The Fall of the Seleukid Empire, 187 - 75 BC

Seleukid Empire #3

by John D. Grainger

The concluding part of John D Grainger's history of the Seleukids traces the tumultuous last century of their empire. In this period it was riven by dynastic disputes, secessions and rebellions, the religiously-inspired insurrection of the Jewish Maccabees, civil war and external invasion from Egypt in the West and the Parthians in the East. By the 80s BC, the empire was disintegrating, internally fractured and squeezed by the converging expansionist powers of Rome and Parthia. This is a fittingly, dramatic and colourful conclusion to John Grainger's masterful account of this once-mighty empire.

Genres: History, Ancient History, Greece

240 pages, Hardcover

First published February 28, 2016

Reviews

[Zahra · Rating 5 out of 5]

ایران تن به فراموشی نداد؛ بیگانه رفت و این سرزمین، ایستاده و به‌جا مانده، نام خود را دوباره بر زمان حک کرد

[Faustibooks · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Seleucid Empire is one of the most interesting and intriguing empires to read about. Yet at the same time, it is also very overlooked and neglected. This is partly because of a lack of (good) sources, which as always is very exhausting to me, as it leaves us with many questions unanswered. Sometimes, the only information that we have on a certain development is through numismatics. This lack of sources results in many educated guesses and assumptions on events, which does not make for a satisfying reading experience. However, I felt that Grainger did a great job with the few sources available to us and that his judgments made sense.

Being the last part of Grainger’s trilogy on the history of the Seleucid Empire, this book looks at its chaotic decline and fall after the reign of Antiochus III. The many civil wars, foreign invasions and gradual autonomy and independence of its subjects led to its inevitable end. It is insane how many Seleucid family members decided to vie for power, many of them being merely teenagers and sometimes even as babies. Many of them were called Antiochus or Seleucus, which was confusing. If I have learnt one thing from this book, it is to make sure that all the children of the king that you are usurping are killed. If not, they will try to replace you in turn and then your son will kill them and their sons will come back and on and on and on. Nice book and a well deserved four stars!

[Gavin O'Brien · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Fall of the Seleucid Empire.

John Graingers “The Fall of the Seleucid Empire” is a grand and explosive finish to his three volume series on the history of the Seleucid Empire. It is a must read for anyone interested in the history of the Near East in antiquity, or to those interested in the history of Hellenistic Kingdoms and Kingship.

The Content

Graingers narrative history begins with the reign of Seleucus IV (r.187-175BC) and discusses the slow disintegration of the Seleucid Kingdom following the death of Antiochus IV (r.175-164BC), the causes, the potential to reverse it and the point of no return. For Grainger 150BC was the beginning of the decline whilst 129BC was the point of no return (Kindle, Loc 53, 90). Between the years of 150-129BC civil war between rival contenders to the Seleucid throne dominated the political landscape of the Kingdom. Meanwhile provinces on the periphery, former subordinate kingdoms and highly disillusioned ethnic groups within took advantage to move into full or semi-independence and even conquer Seleucid or neighbouring territories. Obvious examples of these were Commagene, province come kingdom, the Partians, client come conqueror, and the Jews, an ethnic group seeking and gradually achieving independence and conquering their immediate neighbours.

Grainger demonstrates that the loss of some of these peripheral regions such as Judea and Commagene, was not very serious as they remained sub-ordinate to a strong Seleucid King and where never threats to Seleucid power, with the exception of Parthia after the 160’sBC. With the loss of Babylonia and the eastern empire to the Parthians in the 150’sBC the wealthy and populous cities of Syria, Phoenicia and Kilikia could easily have provided the reduced Seleucid realm with enough man power and resources to maintain a solid and lasting kingdom in that region (Kindle, Loc 2265-76). The attempt to re-conquer the east from the Parthians by Antiochus VII in 130-129BC led to his death in battle, the near total destruction of his army, an end to any real hope of regaining control of the eastern empire and, most fatal of all, a return to civil war as a number of male family members fought each to gain control.

