WI: Seleukid Revival

In 129BC, Antiochus Sidetes undertook a massive reconquista of Iran. He managed to reconquer Mesopotamia, Babylonia and Media. His conquests were reversed when he was killed by a Parthian ambush and his elder brother usurped the throne.

WI, Antiochus is not killed, and he manages to defeat the Parthians hard enough that his reconquest far outlives him.

What role will the revived Arche Seleukeia now play in the turbulent first century?
 
Antiochus VII was probably one of the last Seleucid monarchs who made any significant success for his empire. Now, I highly doubt at this point his Empire could successfully restore fully, the Seleucid Empire of his forefathers, Antiochus III or even the greater empire of Seleucus I, but I'd expect if he had indeed survive, we could see at least a Seleucid Empire controlling the area around the Fertile Crescent with some contesting in Media Atropatene and Babylonia between Seleucia and Parthia.

However there is the problem that is the big elephant in the room, Rome.
 
Antiochus VII was probably one of the last Seleucid monarchs who made any significant success for his empire. Now, I highly doubt at this point his Empire could successfully restore fully, the Seleucid Empire of his forefathers, Antiochus III or even the greater empire of Seleucus I, but I'd expect if he had indeed survive, we could see at least a Seleucid Empire controlling the area around the Fertile Crescent with some contesting in Media Atropatene and Babylonia between Seleucia and Parthia.

However there is the problem that is the big elephant in the room, Rome.

Rome would be all too happy actually to promote this new balance of power. It's in Rome's best interests at this point to have a rump Seleucid state serve as a counterweight in the region and to prevent a Parthian Empire from springing up. So as long as the Seleucids don't get any ideas about Egypt, they should be fine with Rome.
 
Rome would be all too happy actually to promote this new balance of power. It's in Rome's best interests at this point to have a rump Seleucid state serve as a counterweight in the region and to prevent a Parthian Empire from springing up. So as long as the Seleucids don't get any ideas about Egypt, they should be fine with Rome.

Problem is that they did get ideas about Egypt... a lot. Where do you think the phrase "line in the sand" comes from? It comes from something a Roman delegate said to a Seleucid monarch(I forget who) when he wanted to leave and talk to his generals during a war with Egypt, and the delegate drew a line in the sand in a circle around him and said that if he stepped over the line before negotiations were up, then they could consider themselves at war with the Roman Republic. He gave in and withdrew his forces from Egypt. Rome was all that kept the Seleucids from conquering Egypt, so that rump state will probably be either partitioned by Rome and Parthia, or annexed by one or the other.
 
Problem is that they did get ideas about Egypt... a lot. Where do you think the phrase "line in the sand" comes from? It comes from something a Roman delegate said to a Seleucid monarch(I forget who) when he wanted to leave and talk to his generals during a war with Egypt, and the delegate drew a line in the sand in a circle around him and said that if he stepped over the line before negotiations were up, then they could consider themselves at war with the Roman Republic. He gave in and withdrew his forces from Egypt. Rome was all that kept the Seleucids from conquering Egypt, so that rump state will probably be either partitioned by Rome and Parthia, or annexed by one or the other.

Yes, that was Antiochus IV, 40 years previously. I'm well aware that they did get ideas about Egypt in the past. However, while they may occasionaly attempt to play politic with Egypt, subsequent rulers are going to need the backing of Rome to maintain the throne to begin with, unless they can crush the Parthians completely. So more likely they won't be going after Egypt, and if they do they'll get a stern warning from Rome and back off.
 
Problem is that they did get ideas about Egypt... a lot. Where do you think the phrase "line in the sand" comes from? It comes from something a Roman delegate said to a Seleucid monarch(I forget who) when he wanted to leave and talk to his generals during a war with Egypt, and the delegate drew a line in the sand in a circle around him and said that if he stepped over the line before negotiations were up, then they could consider themselves at war with the Roman Republic. He gave in and withdrew his forces from Egypt. Rome was all that kept the Seleucids from conquering Egypt, so that rump state will probably be either partitioned by Rome and Parthia, or annexed by one or the other.

That would be Antiochus IV Epiphanes. I doubt that Antiochus VII would so much as attempt to make a grab for Egypt though, it seemed at some point in his reign he settled for making Judea a vassal state rather than outright annexation, which is not something one would do if he sought to make a grab for Egypt.
 
If the Seleucids have any designs on Egypt, the Hasmoneans will have something to say about it. They have already kicked Seleucid butt
 
It's an interesting idea. Maybe they can end up as a Roman vassal state, and help stabilize the east, so the Republic doesn't get sucked into the region as it was OTL.
 
If the Seleucids have any designs on Egypt, the Hasmoneans will have something to say about it. They have already kicked Seleucid butt

Again, if the Seleucid had any designs on Egypt, they would not have tried to settle for a vassalized Judea (which is the Hasmonean Kingdom btw). It seems Antiochus was more determined to restore their Persian hegemony rather than gun for expansion and/or recreate Alexander's Empire, which is now more an impossibility what with Rome at that point already having conquered Greece and the Kingdom of Pergamon.
 
Top