View Full Version : The Most Succesfull Succesor
Hello all, now for a thought provoking thread: Which of the Hellenistic kingdoms do you think can be awarded the title "most succesful?". Feel free to use any crtieria to justify your opinion, for example if you go for longevity then the Ptolemy would be the obvious choice as the Ptolemic Kingdom outlived both Macedon and the Seleucid state by a good margin. However, if you consider the ability to maintain your immediate post Alexandran borders then Macedon would win as both the Ptolemies (Cilicia, Palestine, Kyrene) and Seleucids (all bar Syria) lost territory which they failed to recover before they collapsed. Or you could go the other way and say that the succesor which gained the most territory, in this case the Seleucids, following their establishment should be considered the most succesful. Or you could use a wide variety of criteria to defend your choice.
You will notice I have left Bactria, Epirus, Pergamun and a variety of other Hellenistic states out as they were either established some time after the Battle of Ipsus (Bactria) or owe their origins not to the Wars of the Diadochi but to other events (Epirus). If, however, you think them to be succesors please do add your thoughts along with why you think they were succesors and whether they were succesfull at that.
There are no right or wrong answers (unless you use outright false facts) but there is a balloon for the most interesting and convincing answer.
Stratigoi, Senators, Chieftains, Kings and Shah's of the EB Forum commence your debate!
Personally, I'd say the Seleucids. If it haddn't been for the rise of Rome, they'd probably have ended up annexing Egypt & the Majority of Asia Minor...
But this is purely based on the fact, that the romans had to interfere on behalf of the ptollies & others...
I would agree with that, if you consider the setbacks Antiochus III and Antiochus VII had with the Romans then it seems feasible that the Seleucids could have been more of a succes.
Mulceber
10-09-2011, 03:15
I'd say it's ultimately a choice between Seleukids and Ptolemies. Ptolemies lasted longer and Ptolemaios I was really the first successor to realize that no one was going to rebuild the Alexandrian Empire. He took the most defensible kingdom and buckled down. Seleukids are probably the ones who reached the the greatest heights of power and who came closest to rebuilding Alexander's Empire. So ultimately, I'd say it depends on your definition of successful: survival or power?
But what real power did the Seleucids hold outside of Syria and Mesapotamia? They got smacked around practically everywhere until Antiochus showed up.
Cute Wolf
10-09-2011, 07:50
Survival and influence = Ptolies
Military Power Potential = AS
What Military power potential? What use was such a big empire if you cant even expand your borders?
the only reason the ptollies survived as long as they did was because of Rome, and this also stopped seleucid expansion..
In either case, this was pretty much covered in the original post: The ptollies military power was, atleast in the end, inferior to the seleucids, but they were better at staying independent.
Anyways: survivability is undoubtely it's the ptollies, but without the Rise of Rome, I think it'd have been the seleucid empire who'd come out of it victorius...
Hands down the Seleukidai...
Seleukos might have united the whole empire (except Egypt) if Keraunos didn't assassinate him...
Not to mention that the Ptolemaioi successes most of the time were due to local strategoi switching sides or local administrators choosing to elect the egyptian basileus in Asia...
Great posts so far guys, interesting that nobody is attempting to propose Macedon as the most succesful.
Basileus_ton_Basileon
10-09-2011, 20:43
Antigonos had the potential. In fact, he had too much potential that practically everybody ganged up on him. D:
But what real power did the Seleucids hold outside of Syria and Mesapotamia? They got smacked around practically everywhere until Antiochus showed up.
You should really read up on the actual history of the Seleukid Empire before making a statement like that. Sure they suffered there fair share of beatings but they also doled them out just as often, and they were the only successor who were able to repeatedly recover from major defeats.
The Ptolemies while starting out strong and even expanding their empire a little, entered a long slow decline, gradually losing territories to the Seleukids and Makedones before their final swift conquest by the Romans.
The Makedones (if we are just talking about EB's timeframe) were pre-eminent in their own region (greece) but they never managed to successfully expand beyond that, and frankly just weren't in the same league as the other two.
