A seleucid Empire that outlives Rome

[Solitarius Valentinus]

Good day, good people of AH.

For a long time have I been reading some of the timelines written down and I was simply amazed. I do not know if something like this has been written before, but I wish to try and write a timeline myself.

Instead of a proto-germanic tribe, a Roman domination or even a Greek revival, I wish to play my bets on the Seleucids. The POD will be the Battle of Raphia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Raphia

I believe that Antiochus had a good chance at winning the battle if he had not presumed victory too early.

However, this thread will not yet contain the time line itself, but in truth serve more asa discussion to expand on the idea of this time line. Since my knowledge is limited on true Seleucid information (I know the very basics), I would like to discuss the details with you, good ladies and gentlemen, to find out what are the most plausible options to create a true Seleucid Empire that will last through the ages.

My original goal is to have them last at least until OTL Renaissance.

The main religion will be Zoroastrianism, but Judaïsm will be tolerated, under the conditions that they will respect and follow the Seleucid rules and not convert people to their cause against their wills, mainly behaving like, well, the followers of Zoroastrianism.

Military we will see hybrid of the Phalanx formation and Roman legionnaires. The pure Phalanx however will remain a while in the east where cavalry is overall more used than infantry.

Politically is where the trouble starts. Since civil wars were the main cause, like with any great empire, of the fall of the Seleucid Empire, there needs to be a way that established a central control, something like a Senate perhaps.

Anyways, this is still in its early moments, and I mean, very early and since I'm an amateur on timelines, well, no need for further explanation, right?

Ideas, suggestion, criticism, questions or something else? Feel free to post them and I'll do my best to respond.

With friendly regards,
Solitarius Valentinus

PS: This isn't off-topic, is it? If it is, my sincere apologies for it.

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

Looks like an interesting start for your timeline!
Why did you pick the Seleucids? If you look for the most likely suvival of a Diadochal empire, the odds seem to favor the Ptolomaics. But the Seleucids may even create
the more interesting timeline.

I think the central point to consider is how they manage to withstand the other powers
(Rome, Persia) of OTL - i.e., how your surival hypothesis comes about.

My original goal is to have them last at least until OTL Renaissance.

Well... what exactly is the Rennaissance (of the antiquity) if antiquity is changed?
Would the thought even be applicable?
Wouldn't perhaps occidental culture look completely different?

it would be very interesting if you can construct a convincing survival until 1st century AD, say. Three centuries is a long time already! If you can go further, perfect.
But I think the most important point is to make the changes you are aiming at realistic.
And a century already involves a whole lot of disturbing details and possibilities ...

 

[Solitarius Valentinus]

Looks like an interesting start for your timeline!
Why did you pick the Seleucids? If you look for the most likely suvival of a Diadochal empire, the odds seem to favor the Ptolomaics. But the Seleucids may even create
the more interesting timeline.

I think the central point to consider is how they manage to withstand the other powers
(Rome, Persia) of OTL - i.e., how your surival hypothesis comes about.



Well... what exactly is the Rennaissance (of the antiquity) if antiquity is changed?
Would the thought even be applicable?
Wouldn't perhaps occidental culture look completely different?

it would be very interesting if you can construct a convincing survival until 1st century AD, say. Three centuries is a long time already! If you can go further, perfect.
But I think the most important point is to make the changes you are aiming at realistic.
And a century already involves a whole lot of disturbing details and possibilities ...

Well, I choose the Seleucid Empire since it is, the way I see it, the most direct successor from Alexander's conquest. For some reason, whatever it may be, the Seleucids have always fascinated me, especially when presented in alternate time lines.

So I thought, could the Seleucids remain strong? What would this mean for the old world? How far could they go?

On your note concerning the Ptolomaics, you are correct, they are in the favourable odds, but that makes the challenge all the greater.

Now, concerning the two, the Persians and Rome. Concerning Persia, I believe that with an unified political system in which the changes on civil wars and rebellions are decreased, the impact of the Persian return, if it isn't butterflied away, would be significantly less than in our timeline.

