The Seleucid Empire was a major center of Hellenistic culture. Greek customs and language were privileged; the wide variety of local traditions had been generally tolerated, while an urban Greek elite had formed the dominant political class and was reinforced by steady immigration from Greece.[14][15][16] The empire's western territorieswere repeatedly contested withPtolemaic Egypt—a rival Hellenistic state. To the east,conflict with the Indian rulerChandragupta of theMaurya Empire in 305 BC led to the cession of vast territory west of the Indus and a political alliance.
In the early second century BC,Antiochus III the Great attempted toproject Seleucid power and authority intoHellenistic Greece, but his attemptswere thwarted by the Roman Republic and its Greek allies. The Seleucids were forced to pay costlywar reparations and had to relinquish territorial claims west of theTaurus Mountains in southern Anatolia, marking the gradual decline of their empire.Mithridates I of Parthia conquered much of the remaining eastern lands of the Seleucid Empire in the mid-second century BC, including Assyria and what had been Babylonia, while the independentGreco-Bactrian Kingdom continued to flourish in the northeast. The Seleucid kings were thereafter reduced to arump state in Syria after a civil war, until their conquest byTigranes the Great ofArmenia in 83 BC, and ultimate overthrow by the Roman generalPompey in 63 BC.
Contemporary sources, such as a loyalist decree honoring Antiochus I fromIlium, in Greek language define the Seleucid state both as an empire (ἀρχή,archḗ) and as a kingdom (βασιλεία,basileía). Similarly, Seleucid rulers were described as kings in Babylonia.[17]
The rulers did not describe themselves as being of any particular territory or people, but starting from the 2nd century BC, ancient writers referred to them as the Syrian kings, the kings of Syria or of the Syrians, the kings descended from Seleucus Nicator, the kings of Asia, and other designations.[18]
Alexander, who quickly conquered thePersian Empire under its last Achaemenid dynast,Darius III, died young in 323 BC, leaving an expansive empire of partly Hellenised culture without an adult heir. The empire was put under the authority of a regent,Perdiccas, and the vast territories were divided among Alexander's generals, who thereby becamesatraps at thePartition of Babylon, all in that same year.
Alexander's generals, known asdiadochi, jostled for supremacy over parts of his empire following his death.Ptolemy I Soter, a former general and then current satrap ofEgypt, was the first to challenge the new system, which eventually led to the demise of Perdiccas. Ptolemy's revolt created a new subdivision of the empire with thePartition of Triparadisus in 320 BC.Seleucus, who had been "Commander-in-Chief of theCompanion cavalry" (hetairoi) and appointed first or courtchiliarch (which made him the senior officer in the Royal Army after the regent and commander-in-chief Perdiccas since 323 BC, though he helped to assassinate him later) receivedBabylonia and, from that point, continued to expand his dominions ruthlessly. Seleucus established himself inBabylon in 312 BC, the year later used as thefoundation date of the Seleucid Empire.
The rise of Seleucus in Babylon threatened the eastern extent of the territory ofAntigonus I Monophthalmus in Asia. Antigonus, along with his sonDemetrius I Poliorcetes, unsuccessfully led a campaign to annex Babylon. The victory of Seleucus ensured his claim of Babylon and legitimacy. He ruled not only Babylonia, but the entire enormous eastern part of Alexander's empire, as described by the historianAppian:
Always lying in wait for the neighboring nations, strong in arms and persuasive in council, he [Seleucus] acquired Mesopotamia, Armenia, 'Seleucid' Cappadocia, Persis, Parthia, Bactria, Arabia, Tapouria, Sogdia, Arachosia, Hyrcania, and other adjacent peoples that had been subdued by Alexander, as far as the river Indus, so that the boundaries of his empire were the most extensive in Asia after that of Alexander. The whole region from Phrygia to the Indus was subject to Seleucus.[19]
Chandragupta Maurya (Sandrokottos) founded theMaurya Empire in 321 BC after theconquest of theNanda Empire and their capitalPataliputra inMagadha. Chandragupta then redirected his attention to theIndus River region, and by 317 BC, he conquered the remaining Greeksatraps left by Alexander. Expecting a confrontation, Seleucus gathered his army and marched to the Indus. It is said that Chandragupta could have fielded aconscript army of 600,000 men and 9,000 war elephants.[20]
Chandragupta received, formalized through a treaty, territory west of the Indus, including theHindu Kush, modern dayAfghanistan, and the eastern partBalochistan province ofPakistan, bordering on the Indus.[21][22] Archaeologically, concrete indications of Mauryan rule, such as the inscriptions of theEdicts of Ashoka, are known as far asKandahar in southern Afghanistan. According to Appian:
He [Seleucus] crossed the Indus and waged war with Sandrocottus [Maurya], king of the Indians, who dwelt on the banks of that stream, until they came to an understanding with each other and contracted a marriage relationship.[19]
"Chandra Gupta Maurya entertains his bride from Babylon": a conjectural interpretation of the "marriage agreement" between the Seleucids and Chandragupta Maurya, related byAppian.[19]
The Indians occupy [in part] some of the countries situated along the Indus, which formerly belonged to the Persians: Alexander deprived theAriani of them, and established there settlements of his own. ButSeleucus Nicator gave them toSandrocottus (Chandragupta Maurya) in consequence of a marriage contract, and received in return five hundred elephants.[29]
Other territories ceded before Seleucus' death wereGedrosia in the south-east of the Iranian plateau, and, to the north of this,Arachosia on the west bank of theIndus River.
