The Seleucid Empire

[DecimusCaesar]

What was Rome's Relationship with the Seleucid Empire?

 

I read that the Roman Envoy C. Popilius Laenas was sent to meet Antiochus IV and his army as he was about to cross over to Egypt. Laenas handed over the Senate's demands arrogantly and drew a circle around the King's feet with a stick, saying that he would not be allowed to move out of the circle without making a decision.

According to Polybius, Antiochus agreed to the Envoy's demands.

 

This story is usually told to show the Romans Confidence/arrogance.

(Depending on which side you believe )

 

Other than this story I don't know much about the relationship between Rome and the Seleucid Kingdom, although I do know that the Empire ( or at least its Eastern half) was overrun by the Parthians.

 

Does anyone have interesting information about this Empire? Battles they fought, the politics, interesting anecdotes? Anything will do.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Segestan]

Seleucus Dynasty: lasted from ca. 321 BC to 64 BC, the rulers known as the Seleucidae. The Seleucid era began October 1st 312 BC in Syria and on New Years Day , 1 Nissan = April 1st 311 BC in Babylonia. Seleucus was a ruling cult. Promoting ideas of Divine Hellenization.

Founded by Seleucus I Nicator ( Victor) born 358 BC son of the Macedonian General of Philip II , Antiochus. Antiochus means

[barca]

There

[Segestan]

Paul was a Hellenized Jew. Seleucia was a Hellenized dynasty . The Macedonian General Antiochus founded this province out of the First Division of Alexanders Empire. His son Seleucus I Nicator began en extensive building program.

He built the City of Antioch ; named after his own father....the

[Ursus]

Does anyone have interesting information about this Empire? Battles they fought, the politics, interesting anecdotes? Anything will do.

 

 

The Seleucid realm was largely the center of the former Persian Empire. There was a standing army of 70,000, supplemented by mercenaries. There were effectively two capitals to administer the vast realm: Antioch on the Syrian end, and Selucia on the Babylonian end.

 

Alexander was more interested in military glory and self-deification than in spreading Hellenism. The Greek colonies he founded were basically to serve as strategic military and commercial centers. The upper class natives would have been sufficiently well versed in Greek language and culture to serve their new Greco-Macedonian masters. But its doubtful how much the people, particularly in the lower classes and agricultural regions, really believed in Hellenism. They after all had a culture that was far older than Greece's. Hellenism was basically a function of poor Greeks back home immigrating to Seleucid cities to find new opportunities.

 

The native population of Seleucid were from diverse and very ancient cultures. The only thing holding them together were a string of Greek colonies founded at strategic points. But the cities were linked by a road system that rivaled that built by Rome in the West (the Seleucids merely built upon an impressive network left by the former Persian Empire). International trade flourished between these cities, and the Seleucid monarchs were very, very rich.

 

But most of this wealth was channeled into various wars to keep Seleucid together, and to keep rival powers out. In the end it didn't work. Unlike Ptolemaic Egypt there was simply no central culture to unite the people. Seleucid grew weaker and more fragmentary until finally Rome annexed what was left of it. Rome administered the various provinces largely from the colonies that Greece had built.

 

Seleucid is basically a failed experiment in a multi-racial, multi-cultural state. The only thing that kept it together as long as it did was economics. The Latin West was economically and culturally poorer than the Seleucid realm, but it seems the Romans were far better at integrating diverse peoples into an imperial network.

[Neos Dionysos]

At the request of Ursus, I shall start us off on Greek/Hellenic topics.

 

The Seleukids, which were founded off of Seleukos Nikator, one of Alexander's companions and generals during the campaigns he made around the known world. He would later take on the satrapy of Babylonia, and eventually rule the most land of any successor, in 281bc controlling, (for a brief moment), all of the land that Alexander had, (except for Ptolemaic Egypt, Ptolemy Soter was also a close friend of his for years), and Seleukos in pursuit of this conquest re-campaigned in the same areas as Alexander and did almost as much, he was also an excellent administrator, and beleived in mixing and assilimating the cultures... (his son Antiochos being half Iranian)...

 

Debate and discuss... or ask questions... I'd be more than happy to answer what I know.

[frankq]

At the request of Ursus, I shall start us off on Greek/Hellenic topics.

 

The Seleukids, which were founded off of Seleukos Nikator, one of Alexander's companions and generals during the campaigns he made around the known world. He would later take on the satrapy of Babylonia, and eventually rule the most land of any successor, in 281bc controlling, (for a brief moment), all of the land that Alexander had, (except for Ptolemaic Egypt, Ptolemy Soter was also a close friend of his for years), and Seleukos in pursuit of this conquest re-campaigned in the same areas as Alexander and did almost as much, he was also an excellent administrator, and beleived in mixing and assilimating the cultures... (his son Antiochos being half Iranian)...

