Chapter Thirty-Five: Everything Goes to Shit
Diomedes had never been especially popular with many people. However, the years after the death of Antiochus III saw his popularity begin an, ultimately terminal, nosedive. More and more, his position within the court aroused an ever-growing sense of discontent driven by rumours of his role in Antiochus' death and by his own heavy-handed antics within the court. The fact of the matter was, of course, that Seleucus IV did him no favours. See, when Seleucus first came to power back in 208 BCE, he had a reputation for not really caring about his empire and for his tendency to torture and kill animals. Well, that had all changed by about 204 or 203 BCE. Now instead of torturing and killing animals, he had fixed his attentions rather firmly on people and found, in the court, a whole slew of different people willing to supply him for his needs. In a satire, written during the 160s BCE, Diomedes is famously characterised as being effectively a pimp for Seleucus' psychotic tendencies, acquiring young women for the king to torture and kill. These accusations may well be overblown but it is clear that Seleucus did have a source of victims given the numbers mentioned in the sources which, even if overestimated, are terrifyingly high.
For a long time, the murders committed by Seleucus were considered apocryphal at best and there is no doubt that his successors (namely Argeus) played up his actions to portray him as an evil needing thwarted by a usurper. However, letters dating to the 170s and 160s BCE do attest to members of the Seleucid court who claimed to have seen Seleucus' crimes up close. If we read the traditional literary sources, Seleucus is credited with close to 70 murders between about 204 and 186 BCE. In truth, the numbers may well be lower than that with historians typically placing a 'true' number at between 20 and 30 maximum. That said, it is important not to downplay the impact of his actions upon those around him. Unfortunately, the names and lives of many of his victims have been lost save for the notable exception of Demetria, a fact which betrays the typically classist attitudes of those around him. Seleucus, most likely, was not killing aristocrats but lower class people acquired for him by members of the court eager to curry favour with the king. Bare in mind that, for many, there was no real legitimate alternative to the throne in the late 200s and 190s and too many people were invested in keeping their place within the court, a position which might be liable to change should the king also change. Diomedes' goal, most likely, was simply to replace Seleucus as soon as he had a viable successor but that would prove more difficult than he expected. Instead, then, the court chose simply to put up with their king, give him enough entertainment to keep him quiet and otherwise try to stifle the information before it could cause problems.
Not that that worked whatsoever. By the 190s, Seleucus had grown up and was starting to take a worrying interest in the affairs of state. By 198, at least, he was starting to demand that Diomedes allow him to meet with court officials more often and was growing displeased with Diomedes' control of the court and kingdom. Realising very quickly that the crux of Diomedes' power was Aristarchus, Seleucus made several attempts to break down the relationship between the two, only to find that the marriage alliance between Aristarchus and Diomedes via Demetria was close to unbreakable. While Diomedes had Aristarchus and Aristarchus had the royal bodyguard, Seleucus didn't have a leg to stand on. Instead, he began sneaking out of the palace and holding secret rendezvouses with other members of the court to establish what has been termed the 'secret' or 'mystery' court. This secret court would last all of seven years between 198 and 191 BCE and would be the means by which he would begin to try and wrest control of the palace from Diomedes. What this amounted to was an increasing collection of anti-Diomedes figures brought together under the auspices of Seleucus to act as his own power base with which to challenge the Hand of the King for dominance. At its heart, however, was his ace in the hole; Amestris, still effectively in house arrest back in Seleukeia.
His first real move came in 196 BCE when he declared his intention to celebrate his ancestors and tour the great cities of his empire including, of course, Seleukeia. Diomedes, finally seeing Seleucus take some interest in affairs of state, was wary of this but also knew that control over the empire required active engagement and involvement by the king. The fact of the matter was that very few people had actually seen Seleucus since his enthronement over a decade earlier and his sequestration in Antioch was beginning to raise dissent. So, Diomedes acquiesced and in 196 BCE the court went on the road. Upon their arrival in Seleukeia, however, Seleucus effectively ignored everything else and marched straight to the location where Amestris was residing. Taken by surprise, Diomedes attempted to have Seleucus stopped but was prevented from doing so by the intervention of Seleucus' allies who, very publicly, raised a fuss by loudly declaring that the Hand of the King was attempting to arrest Seleucus and take the throne. The result was a riot in the streets of Seleukeia during which several members of the court encouraged the people of the city to stop the usurpation in its tracks. Diomedes was able to put down the revolt with Aristarchus' help but it was too late, Seleucus had met up with Amestris and taken her into his protection. She was to accompany him wherever they went and, by 195 BCE, was finally back at the court. This, however, would prove to be the last clever move Seleucus would make before a series of schemes which might, generously, be termed 'hare-brained'.
