WI: The Maccabean Revolt failed

Between 167 - 160 BCE, between a Judean rebel group known as the Maccabees and the Seleucid Empire. The Seleucids failed to quell the rebellion and as a result gave political concessions to the Jews, who gained sovereignty from the Empire and also saw the expansion of Judea.

But, what if the revolt failed?

What would have happened if the Seleucids had defeated the revolt, what would the historical consequences be?
 
Well, at the end, Romans would have conquered that area without problem, the jew identity would have been seriously crippled even destroyed
 
Well, at the end, Romans would have conquered that area without problem, the jew identity would have been seriously crippled even destroyed

Or then Seleucids could last longer and Rome not be able to take Judea. But this has surely very big affection for religions. Christianity surely butterflies away. Perhaps Seleucids destroy Jews or there is earlier diaspora.
 

birdboy2000

Banned
Keep in mind that the late Seleucids - who were more or less down to the Levant at this point - would've had trouble quashing a united Judean revolt, and that the Maccabean rebellion started as a struggle between Hellenizing and anti-Hellenizing Jews.

So I'd think the end result is not a disapora - because the Seleucids weren't strong enough to do what the Romans did after Bar Kokhba - but a stillborn rebellion and a Judaism with more influence from Greek philosophy and religion, and the absence of a certain eight-day winter holiday.

(Christianity is butterflied away, as it is with any Judean PoD of that era.)
 
Keep in mind that the late Seleucids - who were more or less down to the Levant at this point -

Hardly. I can't find a map for the Seleucid Empire in 175 (first year of Antiochus IV's reign) but here is a map of 150:

East-Hem_150bc.jpg


Anyway, without the untimely death of Antiochus in 164 of disease, the Seleucid army will remain in Judea and likely crush the revolt. This also has significant effects for the Seleucid Empire in the east as well-Antiochus was having some success against the Parthians prior to his death. This also means he does not die with an infant son as his heir-meaning in the most crucial hour for the empire, they won't be destabalized by continuous civil war following his death as they were OTL.

So this is a significant help to the empire. The Parthians can still be pushed back (it was only 3 years prior that Mithridates of Parthia had siezed Herat and severed the land link with the Greco-Baktrian east), and the Romans don't seem to be too interested in involving themselves in Seleucid affairs unless the Seleucids threaten the independence of Egypt. Their situation is far from unsalvagable at this point.
 

birdboy2000

Banned
I thought they were smaller - I've heard them referred to as Syrian-Greeks, but I guess the revolt began before they lost Mesopotamia and they declined fairly quickly after that.
 
I thought they were smaller - I've heard them referred to as Syrian-Greeks, but I guess the revolt began before they lost Mesopotamia and they declined fairly quickly after that.

Yeah, by the time of the revolt, the Seleucid Empire was still large but it would be a few decades before the Empire basically turned into a rump state and situated entirely in Syria.
 
Top