Chapter Thirty-Nine
Chapter Thirty-Nine: The Empire Long Divided...
The reign of Argeus I is, in some ways, a turning point. For the first time since 306 BCE (with the formal dissolution of Alexander's empire), the old Hellenistic empire was reunited under a single king. Finally, some 126 years later (counting from 180 BCE with the death of Gorgias I and the dissolution of the Polyphontic kingdom), a single Hellenistic king ruled from Greece in the west to Bactria in the east, from Sogdiana to Egypt and, nominally at least, even into Nubia. It was, at the time, the largest empire in the world and, under Argeus' rule, it would finally reach its political, economic, and cultural height. Of course, that wasn't due to happen right away and the first few years of Argeus' reign would prove... difficult in many ways. Of particular note was the continued issue of actually restabilising the Upper Satrapies and putting down pro-Polyphontic or otherwise secessionist tendencies. Amongst his many concerns was the large number of central Asian peoples who had moved into Sogdiana and Parthia over the last 30 years, many of whom had settled in Sogdiana but others of whom had come into the service of Gorgias I and II during the rise of the Polyphontic kingdom.
Between 184 and 180 BCE, Argeus had started dealing with this problem by effectively trying to fold these same elements into his own armed forces, establishing a series of deals with different central Asian groups through which he could access their cavalry strength for his own benefits. This had worked wonders and, by the time of Gorgias I's death in 180, Argeus possessed a rather significant cavalry force. Iranian and Central Asian cavalry would continue to form a very significant part of Argeus' army in the years to come, even as he attempted to try and integrate the Ptolemaic and Seleucid military systems and manpower sources. Indeed, when Argeus fought the Romans during the 170s, his cavalry seems to have been as much as 60% Saka or Parni with another 20-30% being Persian and only a few being of Greek origin. Nevertheless, Argeus would continue to face sporadic raiding parties or uprisings through the Upper Satrapies for years to come, both in the form of Polyphontic resurgence movements (most famously the revolt of 175 BCE) and just others who disliked the encroachment of Argeus' power. Still, centralised power (as it were) in the upper satrapies would never quite be the same as it was under Antiochus II, especially in the furthest eastern regions such as Bactria and, indeed, Sogdiana which would remain as semi-autonomous satrapies throughout Argeus' reign. In particular, the satraps of Bactria, going forward, would often have to be treated with as being almost foreign kings and tended to not always obey the king's directives. With that said, this was a situation which would work well, at least under Argeus, as Bactria and Sogdiana continued to pay tribute and provide soldiers without the need for any direct interventionism and all the costs that would entail.
At the local level, this was a situation which would allow Sogdiana and Bactria both to prosper under their respective dynasties. In the case of Sogdiana, the relevant dynasty is the so-called Anakletiads (named after the first satrap of Sogdiana after Gorgias I's death, Anakletos). Anakletos, a Greco-Egyptian general from Alexandria, would be placed in command of Sogdiana and would remain devoted to Argeus until his death in 167 BCE at which point Argeus gave command over to his son, Damianos, and, from there, Sogdiana came back under effectively dynastic rule. In Bactria, the Megasthenic dynasty continued under Dionysios and his descendants. Some people have suggested that what Argeus did here was a huge mistake and, in some ways, it is easy to see why. Effectively, Argeus was surrendering the royal ability to dictate who governed these two regions at will and reducing royal involvement to a rubber stamp of these dynastic lines. In the long run, this effectively strengthened regional powerbases and reduced royal authority quite dramatically. On the other hand, however, it also allowed reduced the expenditure and interventionism required in both regions. Certainly, under Argeus I and II, there seems to have been no break in trade routes to and from the centre of the empire and no point at which this situation prevented the king from marching through or into these lands with his armies. Seleucid judges continued to travel, laws were promulgated and we still see Seleucid letters popping up in cities through networks of benefaction. Indeed, if we were to go by epigraphic evidence alone, we could easily be fooled into thinking that nothing had changed.