Coin ofSeleucus I Nicator, showing the king wearing a helmet decorated with leopard skin and bull's horn and ear.
Following his andLysimachus' decisive victory over Antigonus at theBattle of Ipsus in 301 BC, Seleucus took control over easternAnatolia and northernSyria.
In the latter area, he founded a new capital atAntioch on the Orontes, a city he named after his father. An alternative capital was established atSeleucia on the Tigris, north of Babylon. Seleucus's empire reached its greatest extent following his defeat of his erstwhile ally, Lysimachus, atCorupedion in 281 BC, after which Seleucus expanded his control to encompass western Anatolia. He hoped further to take control of Lysimachus's lands in Europe – primarilyThrace and evenMacedonia itself, but was assassinated byPtolemy Ceraunus on landing in Europe.
His son and successor,Antiochus I Soter, was left with an enormous realm consisting of nearly all of the Asian portions of the Empire, but faced withAntigonus II Gonatas in Macedonia andPtolemy II Philadelphus in Egypt, he proved unable to pick up where his father had left off in conquering the European portions of Alexander's empire.
Antiochus I (reigned 281–261 BC) and his son and successorAntiochus II Theos (reigned 261–246 BC) were faced with challenges in the west, including repeated wars withPtolemy II and aCeltic invasion ofAsia Minor—distracting attention from holding the eastern portions of the Empire together. Towards the end of Antiochus II's reign, various provinces simultaneously asserted their independence, such asBactria andSogdiana underDiodotus,Cappadocia underAriarathes III, andParthia underAndragoras. A few years later, the last was defeated and killed by the invadingParni ofArsaces—the region would then become the core of theParthian Empire.
Diodotus, the Seleucid governor for theBactrian territory, asserted independence in around 245 BC, although the exact date is far from certain, to form theGreco-Bactrian Kingdom. This kingdom was characterized by a richHellenistic culture and was to continue its domination of Bactria until around 125 BC when it was overrun by the invasion of northern nomads. One of the Greco-Bactrian kings,Demetrius I of Bactria, invaded India around 180 BC to form theIndo-Greek Kingdoms.
The rulers ofPersis, calledFratarakas, also seem to have established some level of independence from the Seleucids during the 3rd century BC, especially from the time ofVahbarz. They would later overtly take the title ofKings of Persis, before becoming vassals to the newly formedParthian Empire.[30][31]
The Seleucid satrap of Parthia, namedAndragoras, first claimed independence, in a parallel to the secession of his Bactrian neighbour. Soon after, however, a Parthian tribal chief calledArsacesinvaded the Parthian territory around 238 BC to form theArsacid dynasty, from which theParthian Empire originated.
Antiochus II's sonSeleucus II Callinicus came to the throne around 246 BC. Seleucus II was soon dramatically defeated in theThird Syrian War againstPtolemy III of Egypt and then had to fight a civil war against his own brotherAntiochus Hierax. Taking advantage of this distraction, Bactria and Parthia seceded from the empire. In Asia Minor too, the Seleucid dynasty seemed to be losing control: the Gauls had fully established themselves inGalatia, semi-independent semi-Hellenized kingdoms had sprung up inBithynia,Pontus, andCappadocia, and the city ofPergamum in the west was asserting its independence under theAttalid dynasty.[citation needed] The Seleucid economy started to show the first signs of weakness, as Galatians gained independence and Pergamum took control of coastal cities in Anatolia. Consequently, they managed to partially block contact with the West.[33]
Silver coin ofAntiochus III the Great. Reverse showsApollo seated onomphalos holding bow and arrow. Greek legend reads:ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ,Basileōs Antiochou, "of King Antiochus."The Seleucid Empire in 200 BC (before expansion intoAnatolia andGreece).
A revival would begin when Seleucus II's younger son,Antiochus III the Great, took the throne in 223 BC. Although initially unsuccessful in theFourth Syrian War against Egypt, which led to a defeat at theBattle of Raphia (217 BC), Antiochus would prove himself to be the greatest of the Seleucid rulers after Seleucus I himself. He spent the next ten years on hisanabasis (journey) through the eastern parts of his domain and restoring rebellious vassals like Parthia andGreco-Bactria to at least nominal obedience. He gained many victories such as theBattle of Mount Labus andBattle of the Arius andbesieged the Bactrian capital. He even emulated Seleucus with an expedition into India where he met with KingSophagasenus (Sanskrit:Subhagasena) receiving war elephants, perhaps in accordance of the existing treaty and alliance set after the Seleucid-Mauryan War.
