The Ancients - The Seleucid Empire: In the Shadow of Rome

Episode Date: January 13, 2022

At its height, the Seleucid Empire stretched from Thrace (modern day Bulgaria) to the Indus River Valley. Emerging from the tumultuous ‘Successor Wars’ that followed Alexander the Great’s passing, for over a century it was a superpower of the eastern Mediterranean. This, however, ultimately led it into conflict with Rome at the beginning of the 2nd century BC. The result was a devastating defeat for the Seleucid King Antiochus III ‘the Great’ at the Battle of Magnesia, fought around this time of year in either December 190 BC or January 189 BC. Following the battle, the Seleucids were humbled by a damaging treaty, but what happened next? What followed for the Seleucids, having been humbled by the Romans? Did they descend from superpower to suppliant? Or did they experience a resurgence? In today’s podcast, Eduardo Garcia-Molina, a PHD Classics student at the University of Chicago, argues the latter. Focusing in on the reign of Antiochus IV, Eduardo highlights how the Seleucid Empire remained a powerful entity in the wake of Magnesia and their Roman defeat.Order Tristan’s book today: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Perdiccas-Years-323-Alexanders-Successors/dp/1526775115/ref=zg_bsnr_271237_68/260-7675295-7826601?pd_rd_i=1526775115&psc=1If you'd like to learn more, we have hundreds of history documentaries, ad free podcasts and audiobooks at History Hithttps://access.historyhit.com/?utm_source=audio&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=Podcast+Campaign&utm_id=PodcastTo download, go to Android or Apple store:https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.historyhit&hl=en_GB&gl=UShttps://apps.apple.com/gb/app/history-hit/id1303668247If you’re enjoying this podcast and looking for more fascinating The Ancients content then subscribe to our Ancients newsletter. Follow the link here:https://www.historyhit.com/sign-up-to-history-hit/?utm_source=timelinenewsletter&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=Timeline+Podcast+Campaign

Hi, I'm Tristan Hughes, and if you would like the Ancient ad-free, get early access and bonus episodes, sign up to History Hit. With a History Hit subscription, you can also watch hundreds of hours of original documentaries, including my recent documentary all about Petra and the Nabataeans, and enjoy a new release every week. Sign up now by visiting historyhit.com slash subscribe. It's the Ancients on History Hit. I'm Tristan Hughes, your host. And in today's podcast, we are talking about one of the great empires of the Hellenistic period, arguably the greatest of the empires.

And this was the Seleucid or the Seleucid Empire. It emerged in the aftermath of Alexander the Great's death, following the tumultuous wars of the successors. And at its height, the Seleucid Empire stretched from the Indus River Valley in the east all the way to modern-day Bulgaria and the western coastline of Anatolia in modern-day Turkey. It was an extraordinary Hellenistic superpower that dominated much of the ancient Near East following the death of Alexander the Great. But in the early 2nd century BC, disaster struck this kingdom when it came into conflict with the Romans, the Roman Seleucid War of the 190s BC. It culminated in a devastating Seleucid defeat at the Battle of Magnesia, which also resulted in a treaty,

the Treaty of Apamea, which saw, among many other clauses, as you're going to hear in this podcast, the Seleucids losing basically all their land west of the Taurus Mountains, so much of one day Anatolia, ancient Asia Minor. But what happened to the Seleucid Empire after that? When the Seleucids, this empire based on Syria and ancient Mesopotamia, when it was really in the shadow of Rome. Sometimes we portray the Seleucids following their disastrous clashes against Rome as one of decay, of an empire in decline. But was that really the case in the early 2nd century BC? Well join me to argue that that was not the case, particularly during the reign of King Antiochus IV. I was delighted to get on the podcast. Eduardo Garcia Molina from the University

of Chicago. Eduardo, he's currently studying for his PhD at the university. He's a classic student. He knows a lot about the Seleucid Empire, particularly looking at the Seleucid Empire post-Magnesia, post-Apamea, and arguing why, in the early 2nd century BC, this former Hellenistic superpower wasn't the sick man of Syria, at least not yet. I'm a big fan of the Hellenistic period. I'm a big fan of the successor kingdoms and their interactions with the Roman Empire. It promised to be a great chat. It was a great chat. We're going to be talking about the Treaty of Apamea itself. We're going to be looking into the reign of Antiochus IV.

We're going to be looking at the Maccabean Revolt. We're going to be looking at an incursion into ancient Egypt. We're going to be talking about elephants. And also, we're going to be talking about this incredible, magnificent, awesome military parade that occurred in ancient Syria called the Daphne Parade. This podcast, it promises to be a big one. It was really fun to record. Both Eduardo and I, we had a lot of fun recording it and without further ado, I've been rambling on for long enough. Here's Eduardo. Eduardo, it is great to have you on the podcast.

Thank you for having me. It's an absolute delight to get to wax poetic about Seleucids without forcing people in regular conversation. Well, I mean, no problem at all. It's always good to get more about the Seleucid Empire on this podcast. We talk too much about Rome, and this is an extraordinary ancient Hellenistic kingdom. But the Seleucid Empire in the second century BC, I mean, can we call this time a period when the Seleucids, the empire transforms from superpower to, and I do love this phrase, the sick man of Syria. Right. So this is the very historian response of yes, but no. There is a tendency in earlier scholarship and also in Greco-Roman

historians to kind of pick 188, the Treaty of Apamea, as kind of this pivotal turning point. After that point, it just starts going downhill so quickly. And that's not really the case. In my master's thesis, actually, I used the title, The Sick Man of Syria, but I limited myself to the period after the death of Antiochus Grybos in 96 BCE circa, because, of course, our sources are crazy about that era. because, of course, our sources are crazy about that era. That's when I use it, because I wanted to point towards the increased level of outside polities

influencing the dynamics within the Seleucid state. And it's still prevalent after the Treaty of Apamea, but it's more so more prominent, especially after Kripos. Yeah. Well, you mentioned the Treaty of Apamea, so let's really start this chat right there with this treaty. I mean, first of all, Eduardo, what was the Treaty of Apamea?

