The

Seleucid Empire: The History of the Empire Forged in the Ancient Near East
After Alexander the Greats Death
By Charles River Editors

Thomas Lessmans map of the Seleucid Empire in 200 BCE

 About Charles River Editors

Charles River Editors is a boutique digital publishing company, specializing in bringing history back
to life with educational and engaging books on a wide range of topics. Keep up to date with our new and
free offerings with this 5 second sign up on our weekly mailing list, and visit Our Kindle Author Page to
see other recently published Kindle titles.
We make these books for you and always want to know our readers opinions, so we encourage you to
leave reviews and look forward to publishing new and exciting titles each week.

 Introduction

A coin believed to depict Seleucus I

The Seleucid Empire

In 323 BCE, Alexander the Great was on top of the world. Never a man to sit on his hands or rest upon
his laurels, Alexander began planning his future campaigns, which may have included attempts to subdue
the Arabian Peninsula or make another incursion into India. But fate had other plans for the young
Macedonian king. One night, while feasting with his admiral Nearchus, he drank too much and took to bed
with a fever. At first, it seemed like the fever was merely a consequence of his excess, and there was not
much concern for his health, but when a week had elapsed and there was still no sign of his getting better,
his friends and generals began to grow concerned. The fever grew, consuming him to the point that he
could barely speak. After two weeks, on June 11, 323 B.C., Alexander the Great, King of Macedon,
Hegemon of the League of Corinth, King of Kings, died.
The circumstances of Alexanders death are unclear. Certainly there were plenty of ambitious men, even
among his inner circle, who might have wanted him dead, yet all of the main historians for Alexanders
life discount the possibility of foul play, claiming no poison was used, and slow-acting venom capable of
prolonging a mans agony for two weeks seems technologically unviable for the period in question.
Perhaps Alexander was simply exhausted: he was a famous binge drinker, like his father, which did little
for his health, and he had been on campaign for more than a decade, having sustained at least three serious
wounds in the process. Even today scientists and doctors still try to diagnose Alexander based on
accounts of his death, naming potential natural causes like malaria, typhoid fever, or meningitis.
 On his deathbed, some historians claim that when he was pressed to name a successor, Alexander
muttered that his empire should go to the strongest. Other sources claim that he passed his signet ring to
his general Perdiccas, thereby naming him successor, but whatever his choices were or may have been,
they were ignored. Alexanders generals, all of them with the loyalty of their own corps at their backs,
would tear each other apart in a vicious internal struggle that lasted almost half a century before four
factions emerged victorious: Macedonia, the Seleucid Empire in the east, the Kingdom of Pergamon in
Asia Minor, and the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt. During the course of these wars, Alexanders only heir,
the posthumously born Alexander IV, was murdered, extinguishing his bloodline for ever.
Despite the infighting among them, one thing Alexanders generals did agree upon was their Hellenistic
culture. Most famously, Ptolemys line firmly established the Hellenistic culture of the Greeks while
ruling over Egypt, and by marrying within their family line, the Ptolemaic pharaohs kept their Hellenistic
heritage until the very end of Ptolemys line, which died with Cleopatra in 30 BCE. Although the Seleucid
Empire is less well known, Alexanders general Seleucus was no less successful in Hellenizing Persia
and parts of Asia Minor. The Greek influence is still readily visible in the region thousands of years
later. Anthropologists have found that some of the earliest Buddha statues constructed in India bear an
uncanny resemblance to Ancient Greek depictions of Apollo, and local legend has it that the wild olive
trees that grow in some regions of Afghanistan sprang from the olive seeds that Macedonian soldiers spat
out on the march not to mention the presence of Balkan features such as red hair and blue eyes among a
significant amount of the locals there to this day. Legends of Alexander crop up amid the popular
mythology of half the world, and while some among the Persian Empire called him the accursed, it is
now widely believed that the story of the prophet Dhul-Qarnayn ("The Two-Horned One") in the Quran
is a reference to Alexander.

For a time, the Seleucids commanded the largest empire in the world as it stretched from the high plains
and deserts of what is now Afghanistan in the east to parts of the Levant and Asia Minor in the west. The
empires early kings were strong and shrewd and committed to the ideas of Hellenism as much as holding
power and expanding the realm of their empire, but later rulers did not prove as capable. In time, the
Seleucid royal house often descended into orgies of violence which were driven by ambitious men and
women.
Despite its troubles and its sheer size and scope, the Seleucid Empire lasted for several centuries, and it
would not truly reach its end until the heyday of the legendary Roman general Pompey the Great in the 1st
century BCE. By establishing notable Greek cities like Antioch, the empire tried with partial success to
create a sense of cultural harmony among a giant melting pot, which spanned thousands of miles and
incorporated a countless number of ethnicities. Certain groups chafed under the Hellenization more than
others, and the Seleucid Empire witnessed a lot of infighting, but it managed to leave an indelible mark on
the region that has lasted to this day.
The Seleucid Empire: The History of the Empire Forged in the Ancient Near East After Alexander the
Greats Death chronicles the influence the Hellenic dynasty had in the Middle East. Along with pictures
depicting important people, places, and events, you will learn about the Seleucid Empire like never
before.
The Seleucid Empire: The History of the Empire Forged in the Ancient Near East After Alexander the
Greats Death
About Charles River Editors
Introduction
The Successors of Alexander the Great
The Early Seleucid Kings
The Seleucids and the Ptolemies
The Height of the Seleucid Dynasty
Hellenism
The Collapse of the Seleucid Empire
Online Resources
Bibliography
Free Books by Charles River Editors
Discounted Books by Charles River Editors
The Successors of Alexander the Great
Before Alexander III of Macedon, forever known as Alexander the Great, died in 323 BCE at the young
age of 32, he was able to conquer most of the civilized world in the West. The young general was able to
overwhelm the mighty Achaemenid Empire, which had stood as the most powerful force in the Near East
for over 200 years, to gain some of the most ancient and venerated cultures including Egypt and Babylon.
Alexanders conquest of the Achaemenid Empire was not unlike previous wars of conquest in many ways,
but the young Macedonian had a vision to spread the benefits of Greek culture to the conquered peoples,
an idea that has been referred to as Hellenism by modern scholars.

Andrew Dunns picture of a bust of Alexander

Unfortunately for Alexander, his untimely death meant that he was unable to see his vision fulfilled, but
some of his top generals made it their duty to spread Hellenism to the east. Indeed, although the Seleucids
are still often overlooked by mainstream historical studies of the Hellenistic period in favor of the
Egyptian Ptolemies or rulers and events on the Greek mainland, theirs was arguably the most important
dynasty of the period. The ancient Greek and Roman historians and geographers also apparently agreed
with this assessment because nearly all of them who wrote from the 1st century BCE onward dedicated a
number of passages to the Seleucid Dynasty.
The primary focus of most of the classical historians analyses of the Seleucids concerned how the
dynasty came to power and some of its more important early rulers. After Alexanders death, the generals
who took over, known as the Diadochi, held a series of meetings where they hoped to reach an
amicable settlement in order to avoid bloodshed (Bryce 2014, 159). Many of the generals were not happy
with the initial agreement, which led to the First Diadochi War, but that war ended with a peace
agreement between the belligerent generals at Triparadeisos, Syria in 320 BCE. The general Seleucus,
who was the son of Antiochus, was given the Babylonian satrapy or province as part of the deal (Bryce
2014, 161).

A bust of Seleucus
Seleucus would later become Seleucus I and the progenitor of the Seleucid Dynasty, but he first had to
defend his small kingdom from the other Greek generals who apparently saw the agreement at
Triparadeisos as merely a respite before the next round of warfare. The greatest threat that Seleucus faced
was from the general Antigonus, who controlled most of Asia Minor and the Levant and briefly forced
Seleucus from Babylon. The fragmentary cuneiform inscription known as the Babylonian Chronicle
briefly mentions the war between the two generals: The seventh year: Alexander (IV), the king, son of
Alexander, and . . . Antigonus [did] battle with the army of Se[leucus (I) . . .] [from] the month Ab until
the month Tebet [. . .] [They did bat]tle with one another [. . .]. (Grayson 2000, 118).
 A bust of Antigonus

The famous 1st century CE historian Plutarch corroborated the Babylonian Chronicle, but he offered
more details, particularly that Antigonuss son, Demetrius, led the assault. Plutarch wrote, And now
Seleucus, who had once been expelled from Babylonia by Antigonus, but had afterwards succeeded in
recovering the realm and was now wielding the power there, went up with an army, designing to annex the
tribes on the confines of India and the provinces about Mount Caucasus. Demetrius, accordingly,
expecting that he would find Mesopotamia unprotected, suddenly crossed the Euphrates and invaded
Babylonia before Seleucus could stop him. He expelled from one of the citadels (there were two of them)
the garrison left there by Seleucus, got it into his power and established in it seven thousand of his own
men. But after ordering his soldiers to take and make booty of everything which they could carry or drive
from the country, he returned to the sea-coast, leaving Seleucus more confirmed than before in his
possession of the realm; for by ravaging the country Demetrius was thought to admit that it no longer
belonged to his father. (Plutarch, Demetrius, VII, 2-3)
 A bust of Plutarch

