The 35th Dynasty: Kemet Once More!

Battle began on the left flank, where both commanders had their elephants charge their opponent's lines, hoping for a decisive breakthrough. The beasts were of relatively equal numbers, as Sosibius had reinforced his contingent here at the expense of his right flank, but they were not of equal quality, for the Seleucids boasted Indian elephants, much larger and more powerful then their African cousins. Consequently, Sosibius' elephants became terrified of the smell and size of the beasts opposing them and were thrown back in confusion. They smashed through their own lines, trampling men and horse to death, badly disrupting Sosibius's left flank.

Antiochus meanwhile, wishing to capitalize on the unfolding situation, ordered the troops on his right flank to charge. His Greek mercenaries, located just right of the center phalanx, tore through the Libyan peltasts arrayed against them. His cavalry however soon found itself outmaneuvered by Echecrates, who rode his men hard to the left before swinging back and hitting the Seleucid cavalry in the flank. This turned what should have been a walkthrough into a bloody brawl, in which the heavily armored and numerically superior Seleucid cataprachts eventually came out on top. With Echecrates busy regrouping his horsemen some distance away, Antiochus ordered his men to swing left and hit the enemy Greek mercenaries still holding out, despite the onslaught of his elephants and of his own mercenaries to their right (not to mention their own elephants who had rampaged through their lines earlier). Being close to breaking point as it was, Sosibius' Greek mercenaries turned tail and ran as the Seleucid cataphracts smashed into their flank.

On the opposite end of the field battle was joined as well, as both flanks charged each other; here Sosibius barely had any elephants at all, and it showed. Lacking the skill of Echecrates and being more used to commanding a phalanx, Andromachus ordered a headlong charge into the enemy ranks only to see his horsemen and Gallic mercenaries scream in horror as the Seleucid elephants trampled through their lines. It was not long before Sosibius found the extreme of his right wing fleeing, with their enemies in hot pursuit. Desperate to regain the initiative, he ordered his phalanx to advance, and soon found that fate had finally smiled upon him - Antiochus' lightly armed Arabian and Persian levies quickly gave way as the Royal Guard and the native Egyptian phalangites attacked them headlong.

Battle now hung in the balance - Antiochus had both of his flanks victorious, yet his center was in danger of collapsing, whilst Sosibius faced the exact opposite situation. Fearing the worst, both commanders ordered their men to regroup, as they tried to get some semblance of control over their large and diverse armies.

Battle_raphia4.jpg

Battle_raphia4.jpg
 
Hmmm. Currently things may look like a stalemate but with Sousibius's flanks having collapsed he has a danger of being surrounded by Selucid forces. Especially with 'Ptolemaic' cavalry and elephants being beaten.
 
Sosibius was red with angerand furious at his subordinates on the flanks for having performed so miserably, even though, deep down, he knew the situation forced upon them was clearly not in their favor. Assessing his options, he thought about retreating south back to Egypt - militarily, this was the best choice, as Antiochus would have to first conquer the fortresses of Gaza and Pelusium, and then try to force a crossing of the Nile if he wanted Alexandria (as the alternative, simply staying on the right bank of the river, produced little other than loot and ran the danger of having the forces of the King of Asia being cut off).

However, for Sosibius, this was an option he simply could not take, regardless of how much he wanted it, and that for a simple reason - politics. He had thrown everything he had into this battle, every mercenary that could have been bought had been bought, every soldier that could hold a sarrissa had been called up from his farm, hell, he had even gambled with his Egyptian phalangites. To turn back would signal a defeat to everyone, from the lowliest slave on the royal estates along the Nile and the poorest citizen working in the Alexandrine harbor to the mightiest noble and richest priest. The influential citizenry of Alexandria, and with them the urban mob, the high priests of Egypt and their simple peasant followers, the military settlers, Hellenic and Galatian alike, all would recognize Arsinoe, the last living Ptolemy, as having far more legitimacy to the throne than him, a simple politician, and a defeated one at that, whilst all he could count on would be the dubious loyalty of his mercenaries. Hence he decided to stay and fight.
 
Sorry again for the delay, but I've been really really busy - however, today in a couple of hours we'll finally have a conclusion to Raphia and move forward
 
How's my Hellenistic recap coming along Magnum?

it's nice, although waaaay too long for my extremely limited time at the moment. however, I've promised myself to read it top to bottom once these stupid exams are over.

regarding how I think Sosibius and Arsinoe look:

there are coins of Arsinoe, so of course those are the most accurate depictions we would have of her. in my mind, she is this incredibly smart and attractive 28 year old woman with greek features (skin color etc), who, having survived in the turmoil of alexandrine politics knows a thing or two about keeping appearances and dressing for the occasion.

