How could the fall of the Arche Seleukeia have been prevented?

This is a question that has bugged me for quite a time, and I think it's an interesting subject to discuss.
One problem of the realm was the seleucid king being away for fighting nearly everytime, so administration was a nightmare, satraps had to be independent which fed thoughts of complete independence. The seleucid kings should have been more like the ptolemaic pharaos, staying in the capital and sending trustworthy generals to conquer regions:egypt: . With this steps, more regions could have been put under the direct control of the king.
The other problem was that during the reign of nearly every king, some stupid relative came and made himself king in anatolia or somewhere, so he had to be ''persuaded'' to leave that post. Unfortunately I do not know any way how that could have been prevented.
Another problem: A lot of eastern provinces were under the controle of easterners. They had no thoughts of loyalty, why should they? More Makedonians should have been there to keep loyalty up.
And of course: The degeneration of the cavalry in the ''Hammer and Anvil'' tactic. Easy to erase.

But that are just my thoughts, I'm not a gigantic expert anyway, all what I know do I know from Wikipedia. So feel free to make suggestions.

Sorounded by enemies too.

You couldn't. You could have postponed it for a while but ultimately, all empires crumble.

Yes eventually, but its up to the people to see if they care enough to serve there country and protect it.

EDIT- England has been around for a long time, and they're still here

Not an empire anymore, now is it?

But its still here! along with france.. which is waay older

But now you are talking about two different things. Seleukeia had an empire that was lost, but the actual city lasted long after that. England had an empire that was lost, but the actual kingdom is still around. What exactly are you asking?

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

But its still here! along with france.. which is waay older

---

France may not be the best example for your arguemnt, seeing how they got devestated by fascist and in the past 300 or so years have had roughly 20 different constitutions.

Oops going off target I'm sorry.

My response was to "ultimately all empires crumble" and thats when I brought in England ond so forth...

But England's empire did crumble, so I don't get how that is refutation. As I said, Seleukeia was still around, as a city state, long after the empire was lost. Obviously the dynasty changed, but that has happened often enough in England's past too.

Foot

but england ist an empire, and it was a couple bad choices by hitler away from maybe not even being the U.K.

thats fate or fortune, plenty of cities from seleucia are around in some form or another, world goverment keeps "england" relevant and france barely

and the british "empire" was about as sustainable as the seleucids was...which is not very sustainable

well then i didnt separate country and empire. but the point is England is still here.

Back to Seleukeia, I have thought about this and here are my :2cents:

1. Absolutely occupy Egypt, much like later Seleukids would have. This would destroy n.1 enemy and add a LOT of much needed income in the treasury. It would also close down a very difficult front and allow the Seleukids to focus their attention on their northern borders.

2. Much better co-operation with the local Persians, Medes, Arachosians. In spite of what you say, that eastern satrapies were govenred by locals, the Seleukid administration wasn't really good on them, in fact it was all Hellenic, and as the local Persians thought they had nothing to lose they rebelled. If they were to have made it a joint Hellenic-Persian co-dominium like the way I consider Alexander had conceived ruling his empire, A.Seleukeia might have survived more. It wouldn't have been easy, as "Czechoslovakias" are more common than "Canadas" in history. Still, had it worked, it would prevent the downfall.

3. Hannibal would somehow win and destroy Romani power. In all honesty, Had Antiochos 3 not lost against the Romani, A. Seleukeia would have been more longlasting than it was. It was only after the defeat against the Romani and the destruction of most of AS standing army that Pahlavi started becoming a major threat which became fatal for the kingdom.

4. (and most difficult of all), find a way to limit civil strife, war upon ascension to throne. In all honesty an empire who fight a civil war upon a king coming to power isn't exactly on the best path to survival. That or find a way to limit its reprecussions (Much like Sassanids did). I don't know how feasible that would be though, as even if the empire was crumbling, the only thing some people seeemed to care about was the ascencionto a non-existant throne, basically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

But its still here! along with france.. which is waay older

---

Errr....What?? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

well then i didnt separate country and empire. but the point is England is still here.

---

Which isn't really a point at all in this discussion, as has been made clear. Of course England is still here however in a form drastically different from when it was an empire; Seleukeia lost its empire but remained in existence as a regular city state for a while after that. Both are former centres of an empire remaining as independant states.

DOn't forget mentioning better Rullers... A.Seleukeia had realy lame kings apart from some exeptions. And, with Antiochus III (the one that inroduced Catraphacts I believe) they managed to hold the empire together that is until Pompey came and bribed them of their feet. so basically, they were too big for their managing skills.