Actual translation of Polybius 11.34 (No other source except Polybius makes any reference to Sophagasenus):
He [Antiochus] crossed the Caucasus Indicus (Paropamisus) (Hindu Kush) and descended into India; renewed his friendship with Sophagasenus the king of the Indians; received more elephants, until he had a hundred and fifty altogether; and having once more provisioned his troops, set out again personally with his army: leavingAndrosthenes of Cyzicus the duty of taking home the treasure which this king had agreed to hand over to him.[34] Having traversed Arachosia and crossed the river Enymanthus, he came through Drangene toCarmania; and as it was now winter, he put his men into winter quarters there.[35]
When he returned to the west in 205 BC, Antiochus found that with the death ofPtolemy IV, the situation now looked propitious for another western campaign. Antiochus andPhilip V of Macedon then made a pact to divide the Ptolemaic possessions outside of Egypt, and in theFifth Syrian War, the Seleucids oustedPtolemy V from control ofCoele-Syria. TheBattle of Panium (200 BC) definitively transferred these holdings from the Ptolemies to the Seleucids. Antiochus appeared, at the least, to have restored the Seleucid Kingdom to glory.
The reduced empire (titled:Syria, Kingdom of the Seleucids) and the expanded states ofPergamum andRhodes, after the defeat ofAntiochus III by Rome. Circa 188 BC.
Following the defeat of his erstwhile allyPhilip by Rome in 197 BC, Antiochus saw the opportunity for expansion into Greece itself. Encouraged by the exiledCarthaginian generalHannibal, and making an alliance with the disgruntledAetolian League, Antiochus launched an invasion across theHellespont. With his huge army he aimed to establish the Seleucid empire as the foremost power in the Hellenic world, but these plans put the empire on a collision course with the new rising power of the Mediterranean, theRoman Republic. At the battles ofThermopylae (191 BC) andMagnesia (190 BC), Antiochus's forces suffered resounding defeats, and he was compelled to make peace and sign theTreaty of Apamea (188 BC), the main clause of which saw the Seleucids agree to pay a large indemnity, to retreat fromAnatolia and to never again attempt to expand Seleucid territory west of theTaurus Mountains. TheKingdom of Pergamum and theRepublic of Rhodes, Rome's allies in the war, gained the former Seleucid lands in Anatolia. Antiochus died in 187 BC on another expedition to the east, where he sought to extract money to pay the indemnity.
TheHellenistic Prince, a bronze statue originally thought to be aSeleucid, orAttalus II ofPergamon, now considered a portrait of a Roman general, made by a Greek artist working in Rome in the 2nd century BC.
The reign of his son and successorSeleucus IV Philopator (187–175 BC) was largely spent in attempts to pay the large indemnity, and Seleucus was ultimately assassinated by his ministerHeliodorus.
Seleucus' younger brother,Antiochus IV Epiphanes, now seized the throne. He attempted to restore Seleucid power and prestige with a successful war against the old enemy,Ptolemaic Egypt, which met with initial success as the Seleucids defeated and drove the Egyptian army back toAlexandria itself. As the king planned on how to conclude the war, he was informed that Roman commissioners, led by theProconsulGaius Popillius Laenas, were near and requesting a meeting with the Seleucid king. Antiochus agreed, but when they met and Antiochus held out his hand in friendship, Popilius placed in his hand the tablets on which was written the decree of the senate and told him to read it. The decree demanded that he should abort his attack on Alexandria and immediately stop waging the war on Ptolemy. When the king said that he would call his friends into council and consider what he ought to do, Popilius drew a circle in the sand around the king's feet with the stick he was carrying and said, "Before you step out of that circle give me a reply to lay before the senate." For a few moments he hesitated, astounded at such a peremptory order, and at last replied, "I will do what the senate thinks right." He then chose to withdraw rather than set the empire to war with Rome again.[36]
On his return journey, according toJosephus, he made an expedition toJudea, tookJerusalem by force, slew a great many who had favoredPtolemy, sent his soldiers to plunder them without mercy. He also spoiled thetemple, and interrupted the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation, for three years and six months.[37]
The latter part of his reign saw a further disintegration of the Empire despite his best efforts. Weakened economically, militarily and by loss of prestige, the Empire became vulnerable to rebels in the eastern areas of the empire, who began to further undermine the empire while the Parthians moved into the power vacuum to take over the old Persian lands. Antiochus' aggressive Hellenizing (or de-Judaizing) activities provoked a full scale armed rebellion inJudea—theMaccabean Revolt.[38] Efforts to deal with both the Parthians and the Jews as well as retain control of the provinces at the same time proved beyond the weakened empire's power. Antiochus orchestrated a military campaign, capturingArtaxias I, King of Armenia, and reoccupying Armenia.[39] His offensive ventured as far as Persepolis, but he was forced from the city by the populace.[40] On his return home, Antiochus died inIsfahan in 164 BC.[41]
Coin ofAntiochus IV Epiphanes. Reverse with the Greek legend:ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ,Basileōs Antiochou Theou Epiphanous Nikēphorou, "of Victorious God Manifest King Antiochus."Seleucid Syria in early 124 BC underAlexander II Zabinas, who ruled the country with the exception of the city ofPtolemais
After the death ofAntiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid Empire became increasingly unstable. Frequent civil wars made central authority tenuous at best. Epiphanes' young son,Antiochus V Eupator, was first overthrown by Seleucus IV's son,Demetrius I Soter in 161 BC. Demetrius I attempted to restore Seleucid power inJudea particularly, but was overthrown in 150 BC byAlexander Balas—an impostor who (with Egyptian backing) claimed to be the son of Epiphanes. Alexander Balas reigned until 145 BC when he was overthrown by Demetrius I's son,Demetrius II Nicator. Demetrius II proved unable to control the whole of the kingdom, however. While he ruledBabylonia and easternSyria fromDamascus, the remnants of Balas' supporters—first supporting Balas' sonAntiochus VI, then the usurping generalDiodotus Tryphon—held out inAntioch.