For example, two inscriptions, one in Ai Khanoum from the reign of Antiochus II (around 240 BCE) and another from Bactria during that of Argeus I are effectively identical and make no mention of local dynasts or powerholders in any way shape or form. The only clear break we see in tradition is that, from 210 or so onwards, we start to see other, local, benefactions in greater numbers. That is to say, these local dynasts begin to promulgate their own letters and benefactions in greater quantities and on larger scales than previously. Under Diomedes, Seleucid inscriptions die off, especially after 200 BCE, and only really pick up again in 182 with the earliest known Argeus I inscription in Bactria. What is also interesting is that, under Argeus I, no fewer than 53 inscriptions have been found across Bactria and Sogdiana, of which 31 are from the period between 180 and 170 BCE. It seems that this period saw extensive benefactions and royally funded building works across both satrapies shortly after Argeus' reconquest in the late 180s, probably as he attempted to consolidate his power and secure his rule. Certainly, Argeus would travel through the Upper Satrapies almost every year between 180 and 178 BCE, fighting several battles and generally trying to prop up his own control in the region.
Alongside Sogdiana and Bactria, Persia was of real concern. This, of course, had been the powerbase of Gorgias Soter and many there still remained loyal to his cause. In 181 BCE, several of Soter's supporters were purged and both trials and 'sudden deaths' would continue throughout the early 170s. Some cities were banned from having walls and a series of new garrisons appear dotted around Persia from the 180s onwards. Perhaps the most drastic impact, however, was Argeus' forced relocation of several thousand Persians in 179 BCE and their movement to Syria. Many of these seem to have been bureaucrats with a few poets and other literary figures and the goal seems to have been largely to help strip some of the cultural 'power' of Persia and bring as many resources back to Syria as possible. Certainly, it was here that Argeus now attempted to create the very centrepiece of his empire. In 177 BCE, Argeus returned to Antioch where he set about repairing much of the damage caused by Aristarchus. Of note, he rebuilt damaged sections of the old Seleucus III-era library, repaired the walls and otherwise encouraged urban growth. In truth, Argeus left a reasonably small impact on Antioch beyond just repairing the damage of the last few decades at least in terms of direct royal building programmes. There are certainly some developments worth noting; the construction of a new shrine to Dionysus just outside of the royal necropolis as well as a brand-new 'Demetrium' to honour his adoptive father, the deceased prince Demetrios. Argeus is also said to have added a new wing to the palace complex. Perhaps the most dramatic addition, at least within the royal necropolis, was the construction of a monumental stoa across from the main entrance to the complex.
Architecturally, the stoa is interesting. It was a two-story stoa (quite unusual in its own way) with two rows of columns in each level. On the ground floor, the columns were largely of the Corinthian order on the outside with thinner Ionic columns on the inside. On the upper level, the order was reversed with Ionic columns on the outside and a series of Corinthian columns on the inside. Entering the complex, a visitor would have been unable to see the tombs at first, hidden as they were by the stoa and were forced either to go around the structure or through it, entering the actual burial grounds through doorways at either end of the structure which would take visitors through low, dark, corridors until they emerged into the bright light of the necropolis and were confronted with the tombs of past Seleucid kings. This was important because it shows a very Hellenistic choice in playing with light and dark in contemporary architecture. That is to say that, for a visitor, the stoa effectively disguised the site until they, quite literally, emerged from the darkness into the bright sunshine and would be met with the grandeur of the old tombs. It also forced the visitor to reckon with the ideology and imagery of Argeus himself. The back wall of the stoa was brightly painted with images of mythological scenes taken from the stories of Dionysus (one of Argeus' own patron god and, as a conqueror of the 'east', a very relevant topic for the king), Herakles (another traveller and conqueror god and one quite popular amongst Argeus' soldiers) and, between both, Apollo the dynastic god of the Seleucids. Placed below these were captured shields and weapons given as dedications from all across the empire. It was, in effect, masterful propaganda. A visitor was not only faced with three gods relevant to Argeus' ideology (all of which he could claim descent from), but a clear reminder of his own many victories and of the sheer scale and diversity of those he had conquered.
