QuoteReplyTopic: What happend to the Seleucid empire? Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 21:35
How was such a vast empire destoryed and conquered in my opinion such a short time? My guess was it was surrounded by powerful states and that Rome was the final blow? What do you know?
From its beginings, the Macedonian Empire was seriously overextended.
The Seleucids, comprising the largest part of the empire was also
seriously overextended.
The main factor of its weakening was not from outside sources, but from
inside. The capital of the empire was at first at Seleucia, and later
at Antioch. The moving of the administrative center to the extreme west
of the empire alienated its far eastern provinces. Therefore, the
Seleucid Empire lost about half its territory when the
Greco-Bactrian, and Parthian kingdoms declared themselves
independent on 250 BCE.
Aside from this, the Seleucids were always in conflict with the
diadochi kingdoms, especially the Ptolemies in Egypt. The Seleucids
were often at the losing end of these battles, despite being stronger
on paper.
The Seleucid had a brief period of revival, however. During this time
they were able to restore at least nominal rule over Parthia and
Bactria. They were even able to take the Levant from the Ptolemies
despite a humiliating setback at the Battle of Raphia.
This was not to last, as Parthia and Bactria eventually broke away, and
the Seleucids came into conflict with the Romans. Hannibal Barca, who
had now fled to Syria gave the Seleucids confidence to extend their
influence west. However, they foolishly gave him the rank of admiral
rather than field command. All that was Hannibal the general was lost
with Hannibal the admiral. The Seleucids allied themselves with the
Aetolian League in Greece against the Romans. However, they were
defeated twice at Thermopylae and at Magnesia. They were forced to make
a humiliating peace with Rome where all their European holdings were
ceded to the Romans and all of their holdings in Asia Minor were ceded
to Pergamum, which was a close ally of Rome.
The Seleucids then attempted to extend their influence south, waging a
successful war against the Ptolemies. They withdrew after forcing the
main Ptolemaic army back to Alexandria because of Rome's threats to
intervene in favor of the Ptolemies.
Realizing that they would be unable to take new territory, the
Seleucids then tried to fortify the lands they already had. They tried
to do this through forced Hellenization of its territories. This
triggered tbe revolt of the Maccabees which lost the empire Judaea. At
the same time, the Parthians began to take Persian territories almost
unchallenged. The Seleucids were never able to defeat the Parthians.
Frequent civil wars further weakened the empire, making it impossible
for the Seleucids to defeat the growing power of the Parthians.
By the turn of the first century BCE, the Seleucids were reduced to
Antioch and a few other Syrian cities. They were not even a minor
player in the major events of this time. Tigranes, the son-in-law of
Mithradates, conquered Syria and put a virtual end to the empire.
However, after Mithradates' defeat, the Seleucids restored rule in
Syria. After the Romans finally conquered Pontus, the Seleucids were
nothing more than a nuisance, an annoying one at that. It was the
famous Pompey of the First Truimvirate that turned Syria into a Roman
province.
Sorry if it is a little long, but the diadochi, as well the Byzantine Empire, is something of a passion of mine.
I dont know much about the empire, but from what ive seen ive heard it was simply to big to hold, it was to wide to keep secure and control of and surrounded by potential enemies.
Revolts were common especially in the east and the rise of the likes of Parthia and Bactria who broke away from the empire, the east was barely possible to control and after a revival of fortunes under Antiochus III he was defeated by Rome at Magnesia 190bc and after him civil war and invasions reduced the empire.
My knowledge is scant so im sure others can give more info.
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
whatever the reason was I don;t think size was major factor as it was only a fraction of the first Persian empire and not that much bigger than the Parthian empire that repalced it
The non-native dynasty was a major reason. The non-centralized
Achaemenid Empire worked well because of the familiar masters. The
Seleucids attempted to have a centralized government, and so moving
their capital to the extreme west practically begged for destablization.
I know that the empire was never in it's full glory after the first
Emperors and so I like to play it in the RTR or RTW to just hope they
would have grown like that..
How was such a vast empire destoryed and conquered in my opinion such a short time? My guess was it was surrounded by powerful states and that Rome was the final blow? What do you know?
Better say the main reason of the decline of Seleucid empire were all these continuous civil wars. The defeat of Antiochus III from Romans had a large impact in the Seleucid empire, from the point that he lost all European territories and a part of Asia Minor which in combination of losing territorial possesions later, from Egypt, Parthians and Jews, the empire was limited quite noticeably (keep in mind that in the end of the reign of Seleucus Nicator, the empire was so huge that he had appointed as is said, 72 Satraps around his empire)
In the last century of the Seleucid empire existence empire we had many cases of successions who were largely disputed with result, outbursts of civil conflicts. The military forces residing in Antiochia along with the mob, played a quite significant role in the creation of riots and in the proclamation of the kings.
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
While their rule look big on paper, the truth was their rule wasn't firm outside of Syria and Mesopotamia, their hold on Asia minor and the Leviants were not only constantly challanaged by the likes of Pontus and Ptolomics, but also had to deal with the various city states, whom would sometimes submit to their rule but withdraw quickly when the tides turn.