Meanwhile, the decay of the Empire's territorial possessions continued apace. By 143 BC, the Jews in the form of theMaccabees had fully established their independence.Parthian expansion continued as well. In 139 BC, Demetrius II was defeated in battle by the Parthians and was captured. By this time, the entire Iranian Plateau had been lost to Parthian control.
Demetrius Nicator's brother,Antiochus VII Sidetes, took the throne after his brother's capture. He faced the enormous task of restoring a rapidly crumbling empire, one facing threats on multiple fronts. Hard-won control ofCoele-Syria was threatened by the Jewish Maccabee rebels. Once-vassal dynasties in Armenia, Cappadocia, and Pontus were threatening Syria and northernMesopotamia; the nomadic Parthians, brilliantly led byMithridates I of Parthia, had overrun upland Media (home of the famedNisean horse herd); and Roman intervention was an ever-present threat. Sidetes managed to bring the Maccabees to heel and frighten the Anatolian dynasts into a temporary submission; then, in 133, he turned east with the full might of the Royal Army (supported by a body of Jews under theHasmonean prince,John Hyrcanus) to drive back the Parthians.
Coin of Antiochus VII Sidetes from theSidon mint. With theEagle of Zeus on the reverse.
Sidetes' campaign initially met with spectacular success, recapturing Mesopotamia, Babylonia, and Media. In the winter of 130/129 BC, his army was scattered in winter quarters throughout Media and Persis when the Parthian king,Phraates II, counter-attacked. Moving to intercept the Parthians with only the troops at his immediate disposal, he was ambushed and killed at theBattle of Ecbatana in 129 BC. Antiochus Sidetes is sometimes called the last great Seleucid king.
After the death of Antiochus VII Sidetes, all of the recovered eastern territories were recaptured by the Parthians. The Maccabees again rebelled, civil war soon tore the empire to pieces, and the Armenians began to encroach on Syria from the north.
By 100 BC, the once-formidable Seleucid Empire encompassed little more thanAntioch and some Syrian cities. Despite the clear collapse of their power, and the decline of their kingdom around them, nobles continued to play kingmakers on a regular basis, with occasional intervention fromPtolemaic Egypt and other outside powers. The Seleucids existed solely because no other nation wished to absorb them—seeing as they constituted a useful buffer between their other neighbours. In the wars in Anatolia betweenMithridates VI ofPontus andSulla of Rome, the Seleucids were largely left alone by both major combatants.
Mithridates' ambitious son-in-law,Tigranes the Great, king ofArmenia, however, saw opportunity for expansion in the constant civil strife to the south. In 83 BC, at the invitation of one of the factions in the interminable civil wars, he invaded Syria and soon established himself as ruler of Syria, putting the Seleucid Empire virtually at an end.
Seleucid rule was not entirely over, however. Following the Roman generalLucullus' defeat of both Mithridates and Tigranes in 69 BC, a rump Seleucid kingdom was restored underAntiochus XIII. Even so, civil wars could not be prevented, as another Seleucid,Philip II, contested rule with Antiochus. After the Roman conquest of Pontus, the Romans became increasingly alarmed at the constant source of instability in Syria under the Seleucids. Once Mithridates was defeated byPompey in 63 BC, Pompey set about the task ofremaking the Hellenistic East, by creating new client kingdoms and establishing provinces. While client nations likeArmenia andJudea were allowed to continue with some degree of autonomy under local kings, Pompey saw the Seleucids as too troublesome to continue; doing away with both rival Seleucid princes, he madeSyria into aRoman province.
The domain of the Seleucids stretched from theAegean Sea to what is nowAfghanistan andPakistan, therefore including a diverse array of cultures and ethnic groups.Greeks,Assyrians,Armenians,Georgians,Persians,Medes, Mesopotamians,Jews, and more all lived within its bounds. The immense size of the empire gave the Seleucid rulers a difficult balancing act to maintain order, resulting in a mixture of concessions to local cultures to maintain their own practices while also firmly controlling and unifying local elites under the Seleucid banner.
The government established Greek cities and settlements throughout the empire via a program of colonization that encouraged immigration from Greece; both city settlements as well as rural ones were created that were inhabited by ethnic Greeks. These Greeks were given good land and privileges, and in exchange were expected to serve in military service for the state. Despite being a tiny minority of the overall population, these Greeks were the backbone of the empire: loyal and committed to a cause that gave them vast territory to rule, they overwhelmingly served in the military and government. UnlikePtolemaic Egypt, Greeks in the Seleucid Empire seem to rarely have engaged in mixed marriages with non-Greeks; they kept to their own cities.