Within the complex itself, Argeus also took the time to spruce up the environment. The tombs themselves were reminiscent of old Macedonian tombs; large tumuli with buried architectural elements. They did, however, take things a good few steps further than the old Argead tombs. Of note was their sheer size, a good deal larger than most of the Argead tombs at Aigai and utilising architectural elements in a manner more reminiscent of certain 4th-Century tombs in Thrace rather than in Macedonia. Of course, this was not universal since tomb design had changed over time. For instance, Seleucus 'Nikator's' tomb, built around 179 BCE, is very reminiscent of the tombs at Aigai as are those of Antiochus I, Seleucus II and Antiochus II. From the time of Seleucus III onwards, we see tumuli being raised somewhat both through retaining walls and through positions on higher ground, forcing the visitor to literally climb up to them. This was not usually done in the tombs at Aigai (not deliberately anyway) but is seen in at least one 4th Century Thracian tomb. Exactly which tomb is which is not always clear to us; Tomb A has been positively identified as that of Antiochus II although any grave goods (and the body) are now lost. Tomb B has been suggested as being either Antiochus I or Seleucus II while Tomb C is, sometimes controversially, designated as that of Seleucus Nikator (although some have suggested it to be Antiochus I). Tomb F is the fourth of these 'early' tombs and must be either Antiochus I, Seleucus Nikator or Seleucus II depending on who you ask although it is the smallest of the tombs at the Antioch necropolis. Many of these seem to have been located directly behind the stoa itself, probably because they were built before the site itself was expanded under Argeus II.
Tombs D and E are smaller, and have been positively identified as Seleucus III and Antiochus III respectively such that Tomb G, surprisingly a good deal bigger, is most likely that of Seleucus IV and was probably built by Argeus in the 180s or 70s. By this point, the old boundary of the necropolis was becoming limiting and Argeus I instituted the first expansion to the north around the same time at which he was building the tomb of Seleucus IV. At around the same time, Argeus erected a series of free-standing columns topped with relevant statues; Alexander the Great, Seleucus Nikator, Antiochus II and Apollo. Later, Argeus II would expand the complex dramatically to fit the tomb of his own father. Not far from the site was a second necropolis which has been termed the 'Queen's Necropolis' although the term is somewhat misleading. Here, a series of smaller tumuli were found which were traditionally designated being the tumuli of Seleucid queens. Several were most likely those of queens and Tomb 14 was positively identified as Apama, Seleucus 'Nikator's' wife a few years ago, but not all of them seem to have been. In 2018, archaeologists excavating at the site found a small shrine just outside of Tomb 11 which was identified as a Demetrium, leading to the conclusion that the occupant of Tomb 11 was most likely Demetrios himself. Certainly, literary sources confirm that Argeus paid tribute to both Prince Antiochus (his biological father) and Demetrios at Antioch upon first taking the city, suggesting that this secondary necropolis was reserved for Seleucid royal family members who were not kings.
So why am I talking about this? Well aside from the fact that it is interesting, it has an interesting parallel to what Argeus did in Egypt. His building works on the royal necropolis in Alexandria would have to wait until the 160s and 50s but they were on a much smaller scale due to the more limited space (notably, the royal necropolis in Alexandria was inside the palace complex and, yes, was the burial place of Alexander). Here, Argeus erected another series of statues (although we don't know whether they were on columns) including one of Alexander identical to that in Antioch, Ptolemy I, Ptolemy II and Dionysus. Another series of statues would also be erected at Aigai including Alexander, Philip, Olympias (interestingly enough), and Heracles. These statues seem to have been an attempt to connect these three burial sites and begin to create a joined ideology of royal descent. Argeus' entire claim to power rested on him claiming ties to both the Seleucid and Ptolemaic royal families (and to the Argeads via the Ptolemies). This gave him potential descent from three gods and connections to a lot of powerful kings who were buried all over the place. As such, Argeus was trying to stamp his presence and image all across these burial sites, reinforcing the notion of his own descent from these powerful figures and tying their legacy intimately to himself.