Seleucus returned to Babylon as a liberating hero in 312 or 311 BCE, where he would remain for the
rest of his life (Bryce 2014, 161). Once Seleucus I defeated Antigonuss army led by Demetrius, he was
free to establish the legitimacy of his dynasty, expand the borders of the new empire, and carry on
Alexanders ideas of Hellenism.
The Early Seleucid Kings
Once Seleucus I vanquished Antigonus, he wasted no time establishing some of the salient features of
the Seleucid Dynasty. Modern scholars generally date the beginning of Seleucus Is reign to 305 BCE,
which he held until 281 BCE, although he also ruled as a co-regent with his son and successor Antiochus I
for a number of years. Seleucus I, like most of the Seleucid kings, was given a colorful nickname during
his rule Nicator, which is Greek for conqueror. The first Seleucid king truly lived up to his nickname,
as he campaigned on both the far eastern and western limits of his new empire. Fortunately for modern
historians, the deeds of Seleucus I were recorded in both Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions and by many
of the classical historians.
One of the more interesting aspects of Seleucus Is military campaigns, though it was not heavily
documented, was his foray into the east. The Seleucid monarch campaigned heavily in Persia and central
Asia (Bryce 2014, 164), which, like his predecessor Alexander the Great, brought him into contact with
ancient Indian civilization. While in the northeastern part of India, Seleucus I and his troops fought the
Mauryan emperor Chandragupta to what was essentially a stalemate. Seleucus I agreed to leave India, and
in return Chandragupta gave the Seleucid king 500 war elephants (Bryce 2014, 164), which often
provided him and his successors a military advantage against their foes in the Near East.

A statue of Chandragupta
Once he had pacified the eastern realm of the Seleucid Empire, Seleucus I turned his attention west to
deal with an old foe who would not go away. When Seleucus I defeated Antigonuss army in 311 BCE, he
did not deliver a knockout blow; in fact, in 301 BCE Antigonus and his son proved to be a further
hindrance for Seleucus Is plans to control the entire Near East. As Antigonus and Demetrius were doing
their saber rattling and amassing an impressive army, Seleucus I joined with the generals Lysimachus,
Cassander, and Ptolemy I of Egypt to create an army of 65,000 men, which was still smaller than
Antigonuss force of 75,000 soldiers (Bryce 2014, 166). According to the 1st century BCE Greek
historian Diodorus, the battle was decisive: Antigonus, king of Asia, made war against a coalition of
four kings, Ptolemy, son of Lagus, king of Egypt, Seleucus, king of Babylonia, Lysimachus, king of Thrace,
and Cassander, son of Antipater, king of Macedonia. When he engaged them in battle, he was pierced by
many missiles, and his body was carried from the field and was buried with royal honours. His son
Demetrius, however, joining his mother Stratonice, sailed to Salamis in Cyprus, since it was in his
possession. (Diodorus, The Library of History, XXI, 1, 4b).

A bust of Ptolemy I
Although Demetrius and Seleucus I were connected through royal marriage, the former continued to be a
thorn in the latters side for several years. That said, the immediate threat from the other Macedonian
general was gone, and Seleucus I expanded the realm of his empire more when he was given the
provinces of Coele Syria and Phoenicia in the Levant (Bryce 2014, 166). Coele Syria was the inland
region of the Levant (not including Judea), and it became an important piece of real estate during the
Hellenistic Period because the Ptolemies of Egypt fought several wars against the Seleucids for control of
it. The region also became a flashpoint for rebellions and usurpations within the Seleucid Empire,
especially during its latter days.

Once the threat of invasion was diminished, Seleucus I was able to concentrate his energies on
intellectual endeavors. Although Seleucus I was an enthusiastic adherent of Hellenism, he was also
known for his tolerance of native religious cults and cultural traditions (Bryce 2014, 168). As mentioned
above, Babylonian scribes included some of the early Seleucid kings exploits in the otherwise purely
Mesopotamian Babylonian Chronicle, which means that Seleucus I must have had an interest in preserving
the Chronicle because all work on it would have been authorized and commissioned by the monarch. Not
only did the early Seleucid kings tolerate native Babylonian cultural practices, they also followed some
and modified some of their practices and beliefs, especially in regards to kingship, to create Greek-
Babylonian hybrid practices.
Seleucus I followed a centuries old Babylonian tradition by starting a king-list of the rulers of the
Seleucid Dynasty. King-lists, which were common in both Mesopotamia and Egypt in pre-Classical times,
were, as the name implies, simply a listing of the kings, although not usually arranged by dynasties (as is
the practice with modern scholars). King-lists fell out of favor with the Greeks, who preferred to have the
exploits of their most notable leaders written in a narrative form that was more similar to modern
historical writing (Momigliano 1990, 154), but Seleucus I began the Seleucid king-list in 311 BCE when
he returned from the east to vanquish Antigonus and Demetriuss army that had encamped in Babylon
(Boiy 2011, 1).

Although the so-called Uruk king-list, which was one of the more traditional Babylonian lists that
spanned several centuries, mentioned the Seleucids through the reign of Seleucus II (246-225 BCE) (Boiy
2011, 2), Seleucus Is list followed a slightly different paradigm. The Seleucid kings would list their first
year of rule beginning with the Babylonian New Year Festival (Boiy 2011, 10), which is another sign of
their tolerance of native Babylonian traditions. In fact, some of the early Seleucid kings took the idea of
tolerance of Near Eastern traditions to the next logical level and began to assume and appropriate some of
those traditions, no doubt for political purposes, much the same way the Ptolemies did in Egypt.
Since the early Seleucid rulers were clearly foreigners in the lands they ruled, it is reasonable to
assume that there was some mistrust and even animosity among the local populations toward them. In
order to mitigate some of that mistrust, the early Seleucids followed a program of religious tolerance, and
they also saw the virtues of arranged, political marriages. Alexander the Great actively promoted the idea
that his generals should marry local women from the lands they conquered, and the young general
practiced what he preached by marrying a Bactrian princess (Bryce 2014, 169). Seleucus I, perhaps
seeing even more of a political necessity in such a union, also married a Bactrian princess in 324 BCE in
the Persian city of Susa (Bryce 2014, 169). The 1st century BCE Greek geographer and historian Strabo
mentioned the marriage in his writings: And it was from Celaenae, on which there is a city which bears
the same name as the hill; and it was from Celaenae that Antiochus Soter made the inhabitants move to the
present Apameia, the city which he named after his mother Apama, who was the daughter of Artabazus
and was given in marriage to Seleucus Nicator. (Strabo, Geography, XII, 8, 15).

Seleucus Is shrewd handling of his native, non-Greek subjects proved to be successful, as rebellions
against his rule were minimal, and with the domestic situation pacified, Seleucus I was free to turn his
attentions westward and once more earn the nickname of conqueror.
Before Seleucus I could direct his armies westward, either toward Europe or Egypt, he first had to deal
with Demetrius yet again. After the death of his father, Demetrius was able to amass a new army, which he
used to conquer Greece. Seleucus I, along with the other leading Greek generals, invaded Greece and
eventually captured the recalcitrant Demetrius. The Babylon Chronicle states, The thirtieth year: in the
month Sivan, [that same] mon[th, . . . his troops] [h]e mustered and [marched] to the land of [. . .] the
Greeks [. . .] His [troops] from Sar[dis] he mustered and took across the se[a . . .] with him to
Macedonia, his land, [. . .]s from the troops. (Grayson 2000, 122).
Backed into a corner from which he saw no escape, Demetrius thought that surrendering to Seleucus I
would be his best course of action since his daughter, Stratonice, was one of the Seleucid monarchs
wives. On the other hand, the general Lysimachus wished to kill Demetrius since he had deprived him of
his kingdom. Diodorus, among other classical authors, wrote extensively about Demetriuss captivity at
Seleucus Is hands: While Demetrius was held under guard in Pella, Lysimachus sent ambassadors to
Seleucus with the request that he should on no account release Demetrius from his power, since he was a
man of restless ambition and had plotted against all the kings; he offered to give Seleucus two thousand
talents to do away with him. But the king rebuked the ambassadors for urging him not only to set at naught
his solemn pledge but also to incur that pollution in respect of a man allied to him by marriage.
(Diodorus, The Library of History, XXI, 20, 1)

Demetrius eventually died in captivity, but as fate would have it, Seleucus I followed him not long after,
a victim of an assassination conspiracy in Macedonia (Bryce 2014, 169). Seleucus Is assassination in
281 BCE would become a common theme in later Seleucid history, but the king was foresighted enough to
plan for such an event and prepared his son well to rule their vast kingdom.
The assassination of a leader often has the effect of throwing a government into turmoil, but Seleucus Is
son and successor, Antiochus I Soter, was chosen as crown prince in 292 BCE and ruled alongside his
father as a coregent for several years (Bryce 2014, 170), so Seleucus Is sudden death had a minimal
impact on the empire. In many ways, Antiochus I followed his fathers template of kingship, which he
used to ensure a relatively peaceful domestic situation.

A coin depicting Antiochus I

 Rani Nurmais picture of a golden coin depicting Antiochus I found in Afghanistan
Antiochus I, like most of the Seleucids, was also given a nickname that epitomized his rule, which in his
case was connected to an attempted invasion by marauding Celtic tribes in Asia Minor. The Celts of Asia
Minor, who had long been a combined source of fascination and frustration for the Greeks, descended
from their mountainous abodes to attack Seleucid territory in 275 BCE. The young Seleucid king
responded by leading an army, complete with an elephant corps, to Asia Minor, where he soundly
defeated the Celts and saved the civilized inhabitants of the Seleucid Empire and thus earned the
nickname Soter, which is Greek for savior (Bryce 2014, 172).

With the Celtic hordes defeated, Antiochus I could focus his attention on other affairs of state, such as
suppressing a rebellion in Syria (Bryce 2014, 171) and carrying on his fathers policy of respecting and
taking part in Babylonian traditions. A cylinder that was excavated in the ruins of the ancient
Mesopotamian city of Borsippa has helped modern scholars learn much about the early Seleucids view
toward Babylonian culture. Cylinders were first used in the Neo-Assyrian period in Mesopotamia to mark
the foundation of a new temple (Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 1991, 74-79). A text would be inscribed on the
cylinder that usually extolled the virtues of the particular king who commissioned the project and praise
for the deity for which the temple was dedicated. The particular cylinder in question, like nearly all
cylinders, was inscribed in the Akkadian language using the cuneiform script (Kuhrt and Sherwin-White
1991, 72). The use of Akkadian is particularly interesting here, because Akkadian was essentially the
lingua franca of the Bronze Age Near East and used extensively by the successive dynasties that ruled
Mesopotamia, no matter their ethnic background, in monuments and texts. By the 4th century BCE, though,
when the Seleucids came to rule the region, Akkadian had been replaced by Aramaic as the common
language. Akkadian persisted as a liturgical language, similar to how Latin continued to be used by the
Roman Catholic Church after the fall of Rome.
Once completed, the cylinder was buried in the foundation of the Esagila Temple in Borsippa, about 12
miles southwest of Babylon, where it remained until it was excavated in the modern period (Kuhrt and
Sherwin-White 1991, 73). The text is remarkably well preserved and reveals much about Antiochus Is
views of kingship and Babylonian culture. It reads:

I am Antiochus, the great king, the legitimate king, the king of the world, king of
Babylon, king of all countries, the caretaker of the temples Esagila and Ezida, the
first(born) son of king Seleucus, the Macedonian, king of Babylon.
When I conceived the idea of (re)constructing Esagila and Ezida, I formed with my
august hands (when I was still) in the country Hatti the (first) brick for Esagila and Ezida
with the finest oil and brought (it with me) for the laying of the foundation of Esagila and
Ezida. And in the month of Addaru, the 20th day, the 43rd year (of the Seleucid era), I did lay
the foundation of Ezida, the (only) true temple of Nebo which is in Borsippa.

O Nebo, lofty son, (most) wise among the gods, splendid (and) worthy of all praise,
first-born son of Marduk, child of Arua, the queen who fashioned all creation, do look
friendly (upon me) and may upon your lofty command which is never revoked the
overthrow of the country of my enemy, the fulfillment of (all) my wishes against my foes,
constant predominance, a kingdom (ruled) in justice (to all), an orderly government, years
of happiness, enough progeny be your permanent gift to the (joint) kingship of Antiochus
 and his son, king Seleucus! . . .
O Nebo, foremost son, when you enter Ezida, the (only) true temple, may there be on your
lips (words of) favor for Antiochus, the king of all countries, for Seleucus, the king, his son
(and) for Stratonike, his consort, the queen! (Pritchard 1992, 317).
Interestingly, the Antiochus mentioned in the last line is not actually Antiochus I but his grandfather, who
is generally not considered by modern historians to be a Seleucid king. The last few lines of the text
appear to be a vehicle to link Antiochus I to the previous Seleucids, thereby giving the king more
legitimacy in the eyes of the Greek population. Moreover, the temple was dedicated to Nebo, the
Mesopotamian god of scholarship, which demonstrates that the Babylonian priest class still held some
influence in the early 4th century BCE even though their country was in the hands of the Greeks.
Essentially, it was a text written in the traditional Babylonian style, but it appealed to both groups to
accept the rule, not only of Antiochus I but of the entire Seleucid Dynasty.
The tolerance and even participation in the Babylonian cults that Antiochus I displayed in the Borsippa
Cylinder can also be seen in his patronage of a native Babylonian historian. The people of ancient
Mesopotamia had a concept of history that they manifested through the creation of king-lists, but their
historiographical writing did not go much beyond those lists. The Assyrians compiled a number of annals
and there were also chronicles, but for the most part Mesopotamian historiography was wrapped up in
theological thought (Speiser 1983, 55). When Alexander the Greats generals took control of the ancient
kingdoms of the Near East, namely Egypt and Mesopotamia, they were intrigued and moved by the
enduring nature of the ancient cultures, but somewhat perturbed that their histories were not readily
accessible. Very few Greeks took the time to learn how to read Akkadian or Egyptian, and even if they
had native priests recite the king-lists, they were bored to say the least. By the 4th century BCE, the Greek
philosophy of history had matured and become a specific literary genre in its own right, in which history
was not put forth merely as a list of kings but as a narrative that was meant to edify those in the present
(Momigliano 1990, 18).

Thus, in order to quench their thirst for Babylonian history, albeit in a Greek manner, the early Seleucid
kings employed the services of a Babylonian priest named Berossos. Berossos was a high priest of the
Babylonian god Marduk who served in the Temple of Esagila during the reigns of Seleucus I and
Antiochus I (Verbrugge and Wickersham 2001, 13). It is probable that Berossos consulted with Antiochus
I to create the cylinder discussed above because the Babylonian priest was also commissioned by the
same king to create a history of Babylon that was accessible to the Greeks (Verbrugge and Wickersham
2001, 26). Berossos was tasked by the Seleucid king to compile a history of Babylon from the ancient
cuneiform sources and record it all in Greek (Verbrugge and Wickersham 2001, 16-17).
To accomplish this task, the historian would have had access to all the great temples in Babylon and
some of the nearby cities, although the great Assyrian libraries would have been unknown to him because
they were destroyed when the Neo-Babylonians toppled the Assyrian Empire in the late 7th century BCE.
Unfortunately, like his counterpart Manetho in Egypt, most of Berossoss work was lost to the ages, and
all that remains are some fragments that later historians cited. Unlike Manethos history of Egypt,
Berossoss history of Babylon was even less intact and did not cover all of Mesopotamias dynasties,
such as the Assyrians in the north (Verbrugge and Wickersham 2001, 33).
The combination of the Borsippa Cylinder and Berossos demonstrates that Antiochus I took at least a
cursory interest in Babylonian culture, which is juxtaposed with the idea that he and his successors let
Babylon fall into neglect. It is no secret that the ancient city of Babylon had a most inauspicious end.
Babylon did not fall to a conquerors sword; it was simply neglected to the point that it was depopulated
and its once great temples were allowed to turn into ruins. Many believe that the foundation of the nearby
city, Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, founded by Seleucus I, marked the beginning of a fast decline for Babylon,
but not all scholars are in agreement. If the early Seleucid kings intended to completely ignore Babylon to
the point of its desertion, then Antiochus Is restoration of temples in Borsippa, as indicated above, seems
completely out of character (Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 1991, 82). It is true that the Seleucid kings, who
outwardly followed some Babylonian cultural traditions but remained essentially Greeks, preferred their
own cities to the pre-Greek cities across their empire, but there is no evidence that they consciously set
out to replace or diminish Babylon in any way.
Furthermore, it should be noted that Babylon was not completely deserted until around 50 BCE
(Verbrugge and Wickersham 2001, 32), which was years after the collapse of the Seleucid Empire. It
therefore seems not to have been a conscious decision by the Seleucid kings to diminish Babylon in any
way; instead, it simply appears that as more problems developed both internally and externally for the
Seleucids, their priorities changed and upholding the ancient Babylonian traditions was not high on their
list.
The Seleucids and the Ptolemies
Initially, the early Seleucid kings maintained fairly good relations with the kings of the Ptolemy Dynasty
in Egypt, especially as they aligned against Demetrius and worked out the limits of their respective
empires in the Levant peacefully. However, the peaceful relations that the two dynasties shared became
undone during the reign of Antiochus I. The rebellion in Syria that Antiochus I was forced to suppress is
believed to have been instigated by Ptolemy II (284-246 BCE) of Egypt, who desired to incorporate the
land into his empire (Bryce 2014, 171). Antiochus Is victory against the Celtic army discussed above,
along with the rebellion sometime after 282 BCE, was actually a prelude to war between Ptolemy II and
Antiochus I that became known as the First Syrian War. The war, which ended sometime around the end of
the 270s BCE, resulted in Antiochus I gaining new territory in Asia Minor for the Seleucids, but Coele
Syria stayed under the purview of the Ptolemies (Bryce 2014, 172). The Levant in general and Coele
Syria in particular would be the apex of hostilities between the Ptolemies and Seleucids for centuries,
which would result in five more Syrian Wars.