The Treaty of Apamea was the culmination of the end of this war that gets called the Roman-Seleucid War, the War of Antiochus, if you want to be dramatic about it, and place all blame on Antiochus, and none of the Aetolian League, or War of Antiochus, if you want to be dramatic about it, and place all blame on Antiochus and none of the Aetolian League or any of the geopolitics going on in mainland Greece and in

Asia Minor at that time. But it really is the cessation of hostilities between Rome and the Seleucid Empire after two, well, there's more than two battles, but two pivotal battles, the Battle of Thermopylae and the Battle of Magnesia, respectively. And also some naval engagement, which Hannibal plays a part in because Hannibal actually stayed and chilled with Antiochus III for a little bit, but he didn't get any respect. So he left that court and went on to some minor kings and Asian miners courts. But yeah, the treaty is the culmination of peace talks. There's a cessation of hostilities after the Battle of Magnesia in 189. Winter comes, and then they meet up in an embassy at Apamea in Phrygia. This is another one of the wonders of Hellenistic history is that naming conventions for towns are very uniform. They really like naming towns after family members. This is Appamah.

So they meet in Phrygia and Appamia, an embassy of 10 Roman legates, and Eumenes II of Pergamon, who was a vital instrument in helping the Romans deal with the Seleucid threat in mainland Asia Minor. And he probably played a very large role in formulating the actual stipulations of the treaty. It shows an immense amount of political awareness of the fluid situation, let's say that, in Asia Minor. And certainly Eumenes and others had to have a hand in it, the Rhodians as well. But yeah, it's the end of the Roman-Seleucid war culminates in this treaty. the end of the Roman Seleucid War culminates in this treaty. And so what were the terms of this treaty?

Was it a pretty, shall we say, a harsh treaty on the Seleucids? Not too harsh when you think about just the vast resources of the empire. Before we kind of get into the stipulations, Polybius is one of our main sources here. Livy, Polybius and one of our main sources here. Livy, Polybius, and Diodorus, some other minor mentions there. And Polybius gives us pretty much the word for word as he relates it, text of the treaty. And this is the treaty, I just want to point out this, it's a treaty between Rome and Antiochus III. And this is going to be important later on because Hellenistic diplomacy rests on kings making treaties with each other but once the king passes away sometimes murder other times natural death in the second century bc usually it's murder especially with the Seleucids but not

Phrentice the third but it's between him and Rome, and this is going to really contextualize what is going on afterwards with Seleucus IV, who has a brief reign, and Antiochus IV later on. But yeah, some of the stipulations, there's a very harsh talent. This is roughly 60 pounds of silver for each talent.

12,000 talents talents over 12 years. So 1,000 talents a year to roam, in addition to 350 talents for Eumenes II over five years. So a fairly large amount of silver. But again, every year, certain amount, nothing that would strain the coffers too much. Friendship is promised. Philia is promised between Antiochus and Rome if they follow these stipulations. Antiochus cannot make war on the islands or on Europe. Europe here being very broadly defined as mainland Greece and the islands being the islands between mainland Greece and Asia Minor. Some of the stipulations actually show an incredible awareness for the movement of troops and peoples after land is split up. So for example, Antiochus has to evacuate all the lands,

cities, forts, and villages that are across the Taurus mountain range in the Halas River. The only thing that the men can take who are evacuating from these areas are their arms. They cannot take anything else. They have to leave everything else, which is, of course, a way of stopping people from just picking up everything and maybe spoiling places along the way. And this is fairly common in treaties to have these geographical determinants, just because the neat borders that we envision are not really a reality. When you look at a modern map, that's not the ancient way of looking at things, especially for the Seleucid Empire, when they show this like big uniform map of everything. That's not the way the empire works.

If any men in Antiochus' army from cities occupied by the Romans, they are to be sent back. So if there are any Seleucid forces in territory that is now Roman or Roman ally, they get to be sent back to Seleucid territory. If there are Romans and allies in Seleucid territory, they have the option of coming back. So it's not really an even playing field there. Antiochus has to give up any enslaved peoples that he got from his campaigning in Asia Minor and in mainland Greece. And he also has to give back POWs. And this includes actually some very notable politicians in his court from the Aetolian League and and also Hannibal, if he has him in the court. There's a little conditional clause in there because they don't know. And Hannibal kind of

senses the mood in the room and leaves before this, rightfully so. Another one of the biggies is, and this is the thing that people always talk about, because of course, war elephants are awesome. And everybody wants to talk about war elephants and their usage in war. He has to surrender the elephants, and he cannot have any more elephants, and he has to limit his navy severely to 10 undead ships. We're going to see with Antiochus IV that they don't really follow these rules, but elephants passing between hands is actually fairly common in Seleucid diplomacy. For example, when Antiochus III has his famous Anabasis,

and he goes all the ways to the borders of India, he meets with a local Indian king. They reaffirm their friendship with each other. They reaffirm the bounds of their kingdoms. And then the Indian king grants elephants to Antiochus III. Similarly, when Antiochus III is in that area, he besieges the city of Bactra. And there, the local king capitulates, acknowledges Antiochus III's legitimacy and his right to rule, and he gives him elephants. The Romans do not care. They

just don't want elephants. They don't want them, but they don't want Antiochus III to also have them. So yeah, that's really the big stipulation that everybody likes about this treaty, but it doesn't hold up. The Seleucids continue to have elephants, and they will continue to have elephants until really the middle of the second century, when they lose their roots to the eastern portions of the kingdom, once the Parthians kind of swoop down, thanks to the absolutely dynamic profile that is Mithridates, astonishing ruler. And Antiochus can't get any mercenaries from Rome or the allied lands either. And we're going to see once we discuss the people that are composed in the Daphne parade, that that's not the case. And Seleucid ties continue to be there in both Asia Minor and in mainland Greece. Antiochus IV builds the Olympion in Athens. There are

dedicatory inscriptions found in various poleis across the Greek world showing ties with not only the king himself, but also prominent members of his court. So even at face value from this literary account, we go, wow, cessations of everything, borders are drawn. But that's not the case. The Eastern Mediterranean is so heavily interconnected. The Hellenistic kings rely so much on giving benefactions to cities, not hard political ties, maybe, but at least accruing friendship. So maybe when the time comes, then you can kind of snap that trigger and force them to pick a side. So soft diplomacy as opposed to hard diplomacy is kind of how it works there. works there. And there's a little minute stuff, but I guess the other big thing is, of course, that land gets granted to the Adelids and to Rhodes. Actually, Rhodes gets a fair amount of the pariah in the southern portion of Asia Minor. So both of Rome's allies get a little, you know,

