Succesor states...

**SwebozGaztiz** · 10-09-2007, 05:10

Hello i always have had this thought, i am not a history bluff by any means but i always want to learn new things and i have had learned a lot of stuff about the ancient civilizations on this forums, i want to know what do you think if Rome would have never subjugated the successor states and they would have continue to wage war to each other, what do you think it would have been the outcome, imagine what if makedonia or epeiros would have never been beaten by the romans and they would have never had access to central asia, from what i have read maybe the Seleukids would have muster an immense empire and maybe would have left the Ptolemaioi with only a few states in egypt i dont know i want to know what do you think, i think this would have change the world history dramatically, so what do you think about this, i hope you understand my point!

hey one additional thing how you can add the fan signatures anytime you post something, thanks!

saludos desde mexico!

**Sakkura** · 10-09-2007, 05:20

Well the Pahlava in the east were gobbling up parts of the AS before the Romans really started pushing into Asia Minor. Without Roman success, maybe the Pahlava would have become an even greater empire than they did historically.

**abou** · 10-09-2007, 05:32

Originally Posted by Sakkura

Well the Pahlava in the east were gobbling up parts of the AS before the Romans really started pushing into Asia Minor. Without Roman success, maybe the Pahlava would have become an even greater empire than they did historically.

Well, let's be fair to the Seleukids. Parthian expansion took place primarily during dynastic feuding between the Seleukid royal family. Now, that isn't to say that the Seleukid military was completely crap, and in fact I think a fair argument could be made that soldier per soldier they were the best, but it was exhausted.

**konny** · 10-09-2007, 09:49

It is always difficult to say how a state of more or less permanent war would have develop if not another faction from outside had intervented. For example AS is looking by far the strongest of the three remaining Successors in the 280s. But she had severe internal problems throughout the time. Imagine, that empire was about as large as the later Roman Empire with as many different people living in it. Rome didn't have had much external enemies but was not able to hold that empire permanent together.

And do not forget the smaller states around the Successors. No one would have thought it possible in the 17th Century that Prussia would have been able to unite (or even: conquer) Germany in the 19th Century. And also with the Successor states we have several smaller states that might have done much more - if they had come across the Romans: Epiros, Pontos and Armenia. Or maybe even a faction that we don't think about, like Pergamon or Rhodos.

**Bootsiuv** · 10-09-2007, 09:52

Originally Posted by konny

Rome didn't have had much external enemies but was not able to hold that empire permanent together.

While I agree with the spirit of that statement (internal problems and moral decay were a major factor in the fall of rome), I must point out that she did, in fact, have several external enemies by the time she fell....this is what finally pushed them over the edge.

**konny** · 10-09-2007, 10:59

Yes by the time she fell. But I had more the overall Imperial history in mind. And appart from occasional trouble on the northern frontier, I would only count Parthia in as a real hostile forgein state. AS, on the other hand, was in addition to all domestic problems also faced with two very strong rivals and a number of ambitous smaller states.

**Bootsiuv** · 10-09-2007, 17:59

Fair enough.

**Ludens** · 10-11-2007, 21:47

Originally Posted by SwebozGaztiz

hey one additional thing how you can add the fan signatures anytime you post something, thanks!

By adding them to your signature, which you can do in the user CP (top left corner, just below the thread name). To display a picture, you need the forum code for images, like this:

[*IMG]https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/sigimages/swe-sig.jpg[*/IMG]

but without the Asterixes:

**SwebozGaztiz** · 10-12-2007, 07:54

hello thanks for your responses, i was expecting more thoughts from eb users im always willing to learn new stuff

**paullus** · 10-12-2007, 14:10

There's a possibility the Ptolemaioi could have recovered--they temporarily did so a number of times in the second century--but the weakness and introversion introduced by Ptolemaios IV's life of luxury and the simultaneous rise of the first great rebellions and loss of Koile Syria did a number on the Ptolemaic conception of their kingship, such that we see little to no evidence any later Ptolemaic king ever really considered the possibility of becoming hegemon of Anatolia, or Mesopotamia, and even their designs on Koile Syria remained very, very limited. Its possible that could have changed, but not particularly likely; though I do suppose that without a Roman counter to A.S., the Ptolemaioi might have been forced to take on more of their own defense and rely less on diplomacy, which could have constituted a new turning point in their political viability.

There's also the interesting question of whether the Makedonian/Seleukid plot to split Ptolemaic positions between them would have ever been more completely attempted.