Seleucid Empire

gigatos | February 13, 2022

Post Views: 13

Summary

The Seleucids (in ancient Greek Σελευκίδαι

The Seleucid kingdom, “fusion” of the East and the Greek world, seems at the beginning faithful to the project of Alexander. It includes a multiplicity of ethnic groups, languages and religions. In this context, even more than for the other Hellenistic monarchies, the king is supposed to be the guarantor of the unit of the empire, the army appearing as the best support of the power. The Seleucids also promoted Hellenization by developing urbanism, as shown by the tetrapolis of Syria and the numerous foundations or refoundations of cities and garrison towns. At the same time, they relied on the religious elites by honoring the indigenous deities, like those of Babylonia.

The immensity and the diversity of the kingdom séleucide weakened it vis-a-vis the centrifugal forces, obliging the sovereigns to reconquer periodically their possessions. The kingdom, which would suffer from an intrinsic weakness, was thus often opposed by the historians to the other great Hellenistic States: the “national” monarchy of Antigonides of Macedonia, Egypt of Lagides, heir of the pharaons and equipped with a centralized administration, the monarchy of Attalides built around the city-state of Pergamon. But it turns out that the Seleucids knew how to make bear fruit the inheritance of Achaemenides and Alexander by granting a certain autonomy to the cities and the various communities, while fighting against powerful adversaries at their borders.

The Seleucids, as well as other entities of the Hellenistic period, used a new calendar era, the Seleucid era, also called the Greek era, which starts in Babylonia on the date of Seleucus” regaining of power in 311 B.C.; it marks a fundamental step in the history of calendars as it is the direct precursor of the Hebrew, the Hegira, the Zoroastrian, and the Christian, or common, calendar systems.

Literary sources

When they are interested in the Seleucid kingdom, the ancient literary sources, relatively few, insist initially on the political and military events. Polybe, contemporary of the Seleucids and the wars of Macedonia, is the oldest author whose work did not disappear. His Histories begin, for the Greek world, in book IV in 221 BC with the advent of Antiochos III, whose long reign is exposed until book XXI, even if certain books are incomplete. The remainder of its account, which relates to Antiochos IV and Démétrios Ier, is even more fragmentary (books XXVI to XXXIII). Diodorus of Sicily delivers in the Historical Library some information on the foundation of the kingdom by Séleucos (books XVIII to XX). The majority of the other books which treat Seleucids are fragmentary (but they have the merit to evoke the reigns of Antiochos III, Antiochos IV, Démétrios Ier and Démétrios II, as well as the dynastic crises which follow the reign of Antiochos VII. Tite-Live was inspired by Polybe to write the part of his Roman History relating the antiochic war, in books XXXIII to XXXVIII. The reign of Antiochos IV and the sixth Syrian war are briefly exposed in books XLI to XLV. His other books are lost, but they are known thanks to the Abridged. The history of the Seleucid kings until the fall of the dynasty is mentioned many times. Plutarch did not write parallel Lives on the Seleucid rulers, but his biographies of Demetrios Poliorcetes and Flamininus (both have in common to have been adversaries of the Seleucids) give some scattered information. Appian is the author, among twenty-four other books, of a Syriac Book (Syriaké kai Parthiké). This work is the only one concerning only the Seleucids which is completely known. But it is once again Antiochos III who is at the heart of the subject (1-44), even if Seleucus and the origins of the kingdom are also mentioned (53-64). The other paragraphs list kings (45-50 and 65-70). Justin, in his Abridgment of the Philippic Histories of Trogo Pompey (which originally contained forty-four books), is the ultimate source on the history of the kingdom. It takes again elements already known like Séleucos, the antiochic war, the sixth war of Syria and the history of the kings starting from Démétrios Ier, but it is the only one to evoke in detail the reign of Séleucos II, in book XXVII, and the question of the Parthes in book XLI, 4-5. Porphyry, who died in 310, wrote about Seleucid history, notably in his work Against the Christians, from which Eusebius of Caesarea drew inspiration, giving in his Chronicle a list of kings accompanied by historical comments.

Jewish sources tell of Seleucid rule in Judea. The first two books of the Maccabees, composed at the beginning of the first century BC, describe the Maccabean revolt and the formation of the Hasmonean kingdom. Flavius Josephus offers an account of the Seleucids in Book I of the Jewish War and especially in Books XII and XIII of Judaic Antiquities, with details about the last kings. Seleucid history is alluded to in an allusive manner by other “non-historical” authors, including : Strabo in the Geography which deals with the East from book XI onwards; Pliny the Elder in his Natural History, VI; Pausanias in the Description of Greece; Polyen with Stratagems. Libanios (Praise of Antioch, speech 11) and John Malalas (Chronicle) give some information on Antioch, their native city.

Finally, the period of consolidation of the kingdom, going from the reign of Antiochos Ier to the beginning of the reign of Antiochos III (281-223), is little approached by the literary sources. Phylarch treated this period, but his work is lost; only some fragments remain which evoke, negatively, Antiochos II, and dynastic murders. Demetrios of Byzantium wrote On the expedition of the Galatians from Europe to Asia and On Antiochos, Ptolemy, and Libya under their government, but his work has also disappeared. Literary sources abound concerning the Mediterranean part of the kingdom, marking the disinterest of Greek and Latin authors for the eastern regions. This unbalanced perception still exerts an influence on the way of conceiving the Seleucid kingdom.

Also read, biographies – Mikis Theodorakis

Epigraphic sources

The spatial and chronological distribution of epigraphic sources is unbalanced. The vast majority of the inscriptions were indeed found in Anatolia. About fifteen dedications come from Delos, about twenty from Syro-Phoenician and Eastern regions, such as Cyprus, Syria, Babylonia, Mesopotamia and Persia. As Anatolia was lost to the Seleucids from 188 BC, the majority of these inscriptions are dated to the 3rd century BC. Most of them emanate from the Greek community and transcribe royal decisions concerning it; they give little information about the central power.

In Babylonia, cuneiform tablets written in Akkadian provide some information on this region, which remained part of the Seleucid kingdom until the middle of the second century B.C. These documents, sometimes great literary or scientific works, emanated from the temples, which were the source of a cultural revival in the Hellenistic period. We also find documents drawn up between private individuals: notarial contracts, sales, rentals, donations, divisions or exchanges of property. Chronographical documents are the best known. These are chronicles and astronomical calendars, often fragmentary, which provide information on the eventful history and presence of kings in Babylon. Finally, there are foundation cylinders commemorating the building or restoration of temples by the royal power, the best known being the “cylinder of Antiochos”, in honor of Antiochos I, found in the temple of Borsippa. The common language in Mesopotamia is Aramaic, but it is written on parchments or papyrus that have not been preserved due to the lack of suitable climatic conditions. The excavation of Seleucia of the Tigris has allowed the discovery of about 30,000 prints of seals that accompanied papyrus or parchments of which nothing remains. The royal effigies visible on some of the seals constitute valuable documentation. Other seals provide information on Seleucid taxation.

Numismatic and archaeological sources

Royal Seleucid coins are abundant in all regions and periods, in part because coin workshops were established throughout the kingdom. Numerous numismatic publications are available.

The archaeological remains related to royalty are few. For example, no Seleucid palace or large monuments equivalent to those of the Achaemenids (at Pasargadae, Persepolis or Susa) or the Lagids (at Alexandria) are known. Moreover, the four great cities of the Syrian tetrapolis (Antioch, Seleucia of Piria, Laodicea and Apamea) are very poorly known for the Hellenistic period. The Seleucid level has been excavated at Seleucia of Tigris, but in an episodic manner. Built essentially of brick, a very erodible material, the city has not left any remains worthy of its past magnificence, even its walls praised by Strabo, of which no trace remains.

The colonization policy of the Seleucids left a more visible trace on the ground. Information is consistent on the major settlements in the Middle East (Israel and Lebanon). But the sites of Syria, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan remain inaccessible at present (2017), even if Dura Europos, Jebel Khalid and Ai Khanoum have already been widely explored. Turkey continues to offer new discoveries. The sites of Euphrates Seleucia and Apamea have not been fully explored because they were engulfed with the construction of a dam in 2000. In Uzbekistan, the excavation of the Termez sites in present-day Uzbekistan have reached the levels of the Seleucid period.

The archaeological excavations of several sites of the Seleucid period in Syria have made it possible to better understand the royal foundations, which often take shape from already occupied sites, whereas the cities of the Syrian tetrapolis could only be approached superficially (especially their walls and living quarters) because they are located on sites that are still inhabited. Apamea on the Euphrates, built at the time of Seleucus I, is thus a fortified city of 40 hectares, with an orthogonal plan, surrounded by a powerful wall, which did not prevent its destruction in the second half of the 2nd century B.C. by the Parthians. Located further down the river, the site of Jebel Khalid (ancient name unknown), built at the beginning of the 3rd century B.C., extends over more than 50 hectares, also defended by a solid fortification; it includes an acropolis also fortified, where a palace, undoubtedly occupied by a governor, has been excavated. It has not yielded any important traces for the period after the Seleucids, which makes it one of the best places to study a Seleucid foundation. This is less the case for Dura Europos, which is certainly a Seleucid foundation, but whose excavated ruins date mainly from the later periods. One can also distinguish a wall that indicates the defensive role of these foundations, as well as streets at right angles, and buildings with political purposes (palace, strategion). The garrison function of the site was probably reinforced after the conquest of Mesopotamia by the Parthians and the transformation of the left bank of the Euphrates into a frontier area, the archaeologist Pierre Leriche considering that this period saw a re-foundation of the city. Seleucid foundations are also found on the margins of the empire. Aï Khanoum in Bactria is also a fortified site with architectural elements characteristic of Greek foundations of the Hellenistic period (gymnasium, theater), but the material culture is clearly hybrid, presenting many Iranian characteristics; it constitutes above all the best source of knowledge on the Greco-Bactrian kingdom. Another site excavated on the periphery of the empire is located on the island of Failaka, Kuwait, where a Greek sanctuary succeeded by a fortress has been uncovered for the Seleucid period; a Greek inscription from the 3rd century B.C. indicates that the island, then called Ikaros, had a Greek administrator.

Finally, the literary, epigraphic and archaeological sources are very unbalanced because they provide information essentially on the Mediterranean part of the kingdom, leaving entire areas outside the scope of research. This explains the current tendency of historians to study the kingdom from a regional perspective.

