (Montreal) and MONICA Prusiads, all of whom pursued agendas of their D’AGOSTINI (Milan/Bologna) attempted to shed own when opting either for Seleucus or Hierax. more light on the House of Achaeus. The most Based on this new chronology, KYLE ERICK‐ renowned member was Achaeus ‘the Younger’: SON approached the problem of the coinage with the lieutenant of Seleucus III who revolted under the legend of Antiochus Soter, which constitutes a Antiochus III, to be defeated in 213. He was the prime source for the discussion of the early dy‐ last representative of a family that had spent the nastic cults of the Seleucids. Previous discussions 3rd century cultivating connections with other po‐ had ascribed the minting authority to either Anti‐ tentates in Asia Minor. This notwithstanding, the ochus II, Berenice Phernophorus, Seleucus II or family’s progenitor Achaeus ‘the Elder’ appears to III, whereby numismatists have mainly opted for have been a Macedonian serving Seleucus I in the 240s. Since no argument has so far been con‐ high positions and also marrying into his family. clusive, the revised date of the ‘War of Brothers’ Achaeus’ daughter Laodice was the famous wife encouraged Erickson to place the coinage under of Antiochus II who, together with her brother the auspices of Antiochus Hierax (and perhaps his Alexander, played a major role in the usurpation mother). This would also make sense in regards of of Antiochus Hierax. Another descendant, Anti‐ the reverses, since Hierax maintained the tradi‐ ochis, became the wife of Attalus I. It was fnally 2 H-Net Reviews argued that this inherited power base in Asia Mi‐ sume that the Frataraka and the Parthians super‐ nor was a decisive condition for the usurpation of seded regular Seleucid administration, aiming at Achaeus I which was aimed at founding a local complete independence from Hellenistic influ‐ kingship and not to supplant Antiochus III as ence and the re-establishment of Iranian rule. ruler of the Seleucid Empire. Others, however, consider them as minor dynasts Although Seleucus II spent most of his reign with rather reduced autonomy, whereby campaigning against external and domestic ene‐ Achaemenid allusions in their iconography was mies, ROLF STROOTMAN (Utrecht) questioned the complementary rather than an alternative to Se‐ view of Seleucus’ rule as a failure. True enough, leucid allegiance. Engels added strongly to the the challenges posed by the Ptolemaic invasion or credibility of the latter view by re-assessing the the revolt of his own brother were serious, as parallels between the Greek and Aramaic legends were the upheaval in Khurāsān and Bactria, and on some coins of Vahbarz and Arsaces I: both fg‐ last but not least the incursions of the Parnian Ar‐ ured as karani, that is strategoi, which clearly re‐ sacids into Parthia. In the previous cases, Seleucus veals their subordinate positions. Literary sources ultimately prevailed, whereas he had to accept an were further adduced to demonstrate that it autonomous Parthian kingdom under Arsaces. would be anachronistic to construct 3rd-century This, however, should not be viewed as the begin‐ rebellions in terms of ethnic conflicts. ning of the decline of the empire, since frst Seleu‐ MARIE WIDMER (Lausanne) studied the sym‐ cus himself and later Antiochus III once more re- politeia dossier from Magnesia of ca. 243. I. Mag‐ asserted overlordship over the eastern satrapies. nesia am Sipylos I = OGIS 229. The frst of these Hence, not the alleged weakness, but rather the texts is a letter of the Smyrnaei to Seleucus II: they resilience of the Seleucids deserve to be account‐ stress their continued loyalty towards the ruling ed for. dynasty even in the face of a dangerous though BORIS CHRUBASIK (Oxford/Exeter) re-evalu‐ unspecified enemy, whom Widmer identifies as ated the continuities and ruptures in the transi‐ Ptolemy III. They further boast themselves of hav‐ tion to the Seleucid Empire from its Achaemenid ing established cults for Seleucus’ father (Anti‐ predecessor. First, administrative practices dis‐ ochus II) and grandmother (Stratonice).