Seleucids Lose Syria But Keep Persia And Mesopotamia

What would happen if somehow, the Seleucids are restricted to only the territory that the Parthians ruled. An obvious scenario for this would be the Romans kicking them out, but what about the Ptolemies doing that or them never even gaining Syria in the first place? Bonus points if the Seleucids last past the date of the fall of the Parthians and extra bonus points if the Muslims destroy a Seleucid/Hellenistic kingdom in Persia, providing of cause Islam still exists. Maybe Seleucid Arabia? What if?
 

katchen

Banned
Well, for one thing, it is doubtful that the Ptolemies would have gotten themselves in the position of defending a Hellenized Jewish king who wanted to ban his subjects from circumcising their boy children at 8 days. Especially since the Egyptians practiced circumcision themselves. Without that, the Hasmonean Revolt and Second Jewish Commonwealth are butterflied away.
 
An obvious scenario for this would be the Romans kicking them out,
By the time the Romans came to Syria the Seleucids were already too weak to hold on to the East.
The problem was that the core of the Seleucid Empire was in the West in Syria. The Seleucids were ready to sacrifice everything anywhere but to keep Syria. So the Romans came from the most vulnerable side.

what about the Ptolemies doing that
You mean that the Ptolemies somehow managed to push the Seleucids out of Syria to Mesopotamia and further East I guess.
I can imagine that. But I am afraid that the idea to get back to Syria would be idea fix for the Seleucids generation after generation.This fighting would sap their strength and the Seleucids would get totally worned out as a state and get conquered by some Parthians or the like in the end.


But there is another scenario:
The Seleucid Empire might split into the Western Empire and the Eastern Empire when it was strong and powerful.
There were some prerequisites for that division: usually the Seleucid king gave the East to his heir apparent with extremely wide powers.
That would have been quite a natural division and the East would have been able to concentrate on its own challenges - keeping Bactria and Parthia.

So when the Romans come - the Western Seleucid Empire falls as in OTL; but the Eastern Seleucid Empire survives. The Eastern Seleucids might be even bigger than the Parthians of OTL - they might include Bactria and some parts of India.
 
Last edited:
There was a brief period when the division you have suggested existed in real life. After Antiochus II was murdered by his ex-wife, his elder son Seleucus II held the Persian lands and his younger son Antiochus Hierax held Seleucid Asia Minor.

Meanwhile, Ptolemy III had driven deep into Syria, inter alia capturing Antioch itself, to avenge his late sister (Antiochus II's second wife) and her infant son who had also been murdered by agents of ex-queen Laodike.

Perhaps there's a way to make the division permanent.

P.S., I don't think I would have liked Laodike very much.
 
Perhaps an earlier POD would be that Seleucus refuses Cassander's call to aid against during the Fourth War of the Diadochi, thus leading to a victory for Antigonus and Demetrius at the Battle of Ipsus?
 
Perhaps an earlier POD would be that Seleucus refuses Cassander's call to aid against during the Fourth War of the Diadochi, thus leading to a victory for Antigonus and Demetrius at the Battle of Ipsus?
Hmm. A more realistic scenario would be to just have the coalition lose against Antigonus and Cassander (more permanent if Seleucus loses troops). The Antigonids would control Syria, Anatolia, and Macedon (presumably Cassander and Lysimachus would be royally screwed).
 
Hmm. A more realistic scenario would be to just have the coalition lose against Antigonus and Cassander (more permanent if Seleucus loses troops). The Antigonids would control Syria, Anatolia, and Macedon (presumably Cassander and Lysimachus would be royally screwed).

That probably kicks Seleucus into a failure, however.
 
Top