Marie-Lan Nguyens picture of a bust of Ptolemy II

Antiochus Is son and successor, Antiochus II Theos (261-246 BCE), fought against his fathers rival,
Ptolemy II, in the Second Syrian War (260-253 BCE), but lost most of the Seleucid territory in the Levant
in the process (Bryce 2014, 173). Antiochus IIs successor, Seleucus II Callinicus (246-225 BCE), was
even less successful against the Ptolemies, as he lost Syria and even Babylon temporarily to Ptolemy III
(246-221 BCE) before the Egyptian king was recalled to Egypt to suppress a major rebellion (Bryce
2014, 175).
Seleucus II was far more successful in the east, though, as he defeated an army of Parthians. Strabo
mentioned briefly how Seleucus II defeated the Parthian King Arsaces I (ca. 247-211 BCE): Belonging
to the tribe of the Massagetae and the Sacae are also the Attasii and the Charasmii, to whom Spitamenes
fled from the country of the Bactriani and the Sogdiani. He was one of the Persians who escaped from
Alexander, as did also Bessus; and later Arsaces, when he fled from Seleucus Callinicus, withdrew into
the country of the Apasiacae. (Strabo, Geography, XI, 8, 8).

Ultimately, Seleucus IIs victory over the Parthians would prove to be ephemeral. In the decades after
the Seleucid kings victory, the Parthians would continue to improve their position until they became
masters of the eastern provinces of what was previously the Seleucid Empire.

A coin depicting Seleucus II

The Height of the Seleucid Dynasty
The first two Seleucid kings may have been the most able rulers of the dynasty, but it was during the
reigns of Antiochus III (223-187 BCE) and Antiochus IV (175-164 BCE) that the Seleucids exercised
their greatest influence in the region. These two Seleucid kings fought the remaining Syrian Wars against
the Ptolemies and eventually rubbed shoulders with the Romans, although that ultimately proved to be part
of their empires downfall. The Seleucids looked at these two kings quite favorably, as they gave
Antiochus III the nickname Megas (The Great) and Antiochus IV the moniker Epiphanes, which
means God is Manifest.

A bust of Antiochus III

 J Nienmens picture of a bust of Antiochus IV

Before Antiochus III could face the Ptolemies, he was forced to suppress a major rebellion in the
eastern province, or satrapy, of Media. The rebellion in Media was actually led by the provincial
governor, or satrap, Molon. Since the Seleucid Empire was so large and communication could move
slowly in the late 1st millennium BCE, Seleucid satraps were given great autonomy. Loyal and
accomplished military commanders were usually appointed as satraps, which usually meant that they
could be trusted, but occasionally the wealth and power of the position went to an individuals head. In
this case, the rebellious satrap was able to temporarily control most of the eastern Seleucid provinces, but
he was eventually defeated by Antiochus III (Bryce 2014, 182).
The remainder of Antiochus IIIs reign was consumed primarily with the First (219-217 BCE) and
Second (202-195 BCE) Syrian Wars, which netted mixed results for the Seleucid Empire. During the
Second Syrian War, Antiochus III decisively defeated Ptolemy V (204-180 BCE) on the battlefield and as
a result was able to incorporate Coele Syria, Phoenicia, and coastal Palestine, essentially the entire
Levant, into the Seleucid Empire (Bryce 2014, 187). The Seleucids also gained Judea (Doran 2006, 100),
which ultimately proved to be a mixed blessing for them. The ancient Jews were a people who clung
tightly to their traditions despite often facing opposition from their larger and more powerful neighbors.
The ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judea were dismantled by the Neo-Assyrians and Neo-Babylonians
respectively, but the Achaemenid King Cyrus the Great allowed the Jews captive in Babylon to return to
their homeland and rebuild the Solomonic Temple. When Antiochus III drove the Ptolemies from Judea,
he allowed the Jews to once more practice their religion openly and allowed all Jews of the diaspora to
return to Judea (Bryce 2014, 199). However, subsequent Seleucid rulers, as will be discussed more
thoroughly below, vacillated on their treatment of Judea.
 Of all the conflicts that Antiochus III was involved in, perhaps none were more important than his 193
BCE campaign in mainland Greece, which brought him into contact with the Romans. After the successful
completion of the Fifth Syrian War, Antiochus III was free to turn his attention to his peoples homeland of
Greece in 193 BCE (Bryce 2014, 189). According to the 3rd century CE Roman historian Dio, the Romans
had great respect for the Seleucid king, who they believed had earned his nickname: ith affairs in this
disturbed state, the Romans had no hope of overcoming Antiochus, but were content if only they could
preserve their former conquests. For he was regarded as a mighty ruler even by virtue of his own
power, by which he had subjugated Media among other exploits; but he became far mightier still through
having gained as sons-in-law Ptolemy, king of Egypt, and Ariarathes, king of Cappadocia. In view of this
estimate of Antiochus, the Romans, so long as they were at war with Phillip, were careful to court his
favour, keeping up friendly relations with him through envoys and sending him gifts. But when they had
vanquished their other enemy, they despised also this king whom they had formerly feared. (Cassius Dio,
Roman History, XIX, 9, 18).
Once the Romans saw that Antiochus III could potentially conquer Greece, thereby threatening Rome,
they made an alliance with King Eumenes II (197-159 BCE) of Pergamum to check Seleucid aggression.
The showdown resulted in a decisive battle near the Lydian city of Magnesia in late 190 or early 189
BCE. Dio described the results: The nature of the struggle was as follows. Antiochus placed the chariots
in front, with the elephants next, and behind these the slingers and the archers. Now the Romans
anticipated the charge of the chariots by a charge of their own, and with a mighty shout they rushed
straight at them and repulsed them, so that most of the chariots turned back toward the elephants, and thus
threw their own army into confusion; for in their wild flight they terrified and scattered the men
marshalled beside them. . . At the same time Scipio captured the camp of Antiochus, where he found many
people, many horses, baggage animals, silver and gold and ivory, and many other precious objects
besides. Antiochus after this defeat at once retired into Syria, and the Asiatic Greeks attached themselves
to the Roman cause. (Cassius Dio, Roman History, IX, 9, 20).

The Romans, fresh off their victory over Hannibal at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE, had apparently
learned quite well how to deal with elephants. The Battle of Magnesia marked the end of the major use of
elephants in Western military campaigns and was a turning point in the relationship between the Romans
and Seleucids.

Antiochus IIIs battlefield loss at Magnesia did not mark the end of his reign or even of the Seleucid
Empire, but it did represent the beginning of the Seleucids inferior status vis a vis Rome. One of the
immediate and most damaging results of the war for the Seleucids was the loss of most of their territory in
Asia Minor. Strabo noted, Eumenes fought on the side of the Romans against Antiochus the Great and
against Perseus, and he received from the Romans all the country this side the Taurus that had been
subject to Antiochus. (Strabo, Geography, XIII, 4, 2).
The Hellenistic kingdom of Pergamum filled the power vacuum that the Seleucids left in Asia Minor.
Pergamum became a kingdom that the other powers of the Mediterranean had to deal with, but it was
never too powerful to present a threat to the Romans. For their part, the Romans were initially reluctant to
place a harsh peace on Antiochus III and instead desired to return to the status quo, but ambitious forces
within the Roman Senate, along with a desire to capture Romes most hated enemy, Hannibal, who had
fought alongside Antiochus III, prevailed to force a harsh agreement on the Seleucids. The peace treaty
was recorded by a number of classical historians, including Cassius Dio: Consequently they laid upon
Antiochus conditions no more severe than those they had originally made before the battle. Hence Gnaeus
Manlius, who succeeded them in office, was not pleased with the terms agreed upon, and he made
additional demands upon the king, besides requiring him to give hostages, one of whom should be his son
Antiochus, and to deliver up all the deserters, among them Hannibal. Antiochus reluctantly yielded
obedience on all the other points; to give up Hannibal, however, was out of his power, since the latter had
already fled to Prusias, king of Bithynia. On these conditions Antiochus sent envoys to Rome and secured
peace. Lucius Scipio was praised for his victory, and received the title of Asiaticus because of it, just as
his brother had been called Africanus for conquering Carthage, the most powerful city in Africa.
(Cassius Dio, Roman History, IX, 9, 20).