The Romans will be a tough cookie, but it's going to depend on where the Seleucids would expand first. Would they attempt to conquer India once more, breaking an earlier treaty or would they go West, to conquer, say, Carthage. After all, it only fell in 146 BC (?) so there is enough time, given that the Seleucids manage to change the tides to their own favour.

I need to elaborate a bit more on what I meant with Renaissance. What I meant to say was the time itself (Not the event). Because it is argued as to when the Renaissance truly started (Some say with the fall of Byzantine, others give other dates) I was mainly referring to the time period. 15-1600 and something.

My bad, sorry.

And concerning the realism, that's exactly what I am trying to achieve, hence I am trying to find as much information as my brains can store. Never been a large fan of ASB and such. Fun to read, but I prefer good ol' realism.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

In my TL, I ensured the survival of the Seleucid Empire, beginning in the Third Century BCE, by using the Scordisci to unite some Celtic and Thracian tribes behind them, and invaded the Kingdoms of Macedonia and Epirus. My ATL Scordisci conquered Macedonia first, which was under the rule of Antigonos Gonatus. It was about twenty years after the Gallic invasion of Greece under the Chieftain Brennus, plus Macedonia was engaged in a number of wars before and after the Celtic incursion.

So anyway, after the northern Hellenistic kingdoms were conquered, an exodus of the property-owning classes and the aristocracy took place, with a lot of Macedonians and Epirotes heading for either Ptolemaic Egypt or Seleucid Syria. The Seleucid Emperor would draft these refugees from Scordisci rule to quash some uprisings in Parthia, and create a number of military colonies there, and deprive the nomadic Parni confederation, whom later found the Parthian Empire in OTL, and were later on used to conquer the region of Khwarezm.

You don't have to do that, of course. But short of trying to avoid war with Egypt or Rome, and thus avoiding the entire manpower of the Seleucid Empire from being concentrated westward, there is little I can advise on maintaining the Seleucids. Apart from "Persianizing" the Greek-speaking upper class, or try to create a new national ideology for all the Greek, Persian and Syrian inhabitants of the Empire. Something tied with the ruling Seleucid monarchy.

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

OK, let's go on ...

One question, which is not as marginal as it might seem:
Will the Maccabean Revolt take place as in OTL?

If yes, it is a sign of weakness for the Seleucids and (to some degree) also an actual weakening.
If no, the development of mainstream Judaism and (potential) Christianity is severly questioned ...

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

OK, let's go on ...

One question, which is not as marginal as it might seem:
Will the Maccabean Revolt take place as in OTL?

If yes, it is a sign of weakness for the Seleucids and (to some degree) also an actual weakening.
If no, the development of mainstream Judaism and (potential) Christianity is severly questioned ...

If either The Seleucid Empire remains stable or if Judea remains an independent state outside of both Hellenistic or Roman control, how do we know that there would be a Christianity? It developed at first as a dissident form of Judaism, due to the priesthood of Jerusalem collaberating with the Romans.

Ptolemaic Egypt had a fair number of Jews in their territory, and could have allied themselves with the dissident Jews against the rival Seleucids. The safe option for the Seleucids could have been to make Judea into a vassal state, and appoint a Jewish noble as the client-ruler, making Judea a buffer-state against Egypt, and retain a measure of fidelity.

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

how do we know that there would be a Christianity?

That's (part of) my point.
(Although I do not think that Roman collaboration were a constitutive condition.)

I meant to say that it is important to consider the impacts on and reactions by Jews.
And the PoD will most probably strengthen the influence of Seleukid culture
on Palestine - so I subsumed it under the question for the Revolt provoked by this situation.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

This TL looks extremelly interesting, I too have always been a bit of a fan of the Seleukids. Can we see an alternate Jesus please? That would please me no end.

Regarding Zoroastrianism as the state religion, are you sure? Surely the Seleukid Basileus would be more inclined to worship the old Hellenic Pantheon? Or will we see some kind of mixing of the two, say with Ahura Mazda and Zeus being considered one and the same? I'll carry on brainstorming later if you wish.

 

[Solitarius Valentinus]

OK, let's go on ...

One question, which is not as marginal as it might seem:
Will the Maccabean Revolt take place as in OTL?