Sosibius, on whom I couldn't find anything, I imagine as this middle-aged, bald and slightly fat politician, dressed as any other greek noble of the period and a master of intrigue. The probably high testosterone level (likely given his political career) probably means he also has a considerable beard (which he may or may not shave)
 

The question now is which side can get a force deployed against the exposed flank of the other side's phalanx. Has either main phalanx moved yet?

The Seleucid left, if it's not all gone off in pursuit, can turn against the flank and rear of the Egyptian phalanx and the rear of the hypaspists.

The Egyptians and hypaspists can turn against the flank of the Seleucid phalanx. Can Sosibius manage this? The Egyptians are green, and pivoting a phalanx is very hard. The hypaspists are better...

The Seleucid right can turn against the flank of the Ptolemaic phalanx. Antiochus is right there. The Seleucid heavies have already fought two actions, but they seem to be under control.

If the Seleucid left can be brought into action, Sosibius loses, but it could get very ugly for Antiochus first.
 
Last edited:
He was growing tired. His body covered in sweat, his heavy armor weighing him down. All around him, as the earth itself shook from the weight and momentum of the stampeding elephants, he could see his brothers in arms, friends whom he had served with for basically his entire life, as they were either trampled to death or cut down by light and mobile enemy peltasts. There, amidst the screams of the men dying around him, he could see Iverix in front of him, cornered by a couple of men, as he fell to the ground.

"I've had enough of this. If I am to die, I will not die a cowards death, forsaking my friends" thought Comargos, moments before running into one of the Lydians surrounding Iverix, throwing him to the ground by the sheer force of the impact. Taking the stunned man's javelin, he plunged at the next one, running his newly acquired weapon straight through the man's throat. Seeing this, the third one tried to get some distance, but in his rush tripped, falling to the ground, where seconds later one of the raging elephants would trample him, seemingly careless of the suffering below.

"Iverix !", screamed Comargos, "let us die here with honor, not fleeing like sheep". Both men pulled themselves together, picked up what spears they could find lying on the ground, and readied themselves as the main wave of enemy elephants approached. What happened next neither of them remembered afterwards, but according to words spoken by their comrades, they managed to kill not one, but two elephants by thrusting spears into their necks. This in turn led to some of the other beasts to turn back, oblivious to the urgings of their riders. As more and more Celts witnessed this, they turned around and began fighting back, eventually driving the enemy peltasts and elephants away.

---------------------------------

As one the battles right flank the Gauls and Thracians regained some of their cohesion, a rider arrived bearing the orders of Antiochus to have everyone regroup at the center. In the confusion, many mistook this as an order to retreat. Coupled with the Seleucid elephants stampeding back towards their lines, this essentially put a stop to the Seleucid infantry's attack on that flank. As Themison saw the Gauls to his right standing their ground and ignoring his own fall back order, he swinged his Seleucid cavalry hard right, charging their still reforming lines. This was an opportunity he simply couldn't pass up.

Raphia.jpg

 
As Sosibius looked back to his right, he could most of the peltasts from the Seleucid left flank falling back, whilst further out in the distance, the dust bowl that surely was the victorious Seleucid cavalry seemed to head straight for the Galatians. Hoping against hope that this might be just the break he needs, Sosibius reversed his fall-back order and had commanded the Royal Guard and the Egyptian phalanx to advance and turn the flank of the opposing phalanx. This was however easier said then done, as the Egyptians had never experienced combat before and were still cumbersome in complex maneuvers. The Hypaspists were having no such problems though, and they smashed into the left flank of the central phalanx opposing them - unfortunately for them, their positioning and the very narrow angle meant that the Seleucid phalangites easily turned their sarrissa's slightly leftwards, making the clash not the uneven contests Sosibius had hoped for.

Antiochus meanwhile was racked with indecision - should he push against the enemy center, should he support Themison on the opposite wing or should he stick with his regroup order ? Eventually the answer came from Arsinoe, who rode up towards his force and, ordering her subordinate Polycrates, had her household cavalry charge Sosibius' center. Antiochus quickly followed suit and had his horsemen charge the rear of the enemy phalanx, whilst at the same time sending out another set of messengers to his stretched out divisions, ordering them to converge on the enemy center at all cost.