Chers...

Even if the romans would have been defeated, eventually AS would have crumbled apart.

You don`t need a large army to kill a great empire. If you find just the right moment in history (and that right moment eventually comes), the empire will crumble appart easyly and will fall to conquest.

It`s not a matter of centuryes of decadence... less than 10 years of decadence can bring your empire down !

The Assyrians... they where the strongest people in Middle East under Assurbanipal, and under his son, Essar-Haddon, their entire empire crumbled appart !

Lydians, Babilonians... they had the glory and crumbled apart in less then a year.

Persians... again crumbled appart easyly.

Sassanian persian dinasty.... 30 000 arabs defeated them utterly in a matter of years, and imagine that less than 15 years before the Arabs came, the Sassanians have been a superpower having a strong grasp on all the Middle East, and almost wiped out completely the Byzantines !

This kind of things happen....
Social, echonomic, military and administrative reforms may make the fall of the empire longer (as it was in the case of the Roman, or Ottoman empire, but they cannot save you in the long term)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex_Pelasgorum

Sassanian persian dinasty.... 30 000 arabs defeated them utterly in a matter of years, and imagine that less than 15 years before the Arabs came, the Sassanians have been a superpower having a strong grasp on all the Middle East, and almost wiped out completely the Byzantines !

---

forget the fall of the seleukia, the arab invasion and islamification of persia, now that was a true catastrophe!

Argh, perhaps I should have formulated my question better: How could the fall of the Arche Seleukeia been delayed? I know that every empire falls apart but Eastern-Rome existed until 1453, which is nearly 2000 Years. Western Rome existed even longer, if you add the german emperors, who were nothing more than west-roman emperors.
On defeating Ptolemaics: Yes, defeating them would have helped very much, actually one seleucid king conquered all of North-Egypt until the romans forced him to give it back (that was after Antiochos III, I believe)
But, controling these regions would have been even harder than the eastern ones: The Galatians have been very loyal to the Pharaoh and lived nearly everywhere, so they would do some guerrilia like war to restore his power.
And these Machimoi even revolted in central ptolemaic territory, where the military was very strong. So you cant count on them either. So there are just the Macedonians and Greeks of Seleucid Core-land left, because a lot of these who have lived in egypt owed their power to the Ptolemies means:
high loyalty (not necessarily, the power of some could have even been improved by friendly Seleucid governors so they would be loyal to them)
And a revolt in Egypt would draw Seleukeia's eye to south, so north, east and west would be nearly undefended...
And I have come to the conclusion that they should really have had more confidence in their eastern people, as I now know these people were forced to rebellion straight on.

Note: The german emperors didn't have any noticeable power at all in the middle ages (with some exceptions). They were elected, and most of them were just symbols of something that didn't exist.

I agree however that one of the causes certainly was the weak heirs that every dynasty has to cope with sometimes. A much better solution seems to be the Julian-Claudian one, namely adopting your heir rather than some Salic inheritance law, namely your oldest son being the heir.

I'm not sure it could've lasted much longer, even in a vacuum. I can't think of a single ethnically-diverse land-based empire that lasted for any great length of time before the modern period.

...though I'm sure several are about to be listed. :beam:

This also goes to why the England/France debate misses the point, namely that they're still England/France because the people who live there are English and French. The question isn't maintenance of nationhood, but maintenance of empire.

Quote:

---

forget the fall of the seleukia, the arab invasion and islamification of persia, now that was a true catastrophe!

---

I totally agree !

Quote:

---

This also goes to why the England/France debate misses the point, namely that they're still England/France because the people who live there are English and French. The question isn't maintenance of nationhood, but maintenance of empire.

---

The same with the Seleukids.. greeks survived, but their empires fall appart.~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Which isn't really a point at all in this discussion, as has been made clear. Of course England is still here however in a form drastically different from when it was an empire; Seleukeia lost its empire but remained in existence as a regular city state for a while after that. Both are former centres of an empire remaining as independant states.

---

Shees people dont tear me to shreds, I went off target now my posts are being torn apart with replies like "Which isn't really a point at all in this discussion".

@Barbarossa82, Huh?

Stronger government would've helped imensely. Maybe the most important thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex_Pelasgorum

Sassanian persian dinasty.... 30 000 arabs defeated them utterly in a matter of years, and imagine that less than 15 years before the Arabs came, the Sassanians have been a superpower having a strong grasp on all the Middle East, and almost wiped out completely the Byzantines !