If yes, it is a sign of weakness for the Seleucids and (to some degree) also an actual weakening.
If no, the development of mainstream Judaism and (potential) Christianity is severly questioned ...

I’m actually considering to let the Seleucids give the Judeans their freedom (or at least as a client state) and a buffer against Ptolemaic Egypt.
How? That I do not know yet. Somehow I find it hard to imagine a collaboration between the Judeans and the Seleucids, but that might be because of my lack of imagination perhaps, hehe.
But you are right, the entire religion might very well turn into some forgotten cult after a while.

This TL looks extremelly interesting, I too have always been a bit of a fan of the Seleukids. Can we see an alternate Jesus please? That would please me no end.

Regarding Zoroastrianism as the state religion, are you sure? Surely the Seleukid Basileus would be more inclined to worship the old Hellenic Pantheon? Or will we see some kind of mixing of the two, say with Ahura Mazda and Zeus being considered one and the same? I'll carry on brainstorming later if you wish.

Well, I’m going to be honest here, I simply think Zoroastrianism is the best option. As far as I have seen almost all, if not all, polytheistic religions turned to monotheism eventually. It would either be Zoroastrianism or another monotheistic religion.
But I have to say that your idea sounds quite interesting, to say the least, as it would certainly improve Hellenistic/ Persian culture fusions.
I have been thinking about Jesus Christ as well. One of the thought that is now floating inside my head is that the Jewish religion reigns supreme, Jesus still comes, as in OTL, but due to the heavy persecutions laid on him by the Jewish Kingdom, the Seleucids will step in to protect him from the Judean Kingdom, effectively turning a war between the two.
But, again, I have to try and keep Ptolemaic Egypt out. Perhaps I could establish an alliance between the two… That would certainly help, no?

 

[Alexandru H.]

If you can stand a bit of criticism...

You are mixing your religious notions way too freely. In my own TL, in which I use Bactria (Greek ruling class, Zoroastrian strata), I intend to bring out the dualistic aspects of Zoroastrianism and fuse them with Platonician/Christian notions, thus creating a sort of pseudo-maniheism/gnosticism.

The Seleucids would have never taken Zoroastrianism. Even in Egypt, in which the traditional Gods were respected by the Ptolemaic dynasty, there was never a moment in which the old cults would have taken the place of the Traditional Greek faith. If the POD is Antioh IIIrd, then it's already too late: the Seleucids were too entrenched in the western territories (Syria) and Mediteranean affairs to care about Zoroastrians.

Now, in my opinion, if you really want another Raphia, it means that the Seleucids would take Egypt as their possesions. Let the Parthians have their way with the Eastern Provinces: the Seleucids would maintain Egypt, Cyrene, Cyprus, Syria and concentrate on eating up Asia Minor, thus creating a pseudo-Byzantine state. If they resist the Romans, it might mean that the Egean will become the great battlefield of the two powers...

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

I’m actually considering to let the Seleucids give the Judeans their freedom (or at least as a client state) and a buffer against

The subtlety is that direct pressure from the rulers was only the straw that broke
the camel's back. The deeper reason for the Revolt was Hellenistic cultural influence,
which many Judeans embraced with pleasure, but conservative Jews felt provoked by that.
I think the revolt would come anyway except with a really delicate PoD;
the question is rather whether you want them be able to win as in OTL.

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

And thanks, Alexandru, for joining here -
before I had been the only poster with a non-ancient nickname
(at least your ending seems more recent).

I was somehow feeling mis-dressed ...

 

[Solitarius Valentinus]

If you can stand a bit of criticism...

You are mixing your religious notions way too freely. In my own TL, in which I use Bactria (Greek ruling class, Zoroastrian strata), I intend to bring out the dualistic aspects of Zoroastrianism and fuse them with Platonician/Christian notions, thus creating a sort of pseudo-maniheism/gnosticism.

The Seleucids would have never taken Zoroastrianism. Even in Egypt, in which the traditional Gods were respected by the Ptolemaic dynasty, there was never a moment in which the old cults would have taken the place of the Traditional Greek faith. If the POD is Antioh IIIrd, then it's already too late: the Seleucids were too entrenched in the western territories (Syria) and Mediteranean affairs to care about Zoroastrians.

Now, in my opinion, if you really want another Raphia, it means that the Seleucids would take Egypt as their possesions. Let the Parthians have their way with the Eastern Provinces: the Seleucids would maintain Egypt, Cyrene, Cyprus, Syria and concentrate on eating up Asia Minor, thus creating a pseudo-Byzantine state. If they resist the Romans, it might mean that the Egean will become the great battlefield of the two powers...

Of course I can stand criticism, good sir. I prefer honesty above lies from kindness.

Concerning the religion, I was not aware that I was too freely with it. My knowledge on the Zoroastrianism is, well, empty I suppose.

Maybe that’ll I’ll carefully avoid the subject of religion in the beginning, at most the first century or two.

And I like your idea about a Byzantine like empire. Think a conquest of Carthage before Rome is too much, even deep in the ASB region?

The subtlety is that direct pressure from the rulers was only the straw that broke

the camel's back. The deeper reason for the Revolt was Hellenistic cultural influence,
which many Judeans embraced with pleasure, but conservative Jews felt provoked by that.
I think the revolt would come anyway except with a really delicate PoD;
the question is rather whether you want them be able to win as in OTL.

I’d rather not have them win, quite frankly. It was, if I recall correctly, a devastating blow to the Seleucid morality. That wouldn’t be good on the long run at all.

Hehe damn, I feel like an amateur between experts or something

 

[Alexandru H.]

Well, the conquest of Carthage by the Seleucids is ASB... and really if they get Syria and Egypt, they really have no need for it.

About Judea... the revolt sucedeed mainly because the Seleucids were having problems in the East. With a successful Seleucia, the Judeans have exactly 0 chances to create their own state. They'll probably become more mainstream, more hellenized, but, of course, maintain that damn dichotomy between tradition and modernity. Expect many civil wars in the area.

 

[Valdemar II]

If you can stand a bit of criticism...

You are mixing your religious notions way too freely. In my own TL, in which I use Bactria (Greek ruling class, Zoroastrian strata), I intend to bring out the dualistic aspects of Zoroastrianism and fuse them with Platonician/Christian notions, thus creating a sort of pseudo-maniheism/gnosticism.

Even if we remove the supernatural element from Christianity, it quite possible for something Christianity and Jesus teaching to develop, when Judæa live either subdued or in vassalage to a foreign power. Especially one with the same hellenic influence in the area as in OTL*.

*Judæa had been under Hellenic influence for centuries before the Romans came, and the Roman dominans changed little except whom the tribute was paid to.

 

[Alexandru H.]

Even if we remove the supernatural element from Christianity, it quite possible for something Christianity and Jesus teaching to develop, when Judæa live either subdued or in vassalage to a foreign power. Especially one with the same hellenic influence in the area as in OTL*.

*Judæa had been under Hellenic influence for centuries before the Romans came, and the Roman dominans changed little except whom the tribute was paid to.

Of course it's possible. But you do realise what the problem would be? Jesus' opposition to Judea's priest caste would lead to a very vocal fight against hellenism and its influences onto Judea, since Ana and Caiafa of his times would have been quite engrossed in the Hellenic way of life.

Real-life Jesus and early Christianity were, in fact, very friendly towards "foreigners" and the Hellenic civilization. Antioch became quite fast the center of conversions, even beating Jerusalem. But in this alternative scenario, Jesus would have acted more like a Judean patriot than a prophet of universal wisdom.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

The Seleucid Emperors could offer land grants to the recently arrived Celtic Galatian tribes in Asia Minor. They could be re-settled in north-eastern Iran, where they could help defending the eastern marches against the Parni and the Scythian nomadic tribes.

That said, the Seleucids could solve some of their regional problems by encouraging different ethnic groups within their empire to resettle in new locations, just as the old Persian Achaemenid government did before them. Various ethnic groups who are displaced from their homeland and detached from others of their kind might make the future Hellenization process easier.

 

[IMP CAES AVG]

Ah, the Seleucid Empire, an often overlooked but nonetheless fascinating subject.