Engaged from three sides, Sosibius' crack phalangites still put up one hell of a fight, though they're obstinacy eventually proved to be their undoing, as the Seleucid cataphracts slashed through the phalanxes exposed rear.

Held up by the returning contingents of Seleucid light infantry, whose small hit-and-run attacks through their formation off-balance, the Egyptian phalanx proved unable to do it's master's bidding and turn the Seleucid flank. Upon seeing their comrades to the left cut down to pieces, they lost all cohesion and fled the field in all directions, only to be hunted down by the Seleucid light cavalry in their flight.

Meanwhile, the 'ptolemaic' hypaspists, surrounded on all sides, decided their future was better secured fighting for Arsinoe and arrested Sosibius, handing him over to Antiochus as part of their (extremely brief) surrender negotiation.

For the King of Asia, the victory was complete.


2.jpg



2.jpg
 
Hey, great start, but I thought I should point out a few things that I have come across in my reading concerning the OTL.

1) The first native Egyptian revolt happened in summer of 245 BC. Ptolemy III had to temporarily break off his war with Seleucus II in order to return to Egypt to put it down.

2) It is generally agreed the Great Thebiad Revolt was started by veterans of the battle of Raphia. They are described as having confidence in their ability to defeat Greeks in battle after the victory against Antiochus III. Without the victory (or at least a good showing by the native Egyptians) there might not have been the same level of revolt.

3) The first concrete proof of a native revolt in Upper Egypt is at the temple in Edfu in 207 BC, but there is evidence that some of the soldiers who fought in Raphia mutinied before this in Lower Egypt, and that initial revolt was the spark that ignited the South. This makes sense because 10 years is a long time to keep that anger bottled up.

4) As stated before, the secret treaty between Philip V and Antiochus III to divide the non-Egyptian holdings of Ptolemy did not exist before the Battle of Raphia. They did not make their agreement until around the time of the death of Ptolemy IV in late 203 BC.

My sources for this:

Reign of the Ptolemies: Egypt after Alexander the Great by Romeo Reyes
The House of Ptolemy by E.R. Bevan
The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt by Toby Wilkinson
 
This was getting good, what happened?

Work happened.
mad.gif


If you (or anyone else) want to continue this, go ahead. Here's an (unofficial) epilogue for my part, that could set the stage for coming events:



Ptolemaic Egypt is gone, as Arsinoe (the very last of the house of Ptolemy) got to marry Antiochus, probably the most powerful man in the world at this point, and her ambitions now far surpass a desire to just manage puny Egypt.

The two monarchs entered Alexandria in a lavish procession at the head of their huge army, as the population waved and cheered. For their part, they organized a huge celebration that lasted over a month, with free food, free spectacles and huge ceremonies, meant to display their power.

In the coming months, Egypt saw somewhat of a reorganization, as estates of some of the magnates deemed a liability were confiscated and then redistributed between Greek soldiers and nobles from Syria and the supporters of Arsinoe. The native Egyptian nobility, that made up the caste of priests, was especially favored, a fact that grew their power even more and set the stage for the later rebellion. Administratively, Egypt was broken up into several satrapies, but with most of the finances put in the hands of one man (in our case Theodotos the Aetolian, later Antiochus' first-born son of the same name), as in the time of Alexander.

News of the victory had prompted Antiochus' uncle Acheus to go for an all-or-nothing attack against Syria, supported by a diverse coalition of Anatolian city-states and petty Kingdoms, in the hopes of installing himself as king in Antioch and curbing his nephew's growing strength. However, managing contingents stemming from Pergamon all the way to Armenia proved to not be so easy, and the coalition was soundly defeated by Antiochus returning force before the walls of Antioch. Acheus fled back west, where he has eventually captured after the fall of Sardis to Antiochus' forces. Pergamon was burned down as a reminder to all not to challenge Seleucid authority, and most of Anatolia swore allegiance to the King of Asia.

With his reign secured and his treasury refilled, Antiochus embarked on his "Anabasis" due east, trying to emulate Alexander. There, he defeated the Parthians, who fled north, as well as the breakaway satrapy-turned-kingdom of Baktria, whose ruler Euthydemus was executed. Antiochus then continued into India, where, recognizing the difficulties posed by the terrain and climate, he concluded a treaty of friendship with the Indian monarch Sophagasenus, receiving 150 elephants.

Putting down a minor Arab rebellion in the Persian gulf on his way back, Antiochus once more arrived in Egypt, and spent the next 9 years more or less shuffling back and forth between Alexandria and Antioch.