Outside of Antioch, Argeus actually had a much larger impact. Syria would see a series growth in population and urbanisation under Argeus, reaching perhaps as many as 6 million people by around 150 BCE. Antioch, of course, grew as did Seleukeia-on-Orontes and Apamea but population growth has been noted all across Syria and as far as Phoenicia. Sometime around 164 BCE, the city of Tyre would be 'refounded' as an official polis and, by this point, the city seems to have had quite an extensive Greek population alongside its Phoenician population. Of note, Argeus set about a series of major changes to the road networks in southern Syria and Judaea, working to rationalise and join the Ptolemaic and Seleucid road networks more thoroughly to promote trade and interactions. Ports were expanded along the Syrian coast and, through his authority over Cyprus, garrisons established on the island to help protect trade. In particular, Argeus seems to have been at great pains to ensure easy transport between Antioch and Alexandria, probably to help protect his position in Egypt even when he was away. What he never did was fully adjoin the political systems of both. It is interesting that, even in the reign of Argeus II, Cyprus and the Nesiotic League are still referred to as having ties with 'Egypt' or 'the Ptolemies'. At no point did Argeus ever truly attempt to create a uniform system of governance across both regions and, to some degree, Egypt and the Seleucid Empire seem to have been governed both separately and as a single empire. Certainly, the Romans seem to have viewed Argeus as ruling a single unified empire but Argeus' own documentation does not always support this. In Egypt, at least, Argeus still uses Ptolemaic and Egyptian titulary and there is no attempt to replace the old Ptolemaic administration.
Indeed, during the early periods, we see very little cross-movement of administrators either. Anakletos, who took over Sogdiana in 180, is a very rare example of a Greco-Egyptian entering the Seleucid administrative system. While we do hear of a uptake in the numbers of people from Syria, Anatolia, and Central Asia in Egypt, there is no evidence that they were included in the Egyptian administrative system. In some of the more odd cases, we know that cities even in Asia Minor and Greece still paid allegiance to either the Seleucid Empire or Ptolemaic Egypt and Argeus himself doesn't seem to have attempted to really do anything about that since the result was effectively the same. What we certainly do see is a much greater ease (and volume) of movement between Egypt and, especially, Syria during this period. In the 150s, an author claimed that it was not uncommon for people to travel between Antioch and Alexandria on a frequent basis to the point at which he asks whether an Antiochean would have more in common with an Alexandrian than either would with Greeks living elsewhere in Syria or Egypt respectively. Indeed, during the reign of Argeus I, we begin to see references to an identity known as 'Antiochean', a distinct social identity comparable to the 'Alexandrians' of Egypt which would, under his successor, be a legally recognised identity separate from the population of Syria at large.
Movement between major libraries seems to have been quite common under Argeus as well. Certainly, a flourishing industry of literary copying took place as copies of various books were made and moved, probably due to royal orders, between some of the Seleucus III-era libraries. This is, incidentally, confirmed by a note found in excavations near Oxyrhynchus and dating to around 167 BCE. The note in question (designated P. Oxy. 672) is a letter addressed to a scholar at the Library of Alexandria by the name of Irenaeus by a powerful local official enquiring about the arrival of 'those copies ordered from Ant[ioch]'. Incidentally, this same Irenaeus would later become the head of the library in 162 BCE and is known to have spent in Antioch, visiting both the king and library on several occasions. Later, a young Euphemios is known to have travelled extensively between Alexandria and Antioch and his work on the Siege of Tyre actually had two copies made from the outset, one for each library.
This does not mean that Antioch was a capital city. Argeus, in fact, returned to the system of several 'royal cities' including Pella, Sardis, Seleukeia (refounded in 184 BCE), Babylon (because Seleukeia, in 180 BCE, was still small and badly damaged), Ecbatana and Alexandria amongst others. However, Antioch and Alexandria do appear in our sources as the most prominent of these although we should note that that is, in part, because they were the two main literary centres of the empire and produced a lot of written sources and thus have a certain bias in their perception. Still, the general centre of Seleucid power under Argeus does appear to have been largely based around the Levant, running up from Egypt to Syria, a region which absolutely flourished in the 2nd Century. Syria is the most dramatic example of growth but Judaea also seems to have seen some reasonably largescale development, partly because of Argeus' own good relationship with the Jewish population, a holdover from the Ptolemies who had also enjoyed good relations with the Jews, both in Judaea and in Egypt itself. Jewish soldiers continued to be an important part of Argeus' armies and it is said that he maintained a personal bodyguard comprised mostly of Jewish and Nubian soldiers from his own campaigns in Nubia in the 190s.