Also read, history – Bay of Pigs Invasion

Historiographic tradition

Often considered as the “sick man” of the Hellenistic world, the Seleucid kingdom was for a long time overshadowed by the Lagid kingdom because of the prestige of the Pharaonic tradition and the abundant papyrological and archaeological documentation found in Egypt. The kingdom also suffers from the comparison with the Roman Empire, comparison which finds its origin in Polybe for whom the political system of the Hellenistic monarchies would suffer from a structural weakness. The Seleucids would also be considered as the incarnation of a form of “oriental despotism”, in particular by the Jewish sources (books of the Maccabees), while the incessant dynastic quarrels appearing at the end of the second century B.C. discredit the political capacity of the sovereigns. It is remarkable that Antiochos III is considered by the vulgate as the only king worthy of his function.

The study of the Seleucids has traditionally been the domain of Hellenists only. Johann Gustav Droysen, the founder of the concept of Hellenistic period (Geschichte des Hellenismus, 1836-1843), sees contrary to the historians of his time the period which opens after the death of Alexander the Great as that of a political, moral and artistic revival. The Seleucid kingdom then embodies this formidable expansion of Hellenic culture to the farthest reaches of Asia, although, according to him, the Seleucids would suffer from a lack of unity like the Habsburgs of the modern era.

With The House of Seleucus (1902), Edwyn Robert Bevan is the first historian of the contemporary period to propose a monograph relating to the Seleucids, but he is confronted with the gaps in the literary sources between the reign of Antiochos Ier and that of Antiochos III, while the last kings of the dynasty prove to be little studied. The institutions remain still badly known and the financial system is not even treated, for lack of documentation.

The first monograph in French language devoted to the Seleucids (Histoire des Séleucides by Auguste Bouché-Leclercq, 1913) is part of a “history of Hellenism”. The first place goes to the kings: only one chapter out of the sixteen of the work is devoted to the modes of government. The author expresses an unfavorable judgment against the politics of the Seleucid kings, guilty of a “progressive degeneration”, by taking into account the ancient sources. In addition, the state of research prevents at the time to distinguish the various Seleucos and Antiochos among the epigraphic and literary sources.

William Woodthorpe Tarn, in Seleucid-Parthian Studies (1930), is the first historian to be specifically interested in the fate of the eastern provinces (or former provinces) of the Seleucid kingdom. He studies the administration of the satrapies while trying to detect there the persistence of the Achaemenid inheritance.

New approach to Seleucid studies

At the beginning of the 20th century, the study of the history of the Seleucid kingdom became part of a general history of the Hellenistic period through the exploitation of Greek literary sources. The work of Elias Bikerman (Institutions of the Seleucids, 1938), which is still an authority today, is the first to put into perspective documents from the different regions of the kingdom. The Seleucids are also treated in the fundamental economic and social History of the Hellenistic world of Michel Rostovtzeff, published in 1941. The work of Edouard Will (Histoire politique du monde hellénistique, 1966-1967) opens the field to a global analysis, but the Hellenistic period is still considered as a period of decline for the Greek cities. After him, epigraphists demonstrated that this conception is erroneous; but research still remains centered on the Greek cities of Anatolia. In the years 1980-1990, the history of the Seleucid kingdom benefited from the progress of research on the Persian empire of the Achaemenids, with numerous colloquia gathered by Pierre Briant. Since then, many colloquia have been organized at the Collège de France by the International Network of Achaemenid Studies and Research. It has since been demonstrated that the Seleucids were part of the continuity of the Great Persian Kings for the control of territories.

The historians Susan Sherwin-White and Amélie Kuhrt published in 1993 From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire. This work, sometimes contested, has the merit of analyzing the administrative structures and the royal ideology, with, as indicated in the subtitle, the ambition to take into account the insertion of the empire (a term used deliberately) in the Eastern world. In 1999, John Ma published Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor. Even if it concerns only the reign of Antiochos the Great, his work is a milestone for its analysis of the relations between royal power and civic communities. These two works were used as a basis of reflection by Laurent Capdetrey in Le Pouvoir séleucide. Territoire, administration, finances d”un royaume hellénistique, published in 2007, where he managed to demonstrate that the Seleucids were able to create a mode of government adapted to their territories and communities. In 2004, Georges G. Aperghis published The Seleukid Royal Economy based on Greek and Mesopotamian documentation. This work, which was greeted by the scientific community in various ways, is resolutely modernist in that it maintains that the Seleucids, whose fiscal and financial affairs were at the heart of their concerns, developed an economic policy comparable to that of contemporary states. It also proposes an estimate of various data: size of the population, inhabited and cultivable areas, yields, etc.

Other publications have initiated this revival, notably those listing inscriptions from the Iranian regions, published by Georges Rougemont in “Inscriptions grecques d”Iran et d”Asie centrale”, Journal des Savants, 2002. Seleucid history has also benefited from regional studies, mainly those of Maurice Sartre, D”Alexandre à Zénobie : Histoire du Levant antique (2001) and L”Anatolie hellénistique (2003). Arthur Houghton and Catharine Lorber in Seleucid Coins: A Comprehensive Catalogue (2002-2008) have renewed the numismatic study by analyzing the monetary policy of each sovereign. Finally, the work co-authored by Philippe Clancier, Omar Coloru and Gilles Gorre, Les Mondes Hellénistiques: du Nil à L”Indus, published in 2017, relies on non-Greek sources, particularly Babylonian, completing the renewal of the study of the Seleucid kingdom.

Since the early 2000s, research has therefore extended to the study of non-Greek sources, including the relatively abundant Babylonian sources (Akkadian tablets), even though the region left the kingdom around 130 BC. The fact that the Seleucid kingdom is not a homogeneous whole in ethnic, political and linguistic terms adds to the difficulty of a global study. Indeed, we notice at present a specialization of historians concerning political, economic, cultural or military aspects of the Seleucid kingdom, often seen under the angle of the city which remains the privileged level, to the detriment of a more general study which would make it possible to consider its unity. This phenomenon is also due to the fact that the sources remain unbalanced between regions or periods.

Also read, biographies – Michael Jackson

Seleucid Dynasty

From the middle of the 2nd century B.C., the overlapping of reigns is explained by dynastic quarrels. The dates are all before Christ.

Also read, biographies – Dante Alighieri

Formation of the Seleucid kingdom

With the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, Seleucus receives the prestigious title of hipparch of the cavalry of the Companions, which makes of him the second officer of the royal army after the chiliarch Perdiccas. The war bursts quickly between this last and a coalition gathering mainly Antipater and Ptolémée. Séleucos is part of the plot of the officers who assassinate Perdiccas in 321 during the campaign in Egypt. At the time of the agreements of Triparadisos, Séleucos receives the satrapy of Babylonia, a central area in Asia, knowing that Alexander regards Babylon as its capital. It takes part then in the wars of Diadoques initially on the side of Antigone the Borgne against Eumène of Cardia. But thereafter, it must face the imperial ambitions of Antigone which occupies Babylonia in 315. At the end of the Babylonian war won in 309, Séleucos takes again the control of it. It extends in the tread its domination on Syria, the future Syria Seleukis, then Perside, Media, Susiana, Sogdiana, etc. It reaches the border of the Indian world in 308. He loses the war against Chandragupta Maurya and negotiates in 303 a treaty of peace: it must give up Gandhara, Paropamisades and the Eastern part of Arachosia but preserves Sogdiana and Bactria and gets back 500 elephants of war.

Seleucos is proclaimed king of Babylon towards 305, following the royal proclamation of Antigone and his son Démétrios Poliorcète, with the will to integrate the Achaemenid political heritage. The Seleucids are besides the only of the Hellenistic dynasties to have an Iranian ancestry. Seleucos indeed married Apama, the daughter of a Persian nobleman or Sogdian, of which is born his heir Antiochos Ier.

Séleucos joined in 304 the coalition gathering Ptolémée, Lysimaque and Cassandre against Antigone which shows an imperial ambition between Europe and Asia. In 301, Séleucos succeeds in gathering his forces with those of Lysimaque in Phrygia. Antigone is defeated with the battle of Ipsos. Becoming Nikatôr (” the Victorious “), Séleucos receives the Eastern part of Anatolia, the major part returning to Lysimaque, and the Mediterranean frontage of Syria, of which Ptolémée occupies the southern part: Judea and Phénicie, that is to say the future Cœlé-Syrie. This division is at the origin of the wars of Syria against the Lagides. It seizes the strong places of Poliorcète in Phénicie and in Anatolia, then it enters in war against Lysimaque that it defeats with the battle of Couroupédion in 281, recovering the whole of its Anatolian possessions. He finally marches against Macedonia, but he perishes assassinated, bequeathing to Antiochos Ier an immense empire.

The fact of having henceforth a part of Syria and Anatolia implies a redefinition of the means of control of the territory. Séleucos founds Séleucie of the Tigris, its first capital, in Babylonia between 311 and 306, showing that it intends to make at this time of the area the heart of its kingdom. Then, after Ispos, it transfers one time its capital with Séleucie of Piérie, on the Syrian littoral. The capital is definitively installed in Antioch towards 240.

The term usually employed to qualify the Seleucid space is “kingdom” or basileia, in accordance with the uses of the ancient authors, knowing that the Hellenistic kings carry only the title of basileus. The term of “empire” (it returns nevertheless account of the immensity of the territory and the plurality of the populations subjected to the Seleucids.

Conflicts of the 3rd century B.C.

The Seleucid kingdom, because of its extended borders and the rivalry with the other Hellenistic States, knew many wars. Syria-Phoenicia, also called Coele-Syria or “Hollow Syria”, was at the center of the conflicts with the Lagids during the six Syrian wars (274 to 168 BC), knowing that the Ptolemies often took advantage of the changes of reign to go on the offensive.

Antiochos Ier must initially face, at the very beginning of its reign, with the ambitions of Ptolemy II which manages to extend on the southern littoral of Anatolia. It fights besides the Celts (soon called Galates) which were pushed to plunder the Anatolian littoral by the king of Bithynia, Nicomède Ier. His victory, towards 275, against the barbarians confers to him enough prestige so that it is awarded the epithet of Saviour (Soter) of the Greeks. Then from 274 to 271 takes place the first war of Syria, whose responsibilities and the course remain unknown. It is probable that the lagid sovereign led a preventive expedition in Babylonia, while passing by the Persian Gulf, in order to thwart the expansion séleucide in Cœlé-Syrie and Phénicie. Antiochos would have launched a counter-offensive against Syria, obliging Ptolemy II to defend Egypt. In 271, the treaty of peace ends in a statu quo: Coele-Syria remains lagid but Antiochos, after a beginning of reign marked by many conflicts, sees its authority reinforced. Finally, Pergamon becomes independent with Eumène Ier towards 262. Antiochos concludes all the same a treaty with Antigone II Gonatas towards 278, prelude to a durable alliance with the Antigonides of Macedonia.