---

That's just pathetic, I've lost all faith in everything Persian...


As for the Seleucids, the biggest factor that led to their decline was poor leadership and rebellious satrapies like Baktria and Parthia, especially. Also, thier continued battles with the Ptolemies of Egypt ate up a lot of their rescources. They just couldn't accept that that part of Alexander's empire wasn't theirs, and dedicate their efforts to secure their own borders.

Seleukid leadership was hardly poor. They weren't worse than anyone else around them and instead managed to have a number of particularly excellent leaders whose biggest problems were sheer bad luck. Also, Parthia was hardly a rebelious satrap in the way you're thinking as no actual Selekid satrap rebelled in Parthia. Finally, if it wasn't for Rome's interference, Antiochus IV would have easily taken Alexandria. Don't neglect the problems the Ptolemaioi caused the Seleukids by funding dissidents.

If the seleukids didn't try to expand out of anatolia pissing off Rome in the process chances are they would have fared better, Antiochus (III or IV, which was "the great"?) managed to kind of have a puppet pharaoh installed in egypt for a few years (which is what ultimately made the romans move as until late republic their policy towards the area was "don't touch my breadbasket")...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaesarAugustus

That's just pathetic, I've lost all faith in everything Persian...

---

Not really. How do you best defeat an army of heavily armed and armoured cavalry? Light cavalry. The arabs pushed out of the desert with the exact weapons needed to bring the sassanids to their knees. Obviously there were factors, but the military weakness of the persian heavy horse was expertly utilised by the Arabic army.

Foot

If the Seleucid controlled Egypt thay might also make the Romans think twice about attacking them, since they controlled the Romans' (main) breadbasket....

They didn't have direct control, they just were able to meddle into a small succession war into the ptolemaic dinasty and have a friendly ruler installed for a few years, even though this was lost after magnesia...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaesarAugustus

That's just pathetic, I've lost all faith in everything Persian....

---

Your rather harsh on them. The Sassanids spent the last three centuries of their reign in an almost constant state of war with the Byzantines. They beat Belisarius and other Byzantine commanders on a number of occasions. They manage to grab all of Asia Minor and Egypt from the Byzantines and put Constantinople under siege.

When they fell the Byzantines had just mounted a counterinvasion into their territory, which had devastated parts of the Sassanid Empire. On top of that they had dynastic struggles with pretenders to the throne and the aristocracy trying to curtail the King of kings power in favor of their own intrests.

They actually beat back the first arab invasion but couldn't keep fighting with the nobles meddling in the governance of the state. Even after their capital fell after a long siege parts of Persia kept resisting the arabs for decades before being conquered.

One of the reasons they converted to Islam was that the arab conquerors imposed a "faith tax" on all non believers. Basically anyone who wasn't a moslem.

The great byzantine emperor did not fare any better against the arabs. He got beaten in Syria and lost Egypt, Africa and Palestine.

Both the Sassanids and the Byzantines had kept warring for centuries and were exhausted and almost broke. Small wonder that a bunch of religious fanatics on a holy war could beat them. The Byzantines were lucky that the arabs focused on the Sassanids rather than them. If they hadn't, I doubt in their weakened state they could have managed to survive any better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaesarAugustus

If the Seleucid controlled Egypt thay might also make the Romans think twice about attacking them, since they controlled the Romans' (main) breadbasket....

---

Rome never attacked the Seleukids. The conflict in Greece was an invasion by Antiochus III that was meet by the Romans.

As far as the breadbasket goes that wasn't until, I believe, the Principate. Before that and for a long time during the Empire it was North Africa. Egypt's biggest export was papyrus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zarax

If the seleukids didn't try to expand out of anatolia pissing off Rome in the process chances are they would have fared better, Antiochus (III or IV, which was "the great"?) managed to kind of have a puppet pharaoh installed in egypt for a few years (which is what ultimately made the romans move as until late republic their policy towards the area was "don't touch my breadbasket")...

---

I wasn't actually aware that Antiochus III placed a puppet king. I thought that was more of a matter of court intrigue once Ptolemy IV died; then followed by Phillip in Macedon and Antiochus talking about how to carve Ptolemy possessions between them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

Rome never attacked the Seleukids. The conflict in Greece was an invasion by Antiochus III that was meet by the Romans.