The reign of Argeus I is, in some ways, a turning point. For the first time since 306 BCE (with the formal dissolution of Alexander's empire), the old Hellenistic empire was reunited under a single king. Finally, some 126 years later (counting from 180 BCE with the death of Gorgias I and the dissolution of the Polyphontic kingdom), a single Hellenistic king ruled from Greece in the west to Bactria in the east, from Sogdiana to Egypt and, nominally at least, even into Nubia. It was, at the time, the largest empire in the world and, under Argeus' rule, it would finally reach its political, economic, and cultural height. Of course, that wasn't due to happen right away and the first few years of Argeus' reign would prove... difficult in many ways. Of particular note was the continued issue of actually restabilising the Upper Satrapies and putting down pro-Polyphontic or otherwise secessionist tendencies. Amongst his many concerns was the large number of central Asian peoples who had moved into Sogdiana and Parthia over the last 30 years, many of whom had settled in Sogdiana but others of whom had come into the service of Gorgias I and II during the rise of the Polyphontic kingdom.
Between 184 and 180 BCE, Argeus had started dealing with this problem by effectively trying to fold these same elements into his own armed forces, establishing a series of deals with different central Asian groups through which he could access their cavalry strength for his own benefits. This had worked wonders and, by the time of Gorgias I's death in 180, Argeus possessed a rather significant cavalry force. Iranian and Central Asian cavalry would continue to form a very significant part of Argeus' army in the years to come, even as he attempted to try and integrate the Ptolemaic and Seleucid military systems and manpower sources. Indeed, when Argeus fought the Romans during the 170s, his cavalry seems to have been as much as 60% Saka or Parni with another 20-30% being Persian and only a few being of Greek origin. Nevertheless, Argeus would continue to face sporadic raiding parties or uprisings through the Upper Satrapies for years to come, both in the form of Polyphontic resurgence movements (most famously the revolt of 175 BCE) and just others who disliked the encroachment of Argeus' power. Still, centralised power (as it were) in the upper satrapies would never quite be the same as it was under Antiochus II, especially in the furthest eastern regions such as Bactria and, indeed, Sogdiana which would remain as semi-autonomous satrapies throughout Argeus' reign. In particular, the satraps of Bactria, going forward, would often have to be treated with as being almost foreign kings and tended to not always obey the king's directives. With that said, this was a situation which would work well, at least under Argeus, as Bactria and Sogdiana continued to pay tribute and provide soldiers without the need for any direct interventionism and all the costs that would entail.
At the local level, this was a situation which would allow Sogdiana and Bactria both to prosper under their respective dynasties. In the case of Sogdiana, the relevant dynasty is the so-called Anakletiads (named after the first satrap of Sogdiana after Gorgias I's death, Anakletos). Anakletos, a Greco-Egyptian general from Alexandria, would be placed in command of Sogdiana and would remain devoted to Argeus until his death in 167 BCE at which point Argeus gave command over to his son, Damianos, and, from there, Sogdiana came back under effectively dynastic rule. In Bactria, the Megasthenic dynasty continued under Dionysios and his descendants. Some people have suggested that what Argeus did here was a huge mistake and, in some ways, it is easy to see why. Effectively, Argeus was surrendering the royal ability to dictate who governed these two regions at will and reducing royal involvement to a rubber stamp of these dynastic lines. In the long run, this effectively strengthened regional powerbases and reduced royal authority quite dramatically. On the other hand, however, it also allowed reduced the expenditure and interventionism required in both regions. Certainly, under Argeus I and II, there seems to have been no break in trade routes to and from the centre of the empire and no point at which this situation prevented the king from marching through or into these lands with his armies. Seleucid judges continued to travel, laws were promulgated and we still see Seleucid letters popping up in cities through networks of benefaction. Indeed, if we were to go by epigraphic evidence alone, we could easily be fooled into thinking that nothing had changed.