Around 253, Antiochos II won the second war of Syria, whose triggering events and operations remain obscure. He obtains Cilicia, Pamphylia as well as Ionia and gives back their civil liberties to the Greek cities of Anatolia, of which Ephesus and Miletus. The treaty of peace leads to a marriage between Antiochos II and Berenice Syra, daughter of Ptolemy II, his first wife, Laodice, being repudiated. Perhaps it is necessary to see there an attempt of alliance which would want to last, or then an attempt of dynastic destabilization hemmed in by the Lagid. Antiochos II intervenes then in Thrace and in the hellespontic straits. But at the same time, Bactria and Parthia start to make secession.

The death of Antiochos II inaugurates a crisis of succession. Indeed, Laodice, his first wife that it repudiated, makes assert the rights of Séleucos II, with the detriment of the young son of Bérénice Syra. This matrimonial conflict leads to the third war of Syria, known as “war laodicienne”, during which Ptolémée III gains great victories in Syria and in Anatolia, occupying briefly Antioch and even reaching Babylon. Seleucus II, recognized king in Anatolia but not in Syria, reacts, but it must give up to the Lagides Seleucia of Pieria, the port of Antioch. Moreover, it must yield the government of Anatolia to its brother Antiochos Hiérax which obtains the co-regency. Towards 240, a war bursts between the two brothers of which Séleucos II leaves overcome, involving a secession during ten years, more especially as the king séleucide is then occupied to repress the secession of Parthie. Antiochos Hiérax ends up being defeated by Attale Ier, first king of Pergamon, which recovers the essential of Anatolia at the expense of the Séleucides.

Also read, biographies – Wallis Simpson

Dismemberment of Anatolia

Populated by various indigenous communities (Lydians, Lycians, Carians, Lycaonians, Isaurians, etc.) and staked out by Greek cities jealous of their independence, Anatolia is a very heterogeneous territory, and never the Seleucids (whose power resides in Syria) succeeded in subjecting it completely. The most powerful Anatolian cities preserve their institutions and are quasi autonomous. Other cities are on the other hand placed under tutelage séleucide and must pay tribute. The cities showing loyalty are rewarded, in return they deliver honours and cults to the Seleucid sovereigns. Sanctuaries (like those of Didymes near Milet or Claros near Colophon) have vast fields exploited by peasant communities.

Already under the Achaemenids, a significant proportion of the Anatolian territory is subjected to dynasts, certainly often of Iranian descent, quasi independent, that Alexander did not take time to subject. In Bithynia, whose sovereigns are related to Thracians, Zipoétès Ier proclaims himself king towards 297 and its successors, of which Prusias Ier, manage to extend their possessions. In Cappadocia (independent of Paphlagonia neighboring), Ariarathe III proclaims himself king towards 255. The kingdom of Pontus annexed the Large Phrygia under Mithridate II which married Laodicé, sister of Séleucos II and Antiochos Hiérax. These three principalities support besides Antiochos Hiérax in its fratricidal war against Séleucos II which causes the secession of a great part of Asia Minor until its partial reconquest by Achaïos II under Antiochos III. In Pergamon, Attalides become independent under the authority of Philétairos then of Eumène Ier which defeats Antiochos Ier in 261. Attalus I proclaimed himself king after his victory against the Galatians towards 240. it extends largely in Mysia, in Lydia, in Ionia and in Pisidia at the expense of Antiochos Hiérax. As for the southern littoral, a great part (Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Cilicia Trachea) is occupied by the Lagides at the time of the first three wars of Syria. Caria is occupied by Antigonids of 227 until 200. In 188, by the treaty of Apamea concluded with the Romans, Antiochos III is forced to give up its possessions anatoliennes with the profit of Pergamon.

Finally, in 162, Commagene, crossroads between Cilicia, Cappadocia and Arménie, becomes independent under the authority of its governor Ptolémée, which profits from the unfinished reign of Antiochos V. Mithridate Ier (which reigns from 100 to 70) marries the girl of Antiochos VIII, Laodicé VII, marking a bringing together with the Séleucides. At the beginning of the Ist century BC, Commagene is annexed by the kingdom of Arménie before finding its independence at the time of the war of Pompey against Parthes.

Also read, biographies – Francisco de Orellana

Secession of the Eastern Satrapies

The High Satrapies (Parthia, Margiane, Arie, Drangiane, Sogdiane, Paropamisades and Bactriane) were subjected by Séleucos in the period 310-305 BC. His work was continued by his son Antiochos, first as co-regent and then as king from 281 BC. He maintained the structures inherited from the Achaemenids while establishing colonies and garrisons. This Seleucid presence is especially important in the valley of Oxus. The largest foundation is that of Aï Khanoum (perhaps Alexandria of the Oxus). Several monetary workshops were established which beat royal coins: Nisa in Parthia, Antioch of Margiane, Alexandria of Arie, Prophtasie in Drangiane, Bactres and Aï Khanoum in Bactria. During the reign of Seleucus I, missions of exploration are sent to the borders of the empire, in Hyrcanian sea and in the north of the river Syr-Daria in the country of Scythes. Megasthenes was also sent on an embassy to Chandragupta Maurya, founder of the Maurya Empire with whom Seleucus was forced to negotiate a peace treaty.

In the middle of the 3rd century BC, under the reign of Antiochos II, Bactria seceded under the impulse of the satrap Diodote. For as much, the bonds remain close between the Greek-Macedonian colonists and the Séleucides; coins are besides emitted in the name of the king. Diodote II takes the royal title towards 235 and founds the Greco-Bactrian kingdom; but it is overthrown by Euthydemus in 225. His successor, Démétrios, carries out the conquest of the north-western margins of India (Paropamisades, Arachosie and Drangiane) between 206 and approximately 200, taking advantage of the retreat of the army séleucide after the Anabase of Antiochos III. It extends then towards the mouths of Indus and the Indian kingdoms of the coast. With its death, the kingdom is divided into three parts. It is reunified by Eucratide around a “Great Bactria”; but this one is attacked by the Parthians of Mithridate and by another Greek king, Menander, who reigns around Sagala. These kingdoms beyond the Hindu Kush are at the origin of the Indo-Greek kingdoms which last for some until the end of the first century B.C. Between 150 and 130, Bactria undergoes the advance of the nomadic people of Yuezhi, assimilated to the Tokharians.

Parthia separated from the Seleucid kingdom under the rule of the satrap Andragoras who took advantage of the second Syrian war to emancipate himself around 255; but this one was eliminated around 238 by Arsace Ier, chief of the Scythian tribe of Parni and founder of the Parthian empire. The relations quickly become conflictual with the Greco-Bactrian kingdom. Séleucos II tries in vain to take again Parthia towards 228, then Antiochos III marches in 209 against Parthes, gaining a success without continuation. In the middle of the IInd century BC, under the reign of Mithridate, the Parthians extended in the Iranian satrapies then towards Babylonia. Seleucia of the Tigris fell in 141, marking the beginning of the Seleucid decline.

Also read, biographies – Thomas Hobbes

Reign of Antiochos III the Great

The reign of Antiochos III (222-187 BC) marks the restoration of the royal authority in the Anatolian and Eastern provinces. However the beginning of its reign is difficult. It must initially face the revolt of Molon, governor of the Eastern satrapies, which took the royal title as the coins struck with its name attests it. It also eliminates its ambitious vizier, Hermias, and fights against Achaïos II, governor of Anatolia which it reconquered at the expense of Attalides of Pergamon. The continuation of its reign shows its will to restore the original empire of Seleucids. It is defeated with the battle of Raphia by Ptolemy IV in 217 during the fourth war of Syria, which does not prevent it from taking again Séleucie of Piérie. He finally manages in 200 to take Cœlé-Syrie during the fifth Syrian war. Meanwhile, he led a real anabasis in Asia (212-205), walking in the footsteps of Alexander the Great, with the aim of facing the expansion of the Parthians and the secession of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom. The reconquest of the High Satrapies remains without tomorrow, but Antiochos, become “the Great”, managed to restore the influence séleucide until the Persian Gulf. It finally marches against Thrace, conquered in 196, extending at the expense of Attalides. It intends moreover to reinforce the royal authority by centralizing the royal worship and by reforming the administration.

But this imperialist policy soon arouses the hostility of the Romans who have just overcome in the name of the “freedom of the Greeks” Philip V at the time of the second war of Macedonia, and whereas Antiochos accomodates at his court Hannibal Barca. The antiochic war (192-188) bursts when the Etolian League calls with the assistance the Séleucides against the Romans. But the forces of Antiochos proved to be too few to face the experienced Roman legions. After a first defeat in 191 with Thermopyles, Antiochos is definitively overcome in 189 with Magnesia of Sipyle. He is forced to conclude a very severe treaty in 188, the peace of Apamea, which definitively calls into question the presence séleucide in Anatolia, with the profit in particular of Pergame.

His son Antiochos IV, considered as the last great king séleucide, intends to restore the greatness of the kingdom. He defeated the Lagids during the sixth Syrian war, but had to leave Alexandria in front of the ultimatum of the Romans. At the same time, he failed to suppress the Maccabean revolt in Judea (169-165). He died while campaigning in the High Satrapies during a new attempt at anabasis.

Also read, biographies – Clyfford Still

The long decline of the Seleucid kingdom

Antiochos IV is only the eighth king of the dynasty in nearly 130 years of existence; after him, seventeen other kings succeed one another, showing the chronic instability of the royalty, one of the factors of its decline. The immediate successors of Antiochos IV prove to be qualified, but they are in the face of dynastic quarrels maintained by the neighboring States and by the Romans which support a candidate with the liking of their interests, knowing that after the peace of Apamea a member of the royal family must be kept as a hostage in Rome. When Antiochos IV dies prematurely, his young son Antiochos V succeeds to him; but it is quickly ousted by Démétrios Ier, son of Séleucos IV, with the support of the Romans. During nearly fifty years, the two branches of the dynasty resulting from the sons of Démétrios Ier deliver themselves a fight bitter for the capacity.