---

Well, they never actually attacked the Seleucids, but Pompey did depose the two rival Seleucid kings to create Syria and in doing so destroyed the Seleucid Empire. Plus the Romans threatened to attack the Seleucids under Antiochus IV if he did not withdraw from Alexandria. What I meant by my post was that if the Antiochus had managed to defeat the Ptolemies and control Egypt, then the Romans might have held off from battle to keep the grain flowing.....

I don't think Pompey as destroyed much, the Seleukid kingdom was nothing than the shade of a glorious past, when he came.

Now, for my responses:

A better and stronger government, more easy to say than to do...
In my mind, the real weakness was this constant focus on Antioch, I think that a Seleukid king staying at Seleuki, in Babylonia, would have been in a better situation.
As long as AS have hold this region, their economy was strong.
The eastern regions were not SO important, and could be abandonned to Baktria and Parthia, but Babylonia and Elam, along with Media, should have been kept no matter the cost.
They failed.

Of course, every empire crumbled, without strong armies, economies and without a sentiment of unity by his own subjects, he couldn't stand.

Seleukids kings have also rellay bad luck, getting the Romans on the head just when they have finished Carthage...bad idea...very bad...

At last, empires and country are absolutly not the same thing.
England and France ( and Belgium, Germany, Spain, Italy... ) are not the same thing that theirs colonial empires.

And...I absolutly not understand the intervention of sir Edward on this subject... military defeats and political changes_even civil wars_ doesn't indicate that this country doesn't exist.
The US have done more than 40 amendments to their constitution in their short existence, is it not the same thing that changing the constitution ?

The political system of the United Kingdoms in 1900 wasn't even democratic, and became only a few years after...so the England of queen Victoria is not the same country than the England of the Beattles ? :]

To limit civil strife, AS should have not compelled those they conquered to become Hellenized. The Ptolemies and Romanii had much greater success at establishing a more stable empire in part at least due to giving certain concessions to the culture and religion of the locals (which of course varied depending on the leader at the time).

The Seleucids were fairly consistent in compelling Hellinization, which at times led to revolts against their rule. The Greek culture would have once again began to export itself gradually to newly conquered provinces (well, excepting some that are more resilient towards acculturation such as the Jews). This would not solve all of AS's problems, but would help quite a bit. Internal strife, rebellion, and civil war caused the downfall of this empire more than external enemies.

I wouldn't want to be a Seleucid king. Out of almost 30 only two of them died a natural death, if I recall correctly. Others either were murdered, died in battle or fell off a horse. Maybe luck had something to do with it too.

The Jews were not so antagonist against hellenization as they would say...

Look at the name of their high priest/king after they shake off the Seleukid rule: all bears hellenic names...

It's also durinf the rebellion that they became truly monotheist, making their God unique in the end of a long process who begun during the Exil at Babylon ( and partially at the contact of Persia, especially for the angels and all this )
It was a part of the process of " nationalisation "

I think that the Seleukids were the most closer to the " Alexander dream " of a world united under an hellenic civilization.
I think that they haven't much choice: the Roman advance slowly, and can test systems people after people, conquering the provinces one by one.
The Ptolemies have mainly one non-hellenized people to submit, and they had heavy difficulties to keep the Aigyptian under their control.
The Seleukids inherited the most of the conquered people, and none of them was hellenized at this time.
So, to keep their empire united, they needed a sentiment of unity, and choose to not use the Persian system, who let a large freedom to the conquered peoples.

It was certainly a mistake.

They have also the problem of crushing the repeted Persian and Median revolts.

And at last, they have to fight the estearn invaders, the various nomadic raiders...etc...

The task was simply to big, the sucess of Alexandros was one of the main reason of the failure of his enterprise...if he had lived a dozen more years, things could have been different, but they weren't.

About the hellenization, it was not a mistake: the Parthian Arsacid dynasty was a strong supporter of pro-hellenic culture, until the first century AD, when the bipolar system Rome / Ctesiphon was instored.

I'd like to add a question in here:
Why did they sign the peace of Apamaea?? I mean, the terms were ridiculously harsh: resignation of basically all of Asia minor, of virtually the complete war fleet and disbandment of the elephant corps IIRC. Thats a fine example of breaking the back of an empire and comes close to the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 in my opinion. It looks like Antiochos III had fallen completely into deep resignation by signing that one.
I just wonder, after the battle of Magnesia, was the seleucid army completely wiped out to justify such an admittance of utter defeat? I mean, they surely weren't killed all, were they? Probably half the army escaped alive plus the Romans surely weren't strong enough to take Asia Minor by force back then. It really puzzles me.
So maybe one of you who dealt more thoroughly with that matter than I did can answer that question. Why the **** did they sign this?
Thanks.