a little incentive to stay allies. Although Rhodes doesn't turn out to be such a good ally. Although Rhodes doesn't turn out to be such a good ally. They have some issues with Rome later on. They kind of start regretting inviting these weirdos from the Italian peninsula over there after a while. But yeah, those are really the big things is you have a financial stipulation. a financial stipulation. You have a general wishy-washy delineation of border, but that doesn't stop influence and kind of money and people from trickling in. A general regard for friendship, mutual friendship that they seem to follow. There is no other heated war that follows. Rome kind of pulls the string in some later Seleucid monarchs. They kind of hold back on some. Oh, and also the hostages, of course. 20 hostages are to be sent to Rome. Among these, Antiochus IV, notably. But also, we don't really

talk about the other 19 hostages and kind of the prominent court people, the administrators that might have been sent. They gave actually age ranges for these hostages. They had to be between 18 and 45. So they wanted, it seems, prominent members of the Seleucid administration and also a young Antiochus IV to kind of hold back and have someone there. So, and that allows Seleucus IV to then kind of take the throne and do what he wants for a little bit anyways. Well, we'll get on to all of that. There was a lot of ground covered there. Antiochus IV, right, he's gone west as a hostage following the Treaty of Apamea. Eduardo,

you mentioned earlier how Antiochus III had previously headed east. You mentioned Bactria and that area. So with the Treaty of Apamea, following the treaty, how large is the remaining territory of the Seleucid Empire at that time? It's still Asia Minor, not to diminish the importance of Asia Minor. Asia Minor has been important for many an empire, many a people for a very, very long time, even before the Selugids. But in the grand scheme of things, the empire is pretty much roughly the same. Of course, now you have the Taurus mountain range, you still have the wonderful province of Cilicia

that will continue to remain a holdout. And then you have the borders extending all the way to India. And before the war against Rome, Antiochus, as you said, had this anabasis coming forth and he subdued and kind of forced these local dynasts and kings that were kind of flexing a little bit. Every time a new Seleucid monarch pops up, this gives governors and local regents the opportunity to kind of test the metal and kind of flex their own power, maybe start minting coins that say that they're the ruler instead of the local king. And it's part of kind of the custom for Hellenistic monarchs to then go to war

and subdue these people and force them back into the folds of the empire. So yeah, before we started, we were talking about Rome, total war. And the second one, actually, if you pick to start at the Seleucids, you get Syria, right? You get Northern Syria, it doesn't include Coily Syria, and then you get Babylon. And that is scholars recognize that as kind of the heartland of the Seleucid state. After that, though, and this is in Rome total war, you have client kingdoms in the east. And the minute you hit the end turn button, and you go on to your second turn, if you go to the diplomacy, all their faces go from happy faces to frowny faces. So the player is actually kind of like a new Seleucid king on the block, and their local regents are angry,

and they're probably going to stop being vassals to you and declare war on you, and you have to go and kind of reassert your authority. So it's a really wonderful thing when you see such echoes in video games, but it ties to the very real geopolitics that the Seleucid Empire had to maintain. We see a map of it. Everything is unified. That's not the case. Very, very frequently, Seleucid monarchs had to go out and prove that they were worthy of the throne. And if they weren't, kaput, you'd get assassinated by maybe a claimant to the throne a governor might try to usurp and take over

Syria very close actually happened in Asia Minor in the third century Asia Minor Seleucid territory was like a bed of rebellion from both other claimants within the Seleucid family and also local governors and powerful so yeah no it a defeat. Asia Minor was cut off. Local resources maybe were put in hazard, maybe they didn't have as much access to them. But still the remaining empire, Antiochus III was an absolute like dynamite of a ruler. He campaigned for 30 years, the remainder of the empire withheld. Heck, the year afterwards, we have records of him in Babylonia at the New Year celebration, the Akitu festival, and he actually receives the robe of Nebuchadnezzar II, the Neo-Babylonian, the famed Neo-Babylonian. He receives the robe.

He's clearly still has this very powerful persona as a conqueror. His son, not so much. Lucas IV, not so much, which is maybe why he gets stabbed. But yeah, no, the ramifications are not as serious as maybe Polybius would have you believe. Or if you just read the treaty stipulations without, like, they still have elephants elephants they still have a navy Antiochus IV invades Egypt he has to have a navy to do that because Cyprus is right there and you don't want the sneaky Ptolemaic forces landing in Koyli Syrian taking it back or something like that. Eduardo we will get on to Antiochus IV in a moment but we are still on Antiochus III at the

moment Antiochus III is still alive in our discussions that we were chatting about just then. Yes, very briefly. Very briefly. Well, indeed, because you've kind of anticipated my question, what happens to Antiochus III? It's frustrating. We don't truly, though there's a story that he's in the east, he might be going on campaign. One of the stories that we hear, he's sacking a temple near Susa, and he dies. It's a very anticlimactic end to such a powerful figure. But then again, Hannibal dies by poisoning himself before he gets killed. This sort of thing happens. But yes, he dies. He leaves a very strong empire behind, and he leaves a very clear line of succession. He wants his older son, Seleucus IV, to take over. Antiochus IV, the younger son, is back there in Rome. Everything seems hunky-dory, and Antiochus III, during his reign, really wanted to accentuate the family.

His wife was venerated in local cults. We have local cities praying for the health of the family. They acknowledge Seleucus IV as the son. So Antiochus III leaves the world, anticlimactically so, but he leaves behind an empire that's fairly unified and fairly strong. So, okay, Antiochus, anticlimactic end, but he leaves quite a strong empire behind him. But Eduardo, so his son, his successor, Seleucus IV, inherits this incredible kingdom. But what happens during Seleucus's reign?