Démétrios Ier, energetic sovereign, meets the hostility of Attalides of Pergame which push on the throne a supposed son of Antiochos IV, Alexander Ier Balas. Its son Démétrios II, famous for its tyranny, sees the secession of the strategist Diodote, commander of the place of Apamée, which makes proclaim a son of Balas, Antiochos VI. After having eliminated the young sovereign, Diodote proclaims himself king under the name of Tryphon, before being himself killed by Antiochos VII, son of Démétrios Ier. He is the last king to have tried to take again the territories lost at the expense of the Parthians; after some successes in Babylonia and in Media thanks to a considerable army, he is overcome and killed by the Parthians in 129. During the second reign of Démétrios II, that Parthes released from its captivity in order to cause disorder in the dynasty, revolts burst in Antioch and within the army because of the hold of the Cretan mercenaries on Syria. It is overthrown by a usurper supported by the Lagides, Alexander II Zabinas which ends up being ousted by Antiochos VIII in 123. The long reign of the latter is marked by the loss of Dura Europos at the expense of the Parthians, the emancipation of Seleucia of Piria and the secession of Commagene. From 114, it enters in conflict with his brother Antiochos IX during nearly fifteen years. Its death plunges the kingdom in inextricable dynastic complexities knowing that it left five sons who all claim the royal diadem.

The anarchy in Syria and the end of the Seleucids

The last years of the dynasty are marked by incessant quarrels between brothers, nephews and uncles or cousins, all the more complex as they often involve lagid princesses. Syria, last relic of the Seleucid kingdom, sinks soon in the anarchy, each city advancing its pretender. The Jews, under the direction of the Hasmoneans, obtained moreover their independence towards 104. The five sons of Antiochos VIII deliver themselves indeed a competition for the power. Thus Démétrios III reigns around Damas, and ends up being overcome by the Parthians in 88, whereas Philip I reigns him around Antioch. Antiochos XII, installed in Damascus, rebels soon against his brother Philip; but it is overcome by the Nabateans who occupy southern Syria.

In 83, the Antiochenians, exceeded by the political disorder maintained by the double royalty séleucide, offer the crown to Tigran II which integrates Syria with the kingdom of Arménie then in full expansion. The Seleucids took advantage of the victory of Lucullus on Tigran in 69 to claim a throne under Roman supervision; but Pompey dethroned Antiochos XIII in 64, who took refuge at his Arab protector, who eliminated him to please Pompey. The death of Antiochos XIII traditionally marks the end of the Seleucid dynasty, but Philip II, known as the “Friend of the Romans”, reigns briefly on Antioch with the support of Pompey until his death in 64. At this date, the kingdoms of Antioch and Damascus become Roman province.

The suppression of the Seleucids and the creation of the Roman province of Syria, products of Roman imperialism, respond to complex motives: Pompey”s motives, in addition to the ambition to make Syria his province, could be to contain Parthian expansion, to face piracy in the eastern Mediterranean or to secure the caravan trade.

If Syria itself becomes a Roman province, the greater part of the Eastern regions which constituted the kingdom séleucide at the time of Séleucos Ier belongs henceforth to Parthes.

Also read, biographies – Rosa Luxemburg

An immense territory with changing borders

If the immensity of the kingdom séleucide, at its beginnings, makes its force, it is also a source of constant instability. With its death in 281 BC, Séleucos Ier bequeaths a vast empire whose management proves difficult for its son and successor Antiochos Ier; this one must indeed face rebellions and velléités of independence in particular in Anatolia. In these same regions, the Seleucids clashed several times with the Lagid power during the IIIrd century BC. Anatolia, heterogeneous area occupied by Greek cities and indigenous people, disputed with the Lagides, was never completely under control séleucide, especially after the independence acquired by Pergame in 263.

In the most Eastern part of the kingdom, or High satrapies (Arie, Bactria, Sogdiana, Drangiane, etc.), the Seleucid domination is really exerted only until the years 250. Antiochos II indeed faces the secession of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom and the expansion of Parthians. Faced with the decline of the Seleucid power in the middle of the third century BC, Ptolemy III conquered the whole of Syria during the third Syrian war (or Laodicean war), even occupying Seleucia of Piria in 241. Even if the Lagides withdraw rather quickly, this occupation illustrates the new weakness of the kingdom.

The situation changes at the beginning of the reign of Antiochos III which restores the authority séleucide on the High satrapies by its Anabase, before concentrating on the Western part of the kingdom. It carries out a series of victorious campaigns in Syria and in Anatolia. In 192, the Romans and their pergamian allies, anxious of this success, confronted it at the time of the antiochic war and, after their victory, impose to him in Apamea severe financial and territorial conditions. In spite of the final loss of Anatolia, the Séleucides still dominate an immense territory. But the Parthians definitively occupied the Iranian satrapies (Persia, Media, Susiana) from 148 then Mesopotamia from 141. Tigran II of Armenia finally submits Cilicia, Phoenicia and Syria by obtaining moreover the crown séleucide in 83.

Also read, biographies – Martin Kippenberger

Nature of the royal institution

Unlike Lagid Egypt and Antigonid Macedonia, which had a well-defined cultural and territorial logic, the Seleucid kingdom was characterized by an immense and fragmented territory, whose borders were not clearly defined, while the modes of control of the territories varied greatly from one region to another. The royal figure is therefore crucial to ensure coherence within the empire. The royal cult, inherited from the heroic cult of Alexander the Great, participated in this by imposing the figure of the “liberating” and “benefactor” king on the cities and the various communities.

The Seleucid king is often called “king of Syria” as well by the ancient sources, even if originally Seleucos I Nicator is king of Babylonia. This denomination would have appeared after the loss of Babylonia and Mesopotamia in the middle of the 2nd century BC. However, it is probable that as successors of the Achaemenids and Alexander, the Seleucids considered themselves rather as “king of Asia”, a title which is given to them by the Jewish sources. These considerations made, it should be noted that the kingdom does not carry any official denomination. In the acts written in Greek, the Seleucid rulers are only known under the title of “king Seleucus” or “king Antiochos”; as for the kingdom, it is the “kingdom of Seleucus” or the “kingdom of Antiochos”. In Babylonia, however, the ruler is named “king of Babylon” in the Akkadian tablets. For comparison, the Lagids are pharaohs of Egypt, the Antigonids kings of the Macedonians, the Attalids kings of Pergamon. Lastly, contrary to the kingdom of Macedonia and its assembly of the Macedonians, the army does not have officially any capacity to designate, or remove, a king, even if it plays an important role in the periods of vacations of the power. The rebellions against the royalty remain marginal. At most, one can quote the revolt against Alexander Balas or that against Démétrios II.

The Seleucid kingship is thus neither national, nor territorial; it is personal, knowing that the king is the living incarnation of the “Law”. The royalty rests on two principles of the Greek right: the power and the right of property delivered by the victory and their hereditary transmission. Polybe makes say to Antiochos IV about the conquest of Coele-Syria: “The acquisition by the war it is the title of property the most just and the strongest”. The king possesses his kingdom “by the lance” by virtue of the right of conquest inspired by the gesture of Alexander at his arrival in Asia. He therefore used war as the source of his authority because victory generated prestige and booty. He commands personally the army and must show physical courage: on the fourteen kings that the dynasty gave between Séleucos Ier and Antiochos VII, ten died in the battle or in campaign.

Heir of the Argeades, but also of the Achaemenids, the king (or basileus) incarnates the autocratic power. But at certain periods, the Seleucids entrusted to princes or to their sons a form of co-regency, by placing them at the head of a part of the kingdom. Thus Antiochos Ier governs as from 294 BC the Eastern satrapies since Babylon; Antiochos Hiérax obtains the guardianship on the Anatolian possessions; Antiochos III governs the High satrapies; Zeuxis is strategist of Anatolia under Antiochos III; finally Séleucos IV is entrusted with the Western territories with Lysimacheia in Thrace for capital.

The kings practiced monogamy in accordance with the Greeks, and contrary to the Arigaeans. The marriages between brothers and sisters are, with only one exception, non-existent. The only case of consanguineous union is that of the children of Antiochos III: his daughter Laodicé IV marries successively three of his brothers. After the reign of Alexander Balas in the middle of the IInd century BC, the Seleucids marry lagid princesses, way of guaranteeing the control on Cœlé-Syrie by a matrimonial alliance. The Seleucid queens did not play a great role on the political scene, except for Laodice III to whom Antiochos III entrusts the regency of the Western regions during his Anabasis, contrary to the Lagid queens who are often sister and wife at the same time. Only four of them appear on the coins, either as regents in a legal or abusive way, or as guardian of their children: Laodicea IV, Laodicea V, Cleopatra Thea and Cleopatra Selene. The other members of the royal family do not carry any official title, even the heir to the throne who is only “elder son”. Nevertheless, Antiochos Ier receives the title of corégent of the kingdom and Antiochos the Young, then 11 years old, receives the title of viceroy of the Western provinces in 210 from Antiochos III.

Also read, biographies – Infante Carlos María Isidro of Spain

A territory under royal domination

The Seleucid kingdom, immense at the origin, exists only through the relations which the royal administration makes with the communities which compose it. The royal ground (or gê basilikê) extends everywhere where the king is recognized, which excludes the vast desert territories inside the space séleucide.

Seleucus I founded the Syrian tetrapolis, a planned set of four cities (Antioch, Seleucia of Piria, Laodicea and Apamea), with the aim of establishing itself durably in Syria and to compete with Lagid Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean. These cities are all built according to a Hippodamian plan. Seleucos also makes build through his empire about fifteen other Antioch, of the name of his father Antiochos, followed in that by Antiochos Ier which continues the work of his father. The urban foundations multiply and carry names relating to the dynasty: there are tens of Seleucia, Antioch, Laodicea, Apamea. The creation of these cities was facilitated by the fact that continental Greece was then overpopulated. A first wave of Greek immigration took place during the time of the Diadochi. The first inhabitants of Antioch are for example Athenian colonists, to the number of 5 300, that Antigone the Borgne has beforehand installed in Antigonia; 6 000 Macedonian colonists populate Séleucie of Piérie under Séleucos. One finds also settlers thraces installed in the Iranian provinces. A second wave of colonization begins under Antiochos IV who makes build fifteen cities. All these cities are closely linked to the central power. The Greek cities of Anatolia, with the secular history, profit as for them from an institutional autonomy and sometimes of tax exemptions.