My guess is that Antiochus feared a joint Romani-Attalid invasion of the Heartland that Mesopotamia was. Before understanding how could he sign such a piece of crap as that treaty was, let us get into the Seleucid ruler psychology...

Being treated from birth as if he were a living god, and all others "licking his boots" for a place in his court. That isn't a very good way to learn to bargain. He was used to the "Do this or it is your head" mentality of Absulutism not the constant bargaining and powershifting of the Senate.

Also, he considered himself Alexander reborn. He never thought he could actually lose to the Romani, so when he did, repeatedly he fell hard. He not only lost his army, he lost his confidence and himself in the bargain. I imagine when it all ended, all he wanted was pack up and go home where he would be treated "as an Absolute Ruler" again, not a broken up warlord. As such, he must have signed the treaty without actually reading it through...

If only he had let Hannibal lead the troops with himself being a cav. commander... In fact that is what he was, abandoning his phallanxes to cut down the fleeing romani cavalry...

Of course this is my subjective opinion. I will stand by it, of course, but I may be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelopidas

And...I absolutly not understand the intervention of sir Edward on this subject... military defeats and political changes_even civil wars_ doesn't indicate that this country doesn't exist.
The US have done more than 40 amendments to their constitution in their short existence, is it not the same thing that changing the constitution ?

The political system of the United Kingdoms in 1900 wasn't even democratic, and became only a few years after...so the England of queen Victoria is not the same country than the England of the Beattles ? :]

---

Well france actually changed it's entire goverment, like the weimar changed to the 3rd reich. The US has always been the US.

And britian not democratic untill 1900? Please don't be a idiot. England had had a powerfull parliment since the cival war in the 1600's. I always find it annoying when people assume that a counry with a monarch is not democratic.
Infact by the 1920's every person in the UK could vote (It was changed so all women could vote), some 40 years before the same happend to the US.

Thank you keravnos.
I know that there can be no ultimate answer to this, as there is no source describing Antiochos' motives. But if what you say is true and the reason for his acceptance of the terms is to be sought within his personality, then I think his byname of "megas" is - politely put - probably not completely justified (btw, where did he get it from in the first place?). So, Apamaea can be counted among the Great Blunders of History then?:laugh4:
I'd like to have seen the senators faces the moment they heard he accepted...

Calm down Alatar...if I was thinking that Britain was not a democratic state just because it has a queen, how could I think that the Britain of nowadays is one ?
Yes, if we want to be semantic, Great Britain is not a democraic state, it's a constitutionnal monarchy, but have I to be so precise ? :]

The fact is that England in the XIX century is absolutly not a democratic country, just as France of the Second Empire or German Empire before 1917.
Having a powerful parliament doesn't mean having a democratic state.

Read my post again, and you will see that you are in fact on my side...all citizens gain the right to vote in the 1920'...

Before the First World War, the Upper House, the House of Lords was far more powerful than the House of Commons...just like Germany, Roumanie and Austro-Hungira Empire, it's the First War who forced the governments to accept liberals reforms.
If I remember correctly, the Lords aren't elected at all, no ?

The Upper House was opposed to every evolution of the society and was a strong supporter of the cast system who prevailed at this time in Britain.

So before the 1920', England wasn't a democratic state.
Just as France was no more a Republic from 1799 to 1870 ( the scholars will say even 1873/1879 because of Mac Mahon and all the monarchists attempts ), with the few years of the Second Republic on the middle.

Now, I'm not understanding why politicals changes coul mean that a country exist no more ?
Does foreign invaders became the new political class ?
Even after the invasion of Vichy France, the official power was French, and the country stayed France, and not Germany.
Yeah, with no power, but would you say that the Irakis are not Irakis just because their government as been placed by a military occupation ? ( I'm not questionning the purpose of the Irak War and everything, just taking the most recent exemple )
Military occupation are not the same than political annexation.

In ancient times, it's like you said Greeks were no more Greeks after the Makedonian invasion.

In wich moment, in all this, France was no more France, with French language and, more important than all, people who figure themselves as French ?

A little PS for Sir Edward:
And for the " get steamrolled by fascists ", I think that England was very lucky to have the Channel / La Manche, no ?