Events came to a head in 195 BC, when Rhodes, impressed by the Romans after their victory over Hannibal, stopped paying tribute, and where joined by other Agean cities. Antiochus set off to campaign against them, using his overwhelming numbers to force them back into submission. Rhodes meanwhile was defeated at sea by a huge Seleucid fleet commanded by none other than Hannibal himself. Again determined to make an example, Antiochus had Hannibal sack Rhodes.

Emboldened by his victory, Antiochus crossed the Hellespont into Greece 2 years later, and was crowned King by the nobles of Macedonia, who had Phillip deposed and executed. Antiochus also received the support of the Aetolian League and of Sparta, and with their help and with Hannibal besides him, he fought the Romans over Greece for the next 6 years, during which he occasionally made his way by sea to Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch in Syria to settle affairs of state.

The war however was proving to be expensive (besides leaving most of Macedonia in utter ruin), and his adversaries the Romans strong. Eventually, Antiochus decided to cut his losses, and struck a deal with Rome: the Republic would get to extend its sphere of influence over all of mainland Greece up to the Hellespont, whilst he would keep everything east of that.

The great monarch lived several more years after this, enjoying the luxuries of his palaces in Alexandria, Antioch and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. His death however would bring about a civil war between his eldest son Antiochus (born to his first wife Laodice) and his youngest, Ptolemy (born to Arsinoe), which brought with it a rebellion of most of the outlying vassals and satrapies. Among these, the most prominent was Upper Egypt...
 
So, again, if anyone wants to continue this, please go ahead.

Also,your thoughts on the reign of Antiochus III ? Did he do too poorly against Rome, having all the resources of the east at his back, along with a genius like Hannibal ? Did Pergamon fall too quickly ?
 
You should pick this up again at some point Magnum; you have flair.

If Antiokhos had controlled his cavalry instead of charging of into the wild blue... Magnesia was an Attalid victory, won by the Pergamese horse, just as Numidian horse won Zama for Scipio. No Allied horse; no Roman victory. Those Egyptian pezhetaroi will be going east; not left behind to foster rebellion. With Arsinoe and the Alexandrian archives to hand it is going to emerge that Achaeus' 'treason' is a lie and with the example of Sosibous before them, the house will be cleaned. The Arascids and Diodotids might be destroyed, but their horse will be very useful in the west, as will a greatly enlarged elephant park. With a veritable Seleukid Colossos to his East, I doubt Philip V will be meddling in Italy, so their will be no reason for Roman involvement in Greece. With Achaeus rehabilitated Anatolia doesn't have to be reconquered again. Instead of fighting in Coele-Syria again in 200, I think we would see campaigning in Illyria at this time. Matters in Greece are going to be sown up in Seleukid favour well before Hannibal has to evacuate Italy.

Having recreated Alexander's kingdom and hegomony, Antiokhos will be drawn to liberating the Western Greeks. His policy having been more Mediterranean focussed, he will have become aware of Rome and her Socii's atonishing ability to spam legions.

What will arrive in Italy won't be an advance force such as iotl he had to evacuate from Thermopylae; but the full force of his kingdom: the combined phalanxes of Makedon, Egyptos and the Seleukid lands; Bactrian and Pergamese horse; Parthian cataphracts and horse-archers; Galatian and Thracian mercenanries; the armies of the Hellenic leagues. Oh, and a siege train to impress Demetrius. It'l be bloody, but the expression of later 'It is down to the chalkispides' will reflect that what might be the less politically reliable will be storied and gloried but have done the brunt of the dying!

Hannibal was operating in Italy essentialy freelance: he could only haemorrhage troops no mater how well he did but it still took the Republic fifteen years to shoo him back to Africa. They defeated widely separated and un-coordinated Carthaginian efforts that were essentially without state support. They could not have accomplished this without the Socii and the final victory would not have been achieved if they had not prised Numidia out of the Punic orbit.

The half century long conquest of the Greek east was similarly serial; another prolonged game of divide and conquer that couldn't have been done without turning the Hellenistic states against themsleves and a reliance on other people's cavalry. Against a united Hellenistic world I wouldn't see the Roman armies doing anything but being impaled on kontos and sarissa. And they would be increasingly Roman armies. The Socii did not defect because they saw that Hannibal, for all his prowess, was only a maverick general with a few tens of thousand mercenaries cut off from home and devoid of the possibility of reinforcement.