The most viable mechanism for the survival of the Empire would be to maintain Seleucia-on-Tigris as the imperial capital, instead of moving it to Syrian Antioch, thereby shifting the center of gravity of the empire to Mesopotamia instead of Syria, reducing the neglect suffered by the eastern satrapies and also preventing the rise and expansion of native independence movements like the Parthians and Hellenic separatist states like Bactria.

Another useful measure would be to encourage a sort of syncretic imperial cult incorporating both Hellenic and Persian traditions, with the apotheosis of the Seleucid ruler as a central tenet (something similar to Antiochus IV Epiphanes promotion of Hellenism and identification with Helios), while also binding the empire’s religions together in a cultural fusion in the manner of the Roman religion.

Thirdly, the incorporation of Hellenized Persians and other subject peoples into the administrative apparatus of the empire as satraps and army commanders, and the reduction of the autonomy of the satraps would go a long way to preventing the civil wars that were endemic to the later Seleucid state.

 

[Solitarius Valentinus]

The Seleucid Emperors could offer land grants to the recently arrived Celtic Galatian tribes in Asia Minor. They could be re-settled in north-eastern Iran, where they could help defending the eastern marches against the Parni and the Scythian nomadic tribes.
That said, the Seleucids could solve some of their regional problems by encouraging different ethnic groups within their empire to resettle in new locations, just as the old Persian Achaemenid government did before them. Various ethnic groups who are displaced from their homeland and detached from others of their kind might make the future Hellenization process easier.

This is an amazing piece of information, good sir! They would be excellent borders against (possible) hostile areas. I'll have to learn a bit more about the Celtic Galatian tribes though and how exactly they could be utilized best, aside from the eastern borders which you mentioned.

Ah, the Seleucid Empire, an often overlooked but nonetheless fascinating subject.
The most viable mechanism for the survival of the Empire would be to maintain Seleucia-on-Tigris as the imperial capital, instead of moving it to Syrian Antioch, thereby shifting the center of gravity of the empire to Mesopotamia instead of Syria, reducing the neglect suffered by the eastern satrapies and also preventing the rise and expansion of native independence movements like the Parthians and Hellenic separatist states like Bactria.
Another useful measure would be to encourage a sort of syncretic imperial cult incorporating both Hellenic and Persian traditions, with the apotheosis of the Seleucid ruler as a central tenet (something similar to Antiochus IV Epiphanes promotion of Hellenism and identification with Helios), while also binding the empire’s religions together in a cultural fusion in the manner of the Roman religion.
Thirdly, the incorporation of Hellenized Persians and other subject peoples into the administrative apparatus of the empire as satraps and army commanders, and the reduction of the autonomy of the satraps would go a long way to preventing the civil wars that were endemic to the later Seleucid state.

My, my, this is the most interesting post I have seen so far.
The first point is an excellent proposal. I didn't plan on the Seleucid Empire reaching into Western Europe or something, so it's only a wise decision to make the most of the Middle East.
The second point is extremely helpful as religion is not exactly something I'm good at, hehe. When you mentioned the Romans, did you perhaps mean that I should construct some sort of Seleucian Panteon? And wasn't that exactly what Alexander the Great tried to do as well?
And the third is also very good, but it might be a bit harder later when I have to find certain names or something.
Thank you for your suggestions IMP CAES AVG! I will definitely use them in the time line.

 

[antisocrates]

For the Seleucids to have any chance of surviving, let alone outlasting, Rome, it was imperative to hold on to Iran-- at least Western Iran where the Seleucids had solid dynastic support for long time. Without Iran and its precious cavalry, the Seleucids had very little chance of matching Rome militarily. For some reason, the Hellenic Powers never fully adopted Roman organization, so in infantry, they were forever at disdvantage. Taking Egypt would give great wealth and strategic position, but it would add little to Seleucid military power. Syria had enough phalangites for Seleucid needs, but it was Iran where cataphracts were raised and would complete the Alexandrine system of combined-arms army. Rome had no answer to Iranian cavalry; it was only the pitiful manpower of both the Pathians and the Sassanids that allowed Rome to dominate both. The Seleucids with Syria and parts of Anatolia would have more than enough manpower to fight a war of attrition, while Iran would provide cavalry that would equalize the battlefield.