To return to the point:

Geographically, the peace of Apameia was just a formalization of something who was inevitable after the destruction of the Seleukid core army.

For the military and economic terms, it's partially the falt of Antiochos III Megas... he shown so richly ornamented army, seems so powerful and rich...and more than all, at this time, the Roman have no idea of the real threat that represent the Parthian and all this nomadic raiders in the far east.
If the Seleukids ambassadors speak of them, the Roman perceived this like a ridiculous exageration.
Don't forget that the Romans thinks to that " Persian ", and easterners in general, are weak and cowards mens, with absolutly no talent for war.

Nothing a successor of Megas Alexandros couldn't fight back.

The destruction of the navy means the end of every attempt of political expansion of the Seleukids in Greece.

One more reason is certainly that the Roman losses were far more important than what they say, and that they absolutly don't want to fight such a threat again.
They were very cautious people, isn't it ? :D

Another reason was that, in ancient times, when someone give you your freedom, you own him this freedom, and must pay an eternal debt in return.
The war broke out because Antiochos and the Senate weren't agree about WHO gave the freedom of the Greek city-states who were bound to the Makedonian dynasty.

The first diplomatic meetings are eloquent:
The Senate was agree to a lots of things, but Antiochos feel overconfident, and turn them back.
So, at the beginning, Rome was reluctant to a war against the Seleukid behemot, even if they have crushed the Makedonian army.

Only one thing that I think you're forgetting, Keravnos. The Hellenistic military system was very expensive and used "limited" resources. If a major battle was lost it was in a ruler's interest to seek a peace settlement since military reprisals couldn't be matched. Rome was a completely different beast, which is why Hannibal was so confused at their actions.

Hellenistic solution to a loss was to seek a ceasefire and try again another day.

Roman solution to a loss was to regroup and throw more men at the problem until it went away.

abou, what do you mean ROMA never fought the Seluekids? wasnt there a battle made for EB about there wars???

Before the First World War, the Upper House, the House of Lords was far more powerful than the House of Commons...just like Germany, Roumanie and Austro-Hungira Empire, it's the First War who forced the governments to accept liberals reforms.

Hmmm. Debatable. As far as I understand it, the house of Lords was able to block any act of legislation (the only difference between then and now is that the lords could block anything Parliament put forward, now they cannot block certain types of legislation and cannot, if they do block something, block it again if it goes through the commons again after a certain amount of time) but only the House of Commons could propose new legislation. In practice in the 19c, the Prime Minister usually managed to impose his will on the Lords through cajolery, bullying and persuasion. We are not talking a situation where the elected body is just for show. I can understand where you're coming from, but the elected body was definitely the dominant force in 18/19thc Britain. Theoretically the monarch can still hire and fire prime minister as they see fit, but this has not occurred since 1834 when the king instated a minority Tory (Conservative) government. This could be evidence of your point, of Britain hanging onto laws from their days as a half democracy/oligarchy.

But onto the main point... the powers of the sarataps could have used curbing. You give men such a degree of autonomy over such a wide space, it's only natural they should have designs of their own, and some of those would have gone towards independance. However, it's a juggling act - the need the preserve the monarch's powers over the empire versus the limits of centralised government using ancient methods :juggle2:

K COSSACK, I think you misinterpreted abou. He merely said Roma never ATTACKED Arche Seleukeia. What was a typical Roman strategy: make sure you don't come out as the agressor though you're only defending your imperial politics.

Yeah, officially, Rome always responded to a threat against Rome or his allies/friends.
Clever guys...

For AS, the job was simply too gigantic, really.
The Achaemenid system was not so bad, but was also crippled by civil strives and intestine wars...some regions were lost for decades, regions as important as Aygiptos, who was independant during almost 60 years, in a rebellion who was crushed only in the late 340'.

Betwin Satrap and a unique king, things were not simple.
And in something like this, as for the Ptolemies, one bad king was clairly enough to destroy all hope and make decisive damages to the dynasty.

RabbitDynamite, thank you for your precisions, as you say, debattable point.
Also I never denied the fact that England was a more liberal country than France kingdom, it's indubittable, and came, in my opinion, from the time of the struggles between the king ang great nobles... in England, the high nobles wins and instaured the Magna Carta, in France, the victory came to the king.

Well if you say britian wasn't a democracy untill the 20's, then you will admit that america wasn't a democray untill the 60's?

And only the commons can put forward new laws the house of lords could be overruled by the PM in anycase.