Do we know much about it? I mean, what do we know about the strength of the empire, the whole appearance of the Seleucid Empire during Seleucus's reign in charge? So there's a lot of things that start during Seleucus's reign that then carry on over to Antiochus IV. So I think he serves as a nice little bridge between it. Some descriptors of Seleucus IV, we don't have many. Appian does know that Seleucus was sickly and he had a hard time getting the obedience of the army, which should already be raising a couple red flags. One of the main things that Seleucus IV is known for

is kind of the beginnings of an administrative overhaul of Syria, especially Khoily Syria. And Khoily Syria is the southern part of Syria, here where Jerusalem most famously is at, and the kingdom of Judea. Oh, not kind of right now. But yes, he, for example, appoints a minister in charge of the temples in Phoenicia and in Qoile, Syria. And scholars are going, why would he appoint a minister in charge of the temples here? Well, it's very likely that he wanted to keep greater tabs on money. He wanted to kind of shore up his finances. And it has to be because of the financial impositions of the Treaty of Apamea to some degree. So he appoints this minister in this area. He's supposed to go around the temples and make sure that they're paying their tribute on time. And temples in antiquity, antiquity doesn't have this bifurcation between kind of the state and religion like we do today.

That was not a thing. Temples could serve as repositories for local wealth, even small little temples. I study inscriptions about a very small temple in northern Syria that held wealth and got the favor of Seleucid king because of it. And they were kind of focal points for opportunities for the state to exert power over an area where it could normally not do it outside of the polis structure. This is why also in Seleucus IV's reign and later on in Antiochus IV's reign, there's kind of a push to get more Greek institutions in the cities, not because of some notion that Greek culture is inherently superior or something like that, but because they're more easy to manage. They're easier to extract taxes from if you have an agora and an agoranomos, someone in charge of the weights and the measures. It's

just easier for them to keep track of things. There's a similar scholarly discussion going on to this day about such institutions in Babylonia and whether Antiochus IV and Seleucus IV actively fomented kind of a Greek polis within Babylonia itself. But yeah, if Seleucus IV maybe kept going, I think many of the beats that we see later with Antiochus IV would have occurred. The only problem was that unlike Antiochus IV, apparently Seleucus could not portray himself as the magnet of a Hellenistic ruler that you have to be. And people see opportunity within that. Bam, he gets stabbed by one of his closest associates actually it always is uh uh heliodorus he gets assassinated and this is where then antiochus the fourth sees an opportunity to come in because there is so lucas the fourth has a

younger son horribly named antiochus also, which makes things confusing. He doesn't even get numbers because he reigns for so little time. Seleucus historians don't give him. He's called like the son of Seleucus or something along those lines. And it goes to him and he's very young. So this allows, for example, that courtier that just stabbed his dad in the back to exert some very notable influence on the goings on in the court so yeah i'll stop myself there but yeah so lucas you you can kind of see where it's going with antiochus

but then he gets stopped just because again if you follow appians he just couldn't accrue that magnetism that you need to make court politics and kind of the persona the hellenistic king stick yeah absolutely and i'm guessing if he was kind of the persona of the Hellenistic king stick. Yeah. Absolutely. And I'm guessing if he was following in the footsteps of this great, well, he called himself the great Antiochus III, such a big figure.

You've got a lot to live up to. And ultimately, it looks like Seleucus IV paid for it with his life. And you mentioned Heliodorus there, the courtier, not a nice place, the Hellenistic court. So in the midst of all of this, how does Antiochus IV from Rome, from the central Mediterranean, how does he come back and assume control of the Seleucid empire? So Antiochus IV gets released. Remember that the stipulations of the treaty, it's every three years there is like a new rotation of hostages. Antiochus IV gets released. We don't know exactly when.

There's some discussion about how long he stays in Athens afterwards. Because once he gets released from Rome, we see him pop up in Athens. There's discussion going on whether he stayed for three years or was it just one year. From 178 to 175 or just 175 and he stayed in Athens. He's kind of waiting at the wings. It seems he doesn't want to actually step foot in Syria, maybe because he doesn't want to piss off his older brother and maybe get killed. I mean, there is a storied history of killing your siblings just to make sure that things go smoothly.

Because Lord knows, the younger sibling complex, when you give it to people that have a bunch of money and soldiers, things get exacerbated from familial disputes that one might see at Thanksgiving or something like that to a whole nother geopolitical level. He might be involved in the plot. We don't know. It's very convenient that he's waiting in the wings at athens and then he's a hop skip and a jump and we see him pop up in asia minor and eumenes the second actually gives him money soldiers and presents him the diadem so in a wonderful reversal of the way that the salukas have kind of exerted influence over the Adalid court since the beginning, since Philotiros took over in the third century, and he appealed to

the Seleucids to save him from Lysimachus. Now we have a reversal. Now it's an Adalid actually proclaiming a figure, the king, and then then leading him through his territory. He goes up to the border of the Taurus mountain range, and he kind of wipes his hands, and he goes, all right, it's your gig now. And Antiochus does actually take the throne with the excuse that he's co-regent with his nephew, the son of Seleucus Antiochus.

And then you can imagine he doesn't last very long. No, yeah, you could see where that one was going, couldn't you? Yeah, the writing was definitely on the wall. Rising on the rule, he really had the power there. And Antiochus, when he assumes he becomes king and his young nephew lies beneath the ground, I mean, it's not long, is it, Eduardo, before Antiochus, he's on a military footing, on an offensive military footing. Yeah, this is one of the things, right? We talked about this when we talked about Antiochus III, this incessant need to flex. You have to, because, for example, Seleucus IV,

the army might be displeased and they might have someone stab you. You might suddenly get all those local kings, local dynast governors. They might go, hmm, maybe I should just be Basileus and mint my own coins and flex my own power and maybe expand. Heck, that's what happened with Parthia later on. But yes, Antiochus is in this position. He has this still incredibly large empire. He's pretty secure. His foothold's pretty secure. There's some hostages in Rome that might change that, but nothing actually comes up during his reign, at least. And he goes, all right, what can I do? Hmm. How about those Ptolemies are looking mighty nice down there my father whooped their butt and

forced them into a dynastic marriage actually with a Seleucid princess maybe I should do the exact same I mean I have coyly Syria I can they're knocking on my door and this kind of leads I think this is where your question was prompting me to, the Sixth Syrian War, the wonderful Syrian Wars. We actually don't know who started it. And both parties, Antiochus and the Ptolemies, send delegations to Rome and blame each other. You can see soldiers start moving into Coile-Syria. Antiochus is going, I don't know if they're going to attack me, so I'm going to put soldiers there. But they're also very convenient if I want to launch my own attack. So we don't know who started it, really. There is no bullet heard around the world or something like that. But Antiochus then has a fairly easy time of it. And this is further helped by the fact that the Ptolemaic court itself is under pressure.

