WI: No Antiochus III?

[GauchoBadger]

Antiochus III was basileus of the Seleucid Empire from 222 BCE until sometime around the 180’s. When he ascended to the throne, his empire was in disarray — there was unrest in the Persian and Median satrapies under the rebel leaders Molon and Alexander, Parthia and Bactria were nibbling at the corners, the satraps of Asia Minor (Cappadocia, Pergamon, Bythinia) were beginning to break away, and Ptolemaic Egypt was taking over Syria. Antiochus, in the span of three decades, managed to check all these threats and consolidate a restoration of the Seleucid realm, until his westward expansion (threatening to recreate Alexander’s empire) was halted by a coalition of Rome, Pergamon, Rhodes and Egypt.
So, what if Antiochus had died early into his reign, perhaps while campaigning against the Egyptians in Syria, and someone less competent takes the reins of the carriage? What could have happened? Would there be an earlier expansion of Parthia and Rome (through protectorates in Asia Minor), this time supplanted by a stronger Egypt in Syria? Would the city of Antioch still have existed? Could the Greco-Bactrians get some breathing space?

 

[Tyrann Philip II]

Most likely an earlier collapse of the Seleucid Empire as a whole, as all Antiochus III was really the last chance of survival for the dwindling Empire. Had he been killed early on in an ill-fated battle, the Parthians would absorb anything East of the Tigris and Euphrates rapidly with little opposition, but I highly doubt they could make inroads deep into Syria and Mesopotamia, as the bulk of the central Empire would most likely be torn apart by warring generals. Bactria at this point is on decline from constant incursions from various Persian and Parthian tribes, so they won't be making any serious gains for now. Ironically a Diadochi State would in turn shatter into even more Diadochi, but certainly local Anatolian Kingdoms, such as Pontus and Pergammon.

The Ptolemies are still screwed, adding bits and pieces of Syrian territory won't change the fact that the Greek dynasty is universally despised by all native populations, and the economic ruin of the nation will still continue. It's only a matter of time before the whole thing caves in on itself or Rome swoops in and establishes a puppet state.

So in total you would have a much more diseased Ptolemaic Kingdom, Larger and perhaps more powerful Hellenic-Anatolian Kingdoms, a much earlier Parthian Empire, and a fractured and warring Syria and Mesopotamia.

 

[SunKing105]

Remember that depending on when Antiochus dies the rebelling brothers Molon and Alexander are still a dangerous threat and can very well fill a part of the power vaccum in the wake of a Seleucid collapse.

 

[GauchoBadger]

Most likely an earlier collapse of the Seleucid Empire as a whole, as all Antiochus III was really the last chance of survival for the dwindling Empire. Had he been killed early on in an ill-fated battle, the Parthians would absorb anything East of the Tigris and Euphrates rapidly with little opposition, but I highly doubt they could make inroads deep into Syria and Mesopotamia, as the bulk of the central Empire would most likely be torn apart by warring generals. Bactria at this point is on decline from constant incursions from various Persian and Parthian tribes, so they won't be making any serious gains for now. Ironically a Diadochi State would in turn shatter into even more Diadochi, but certainly local Anatolian Kingdoms, such as Pontus and Pergammon.

The Ptolemies are still screwed, adding bits and pieces of Syrian territory won't change the fact that the Greek dynasty is universally despised by all native populations, and the economic ruin of the nation will still continue. It's only a matter of time before the whole thing caves in on itself or Rome swoops in and establishes a puppet state.

So in total you would have a much more diseased Ptolemaic Kingdom, Larger and perhaps more powerful Hellenic-Anatolian Kingdoms, a much earlier Parthian Empire, and a fractured and warring Syria and Mesopotamia.

Why exactly do you consider the Ptolemaic kingdom to have been structurally weak? How could the absence of a strong Seleucid kingdom affect the state's decline, then?

 

[Tyrann Philip II]

Why exactly do you consider the Ptolemaic kingdom to have been structurally weak? How could the absence of a strong Seleucid kingdom affect the state's decline, then?

The Ptolemies were constantly having to deal with native uprisings all around their territories, and each one was getting closer and closer to overthrowing the dynasty as the Ptolemies became more and more sickly due to inbreeding. Not to mention all the Ethiopian and Southern African tribes constantly harassing the Empire's southern flank. Just wandering into Syria would give them one more ethnic group that wanted their heads on spikes. Sure, you don't have Antiochus and his minions constantly storming into Palestine, but it doesn't fix the massive problems still plaguing the Ptolemies.

 

[phoenix101]

The Ptolemies were constantly having to deal with native uprisings all around their territories, and each one was getting closer and closer to overthrowing the dynasty as the Ptolemies became more and more sickly due to inbreeding. Not to mention all the Ethiopian and Southern African tribes constantly harassing the Empire's southern flank. Just wandering into Syria would give them one more ethnic group that wanted their heads on spikes. Sure, you don't have Antiochus and his minions constantly storming into Palestine, but it doesn't fix the massive problems still plaguing the Ptolemies.

I guess you are talking about the revolt of Hugronaphor and Ankhmakis? Their revolt lasted a long time in Upper Egypt, from 205 till 185 BC, but considering the length of Ptolemaic rule it hardly seems that they had to deal with constant rebellion. While the Ptolemies probably weren't loved by the native Egyptians I don't see much reason to assume that they were acctively hated, seen that there was only one major Egyptian revolt against them in 300 years.

 

[Tyrann Philip II]

I guess you are talking about the revolt of Hugronaphor and Ankhmakis? Their revolt lasted a long time in Upper Egypt, from 205 till 185 BC, but considering the length of Ptolemaic rule it hardly seems that they had to deal with constant rebellion. While the Ptolemies probably weren't loved by the native Egyptians I don't see much reason to assume that they were acctively hated, seen that there was only one major Egyptian revolt against them in 300 years.

Still, overall centralization was low, the economy was often in shambles, and political in-fighting was quite common if I'm not mistaken.