The Most Succesfull Succesor

**Brennus** · 10-08-2011, 19:35

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!

**A_Dane** · 10-08-2011, 21:38

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...

**Brennus** · 10-08-2011, 22:21

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?

**Lazy O** · 10-09-2011, 03:39

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

**bobbin** · 10-10-2011, 05:07

Originally Posted by Lazy O

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.