Keraunos does not assassinate Seleucus

[Cuāuhtemōc]

I'm just pitching an idea that I might one day explore in my spare time. and asking for criticisms whether it's good enough to even turn into a TL.

In the Wikipedia article for Ptolemy Keraunos, he strikes me as a fairly interesting personality with some AH potential. He was Ptolemy I's eldest son and spent time in both the courts of his brother-in-law Lysimachus (married to his sister Arsinoe) and Seleucus. Keraunos then after court intrigue fled to the east which encouraged Seleucus to invade Lysimachus' domains.

In OTL, Ptolemy wanted his former protector's territories so he had Seleucus assassinated and had himself declared king by the Macedonian army. He soon after was killed during the Gaulish invasion.

Let's say Ptolemy decides to play the long game and decides not to stab Seleucus. He assists the old king conquer Macedon. As per his plans, Seleucus retires and spends his last remaining years in Macedon, dying in peace a few years later but we'll get to that. Ptolemy, due to his service, is married to Seleucus' daughter Phila. He is sent towards the East to assist the newly crowned king Antiochus in ruling the East.

Ptolemy, as Antiochus' general, reduces rebellious statelets like Bithynia, Pontus and Cappadocia. Pergamum is kept from trying any funny business. For his loyalty, Ptolemy is rewarded with a satrapy. For narrative purposes, let's say he's given Parthia. Ptolemy does what's expected of him and is otherwise dissatisfied with being sent to deal with rabble-rousing steppe nomads as opposed to seizing Egypt.

In OTL, there was a vague description of heavy rebellion following Seleucus' death; Bagadates of Persia cited as one of the rebelling satraps. Bagadates is noted to be among the few natives to be appointed in such a position, usually reserved for Greco-Macedonians. Ptolemy corresponds with Bagadates via son Oborzos, goading the former into declaring his independence while maintaining the mask of a loyal governor.

Bagadates declares independence, acclaims himself to become Shahanshah. Ptolemy diverts enough funds from his treasury to recruit an army of Parthians to help his conspirator Bagadates rampage through the east, seizing neighboring territories. Ptolemy writes letters to Antiochus, pleading for help. Antiochus eventually responds, leading a large army of Greeks, Asians and Gauls to meet Ptolemy's provincial troops on the banks of the Tigris to face Bagadates together.

The battle is more or less even. Ptolemy defects and formally joins Bagadates when he spots the Seleucid king and his companions pinned down and surrounded by the Persian infantry. Antiochus is killed. The Seleucid army is wiped out and the Ptolemaic-Bagadatid alliance is victorious. The Seleucid capital is captured and things are on the rise for the Persian king until....

I'm thinking of Ptolemy either murdering Bagadates and then using his son Oborzos as a puppet or manipulating father and son against each other. Oborzos attempts to assassinate his father, fails and is executed; leaving a paranoid Bagadates to place his complete trust in the Ptolemaic prince or Oborzos being successful and becoming a paranoid puppet figure. Antiochus is dead and with Seleucus likely dead as well, the throne falls to Antiochus' younger brother Achaeus who as far as I'm aware is not competent enough to rule a vast empire.

What do you think? Un-interesting? Stale?

 

[Practical Lobster]

It's very interesting but I think Ptolemy would kick off the backstabbing earlier and with less finesse. He had very little diplomatic and military talent as it is, I think. The portriat you paint is of a chessmaster who astutely manipulates circumstances to his favor. I'm not sure such a complex scheme with so many moving parts is really his speed. Plus, the Persian rebellion was isolated to Pars - how are you getting the Parthians down there without sounding loads of alarm bells across the Seleucid Empire? If Ptolemy allowed them through he himself would come under direct suspicion, and the Parthians at this point might themselves be wary of angering the Seleucids in such a dramatic way. This is the height of Macedonian dominance in the Near East, after all.

I'm also skeptical that the son of a rivals dynasty, no matter how out of favor, would just be granted important positions in the administration. There isn't much precedent for that, to my understanding. Keraunos chose to act when he did, I think, because Seleucus was on the verge of totally winning it all - and in such a way that he'd have no hope of ever being King of anything.

Of course, if he ever did become King, I think he's apt to mess it up badly, as in OTL.

His best shot probably is to act after Seleucus' death during the transitional turmoil - try to get people to join him and stage his own rebellion.

 

[alcibiades]

It sounds like an interesting idea, I would certainly read it.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

It's very interesting but I think Ptolemy would kick off the backstabbing earlier and with less finesse. He had very little diplomatic and military talent as it is, I think. The portriat you paint is of a chessmaster who astutely manipulates circumstances to his favor. I'm not sure such a complex scheme with so many moving parts is really his speed. Plus, the Persian rebellion was isolated to Pars - how are you getting the Parthians down there without sounding loads of alarm bells across the Seleucid Empire? If Ptolemy allowed them through he himself would come under direct suspicion, and the Parthians at this point might themselves be wary of angering the Seleucids in such a dramatic way. This is the height of Macedonian dominance in the Near East, after all.

I do admit that I am not as astute when it comes to historical matters. I am merely an enthusiast (casual-level) proposing a scenario. I apologize for my ignorance but given the spare amount of details of Keraunos' life, I assumed he was somewhat of a chess master or at least perceived himself as one.

As for the Persian rebellion, it could start out in Pars and extend out to the rest of the eastern satrapies. Again I don't know the political environment but assume given that Bagadates declared his independence as soon as Seleucus died, there was some frustration on the part of the Iranian nobility at not being given a say in the administration of their own lands. I merely used the Parthians as I couldn't think of another major nomadic group that could serve as a threat to Seleucid power in the east. Yes, you're right in pointing out that Antiochus would be suspicious of Ptolemy if he lets them through. I considered the idea that Antiochus would be busy dealing with the Gaulish invasions of the Balkans to give attention to some exiled Ptolemaic prince.

I'm also skeptical that the son of a rivals dynasty, no matter how out of favor, would just be granted important positions in the administration. There isn't much precedent for that, to my understanding. Keraunos chose to act when he did, I think, because Seleucus was on the verge of totally winning it all - and in such a way that he'd have no hope of ever being King of anything.

Of course, if he ever did become King, I think he's apt to mess it up badly, as in OTL.

I don't presume he would be competent enough to become King himself; merely a powerplayer.

His best shot probably is to act after Seleucus' death during the transitional turmoil - try to get people to join him and stage his own rebellion.

Isn't that sort ofg what he already did IOTL? He did murder Seleucus and went to Lysimachus' old capital to declare himself King of Macedon.

 

[Practical Lobster]

Hey, no worries! Your interpretation isn't necessarily wrong - like you say we don't know a whole lot about Keraunos. His Kingship of Makedon was a complete disaster OTL, but in your timeline it's not impossible to contrive a reason why he's more talented or savvy. Just need an earlier PoD, but one that doesn't keep him from being exiled.

Edit: I like the idea of an indigenous rebellion serving as the catalyst for Keraunos' takeover - but it might be more plausible to have him side with the Makedonians rather than against them? Presumably, based on his OTL actions he wants to be King, not kingmaker, and especially not to an Iranian dynasty that would probably be rather dangerous to his fellow Hellenes. Could still have him backstab Antiochus during a Battle, perhaps.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Hey, no worries! Your interpretation isn't necessarily wrong - like you say we don't know a whole lot about Keraunos. His Kingship of Makedon was a complete disaster OTL, but in your timeline it's not impossible to contrive a reason why he's more talented or savvy. Just need an earlier PoD, but one that doesn't keep him from being exiled.

Right. I just need to come up with a good enough reason.

Edit: I like the idea of an indigenous rebellion serving as the catalyst for Keraunos' takeover - but it might be more plausible to have him side with the Makedonians rather than against them? Presumably, based on his OTL actions he wants to be King, not kingmaker, and especially not to an Iranian dynasty that would probably be rather dangerous to his fellow Hellenes. Could still have him backstab Antiochus during a Battle, perhaps.

Would it be out of character to have this alt-Keraunos turn a blind eye and allow the rebellion to ferment and spread while eventually siding with the Macedonian king when it's time to confront it?

 

[Practical Lobster]

Would it be out of character to have this alt-Keraunos turn a blind eye and allow the rebellion to ferment and spread while eventually siding with the Macedonian king when it's time to confront it?

That seems credible I think. If Seleucus dies later that might also give the Persian rebellion more time to prepare.

 

[alcibiades]

If you wanted to go a less ambitious route, Keraunos repelling the Gauls and establishing a stable dynasty in Macedonia also seems cool. On a side note do we have any idea why Keraunos lost anyway? Was it his fault or can it be given up to just overwhelming numbers? I also read that the Macedonians were able to repel an invasion of Gauls under a chieftain Cimbaules in 298 BC.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

If you wanted to go a less ambitious route, Keraunos repelling the Gauls and establishing a stable dynasty in Macedonia also seems cool. On a side note do we have any idea why Keraunos lost anyway? Was it his fault or can it be given up to just overwhelming numbers? I also read that the Macedonians were able to repel an invasion of Gauls under a chieftain Cimbaules in 298 BC.

Keraunos is implied to have to been a middling commander by Practical Lobster. Your second reason could've definitely contributed to that.

Your idea could certainly be a timeline of its own. We do need more Hellenistic-era TLs.

 

[Practical Lobster]

Keraunos is implied to have to been a middling commander by Practical Lobster.

Here are my justifications for my criticism of Keraunos' skills:

No experience whatsoever before he kills Seleucus and claims the throne. He spent his entire life moving from court to court, and seemingly have never held an administrative or military posting of importance.

When he took Macedon he was apparently unable (or worse, unwilling) to fully eradicate the threat posed by Antigonos Gonatas - to the point that he allowed Antigonos to remain holed up in Demetrias while he was King of Macedon.

His death at the hands of marauding proto-Galatians.

Maybe I'm being unfair but this doesn't sound like a brilliant leader to me.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Here are my justifications for my criticism of Keraunos' skills:

No experience whatsoever before he kills Seleucus and claims the throne. He spent his entire life moving from court to court, and seemingly have never held an administrative or military posting of importance.

When he took Macedon he was apparently unable (or worse, unwilling) to fully eradicate the threat posed by Antigonos Gonatas - to the point that he allowed Antigonos to remain holed up in Demetrias while he was King of Macedon.

His death at the hands of marauding proto-Galatians.

Maybe I'm being unfair but this doesn't sound like a brilliant leader to me.

I don't disagree with you. Is it possible for Keraunos to receive an military posting of some importance under Seleucus?

 

[Practical Lobster]

I don't disagree with you. Is it possible for Keraunos to receive an military posting of some importance under Seleucus?

Hmm. I don't know. My first instinct is to say no. I don't think Seleucus lacked capable commanders or administrators of his own, and there's a risk to putting a rival dynasts' brother in a position of importance. Plus, not long after Ptolemy Philadelphus ascends the throne, Keraunos leaves Egypt for Thrace, basically fleeing from his half sister. Within just a couple years he's murdered Seleucus. There's no time for him to win anyone's trust.

Seleucus helped Lysandra and Keraunos because it was pretext to crush Lysimachus. I doubt he ever saw Keraunos as more than a catspaw in the brief time he knew him. Plus, Antiochus is running the show in Syria while Seleucus is campaigning.

Also at least some epigraphic evidence suggests that Seleucus was facing a mutiny simultaneously with Keraunos' assassination. It's unclear how this all factored together, though.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Hmm. I don't know. My first instinct is to say no. I don't think Seleucus lacked capable commanders or administrators of his own, and there's a risk to putting a rival dynasts' brother in a position of importance. Plus, not long after Ptolemy Philadelphus ascends the throne, Keraunos leaves Egypt for Thrace, basically fleeing from his half sister. Within just a couple years he's murdered Seleucus. There's no time for him to win anyone's trust.

Is there really that much risk if Keraunos is kept away from Coel-Syria and stays either in the Balkans or in the easten satrapies? Keraunos does have something against Philadelphus so I don't think he would want to turn on Seleucus if he can use the old man as a means to seize power.

Seleucus helped Lysandra and Keraunos because it was pretext to crush Lysimachus. I doubt he ever saw Keraunos as more than a catspaw in the brief time he knew him. Plus, Antiochus is running the show in Syria while Seleucus is campaigning.

Also at least some epigraphic evidence suggests that Seleucus was facing a mutiny simultaneously with Keraunos' assassination. It's unclear how this all factored together, though.

Any information on this mutiny?

 

[Practical Lobster]

Maybe not much risk but I don't know if Seleucus has time to start trusting Keraunos before he dies of old age.

Any information on this mutiny?

I basically said the extent of historical knowledge. There's some partial document recovered from Mesopotamia that, if less damaged, would be a lot clearer. Some have even suggested it's just a vague allusion to Keraunos, but chronologically it doesn't quite line up. It's call the End of Seleucus Chronicle or something to that effect.

For all we know maybe Keraunos just took credit for someone else killing Seleucus. Not likely but possible.