For example, two inscriptions, one in Ai Khanoum from the reign of Antiochus II (around 240 BCE) and another from Bactria during that of Argeus I are effectively identical and make no mention of local dynasts or powerholders in any way shape or form. The only clear break we see in tradition is that, from 210 or so onwards, we start to see other, local, benefactions in greater numbers. That is to say, these local dynasts begin to promulgate their own letters and benefactions in greater quantities and on larger scales than previously. Under Diomedes, Seleucid inscriptions die off, especially after 200 BCE, and only really pick up again in 182 with the earliest known Argeus I inscription in Bactria. What is also interesting is that, under Argeus I, no fewer than 53 inscriptions have been found across Bactria and Sogdiana, of which 31 are from the period between 180 and 170 BCE. It seems that this period saw extensive benefactions and royally funded building works across both satrapies shortly after Argeus' reconquest in the late 180s, probably as he attempted to consolidate his power and secure his rule. Certainly, Argeus would travel through the Upper Satrapies almost every year between 180 and 178 BCE, fighting several battles and generally trying to prop up his own control in the region.
Alongside Sogdiana and Bactria, Persia was of real concern. This, of course, had been the powerbase of Gorgias Soter and many there still remained loyal to his cause. In 181 BCE, several of Soter's supporters were purged and both trials and 'sudden deaths' would continue throughout the early 170s. Some cities were banned from having walls and a series of new garrisons appear dotted around Persia from the 180s onwards. Perhaps the most drastic impact, however, was Argeus' forced relocation of several thousand Persians in 179 BCE and their movement to Syria. Many of these seem to have been bureaucrats with a few poets and other literary figures and the goal seems to have been largely to help strip some of the cultural 'power' of Persia and bring as many resources back to Syria as possible. Certainly, it was here that Argeus now attempted to create the very centrepiece of his empire. In 177 BCE, Argeus returned to Antioch where he set about repairing much of the damage caused by Aristarchus. Of note, he rebuilt damaged sections of the old Seleucus III-era library, repaired the walls and otherwise encouraged urban growth. In truth, Argeus left a reasonably small impact on Antioch beyond just repairing the damage of the last few decades at least in terms of direct royal building programmes. There are certainly some developments worth noting; the construction of a new shrine to Dionysus just outside of the royal necropolis as well as a brand-new 'Demetrium' to honour his adoptive father, the deceased prince Demetrios. Argeus is also said to have added a new wing to the palace complex. Perhaps the most dramatic addition, at least within the royal necropolis, was the construction of a monumental stoa across from the main entrance to the complex.
Architecturally, the stoa is interesting. It was a two-story stoa (quite unusual in its own way) with two rows of columns in each level. On the ground floor, the columns were largely of the Corinthian order on the outside with thinner Ionic columns on the inside. On the upper level, the order was reversed with Ionic columns on the outside and a series of Corinthian columns on the inside. Entering the complex, a visitor would have been unable to see the tombs at first, hidden as they were by the stoa and were forced either to go around the structure or through it, entering the actual burial grounds through doorways at either end of the structure which would take visitors through low, dark, corridors until they emerged into the bright light of the necropolis and were confronted with the tombs of past Seleucid kings. This was important because it shows a very Hellenistic choice in playing with light and dark in contemporary architecture. That is to say that, for a visitor, the stoa effectively disguised the site until they, quite literally, emerged from the darkness into the bright sunshine and would be met with the grandeur of the old tombs. It also forced the visitor to reckon with the ideology and imagery of Argeus himself. The back wall of the stoa was brightly painted with images of mythological scenes taken from the stories of Dionysus (one of Argeus' own patron god and, as a conqueror of the 'east', a very relevant topic for the king), Herakles (another traveller and conqueror god and one quite popular amongst Argeus' soldiers) and, between both, Apollo the dynastic god of the Seleucids. Placed below these were captured shields and weapons given as dedications from all across the empire. It was, in effect, masterful propaganda. A visitor was not only faced with three gods relevant to Argeus' ideology (all of which he could claim descent from), but a clear reminder of his own many victories and of the sheer scale and diversity of those he had conquered.