The USA were a democracy since the beginning... segregationnist, but a democracy anyway.
As long as all the representative and all the power depends on election, we have a democratic system.

The Lords are designed by the king, the US Senators are elected, and haven't a chamber who could reject any law without even being elected by the people.
That was the case of UK at this time.

The power of the Lower Chamber is far more recent, exactly as the power of the Reichstag, in fact.

I think that antiochos signed the treaty of apameia because the destruction of his army was utter and complete.He could have never had hoped to raise another army anytime soon as he didnt have the means nor the men(you must remember that he died while trying to capture a local holy shrine in elymais just so he could loot it).He had lost access to the regions that were really important in ancient times and i mean asia minor and greece-the regions where he could recruit men and collect taxes.He may have held a vast empire but from all his empire only koile syria really mattered as the rest of his empire was too poor or too loosly connected with the central power to be of any signifacnt importance.AND antiochos only gained sufficient money and power to try conquer the rich regions of greece,macedonia and asia minor when he gained some measure of control of his eastern provinces.
But anyhow as the greek world was divided i think that noone could have succeded in resisting the power of rome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelopidas

The USA were a democracy since the beginning... segregationnist, but a democracy anyway.
As long as all the representative and all the power depends on election, we have a democratic system.

The Lords are designed by the king, the US Senators are elected, and haven't a chamber who could reject any law without even being elected by the people.
That was the case of UK at this time.

The power of the Lower Chamber is far more recent, exactly as the power of the Reichstag, in fact.

---

You are right to some degree but I think you misunderstand the fundemental nature of the british system.

without a written constitution it could be argued that we still arent a democratic country still. for example I believe for example that the Queen still legally has the power to appoint whoever she likes as prime minister, this would never happen because it is would be unaceptable, but leaggally it could. democracy in britain is not really safeguarded by law, but rather by conventions. similarly britain in the 18 and 19th century was effectively democratic, the house of commons has always been the most important body whatever technical powers the lords may have had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I of the Storm

I'd like to add a question in here:
Why did they sign the peace of Apamaea?? I mean, the terms were ridiculously harsh: resignation of basically all of Asia minor, of virtually the complete war fleet and disbandment of the elephant corps IIRC. Thats a fine example of breaking the back of an empire and comes close to the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 in my opinion. It looks like Antiochos III had fallen completely into deep resignation by signing that one.
I just wonder, after the battle of Magnesia, was the seleucid army completely wiped out to justify such an admittance of utter defeat? I mean, they surely weren't killed all, were they? Probably half the army escaped alive plus the Romans surely weren't strong enough to take Asia Minor by force back then. It really puzzles me.
So maybe one of you who dealt more thoroughly with that matter than I did can answer that question. Why the **** did they sign this?
Thanks.

---

i too have trouble understanding it. signing the treaty i do understand, but why comply with the terms in particular the massive reperations.
the loss of the asian minor provinces was essentially a fait accompli after magnesia, so had i been ruler i would have accepted that particularly seeing as they were never really the heartland of the empire. had i been ruler i would have accepted the territorial loss, retreated to antioch and refused to pay back the reperations. Was it really realistic that the romans would invade syria or babylon for that matter, to claim their reperations? i wouldnt have thought so. Apparantly greek rulers felt honour bound to comply with treaties they signed, furthermore the treaty was backed up with hostages including i believe antiochus own son. that being the case it suggests that antiochus really should have bargained better in the first place.

more generally speaking, as to whether the fall of the empire could have been prevented, i think that the seleucid rulers had perhaps to much of a fixation on the west and the affairs of their hellenic homeland. with the benefit of hindsight i would suggest that they shoud have concentrated on making the naturally wealthy babylonian area an stronghold for their empire. perhaps that would have required more cultural adaptaion from them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KARTLOS

You are right to some degree but I think you misunderstand the fundemental nature of the british system.

without a written constitution it could be argued that we still arent a democratic country still. for example I believe for example that the Queen still legally has the power to appoint whoever she likes as prime minister, this would never happen because it is would be unaceptable, but leaggally it could. democracy in britain is not really safeguarded by law, but rather by conventions. similarly britain in the 18 and 19th century was effectively democratic, the house of commons has always been the most important body whatever technical powers the lords may have had.

---

I know the power of conventions in the British system, I've studied our neighbours history :]

Haven't Britain a Constitution NOW, about Europe and all this, I remember a crappy arguing on the subject a few years ago, when the European council proclaimed that every member should wrote the Human Rights in his constitution, but I'm not remembering the whole case.

