Capital if the Seleucid Empire or the Ptolemaic Empire manage to capture Macedonia and Greece?

Assuming that either empire manages to capture Macedonia, Greece, and the primary bases of their rivals (essentially creating the old Persian borders for the Seleucids and the borders of Eastern Rome for the Ptolemies) , do they symbolically or actually move their capital? I feel like the the Seleucids might remain in Antioch as they have a large enough Greek population already in place, but what about the Ptolemies? They have far less Greeks in Egypt, but are extremely integrated into Egyptian society. Would they rather take even more Greeks from the mainland and move them to Egypt now that both sides are directly controlled?
 

Scaevola

Banned
I agree about Seleucids.

The Ptolemies, realistically, would remain in Alexandria or move the capital to Pella. But my bet is on Alexandria.
Pella is an inland town in rugged terrain far from the center of the civilized Ptolemaic realm. It's outdated and too close to the northern barbarians, too far from the new empire's commercial, agricultural, and cultural heart (Egypt).
If the POD is early enough, then the Ptolemies may construct (Alexandria was a brand spanking new city after all) a new city in Greece to serve as their capital, or take one like Smyrna, Ephesus, or Rhodes, bizarre as it sounds, as capital. Having a naval capital is critical in such a realm. And a capital on the Ionian coast allows rapid response to issues in Greece, inland Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt.
If the POD is late enough, the Ptolemies are tied too intricately to Egypt to stray away. Expect much disgust from mainland and Ionian Greeks at royal inbreeding, enough to prevent migration of solid royal rule there.
 
The Ptolemies would almost certainly stay in Egypt as it's the far richer province. I'm not sure what they'd gain by moving the capital other than some minor "Alexander was great and so are we" propaganda but by that period they ruled Egypt in their own right, not by hanging onto Alexander's memory so even then it's barely a symbolic victory. Plus if they really wanted to, putting the capital in Alexandria still gets them that Alexander legacy without having to leave.
 
Would Greek migration change much for either empire with these new borders? Could they perhaps provide further incentives or would they leave the Homeland alone now that it's controlled?
 

Scaevola

Banned
Would Greek migration change much for either empire with these new borders? Could they perhaps provide further incentives or would they leave the Homeland alone now that it's controlled?
The Ptolemies could do a lot better on incentives, if they could get the priests to accept Greek settlers in Upper Egypt, or at least southern Lower Egypt. Imagine the decision: move to Egypt, the insanely fertile breadbasket of the Mediterranean, a barge down the Nile and boat across the Mediterranean from Greece, with threatening enemies only to the north; or to the Seleucid Empire, much of it rocky hills and arid land separating fertile areas, much of it far from Greece, with powerful enemies on at least three sides (Egypt, Parthia/Hindu-Kush, and in Asia Minor). It's a no brainer.
 
It's an interesting question! On one hand, the Seleucids put a lot of stock in remaking Syria into a sort of counterpart for Macedonia - establishing through their naming and ideology counterparts for the cities of their distant homeland. But part of this is perhaps a symptom of being cut off from that homeland - of having come to terms with the existence of a Macedonian state independent from theirs ruling the homeland - and thus finding that they had to recreate their origins in a different space.

Since the Ptolemies were never in a position to take Macedonia, it's hard to say what they'd do. But for Seleucus, his return was, i believe, always described in contemporary writings as a sort of spiritual and physical homecoming, the return of the old King at the end of his life. Thus we have to acknowledge that Macedonia would always have immense spiritual and political importance.

But what is a pcaital in the ancient era? Every major city and settler colony had a Royal palace of some nature in the Seleucid era, so that it could serve as the capital. Administration from Pella would be nonsensical. The major treasuries, harbors, military fortifications, etc. would remain where they were. The bureaucrats would remain in the major cities of the East, or follow the King on campaign or tour. The Seleucids might be a bit more focused on the West, perhaps appointing a member of their family to govern there as they traditionally gave their sons the Upper Satrapies to govern.

The biggest impact I think would be intangible - a sense of ideological or societal unity that the Seleucids had to put more effort into constructing OTL, and different narratives. Perhaps more Seleucid Kings would return to die in Macedonia at the end of their lives, aping Seleucus. Macedonia and control over it would have an immense spiritual and ideological impact on the realm, and would facilitate the distribution of settlers across the East and probably shore up Seleucid authority in Thrace and Northern Asia Minor more, while creating liabilities with regard to Epirus and maintaining control over all the Greek cities. A genuine policy of autonomy might behoove them there, a light hand in the style of Antigonus Monophthalmus.
 
This might be slightly off-topic, but if a Hellenistic Empire arose in the Eastern Mediterranean and survived for several centuries, would it bear any similarities with the OTL Byzantine Empire?
 

jocay

Banned
If Macedonia falls under Ptolemaic rule, I don't expect Alexandria's status of capital city to end. Macedonia is likely given to a spare son of the Ptolemaic king to rule and serve as an European bulwark against Seleucid interests in Asia Minor. There may be more of playing up of Ptolemaic-Argead lineage to the Greek population as speculate that Ptolemy was actually an bastard son of Philip II, thus being Alexander's half brother.
 
Top