To establish their domination, Séleucides also lean on military garrisons, with with their head a phrourarque, especially in the densely populated areas of the littoral of Anatolia, Syria and Mesopotamia. Séleucos also establishes cities-fortresses in more remote areas, like that of Doura Europos colonized by Greco-Macedonian veterans. Colonies (the katoikiai) are also founded, comparable to a certain extent with the clerouquies of Egypt: colonists receive a lot of ground against a military service; they do not have the statute of city and depend directly on the royal authority. But unlike the Egyptian cleroes, these peasant-colonies were not militarily organized, and not all of them were destined to serve in the army. There are moreover strictly agricultural colonies, in particular in Anatolia. These settlers are not similar to the limitanei either (indeed it is not a question of soldiers-cultivators established to face the Attalids or the Galates in the case of the Anatolian establishments, but of settlers established in a “peaceful” way, in plain and sometimes far from the borders. Moreover, these colonists are not necessarily Greco-Macedonians: Antiochos III entrusted Zeuxis, governor of Anatolia, with the task of installing 3,000 Jews in agricultural colonies in Phrygia and Lydia after these satrapies had revolted.

Given the vastness of the empire, the royal court was itinerant, without a real capital, at least in the third century BC. The king thus travels according to the events and the embassies between Sardis, Ephesus and the Syrian tetrapolis. With the passing of time, the power tended to be centralized around Antioch, which became royal capital probably about 240 BC. The king needs to rely on an administrative network that can serve as a relay in distant territories: satrapy, strategy, cities, indigenous communities or ethnos. The term ethnos, translated into “nation” or “people”, applies to certain peoples led by dynasts and whose territory is not structured by cities: Pisidians, Lycaonians, Elymians, Kassites and Scythian nomads, etc. The case of the ethnos of the Jews of Judea is particular in that it is directed by an ethnarch from the time of Simon Maccabaeus in 140. The ethnoses enjoyed a form of autonomy, also because of their peripheral geographical situation.

The Seleucid king possesses his kingdom “by the lance” by virtue of the right of conquest and bases his authority on the prestige of the victory. Certain sovereigns thus sought to affirm their authority by carrying out anabases towards the High satrapies of Asia. It is the case for Antiochos III, become “the Great”, and to a lesser extent for Antiochos IV. The king becomes from then on a chief of war with for mission to subject to its capacity the recalcitrant communities. But these demonstrations of internal power remain rare. The kingdom is thus made up of a whole of communities related to the royalty by administrators. This kingship seems remote for individuals, as kings do not have “subjects” as such.

King”s entourage

If the king has a quasi absolute power, his entourage exerts a direct influence, more or less important, on his decisions. Indeed, with the image of Alexander the Great and of all the Hellenistic sovereigns, the king surrounds himself with a circle of close relations, the Friends (philoi), made up of the Greco-macedonian elite. The presence of natives in this circle seems marginal contrary to the Eastern design of Alexander. It is often about ambassadors, officers, diplomats or advisers. Some occupy regional functions of governors or strategists. The Friends form the Council (synédrion), documented thanks to Polybe for the reign of Antiochos III. It seems particularly consulted concerning the military affairs. An aulic hierarchy (“of court”) is soon created between the Parents, the First Friends and the honored Friends. They are rewarded by gifts (dôrea) or the concession of fields.

Among the main dignitaries surrounding the king, whose functions are known, we distinguish :

Also read, biographies – Theodore Roosevelt

Administrative structures

Contrary to the Lagid kingdom for which there is a documentation which attests to a very developed administration whose heart is in Alexandria, the Seleucid kingdom is not equipped with a centralized administration apart from the synédrion (Council). The Seleucid royalty delegated, like the Achaemenids before them, great responsibilities to the satraps. They are often indicated under the name of strategists by the sources, even if these last ones can also occupy military functions or direct groupings of several satrapies like in Anatolia. It is probable that Antiochos III instituted a separation between administrative power of the satraps and military power of the strategists within the same territory.

It is difficult to have an exact idea of the precise number of satrapies. Appian estimates at seventy-two the number of satrapies under Seleucus; but this figure seems exaggerated, the author having been able to confuse the satrapies and their subdivisions. Each satrapy is indeed subdivided into districts whose naming and nature vary according to the local traditions: hyparchies, chiliarchies, toparchies, etc.. The satraps (or strategists) were the king”s representatives in their provinces as civil and sometimes military governors. The cities and the local communities must return to him. The Achaemenid structures seem to have been reformed (already by Alexander and Antigone the One-Eyed) with the reinforcement of the autonomy granted to the cities (poleis) which are equipped with their institutions. The isolated territories of Asia are governed in a more personal way by the local governors, the Seleucid domination being then granted thanks to tax exemptions or the concession of a relative autonomy.

This partly explains the difficulty in maintaining a continuous authority over all the territories, since certain regions have a large autonomy, accentuated by the desire for independence of the governors set up by the king, as is the case in Bactria or Pergamon. In general, the satrapies are larger in Central Asia and in the Iranian regions than in Anatolia, a very fragmented region. Certain sovereigns entrusted officers with supra-regional commands. Already under Séleucos Ier, a general government of the Eastern satrapies is entrusted to his son Antiochos, whom he appoints viceroy. This sharing of the power is attested by inscriptions of Didymes, cuneiform documents and monetary emissions. It is also the case for Anatolia under Antiochos III which is under the guardianship of Achaios II then of Zeuxis as strategist.

Also read, history – Dark Ages (historiography)

Politicisation process

Poliadization refers to the transformation of a pre-existing city into a town (polis) or the foundation of a colony according to the Greek model, i.e. a political system based on assemblies (boulè, ecclesia, council of elders or peliganes) and magistrates (archons, epistates) from the community of citizens (politai). This phenomenon, which takes part in the Hellenization of the East, was marked in Anatolia as well as in Mesopotamia and Babylonia. It is thus advisable here to exclude the Greek cities of Ionia, with the long civic tradition which often have a democratic mode, or the cities of the banks of the Pont-Euxin remained independent.

In Syria, the newly founded cities of the tetrapole of Syria Seleukis have their own institutions while being placed under the royal supervision through an epistate, chosen by the king among the citizens. This region, already highly urbanized, also experienced a phenomenon of poliadization with the establishment of settlers and civic institutions in pre-existing cities, as is the case of Beroia (ancient Aleppo). Further east towards the Euphrates, the colony of Dura Europos, populated by Macedonian settlers, enjoyed the status of a city.

In Anatolia, the poliadization is carried out by the foundation, or the refoundation, of colonies and the meeting by synœcism of pre-existing communities. Many cities are founded in the interior of the grounds, like in Phrygie or in Pisidie; many carry the name of Antioch, Séleucie, Apamée or Laodicée. In Caria, the elites are already strongly Hellenized, which accelerates the process. Sardis, capital of Lydia, became the seat of the Anatolian provinces in the IIIrd century BC, benefits from monumental constructions which make of it a city of Greek type: theater, stadium, gymnasium, temple of Ionic order dedicated to Artemis. The Greek becomes moreover the language of the administration of the city to the detriment of the Lydian. A decree of Hanisa in Cappadocia, probably dating from the beginning of the IInd century BC, shows that the city which is not a colony has, in a spontaneous way, Greek civic institutions and uses the Macedonian calendar. This inheritance is taken again by Attalides when they recover Anatolia after the peace of Apamea in 188 BC, endeavouring to found also their colonies built on the Greek model.

Many newly founded colonies in Mesopotamia receive the status of city, most of them under the name of Seleucia, Antioch, Laodicea, etc. The most important of these foundations is Seleucia of the Tigris, seat of the royalty. The cities founded in Mesopotamia preserve a link with the royal administration with the designation of an epistate, as in the majority of the foundations of Syria. Babylon, which at the beginning of the Seleucid dynasty preserved its traditional institutions and turns out initially a religious center, is raised with the rank of city either under Antiochos III, or more probably under Antiochos IV. A Babylonian chronicle dated 166 mentions that under the reign of Antiochos IV many Greeks were settled in Babylon with the status of citizens. These “Greeks” may have been veteran soldiers of various backgrounds who used the Greek language. They could also be Greeks from the Greek world or even native Babylonians who took a Greek name and became members of this community. In any case, there is a segregation between the politai and the rest of the inhabitants, some of whom were expropriated from their lands by the colonists. Even if the city is directed by an assembly of the Elders (or peliganes), the Babylonians and the Greeks have their own institutions, and the central government communicates distinctly with the two communities, a practice that continued until the Parthian period. Finally, the city includes typically Greek monuments: a theater, which has been unearthed, and a gymnasium.

In Judea, the case of Jerusalem is particular. It was the Hellenized elites who asked Antiochus IV to transform the city into a polis, renamed Jerusalem Antioch, causing tensions with the traditionalist Jews, the Hassidim or “pious”; tensions which were at the origin of the Maccabean revolt. The city then included a gymnasium and an ephebeion which trained ephebes to become citizens.

Under Tigran II of Armenia, at the beginning of the 1st century B.C., cities of Syria and Phoenicia proclaim their autonomy compared to the royal power; it is about Apamea, Laodicea and Berytos.

Place de la Babylonie

Modern historians have long underestimated the importance of Babylonia within the Seleucid kingdom by consulting Greek sources more than documents written in Aramaic. The royal chancellery, according to the Achaemenid tradition, wrote documents in Aramaic and not only in Greek. The Babylonian chronicles entitled Chronicle of the Diadochi, written in Akkadian, start the Seleucid era at the date of 311 BC at the time of the Babylonian war between Seleucus I and Antigonus the One-Eyed, even if Seleucus is then mentioned only as strategist of the legitimate and hypothetical ruler, Alexander IV. The royal era ends in the 140s B.C. with the Parthian invasion. Numerous sources in Akkadian (chronicles, astronomical journals, Cylinder of Antiochos found in the temple of Nabû at Borsippa) attest to direct contacts between the Babylonian elites and Antiochos I, who was moreover entrusted with governing Babylonia from 294 onwards as viceroy.

With Syria, Babylonia, a rich and densely populated region for millennia, is one of the bases of the Seleucid power which receives the support of the political and priestly elites with whom the correspondences are done in Greek. The Seleucid sovereigns assume religious functions as the astronomical calendars show it and make themselves the protectors of the sanctuaries. Finally, Seleucus founded Seleucia of the Tigris around 310-305 on a crossroads of communication between Mesopotamia, the Persian Gulf and the Iranian plateau in order to supplant a Babylon on the decline. It quickly became a major trading center and one of the first monetary workshops of the kingdom, producing bronze coins in particular. Uruk knew a revival by becoming the place of perpetuation of the Babylonian culture.

The region is not exempt from social crisis. Thus in 273, Antiochos Ier had recourse to a strong tax pressure in order to finance the first war of Syria; this policy generated famines (and its procession of epidemics), reinforced by the use of a bronze currency whose value is overvalued compared to the old weighed currencies.