Nevertheless, if I totally agree with the first half of your text, I think that the second half is very arguable.
If the Lower House had so many powers, why this struggle in the beginning of the 20 th century about bringing the effective autority of the Lords under the legal supremacy of the Lower Chamber ?

If I remember correctly my studies on the question, before World War One, the Lords could definitly erased a law, by the Veto right. After the liberalisation of the system, they have still the right to stop a law...but only one time, and nothing could be opposed about the House of Commons bringing back this law, with no veto right allowed for this second round.
Practically, this suppress all power for the Upper Chamber.
But before, the ultimate decision was to the Lords, who could block a law project indefinitly.
Just like the Senate under Napoléon III, in France.

And in the 18 th, with this high censitary system, the only ones who could be member ( and electors ) of the HC weren't only the richest, who were all connected to noble families ?
In the XVIII th it was definitly oligarchic, becoming democratic only with the fall of the censitar barrier, and ultimatly, his suppression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelopidas

I know the power of conventions in the British system, I've studied our neighbours history :]

Haven't Britain a Constitution NOW, about Europe and all this, I remember a crappy arguing on the subject a few years ago, when the European council proclaimed that every member should wrote the Human Rights in his constitution, but I'm not remembering the whole case.

Nevertheless, if I totally agree with the first half of your text, I think that the second half is very arguable.
If the Lower House had so many powers, why this struggle in the beginning of the 20 th century about bringing the effective autority of the Lords under the legal supremacy of the Lower Chamber ?

If I remember correctly my studies on the question, before World War One, the Lords could definitly erased a law, by the Veto right. After the liberalisation of the system, they have still the right to stop a law...but only one time, and nothing could be opposed about the House of Commons bringing back this law, with no veto right allowed for this second round.
Practically, this suppress all power for the Upper Chamber.
But before, the ultimate decision was to the Lords, who could block a law project indefinitly.
Just like the Senate under Napoléon III, in France.

And in the 18 th, with this high censitary system, the only ones who could be member ( and electors ) of the HC weren't only the richest, who were all connected to noble families ?
In the XVIII th it was definitly oligarchic, becoming democratic only with the fall of the censitar barrier, and ultimatly, his suppression.

---

Britan still does not have a written constitution. since the human rights act of 1998 no laws can be passed which contevene the eurpean convention of human rights. this means that effectively the european convention of human rights could be said to form part of our constitution, but other than that we dont really have a writen constitution.

you are missing the jist of what i am saying vis a vis the house of lords, yes -they did technically and legally have the power of veto, but this didnt mean that this was a regular occurance. although from a technicaland legal standpoint the HL was senior to the House of commons, the house of commons has been the most powerful and important body for several hundred years - backing up my assersion that we have been effectively democratic for a long time.

Thanks for the answer about the law of 1998, it was something I have never fully studied and it always boring to only know half the truth.

So, the struggles at ther beginning of the XX century was just a form of " setting the things legally as they are already formally " ?
It's not ironic, it's a true question.

This right of veto wasn't restrained after long years of tentatives of stopping the social evolution of the country ? I mean all this opposition against the suppression of the censitary system, against social protections for the workers and all this liberals laws.

Perhaps the high level of conservative feelings in the HC of the XVIII and XIX make me somewhat misjuge the situation.
I have some problems in considering the Victorian Great Britain as a democratic system...for what I seen, it was as " democratic " as the French Second Empire, with officially powerful parliaments, but in fact, parliaments all at the will of the ruler.

For the XVIII it was clearly not democratic, because of the ultra-high level of censitary barrier, no ? With such high cense needed, we could speak of oligarchy, no doubt, but democracy ?

The single fact of a powerful House of Commons absolutly doesn't mean a democratic system, not alone.
We never speak of the Second Empire as a democratic system, even if technically, the parliaments controled all the legal powers and were elected by the whole population.

:hijacked:

:focus:



Good excuse to use new smileys :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Yes eventually, but its up to the people to see if they care enough to serve there country and protect it.

EDIT- England has been around for a long time, and they're still here

---

I would turn that argument on its head and say it's up to the people to overthrow points of immense power. Which they often do and have done. Civil wars are historically, usually, fought between competing elites, not between segments of the population. Segments of the population have often been tools in such struggles for power. While the most brilliant of the two elites give the necessary illusions to the people. Illusions such as the moral superiority of one side over the other.