This was where everything went wrong for basically everybody involved. Seleucus and Amestris began plotting; Diomedes still retained control of the court and so long as he did so, he effectively controlled the empire. As it stood, Seleucus and Amestris had access to what amounted to a handful of court officials in the face of Diomedes' overwhelming military power. Nor had the Hand of the King been idle during this and, in 195 BCE, he introduced the 'Eyes of the King', modelled after Achaemenid precedents. This amounted to a secret service intended to root out dissent and opposition to his control of the court which would remain active for several decades, even after Diomedes' downfall. It was also, however, his main counter against Seleucus' secret court. That same year, two of Seleucus' close allies were arrested and executed on entirely fabricated charges of treason. This convinced the two to finally pull the plug and act. In early 194 BCE, Aristarchus was sent west in response to rumours of a major revolt brewing in Ionia which Diomedes was eager to put down. In his absence, Seleucus took a direct swipe at the link between Aristarchus and Diomedes; Demetria. The murder of Demetria has become a well-known image of the Seleucid empire; the symbol of court intrigue taken to a brutal end by a whole slew of political actors too self-obsessed to care about the lives of those around them. It should come as no surprise; in August 194 BCE, Seleucus himself killed Demetria and her young son in a scene described by one of Argeus I's biographers as 'the worst murder ever known'.
The moments before the murder were very famously depicted in art including the 1st Century BCE statue entitled 'The Murder of Demetria', depicting the woman moments before her death. However, the art and even romanticism applied to her death often serves to obscure the very real life lost. Demetria is often undermentioned in our sources, her personality or achievements ignored in favour of the gory and brutal details of her death. However, it is important to remember that she was only thirty years old with at least two children; Alexander (b. 200), and Diomedes (b. 196, d. 194). Her relationship with Aristarchus is known to have been very happy and it is said that she was known to have generally had a very good life. The tragedy of Demetria is that we know effectively nothing beyond that. We know everything about her death and about the man who killed her, but very little about her herself. It is the same as the dozens of other victims of Seleucus that I have had to skim over whose names are forever lost to us. We know much about their sensationally gory deaths with stories of human heads placed on display and the king supposedly bathing in human blood (much of which is almost certainly apocryphal), but almost nothing about their lives. As for Demetria, the story is full of all the sensational details biographers love so much; torture, dismemberment and, yes, cannibalism.
Her death, however, would prove to be a monumentally bad mistake. Aristarchus received a letter around the same time as the death, probably sent in advance to cover Seleucus' tracks. In effect, the letter claimed that Demetria had been killed on the orders of Diomedes who, Aristarchus was expected to believe, had had her dismembered, killed, and partially eaten. Well, as a close ally of Diomedes', Aristarchus wasn't buying it. Wracked with grief, Aristarchus withdrew into his tent for an entire month during which time his army never saw him save for his second-in-command. When he emerged in September, he had made up his mind to turn right around and march back to Antioch where he would have the king promptly put to death. In Antioch itself, Diomedes was also grieving but, unlike Aristarchus, had already made up his mind not to avenge Demetria's death. Sure, he had a few people executed here and there and a scapegoat hanged but Seleucus who, let's face it, everybody knew was responsible, continued to walk free. Amestris, however, was less lucky. As Aristarchus began the long march home, Diomedes made several attempts to dissuade the general from, you know, murdering the king, reminding him that this would be an act of treason and he would lose his life. Eventually, realising that Aristarchus would not be dissuades, he had Amestris arrested and turned over to Aristarchus who promptly executed her.
If he had hoped to assuage the general, Diomedes was sorely mistaken as Aristarchus continued to demand the king's head. So what had happened to that whole, simply replacing Seleucus thing? You would think that now would be a good time for Diomedes to simply... replace him, right? Well, no. See, Seleucus was married off quite quickly, as early as 198 BCE. His first wife, however, had lasted all of ten minutes before she fled the capital and ran back off to Upper Satrapies to hide. Unable to actually retrieve her, despite Diomedes' best efforts, the king had simply divorced her in 197 BCE and remarried. However, even with his second wife, the king simply proved unable (or unwilling) to produce an heir. He would have a single daughter, born in 195 BCE, but she would die as an infant and would prove to be the only child he would ever have. His infertility only added to the general sense that Seleucus was increasingly incapable of actually ruling and, more and more, voices were starting to question whether or not he was really best for the throne. The pro-Argeus faction within the court was now rearing its ugly head again, seeing the exiled prince as the best option and discussing (very quietly of course) that perhaps he should be invited back. Of course, Argeus was effectively next in line to the throne but, should he come to power, Diomedes wouldn't last very long and neither would Seleucus. If there was one thing the two could agree upon, it was that Argeus could not be allowed back. Nor, for that matter, could anybody else. Diomedes had invested his power in controlling the king, something which would promptly disappear the moment any stronger candidate took the throne, while Seleucus wasn't going to survive not being king.
So what did Diomedes do? He continued to prop up Seleucus, turning over everything he could to stop Aristarchus' rampage. The result was that Diomedes now began to be seen as effectively enabling Seleucus' crimes. The murder of his own daughter had failed to stir Diomedes and, while his devotion to the king was commendable to some, his refusal to look past the obvious unsuitability of this king to rule was not. Remember how personal Hellenistic kingship was? Well, this is exactly the problem; Seleucus was not just a bad king but he entirely failed to embody the justice and virtue and strength expected of Hellenistic kings. Had he simply been weak, it might not have been a problem but his tendency to dismember young women and his recent murder of a well-liked aristocrat was a step too far when there were better options currently down in Egypt making a name for themselves. The murder of Demetria was a breaking point, one which would shatter the basis of Diomedes' power forever.