The final 60 years or so of Seleucid rule down to Philip I (r.94-83/75BC), who became sole king only as the result of the deaths of all his siblings and rivals, was a period of internal turmoil and external collapse as more territories, and cities, even Antioch, gradually achieved autonomy or independence. By 100BC the formally formidable Seleucid monarchs had been reduced to petty kings fighting for the shattered legacy of Seleucus I. When Pompey Magnus set about annexing Syria on his way to Egypt in 65BC the monarchy was formally abolished, though little other than a few scattered cities remained (Kindle, Loc, 4283-4288).

The Aims

The point of this final Volume was to demonstrate why it was that the Seleucid Kingdom collapsed. Grainger notes the often used reasons such as external intrigue, internal civil strife, and external conquest, but highlights that these had been present prior to 150BC (Kindle, Loc 51-64). For Grainger all of these things had a place but the key factor was the position of the Kingship. As demonstrated in the previous two volumes, the King was central to the functioning of the Seleucid state. All treaties, policies, and loyalties were in effect stored in one man, and once he died all the work would have to be done again. The life of Antiochus III was a clear demonstration of this. Alongside this was the issue of succession, which up to Seleucus IV had been father to eldest son. When Antiochus IV technically usurped the kingship from his nephew, the son of Seleucus the IV, he unknowingly set a new precedent. Now any son of a main royal line male could attempt to claim the kingship, thus wrecking the stability of the kingdom with a succession of civil wars, short reigning or mostly ineffectual kings. This accelerated after 150BC until the power and prestige of the dynasty, as well as the faith of the cities in it were effectively nullified and they moved for independence.

Another impressive aspect of the book is Grainger’s ability to demonstrate, contrary to popular opinion, that the collapse of the Seleucid Kingdom was not the result of Roman interference or expansion. He demonstrates that Rome, though happy to see Syria weak or in a state of conflict, never actively pursued another war with the Seleucids after Antiochus III, nor did they aid in any significant way the enemies of the dynasty. When they did finally annex Syria the dynasty had ceased to be a major power in the area altogether and the territorial gains were minimal.
Finally Grainger demonstrates the importance of the Seleucid legacy as lying within the foundations of the many cities established by Kings. These were the dispensers of Greek knowledge, thinking and culture. They were cities which, though having autonomy and identity in their civic governments, were none the less able to be loyal to a stronger power. This flexibility would aid in their survival for centuries, from India to Asia Minor. These cities would outlive the Kingdom, some right up to the present day.

Final Comments

The reader may at times find the pacing to be irregular, and the many events, names, and characters in quick succession makes it easy to get lost. But this is the result of the lack of historical sources which makes even the most basic narrative of the period difficult to produce. It is a testament to Grainger’s work as a scholar of Seleucid history that he is able to present as full a chronological narrative as possible with the miniscule sources available, the many plausible arguments he puts forward regarding the collapse of the kingdom, his opinions on its functioning and on the central role of the king to the stability and longevity of the kingdom.

The most enjoyable aspect of all however is his ability to present the history, throughout all three volumes from the perspective of the Greek and Macedonian, not the Roman. In a period dominated by the Roman Republic, and even in the 21st century when many books about antiquity are written with the view in mind of the coming Roman conquest Grainger has shown that even in 100BC the long arm of Rome did not stretch to every corner, or seek to interfere unthinkingly in the affairs of states with which it had previous gone to war with, or shared a boarder. In reality there were always other more complex causes and effects that had a hand in events.

[Ian Casey · Rating 4 out of 5]

The concluding volume of John D. Grainger's triptych on the history of the Seleukid empire continues the author's commendable efforts to battle uphill against matters beyond his control, which is to say the decidedly patchy nature of sources and - even more so than the first volume - the confusion wrought by the mere existence of numerous similarly-named royals and pretenders during the period.

In the latter regard, the Selukids' perennial neighbours and rivals the Ptolemies were even more of a mess, so reading a book such as Günther Hölbl's 'A History of the Ptolemaic Empire' will take some concentration.

Grainger makes the case that the Seleukid collapse was inevitable from the nature of its formation and its mode of government reliant on the supremacy of Greeks and Macedonians throughout the empire. He convincingly elucidates how Seleukid stability was exceptionally reliant upon the person of the King and the effectiveness of his military command.