The various non-Greek peoples of the empire were still influenced by the spread of Greek thought and culture, a phenomenon referred to asHellenization. Historically significant towns and cities, such asAntioch, were created or renamed with Greek names, and hundreds of new cities were established for trade purposes and built in Greek style from the start.[47] Local educated elites who needed to work with the government learned the Greek language, wrote in Greek, absorbed Greek philosophical ideas, and took on Greek names; some of these practices then slowly filtered down to the lower classes. Hellenic ideas began an almost 250-year expansion into the Near East, Middle East, and Central Asian cultures.
Synthesizing Hellenic and indigenous cultural, religious, and philosophical ideas – an ethnic unity framework established byAlexander – met with varying degrees of success. The result was times of simultaneous peace and rebellion in various parts of the empire. In general, the Seleucids allowed local religions to operate undisturbed, such as incorporatingBabylonian religious tenets, to gain support.[48] Tensions around the integration ofJudaism were present during the reign of the Seleucid governments. Though previous governments had managed a relatively seamless integration of Judean religious and cultural practices, the rule of Antiochus IV introduced significant changes. Antiochus IV instigated a bidding process for theHigh Priest position—this led toMenelaus, a radical Hellenist, outbiddingJason, a moderate Hellenist who upheld many traditional Judean practices.[49] The shift from Jason to Menelaus unsettled the Jewish populace due to Menelaus's more extreme Hellenistic leanings.[50] Aggravating the situation, Antiochus IV initiated a series of religious persecutions. This cumulated in a localized revolt in Jerusalem. Antiochus IV's violent retaking of the city and the banning of traditional Judean practices led to the eventualloss of control of Judea by the Seleucid government, paving the way for the rise of an independentHasmonean kingdom.
Bagadates I (Minted 290–280 BC) was the first native Seleucid satrap to be appointed.[51]
As with the other majorHellenistic armies, the Seleucid army fought primarily in the Greco-Macedonian style, with its main body being thephalanx. The phalanx was a large, dense formation of men armed with small shields and a long pike called thesarissa. This form of fighting had been developed by theMacedonian army in the reign ofPhilip II of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great. Alongside the phalanx, the Seleucid armies used numerous native and mercenary troops to supplement their Greek forces, which were limited due to the distance from the Seleucid rulers'Macedonian homeland. The size of the Seleucid army usually varied between 70,000 and 200,000 in manpower.
The distance from Greece put a strain on the Seleucid military system, as it was primarily based around the recruitment of Greeks as the key segment of the army. In order to increase the population of Greeks in their kingdom, the Seleucid rulers created military settlements. There were two main periods in the establishment of settlements, firstly underSeleucus I Nicator andAntiochus I Soter and then underAntiochus IV Epiphanes. The military settlers were given land, "varying in size according to rank and arm of service'.[52] They were settled in 'colonies of an urban character, which at some point could acquire the status of a polis".[53] The settler-soldiers were calledkatoikoi; they would maintain the land as their own and in return, they would serve in the Seleucid army when called. The majority of settlements were concentrated inLydia, northernSyria, the upperEuphrates andMedia.Antiochus III brought Greeks fromEuboea,Crete andAetolia and settled them inAntioch.[54]
These Greek settlers would be used to form the Seleucid phalanx and cavalry units, with picked men put into the kingdom's guards' regiments. The rest of the Seleucid army would consist of native and mercenary troops, who would serve as lightauxiliary troops. While the Seleucids were happy to recruit from less populated and outlying parts of the Empire such as theArabs and Jews, Iranian peoples in the east, and inhabitants of Asia Minor to the north, they generally eschewed recruiting native Syrians and native Mesopotamians (Babylonians). This was presumably mostly from a desire not to train and arm the people who were an overwhelming majority in the trade and governmental centers of the Empire inAntioch and Babylon, risking revolt. While a revolt in a remote place could be put down by resolute action from the center, an uprising inSyria-Coele would have undermined the kingdom's very existence.[55]
Following losses of territory in Asia Minor during theRoman-Seleucid War, King Antiochus IV sponsored a new wave of immigration and settlements to replace them and maintain enough Greeks to staff the phalanxes seen at the military parade at Daphne in 166–165 BC. Antiochus IV built 15 new cities "and their association with the increased phalanx... at Daphne is too obvious to be ignored".[56]
As a hegemonic empire, much of the state's wealth accumulation centered around maintaining its sizable military.[57][58][59][60] While the motive is simple enough, the Seleucid Empire boasts of a sophisticated political economy that extracts wealth from local temples, cities (orpoleis), and royal estates; much of which was inherited from their Achaemenid predecessors. Recent discussion indicates a market-oriented economy under the Seleucids.[60] However, evidencing limits our understanding of the Seleucid economy to the Hellenistic Near-East; that is, through their holdings in Syria, Asia Minor, and Mesopotamia. Little is known about the economy of the Upper Satrapies.