But what if we keep the Roman - Seluekid collision to more or less the dates of our timline and fought over Greece and Anatolia? Antiokhos has much more strength in both unity and depth now. With the wealth of Egyptos and the Eastern satrapies plus their being much more secure, Antiochos has deeper pckets and more resources. The fight will be prolonged but it will be on home ground: the united Hellenes against the babarians and some 'romanising' traitors. Iotl the endless campaigning in the East stretched Rome and if you look at the evidence you can see the cracks. It is okay spamming tens of legions on home turf, but having to play away against a true peer power with seemingly infinte sinews of men and money and an Art of War that the rest of the world is measured against; that is surely going to require a level force and a length of enlistment that the Republic cannot stand.
 
Yeah, I thought about giving Antiochus the win in Greece, but figured it would be too much of a wank (considering that he had other commitments as well, and that the legion proved able to defeat the phalanx, it's not an unreasonable assumption).

Still, he did get to keep the Aegean Islands and everything east of them, so it wasn't a total wash.

Plus, mainland Greece is kinda ravaged right now, further strengthening the exodus of Hellenes towards the Nile Delta, Syria and Mesopotamia.

Here's a little map of the Empire and its vassal states at the end of his rule I tried making but forgot to post - note: borders in the east may vary

800px-dgszMiddle_East_topographic_map-blank.jpg

edit: forgot to color Crete ...

800px-dgszMiddle_East_topographic_map-blank.jpg
 
The legion may or may not have been superior to the phalanx. The crucial thing was the cavalry. Poor control of his cavalry lost Antiokhos both Raphia and Magnesia. Pydna was a meeting engagement on bad ground that happened because of poor reconnaissance, a cavalry function. The Makedonians had access to only limited cavalry at this time. Your Romans don't have the Attalid horse. Another Roman advantage was a deeper manpower pool; they have lost that as well. In OTL Rome repeatedly lost large armies, sometimes two or three close together. Massive defeats would regularly punctuate their history for the next...well, until the Ottomans snuffed out Trebizond. Antiokhos has just replicated Alexandros' Anabasis and similarly found himself having to storm forts in hill country. The Pezhetaroi originated from the peltast; not the hoplite and would perforce have rediscovered their dual function of employing both pike and javelin. Thureophoroi, good medium infantry not that dissimilar to hastatii, have developed. Philip and Alexander invented the Makedonian playbook; Antiokhos only has to implement it. Rinse and repeat. Another thing: generals; the Romans had more of them and didn't have to worry they might revolt. ITTL Antiokhos is fimly in control. He has Ptolemaic admirals Hannibal and Kleomenes are beholden to him. Akhaios can be reconciled. Arsinoe can handle the government. Bactrian, Egyptian and Makedonian officers can be shuffled thousands of miles from where they might have a powerbase, commanding troops that aren't their countrymen and similarly far from home. Wanks abound in real history. Alexandros was a wank. Rome was a wank. Powers reach a critical mass and become unstoppable.
Hmm, what do you think? Workable? I do seem to have a lot of material immediately to hand and Grouchio has posted a lot of detailed and useful material also I notice. Would anyone else like to comment on what I have sketched? I do have a bit of a bee-in-the-bonnet about Antiokhos; I should write it up rather than play Monday morning quarter-back if folk think it is in anyway reasonable!

 
I did a thing...again.
-
Imperium of the Selucids: At a Glance the Reign of Antiochus
By Manos Payatakis


"In history's history books there is no small debate about who was more deserving of the title of the Great between Alexander the Great and Antiochus the Great. From contemporaries of Antiochus during his reign to Werner and Livingstone of our day the debate has raged on and on through the centuries and millennium. Alexander started with very little and conquered the majority of the territory that would make up the Kingdom of Antiochus, but Antiochus did it facing off against the same model of armies that Alexander and his father made while Alexander faced a backward army, but the army of the Persians was much larger and Antiochus received more support from an established system of governors and generals but Alexander...etc and etc.

All in all the men measure up well against one another in the minds of historians and more popular media, but Alexander does inch out in the latter (despite Theo Van's portrayal of Antiochus winning award after award and beating out Alexander's movie in theaters of that year). In my opinion on the matter I would say that Alexander was the better conqueror and that Antiochus was the better ruler. Though, perhaps if not for the fickle whim of the Fates and a bout of the plague Antiochus may have been the man that Alexander would have become.

Regardless of comparing the two men, Antiochus's achievements were the envy of men through the ages, his empire being trumpeted as a golden age, but in truth the enviable years of his rule only came in the latter years and even then it was plagued by mishaps. A plague here and a local revolt there, worst of all what would be the start of a bloody civil war which would roll back Antiochus' imperium would begin before the man had died in the years as his grip weakened and his mind became feeble.

