Seleucus I Nicator, founder of the Seleucid dynasty
Image copyright Massimo Finizio

When the (“Conqueror”) was treacherously killed near Lysimachia (p. 298), his son Antiochus [Soter, 280–261], who had ruled the eastern regions of the kingdom for many years, began to rule also the regions between the Euphrates and the Mediterranean Sea. But although both halves of the state were now united under one administration, a significant difference remained between them: the Medo-Persian culture, religion and customs were deeply rooted in Iran; he did not succumb to the influence of Greek civilization; and the countries to the west of the Tigris accepted Greek education quite easily; therefore this half of the state was considered the main part of it. In Syria, in Mesopotamia, many localities received Greek names, many Macedonian-Greek cities were founded, so that these lands seemed to be native to the Macedonians. In Syria, Seleucus Nicator founded the brilliant capital of his kingdom, Antioch, on the Orontes. Seleucia, founded by Seleucus on the Tigris, competed with her in enormity and splendor, in which his son buried his body and built a temple to render divine honors to him. These and numerous other cities founded by Seleucus and Antiochus in the western half of the kingdom spread the Greek language, culture and customs throughout it.

Of the cities founded by Seleucus, sixteen received from him the name "Antioch", after the name of his father, nine - the name "Seleucia", after his own name; three - the name "Apamea" and also three - "Stratonikeia", after the names of his wives; other cities he named after Macedonian or Greek cities, and some he gave names in honor of Alexander or in memory of his victories. In order to more easily maintain order in his vast state, which consisted of various regions and peoples, Seleucus divided it into smaller satrapies than the former Persian ones, and left only civil power to their rulers, entrusting command over the troops to other dignitaries. The number of satrapies in his kingdom reached 72. The Seleucids, less than the Lagids, patronized science and literature. Their dominion was predominantly military in nature.

With all the care of the Seleucids to give the Greek language and culture predominance in the kingdom, they did not manage to give it such unity as Egypt had; they founded many cities with a Greek population, conducted trade routes, but the peoples of different regions of the kingdom remained alien to each other and to Greek culture. Their national characteristics soon showed their strength, because the power of the Seleucids was decreasing. The Seleucus dynasty assimilated oriental luxury, fell into Asiatic effeminacy; taxes were high, trading activity was great, and therefore the Seleucids received very large incomes and had every opportunity to luxuriate. The court was fond of sensual pleasures, became the center of vices; a bad example spoiled it, weakened the population. Nowhere was subservience manifested in such humiliating forms as in the Syrian-Babylonian kingdom; nowhere did the subjects indulge in such shameful flattery. They not only built temples, but also rendered divine honors to their kings; one of them they directly called "god." This was the son of Antiochus I Soter ("savior"), killed in an unsuccessful battle with the Galatians at Ephesus, Antiochus II, a violent libertine; the word "god" (theos) was made an extension of his name. The history of the Seleucid kingdom is made up of the villainy of the women of the royal family and courtiers, facts of moral corruption, wars with Egypt, with the peoples of Asia Minor, campaigns to pacify rebellions in the eastern regions. It was a repetition of the history of the Persian kingdom with the same haughty pretensions and with the same impotence. The peoples that made up the kingdom did not have an internal connection with each other: there was no independence of local government in it, therefore there was no attachment to the central government; the unity of the state was maintained only by the sword with which it was founded; and when the military strength of the conquerors weakened, the kingdom was to become the prey of courageous enemies; this was all the more inevitable because the organization of the native troops was poor. Vassal sovereigns, behind whom the power of distant regions of the kingdom was left, ceased to obey the Syrian king. We have already said that Sandracott (Chandragupta) acquired the glory of the liberator of India from Greek rule (1.296; III, 290).

Antiochus Soter (Seleucid dynasty). Image on the coin

The kingdom seemed already perishing under the fourth king, Seleucus II, to whom her mother, Laodike, delivered the throne by poisoning her husband, Antiochus II. As soon as Seleucus had somewhat recovered from the blows inflicted on him by Ptolemy Euergetes, who fought for three years in revenge for the death of Berenice, rebelled against him, with the assistance of Mithridates, the king of Pontus, the younger brother, Antiochus, nicknamed for his greed by Hierax (hawk). In the terrible battle of Ancyra (in 241), the Galatian mercenaries of Antiochus completely defeated the army of Seleucus; Antiochus took possession of a large part of Azin Minor, but had to pay tribute to the Galatians, who, after this victory, began to plunder the neighboring regions with impunity. After some time, Seleucus reconciled with his brother, ceding to him the regions of Asia Minor captured by him, and then, little by little, having conquered other regions that had rebelled or conquered by enemies, he restored calm in the state [about 239]. Both Seleucus II and Antiochus Hierax were brave and energetic people; bloody deeds have been committed in their family for a long time, they grew up in the habit of villainy and, equally ferocious, were at enmity with each other all their lives. Antiochus died an exile in Thrace, under the blows of the Celtic assassins; the following year, Seleucus II was also killed in an unsuccessful battle with Attalus I, king of Pergamon, the winner of the Galatians.

The son and heir of Seleucus II, Seleucus III Keravnus (lightning), continued the war with Attalus and four years later was killed in battle by Nicanor and the Galatian commander Apaturius. The Syrian army recognized his younger brother, Antiochus III, as king. The new king fought in the east, and entrusted the war in Asia Minor to his maternal uncle, Achaea. Both of them worked successfully. Antiochus went to Media and Persia, defeated the indignant governors, Molon and Alexander; they took their own lives; he forced the Parthians, Bactrians and Indians to recognize his supreme authority. Achaeus pushed Attalus back; he shut himself up in his capital; Achaeus conquered some of the Greek cities on the western coast of Asia Minor; others submitted to him. Proud of his successes, he wanted to become an independent king in Asia Minor. The forces of Antiochus were occupied with a new war with Egypt, begun by him in the hope of capturing Phenicia and Palestine; therefore, for some time he could not do anything against Achaea. But defeated at Raphia (on the Philistine coast), he was forced to abandon his claims to the coastal regions of Syria, because of which there was a war, and after making peace with Ptolemy Philopator, he went to Achaea. Abandoned by a significant part of his troops, Achaeus took refuge in the citadel of Sardis; Antiochus laid siege to this strong fortress; as before to Cyrus, so now she was surrendered to him by treason; Achaeus fled, was taken prisoner and was betrayed by his nephew to a painful death. Having restored his power over the regions of Asia Minor, Antiochus, who received the title of great from his court historians, planned to conquer all those countries that belonged to the kingdom of the founder of his dynasty, waged war for several years in eastern Iran and India, forced the lands that had fallen away from the Syrian kingdom to recognize again over him his power; of course, these were very fragile conquests; but he took a lot of booty in the states of the Punjab, which again submitted in words to the Syrian kingdom, brought out 150 military elephants from there, took out a lot of gold, on the way back he consolidated the fluctuating power of the Syrian kingdom over Arachosia, Drangiana, Karamania. His predecessors took out from Iran huge masses of treasures collected by the Persian kings; but these riches were so great that there was still a lot left for him to share: he found in one of the temples columns overlaid with gold sheets, gold and silver plates; there were so many of them that the amount of a coin with his image, minted from this gold and silver, extended to 4,000 talents.

About the time Antiochus returned from the east, Ptolemy IV Tryphon died; his son, Ptolemy V Epiphanes, was still a child, and unrest began in Egypt, weakening the kingdom. This aroused in the enterprising Antiochus the hope of capturing Phenicia and Palestine. Philip, the king of Macedonia, wanted to conquer the Egyptian possessions in Azin Minor, Thrace, the islands that belonged to Egypt. Having concluded an alliance with him, Antiochus went to Judea, defeated the Egyptian army near Mount Pania, in the upper Jordan, commanded by the head of the mercenaries, the Aetolian Scopas; after this victory, Antiochus conquered the entire coast of southern Syria and captured the fortress of Gaza. Jerusalem and all Judea joyfully greeted the winner. The Syrian dominion over Judea was at first merciful; but then it became harder than the Egyptian one. The guardians of the young Ptolemy hurried to make peace in order to save Egypt from the Syrian invasion, abandoned the lands conquered by Antiochus, and engaged Ptolemy to his daughter Cleopatra. - Philip took possession from Egypt in Asia Minor, in Thrace, on the sea, but, defeated by the Romans at Cynoscephalae, he lost all these conquests.