Within the complex itself, Argeus also took the time to spruce up the environment. The tombs themselves were reminiscent of old Macedonian tombs; large tumuli with buried architectural elements. They did, however, take things a good few steps further than the old Argead tombs. Of note was their sheer size, a good deal larger than most of the Argead tombs at Aigai and utilising architectural elements in a manner more reminiscent of certain 4th-Century tombs in Thrace rather than in Macedonia. Of course, this was not universal since tomb design had changed over time. For instance, Seleucus 'Nikator's' tomb, built around 179 BCE, is very reminiscent of the tombs at Aigai as are those of Antiochus I, Seleucus II and Antiochus II. From the time of Seleucus III onwards, we see tumuli being raised somewhat both through retaining walls and through positions on higher ground, forcing the visitor to literally climb up to them. This was not usually done in the tombs at Aigai (not deliberately anyway) but is seen in at least one 4th Century Thracian tomb. Exactly which tomb is which is not always clear to us; Tomb A has been positively identified as that of Antiochus II although any grave goods (and the body) are now lost. Tomb B has been suggested as being either Antiochus I or Seleucus II while Tomb C is, sometimes controversially, designated as that of Seleucus Nikator (although some have suggested it to be Antiochus I). Tomb F is the fourth of these 'early' tombs and must be either Antiochus I, Seleucus Nikator or Seleucus II depending on who you ask although it is the smallest of the tombs at the Antioch necropolis. Many of these seem to have been located directly behind the stoa itself, probably because they were built before the site itself was expanded under Argeus II.
Tombs D and E are smaller, and have been positively identified as Seleucus III and Antiochus III respectively such that Tomb G, surprisingly a good deal bigger, is most likely that of Seleucus IV and was probably built by Argeus in the 180s or 70s. By this point, the old boundary of the necropolis was becoming limiting and Argeus I instituted the first expansion to the north around the same time at which he was building the tomb of Seleucus IV. At around the same time, Argeus erected a series of free-standing columns topped with relevant statues; Alexander the Great, Seleucus Nikator, Antiochus II and Apollo. Later, Argeus II would expand the complex dramatically to fit the tomb of his own father. Not far from the site was a second necropolis which has been termed the 'Queen's Necropolis' although the term is somewhat misleading. Here, a series of smaller tumuli were found which were traditionally designated being the tumuli of Seleucid queens. Several were most likely those of queens and Tomb 14 was positively identified as Apama, Seleucus 'Nikator's' wife a few years ago, but not all of them seem to have been. In 2018, archaeologists excavating at the site found a small shrine just outside of Tomb 11 which was identified as a Demetrium, leading to the conclusion that the occupant of Tomb 11 was most likely Demetrios himself. Certainly, literary sources confirm that Argeus paid tribute to both Prince Antiochus (his biological father) and Demetrios at Antioch upon first taking the city, suggesting that this secondary necropolis was reserved for Seleucid royal family members who were not kings.
So why am I talking about this? Well aside from the fact that it is interesting, it has an interesting parallel to what Argeus did in Egypt. His building works on the royal necropolis in Alexandria would have to wait until the 160s and 50s but they were on a much smaller scale due to the more limited space (notably, the royal necropolis in Alexandria was inside the palace complex and, yes, was the burial place of Alexander). Here, Argeus erected another series of statues (although we don't know whether they were on columns) including one of Alexander identical to that in Antioch, Ptolemy I, Ptolemy II and Dionysus. Another series of statues would also be erected at Aigai including Alexander, Philip, Olympias (interestingly enough), and Heracles. These statues seem to have been an attempt to connect these three burial sites and begin to create a joined ideology of royal descent. Argeus' entire claim to power rested on him claiming ties to both the Seleucid and Ptolemaic royal families (and to the Argeads via the Ptolemies). This gave him potential descent from three gods and connections to a lot of powerful kings who were buried all over the place. As such, Argeus was trying to stamp his presence and image all across these burial sites, reinforcing the notion of his own descent from these powerful figures and tying their legacy intimately to himself.