 

Debate and discuss... or ask questions... I'd be more than happy to answer what I know.

 

The Seleucids are an amazing part of history and an interesting dynasty and realm. One that started out as a vast territory and was finally reduced after two and a half centuries into nothing more than a buffer state that Rome needed to absorb and digest into a province. High points in its history are, of course, Antiochus the Great, and the one who gets the most bad press because of his abuse of Judea, Antiochus IV. Interesting stuff. Especially the fact that after spending tons of talents and sending several armies against the Jews, the later contenders to the throne use the armed Jewish militia as a tool to seat themselves in power.

[Neos Dionysos]

At the request of Ursus, I shall start us off on Greek/Hellenic topics.

 

The Seleukids, which were founded off of Seleukos Nikator, one of Alexander's companions and generals during the campaigns he made around the known world. He would later take on the satrapy of Babylonia, and eventually rule the most land of any successor, in 281bc controlling, (for a brief moment), all of the land that Alexander had, (except for Ptolemaic Egypt, Ptolemy Soter was also a close friend of his for years), and Seleukos in pursuit of this conquest re-campaigned in the same areas as Alexander and did almost as much, he was also an excellent administrator, and beleived in mixing and assilimating the cultures... (his son Antiochos being half Iranian)...

 

Debate and discuss... or ask questions... I'd be more than happy to answer what I know.

 

The Seleucids are an amazing part of history and an interesting dynasty and realm. One that started out as a vast territory and was finally reduced after two and a half centuries into nothing more than a buffer state that Rome needed to absorb and digest into a province. High points in its history are, of course, Antiochus the Great, and the one who gets the most bad press because of his abuse of Judea, Antiochus IV. Interesting stuff. Especially the fact that after spending tons of talents and sending several armies against the Jews, the later contenders to the throne use the armed Jewish militia as a tool to seat themselves in power.

 

 

The Seleukids actually never really sent armies to fight the Maccabees, only two major battles were fought during the length of the rebellion, (both of which Seleukia won), the rest were all gurellia style or very small skirmishes which Seleukia won. A key factor which led to thier victory was the fact that Seleukia responded quite slowly to rebellions or insurrections against thier rule, this the Maccabee's used to thier advantage.

 

Also, the heavy taxations, (which were simply Seleukia taking the money of the Jewish Temple which had never been done before), was started by Seleukos IV Philopater and was actually suggested to him by Simon, who was the temple finiancial administrator and who was at odds with the High Preist Onias III. Seleukos, hearing of the large amount of money and wishing to alliveate the heavy burden of indemities that Rome had placed on Seleukia forced his hand to act and take the temple treasury, a measure Antiochos IV Epiphanes continued. Presvious to the war with Rome, the Jews and Seleukia were on excellent terms and even used to settle troublesome lands to make them loyal again to the Seleukid rulers in Syria.

 

Finally, I'd say that Antiochos III the Great wasn't that great and we use the term "Great" because he had assumed the title 'Megas Basileus' meaning 'Great King'. Granted, he marched around the empire and regained much land that had been lost due to rebellions etc and had repeated things that Seleukos I Nikator had done but, he really never won any great victory. He could not take Judea and the land of Phonecia, etc, which had been the major battleground of the Ptolemies and Seleukids for generations, until Ptolemy IV had died and the infant Ptolemy V had taken control of the throne, only in this way was he able to take the region. His campagins into the rebell provinces of the East, were not spectacular battles or campaigns, but ones which were won on a fickly nature since the rulers all swore loyalty to him and promised to serve him, the same for Bactra, which he segied for two years and never took, but came to a peace treaty with Euthydemus who was now in charge in the important province of Baktria. He did cross the Hindu Kush and see the Indian King, of which through a treaty and with the pledge of freindship and one of his daughters given in marriage to the Mauryan King, he walked away with a very large force of elephants. In the end, his expeditions against Rome was he terrible downfall, not that challenging Rome was, but how he prosecuted the war, which shows how poor of a leader he really was. Soon after this defeat, all territory he had gained, (all that he had not won back but who more or less just sued for peace to him), all left him and went thier indepenadant ways. Paving the way for the collaspe of the Seleukid state.

[frankq]

On what are you basing your info about the Seleucid armies sent against the Maccabees? They sent several. I can think of four major engagements alone. Far more than two. And sent out armies of 20,000 heavy infantry at minimum each time. At one point their expeditions were even followed by slave traders from all over the Levant eager to sell captives. The battle of Beth-Zecheriah alone they sent out everything including the ''kitchen sink''. Chariots. War elephants. The works. The Maccabees, though primarily a guerilla force, even committed to open and major engagements in the field.

