WI: Antiochus I killed by Galatians?

[SunKing105]

Around 278 BC, hordes of Celtic migrants had begun to spill over into Anatolia, invited through a power struggle between 2 claimants of the Kingdom of Bithynia, and required the action of the Seleucid basileus to crush. Antiochus engaged them somewhere in Anatolia, winning a victory with his elephants, hence how he got the epithet "Soter". Let's say the elephants panic, and Antiochus and his army are annihilated by the Galatians, with Antiochus himself killed. What happens to Anatolia? What happens to the Seleucids? Can the Ptolemies take advantage? Can Greco-Bactria secede earlier?
EDIT: I accidentally put Antiochus II instead of Antiochus I. The error is corrected.

 

[Gloss]

I imagine Galatia would end up controlling more of inland Anatolia, Lycaonia and Phrygia might end up under long term Celtic control too.
As for the Ptolemies considering their success OTL against a strong Antiochus I I think it's probable that coastal Syria would be lost in the short to mid term, thus the Ptolemies would have uninterrupted control from Cyclades and Ionia to Cyrenaica in the Eastern mediterranean which is actually incredible, I wonder if they what they would focus on, would they really be interested in land wars in Mesopotamia and Anatolia or try to garner more influence in peninsular Greece? I imagine with so much security at home even expeditions in Sicily and Libya should be feasible.

As for the Selucids it really depend how succession goes, I'd say cutting them off from Anatolia and Syria could help them prioritize the East more and be less overextended.

 

[SunKing105]

As for the Selucids it really depend how succession goes, I'd say cutting them off from Anatolia and Syria could help them prioritize the East more and be less overextended.

This would hurt them severely, since both were major sources of money, manpower, and Greco-Macedonian settlers, plus they are cut off from the ultimate source, Hellas itself.

 

[Gloss]

This would hurt them severely, since both were major sources of money, manpower, and Greco-Macedonian settlers, plus they are cut off from the ultimate source, Hellas itself.

Well did the Seleucids use those western resources and move them east? If not it wouldn't really change anything, the Greco-Bactrian alone were enough to control Afghanistan and conquer a lot of India by themselves.

Also Greeks can migrated through Ptolemaic lands, it's not a completely closed borders, heck the Selucids can ironically also use Gallic mercenaries from Anatolia.

 

[Sarufiyyun]

This would be an immense boon to the Ptolemies of Egypt who would take advantage of the situation. IOTL Ptolemy III came as far as capturing Babylon and may have crowned himself Lord of Asia during the Third Syrian War; it was the threat of native revolt in Egypt that stopped the Ptolemies from seizing Asia. The optimal scenario is that Ptolemy II achieves the same sort of success without revolt and leaves the eastern satraps to pay nominal allegiance to him. As for the Galatians, assuming that Ptolemy is too busy cleaning up house in the east, Asia Minor is theirs for the taking.

 

[SunKing105]

This would be an immense boon to the Ptolemies of Egypt who would take advantage of the situation. IOTL Ptolemy III came as far as capturing Babylon and may have crowned himself Lord of Asia during the Third Syrian War; it was the threat of native revolt in Egypt that stopped the Ptolemies from seizing Asia. The optimal scenario is that Ptolemy II achieves the same sort of success without revolt and leaves the eastern satraps to pay nominal allegiance to him. As for the Galatians, assuming that Ptolemy is too busy cleaning up house in the east, Asia Minor is theirs for the taking.

They've still got the incipient Pontic Kingdom, plus the Bithynians to deal with. Anatolia really was a mess in this period, I doubt the Galatians have enough Celtic soldiers to maintain such conquests.

 

[Sarufiyyun]

They've still got the incipient Pontic Kingdom, plus the Bithynians to deal with. Anatolia really was a mess in this period, I doubt the Galatians have enough Celtic soldiers to maintain such conquests.

You may be correct but it was the Seleucids constructing forts in key areas that prevented the Galatians from expanding further from their initial area of settlement. Nonetheless the Galatians launched constant raids into Pontus and Bithynia. It would be the Roman Republic that would humble the Galatians. Also the Galatians were limited in number but they often drawn manpower from the native Anatolian peoples paying tithes to them. They were similar in some ways to the Turks.