Royal Cult

The royal Seleucid cult is a legacy of Alexander the Great who, in addition to his status of heir of Zeus Ammon, benefits after his death from a heroic cult maintained by the Diadochi. It is to be differentiated from that of the Lagids who benefit from a pharaonic cult on behalf of the native Egyptians. A distinction is traditionally made between the cults rendered by the cities and the cult organized by the royalty, even if there are subtle interactions between these two forms of “religions” as epigraphic discoveries testify.

The civic cult, well informed, is returned to the king, and sometimes to his wife, at the initiative of the Greek cities which seek the royal favors or want to reward them for their benefits, while remaining masters of the public rites. These honors are not necessarily addressed to all the deified kings. Thus in Sardis in 213 BC, a téménos (a sacred space) is dedicated to Laodicea III, wife of Antiochos III, without it being divinized. Téos, “freed” of Attalides in 203, confers to the sovereign the titles of “Evergetes” and “Saviour” and dedicates an altar to the royal couple whose statues are set up in the temple of Dionysos. The decree of Iasos shows that the strategists must sacrifice on the altar dedicated to Antiochos III when they transmit the keys of the city to each other. The colonies (katoikiai) populated of Greco-Macedonians can also return a worship to the sovereign. In Lydia, dedications from the 3rd century BC attest to a cult of Zeus Seleukeios (or Zeus Seleukios), associated with indigenous deities (nymphs, the Mother of God), demonstrating the continuity of this cult within village communities which are not certain to be “Macedonian”. At Dura Europos, a military type of cult was still rendered to Seleucus Nicator in the 2nd century B.C., even though at that time the region had long been under Parthian rule; it is attested by a relief accompanied by an inscription in Palmyrene.

The state cult is much less documented. Indeed, there are no sources on this cult organized on a kingdom-wide scale. This cult emanates from the king alone and involves only the royal chôra and the subject cities. Antiochos Ier founded at the court and in certain cities of Syria Séleukis a divine worship in the honor of his father, Séleucos Ier: a temple equipped with a téménos is for example set up with Séleucie of Piérie. Under Antiochos Ier, an inscription of Ilion advises the priests to sacrifice to Apollo, ancestor of the Seleucids according to the family legend. This cult is also attested by the symbols struck on the coins: the anchor or the figure of Apollo.

The royal cult, initially given to Seleucus and to the deceased sovereigns, is reorganized and reinforced by Antiochos III from 209 which extends it to the kings of their living and to their family. This cult of State, which assimilates the king with a protective divinity, is from then on celebrated in all the kingdom by high priests, probably at the level of one or more satrapies. Only two high priestesses, who belong to the high aristocracy, are known: Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy of Telmessos, and a Laodice, probably Laodice IV, daughter of Antiochos III. The high priests would not have exerted control on the civic priests of the royal cult. In addition, Antiochos III established in 193 a cult with his wife Laodice III, temporary cult because it is soon repudiated. There are three inscriptions which attest that this cult is established throughout the kingdom.

Finally, some sovereigns carry epithets of divine essence. Thus Antiochos II receives the epithet of Theos (” God “) after having freed Milet from its tyrant and given their freedom to the Greek cities of Anatolia. Antiochos IV carries the epithet of Epiphanes (“Divine Manifestation”), usually reserved for the gods. This epithet was transmitted by the literary tradition, by the coins as well as by dedications external to the kingdom, like in Delos and Milet. He is the first Seleucid king to use divine epithets on coins, perhaps inspired by the Greek kings of Bactria or by the royal cult that his father codified. This titulation could have served to reinforce the royal authority within a disparate empire.

Also read, biographies – William I, German Emperor

Seleucid Army

Like all the armies of the great Hellenistic kingdoms, the Seleucid army is founded on the model of the Macedonian army forged by Philip II and amplified by Alexander the Great. The principal force resides in the phalanx of sarissophores which is divided into argyraspides or “silver shields”, chalcaspides or “bronze shields” and in chrysaspides or “gold shields”. The argyraspides, which form the royal Guard, are permanent troops, contrary to the other contingents of the phalanx raised the time of a campaign. The Seleucids tended, like the Antigonids during the wars of Macedonia, to weigh down the equipment of the phalangites, to the detriment of the mobility dear to Alexander. Thus the Roman legions, much more flexible, finished by taking the top by attacking their flanks or their backs. With Thermopyles (191 BC) then with Magnesia (190), the Seleucid phalanxes thus remained immobile behind their palisade of points in a purely defensive role.

The army also counts, from the middle of the IIIrd century B.C., troops of medium infantry called the thuréophores. They carry an oval shield, the thuréos of Celtic origin, and are armed with a lance, javelins and a sword. They can be organized in phalanxes or fight as skirmishers. During the 2nd century BC, their equipment became heavier with the use of chain mail, or even a linothorax; they became thorakitai (or “armor bearers”). The latter are attested during the anabasis of Antiochos III in the area of the mount Elbrus.

The heavy cavalry, equipped at the origin like the Macedonian Companions, also plays a great role on the battlefield without always giving the victory, as the defeats of Raphia and Magnesia show it: by twice Antiochos III prevails on its wing at the head of its cavalry but is seen drawn up in a long continuation which prevents it from falling down on the opposite infantry. A squadron of horsemen forms the royal Guard or agéma. There are also cataphractaires, from Antiochos III, and mounted archers, both inspired by the Scythian and Parthian horsemen. The army finally counts contingents of Asian war elephants and Scythian chariots at least until the middle of the second century BC.

The army is formed of colonists (katoikoi), mainly Greek-Macedonians although there are also Thracians or Agrians, who form the operational reserve. They carry out a military service in exchange for the transfer of a ground. As the numbers aligned in Raphia testify, the army also counts many mercenaries, recruited in a permanent way or the time of a campaign. But it is important to distinguish between indigenous mercenaries (Lydians, Phrygians, Cilicians, Persians, Medes, Carmanians, etc.) and those from other countries (Cretan archers, Greek thureophores, Galatians, Scythians, etc.). Some allied states may also provide troops. Indeed, one can find Cappadocians, Armenians, Pontics and Arabs.

The stewardship of the army is directed by the logistérion stratiôtikon which sits in Apamée. Essential institution of the military administration, it deals with the material and technical aspects: provisioning, remount, supply of weapons, housing of the soldiers, etc… Finally of the royal stud farms (hippotropheia) are attested, most famous being that of Apamea and Media.

Contrary to the thalassocracy lagide, the Seleucids do not have a consequent war fleet. At the beginning of the Seleucid era, the western maritime frontage turns out relatively reduced, whereas the fight against the Lagides takes place initially in great terrestrial battles. The fleet of the first Seleucids is thus formed of local ships of modest size. Thus, in the large harbour cities of the Eastern banks of the Mediterranean, Seleucia of Piérie and Laodicée, are stationed only some warships. There is also a flotilla in the Persian Gulf, where bases séleucides were found and whose principal port is Antioch in Susiane. The rise of Pergamon in the middle of the IIIrd century BC obliges the Seleucids to maintain a permanent fleet on the model of the other large Hellenistic States. The fleet counts from then on trières, tétrères (or quadrirèmes) built in Rhodes, and pentères (or quinquérèmes). It took advantage of the cedar forests in Syria and Phoenicia. Nevertheless, it never possessed large units like Antigonids and Lagides which delivered themselves a race with the gigantism. The Seleucid fleet was reorganized by Hannibal Barca himself, shortly before the outbreak of the Antiochic War. It aligns at this time a hundred ships of which some are gigantic. For as much Antiochos III must withdraw after its defeats vis-a-vis the joint fleets of Pergamon, Rhodes and Rome as from 190 along the southern littoral of Asia Minor. The Seleucid maritime space is then limited again to the Syrian and Phoenician waters. By the treaty of Apamea, Antiochos III sees his fleet reduced to ten “cataphractes ships” (heavy). The last large fleet was formed by Antiochos IV to occupy Cyprus in 168 during the sixth Syrian war.

Economic administration

The kingdom does not include any central administration that would organize and plan an overall economic policy, as is the case to some extent for the Lagid kingdom. The taxation is not homogeneous, being exerted differently according to the nature of the domination. For example in Anatolia, the exploitation of agricultural land, supervised by garrisons, requires a tribute or phoros. The cities pay annual taxes (syntaxis) on their productions and their activities. In the High Satrapies, the levies are punctual and variable: they can be levied in kind as in the Achaemenid period (metals, cereals, elephants, horses, etc.) or in money. But in these regions it turns out that we know more about the modalities of collection in times of war than in times of peace.

The satraps were at the head of an army of civil servants in charge of fiscal and financial affairs. The taxes, once collected, are placed in treasuries (gazophylaquies) to avoid long and perilous journeys. The finances of the cities subjected to the royalty are placed under the control of an epistate. The finances of certain sanctuaries, when they are not autonomous, are also closely supervised by the royal power.

Most of the royal land (or chôra basiliké) was divided into large landed estates. Inherited from the Achaemenids, these domains were exploited by peasants, the laoi, under the direction of stewards. But some communities could enjoy their territory by exploiting it while remaining subject to royal taxes. Some Greek cities of Anatolia obtain in addition tax exemptions so that their loyalty is ensured.

The foundation of cities in Syria Seleukis, in interior Anatolia, in Mesopotamia or in Bactria had an important economic impact, because it allowed the development of these territories and the modification of the modes of production. The political rulers certainly carried out a fiscal policy, certainly inherited from the Achaemenids, but which shows an adaptation to civic models. The economic organization thus follows more a territorial logic than a centralized logic.

Also read, biographies – Pope Pius VII

Role of the Royal Treasury

The royal territory is subjected to a taxation on the produced wealth which weighs primarily on the cities. As under Achaemenides then Alexander, the cities, mainly those of Anatolia, are subjected to tax levies. According to a distinction operated by the Macedonian conqueror, the royal ground (or gê basiliké) is subjected to the tribut (or phoros) while the cities pay a tax (or syntaxis). The syntaxeis, euphemistic term, would evoke the idea of a tax paid “voluntarily” within the framework of an alliance.

The royal treasury (or basilikon) thus intervenes for the taxation of the cities but also for the tax exemptions or the redistribution of the funds to these same cities. The total exemptions of tribut (or aphorologesia) remain rarely evoked by the sources. One knows that Antiochos III granted in 203 BC to the city of Téos in Ionia after it was taken with Attalides. The partial exemptions are known through the case of Héraclée of Latmos which receives privileges on behalf of Antiochos III and its strategist Zeuxis. These exemptions can be motivated by the economic difficulties which result from the war. It is the case with Sardis when the city is taken again with Achaïos II in 213. They can also be granted to ethnics like that of the Jews of Judea.