The Ptolemies haven't had a very good time either. They've had some intrigues. They've had a young king. That's what actually prompted Philip V and Antiochus III to go, hey, Ptolemaic land grab. We should just take advantage of this. And then you have local courtiers like pulling influence, eunuchs. At one point, the government is split among three regents. It's a mess.

So Antiochus IV, a fairly centralized, fairly stable court, decides, okay, I'm going to do it. And so he launches a very successful attack. There's almost no resistance until he's at the very borders of Alexandria at a place called the Lucis. And these Romans decide to actually answer the call for Ptolemaic help because the Ptolemies at this point are just going, oh God, oh God, oh God, please. Even the people of Alexandria are kind of going, hmm, we should have these new Seleucid overlords might be nice. And some Seleucid cities actually did this in the third century. The main port in northern Syria, Seleucia Pieria, actually flipped to the Ptolemaic side, like less than 20 miles from Antioch, what is known as the

capital of northern Syria. So these like politics are very interlaced. And yeah, this Roman delegation comes. And this is when we have the famous, like the circle in the sand expression, the day of the loose is when the Roman delegate goes, hey, stop it. Go back, be happy that you have coyly Syria that you guys have been fighting over since it started, since the Ptolemies and the Seleucids were a thing. Be happy with what you got. You are not going to destabilize the region by taking over Egypt. That is an absolute breadbasket and also more resources, but the breadbasket that is Egypt cannot be understated.

You're not going to become more powerful like this. Stop it. And then he does draw, well, this is the story anyways, that this Roman delegate draws a circle in the sand around the person of Antiochus IV. And this is indicative not only of Roman haughtiness, but also many scholars have taken this as he's drawing a line in the sand or a circle in the sand around Antiochus IV. And he's putting him on the spot and he's not letting him consult with his philo with the friends of his court it's just hentaiicus has to make this decision and maybe there's some war hawks in his court that just wanted to go these romans what are they going to do we are like

so close to beating our enemies and then taking over ptolemy's resources heck with those we can even probably challenge Rome and they might actually succeed. So the Romans certainly saw this as a point of no return where they had to step in and kind of maintain some semblance of like geopolitical stability because they knew that this might snowball into something that could not be stopped as easily as it was stopped with Antiochus III. Because Antiochus III had some blunders too.

It wasn't a pitch perfect campaign that he launched. Hi, I'm Professor Susanna Lipscomb. And in my podcast, Not Just the Tudors, we talk about everything from ballads to banqueting, from ghosts to gunpowder plots, from saints to sodomy. Not, in other words, just the Tudors, but most definitely also the Tudors. Subscribe from History Hit wherever you get your podcasts. so antiochus the fourth as well it sounds like outside alexandria he's got this big decision to make does he abide with the demands of of Rome after flexing his military muscles? Or does he go ahead with conquering Ptolemaic Egypt?

What does he decide to do? He ultimately decides to let sleeping dogs lie and he's going to go back to his borders. This is when we talk about the personality of Antiochus IV and how Seleucid scholars have continually wrestled with this. Earlier scholarship and ancient scholarship kind of calls him envious of the Romans and submissive to them in a way because he spent time in Rome. So they're going, oh, he spent time in Rome, so he's probably friendly to them. He doesn't want to anger them.

It's probably more complicated than that. He probably had support in Rome. He seemed to be a very magnetizing figure. He was very strong in his depictions of himself in the coinage, in our sources that don't hate him, which are most of them. But even then, between the hate, you can see that he did live up to his father in many ways, especially his strong figure that allowed him to centralize kind of the court. So yeah, Antiochus decided this is not the right time. If I go to war with Rome, in addition to already spending time in the West, maybe the East

is going to crumble. Maybe if I go back to Rome, or if I go and launch a campaign against Rome, maybe since I haven't had an opportunity to do this, and Abbas is like my father did, maybe I'm going to get stabbed in the back and I'm going to lose a bunch of like, heck, Babylonia, again, is like a center point for the Salukids in addition to northern Syria. So he has to take into account that he doesn't want to stretch himself too thin. He doesn't want to put too much military power into a Western campaign

when he still hasn't completely cemented the ties or re-cemented the ties that his father made with local magnates. So it was probably the best that he not anger the Romans at this point. Yeah. So fair enough. He's decided not to anger the Romansans at this point but eduardo is it also quite interesting though as we might see later on as well as we've mentioned the flexing of the military muscles the the attack on ptolemaic egypt how that's almost been done but now he can

go back to focus on other parts because he's almost he's done that military activity it's there he's proven what he can do and he actually maybe can you say he has a legitimate excuse now for going back from Ptolemaic Egypt to focusing on other things because of the Roman intervention or is am I thinking too much into that no I would say he did his job uh heck in the third century during the third Syrian war I believe at times they just meld together but I believe it is the third one. You have Ptolemy at the gates of Babylon, and he has to go back because of insurrections within Egypt. But he does paint this huge triumph, rightfully so, against the hated

foe. And in some of the inscriptions, he kind of flubs the truth. And he says that he actually makes it all the way to Bactria in India when he stopped at Babylon because he had to go back but no he did his duty he waged war like his ancestors did against the Ptolemy it was a very successful engagement he can return back to coily Syria content he has some years of restructuring and then he goes on to the east but yeah a fairly good show and that's going to contribute to his his then the when we eventually talk about the procession at daphne also yeah there's very strong connotations there absolutely we'll get to that procession very very soon but just between like his returning from egypt and the date of this procession because

there seems to be a few years in between and in these years, Eduardo, this is a time where you do start to see trouble, trouble within and outside the Seleucid Empire. Yes, there is most famously, I believe, is the things that are going on in Judea. There is trouble brewing in Judea, and this again goes back to our sources. They're very heavily skewed towards a pro-traditional Jewish religious practice, the traditionalist faction. They're very skewed towards that, the book of Maccabees. We can very easily go into a rabbit hole, but in very broad strokes, there is internal conflict in Judea present between priestly families that take over the high priesthood. Some are more traditional in their approach. Others want to Hellenize and have Hellenistic institutions.