A bust believed to depict Hannibal

The Roman policy of holding royal Seleucid children as hostages continued until the final dissolution of
the Seleucid Dynasty and proved to be a useful political tool because the Seleucids rarely challenged
Roman authority after the reign of Antiochus III. Besides the loss of territory and the giving of noble
hostages, the Seleucids were forced to pay a yearly indemnity to the Romans (Bryce 2014, 190).

Meanwhile, even as Antiochus III dedicated the majority of his reign to military campaigns, like his
predecessors, he also took an interest in the domestic affairs of his kingdom. Antiochus III was not as
heavily involved with Babylonian culture as Seleucus I and Antiochus I were, but there is evidence that
he occasionally played a role in the traditional Babylonian New Year festival (Boiy 2011, 11). The kings
participation in Babylonian religion is not insignificant, even if his involvement was minimal compared to
his predecessors, but with that said, Antiochus IIIs participation in the native cults should be viewed in a
more cynical light. It seems apparent he did so to appease the still important Babylonian priesthood more
than having any deep belief in the Babylonian pantheon.
Moreover, unlike his predecessors, Antiochus IIIs tolerance only went so far, and he was not afraid to
suppress those who opposed him. After his war with the Romans, Antiochus III was forced to suppress
rebellions in his eastern provinces, which culminated in his sacking of the Bel Temple in the city of
Elymais in southwest Persia. The kings actions against the god led to even more rebellion, which ended
with his assassination in 187 BCE (Bryce 2014, 191).

Upon Antiochus IIIs death, the Seleucid Empire had already seen its three greatest kings rule, but
Antiochus IV proved to be an able king who sustained most of the previous kings gains. After the
relatively unimpressive reign of Seleucus IV (187-175 BCE), one of Antiochus IIIs sons, Antiochus IV
Epiphanes (175-164 BCE), came to the throne and reenergized the Seleucid dynastys foreign policy. By
the time Antiochus IV became king, the Ptolemies and Seleucids were still rivals for control over the
Levant, but their conflict was more tempered, owing to the fact that the two dynasties were inexorably
intertwined through royal marriage: Cleopatra I, the mother of Ptolemy VI (180-145 BCE), was the
daughter of Antiochus III and the half-sister of Antiochus IV (Bryce 2014, 193).
However, despite the familial connections between the Ptolemies and Seleucids in the early 2nd century
BCE, internal royal quarrels in Egypt led Antiochus IV to lead an army into the Egyptian Delta in order to
restore order, or so he claimed. The Sixth Syrian War ended almost as quickly as it began when Antiochus
IV defeated the Ptolemaic army at Pelusium in 170 BCE (Bryce 2014, 194). The victory was a major
feather in the military cap of Antiochus IV, but it proved to be ephemeral because the Romans quickly
interceded and demonstrated their authority. Dio explained, Ptolemy, the ruler of Egypt, passed away
leaving two sons and one daughter. When the brothers began to quarrel with each other about the
sovereignty, Antiochus, the son of Antiochus the Great, sheltered the younger, who had been driven out, in
order that under the pretext of defending him he might get his hands on Egyptian affairs. In a
campaign directed against Egypt he conquered the greater part of the country and spent some time in
besieging Alexandria. When the rest sought refuge with the Romans, Popilius was sent to Antiochus and
bade him keep his hands off Egypt; for the brothers, comprehending the designs of Antiochus, had become
reconciled. When the latter was for putting off his reply, Popilius drew a circle about him with his staff
and demanded that he deliberate and answer standing where he was. Antiochus then in fear raised the
siege. (Cassius Dio, Roman History, XX, 9, 25).
Seeing no benefit in going to war with the Romans, Antiochus IV withdrew his forces from Egypt in 169
BCE (Bryce 2014, 195), which marked the end of the Syrian Wars. The Romans were once again happy to
preserve the status quo, which meant that they would not allow any of the Hellenistic kingdoms to gain
hegemony in the Near East, so Antiochus IVs victory over the Ptolemies in the Sixth Syrian War proved
to be a double-edged sword. The victory provided a sense of pride and a source of propaganda for him
among his people, but it also brought more Roman influence into the region in a most humiliating way.
The Roman dominance over the Mediterranean region was complete; but the Seleucid king had no time
to sulk about his dynastys new position of inferiority to the Romans because he was forced to deal with
an urgent political situation closer to home. Once Antiochus IV pulled his troops out of Egypt, he was
quickly forced to send them to a hotspot within his empire Judea. The tolerance and respect for the
native religions and traditions within the Seleucid Empire that the first few Seleucid kings displayed,
including Antiochus IVs father, was not followed by Antiochus IV. Although far removed from Alexander
the Great and having few connections with Greece, Antiochus IV was a quintessential Greek who had
little time for the beliefs and customs of his non-Greek subjects, especially if they were rebellious.
Antiochus IVs heart was in Greece, not the Near East, and his policies reflected that attitude. Essentially,
Antiochus IV wished to Hellenize all of his subjects and was willing to go to extreme lengths to do so, as
evidenced by the Maccabean Rebellion in Judea.
The Maccabean Rebellion began in 168 BCE when a Hellenistic Jewish faction arose in Judea that
wanted to promote Greek ideals at what other Jews believed was the expense of Jewish traditions. The
program was fully supported by Antiochus IV, as it followed along with his Hellenistic ideas (Bryce
2014, 200), but resistance to it became popular and at times violent. The Seleucid king saw the rebellion
as a personal affront to him more so than a reaction to Hellenism in general, so he took a hard stance
against Judea. Diodorus wrote, Antiochus, called Epiphanes, on defeating the Jews had entered the
innermost sanctuary of the gods temple, where it was lawful for the priest alone to enter. Finding there a
marble statue of a heavily bearded man seated on an ass, with a book in his hands, he supposed it to be an
image of Moses, the founder of Jerusalem and organizer of the nation, the man, moreover, who had
ordained for the Jews their misanthropic and lawless customs. And since Epiphanes was shocked by such
hatred directed against all mankind, he had set himself to break down their traditional practices.
Accordingly, he sacrificed before the image of the founder and the open-air altar of the god a great sow,
and poured its blood over them. Then, having prepared its flesh, he ordered that their holy books,
containing the xenophobic laws, should be sprinkled with the broth of the meat; that the lamp, which they
call undying and which burns continually in the temple, should be extinguished; and that the high priest
and the rest of the Jews should be compelled to partake of the meat. (Diodorus, The Library of History,
XXXIV/XV, 1, 1-3).

The above passage is interesting as it focuses on the clear cultural clash between the Seleucids and the
Jews. The Seleucids, and Antiochus IV in particular, were adherents of Hellenism, which was essentially
a universalist ideology that held all men could live together peacefully as long as they recognized the
basic virtues of Greek culture. Although it was an ideology that stressed the quintessential superiority of
Greek culture, it was still a universalist idea in that non-Greeks who learned Greek were allowed to
participate in its core tenets. On the other hand, the Jews followed a tribal religion that held them and
only them as Gods chosen people, which was in clear opposition to Hellenism.
After Antiochus IV defiled the Jewish temple, he had an altar for the Greek gods installed in 167 BCE
(Bryce 2014, 202). Naturally, the people of Judea were not happy, and Antiochus IVs repressive
measures toward Judea only served to strengthen the resolve of those already opposed to him and to
further alienate other Jews who were on the fence. The minor rebellion that the Seleucid king
suppressed in 168 BCE turned into a full-scale insurgency from 166-142 BCE that was led by Judas
Maccabeus, from whom the rebellion got its name (Bryce 2014, 203). The insurgency began in the
village of Modein and then spread to the rural areas of Judea, where insurgents would engage Seleucid
soldiers in hit-and-run attacks (Doran 2006, 101). The rebellion/insurgency proved to be successful for
the Jews and a failure for the Seleucids, as Judea was recognized by Rome as an independent nation in
139 BCE (Doran 2006, 103). Tired of fighting a guerilla war long before the term was even thought of,
the Seleucids all but abandoned Judea and instead turned their attention to the slowly eroding edges of
their empire.
Hellenism
One cannot truly understand the Seleucid Empire and the motivations of its kings without considering
the ideas of Hellenism and the Hellenistic period. Since those are essentially modern terms, the definition
of Hellenism has been subject to debate by a number of scholars, but most agree that the period lasted
from the reign of Alexander the Great (336-323 BCE) until the rule of Augustus, the first Roman emperor,
who defeated Cleopatra VII of Egypt in 31 BCE and subsequently incorporated the last independent
Hellenistic kingdom into the Roman Empire (Price 2001, 364).