Instead of helping his ally in the war with the Romans, Antiochus wanted to take advantage of the fact that the Macedonian troops withdrew from the east, claimed all the lands west of Taurus and along the banks. Hellespont, which his ancestor Seleucus once mastered, defeating Lysimachus (page 298). He attacked the Greek cities of the Asia Minor coast, the kingdom of Pergamon, Bithynia, Cappadocia, Pontus, Armenia; he even crossed the Hellespont, took possession of Lysimachia, which had already been restored after its ruin, took possession of other cities of Thracian Chersonesus; his troops threatened Lampsak, Byzantium, Heraclea. The rich trading island of Rhodes, fearing to be conquered by him, surrendered to the protection of the Romans; the example of Rhodes was followed by other cities and kings, whose independence was in the same danger. The Romans sent ambassadors several times to Antiochus, demanding that he stop the war against their allies and restore independence to all the Greek cities conquered in Asia and Europe. Antiochus proudly refused to comply with the demands of the Romans, saying that just as he did not interfere in the affairs of Italy and other Western countries, so the Romans should not interfere with his actions in Asia and Thrace, that their demands were unfair and offensive to him. Negotiations dragged on for several years; but the collision was inevitable. The Romans finally sent an army, and the battle of Magnesia forever crushed the power of the Seleucids. Antiochus did not try to continue the war. Three years later, to replenish his empty treasury, he wanted to rob the temple of Baal in Elimaid (south of the Caspian Sea) and was killed by irritated natives. Under his successors, the Syrian kingdom was already completely powerless, and one hundred and twenty years after his death, the Romans took under their direct rule the last remnant of the Seleucid state.

The Seleucid Empire became the successor of the Achaemenid Empire and the monarchy of Alexander the Great. Initially, its center was located in Babylonia. The descendants of Seleucus I ruled over the lands from the Asian coast of the Aegean to Hindustan. During the III-II centuries BC. The Seleucids stubbornly fought the Egyptian Lagids. The history of the Seleucid kingdom was the history of its fall - the state slowly lost its territories, sometimes regaining control over them, until it became a minor kingdom in Syria.

The founder of the state was Seleucus I Nicator, one of the associates of Alexander the Great. After the death of the king, he received Babylonia as his satrapy. In 315 BC. Seleucus was expelled from the satrapy by Antigonus One-Eyed. In 312 BC. he conquered Babylonia, and from that year the royal era was counted in the Seleucid empire.

In the east, Seleucus made an alliance with Chandragupta, the ruler of the Mauryan state. The ruler of Babylonia ceded to him Hydrosia and Arachosia in exchange for a corps of war elephants. During the years of his reign, Seleucus annexed Mesopotamia, Syria, a significant part of Anatolia to the state.

In 281 BC. the ruler of Babylon defeated another diadochus, Lysimachus, in the battle of Kurupedion and captured his state, which included lands in Asia Minor, Thrace and Macedonia. But Seleucus himself was killed by the conspirator Ptolemy Ceraunus, who seized power in Macedonia.

The Seleucid throne was inherited by Antiochus I (281-261 BC). He successfully repelled the invasion of Asia Minor by the Celtic tribes. In the 270s BC. the king waged the first Syrian war against Egypt, which did not give a decisive victory to either side. At the end of his reign, the Syrian king organized a campaign against the state of Pergamon in Asia Minor, but was defeated.