Gold octodrachm of Antiochus III; Antioch mint 204-197 BC.
Currency plays an increasingly central role under the Seleucids; however, monetization was nothing new in their newly acquired lands.[60] Rather, the introduction and widespread implementation of currency is attributed to Darius I's tax reforms centuries prior;[60] hence, the Seleucids see a continuation rather than shift in this practice, i.e. the payment of taxation in silver or, if necessary, in kind.[57] In this regard, the Seleucids are notable for paying their sizeable armies exclusively in silver.[59] Nevertheless, there are two significant developments of currency during the Seleucid period: the adoption of the "Attic Standard" in certain regions,[60] and the popularization of bronze coinage.[59]
The adoption of the Attic standard was not uniform across the realm. The Attic standard was already the common currency of the Mediterranean prior to Alexander's conquest; that is, it was the preferred currency for foreign transactions.[59] As a result, coastal regions under the Seleucids—Syria and Asia Minor—were quick to adopt the new standard.[59] In Mesopotamia, however, the millennia-old shekel (weighing 8.33 g silver) prevailed over the Attic standard.[59] According to Historian R. J. van der Spek, this is due to their particular method in recording price, which favored bartering over monetary transactions.[60] The Mesopotamians used the value of one shekel as a fixed reference point, against which the amount of a good is given.[60][61] Prices themselves are accounted in terms of their weight in silver per ton, e.g., 60 g silver, barley, June 242 BC.[61] The minute difference in weight between a shekel and didrachm (weighing 8.6 g silver) could not be expressed in this barter system, and a Greek tetradrachm would be "a far too heavy denomination...in daily trade."[60]
Bronze coinage, dating from the late fifth and fourth century, was popularized as a "fiduciary" currency facilitating "small-scale exchanges" in the Hellenistic period.[60][59] It was principally a legal tender which circulated only around its locales of production; however, the great Seleucid mint at Antioch during Antiochus III's reign (which Numismatist Arthur Houghton dubs "The Syrian and Coele-Syrian Experiment") began minting bronze coins (weighing 1.25–1.5g) to serve a "regional purpose."[62] The reasons behind this remain unclear. However, Spek notes a chronic shortage of silver in the Seleucid empire.[60] In fact, Antiochus I's heavy withdrawal of silver from a satrap is noted by theBabylonian astronomical diaries (AD No. – 273 B 'Rev. 33'): "purchases in Babylon and other cities were made in Greek bronze coins."[60] This was unprecedented because "in official documents [bronze coins] played no part";[60] it was a sign of "hardship" for the Seleucids.[60] Nevertheless, the low denomination of bronze coinage meant it was used in tandem with bartering; making it a popular and successful medium of exchange.[59]
Agriculture, like most pre-modern economies, constituted a vast majority of the Seleucid economy. Somewhere between 80 and 90% of the Seleucid population was employed,[57] in some form, within the prevailing agricultural structures inherited from their Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid predecessors.[59] These included temples,poleis, and royal estates. We should clarify that the termpoleis, according to Spek, did not confer any special status to cities in the Seleucid sources; it was simply the term for "city"—Greek or otherwise.[57] Regardless, agricultural produce varied from region to region. But in general, Greekpoleis produced: "grain, olives and their oil, wine...figs, cheese from sheep and goats, [and] meat."[59] Whereas Mesopotamian production from temple land consisted of: "barley, dates, mustard (or cascuta/dodder), cress (cardamom), sesame and wool"; which, as the core region of the Seleucid empire, was also the most productive.[60][57]Recent evidence indicates that Mesopotamian grain production, under the Seleucids, was subject to market forces of supply and demand.[60] Traditional "primitivist" narratives of the ancient economy argue that it was "marketless"; however, the Babylonian astronomical diaries show a high degree of market integration of barley and date prices—to name a few—in Seleucid Babylonia.[61] Prices exceeding370g silver per ton in Seleucid Mesopotamia was considered a sign of famine. Therefore, during periods of war, heavy taxation, and crop failure, prices increase drastically. In an extreme example, Spek believes tribal Arab raiding into Babylonia caused barley prices to skyrocket to 1493 grams of silver per ton from 5–8 May, 124 BC.[61] The average Mesopotamian peasant, if working for a wage at a temple, would receive 1 shekel; it "was a reasonable monthly wage for which one could buy one kor of grain= 180 [liters]."[61] While this appears dire, we should be reminded that Mesopotamia under the Seleucids was largely stable and prices remained low.[60] With encouraged Greek colonization and land reclamation increasing the supply of grain production, however, the question of whether this artificially kept prices stable is uncertain.[60]
The Seleucids also continued the tradition of actively maintaining the Mesopotamian waterways. As the greatest source of state income, the Seleucid kings actively managed the irrigation, reclamation, and population of Mesopotamia.[60] In fact, canals were often dug by royal decrees, to which "some were called the King's Canal for that reason."[57] For example, the construction of thePallacottas canal was able to control the water level of the Euphrates which, asArrian notes in hisAnabasis 7.21.5, required: "over two months of work by more than 10,000 Assyrians."[57]
Portrait of a young Seleucid prince. Marble, 2nd century BC.