 

 

To name but a few:

 

Battle of El-Haramiah, Judean victory

Battle of Beit Horon, Judean victory

Battle of Emmaus, Judean victory

Battle of Beth-Zecheriah, Judean defeat

Battle of Elasa, Judean defeat and the death of Judas Maccabee.

[Neos Dionysos]

On what are you basing your info about the Seleucid armies sent against the Maccabees? They sent several. I can think of four major engagements alone. Far more than two. And sent out armies of 20,000 heavy infantry at minimum each time. At one point their expeditions were even followed by slave traders from all over the Levant eager to sell captives. The battle of Beth-Zecheriah alone they sent out everything including the ''kitchen sink''. Chariots. War elephants. The works. The Maccabees, though primarily a guerilla force, even committed to open and major engagements in the field.

 

 

To name but a few:

 

Battle of El-Haramiah, Judean victory

Battle of Beit Horon, Judean victory

Battle of Emmaus, Judean victory

Battle of Beth-Zecheriah, Judean defeat

Battle of Elasa, Judean defeat and the death of Judas Maccabee.

 

I am basing my comments on the work by Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).

 

The book completely covers the war, now I never said they did not send large forces, they did, but only on those two occasions. The reasonings for smaller efforts on the previous engagements I will cite and give reasonings for, allow me to dig up the information, check back in 2 hours after my post now.

 

The Seleukids could muster only 41,000 infantry and 4500 cavalry in the Judean region, now if you beleive the Maccabee books, they claim they fielded 100-200,000 which is a great exateration.

[frankq]

On what are you basing your info about the Seleucid armies sent against the Maccabees? They sent several. I can think of four major engagements alone. Far more than two. And sent out armies of 20,000 heavy infantry at minimum each time. At one point their expeditions were even followed by slave traders from all over the Levant eager to sell captives. The battle of Beth-Zecheriah alone they sent out everything including the ''kitchen sink''. Chariots. War elephants. The works. The Maccabees, though primarily a guerilla force, even committed to open and major engagements in the field.

 

 

To name but a few:

 

Battle of El-Haramiah, Judean victory

Battle of Beit Horon, Judean victory

Battle of Emmaus, Judean victory

Battle of Beth-Zecheriah, Judean defeat

Battle of Elasa, Judean defeat and the death of Judas Maccabee.

 

I am basing my comments on the work by Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).

 

The book completely covers the war, now I never said they did not send large forces, they did, but only on those two occasions. The reasonings for smaller efforts on the previous engagements I will cite and give reasonings for, allow me to dig up the information, check back in 2 hours after my post now.

 

The Seleukids could muster only 41,000 infantry and 4500 cavalry in the Judean region, now if you beleive the Maccabee books, they claim they fielded 100-200,000 which is a great exateration.

 

They sent out large forces several times numbering as high as 21,000 each time, as stated in my above post. They mustered 41,000 for the Battle of Beth-Zecheriah, Lysias' biggest engagement against Judas. The war effort that lasted for years seriously drained the Seleucid treasury. Each time the Judean rebels bested them with inferior numbers, the Seleucids found themselves pressed to up the stakes.

Edited January 20, 2006 by frankq

[frankq]

hour later...

 

I did a search on the book you mentioned, found some coverage at Amazon. It looks like a reassessment of the battle figures entirely, which is cool, I never believed The Book of M.'s numbers at all and so therefore cross-referenced based on Josephus with other recent scholars who pretty much either back or go along with his figures to good degree. I would like to see how Bar-Kochva (prophetic name) justifies his assessments and what numbers he comes up with. As in the case with most revisionary works, he has a lot of digging to do but if he has ample proof then he does history a service.

Edited January 20, 2006 by frankq

[Neos Dionysos]

hour later...

 

I did a search on the book you mentioned, found some coverage at Amazon. It looks like a reassessment of the battle figures entirely, which is cool, I never believed The Book of M.'s numbers at all and so therefore cross-referenced based on Josephus with other recent scholars who pretty much either back or go along with his figures to good degree. I would like to see how Bar-Kochva (prophetic name) justifies his assessments and what numbers he comes up with. As in the case with most revisionary works, he has a lot of digging to do but if he has ample proof then he does history a service.

 

Sorry about that... had to meet some people...

 

I am currently getting, (the repository closed before I could there, so I need to wait till Sat. afternoon), his book in my hands so I can go over the references he cites his info from. I wrote a paper on the revolt last semester in class, and so I took what he had written to heart, mainly because he is the only scholar/historian to have done such extensive work on the subject, as well being the only one to do a major work on the Seleukid Army as a whole, thier units, locations, tactics, equipment etc.