During the reign of Antiochus II (261-246 BC), the Second Syrian War took place. During it, the Seleucids ousted the Egyptians from the coastal regions of Asia Minor. During the reign of Antiochus II, an uprising took place in Parthia, which led to the creation of an independent Parthian kingdom. The governor of Bactria, Diodotus, revolted and founded the Greco-Bactrian kingdom.

After the young king Seleucus II (246-225 BC) came to power, the III Syrian War began. During it, the Egyptian troops reached the capital of the Seleucid state. As a result of the conflict, Egypt received part of the territories in Syria.

Seleucus II's brother Antiochus Hierax was made co-ruler of the king and ruled over the lands of Asia Minor. He proclaimed himself an independent ruler. Around 229 B.C. Hierax was defeated by the king of Pergamon. Part of the Seleucid lands on the Asia Minor peninsula were ceded to the Kingdom of Pergamon.

The era of Antiochus III and his successor Antiochus IV

Antiochus III inherited power as a young man. Immediately after this, the governor of the Upper satrapies Molon and his brother Alexander, the governor of Persia, rebelled. In 220 B.C. the young king crushed the rebellion. After defeating the rebels, Antiochus invaded Media Atropatene, whose king confirmed dependence on the Seleucids.

In 219-217 years. BC. the IV Syrian war against the Laghids took place. The war began with an attempt by Antiochus to take control of Coele-Syria. After initial successes, the king was defeated by the Egyptians at Raphia, and the peace treaty restored the status quo.

In 212-205 years. BC. Antiochus headed the so-called. "great campaign" in the eastern lands. He concluded allied treaties with the rulers of Bactria and Parthia, as well as the Indian ruler of the former Seleucid possessions, having achieved recognition of his suzerainty.

During the V Syrian War in 202-195. BC. The king defeated Egypt and took control of Coele-Syria. Antiochus continued to restore Seleucid power in Anatolia. This displeased Rome and led to a war against the Roman Republic (192-188 BC). The Republic and its Greek allies were victorious. Antiochus had to pay an indemnity and lost control of the lands west of the Taurus Mountains.

After the short reign of Seleucus IV, Antiochus IV succeeded to the throne. He continued to wage wars with Egypt. The troops of Antiochus attacked Egypt itself and Cyprus subject to the Ptolemies. Under pressure from Rome, Antiochus was forced to withdraw his troops without subjugating these lands.

The decline of the Seleucid state

After the death of Epiphanes in 164 BC. the decline of the state continues. Antiochus' policy of Hellenizing Judea led to the Maccabean revolt. The struggle of the Jews for independence continued for several decades, and the result was the independence of Judea from the Seleucids, won by 129 BC.

The state was shaken by the struggle for the throne between representatives of the royal family. In the east, Parthia expanded its possessions at the expense of the Seleucid satrapies - in the decades after Antiochus Epiphanes, the Seleucids lost Media, Persis and Mesopotamia.

In 130-129 BC. King Antiochus VII tried to conquer Media and Mesopotamia from Parthia. He managed to expel the Parthians from these provinces, but the uprising in Media and the counteroffensive of the Parthians led to the death of the king and his troops. After the defeat of the troops of Antiochus VII, the possessions of the Seleucid state were limited to Syria.

The next decades in the kingdom there was a constant struggle between pretenders to the throne. Parthia threatened Syria from the east, and the Nabataeans, who captured Damascus, attacked from the south. In 83 B.C. Tigran II, the ruler of Greater Armenia, was proclaimed king of Syria.

In 69 BC, during the Mithridatic Wars, the Roman general Lucullus restored the Seleucid monarchy. In 64 B.C. Another Roman arrived in Syria - Pompey. He understood the importance of Syria as a region on the border with Parthia and did not entrust the management of it to the incompetent Antiochus XIII. He liquidated the state of the Seleucids, establishing in its place the province of Syria. Antiochus XIII fled to the Arabs, hoping to get support, but was killed on the orders of the Arab king.

kingdom heritage

The history of the Seleucid kingdom shows the difficulty of the existence in Antiquity of a territorial empire uniting different peoples. For the first century and a half of their history, the kings had to suppress the uprisings of local peoples and governors who tried to become independent kings. Despite some successes, the territory of the kingdom was steadily reduced until it was limited to Syria alone.

