The emphasis on Zeus-Ahura Mazda as the patron God of the state, and the official geneology of the Seleucid Imperial family traced back to him could enhance the sanctity of Seleucos' progeny. And creating a new professional class of Helleno-Persian priests based on the old Zoroastrian priesthood. This professional body might be used as an official bureaucracy as well. The Megas Basileion/ Seleucid Emperor could be the hereditary leader of this imperial clergy.
A seleucid Empire that outlives Rome
- Thread starter Solitarius Valentinus
- Start date
The problem wasn't hellenization. Sure, it had ups and downs, but in the main, it was working out fine; even the Aracid dynasty for a long while was philhellenic. The problem was Roman interference and determination to prevent the Seleucids from ever again having a ruler capable of righting the ship of state. Both the Maccabbees and the Parthians were within the power of the Seleucids to quell, but for Roman interference. It wasn't Seleucid mismanagement that lost Mesototamia to hellenism. It was Rome and its ruthless determination to keep the Seleucids firmly under the Roman sandal,
The Romans had a talent for accommodating and co-opting many different religions into their own pantheon, to create a single, unifying syncretic structure, i.e. the identification of the Punic goddess Tanit as Juno Caelestis, and the Syrian deities Baal-Hadad and Atargatis, with Jupiter Heliopolitanus and Venus and the numerous Celtic gods. The Ptolemies similarly developed Serapis as a syncretic deity for the Alexandrian élite, but Seleucid attempts at this largely failed, such as when their attempt to forcibly impose Hellenism on the Jews resulted in the Maccabean revolt.
This. The Hellenistic states largely abandoned the Alexandrine “hammer and anvil” combined army doctrine and came to rely mostly on the phalangites. A stronger cavalry arm, making further use of the Iranian kataphractoi would greatly redress this imbalance. To maintain this cavalry arm, its critical that the Seleucids maintain control of the eastern satrapies.
It’s also significant that if the Seleucids had devoted more energy to maintaining control of the Iranian plateau instead of meddling in Mediterranean politics, there would have been less chances of a conflict with Rome (i.e. Antiochus Epiphanes’ attempt to annex Egypt was blocked by Rome in the infamous “Day of Eleusis”, but his plans for an eastern anabasis to shore up the work of Antiochus III met with no Roman opposition.)
That really wasn't an option. Foregoing the Mediterranean would mean the Seleucids would become another Parthia or the Sassanids. Not exactly a rosy scenario if they wanted to be a 1st rate power instead of 2nd tier powers that both Iranian countries were. Basically, without the Med, the manpower potential of the Seleucid dominion would be severely restricted, especially for a potential power who wanted to roll with Rome. If they were fine licking Roman sandals, sure, it would be ok, but if they wanted to be able to give the finger to Rome and protect their own imperial interests against Roman interests, then they had to have a hand in the Med. For foreseeable future, the East simply could not provide the necessary manpower for the Greeks, save in cavalry. Without constant replenshment from Greece and Anatolia, the Seleucids would be in the same boat as the Ptolemies: in fear of native revolts. Of course, if the Seleucids actually gave power to the natives, then they wouldn't have this problem, but then if they did, the history of the hellenistic world would change completely. The overriding narrative of the period was that the Greeks stayed on the top, everyone else on the bottom. Until the very end, when Cleopatra killed herself, this pattern stayed true. To change this would strain the bounds of plausibility, and then we might as well as say the hellenistic kingdoms adopted Roman methods of coopting subject people. Why not? One ASB is good as another.
Problems
a) Unlike Egypt, that had an unified pantheon, the iranian world was NOT Zoroastrian during the Seleucids. Mithra, for example, had to be accepted in the Zoroastrian pantheon merely because of his popularity during the Persian/Parthian era. No way could have the Seleucids create a sincretic religion using greek and iranian ideas. Of course, they used Cybele, which was a local syrian godess, but it was pretty impossible to take Mithra and Ahura Mazda and accomodate them. The Romans managed to approach these religions with success (just think of the popularity of the Isis/Mithra cults) because they simply had no pantheon: just a bunch of gods that walked among other older gods.
b) The Seleucids would never leave Syria for Babylonia. The Mediteranean Sea was the richest area of classical antiquity. For geographic reasons, it was pretty impossible to maintain Mesopotamia without the control of Persia, so when Parthia managed to take Iran in the 160/150s, it was end of the road for the Seleucids...
c) Your best bet for a Seleucid survival (even if I don't believe in the possibility without a Carthagian victory in the first or second punic war) would have been for Seleucos I not to be murdered in 281, while he was preparing to occupy Macedonia and Greece. Let him live until 275 and when Parthia will come a-knocking, Syria would still retain Macedonia, Greece, Asia Minor and Syria, a good base for any empire of that age.
a) Unlike Egypt, that had an unified pantheon, the iranian world was NOT Zoroastrian during the Seleucids. Mithra, for example, had to be accepted in the Zoroastrian pantheon merely because of his popularity during the Persian/Parthian era. No way could have the Seleucids create a sincretic religion using greek and iranian ideas. Of course, they used Cybele, which was a local syrian godess, but it was pretty impossible to take Mithra and Ahura Mazda and accomodate them. The Romans managed to approach these religions with success (just think of the popularity of the Isis/Mithra cults) because they simply had no pantheon: just a bunch of gods that walked among other older gods.
b) The Seleucids would never leave Syria for Babylonia. The Mediteranean Sea was the richest area of classical antiquity. For geographic reasons, it was pretty impossible to maintain Mesopotamia without the control of Persia, so when Parthia managed to take Iran in the 160/150s, it was end of the road for the Seleucids...
c) Your best bet for a Seleucid survival (even if I don't believe in the possibility without a Carthagian victory in the first or second punic war) would have been for Seleucos I not to be murdered in 281, while he was preparing to occupy Macedonia and Greece. Let him live until 275 and when Parthia will come a-knocking, Syria would still retain Macedonia, Greece, Asia Minor and Syria, a good base for any empire of that age.
Although your last two points are good, Alexandru, it is before my POD takes place, which is the 3rd century BCE.
And I've been trying to find something about Alexander's attempts to bring military reforms, but that weren't used because he died/ was killed.
It had to do something with involving more cavalry and balancing everything. Anyone knows it?
And I've been trying to find something about Alexander's attempts to bring military reforms, but that weren't used because he died/ was killed.
It had to do something with involving more cavalry and balancing everything. Anyone knows it?
Rebirth.
Alright, I'm going to make an attempt to bring some life back to my time line and therefore it is also important to bring this topic as well. One of the problems I saw immediately when looking back was that I managed to completely ignore some of the advice in both this topic and the other one, most likely because of my enthusiasm.
I'm also going to try and find a better name instead of the "Native Egyptian Kingdom". It just sounds... ridicolous. Anyways, so far I have been planning to diminish Seleucid influence in Anatolia and help them acquire a foothold on the OTL Oman and perhaps a bit in Yemen, being matched by the Egyptians using their bigger access to the Red Sea to take control of the other one.
However, I also feel that if I'd expand Seleucid influence and dominance on the Arabian peninsula, I'd be forced to diminish some of the eastern borders. The most likely candidate to contest are the Bactrians.
Rome shall prove difficult as it will without a doubt try and possess of the entire Eastern mediterranean coast line and most likely at the very least Mesopotamia.
Then we have Africanus, a worthy foe, but also troubled by politics in Rome. If I remember correctly he was accused of having accepted bribes offered by the Seleucid King and completely robbed of his political influence. Though making him a Seleucid general is impossible, perhaps he could be driven to acquire support and march to the Senate to claim what is rightfully his, a la Julius Caesar.
Most likely I am forgetting some things, but I'll come up with it later, I think.
Alright, I'm going to make an attempt to bring some life back to my time line and therefore it is also important to bring this topic as well. One of the problems I saw immediately when looking back was that I managed to completely ignore some of the advice in both this topic and the other one, most likely because of my enthusiasm.
I'm also going to try and find a better name instead of the "Native Egyptian Kingdom". It just sounds... ridicolous. Anyways, so far I have been planning to diminish Seleucid influence in Anatolia and help them acquire a foothold on the OTL Oman and perhaps a bit in Yemen, being matched by the Egyptians using their bigger access to the Red Sea to take control of the other one.
However, I also feel that if I'd expand Seleucid influence and dominance on the Arabian peninsula, I'd be forced to diminish some of the eastern borders. The most likely candidate to contest are the Bactrians.
Rome shall prove difficult as it will without a doubt try and possess of the entire Eastern mediterranean coast line and most likely at the very least Mesopotamia.
Then we have Africanus, a worthy foe, but also troubled by politics in Rome. If I remember correctly he was accused of having accepted bribes offered by the Seleucid King and completely robbed of his political influence. Though making him a Seleucid general is impossible, perhaps he could be driven to acquire support and march to the Senate to claim what is rightfully his, a la Julius Caesar.
Most likely I am forgetting some things, but I'll come up with it later, I think.
Khem? (Black, originally the Nile delta). There is also a word for Upper Egypt (the red lands) that gives us the "Mizraim" of the Bible. (Misr with some sort of diacritical on the s?)
Khem. I like it, it sounds pretty good as well. The Kingdom of Khem/ the Nile. There will only be one problem and that is when Egypt starts conquering lands that aren't connected to the Nile.
Still, it is far better than NEK so if you don't mind I'll start using that in my new update which will come soon.
Faeelin
Banned
But the Maccabees are an exception, and indeeed a sign of the successful Hellenizing of many Jews. Otherwise, the patronized a great many faiths across their empire.
Similarly, Syria and Egypt were fantastically wealthy; and they did manage to overrun Egypt, but for Roman intervention.