So, arguably, how about Media Atropatene? They survived well into the Arsacid time, then were annexed by the Sasanids, thus independently lasting longer than of the other successor states. The only thing is that Atropates wasn't a Hellene himself, but eh.
Cute Wolf
10-10-2011, 09:23
So, arguably, how about Media Atropatene? They survived well into the Arsacid time, then were annexed by the Sasanids, thus independently lasting longer than of the other successor states. The only thing is that Atropates wasn't a Hellene himself, but eh.
and Pergamon comes in mind since they are "peacefully" absorbed to the Roman Republic
Titus Marcellus Scato
10-10-2011, 17:26
What Successor state would Alexander the Great have regarded as the most successful?
Macedon as the original homeland of the core Macedonian army which he led to victory across half the world?
Seleucids as the heirs to Babylon and Persia, the heart of Alexander's empire?
Ptolemies as the guardians of Alexander's embalmed corpse and the leading centre of Hellenistic learning and culture?
Personally, I think Alexander cared little for Macedon, except as a source of soldiers, since he showed no interest in returning there, but looked ever to fresh conquests. Perhaps being only half Macedonian, he did not have especially strong emotional ties to his childhood home. And Egypt was little more than a pleasant vacation on his journeys. So I think he would identify most with the Seleucids, who followed his vision of a huge eastern empire.
Perhaps that is the best criteria of success?
It does seem that the Seleucids have the upper hand in this debate, a point I am happy to agree with.
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
10-12-2011, 12:59
I second the Seleukids out of the reasons pointed out previously.
However, let's face it, none of them was really successful military- and politics-wise. Yes, at a time, but they did not last very long. Their success lies in the cultural heritage that Alexander's cunning deeds have sewed in the East and lasted up until the Byzantine Era. More so, the Hellenistic monarchies are an example for how difficult it is for a kingdom to survive when your power depends on a very small, unreplaceable ressource of men. Perhaps they failed out of the same reasons that Sparta owes its failure to, though they were diametrically different.
I second the Seleukids out of the reasons pointed out previously.
However, let's face it, none of them was really successful military- and politics-wise. Yes, at a time, but they did not last very long. Their success lies in the cultural heritage that Alexander's cunning deeds have sewed in the East and lasted up until the Byzantine Era. More so, the Hellenistic monarchies are an example for how difficult it is for a kingdom to survive when your power depends on a very small, unreplaceable ressource of men. Perhaps they failed out of the same reasons that Sparta owes its failure to, though they were diametrically different.
I would say the troubles of the Diadochi were more to do with being an unpopular Imperial power rather than a shortage of Hellenic colonists, if you look at the troop roster for Antiochus III forces at Magnesia it shows the Seleucids at least had no qualms about enlisting large numbers of non-Hellenes. I would suggest that, as foreigners to many of their subjects, the Ptolemies and Seleucids lacked legitimacy to wield power in the eyes of their subject peoples, much in the same way that the Achaemenid Persians sometimes struggled to maintain order over their subjects (most notably during the usurption of Darius I).
Populus Romanus
10-14-2011, 04:26
I would definently say the Seleucids. Had it not been for Rome, they would have outsed the Ptolemies. However, I believe that even then the Seleucids still would have declined.
stratigos vasilios
10-18-2011, 14:13
I'm going for Ptolmaic succesors. Particularly for their minting ability, flourishing art (statues, etc) and culture.
Brennus, for you :balloon2:. For keeping the threads interesting and alive with new and great topics to discuss :bow:
The_Blacksmith
10-18-2011, 14:29
Kassander! naah im kidding!
Ptolemaics, because of the fact that at least one of their monarchs is know among the plebs today: Cleopatra
I would define "successful" not only in terms of military potential but also stability and continuity. When one sees how many Seleucid leaders ended assassinated or killed in revolts/wars (just to name Seleucus I, III and IV, Antiochus I, II and III), I side with the Ptolemaic Kingdom.
Seleucid power was more "unfocused" and did not succeed to retain much the loyalty of their subjects.
