The Seleucids arguably reached their lowest point pre-Magnesia in this time period, with political instability, rebellions, and constant warfare in Syria wracking the Seleucid state. Antiochus III was one of the more energetic Seleucid rulers, and he managed to get rid of the influence of powerful courtiers, supress rebellions throughout the empire, and despite a defeat at Raphia in 217 BC, managed to revitalize the Seleucids, enough to penetrate Egypt itself in his wars with the Ptolemies and intervene in Greece, something which would not be considered just a few decades prior. While another could've replicated the same general grand strategy and done the same, it was also possible for the empire to continue to decline. Say that everything goes wrong for the Seleucids and right for their enemies, that Antiochus III never comes to the throne. We have Molon ruling in Media, Alexander ruling in Persis, a completely independent Greco-Bactrian kingdom, an Achaeid kingdom, possibly Ptolemaic Damascus and even Antioch, and all the "lesser diadochi" take their pieces, such as Armenia, Pontus, Pergamon, and others, leaving us with a core in Mesopotamia and parts of Syria. What would happen from this point onward? Would the Seleucids be able to survive in a reduced form in their core of Mesopotamia and parts of Syria? Would Rome rise earlier and simply make protectorates out of all of them? Or could the various Anatolian kingdoms have a better chance, like what Pontus managed to pull of IOTL?
WI: Seleucid collapse in 220s BC?
- Thread starter SunKing105
- Start date
-
- Tags
- seleucid seleucid empire
Interesting scenario. If the Seleucids collapse, their empire becomes a giant free-for-all. Re: Mesopotamia, Characene declares independence a few decades earlier and moves to secure control of Seleucia and Babylon. Syria is also an additional area where anyone can expand in but the Ptolemies are likely the ones to secure it. Two decades prior, Ptolemy III had secured Syria and much of Mesopotamia for Egypt. You mentioned Alexander and Molon but there is an equal chance that Atropatene would play the role that the Sassanids would have several centuries later.
I was somewhat envisioning a reduced version of the state to hold out in parts of Mesopotamia, I don't think the dynasty itself can be ended so quickly. It's also possible that the Frataraka rulers overthrow Alexander and create essentially the Achaemenid Empire, under a different dynasty and reduced only to Persis itself.
The Frataraka, unlike the Arsacids, would be ethnically Persian and I can see them coordinating with the Persian landowning class to overthrow the Greeks. On the other hand, I like the idea of the Seleucids being made into puppet rulers and the Frataraka are the ones running the show as its Chiliarchs.
However, their army would be no match for the Arsacid horse archers, unless they reformed it along Greco-Macedonian lines, which would still be quite vulnerable, though they wouldn't have the political problems the Seleucids faced and would be able to recruit from their entire population rather than a relatively small Greco-Macedonian elite caste, with native auxiliaries. Furthermore, they could attempt to latch themselves to the Achaemenid legacy for legitimacy, maybe they could even rebuild Persepolis, albeit on a smaller scale.