As a hegemonic empire, the state's primary focus was maintaining its sizable army via wealth extraction from three major sources:[59] tribute from autonomouspoleis and temples, and proportional land-tax from royal land.[63][64] The definition of "royal land" remains contested. While all agreepoleis do not constitute royal land, some remain uncertain over the status of temple land.[65][63] Yet, they commanded notable economic power and functioned almost independently from the state.[58] Nevertheless, the Seleucid manner of extraction, in contrast to earlier regimes, is considered more "aggressive" and "predatory".[64][58]In theory, the Seleucid state was an absolute monarchy that did not recognize private property in our modern sense.[65] Any land that was not delegated to thepoleis or temples was considered private property of the sovereign;[65] thus, considered as Royal Land and liable to direct tax by the state. Here, a "proportional land-tax", that is, a tax based on the size of one's plot, is collected by the local governor (or Satrap) and sent to the capital.[63] However, there is no evidence for the amount that was taxed on any given region.
Tribute was heavily levied onpoleis and temples. Although tribute is paid annually, the amount demanded increases significantly during wartime. During a civil war in 149 BC, Demetrius II demanded the province of Judaea to pay 300 talents of silver, which was seen as "severe."[63] But this was far from an isolated case. In fact, the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries in 308/7 BC note a hefty 50% tax on harvest "from the lands of the temple of Shamash (in Sipprar or Larsa)."[65] Nevertheless, annual tribute was "a long-accepted and uncontroversial practice."[58] Also, royal land was regularly donated to the temples andpoleis; albeit under the assumption that a greater share of revenue is given to the state in exchange.[65][64]
The controversial practice of temple "despoliation", however, was a regular occurrence under the Seleucids—in contrast to earlier times.[58] Although the Seleucid kings were aware and appreciated the sacrosanctity of religious treasures, their concentration in these places "proved irresistible" in the face of "short-term fiscal constraints."[58] As an example, Antiochus III's despoliation of the Anahit Temple in Ecbatana, wherein he procured 4000 silver talents, was used to fund his Great Eastern campaign.[58] According to historian Michael J. Taylor:[58]
It is difficult to believe that these monarchs who knew enough to bow before Nabu, bake bricks for Esagil, and enforce kosher regulations in Jerusalem, would be blithely aware of the political hazards of removing Temple treasures. It is more likely that they knew the risks but took them anyway.
A rebellion in 169 BC during Antiochus III's campaign in Egypt demonstrates that these "risks" occasionally backfire.[64] The increasingly bold interference is due, in large part, to the appointment of provincial high-priests by the monarch himself.[64][57] Often they were his court "favorites",[57] whose prerogatives were purely administrative; essentially, they served to collect tribute for the state.[64] Unsurprisingly: "native elites profoundly feared that the arrival of a Seleucid official might quickly cascade into a wholesale removal of Temple treasures."[58]
Interpretations on the Seleucid economy since the late 19th century traditionally fell between the "modernist" and "primitivist" camps.[60][59] On one hand, the modernist view—largely associated with Michael Rostovtzeff and Eduard Meyer—argues that the Hellenistic economies operated along price-setting markets with capitalist enterprises exported over long distances in "completely monetarized markets."[59] On the other hand, the primitivist view—associated with M.I. Finley, Karl Polanyi and Karl Bücher—interprets ancient economies as "autarchic" in nature with little to no interaction among each other. However, recent discussion has since criticized these models for their grounding on "Greco-centric" sources.[57][66]
Recent discussion has since rejected these traditional dichotomies.[60][59][66] According to Spek and Reger, the current view is that the Seleucid economy—and Hellenistic economies more broadly—werepartially market-oriented, andpartially monetarized.[60] While the market was subject to forces of supply and demand, a majority of produce was still consumed by their producers and was, hence, "invisible" to the observer.[60][59]
^The horned horse, the elephant, the anchor, and the goddessesNike andTyche were common Seleucid symbols.[1][2]
^Cohen, Getzel M;The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa, p. 13.
^Lynette G. Mitchell; Every Inch a King: Comparative Studies on Kings and Kingship in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds, pp. 123–124.
^abRichard N. Frye,The History of Ancient Iran, (Ballantyne, 1984), 164;"Greek was the official and dominant written language of the Seleucid empire, but Aramaic continued in use.."
^Julye Bidmead,The Akitu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia, (Gorgias, 2004), 143.
^Primer of Hinduism, p. 81, J. N. Farquhar, Asian Educational Services
^abcdeTaagepera, Rein (1979). "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth–Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D.".Social Science History.3 (3/4): 121.JSTOR1170959.
^Oxford English Dictionary,1st ed. "Seleucid,n. andadj." Oxford University Press, 1911.
^Niknami, Kamal-Aldin; Hozhabri, Ali (2020).Archaeology of Iran in the Historical Period. Springer. p. viii.ISBN978-3-030-41776-5.Most of the Asiatic occupations of Alexander, Iran as the core of them, were given to Seleucus I at first. Thus, Iran came under the ruling of the Seleucid. The Seleucid was a Greek state that commanded Western Asia between 312 and 64 BC. The Seleucid Empire was founded by Seleucus I.