Seleucid power was more "unfocused" and did not succeed to retain much the loyalty of their subjects.
I disagree, Seleukos I rapid come back, after Monophthalmos took over, was all due to the support he had with the locals, since he favoured the Babylonians economically during his satrapal rule...
More over all the "revolts" were dynastic struggles, where brothers (just thanks to the local support they managed to gather in their "domains") fought for the seat of Basileus of Asia...
The Ptolemaioi after Raphia had to face insurrections from the very locals who fought in the phalanx, as they became more aware of the privileges the ruling class had; all backed by the rural population who felt even more oppressed (losing the territories outside of Egypt meant an heavier burned on the local resources)...
And around the same time, even the Thebaid revolted and managed to create a kingdom with two local pharaohs...
All in all the Ptoleis from the second century BC onwards relied on help or opportunities from other "nations", and even when they managed to regain control of the Thebaid, they had to leave and epistrategos, who was pretty much independent...
I disagree, Seleukos I rapid come back, after Monophthalmos took over, was all due to the support he had with the locals, since he favoured the Babylonians economically during his satrapal rule...
More over all the "revolts" were dynastic struggles, where brothers (just thanks to the local support they managed to gather in their "domains") fought for the seat of Basileus of Asia...
The Ptolemaioi after Raphia had to face insurrections from the very locals who fought in the phalanx, as they became more aware of the privileges the ruling class had; all backed by the rural population who felt even more oppressed (losing the territories outside of Egypt meant an heavier burned on the local resources)...
And around the same time, even the Thebaid revolted and managed to create a kingdom with two local pharaohs...
All in all the Ptoleis from the second century BC onwards relied on help or opportunities from other "nations", and even when they managed to regain control of the Thebaid, they had to leave and epistrategos, who was pretty much independent...
Well more or less, the period of "glory" for both kingdoms was gone after about 160-150 BC when the growing power of Rome started imposing the rules in Syria and Egypt. Starting with this point, the power of both declined until in about 65 BC the last remnants of Seleucid territory becomes Roman province. Although under heavy roman control/protection the last Ptolemy (Cleopatra) retained the royal title to the end (30 BC). Ptolemaics outlast the Seleucids.
When I said that Seleucid power was "unfocused" I meant exactly that there were enough "competitors" to the throne that had/gathered/obtained/retained enough (local) power to challenge the authority of the king either through revolt or open war. Of course this happened also in Egypt but I get the feeling it was less frequent, at least at the beginning.
Let's see: WARNING WALL OF TEXT!
Seleucids:
1. Seleucus Nicator - assassinated 281 BC moves his capital to Syria (the starting point of loosing the grasp on Bactria and Parthia, my opinion).
2. Antiochus I Soter - looses Northern Phrygia/Galatia and North-western Lydia/Pergamus.
3. Antiochus II Theos - Bactrian and Parthian revolt. Poisoned by ex-wife Laodice I.
4. Seleucus II Callinicus - quite resourceful king but defeted at Ancyra looses control of land beyond Taurus and Hyrcania to Parthians.
5. Seleucus III Ceraunus assassinated by his officers, 223 BC.
6. Antiochus III the Great - Media and Persis revolt, recovered later. Restores authority in east (Parthia/Bactria) and meets success against Egypt. Makes the mistake of provoking the Romans, pays no heed to Hannibal and gets defeated at Thermopylae and Magnesia. Dies pillaging the temple of Bel.
7. Seleucus IV Philopator - murdered by Heliodorus.
8. Antiochus IV Epiphanes - stopped by the Romans from conquering Egipt. Religiously intolerant his actions lead to the Maccabean Revolt.
9. Antiochus V Eupator - killed by Demetrius.
10. Demetrius I Soter - defeats the Maccabeans. Timarchus, the Median satrap seeks independence but fails. Killed by Alexander Balas and the Jew forces.
11. Alexander Balas - killed by his own offices.
12. Demetrius II Nicator- regains his throne with the backing of Ptolemy VI Philometor. Empire divided between him and Antiochus VI Dionysus. Defeated by Parthians.