As the royal family tree branched ever outwards, the dynastic disputes and civil wars progressively weakened the empire's hold on its diverse constituent parts, until it was virtually extinct save for fragments. Some of its external rivals such as the Parthians (especially Mithradates II), the Armenians under Tigranes and of course the Ptolemies pushed at the right moments to assist the empire's decline. So too did many ambitious internal leaders of cities, tribes and sub-Kingdoms.

What is perhaps most remarkable is how little Rome had to do with it after the Battle of Magnesia against Antiochos III (as discussed in the second volume), a defeat which was not catastrophic in itself. They did, in fact, remain studiously uninvolved until they gradually subsumed the last pitiful remnants into their empire over the course of a century or two.

There's always a balance to be found in stating facts versus interpreting them, and Grainger's even-handedness in this continues to impress. The source material makes for less of a detailed and flowing narrative than the second volume, being that it is the story of a vicious cycle of collapse and imperial self-cannibalism over more than a century, but that is unavoidable.

His conclusion - both this book as a whole and its epilogue - highlight the impact of an empire born under exceptional circumstances and how its echoes flow through to the modern day. This is a series well worth reading from start to finish.

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Fall of the Seleukid Empire concludes John Grainger’s trilogy on the kings of the Seleukid Empire. Chronicling this era presents challenges; sources are meager, and where they exist, they often contradict each other. Nonetheless, Grainger once again does a fine job crafting a solid narrative out of shards and logic, offering thoughtful analysis of the strategies of the kings, and bringing to life the chaos of the late Empire.

And chaos it was. Once the Seleukid House divided into factions, the empire became a mess of civil wars, internal strife, inability to confront challengers, and the slow loss of land, power, and prestige. At one point, four Seleukids claimed the throne. Grainger’s telling puts the disintegration of the empire on full display, as the book takes us through the history of the empire as it declines from the dominant force of Asia into a weak state quietly absorbed by Parthia, Armenia, and eventually Rome. The book also devotes much time to the curious situation in Judaea from the standpoint of the warring rival kings.

In comparison to the last two books in the series, however, this one feels less objective and balanced. This book uses more assumptions to characterize the evidence, where alternative hypotheses would be more appropriate. For example, the book declares, without citation or proof, that the children of Antiochus VIII always operated out of familial loyalty, and then proceeds to torque the evidence (including discounting the only sources) when it appears to contradict this assumption. A better way to handle this interesting idea would be to say that the sources suggest familial infighting, but one hypothesis that might explain anomalies with the sources is familial loyalty, thus turning the assumption into a tentative conclusion.

Similarly, the book makes bold statements that lack citation or argument. For example, the book asserts without discussion that “in fact in the far distant past” Zeus and Jehovah had been the same god, a glib assertion on a complex matter (setting aside the likelihood of independent generation from local tribes, Zeus and Baal are just as likely equivalents – not to mention El and Kronos – and scholars could debate this claim for hours). Similarly, the book insists that Alexander Balas’s marriage with a Ptolemy is a “radical change in Seleukid marriage policy” when it was actually the third such marriage between the two houses.

As another example, while it’s refreshing to hear a Seleukid perspective on the wars of Maccabees, and very appropriate to question self-serving sources, the Maccabees are treated differently from other very similar ancient actors, and with a palpable hostility. For example, the earlier Maccabees are repeatedly referred to as “terrorists” and their cruel acts are condemned in ways that other ancient actors are not. The book portrays Jannaeus as incompetent and simply lucky in expanding his empire (as opposed to a more likely scenario in which he was using his limited resources, including his army, to seek stalemates and take advantage of the conflicts around him). And on and on. I would attribute the fervor of the characterizations to an academic desire to counter common narratives on Judaea, but it’s hard to square that explanation with the overly dismissive approach to the sources and emotional content of the language used.

Nonetheless, this book concludes the trilogy with a solid account of a confusing time, turning the turmoil of the late empire into a compelling read.

[MR GEOFFREY W FABRON · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating analysis of the end of one of the biggest empires in the ancient world.