Heck, maybe even a gymnasium or something like that. And like we talked about earlier, Seleucid kings like Greek institutions. Again, not because of some semblance of cultural superiority. Maybe they thought that they had cultural superiority, but it's also because they were very easily manageable. It was very easy for them to latch on to the administrative apparatus of the Seleucid state. Much more easier than having to bend to native structures in play. Although they did that too, but they preferred Greek structures and Greek infrastructure there. So Antiochus eventually gets involved. They actually send a delegation to him to resolve this dispute among these different parties. And of course, Antiochus goes, oh, I'm going to be a

proponent of the Hellenizing, I do this scare quotes, Hellenizing as the sources portray, the very pro-traditionalist Jewish sources portray this faction. Of course, I'm going to be a proponent of the Hellenizing faction. Heck, they're probably going to be easier to govern. They're going to be indebted to me. So they're going to be more loyal. This is in a very geopolitically tenuous area, right? We're at the borders of the Ptolemies. Heck, the Ptolemies could have a resurgence and they could easily switch over. They were Ptolemaic until Antiochus III came in and retook Coily Syria. They could easily just flip the dime and go back. So Seleucus Antiochus has a lot of things to consider. So he decides to champion the quote-unquote Hellenizing faction. And then this leads to, of course,

the famous revolt and insurrection there, which does get put down by force. There is a military intervention by some Seleucid governors, generals, I should say. And there seems to be a kind of redistribution of peoples within Judea and also Jerusalem itself. There is, of course, the building of a fortification afterwards after the revolt is suppressed, the Acra, the kind of Acropolis, the fort that's there. Some settlers are brought in to kind of get a better base of support. Some Macedonian settlers, some Seleucid settlers are brought in to kind of water down the population there, be easier to manage. And with these settlers, these are pagan settlers, so they're going to bring in their religion. And they easily go, oh, Jewish people

believe in this very powerful sky god. It might be Zeus. So there's a conflation between the worship of Zeus among the new settlers that are there because of the Seleucid putting down of that rebellion. And then the local Jewish population going, they're going to completely demolish our religion. They're just going to come in and introduce pagan ways. When this isn't really the policy of Seleucid kings, you don't want to be such a hardliner against local people's religions. And no Seleucid king really was because that's not a suitable way to govern because you'll discontent and your empire is huge.

So it's going to take a while even if maybe you're in, I don't know, Bactria and then Jewish population decides to rebel again and then you're stuck with spread down resources. So they don't want to govern with a heavy hand and this wasn't as heavy as the sources perceive. But then again, these sources are pro the native rebellion, the native Jewish rebellion. So they're going to paint Antiochus' policies in a very negative light. So we have to kind of suss out what is polemic and what isn't. Like Antiochus didn't probably issue that decree going, I banish like you cannot worship your God and all that.

He probably just wanted to get the taxes from the temple because the temple had their wealth and he just wanted to extract the taxes. Heck, that's why Seleucus IV had that new position that we talked about, the minister of the temples in Khoili Syria and Phoenicia, he probably just wanted them to pay up what they owed, really, to the Seleucid state. But then again, this is painted at a very negative, so we always have to be mindful of what is going on there. But it does seem that that does get put down. But after this moment, Judea is going to exert more and more influence. And this is why the second century is, well, one of the many reasons why the second century is so fascinating is we start

seeing really the emergence of not only independence later on, but them actively being champion for claimants to the Seleucid throne. So yeah, again, it's a wonderful, like we saw with the Adelids crowning Antiochus, we saw Eumenes crowning Antiochus IV. These power dynamics start shifting in wonderful, wonderful ways, yeah. And keeping on those shifting power dynamics,

because around roughly the same time, I believe, what's happening further east? Oh, further east, we have the rise of Parthia, the slow and incremental but steady rise of Parthia emerging from kind of flexing and then ultimately gaining some independence from the local Seleucid governor there. They start slowly growing around the area. But then after the death of Antiochus IV is really when, like, they go into overdrive. And this is, of course, I will always... Mithridates is an absolutely wonderful figure. So we have to give him some personal, like, brownie points for just how great he is in terms of, like, unifying everybody. But yes, trouble is a-brewin'. Parthia is also biting into Bactria.

So even amongst the local dynasts, there's conflict. And this is where eventually Antiochus IV will go after Daphne and where he will eventually die also. Fair enough. So I'm jumping the gun then a bit then. So let's go back to Daphne, this procession, because what is the context there of this procession? When are we talking about an Antiochus's reign? And yeah, what is the context? So this is in 166 BCE. So right after the Ptolemaic flex. And the research into this, several scholars have pointed to the fact that

in 167, at the end of 167, Aemilius Paulus has a Panhellenic festival procession slash procession at Amphipolis in Greece. And the Daphne Parade is right on the heels of this. Some scholars want to see this as kind of a response to what is going. And I think they raise very good arguments. Most notably, Rolf Strutman. He has a wonderful article on this, how it's in concert with how Rome is trying to present itself in the geopolitics of Greece at this time by hosting this festival. So Antiochus is kind of going, okay, the empire is fairly good so far. The Parthians are still doing stuff, but nothing too crazy yet. I just had a wonderful time

in Egypt and rebellions have been put down in Judea. Okay. I think there is some excuse for me to throw a very nice party for the people in northern Syria. And Daphne itself, so you have Antioch, right? Antioch on the Orontes in northern Syria. And then you have Seleucia Pieria, which is the port. And betwixt these two cities, Daphne is kind of this, it's both like a neighborhood, but it's also a paradiso, kind of a garden. It's beautiful.