12. Antiochus VII Euergetes - initial success in Palestina and against Partians but soon defeated by Phraates II. Seleucids controlled mostly only Syria at this time.
14. Antiochus VIII Grypus - eastern provinces lost. Judaea independent. Revolt of his half-brother Antiochus Cyzicenus. Tyre, Sidon, Seleucia assume independence.
Civil wars follow.
Ptolemies:
1. Ptolemy IV Philopator - weak incapable king, but Egyptian forces win at Raphia as they did at Pelusium and Gaza. Secession of Upper Egypt, revolt of Horwennefer.
2. Ptolemy V Epiphanes - During early ears faces revolts and looses all possessions excepting Cyrenaica and Cyprus. Egyptian and Horwennefer's revolts repressed. Assassinated by his officers.
3. Ptolemy VI Philometor - Egypt saved from Antiochus IV Epiphanes by Romans. Reinstalled by the Roman Senate. Faced frequent rebellions. From now on the Ptolemies were increasingly dependent of Rome.
4. Ptolemy VIII Physcon - civil war with Cleopatra II, Harsiesi revolt crushed.
5. Ptolemy IX Lathyros - loss of Cyrenaica, times of trouble and civil Wars. Revolt in the Thebaid but oder restored during his life. Replaces the gold sarcophagus of Alexander with a glass one and melts the gold.
6. Ptolemy X Alexander - invades Judaea, reaches Damascus. Revolt in the Thebaid.
7. Ptolemy XI Alexander - lynched by the Alexandrians.
8. Ptolemy XII Auletes - end of the Seleucid empire. Avoids the annexation of Egypt by Rome. Takes an Egyptian wife in the effort to consolidate his power.
9. Cleopatra VII Philopator - THE Cleopatra. Sole ruler of Egypt. After her death Rome annexed Egypt.
I let you judge.
You must consider that Cyrenaica and Cyprus were separate kingdoms, and it was there that ex-queens or brothers/sons regrouped to revolt and that happened most of the time...
Plus the invasions after Eurgetes were in the context of Seleukid dynastic struggles, with the Ptoleis siding with a in-law, they simply didn't have the power to do it on their own...
And Epiphanes actually gained control of Egypt 'til the Thebaid (there are some of his edicts), when Rome came and he decided to retreat...
antisocialmunky
10-20-2011, 05:23
Ptolemy because they went after their hot sister fantasies.
Not really but still. They had a decent shot at staying independent between Caesar and Anthony.
You must consider that Cyrenaica and Cyprus were separate kingdoms, and it was there that ex-queens or brothers/sons regrouped to revolt and that happened most of the time...
As I see it Cyrenaica was part of the empire. It got independence under Megas but was recovered when his son Demetrius the Fair was assassinated (under Ptolemy II). Ptolemy VIII Euergetes (benefactor, got his name for the building effort in Cyrenaica) recovered it (he overcome the opposition with Roman help) and later separated it from the kingdom and gave it to his son Apion. The Roman help did not came cheap, the province was given to the Romans after Apion's death. Don't know more about any other rebellion based in the province but I'm always eager to learn.
Cyprus yeah was more "loosely" bound.
Fluvius Camillus
10-22-2011, 07:20
Seleukids hands down:
https://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt22/Fluvius_Camillus/AS32.jpg
Case closed.
~Fluvius
Seleukids hands down:
https://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt22/Fluvius_Camillus/AS32.jpg
Case closed.
~Fluvius
Aaaah! it's so shiny it hurts my eyes. Very impressive!
Thanks for the baloon stratigos!
Great posts everyone, I have learnt alot from you.
Didn't Antiochus Megas in practice eliminated Ptolomais as an independent power and a rival of Seleucids? If he didn't encounter Romans he could try and conquer entire Egypt.
And Antiochus IV Epiphanes conquered Egypt before being forced to retreat by Romans. Without Roman interferance Seleucids would have crushed Ptolomais.