Here though we will take a look at his Imperium in what men of today and yesterday considered the peak of his rule.

Seleucia on the Tigris is a paradise for the Hellene Nobility, the center of the Imperium it is the administrative city and often neck in neck with Alexandria for being the wealthiest and most culturally diverse. Indeed, while primarily a playground for the Hellenic nobility it is also a melting pot of the local Assyrians, and Iranians as well as Hellenic settlers but not limited to Egyptian, Arab, Phoenician, Armenian, and Indo-Iranianic traders. Even sporting a very small Roman and Jewish ghettos. It is the Garden of the Ferticle Crescent as much as it is the Gateway to the East and Crown of Antiochus. With the upswing of Hellenic migrants fleeing the chaos of Hellas the Iranian Plateau has seen an ever increasing amount of settlement by Hellenic settlers, largely living in their own constructed settlements (sometimes on top of older Iranian ones) they largely keep to themselves unless their is a local servile population in the farming valleys. They are a source of very reliable soldiers for Antiochus' army.

Sweeping further east the rule of Antiochus does get somewhat thinner on the ground, but here in the Greco-Buddhist cities of Bactria and Transoxiana he is recognized as king and protector by both Hellenes and local Sogdians. There is a major military outpost close to the city of Antiochus on the Oxus which is there to keep an eye on the steppe nomads as much the Indians of the Subcontinent and the Empire of the Indus. The region is undergoing a cultural renaissance as the mix of Hellenic and Buddhist influences a new and popular cultural art and religious form. Here, Heracles is seen as the Protector of the Buddha and Apollo is "The Illuminator of the Mind's Darkness". These influences are trickling out in all directions, back West toward the Mediterranean and eastward across the Tibetan Mountains and the Tarim Basin toward the Pacific Coast.

In the Asian Minor the influence of Antiochus is felt a bit more heavy handedly amongst the semi-independent satrapies of the Anatolian Heartlands, but one cannot doubt his influence here after crushing the Galatian Gauls and forcing them to recognize his superiority and to get them to make peace and throw out their constant raids on their neighbors. The rise of Hellenism is particularly strong in this region with Hellenic settlers streaming in. Relations with the Armenian Kingdom is chilly at best, but while there had been some whispers of the Armenians seeking Roman aid the Armenians are not willing to go to war on their own and at least one of the possible heirs to the throne is a known Grecophile. Antiochus also stares straight across the Aegean at the Romans and their local puppets, if the King had more energy perhaps another go at the Romans would be in order, but for now the Seleucid navy relentlessly patrols the Aegean Islands and chases off the occasional Roman naval ship, Pergamon being the center of Seleucid naval activity after it was annexed.

Further down along the coast into the Levant trade is still king in cities like Tyre, the Phoenicians quite willing to recognize Antiochus' rule though there is a stirring of Anti-Hellenic riots in Judea. The Phoenicians though look toward the Seleucids to help maintain their trade and far flung communities alongside the Hellenic ones, a very ironic position in history but with the Romans the new threat the once enemy becomes the friend. Further south the Nabataean Kingdom has sworn fealty to the Seleucids, though well enough independent the rulers in Petra have become quite the Grecophiles, remodeling their cave city in the Greek Image and even pushing the religious syncreticism of Al-Uzza combined with Isis and Aphrodite further south along their many trade routes into the heartlands of the Arabian Peninsula.

Finally Egypt (and by extension along the coastline of Cyrenaica) is at one heartland of Antiochus' Imperium and at the same time champing at the bit for release. It is both the strongest cultural and economic center and at the same time an insular region. For the most part the Ptolemies through Arisone have joined with the Seleucids, his dynasty would be referred more then once as the Ptole-Seleucid Dynasty through his son, Ptolemy. As mentioned the influence of Hellenism here was particularly strong in Alexandria and in the Fayyum expanse, the local Greco-Egyptian syncretism long trumpeted by the Ptolemies even if not enthusiastically picked up if at all by the Egyptians themselves. A line which has only slightly blurred in Lower Egypt but has remained rather apart in Upper Egypt where Greek influences have been minor and telling enough the local military and administration is purely local. Unity and Division exists in Egypt and it would only be a few years until it exploded in on itself.

Indeed, while the clouds were not dark they were certainly moving by 187 BC, Antiochus was old and only getting older. The matter of succession would certainly a matter of discussion..."
 
Top