Thus when they suffer some defeats or bad times they would suddenly lose a huge part of their empire without their foes even setting foot on them.... as they pull away themself, it was somewhat the same problem with the Persian empire.
To make a empire like the Selucid work, they must ensure constant military success, it was possible during Alexander the Great and Selucis I Nictor, but as soon as they start to lose, they fall apart very quickly.
Can you tell me any more information of ancienct Pontos?
The Kingdom of Pontus was founded by Mithradates Ktistes, who was the son of the Persian satrap in Kios (The elder Mithradates being executed by Antigonus in the late 4th C), in 281 BC . Pontus was made famous by Mithradates VI (Eupator Dionysius), whose expansionist policies and etnical slaughters brought him to war with Rome on three occasions. Most notable of the wars were the first, which resulted in a defeat for Pontus at the hands of Sulla, and the third, which resulted in a Roman victory as well (the campaign being predominately settled by Lucullus, but finished by Pompey).
The small states of
Armenia, Pontus, Bythynia, Pergamum, Cappadocia, Galatia, Commagene,
and Caria testify to the ethnic complexity of Asia Minor.
(...) Of the lists given here, only the rulers of Pergamum would actually
have been Greeks. We can see non-Greek influences in the names of the
multiple "Mithridates" of Pontus and Commagene. This name means the
"gift," dates, of the Iranian god Mithra (Sanskrit Mitra). This is a Persian name whose modern form is Mehrdd, of whose meaning many modern Iranians may be unaware. (...)
PONTUS, a name applied in ancient times to extensive tracts
of country in the north-east of Asia Minor bordering on the Euxine
(Black Sea), which was often called simply Pontos (the Main), by the
Greeks. The exact signification of this purely territorial name varied
greatly at different times. The Greeks used it loosely of various parts
of the shores of the Euxine, and the term did not get a definite
connotation till after the establishment of the kingdom founded beyond
the Halys during the troubled period following the death of Alexander
the Great, about 301 B.C., by Mithradates I., Ktistes, son of a Persian
satrap in the service of Antigonus, one of Alexanders successors, and
ruled by a succession of kings, mostly bearing the same name, till 64
B.C. As the greater part of this kingdom lay within the immense region
of Cappadocia, which in early ages extended from the borders of Cilicia
to the Euxine, the kingdom as a whole was at first called Cappadocia
towards the Pontus (7rpm r~ llhvrq,), but afterwards simply Pontus, the
name Cappadocia being henceforth restricted to the southern half of the
region previously included under that title. Under the last king,
Mithradates Eupator, commonly called the Great, the realm of Pontus
included not only Pontic Cappadocia but also the seaboard from the
Bithynian frontier to Colchis, part of inland Paphiagonia, and Lesser
Armenia (see under MITHRADATEs). With the destruction of this kingdom
by Pompey in 64 B.C., the meaning of the name Pontus underwent a
change. Part of the kingdom was now annexed to the Roman Empire, being
united with Bithynia in a double province called Pontus and Bithynia :
this part included (possibly from the first, but certainly from about
40 B.C. onwards) only the seaboard between Heracleia (Eregli) and
Amisus (Samsun) , the ora Pontica. Hereafter the simple name Pontus
without qualification was regularly employed to denote the half of this
dual province, especially by Romans and people speaking from the Roman
point of view; it is so used almost always in the New Testament.
But
it was also frequently used to denote (in whole or part) that portion
of the old Mithradatic kingdom which lay between the Halys (roughly)
and the borders of Colchis, Lesser Armenia, Cappadocia and Galatiathe
region properly designated by the title Cappadocia towards the Pontus,
which was always the nucleus of the Pontic kingdom.
This region
is regarded by the geographer Strabo (A.D. 1920), himself a native of
the country, as Pontus in the strict sense of the term (Geogr. p. 678).
Its native population was of the same stock as that of Cappadocia, of
which it had formed a part, an Oriental race often called by the Greeks
Leucosyri or White Syrians, as distinguished from the southern Syrians,
who were of a darker complexion, but their precise ethnological
relations are uncertain. Geographically it is a table-land, forming the
north-east corner of the great plateau of Asia Minor, edged on the
north by a lofty mountain rim, along the foot of which runs a fringe of
coast-land. (...) Between the Halys and the Iris the
mountain rim is comparatively low and broken, but east of the Iris it
is a continuous lofty ridge (called by the ancients Paryadres and
Scydises), whose rugged northern slopes are furrowed by torrent beds,
down which a host of small streams (among them the Thermodon, famed in
Amazon story) tumble to the sea. These inaccessible slopes were
inhabited even in Strabos time by wild, half-barbarous tribes, of whose
ethnical relations we are ignorant, the Chalybes (identified by the
Greeks with Homers Chalybes), Tibareni, Mosynoeci and Macrones, on
whose manners and condition some light is thrown by Xenophon (Anab. V).
But the fringe of coast-land from Trebizond westward is one of the most
beautiful parts of Asia Minor and is justly extolled by Strabo for its
wonderful productiveness.