In addition the royal treasure can take part directly in the financing of monumental constructions or urban installations, way for the sovereigns to show their évergétisme towards the cities. It can be about gifts in money, it is for example the case with Héraclée of Latmos, in a disputed area with Attalides, where Antiochos III, through the intermediary of Zeuxis, is committed financing the construction of an aqueduct. It can also be about gifts in kind, wheat or olive oil, as it is also the case for Héraclée. The wheat comes from the royal granaries and helps to put an end to a food crisis. The gift of wheat operated at the same time by Laodicea III with Iasos answers another will: that to transform the wheat into monetary value. As for the gift of oil, it answers a difficulty common to a number of cities in terms of provisioning. Sardis is also seen for example to provide oil in 213.

Finally these redistributions carried out by the basilikon make it possible to reinforce the loyalty of the cities by being registered in the duration, unlike more punctual acts of evergetism. The cities become from then on dependent on the royalty in that they see themselves guaranteeing their statute even of polis thanks to these gifts.

Monetary system

The monetary policy of the first Seleucids is in line with that initiated by Alexander who opened monetary workshops in all the empire. The great novelty brought to the East by the Macedonian conquest was the adoption of a “counted” or “numéraire” currency, i.e. a currency made up of metal coins whose value was not perfectly equivalent to the quantity of metal (gold, silver, bronze), unlike weighed currencies, and was guaranteed by a political authority. There is also a “fiduciary” currency made of bronze or copper alloy, which appeared in Greece in the 4th century B.C., used for everyday purposes, and whose nominal value is much higher than its metallic value. Its use met with some resistance, as in Babylonia.

Numerary money is not used in Mesopotamia and in the Iranian provinces before the Hellenistic period. Alexander thus founded two monetary workshops in Babylon, one serving at the level of the satrapy for the production of the numéraire for the expenses of the royalty, the other serving to produce silver coins of attic standard to pay the soldiers. The first Seleucids set up a coherent monetary policy by establishing workshops with Seleucia of the Tigris, Ecbatane and Bactres, the workshop of Babylon and the mixed emissions being soon given up. The system is based on the attic standard, allowing all the currencies of the same standard produced outside the kingdom to have course. The use of this standard seems to respond to the Seleucid expansion in Anatolia where it was already in use. This so-called “open” system differs fundamentally from that of the Lagids who would have prohibited the use of all other currencies than those issued by the royal workshops. Finally, the Seleucids impose the use of a fiduciary currency in bronze produced in the workshops of Seleucia of the Tigris. It is used for the small purchases of the daily newspaper and spreads in the garrisons and the cities, but its use meets initially resistances in Babylonia more especially as the area knows a serious social crisis under Antiochos Ier. The case of Babylonia shows in any case a continuation of the use of weighed metal as an instrument and standard of exchange, following the traditions of the region.

Some modern historians consider that the Seleucids conducted a real monetary policy at the scale of the kingdom, and not simply in a bilateral way between the kingdom and the communities. Thus silver coins, issued in Seleucia of the Tigris, have been found in large numbers in Anatolia. This would tend to prove that the kings had a global vision because the coins would have been used to honor the royal expenses (payment of soldiers, evergetism, urban development, etc.) where they appear.

Commercial exchanges

Until the middle of the 2nd century B.C., the Seleucid kingdom was at the heart of the trade routes linking Europe to the Chinese and especially the Indian worlds. It is probably to ensure the safety of its exchanges that Seleucos I concluded a treaty of peace in 305 BC with the Maurya empire. The first Seleucids also ordered geographical and commercial exploration missions in the Caspian Sea, beyond the Syr-Daria, in the Persian Gulf and on the Ganges. The Seleucids controlled the land routes that passed through Iran, the most used being the one leaving from India to Gedrosia, Carmania, Persia and Susiana. The road along the northern coast of the Caspian Sea through Bactria, the future Silk Road, was not very frequented at the time by merchants and the Seleucids never really controlled its western part. The maritime routes were more frequented and converged by river in Seleucia of the Tigris, the counter of all goods coming from the East. A first maritime route passes by the Eastern part of the Persian Gulf via the Seleucid ports of which Antioch of Perside and Antioch of Susiane. A second maritime route runs along the Arab part of the Persian Gulf; it is completed by a land route which borders the same coast under the control of the Arab tribes including the Gerrheans. The strategic situation of Arabia explains that Antiochos III led an expedition against Gerrha in 205. Inherited from the Achaemenid era, the land routes were equipped with relays allowing travelers to make a stopover. The kingdom has some great maritime ports of exports: Seleucia of Piria, Laodicea on the sea as well as the Phoenician ports (Tyre, Sidon, Arados) from the end of the 2nd century BC.

The trade in luxury goods from the East and Arabia flourished under the Seleucids: gems, precious textiles (silk, cotton), rare essences (myrrh, costum), spices (Chinese cinnamon, turmeric, ginger), ivory, goldsmiths, etc. New products arrived in Europe from the Indian and Chinese worlds: cotton, lemon, sesame, oriental nuts, dates, figs, duck and beef from Asia. Some regions of the Seleucid kingdom possessed raw materials or produced manufactured goods that were traded throughout the Hellenistic world and beyond, especially in Italy:

Volumes and prices of traded products remain poorly known. The details are more numerous concerning the wheat trade, vital for the populations. The kingdom was indeed sometimes forced to import wheat to cope with shortages from neighboring countries: first of all the kingdom of the Bosphorus, then Thrace and Egypt. These purchases are known from decrees of Greek cities and some literary accounts. The trade of manufactured products between Hellenistic States remains relatively modest, because it concerns initially the luxury articles whose demand is, by definition, weak and irregular.

Slavery seems to have been well established in certain regions of the kingdom. It was an ancient institution in Babylonia, where the royalty levied a specific tax (this was probably also the case in Phoenicia). In the Greek cities of Anatolia, servile labor was widely employed. But in the rest of the kingdom, as in Ptolemaic Egypt, the importance of the indigenous peasant workforce (the laoi) does not make the use of slave labor indispensable. For as much the Greek-Macedonian colonists possess slaves to ensure the domestic tasks. They came from war captures, piracy, brigandage and mainly from regular traffic with neighboring peoples: Scythians, Sarmatians, Armenians, Celts. There were also slaves of local origin: orphans and former serfs sold by their masters.

Also read, biographies – Diego Velázquez

Question of Hellenization

The geographical immensity of the Seleucid kingdom created an aggregate of various peoples, such as Greeks, Lydians, Armenians, Jews, Phoenicians, Babylonians, Persians, Medes, etc. The imperial nature of these territories encouraged the Seleucid rulers to implement a policy of linguistic unity, already initiated by Alexander, even if Greek was first an administrative language. The imperial nature of these territories encouraged the Seleucid rulers to implement a policy of linguistic unity, already initiated by Alexander, even if Greek was initially an administrative language. Hellenization was made possible by the foundation of cities built on the Greek model, or the refoundation of cities designated by more appropriate Greek names: Antioch, Seleucia, Apamea, Laodicea. The synthesis of the cultural, religious and philosophical ideas between Greco-Macedonians and natives knew various degrees of success, which was translated by periods of peace but also rebellions in the various territories of the empire.

Colonization allowed for the promotion of Hellenization while facilitating the assimilation of the indigenous communities. Socially, this led to the adoption of Greek practices and customs by the educated indigenous classes eager to make a career in public life. At the same time, the dominant Greek-Macedonian class gradually adopted certain local traditions. Many existing cities began, sometimes by obligation, to adopt Hellenic culture, religion and political functioning, even if the Seleucid rulers for example incorporated the principles of Mesopotamian religion in order to gain the support of the local populations.

The site of Uruk in Babylonia constitutes an interesting case study of the relations between Greek and indigenous elites. In the second half of the 3rd century BC, the site experienced a major building activity, with the erection of new sanctuaries in the purest Mesopotamian tradition. Some local notables adopted a Greek name next to their Babylonian name, like Anu-uballit who received the Greek name of Nikarchos, apparently granted by Antiochos III, and another Anu-uballit slightly later, who also received the Greek name of Kephalon. Two rich tombs unearthed in the vicinity of the city also indicate that the local elites adopted Greek elements, since a Greek wine amphora, strigils and a crown made of golden olive leaves were found there. However the scientists of Babylonia, resulting from the priestly class, are especially known for their intellectual activities, laid down on clay tablets inscribed with cuneiform signs, which are inspired by the Babylonian traditions; it sometimes revive them as in the case of astronomy. A penetration of the Hellenic language is attested in the region, at least from the 2nd century BC. A corpus of about twenty tablets, the Graeco-Babyloniaca, with one side in ancient Greek and another in Sumerian, could indeed mean, among other interpretations, that Babylonian scribes learned Sumerian using the Greek alphabet rather than Aramaic. The use of Greek by the ruling elites of Babylonia did not alter the dynamism of Aramaic, the language of the Achaemenid chancery. The majority of the population of Mesopotamia, and even already of Judea, spoke Aramaic at that time. It is advisable to add to it the Elymian and the various Anatolian languages (Lydian, Carian, Lycian, etc.).

Also read, biographies – William Godwin

Religious practices

Many religions are practised in the Seleucid kingdom: Greek polytheism, Mesopotamian cults, Mazdeism, Judaism, cult of Cybele and the Syrian Baals, etc. Apollo being considered as the legendary ancestor of the dynasty, his sanctuaries were supported by the royal treasury, like those of Delphi, Delos, Claros (near Colophon) and especially Didymes (near Miletus), whose temple which was destroyed by the Persians in 479 B.C. was refounded from Seleucus I onwards, probably under the influence of Deodamas of Miletus. This sanctuary, dedicated also to Artemis, is part with Delphi of the most important Greek oracular sites: after a prophetess has sought inspiration at the source of the adyton, the prophecies are formulated in hexameter verses by a priest. In Daphne, the “suburb” of Antioch, Seleucus I erected a sanctuary (it shelters a famous statue of the god sculpted at his request by Bryaxis. These sanctuaries all have vast domains exploited by peasant communities and are subjected to royal taxes.