Shouldn't that make them the most succesfull succesor?
d'Arthez
10-23-2011, 13:03
Roman interference definitely played its role. But why did Rome interfere? They certainly did not flip a coin to reach such a decision.
They must have deemed the status quo between the Seleukids and the Ptolemaics to be more beneficial to them than outright dominance of either faction. They probably could have taken over Egypt long before they eventually did, but that would have resulted in them becoming the focal point of various other regional powers, who now expended vast number of resources and men on each other in conflicts instead.
Even though the Ptolemaics were dependent on Rome to be bailed out on several occasions, they would not have been bailed out if it was not in Rome's best interest - only when nothing more could be gained (Seleukids were dealt with, thus ending that particular threat to Rome's power), there was less and less point to support the Ptollies. If the Ptollies would have been at the gates of Seleukeia instead of nearly being taken over by the Seleukids, Rome would have sided with the Seleukids.
The Thus the Ptollies "succeeded" in making themselves more useful than the Seleukids, simply helped by the nature of the land they controlled, and others' dependence on grain. To an extent one can argue that making others dependent on you is a sign of success, but only when you are in a position to take advantage of others' dependencies. That was definitely not the case with the Ptollies; Rome basically dictated the terms.
From a Roman perspective, the Seleukids were definitely the more successful between the two of them. The Ptollies only outlasted the Seleukids not by virtue of being more successful, but by virtue of being less successful.
From the Eastern side, Ptolemaics may appear to be more succesful, if only because they lasted longer, even though to a large extent that was a consequence of not sharing a border with the rising Parthians. As they already had enough difficulties to keep the Seleukids at bay, it seems doubtful to have expected them to last against the Parthians.
From an ordinary citizens' perspective, a lot would depend on the economics of these empires. Where would you have had the best life? Think of all the forced conscriptions, the wars, and everything associated with that. Makedonia, despite not lasting long, may suddenly seem a lot more attractive then (even though Makedonia was not exactly plain sailing either).
Roman interference definitely played its role. But why did Rome interfere?
Grain export...
And imo dependance from another nation doesn't mean being successful, but exactly the word: not independent...
Roman interference definitely played its role. But why did Rome interfere? They certainly did not flip a coin to reach such a decision.
They must have deemed the status quo between the Seleukids and the Ptolemaics to be more beneficial to them than outright dominance of either faction. They probably could have taken over Egypt long before they eventually did, but that would have resulted in them becoming the focal point of various other regional powers, who now expended vast number of resources and men on each other in conflicts instead.
Even though the Ptolemaics were dependent on Rome to be bailed out on several occasions, they would not have been bailed out if it was not in Rome's best interest - only when nothing more could be gained (Seleukids were dealt with, thus ending that particular threat to Rome's power), there was less and less point to support the Ptollies. If the Ptollies would have been at the gates of Seleukeia instead of nearly being taken over by the Seleukids, Rome would have sided with the Seleukids.
The Thus the Ptollies "succeeded" in making themselves more useful than the Seleukids, simply helped by the nature of the land they controlled, and others' dependence on grain. To an extent one can argue that making others dependent on you is a sign of success, but only when you are in a position to take advantage of others' dependencies. That was definitely not the case with the Ptollies; Rome basically dictated the terms.
From a Roman perspective, the Seleukids were definitely the more successful between the two of them. The Ptollies only outlasted the Seleukids not by virtue of being more successful, but by virtue of being less successful.
From the Eastern side, Ptolemaics may appear to be more succesful, if only because they lasted longer, even though to a large extent that was a consequence of not sharing a border with the rising Parthians. As they already had enough difficulties to keep the Seleukids at bay, it seems doubtful to have expected them to last against the Parthians.
From an ordinary citizens' perspective, a lot would depend on the economics of these empires. Where would you have had the best life? Think of all the forced conscriptions, the wars, and everything associated with that. Makedonia, despite not lasting long, may suddenly seem a lot more attractive then (even though Makedonia was not exactly plain sailing either).
So are you saying Seleucids were most succesfull succesor or were it Ptolemais?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.