^Eckstein, Arthur M. (2009).Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome. University of California Press. p. 106.ISBN978-0-520-25992-8.By 201–200 it appeared that the old structure would be replaced by a expansion in the power of two already formidable Greek states–Antigonid Macedon and the Seleucid Empire–or perhaps even that one of these two formidable powers would emerge the sole victor.
^Jones, Kenneth Raymond (2006).Provincial reactions to Roman imperialism: the aftermath of the Jewish revolt, A.D. 66–70, Parts 66–70. University of California, Berkeley. p. 174.ISBN978-0-542-82473-9.... and the Greeks, or at least the Greco-Macedonian Seleucid Empire, replace the Persians as the Easterners.
^Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies (London, England) (1993).The Journal of Hellenic studies, Volumes 113–114. Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies. p. 211.The Seleucid kingdom has traditionally been regarded as basically a Greco-Macedonian state and its rulers thought of as successors to Alexander.
^Baskin, Judith R.; Seeskin, Kenneth (2010).The Cambridge Guide to Jewish History, Religion, and Culture. Cambridge University Press. p. 37.ISBN978-0-521-68974-8.The wars between the two most prominent Greek dynasties, the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Syria, unalterably change the history of the land of Israel...As a result the land of Israel became part of the empire of the Syrian Greek Seleucids.
^abGlubb, John Bagot (1967).Syria, Lebanon, Jordan. Thames & Hudson. p. 34.OCLC585939.In addition to the court and the army, Syrian cities were full of Greek businessmen, many of them pure Greeks from Greece. The senior posts in the civil service were also held by Greeks. Although the Ptolemies and the Seleucids were perpetual rivals, both dynasties were Greek and ruled by means of Greek officials and Greek soldiers. Both governments made great efforts to attract immigrants from Greece, thereby adding yet another racial element to the population.
^Hause, Steven C.; Maltby, William S. (2004).Western civilization: a history of European society. Thomson Wadsworth. p. 76.ISBN978-0-534-62164-3.The Greco-Macedonian Elite. The Seleucids respected the cultural and religious sensibilities of their subjects but preferred to rely on Greek or Macedonian soldiers and administrators for the day-to-day business of governing. The Greek population of the cities, reinforced until the second century BC by immigration from Greece, formed a dominant, although not especially cohesive, elite.
^Victor, Royce M. (2010).Colonial education and class formation in early Judaism: a postcolonial reading. Continuum. p. 55.ISBN978-0-567-24719-3.Like other Hellenistic kings, the Seleucids ruled with the help of their "friends" and a Greco-Macedonian elite class separate from the native populations whom they governed.
^Clark, Walter Eugene (1919). "The Importance of Hellenism from the Point of View of Indic-Philology".Classical Philology.14 (4):297–313.doi:10.1086/360246.S2CID161613588.
^Bar-Kochva, Bezalel (1989).Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids. Cambridge University Press. pp. 95–111.ISBN0521323525. . For the dismissive Greek attitudes toward Syrians, Bar-Kochva is citingMartin Hengel's 1976 workJuden, Griechen und Barbaren, p. 77.
^abcdefghijklmnoReger, Gary (2003)."The Economy" in "A Companion to the Hellenistic World" by Andrew Erskine. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Limited. pp. 331–353.ISBN978-1-4051-3278-7.
^abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvvan der Spek, Robartus Johannes (2004). "Palace, Temple and Market in Seleucid Babylonia".Topoi:303–332 – via Academia.[permanent dead link]
G. G. Aperghis,The Seleukid Royal Economy. The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire, Cambridge, 2004.
Laurent Capdetrey,Le pouvoir séleucide. Territoire, administration, finances d'un royaume hellénistique (312–129 avant J.C.). (Collection "Histoire"). Rennes:Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2007.
D. Engels,Benefactors, Kings, Rulers. Studies on the Seleukid Empire between East and West, Leuven, 2017 (Studia Hellenistica 57).
A. Houghton, C. Lorber,Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue, Part I, Seleucus I through Antiochus III, With Metrological Tables by B. Kritt, I-II, New York – Lancaster – London, 2002.
R. Oetjen (ed.),New Perspectives in Seleucid History, Archaeology and Numismatics: Studies in Honor of Getzel M. Cohen, Berlin – Boston:De Gruyter, 2020
Michael J. Taylor,Antiochus the Great (Barnsley:Pen and Sword, 2013).
Wünsch, Julian (2022).Großmacht gegen lokale Machthaber: die Herrschaftspraxis der Seleukiden an den Rändern ihres Reiches. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.ISBN9783447119054.
![Inscribed tetradrachm of Seleucus I with symbols of the Seleucid monarchy[a] of Seleucid Empire](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3a201209071746a_Berlin_Pergamonmuseum%2c_Tetradrachme_Seleukos%2527_I%2c_Silber%2c_Pergamon%2c_281-280_v.u.Z.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_Colorized_per_source.jpg)
%2c_Hamadan_mint.jpg)