I haven't, of course course i've personally never been there because of the current situation and all that and i started working on the salukids before i ever had a chance to hopefully in the future but it's this wonderfully lush area there are temples to gods everywhere it's clearly a place that has been cultivated by former Seleucid kings, and it's kind of become this ideological, like, ground zero for shows and demonstrations. So Antiochus goes, okay, I'm gonna do a parade here. It's kind of like a New Year's parade. It kind of resembles the Akitu festival in Babylonia that I talked about with Antiochus III, this New Year's Babylonian festival, it's kind of like that. And some of the main arguments for this kind of New Year's

festivity connotation are because you have all the gods in attendance, including the more primal ones like earth, sky, night, and day. There are actual representations of those gods within the procession itself. So it's kind of like Antiochus IV is reasserting not only his own authority within the physical realm, but also a greater cosmological authority. And this goes in line with the way he's positioned himself in his coinage. You see his bust has, instead of just the diadem, it's this radiant crown with spikes that make him look like some solar deity. His name, Epiphanes, God made manifest. The Seleucid patron deity has always been Apollo because it is purported that Seleucus I is the son of Apollo, actually. At least that's how he wants you to believe. The Seleucid romance wants you to believe this. So Apollo has always been on the reverse of

coins, right? You have the Seleucid king on the obverse, and then the reverse has Apollo typically sitting on an omphalos with a nice little bow and arrow. But we start seeing Zeus, Olympios, be featured in Antiochus IV's coinage more and more. And he starts actually minting more and more coins in northern Syria and in koily Syria instead of in the east. So again, into this greater notion of centralizing kind of northern Syria as a power base, getting more money from the temples, more coins are being minted in this one particular area. These coins are now featuring him as a deity. There's a lot of centralization going, and the Daphne Parade is kind of the endpoint of all this. It's the big show of the

big physical manifestation of all this stuff that Antiochus IV has been doing kind of in the wings. physical manifestation of all this stuff that Antiochus IV has been doing kind of in the wings. This is the point where, as Diodorus Siculus actually says about the parade, the Basilea is on display. The kingdom itself is on display. And this is what the Daphne parade is. The military procession is absolutely huge. The resources that he can command, everybody is decked out to the nines in these wonderful suits of armor. Gold, silver, every precious material. Lapis lazuli gets thrown in there. Like, this is why, I guess to go back to the very beginning, this is why we really can't call this the sick man of Syria just yet.

Because that sick man just had a miraculous recovery in the guise of Antiochus IV. So, yeah, this is, I mean, well, we can talk about the details more. But, yeah, this is really all the administrative things, all the war. It culminates in this one parade, this one like, bam, I'm going to show you the kingdom itself. And it works. It sounds absolutely incredible. Love that lapis lazuli link too of course that goes to afghanistan doesn't it so if we dive into the detail as you

said just then i mean i'm sure it's a huge parade so if you can't remember every single unit it's okay but what do you know notes oh you've got it in your notes fantastic well let's use those notes then let's talk about these military units in the parade itself. Yeah. So the prominent one is, of course, the one that we talked about this evening in Rome, total war. You can eventually, if you survive the Seleucid onslaught from other people and you're the Seleucids, you can eventually recruit these. There are 5000 men in Roman fashion, as Polybius says, with chainmail, the lorica hamata. And the incorporation of these, in addition to, for example, Missians are there in light armor, you have Galatians, Gauls are there, right? And they're

in Asia Minor, although there's only ethnic names being used. There's not a direct link that they're from Asia Minor, or that they're actually there. They might be resettled in Seleucid territory before the treaty or something like that. That might be a little conclave. But it could also just be that because again, the treaty doesn't actually maybe apply to Antiochus IV, because his father made the treaty with the Romans, not him. He's still going to pay the money, but that's about it. There's Thracians, there's Cilicians, there's Seleucid Macedonians, of course. There's horsemen from Nyssa, there's cataphracts, there's chariots, and there's elephants. And these elephants, again, an absolute unit, a symbol of royal ideology.

And the people are attached to them. There's an instance after Antiochus IV dies, this little small diatribe, but it's very important because we think of elephants useful in war, right? To some degree, depending on the context. Maybe if you make your units slightly further apart, maybe they're not as useful. So it's hit or miss in terms of their battlefield efficacy. But they serve a very anchored ideological function. And after Antiochus dies in 163, there's actually a Roman delegation sent to northern Syria. We don't know if it was official

or if it's some Romans doing it on their own. Some of the details are sketchy. But they stop at Laodikea in northern Syria, and they notice that there's elephants. So they start killing the elephants. And a passerby, a Seleucid citizen, notices this and stabs one of the Roman... There's actually a political assassination of someone of consular rank. He's not consul anymore, but he was unconsular rank because we don't know if it was because he was like attached, like he thought that these were symbols of Seleucid ideology, or it could also just be that people don't like watching very graceful creatures die. be just both. That's my take on it anyways, that it's probably just both. No one wants to see an elephant die, but also people do like get charged with the ideology of the state, even in antiquity that they're part of, especially if they benefit from it. But yes, so you have all these military

units, right? This wonderful display of force. We don't know what these Roman style soldiers actually mean are there going to be further army reforms that were never actually enacted is he claiming that the Romans are part of his army like is he claiming that he somehow subdued not subdued that's very harsh but are they like he can summon these Romans these leg legionaries? Or is it just like an actual visual representation of Rome being maybe present at the parade? Maybe he still wants to hold this notion of friendship towards them because it's not only local citizens that are participating and viewing this parade. He invites people from all over Greece. It's a pan-Hellenic thing and they accept.

So it's a show of force, not only to the local people and to his local citizens, but also to various delegations of Greek cities from all around the Greek world. So yes, there's a lot. And this goes back to your question about, is he looking to campaign against Rome eventually?

Maybe after things are settled in the east, maybe, maybe if he does the same thing that his father did and he goes to the east, quells everything and then he has free reign. But he really can't right now. It almost sounds like, Eduardo, I might be wrong, but from what you're mentioning about the Treaty of Apamea right at the start of this discussion how the Romans were saying no more elephants the fact that we have this procession less than half a century later on the banks of the eastern Mediterranean very clearly he's got lots of elephants there right in the Romans faces as it were it feels sometimes almost as if he's putting two fingers up to the Romans. Or otherwise, if not that, he's testing how much he can get away with on the political stage, which he knows that the Romans will hear about. Oh, yeah, for sure. And he's probably still smarting over the day of Eleusis.