Outside of Antioch, Argeus actually had a much larger impact. Syria would see a series growth in population and urbanisation under Argeus, reaching perhaps as many as 6 million people by around 150 BCE. Antioch, of course, grew as did Seleukeia-on-Orontes and Apamea but population growth has been noted all across Syria and as far as Phoenicia. Sometime around 164 BCE, the city of Tyre would be 'refounded' as an official polis and, by this point, the city seems to have had quite an extensive Greek population alongside its Phoenician population. Of note, Argeus set about a series of major changes to the road networks in southern Syria and Judaea, working to rationalise and join the Ptolemaic and Seleucid road networks more thoroughly to promote trade and interactions. Ports were expanded along the Syrian coast and, through his authority over Cyprus, garrisons established on the island to help protect trade. In particular, Argeus seems to have been at great pains to ensure easy transport between Antioch and Alexandria, probably to help protect his position in Egypt even when he was away. What he never did was fully adjoin the political systems of both. It is interesting that, even in the reign of Argeus II, Cyprus and the Nesiotic League are still referred to as having ties with 'Egypt' or 'the Ptolemies'. At no point did Argeus ever truly attempt to create a uniform system of governance across both regions and, to some degree, Egypt and the Seleucid Empire seem to have been governed both separately and as a single empire. Certainly, the Romans seem to have viewed Argeus as ruling a single unified empire but Argeus' own documentation does not always support this. In Egypt, at least, Argeus still uses Ptolemaic and Egyptian titulary and there is no attempt to replace the old Ptolemaic administration.
Indeed, during the early periods, we see very little cross-movement of administrators either. Anakletos, who took over Sogdiana in 180, is a very rare example of a Greco-Egyptian entering the Seleucid administrative system. While we do hear of a uptake in the numbers of people from Syria, Anatolia, and Central Asia in Egypt, there is no evidence that they were included in the Egyptian administrative system. In some of the more odd cases, we know that cities even in Asia Minor and Greece still paid allegiance to either the Seleucid Empire or Ptolemaic Egypt and Argeus himself doesn't seem to have attempted to really do anything about that since the result was effectively the same. What we certainly do see is a much greater ease (and volume) of movement between Egypt and, especially, Syria during this period. In the 150s, an author claimed that it was not uncommon for people to travel between Antioch and Alexandria on a frequent basis to the point at which he asks whether an Antiochean would have more in common with an Alexandrian than either would with Greeks living elsewhere in Syria or Egypt respectively. Indeed, during the reign of Argeus I, we begin to see references to an identity known as 'Antiochean', a distinct social identity comparable to the 'Alexandrians' of Egypt which would, under his successor, be a legally recognised identity separate from the population of Syria at large.
Movement between major libraries seems to have been quite common under Argeus as well. Certainly, a flourishing industry of literary copying took place as copies of various books were made and moved, probably due to royal orders, between some of the Seleucus III-era libraries. This is, incidentally, confirmed by a note found in excavations near Oxyrhynchus and dating to around 167 BCE. The note in question (designated P. Oxy. 672) is a letter addressed to a scholar at the Library of Alexandria by the name of Irenaeus by a powerful local official enquiring about the arrival of 'those copies ordered from Ant[ioch]'. Incidentally, this same Irenaeus would later become the head of the library in 162 BCE and is known to have spent in Antioch, visiting both the king and library on several occasions. Later, a young Euphemios is known to have travelled extensively between Alexandria and Antioch and his work on the Siege of Tyre actually had two copies made from the outset, one for each library.
This does not mean that Antioch was a capital city. Argeus, in fact, returned to the system of several 'royal cities' including Pella, Sardis, Seleukeia (refounded in 184 BCE), Babylon (because Seleukeia, in 180 BCE, was still small and badly damaged), Ecbatana and Alexandria amongst others. However, Antioch and Alexandria do appear in our sources as the most prominent of these although we should note that that is, in part, because they were the two main literary centres of the empire and produced a lot of written sources and thus have a certain bias in their perception. Still, the general centre of Seleucid power under Argeus does appear to have been largely based around the Levant, running up from Egypt to Syria, a region which absolutely flourished in the 2nd Century. Syria is the most dramatic example of growth but Judaea also seems to have seen some reasonably largescale development, partly because of Argeus' own good relationship with the Jewish population, a holdover from the Ptolemies who had also enjoyed good relations with the Jews, both in Judaea and in Egypt itself. Jewish soldiers continued to be an important part of Argeus' armies and it is said that he maintained a personal bodyguard comprised mostly of Jewish and Nubian soldiers from his own campaigns in Nubia in the 190s.