The sea-coast, like the rest of the
south shore of the Euxine, was studded with Greek colonies founded from
the 6th century onwards: Amisus, a colony of Miletus, which in the 5th
century received a body of Athenian settlers, now the port of Samsun;
Cotyora, now Ordu; Cerasus, the later Pharnacia, now Kerasund; and
Trapezus (Trebizond), a famous city from Xenophons time till the end of
the middle ages. The last three were colonies of Sinope, itself a
Milesian colony. The chief towns in the interior were Amasia, on the
Iris, the birthplace of Strabo, the capital of Mithradates the Great,
and the burial-place of the earlier kings, whose tombs still exist;
Comana, higher up the river, a famous centre of the worship of the
goddess Ma (or Cybele); Zela, another great religious centre, ref
ounded by Pompey, now Zileh; Eupatoria, refounded by Pompey as
Magnopolis at the junction of the Lycus and Iris; Cabira, Pompeys
Diospolis, afterwards Neocaesarea, now Niksar; Sebastopolis on the
Scylax, now Sulu Serar; Sebasteia, now Sivas; and Megalopolis, a
foundation of Pompey, somewhere in the same district.
The history of this region is the history of the advance of the Roman Empire towards the Euphrates. (...)
The small states of Armenia, Pontus, Bythynia, Pergamum, Cappadocia, Galatia, Commagene, and Caria testify to the ethnic complexity of Asia Minor.
(...) Of the lists given here, only the rulers of Pergamum would actually have been Greeks. We can see non-Greek influences in the names of the multiple "Mithridates" of Pontus and Commagene. This name means the "gift," dates, of the Iranian god Mithra (Sanskrit Mitra). This is a Persian name whose modern form is Mehrdd, of whose meaning many modern Iranians may be unaware. (...)
Mithridates of Kios wasn't actually a king, just a satrap from the Persian Empire. And Mithridates I Ktistes didn't take the title of basileus until 281.
Well Armenia took over the Empire under Tigranes the Great under Seleucid invitation and Rome conquered it from Armenia when Parthians allied with Romans opened an Eastern front and financed a rebellion within.
Nice to know. Anyhow they ruled Pontus and gave birth to the famous local dynasty, didn't they?
The elder Mithridates's domain was actually a small region bordering the Propontis (Sea of Marmara), whereas the Kingdom of Pontus was further east in Turkey (into Cappadocia).
Well Armenia took over the Empire under Tigranes the Great under
Seleucid invitation and Rome conquered it from Armenia when Parthians
allied with Romans opened an Eastern front and financed a rebellion
within.
Finally someone mentions Tigranes as being the King of Armenia, not simply "Mithridates' son-in-law".
Mithridates lost his kingdom of Pontus to the Romans, and then he fled
east to Tigranes. Tigranes conquered a large portion of Pontus back
from the Romans, and reinstated Mithridates as King of Pontus.
Mithridates was a pawn of the Armenian Empire to create a buffer-zone
between Armenia and Rome. It was around this time (95-66 B.C.) that
Tigranes conquered Syria, which was the last outpost of the Seleucid
Empire, which was hardly an empire at this time.
Rome could not conquer Armenia without the Parthians' help.
The Armenian capital of Tigranocerta (Tigranakert) was only conquered
because the non-Armenian citizens of the city were paid off to open the
gates for the Roman army to come in and take over.
Rome then tried repeatedly to take over Eastern Armenia but every siege
they attempted was held back and defeated by Tigranes. Eventually, one
of Tigranes' sons betrayed him and joined the Romans, while his other
son betrayed him and joined the Parthians, who were attacking from the
East. Rome only conquered Armenia with the help of Parthian attacks
from the east, and with the help of Tigranes' 2 sons. The first wave of
Parthian attacks and sieges were defeated by Tigranes as well, but
eventually a dual attack by the Romans and Parthians was simply too
much and he was forced to surrender in 65 B.C.
The Romans crowned Tigranes as the 'first King of Armenia', and he
ruled the Roman province of Armenia for 10 years until his death in 55
B.C.
This is what Tigranes' Armenian Empire looked like before the Roman and Parthian invasions:
Syria, conquered from the Seleucid Empire from 95-66 B.C., ending their rule.
In order of severity and importance (from most to least) :
1) Rome meddling in politics and fomenting civil wars. Crippled the empire for generations until its dissolution. Even at its later date its armies were able to sweep back the Parthians easily when unified. Rome could do this because of the next -
2) Congenital goofiness, occurring even in the great rulers alongside their abilities and achievements. All kings were great drinkers and had a bit of weak mindedness from time to time which proved fatal, despite their leadership otherwise and undertaking of grand projects. Seleucids depended on a King, compared to the Romans who had a Senate, were relatively more cooperative, and also in their homeland, which leads to the next -
3) Lack of manpower. This could really be dealt with just fine if the unified domain was free to be ruled without molestation, and if the rulers and ruling class were not otherwise significantly compromised.
Edited by shock and thunder - 18-Aug-2015 at 11:43
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum