wadebirdwhistle
Banned
I will be bumping my pole again later today to remind you all to vote, but... considering that the vote is currently heavily swayed toward God Manifest - A Seleucid Renaissance, what do we all think is feasible for Antiochus IV to achieve in his life time?
After some more reading on the subject, it would seem that his affairs in the east were not wars with the Parthians (who at the time were a very problematic vassal), but rather trying to gather funds for paying war reparations owed to Rome after the disastrous defeat at the Battle of Magnesia (overseen by Antiochus III). The Macedonians and the Illyrians have only recently been subjugated by the Romans, and the Achaean League also has an anti-Roman streak running through it. Rome’s only real ally in the region seems to have been the Kingdom of Pergamon.
So, Antiochus IV was heavily in debt to Rome and looking to draw funds for this debt from temples in his eastern provinces, which certainly provoked further rebellion after his death. It would seem the best option in my mind would be to stop paying reparations to Rome and move for Ptolemaic Egypt. Egypt is of course hurting for money at the time, but has the capability to pay for itself given a little while with its agricultural productivity. Of course, Antiochus had already been warned to stay out of Egypt, so this would surely provoke a war with Rome.
Is this a war that the Seleucids can win? Doubtless, the Roman goal would be to use a Seleucid invasion as a pretext for invasion of Egypt and also to put Demetrius II on the Seleucid throne as their puppet, but... with the right string of anti-Roman alliances (Bithynia, Pontus, and the Achaean League) I think this would be manageable.
If the Seleucids can pull this off of course, they still have to turn around and check the Parthians in the east, who may or may not use the opportunity to invade the Iranian Plateau. What are the consequences long term for Rome however, if she can’t keep her foot in the door in the Eastern Mediterranean?
I don’t think Rome is done entirely... not yet. Even if the Romans are thrown out of the Balkans entirely, they still have Spain... albeit Spain itself was fairly new to Roman rule at the time. Although, they will still have to contend with the Social War, which could have a very different outcome if they are thrown out of the Balkans. If not however, will they move for the whole of Iberia and Gaul sooner? Will Hellenistic culture be as popular among the Romans, or will the Eastern and Western Mediterranean develop in different cultural spheres?
After some more reading on the subject, it would seem that his affairs in the east were not wars with the Parthians (who at the time were a very problematic vassal), but rather trying to gather funds for paying war reparations owed to Rome after the disastrous defeat at the Battle of Magnesia (overseen by Antiochus III). The Macedonians and the Illyrians have only recently been subjugated by the Romans, and the Achaean League also has an anti-Roman streak running through it. Rome’s only real ally in the region seems to have been the Kingdom of Pergamon.
So, Antiochus IV was heavily in debt to Rome and looking to draw funds for this debt from temples in his eastern provinces, which certainly provoked further rebellion after his death. It would seem the best option in my mind would be to stop paying reparations to Rome and move for Ptolemaic Egypt. Egypt is of course hurting for money at the time, but has the capability to pay for itself given a little while with its agricultural productivity. Of course, Antiochus had already been warned to stay out of Egypt, so this would surely provoke a war with Rome.
Is this a war that the Seleucids can win? Doubtless, the Roman goal would be to use a Seleucid invasion as a pretext for invasion of Egypt and also to put Demetrius II on the Seleucid throne as their puppet, but... with the right string of anti-Roman alliances (Bithynia, Pontus, and the Achaean League) I think this would be manageable.
If the Seleucids can pull this off of course, they still have to turn around and check the Parthians in the east, who may or may not use the opportunity to invade the Iranian Plateau. What are the consequences long term for Rome however, if she can’t keep her foot in the door in the Eastern Mediterranean?
I don’t think Rome is done entirely... not yet. Even if the Romans are thrown out of the Balkans entirely, they still have Spain... albeit Spain itself was fairly new to Roman rule at the time. Although, they will still have to contend with the Social War, which could have a very different outcome if they are thrown out of the Balkans. If not however, will they move for the whole of Iberia and Gaul sooner? Will Hellenistic culture be as popular among the Romans, or will the Eastern and Western Mediterranean develop in different cultural spheres?
Last edited: