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

**Basileus Seleukeia** · 03-25-2007, 20:50

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

. 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.

**Boyar Son** · 03-26-2007, 00:02

Sorounded by enemies too.

**Sarcasm** · 03-26-2007, 00:22

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

**Boyar Son** · 03-26-2007, 00:28

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

**Sarcasm** · 03-26-2007, 00:32

Not an empire anymore, now is it?

**Boyar Son** · 03-26-2007, 01:09

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

**Shigawire** · 04-02-2007, 14:16

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.