Although Hellenism may be difficult to define concisely, there were several hallmarks that marked the
period throughout the world that Alexanders successors ruled. Essentially, the Hellenistic Greek kings
sought to expand not only their political influence in the non-Greek world but also Greek culture itself,
which they saw as superior to all others.
One of the primary ways in which the Hellenistic kings promoted Greek culture throughout the non-
Greek world was by building new Greek cities on non-Greek soil. Alexander began this idea and was
credited with founding over 70 new cities, many of them named Alexandria, though modern scholars
believe the number is closer to half of that (Price 2001, 370). The Seleucids followed suit and are
credited with creating over 60 new settlements in their empire, stretching from Asia Minor in the east to
the high plains and deserts of Persia and Bactria in the west (Price 2001, 370). Seleucus I began the
process of building new Greek cities in his empire when he had nine cities built named Seleucia (Bryce
2014, 166), and since there were so many cities with the same name, they were often differentiated by
their specific geographic location. For example, the greatest of all the Seleucias was Seleucia on the
Tigris, which was located about 40 miles northeast of Babylon (Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 1991, 82).
Strabo mentioned this Seleucia in his general description of Mesopotamia and the Tigris and Euphrates
Rivers: Thence flow both rivers, I mean the Euphrates and the Tigris, which encircle Mesopotamia and
closely approach each other in Babylonia and then empty into the Persian Sea. . . The Tigris, running from
the southerly part of the same mountain to Seleucia, approaches close to the Euphrates and with it forms
Mesopotamia, and then flows into the same gulf as the Euphrates. (Strabo, Geography, XI, 12, 3)

Seleucia, like most of the newly founded Hellenistic cities, was planned as a Greek city in terms of
architecture and populated with Greeks (Bryce 2014, 166). Not all of the Seleucias were built on virgin
soil, though; Seleucia on the Euleaus was originally the Persian city of Susa, but Seleucus I refounded
the city in the late 4th century BCE and gave it a city government and constitution that resembled those
from Greeks classical period (Price 2001, 371).
The program of founding new Greek cities within the Seleucid Empire that Seleucus I so ardently
pursued was faithfully followed by Antiochus I. Antiochus I proved that he could be just as ambitious in
his Hellenistic aspirations, as he founded 16 cities named Antioch (Bryce 2014, 168). The most famous
and enduring of the Antiochs was the one built in Syria on the Orontes River which was actually built
by Seleucus I and named for his father Antiochus but the king made sure to let the light of Greek culture
shine into the furthest corners of the Seleucid Empire. Strabo noted how Antiochus I built an Antioch to be
the capital of Margiana (modern day Afghanistan): Margiana is similar to this country, although its plain
is surrounded by deserts. Admiring its fertility, Antiochus Soter enclosed a circuit of fifteen hundred
stadia with a wall and founded a city Antiocheia. The soil of the country is well suited to the vine; at any
rate, they say that a stock of the vine is often found which would require two men to girth it, and that the
bunches of grapes are two cubit. (Strabo, Geography, XI, 10, 2)

A classical statue found at Antioch

In order to ensure that Hellenism was successful, both Seleucus I and Antiochus I moved hundreds of
thousands of Greeks into the Near East (Bryce 2014, 168). Migration into Syria was especially heavy, as
up to 50,000 Greeks colonized the region during the reigns of the first two Seleucid kings (Bryce 2014,
173). Although non-Greeks were allowed to participate in Hellenism and non-Greek elites were often
encouraged to do so, very few ever did. Because of that reality, the Seleucids were forced to pursue pro-
Greek immigration policies in order to replicate Greek culture on Near Eastern soil. The result was that a
new, Greek culture began to take form in a way that was not always welcomed by the natives.

The Ptolemy and Seleucid kings were not very discriminating about the Greeks who they invited to
populate their kingdoms, so long as they were Greeks. The result was that different Greek dialects, such
as Doric and Ionic, began to mix until a new Greek dialect took hold known as koine Greek (Price 2001,
370). Greek was the language of the elites, and although some non-Greeks learned the language of the
Seleucids and entered the bureaucracy, the system remained overwhelmingly Greek. For instance, the first
several Seleucid kings generally prevented non-Greeks from holding any important position in their
government, and even when later kings began to accept more non-Greeks into the royal administration,
only 2.5% of the positions went to non-Greeks (Price 2001, 375).
 Closely related to the aspects of Hellenism in the Seleucid Empire was the Seleucids philosophy of
war. Wars have been fought throughout human history for a plethora of reasons by just as many kingdoms
and dynasties with varying degrees of success and failure. Some pre-modern cultures, such as the Norse,
viewed war as a sacred rite of passage that initiates had to go through in order to become full members of
said society. In the Seleucid Empire and the other Hellenistic successor kingdoms, warfare did not quite
reach the level of a sacrosanct act, but it did play a crucial role in the ideology of kingship. The Seleucid
and the other Hellenistic kings were true autocrats who controlled the entire royal administration, but
even more importantly, the Seleucid kings legitimacy rested upon their military prowess (Price 2001,
375). The Seleucid kings based their tradition of government on Alexander the Great, a general and
monarch, instead of the Greek city-states that placed democratic and republican forms of government as
their ideals (Price 2001, 375). Because of this ideology, the Seleucid kings were nearly always at war
and were expected to personally lead their troops, which lead to the death of several monarchs.
The nature of warfare also expanded during the Hellenistic Period. It was common for kings to amass
60,000 to 80,000 man armies that were often augmented by mercenaries and other specialty troops
(Price 2001, 376-377). The introduction of an elephant corps was one such specialty that has already
been discussed above, but mercenaries and the phalanx also become important parts of the Seleucid army
(Price 2001, 377). Mercenaries existed long before the Hellenistic Period, but the phalanx was a new
technique that revolutionized warfare. The phalanx solider used spears much longer than the average
Greek hoplite, so they were able to defend against cavalry or elephant charges much more effectively.