By the end of 194 BCE, Aristarchus was coming very close to Antioch indeed and Diomedes, fearing the city would soon fall, instead chose to retreat back to Seleukeia where he would remain until 186 BCE. As he marched east, he sent word out to the Upper Satrapies demanding they send more soldiers and gold to support his war against Aristarchus, probably planning to rally his forces and prepare a return to Antioch for the next year. However, Gorgias and Megasthenes had already caught onto the fact that Diomedes was running out of time and that, if they just waited, they could simply crush him in turn. Indeed, many of the other satraps of the Upper Satrapies seem to have decided much the same; Diomedes had done nothing for them so why should they go out of their way to help him? The one major exception was Persis which, until 193 BCE, blamed Aristarchus for the death of Amestris and, remembering the close ties between the Persian aristocracy and Amestris' family, sent soldiers. Once they are at court, however, the Persian soldiers quickly realised that Diomedes had, in fact, sold Amestris down the river to Aristarchus and was currently selling anyone else he could down the river as well. The result of this was a straight-up riot in Seleukeia in February 193 BCE which led to a pitched battle and the death of several hundred soldiers. The Persian soldiers would ravage the city itself for several days before Gorgias, finally, stepped in after Diomedes sent a letter agreeing to make his son, Gorgias II 'Soter', satrap of Persis should he save them. In March, Soter took several thousand cavalry and rushed down the road to Seleukeia where they helped relieve the siege. Sure enough, a couple of months later, the satrap of Persia was overthrown and Soter took up leadership.
This, of course, was pretty far out from what would be considered normal or acceptable under other circumstances and would mark a period of some seven years during which Central Asia rapidly fell into warlordism and chaos. In effect, the sanctioning of the usurpation of Persis by Gorgias II effectively legitimised the rise of dynastic positions within the upper satrapies. In the aftermath, the upper satrapies increasingly began to disregard any notion of centralised control and, instead, started to rush for power themselves. There really is no use in trying to parse out all the many competing factions present in the period between 193 and 186 BCE as fighting became increasingly common. Instead, the general trend was towards the gradual rise of Sogdiana under Gorgias and Bactria under Megasthenes to gradually control much of the Iranian plateau. The alliance between the two provided a secure basis to their north and south respectively and allowed a series of wars of political expansion during which much of the region was carved up between them. With that said, these conflicts were a constant and ongoing process for both and even in 187 BCE, control by the Bactrians and Sogdians was far from uniform.
In the west, Aristarchus' revolt tore through the empire at a blistering rate. After a siege of Antioch lasting several months, he took the city and plundered much of it, trashing Seleucus III's gardens and then continuing onwards towards Seleukeia. In late 193 BCE, he crushed an army sent against him on the banks of the Euphrates and swept southwards towards Seleukeia. The first siege of Seleukeia would, however, end in disaster only a year later. Despite several attempts to take the city, Aristarchus' army failed to breach the outer defences (which, remember, were still intact since the Persian riot had taken place inside the city) and, in 192 BCE, Gorgias II Soter arrived with another relief army and crushed his army in return for a sizeable bribe (both to save the city and then, afterwards, to leave in peace) before returning to Persis. The defeat at Seleukeia was rather huge and Aristarchus wouldn't actually return for another three years. The relief, while short-lived, would be welcomed as Aristarchus retreated to Antioch to lick his wounds. Despite Diomedes' encouragements, however, neither Soter nor Gorgias I would pursue the revolting general to Antioch. Instead, Diomedes raised his own force, comprised of Greeks and Babylonians, to march out against the general and, surprisingly, was able to actually gain some ground. While he was unable to take Antioch, Diomedes' forces (probably not under his personal command) did succeed in reaching, and capturing, Apamea which was, yes, sacked, probably in order to pay his soldiers.
To his credit, Aristarchus now set about consolidating his position; in 191 BCE, he approached the Macedonian aristocracy for support and received their alliance (and several thousand soldiers to boot). In addition, he repaired some of the damage to Antioch and to several other cities and finally set about issuing what might be termed an official statement of intent. In this, he declared his intention to punish an undefined set of criminals at the heart of the kingdom and free the 'legitimate' (although he did not specify who this was) king from their control. In truth, Aristarchus' goal is summed up quite neatly by one author's description as being to 'kill them all'. Aristarchus, especially in the biographies of Argeus I (which treat him rather well, all things considered) is usually characterised by his immense and ongoing rage towards the court of the day. Seleucus had killed his wife and son, yes, but he had been encouraged by those around him including Diomedes who, even if he was not responsible, had done everything in his power not to punish the king for his transgressions and seemed intent on protecting him. This rage seems to have driven Aristarchus in his campaigns time and again and would, in 186 BCE, lead to the infamous sack of Seleukeia. Finally, in 189 BCE, a battle on the Orontes river saw Diomedes' army defeated and his advance broken and allowed Aristarchus back on the offensive. By August, his army had reached the city of Seleukeia which he now placed under siege.