A religious syncretism takes place between the Greek deities and the Mazdeism practiced in the Iranian world. Zeus is thus assimilated to Ahura Mazda, Artemis to Anahita and Heracles to Verethragna. The cult of Heracles is particularly widespread in Iran thanks to the image of power associated with the hero and the spiritual kinship with the deification of the heroic kings. This cult is attested by a rock relief located in a place that was already highly symbolic under the Achaemenids. The relief, typically Greek, is carved at the foot of a cliff on Mount Behistun in the province of Kermanshah. It represents Heracles naked, resting on a lion”s skin, a cup in his hand, at the foot of an olive tree. The hero”s weapons are in the immediate vicinity: bow and quiver hanging from the tree, club at his feet. A Greek inscription reveals that the statue was completed in 153 in honor of the Seleucid governor of the satrapy.

The Mesopotamian religion remains very much alive and knows a form of syncretism with the Greek pantheon: Marduk (Baal-Marduk) is thus assimilated to Zeus, Nabû to Apollo. The new sanctuaries of Uruk erected at this time as well as the one in Babylon, the Esagil dedicated to Marduk, are important sacred places and centers of knowledge, close to the Mouseîon of Alexandria. They delivered numerous tablets in Akkadian. It is attested that the Seleucid kings honored the Babylonian cult. Thus Antiochos III, during his stay in Babylon in 187, carried out rituals and sacrifices notably in the temple of Esagil. In nearby Susiana, a corpus of inscriptions indicates that members of the large local Greek community freed slaves by dedicating them to the goddess Nanaya, another figure of the Mesopotamian religious tradition.

Judaism, for its part, experienced a profound quarrel between the supporters of tradition and those of Hellenization. This led to the Maccabean revolt in the second century BC, which was triggered by the reign of Antiochus IV. The Temple of Jerusalem was at that time dedicated to Baalshamin, a Phoenician deity, and placed under the mixed authority of Jews, Greeks and Hellenized Orientals. The “modernist” Jews continued to venerate Yahweh, whose altar remains in the temple. This religious policy makes the texts say that Antiochos IV led a “forced Hellenization” of Judea, contrary to the Lagids, more tolerant. It is true that this transformation of the temple answers a syncretist will favorable to the military colonists of the citadel of Jerusalem, then majority Syro-Phoenicians. But it caused great agitation among the Jews, exacerbated by the burden of taxation and resistance to Greek customs. It is in this context that Antiochos promulgated an edict in 167, called an edict of persecution, which ordered the abolition of the Torah in the broadest sense: faith, traditions, morals. This persecution does not seem motivated by an anti-Judaic fanaticism that would exclude his epicureanism, nor by the will to impose the Greek cults. It would act initially to put an end to a local revolt: the edict does indeed concern neither Samaria, nor the Jews of the diaspora. Where Antiochos commits a serious blunder is when he does not understand that to abolish the Torah does not only deprive the Jews of their civil laws, but also leads to the abolition of Judaism. The Maccabean revolt that this provoked led to the quasi-independence of Judea: in 140, Simon Maccabeus was proclaimed “high priest, strategist and ethnarch” on a hereditary basis, marking the beginning of the Hasmonean dynasty, founders of a new Hellenized Jewish state.

Also read, biographies – Georgi Plekhanov

Arts and sciences in the service of royalty

The most famous artistic work of the Seleucid period is the bronze statue of Tyche sculpted by Eutychides, a student of Lysippus, during the reign of Seleucus I. The statue, now disappeared but of which there remain replicas, stood in Antioch as a symbol of the city. The tutelary deity of Fortune also evokes the favorable conditions that allowed Seleucus to build a huge empire in the troubled times of the Diadochi. The statue represents the goddess sitting on a stone and wearing a crown topped with towers. The goddess is thus at the same time a representation of Tyche and the allegory of the city of Antioch; at her feet is lying a male figure which is the personification of the river Orontes. The statue was then imitated by several cities of the kingdom for their representations of Tyche. Moreover, Bryaxis, a famous Greek sculptor in the service of the Diadochi, was ordered by Seleucus a colossal statue of Apollo, represented on a coin of Antiochos IV, for the temple of Daphne near Antioch, as well as a bronze statue representing him.

Contrary to Ptolemaic Egypt, whose capital Alexandria is a “new Athens”, the Seleucid kingdom does not have a single cultural center. This is partly due to the fact that the royal court is itinerant because of the vastness of the empire. It thus misses a great institution of knowledge, as the Library of Alexandria was, even if there is a royal library in Antioch from Antiochos III. This library was founded under the responsibility of the poet Euphorion of Chalcis, invited to the Seleucid court around 221. Other wise men and thinkers stayed at the court. The kings keep in particular near them of great doctors, like Erasistrate, personal doctor of Séleucos Ier, and his disciples of which Apollophane, doctor of Antiochos III. The Chaldean priest and astrologer Berossus wrote a History of Babylon in Greek in the name of Antiochus I. This work, with its fanciful chronology, mentions the existence of the hanging gardens of Babylon, whose detailed description is known thanks to Flavius Josephus. The historicity of this marvel of the ancient world remains a matter of debate.

Exemplarity of the Seleucid kingdom

Sovereigns of European descent ruling over Asia, the Seleucids occupy an original place in ancient history. Dominating an immense territory, endowed with a strong ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity, the kingship had to solve administrative problems but also civilizational ones, notably with the question of Hellenization, imposed or consented by the indigenous elites. Faced with political fragmentation, between royal land, dynastic and priestly principalities or cities (polis), the figure of the king is the only guarantor of the unity of the empire. The relations between the royalty and the different communities are therefore of particular importance.

In addition to Parthian and Roman expansion, the kingdom had to contend with governors” revolts and secessionist rebellions in Persia, Susiana and Bactria in particular. However, this phenomenon did not directly contribute to the disintegration of the empire. Some historians estimate besides that this phenomenon, structural and not conjunctural, takes part in the revitalization of the empires and in the legitimization of the sovereign by the military reconquest. But it is true that the domination séleucide is exerted in an unequal way within the borders of the kingdom.

There is a tradition that the Romans succeeded where the Seleucids failed. In his Praise of Rome, Aelius Aristides, a Greek from Bithynia living in the second century AD, explains that the Roman Empire was founded on a single, coherent whole thanks to the spread of Roman citizenship. The local elites would find an interest in collaborating with the Roman power thanks to the privileges granted by the acquisition of citizenship, whereas the Empire is also confronted with the immensity of its territory and the weakness of the administrative staff. In the Seleucid kingdom, the natives are rather registered in a collaboration, when it is agreed, with the royal or satrapic authority within the framework of the poliadisation. The Seleucid army, which includes many indigenous contingents, appears as another vector of integration and Hellenization.

The current state of research (2011) allows us to consider the impact of Seleucid domination in the different territories of the kingdom with the study of poliadization, economic integration, production structures and the monetarization of exchanges. Finally, the modes of occupation of the territories were transformed compared to the Achaemenid period with the foundation of agricultural colonies, new cities and a new hierarchy of urban centers in the continuity of the policy initiated by Alexander the Great.

Also read, biographies – Henry IV of France

The Seleucids and the notion of empire

Some modern historians consider that the Seleucids would have founded a true empire by following the steps traced by the Achaemenids and Alexander the Great. The very notion of “empire” still gives rise to different assessments today. Some historians define empire as “a decentralized and deterritorialized apparatus of government that progressively integrates the entire world space”; a definition that could therefore be applied, on its own scale, to the Seleucid empire (archè). Another definition of “empire” is possible with regard to a comparative analysis through Antiquity and the Middle Ages, which reveals five common characteristics: historical continuity; central power stemming from military command; and the linking of (domination of) extended spaces marked by ethnic, political and cultural diversity. There also this definition could characterize the Seleucid empire. Other historians consider that the “center” of the Seleucid empire would be in Mesopotamia, with Babylonia for political heart, whereas Anatolia would be a “periphery” in the image of Central Asia. One can retort that until the reign of Antiochos IV, the kingdom does not have a fixed political center and that the court is itinerant, and that if the kingdom has indeed a “center” it would be rather Syria Seleukis, become a “new Macedonia”.

According to the traditional historiography, the Seleucid empire would be marked by a structural weakness inherent in the immensity of its territory and in its lack of political or cultural unity. But these two principles are among the criteria which characterize the empires throughout history. Other powerful empires did not exercise uniform authority over their entire territory, such as the Neo-Assyrian and Carolingian empires, where again some regions were controlled directly and others indirectly. The Seleucids would not have had sufficient human and technical means to administer such a vast kingdom, which explains why it inexorably dismantled itself. But it would be necessary perhaps to consider the kingdom as a deterritorialized structure whose unity would rest on an original relationship between the king and the communities. Finally, the Seleucid kingdom can be compared to a colonial empire, but without the influence exercised by a metropolis.

Also read, biographies – Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn

The Seleucid rulers in painting

Several paintings show Seleucus under the reign of Alexander the Great, Antiochos III during the war against the Romans, Antiochos IV during the Maccabean revolt and Antiochos VIII poisoning his own mother, Cleopatra Thea. This last episode inspired Corneille for his play Rodogune, after Rhodogune, a Parthian princess.

The loves of Antiochos and Stratonice

Plutarch, as well as other ancient authors, tell a sentimental story taking place at the Seleucid court: Antiochos I would have fallen madly in love with Stratonice, daughter of Demetrios Poliorcete and second wife of Seleucos. It is the personal doctor of the king, Erasistrate, which informs him that his son literally dies of love for his young wife. Antiochos ends up marrying her with the consent of his father. This union arrives opportunely at the time when Antiochos receives the title of corégent of the kingdom and the governance of High satrapies. This episode, more or less legendary, inspired several generations of painters.

Bibliography

General works

Institutions

Territories

Royal Cult

War and military

Economy and numismatics

Archaeology

Historiography

External links

Sources

Seleucid Empire

Summary

Literary sources

Epigraphic sources

Numismatic and archaeological sources

Historiographic tradition

New approach to Seleucid studies

Seleucid Dynasty

Formation of the Seleucid kingdom

Conflicts of the 3rd century B.C.

Dismemberment of Anatolia

Secession of the Eastern Satrapies

Reign of Antiochos III the Great

The long decline of the Seleucid kingdom

The anarchy in Syria and the end of the Seleucids

An immense territory with changing borders

Nature of the royal institution

A territory under royal domination

King”s entourage

Administrative structures

Politicisation process

Place de la Babylonie

Royal Cult

Seleucid Army

Economic administration

Role of the Royal Treasury

Monetary system

Commercial exchanges

Question of Hellenization

Religious practices

Arts and sciences in the service of royalty

Exemplarity of the Seleucid kingdom

The Seleucids and the notion of empire

The Seleucid rulers in painting

The loves of Antiochos and Stratonice

Bibliography

External links

Related

Ads Blocker Detected!!!