 

I did not mean to say the other engagements were like a couple hundred men or something, I mainly meant that the two which Seleukia really threw everything in was the two they won, the others, the number was much smaller and they were bested, the analysis of the books claim though that when a large battle was given, the rebels could not stand up to it, but smaller engagements they performed quite well.

 

Also, it is not so much that Seleukia was giving it thier all, on the contrary, I cam across information suggesting that Seleukia overral was slow to react to revolts, or rebellions and when they did, the situations had usually, and quite logically, become far more complicated and worse. The rebellion in Judea did not rate high on the priority list.

 

here is a peice of what I wrote...

In 165BC, Antiochos IV went east to fight Persia with “half the army”, and the reasoning behind it was to finance the war in Judea. This seems highly implausible, (according to the Maccabee books) much more was at stake in Persia than in Judea and the notion that one would take half the Imperial Army a longer distance to wage war on a foe to raise more money to fight a lesser foe closer to home is foolhardy. It would have been much easier and simply to just move south from Syria and destroy the rebellion, from this lack of initiative and for reasons of more pressing concerns to the stability and well-being of the empire, we can see why the Maccabees were given such free breathing space and why the Seleukid hammer never fell on them. Due to Antiochos IV taking half the army east and most of the rest having to garrison the rest of the empire only small forces could initially be sent to quell the rebellion. This follows the pattern that Antiochos III showed against his chief rebellions. Of course once these small forces were repulsed it took three years for Antiochos III to finally lead a large army against Molon in the eastern satrapies. Having concluded this revolt, it took him another six years to move against Achaeus who had taken control over most of Asia Minor north of the Taurus Mountains with a force of less than 7,000. Following this same form of response to rebellion, small force followed by small force, it is not surprising the Mattathias and his son Judas Maccabaeus who took over after his father’s death were so successful. By the time large forces are sent to crush the revolt, of which many but not all, of the best of the Seleukid army was used the results were a resounding defeat for the Maccabees; at Beth Zacharia and Elasia the only times a battle of large caliber took place and one where the traditional set piece of Hellenistic warfare could be employed. Yet the Maccabees were smart not to take control of the main citadel in Jerusalem which was “symbol of Seleukid control of the country”, and did not make an effort to ally with hostile nations the Seleukids were content to take their time and deal with more pressing matters elsewhere in the empire.3 Threw these measures, the terrible slow movement of Seleukid forces, the rebellion of Parthia which diverted Seleukid attention and the terrible shape the empire was left in following the humiliating terms of peace imposed upon them by Rome we can see as to why the revolt was a success...

Edited January 21, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[frankq]

You mention in your section Antiochus III, didnt you mean Antiochus IV?

 

I think his reasoning for not swooping down into Judea first was that, since he was dealing with a guerilla war, it would have proved too time consuming. And Antiochus IV's priorities, like his predecessors' were always the eastern territories. Your assessment of taxation on troop strength left behind seems right. How it was employed and how much of it was sent south into Judea is where I'm still in question.

 

See what figures you have for the Battle of Emmaus. Here I pulled two entirely different counts, Syrian strength rated at either 20,000 or 5,000!

 

About the numbers. I found the figures in The Book of M. so ridiculous that I delved deeper, studied Josephus' figures, then cross-referenced them. Some scholars use his figures, others side step them by simply citing a ''large force''.

[Neos Dionysos]

You mention in your section Antiochus III, didnt you mean Antiochus IV?

 

No I was making reference that the lack of initative is something that Antiochos IV did and imitated eariler examples like those of Antiochos III.

 

I think his reasoning for not swooping down into Judea first was that, since he was dealing with a guerilla war, it would have proved too time consuming. And Antiochus IV's priorities, like his predecessors' were always the eastern territories. Your assessment of taxation on troop strength left behind seems right. How it was employed and how much of it was sent south into Judea is where I'm still in question.

 

Exactly, the upper saptrapies were of prime concern. We, (our modern world view), sometimes questions why they were so important, but so much revune, resources and supplies in manpower, horses etc were the eastern territories.

 

See what figures you have for the Battle of Emmaus. Here I pulled two entirely different counts, Syrian strength rated at either 20,000 or 5,000!

 

About the numbers. I found the figures in The Book of M. so ridiculous that I delved deeper, studied Josephus' figures, then cross-referenced them. Some scholars use his figures, others side step them by simply citing a ''large force''.

 

That's my point, the Maccabee's are NOT reliable, the strength they cite is out of this world, of course one can see the reasoning behind this is to inflat thier victories and make them look that much more spectacular.

 

I am looking for sources that give good figures of troops myself... though I probably won't have anything solid till tomorrow...