So our ancient sources, actually, especially Polybius, oh my god, Polybius just has an immense hatred for the man. And this is because Polybius is later god Polybius just has an immense hatred for the man and this is because Polybius is later in Rome as a hostage and he's kind of butting up to Demetrius who later take Demetrius the first who later takes the Seleucid throne so there might be some interplay going on there but he's painted as this like almost like envious of the Romans. Like he's made to make us think that he's trying to emulate them. He's running for office with it. Antioch, he loves the Republican nature

of the Roman city that he was in for an extended period of time. But in all actuality, and again, this is very well argued by Strutman, he is antagonizing them to a certain degree. And he is like, you can tell some things are coming if he was allowed to continue on. Because, and you also have Perseus

doing his own thing in Macedonia roughly around the same time. So there could be another Seleucid Macedonian alliance that could once more throw Greece into. So yeah, you're completely right that there are... the drums of war might be beating if they weren't allowed to eventually stop because of some unsuccessful pushes in the east. I mean, Eduardo, just before we wrap up with the end of Antiochus IV, I mean, would you argue that this whole parade, the lavishness of it,

the incredible nature of the Daphne Parade is a key example? And we're going to return to that phrase, the sick man of Syria, how the Seleucid Empire, the apparatus of the empire at this time, it wasn't a sick man in any way, shape or form. Not at all. Even if it was just for show, Not at all. Even if it was just for show, the insane amount of logistical craziness that you needed to just orchestrate this. And again, to an international audience of delegates from everywhere, it has connotations of both earthly power and cosmological restructuring. earthly power, and cosmological restructuring. It's akin to the famous procession of Ptolemy II, the Dionysian procession, that he did a century earlier, roughly.

No, no, no, no, no. It is not on life support at all. No, the Seleucid state is incredibly strong still. The only sense of weakness is going to come from interseeing dynastic disputes. And you don't have that because he killed his nephew. As horrible as that sounds, he centralized it. There's still, of course, some hostages, but they haven't done anything yet. But no, not at all. It is not the sick man that it is in roughly 96 BCE or something like that. It can exert authority over Judea and quell rebellions. It still has Babylon, one of the keys to the empire, just because it lost Asia Minor. Okay, Asia Minor is important, but Asia Minor was kind of flippy floppy, the Seleucid territory

anyways, because you could have a rebellious uncle there that dominates the entire territory at some point. You could have the Ptolemies expanding. You could have local dious uncle there that dominates the entire territory at some point. You could have the Ptolemies expanding. You could have local dynasts rebelling against Seleucid control. So the main heart of the Seleucid empire is still beating and it's beating just fine at this point. Yeah. And Daphne really conceptualizes that and grounds it for sure. Absolutely. Well, there you go. Well, last question, really, then we've really been focusing on this Seleucid king. What happens to Antiochus IV? It's not a pretty end. No. And it's also it's another one of those frustrating anticlimactic, oh, he dies in the East

endings that his father, of course, his father does, and his children will also suffer. The east is not a good place in the 2nd century BCE if you're a Seleucid king and you go campaigning there. You either get struck despoiling a temple or something, or something along those lines. But yeah, no, Antiochus is eventually pulled to the east, again because of Parthian expansion, and also the ever-pressing need to renegotiate your authority over these local dynasts. So he's going to emulate that, maybe secure the east, and maybe, heck, maybe go and challenge Rome again. Maybe try to take over the Asia Minor.

And yes, he is partly successful. He even, like, grabs Armenia back. Armenia, very nice territory, a very feather in the cap. But then he eventually dies. We don't know exactly how, in battle, or maybe struck to spoiling a temple like his dad. Again, a very anticlimactic end in an Eastern campaign. And then his son, Tychus V, then is appointed by the Romans

as the next in line because he's very young and they can keep a regent that's kind of vetted by the Romans as a nice little... They kind of saw the writing on the wall with the Daphne ensemble and the fact that he almost took over Egypt. It's like, okay, we're gonna maybe start to meddle in this. But then, of course, Demetrius escapes Rome in a famous that could be a movie in its own right can you an escape from Rome of a hostage king but yeah and then afterwards then we can start talking about maybe he gets a cough he starts getting

a cough maybe he gets a headache and then I think maybe we can start applying the sick man of Syria like I did in my master's thesis, after Grippos. Maybe then all the hope is lost, really. Yeah. Well, I mean, the Hellenistic period is full of these incredible great escapes, ancient great escapes. That sounds like another one right there. Eduardo, this has been a great chat over the last hour,

so I've got to wrap it up here. But thank you so much for coming on the podcast. Oh, thank you for having me. It's been an absolute delight to get to wax poetic about these things no problem at all i hope you've enjoyed this episode of eduardo all about the seleucid empire in the early second century bc we covered a lot of ground the daphne parade is an incredible topic to talk about i love looking at that hellenistic history and of course getting in those occasional references to the legendary game that was rome total war one now if you'd like more ancients content which of course you do you've got ancient history spewing out of your body you can't help it now you can't help it you've become addicted

and that's what we wanted that's us that is the ancients podcast summed up in a nutshell just ask lily our ancients newsletter host who we've dragged over she's seen the light she's now an ancient history fan our producer elena likewise she's been dragged into the light so all the others ancient history it's where it's at it's the coolest type of history none of this this modern stuff, it's all ancient. And if you want more of that, which as mentioned, of course you do, well why not sign up to our newsletter, where we provide even more ancient history goodness. If you want even more than that, perhaps even follow me on Instagram, at Ancients Tristan, where we will put up behind the scenes footage of us shooting ancient history documentaries,

filming, recording ancient history podcasts. And last but certainly not least, if you are listening on Spotify, please do drop us a rating and if possible, a very nice rating, as it does really help us spread the love of the ancients podcast, spread the love of ancient history to more and more people. You come for Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, but you stay for Polynesians, you stay for ancient Vietnam, you stay for the Nazca lines, and so on. But anyways, I will see you all in the next episode.