Most of the natives who lived in the Seleucid Empire viewed these changes and Hellenism in general
with a sense of ambivalence, but some aspects of Hellenism apparently went too far and even led to
rebellion. Antiochus IV was one of the biggest Seleucid proponents of Hellenism, and after his victory
over the Ptolemies in the Sixth Syrian War, Antiochus IV sponsored a Hellenistic celebration in the Syrian
city of Daphne, near the Syrian Antioch, that showcased elements of Greek and even Roman culture. The
event itself was actually based on the idea of a Roman triumph, where the victorious Roman general
would parade through the streets of Rome with his troops. In Antiochus IVs triumph, the Seleucid king
marched through the streets of Daphne with floats, dancers, and 36 war elephants (Bryce 2014, 196). The
parade must have been quite a site and was truly in the spirit of Hellenism, similar to the many
ostentatious parades the Ptolemies conducted in Alexandria. Antiochus IV also built numerous temples to
the Greek gods (Bryce 2014, 197), which led to some major problems in Judea. The Maccabean
Rebellion was an example of the clash of two cultures, and some of the fundamental flashpoints were the
result of attempts to spread Hellenism to that part of the Seleucid Empire.
The gymnasion was a purely Greek concept that Seleucid kings, particularly Antiochus IV, spread
throughout the realm of their dominion. The modern idea of a gym, or gymnasium, is based on the Greek
model, as ancient Greek men went to gymnasions to exercise; but the Greek gymnasion was also a place
where men went to study academic and philosophical pursuits and ideas (Price 2001, 370). The idea of
the Greek gymnasion was not abhorrent in itself to non-Greeks in the Seleucid Empire, but the fact that
the members were required to exercise nude often proved to be a deal breaker (Price 2001, 370).
Ironically, non-Greeks who learned Greek and proved themselves indispensable to the Seleucids could
join a gymnasion, and this ended up being one of the catalysts of the Maccabean Rebellion. A Hellenistic
faction of Jews, with the blessing of Antiochus IV, established a gymnasion in Jerusalem sometime
between 174 and 171 BCE. The Hellenistic Jews who frequented the gymnasion not only exercised in the
nude, but were rumored to have given up many of the age-old Jewish traditions, such as circumcision
(Simon 2001, 373).
The Collapse of the Seleucid Empire
Most Seleucid kings tried their hands at Hellenism, but by the middle of the 2nd century BCE the vast
empire was quickly crumbling, so the rulers were forced to devote most of their attention to keeping
internal stability. It is difficult to say for certain at which point the Seleucid Empire began its decline.
Since the empire was founded on warfare and violence, and many of its kings died violent deaths, it
would be inaccurate to base the dynastys decline on any one assassination or combat death.
While some of the early Seleucid kings may have died in battle or as the result of assassination,
attempts at usurpation from within the dynasty were relatively rare at first. However, the Seleucids thirst
for power became overwhelming, and they began to conspire against each other while their enemies on
the outside began slowly taking more territory until the Seleucids were left with a sliver of their once
great empire.
Some scholars point toward the secession of Parthia and the Parthians from the Seleucid Empire as the
beginning of the end for the Seleucids, although it is difficult to say for certain when that exactly
happened. As stated above, Seleucus II defeated Arsaces I of Parthia in a battle, but that victory may
coincide with the point where the Parthians established their own independent dynasty (Brodersen 1986,
381). Besides campaigning heavily in the east, Seleucus II was also occupied fighting one of his brothers
for the Seleucid throne, which may have contributed to the breakaway of the Parthians. Although losing
any province is usually not a good thing for a growing empire, Parthia gave the Seleucids more trouble
than it was worth. The Parthians were continually rebelling against Seleucid authority, and the wealth
extracted from the region was minimal compared to the rest of the empire. Antiochus III and Antiochus IV
appear to have taken this position, as neither monarch made any attempts to retake Parthia and instead
focused their military endeavors on the wealthier west.
The internal problems and loss of Parthia during Seleucus IIs reign was more of an ebb in the upward
flow of the Seleucid Empire. After Seleucus II, the rule of Antiochus III and IV stabilized the borders of
the Seleucid Empire and brought great wealth and prestige to the royal court. The stability and prestige of
the Seleucid royal house, though, came to end when Antiochus V Eupator (164-162 BCE) became king.
Antiochus V was a young boy when he became king, which meant that ambitious members of the Seleucid
nobility were ready to take advantage of the situation (Bryce 2014, 207). In particular, Seleucus IVs son,
Demetrius I Soter (162-150 BCE), made a play for the throne while he was still a royal hostage in Rome
(Bryce 2014, 208). According to Dio, Demetrius I employed guile instead of bravery or battlefield
strategy to win the Seleucid throne. Now Demetrius, the son of Seleucus, and grandson of Antiochus,
who was staying in Rome as a hostage at the time of his fathers death and had been deprived of the
kingdom by his uncle Antiochus, had asked for the domain of his father when he learned of the
death of Antiochus, but the Romans would neither help him to get it nor permit him to depart from Rome;
and he, in spite of his dissatisfaction, had remained quiet. But when this affair of Lysias occurred, he no
longer delayed, but escaped by flight and sent a message to the senate from Lycia stating that it was not his
cousin Antiochus, but Lysias that he was attacking, with the purpose of avenging Octavius. And hastening
to Tripolis in Syria, he won over the town, representing that he had been sent out by the Romans to take
charge of the kingdom; for no one had any idea of his flight. Then after conquering Apamea and gathering
a body of troops he marched on Antioch; and when the boy and Lysias offered no opposition through fear
of the Romans, but came to meet him as friends, he put them to death and recovered the kingdom.
(Cassius Dio, Roman History, XX, 9, 25).
 Although Demetrius I was known for little more than how he came to the Seleucid throne, his 12 year
rule does imply a certain level of stability during an increasingly unstable period of the Seleucid Dynasty.
However, after 12 years of uneventful rule, an imposter who claimed to be the long lost son of Antiochus
IV came forward with a claim to the Seleucid throne (Bryce 2014, 208). Imposters to the throne have not
been uncommon throughout history, but they rarely attain kingship, and if they do, they are usually quickly
deposed. The pretender, known as Alexander Balas (150-145 BCE), was supported by a number of
Seleucid royals who grew weary of Demetrius I and also the king of Pergamum. Because of their support,
Alexander Balas was able to put together a sizable army to defeat and kill Demetrius I in Asia Minor
(Bryce 2014, 209).

A coin depicting Alexander Balas

Alexander appeared to demonstrate astute political acumen early in his reign when he married Ptolemy
IIs daughter, Cleopatra Thea, which gave him indirect control of Egypt (Bryce 2014, 210). But it soon
became evident that it was his wife who wielded the power in his family. The historical record on why
exactly Alexanders supporters turned on him is incomplete. Diodorus wrote that it was because of his
poverty of spirit, but it may have more to do with the poverty of his origins. Since Alexander Balas was
a pretender and never really part of the Seleucid nobility, his supporters within the dynasty, as well as
those in Egypt and Pergamum, probably just viewed him as an expedient to get rid of Demetrius I. Thus,
when Demetrius I was vanquished, the others no longer had any use for the pretender.
Whatever the reasons actually were, Ptolemy VI quickly turned against Alexander and invaded the
Levant with the intention of usurping him, which was supported by a Seleucid faction who desired to
place Demetrius II Nicator (145-141 BCE) on the throne. The culmination of this conflict was the
Battle of Antioch in 145 BCE. Diodorus explained:
Ptolemy Philometer entered Syria intending to support Alexander on the grounds of
kinship. But on discovering the mans downright poverty of spirit, he transferred his
daughter Cleopatra to Demetrius, alleging that there was a conspiracy afoot, and after
arranging an alliance pledged her to him for marriage. Hierax and Diodotus, despairing of
Alexander and standing in fear of Demetrius because of their misdeeds against his father,
aroused the people of Antioch to rebellion, and receiving Ptolemy within the city, bound a
diadem about his head and offered him the kingship. He, however, had no appetite for the
throne, but did desire to add Coele Syria to his own realm, and privately arranged with
Demetrius a joint plan, whereby Ptolemy was to rule Coele Syria and Demetrius his
 ancestral domains.
Alexander, worsted in battle, fled with five hundred of his men to Abae in Arabia, to
take refuge with Diocles, the local sheikh, in whose care he had earlier placed his infant
son Antiochus. Thereupon Heliades and Casius, two officers who were there with
Alexander, entered into secret negotiations for their own safety and voluntarily offered to
assassinate Alexander. When Demetrius consented to their terms, they became, not merely
traitors to their king, but his murderers. Thus was Alexander put to death by his friends.
(Diodorus, The Library of History, XXXII, 27, 9c; 9d; 10, 1).

Although this war involved the Ptolemies and Seleucids, it is not considered one of the Syrian Wars.
The most interesting aspect of this part of the Seleucid slide into oblivion is that the most powerful
Seleucid during this period was not any of the kings, but Cleopatra Thea, who according to the classical
sources became somewhat of a kingmaker.

A coin at the Metropolitan Museum of Art depicting Alexander and Cleopatra

Demetrius IIs brief rule over the Seleucid Empire ended when he was captured by the Parthians, but it
did not end his influence on the Seleucid Dynasty because he was actually restored to the throne briefly in
129 BCE. After Demetrius II was captured by the Parthians in 146 BCE, the Seleucid throne passed to
two uninspiring men, Antiochus VI Epiphanes (145-142 BCE) and Diodotus Tryphon (142-139/38
BCE) (Bryce 2014, 336). Diodorus wrote in detail how Diodotus, who was a usurper, came to the
Seleucid throne. First, he took advantage of the ill-will that Demetrius II engendered within the Seleucid
population. Demetrius, now that the royal power of Egypt had been shattered and he alone was left,
assumed that he was quit of all danger. Scorning, therefore, to ingratiate himself with the populace as was
customary, and waxing ever more burdensome in his demands upon them, he sank into ways of despotic
brutality and extravagantly lawless behaviour of every sort. (Diodorus, The Library of History, XXXIII,
5).
Demetrius IIs once loyal general, Diodotus Tryphon, then decided to rebel against the king and prop up
Alexander Balas son, Antiochus VI, the legitimate Seleucid king. What followed was a confusing period
from about 145-142 BCE where both Demetrius II and Antiochus VI were viewed by different noble
Seleucid factions as the legitimate king. Diodorus noted, A certain Diodotus, also called Tryphon, who
stood high in esteem among the kings Friends, perceiving the excitement of the masses and their hatred
for the prince, revolted from Demetrius, and soon finding large numbers ready to join him (enlisted first?)
the men of Larissa, who were renowned for their courage, and had indeed received their present
habitation as a reward of valour (for they were colonists from Thessalian Larissa), and as loyal allies to
the royal line descended from Seleucus Nicator (had always fought?) in the front ranks of the cavalry. He
also made an ally of the Arab sheikh Iamblichus, who happened to have in his keeping Antiochus (styled
Ephiphaes), a mere child, the son of Alexander. Setting a diadem on his head and providing him with the
retinue appropriate to a king, he restored the child to his fathers throne. (Diodorus, The Library of
History, XXXIII, 4a)
Diodotus, though, was not happy merely controlling the boy king; he wanted the Seleucid throne for
himself. In many ways this made him a typical Seleucid, ambitious to the point where he was willing to
commit murder to achieve his goals. Diodorus wrote that Diodotus killed Antiochus VI and took the
Seleucid throne: In Syria, Diodotus, surnamed Tryphon, having murdered Antiochus, the son of
Alexander, a mere child who was being reared as one destined to the throne, put on his own head the
royal diadem and, having seized the vacant throne, proclaimed himself monarch and engaged in war on
the satraps and generals of the legitimate king. For in Mesopotamia there was Dionysius the Mede, in
Coele-Syria Sarpedon and Palamedes, and in Seleucia-by-the-Sea Aeschrion, who had with him Queen
Cleopatra, the wife of Demetrius (whom Arsaces had taken captive. (Diodorus, The Library of History,
XXXIII, 28).
The classical historians did not comment on what the catalyst was that led to Diodotuss assassination
of Antiochus VI, but it can be inferred from the above passage that Demetrius IIs capture by the Parthians
may have been a major factor.

Having secured the Seleucid throne, Diodotus then went to the Romans, who held hegemony over the
region at this point, for their support. According to Diodorus, the meeting did not go quite as the Seleucid
usurper had planned: Tryphon, having risen from private estate to the kingship, was eager to strengthen
his position by means of a senatorial decree. Accordingly, having prepared a golden statue of Victory, of
the weight of ten thousand gold staters, he dispatched envoys to Rome to convey it to the Roman people.
For he supposed that the Romans would accept the Victory, both because of its value and as an object of
good omen, and would acclaim him as king. But he found that the senators were more cunning than himself
and that they shrewdly outmanouvred those who sought to mislead and deceive them. For the senate
accepted the gift and secured the good omen together with the profit, but changed the attribution of the gift
and in Tryphons stead inscribed it with the name of the king whom he had assassinated. By this act the
senate went on record as condemning the murder of the boy and as refusing the gifts of impious men.
(Diodorus, The Library of History, XXXIII, 28a)
Diodotus rule over the Seleucids would prove to be short and turbulent. The factional fighting and civil
war within the Seleucid royal house was then temporarily ended when Antiochus VII Sidetes (139-129
BCE) came to the throne and Diodotus took his own life (Bryce 2014, 213). Although Antiochus VII was
Demetrius IIs brother (who was still alive at the time in Parthian custody), he took Cleopatra Thea as his
wife. It appears that she chose him as much as he chose her; by this point, she was a well-seasoned
veteran of the often Machiavellian maneuvering of the Seleucid kings.
Antiochus VIIs first order of business was to attack the Parthians, who had extended their empire to
include Mesopotamia. By 130 BCE Antiochus VII had briefly recaptured Babylonia and Seleucia on the
Tigris from the Parthians, but his brother remained in their custody. Still, life in Parthian custody was not
all bad for Demetrius II. Despite the captivity, Demetrius II married a Parthian princess named
Rhodoguna, which no doubt angered Cleopatra Thea and forced Antiochus VII to strike deep into Parthian
territory in 129 BCE at the Parthians (Bryce 2014, 212). Diodorus claimed that Antiochus VII was killed
in a surprise attack by the Parthian general: Arsaces, wishing to feel out his enemies, sent envoys to
discuss terms of peace. In reply Antiochus told them that he would agree to the peace if Arsaces would
release his brother Demetrius from captivity and send him home, if he would withdraw from the satrapies
that he had seized by force, and if, retaining only his ancestral domain, he would pay tribute. Arsaces,
taking offence at the harshness of the reply, placed an army in the field against him. His friends pleaded
with Antiochus not to join battle with the far more numerous Parthian hordes, since they, by taking refuge
in the mountainous country that overlooked them, with its rough terrain, could neutralize the threat of his
cavalry. Antiochus, however, completely disregarded their advice, remarking that it was disgraceful for
the victorious to fear any ventures of those whom they had previously defeated. (Diodorus, The Library
of History, XXIV/XXV, 15-15).

The death of Antiochus VII ensured that the Seleucids avoided another civil war, because on the eve of
the above described battle, the Parthians released Demetrius II so that he could once more become the
Seleucid king and they could influence the throne through his Parthian wife (Bryce 2014, 214).

Demetrius II would not have to fight to retain his position, but he quickly learned that he was far from
the most powerful Seleucid. He was not on the throne very long before the other Seleucids, and most
importantly his estranged wife Cleopatra Thea, had grown weary of him. The Seleucid king tried to
emulate some of his more successful ancestors by attacking Egypt in 127 BCE, but he only got as far as
the Delta before he was soundly defeated (Bryce 2014, 215). To make matters worse, rebellions in Syria
forced Demetrius II to face off against another pretender to the throne named Alexander, which ended in
the kings defeat. Licking his wounds, Demetrius II fled to the Levantine city of Ptolemais and the
supposed safety of his wife, but when he arrived, she had him killed and then assumed the throne for
herself (Bryce 2014, 215).
Although female rulers in the ancient world were rare, they were not unheard of. Ancient Egypt had
more than one female pharaoh, and women were known to make important decisions in a number of other
pre-modern cultures, but Greek society was different. Greek culture was essentially hyper-masculine,
which included the Hellenistic successor states such as the Seleucid Empire. Women were not allowed to
take part in the gymnasion and female philosophers were unheard of. In the classical Greek city-states,
women were not allowed to vote and were not considered full citizens. The situation changed very little
concerning the status of women in the Hellenistic successor states, as women were mothers and wives to
kings and philosophers, but never considered to be rulers in their own rights.
The Greek attitude towards gender roles is probably what allowed one of Cleopatra Theas sons,
Seleucus V (125 BCE), to briefly assume the Seleucid throne, but the nave rulers cunning mother killed
him when she had enough (Bryce 2014, 216). Apparently Cleopatra Thea saw that ruling the Seleucid
Empire as a woman was a difficult proposition, so after Seleucus Vs death, she ruled as a co-regent with
another one of her sons, Antiochus VIII (125-96 BCE), until 125 BCE (Bryce 2014, 216).
Although all sources seem to indicate that Antiochus VIII was a capable leader, the tide of history and
the deviousness of the remaining Seleucids were against him. Antiochus VIII was murdered by his brother
in 96 BCE (Bryce 2014, 217), which proved to be the final nail in the Seleucid Empires coffin.

The ultimate end of the Seleucid Empire came in the form of partition. The Romans were slowly moving
eastward, gobbling up ancient kingdoms and states in the process, such as Greece, until they finally took
Syria in 64 BCE (Bryce 2014, 221). On the other side of the once vast Seleucid Empire, the Parthians
slowly moved out from their homeland to take Bactria, Persia, and finally Mesopotamia. With the
Seleucids gone, the Romans and Parthians often used former Seleucid territory, namely Mesopotamia, as
their battlefields. The Parthians even continued to use Seleucia on the Tigris for some time as one of their
capitals, as Strabo noted. Media is divided into two parts. One part of it is called Greater Media, of
which the metropolis of Ecbatana, a large city containing the royal residence of the Median empire (the
Parthians continue to use this as a royal residence even now, and their kings spend at least their summers
there, for Media is a cold country; but their winter residence is at Seleucia on the Tigris near Babylon).
(Strabo, Geography, XI, 13, 1).
Eventually, Seleucia on the Tigris fell into ruin and was forgotten, but the records kept by the classical
historians of the Seleucid kings ensured that their deeds would be remembered for posterity.
Online Resources

Other books about ancient history by Charles River Editors

Other books about the Seleucid Empire on Amazon
Bibliography
Boiy, Tom. 2011. The Reigns of the Seleucid Kings According to the Babylonian King List.
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 70: 1-12.
Brodersen, Kai. 1986. The Date of the Secession of the Parthia from the Seleucid Kingdom.
Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte 35: 378-381.
Bryce, Trevor. 2014. Ancient Syria: A Three Thousand Year History. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Cassius Dio. 1954. Roman History. Translated by Earnest Cary. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.
Diodorus Siculus. 2004. The Library of History. Translated by C.H. Oldfather. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Doran, Robert. 2006. The Revolt of the Maccabees. National Interest 85: 99-103.
Grayson, A. Kirk, ed. 2000. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns.
Kuhrt, Amlie, and Susan Sherwin-White. 1991. Aspects of Royal Ideology: The Cylinder of
Antiochus I from Borsippa. Journal of Hellenic Studies 111: 71-86.

Momigliano, Arnaldo. 1990. The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography. Berkley:

University of California Press.
Plutarch. 1968. Lives. Edited and translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.

Price, Simon. 2001. The History of the Hellenistic Period. In The Oxford History of Greece
and the Hellenistic World, edited by John Boardman, Jasper Griffin, and Oswyn Murray, 364-
389. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pritchard, James B, ed. 1992. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd
ed. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Speiser, E.A. 1983. Ancient Mesopotamia. In The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East,
ed. Robert C. Denton, 35-76. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society.
Strabo. 2001. Geography. Translated by Horace Leonard Jones. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.

Verbrugge, Gerald P, and John M. Wickersham, eds. 2001. Berossos and Manetho, Introduced
and Translated: Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University of Michigan Press.

 Free Books by Charles River Editors
We have brand new titles available for free most days of the week. To see which of our titles are
currently free, click on this link.
 Discounted Books by Charles River Editors
We have titles at a discount price of just 99 cents everyday. To see which of our titles are currently 99
cents, click on this link.