The dominance of the Seleucids in the East had important consequences. The kings actively pursued a Hellenization policy and founded new cities, which contributed to the development of polis life in the regions. Polises of the Hellenic type continued to exist as part of Parthia after the capture of the Seleucid possessions, as well as within the Roman Empire.

1. Territory. State organization. The largest of the Hellenistic states was the kingdom of the Seleucids, at the time of its heyday covering most of those territories that were previously part of the power of Alexander the Great. It stretched from the Aegean Sea in the west to the Indian subcontinent in the east and included the southern part of Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Iran, the southern regions of Central Asia, and most of Afghanistan.

The creator of this huge state was Seleucus, one of the bodyguards of Alexander the Great. According to the decision of the meeting of the Diadochi in Triparadise (321 BC), he received Babylonia in control. For several years, he managed to win the favor of the upper strata of the population of the Babylonian cities. When Seleucus was expelled from his satrapy by Antigonus One-Eyed, he managed to recapture it with an insignificant detachment of soldiers given to him by Ptolemy (600 or even 300 horsemen, according to sources). This was made possible thanks to the support of the cities of Babylonia, who welcomed Seleucus as a liberator. Knowing well how to measure goals with the means at his disposal, Seleucus initially did not interfere in the struggle of the Diadochi in Greece and Asia Minor, but directed all his forces to conquer the eastern regions of Alexander's state. Having shown outstanding diplomatic skill, Seleucus managed to avoid a collision with Chandragupta, the creator of the Mauryan state. Having ceded the eastern outskirts of the power of Alexander the Great, which did not belong to him, in return he received 500 war elephants, which sharply increased the combat effectiveness of his troops. Having strengthened his power in the East, having created a strong army, hardened in constant campaigns, Seleucus could now intervene in “big politics”. His army played a decisive role in the defeat of Antigonus at the Battle of Ipsus (301 BC). As a result, Seleucus took possession of northern Syria and gained access to the Mediterranean Sea. The last great success of Seleucus was the defeat of the army of Lysimachus (281 BC) at the Battle of Curopedion (Lydia). Having captured Asia Minor with this victory, Seleucus decided that he would be able to accomplish what his rivals had unsuccessfully sought for decades - to unite under his rule most of the power of Alexander. He moved an army into Macedonia. However, at the moment of the greatest success, Seleucus was treacherously killed by Ptolemy Ceraunus (one of the sons of Ptolemy I). The son of Seleucus Antiochus I with great difficulty managed to cope with the outbreak of the crisis and gain a foothold on the throne.

Antiochus abandoned hopes for the expansion of the state (due to the conquest of Macedonia and Greece) and directed all his efforts to its consolidation. Under Seleucus and Antiochus I (281-261 BC), the main directions of the policy of the Seleucid state were formed for many decades. The Seleucids were forced to pursue an active foreign policy in three regions: in southern Syria, Asia Minor and in the east. In southern Syria, the Seleucids waged an almost incessant struggle against the Ptolemies. Each of the states sought to control this important area, where many trade routes ended and where flourishing port cities were located. Here was the main theater of the so-called Syrian wars, that is, frequent military clashes between the Seleucids and Ptolemies.

In Asia Minor, the possessions of the Seleucids and Ptolemies represented a real patchwork, and the outbreak of hostilities in Syria immediately led to battles in Asia Minor. continued to play an important role

309

play and the old Greek cities of Asia Minor, for power over which both the Ptolemies and the Seleucids also fought. In the north of this region, a number of independent states arose (Pergamum, Bithynia, Cappadocia, Pontus), relations with which the Seleucids have always been very difficult. The Galatians (Celts) were a particularly great threat to the Seleucids. Three militant Celtic tribes, who migrated from the Balkan Peninsula to Asia Minor and settled in the regions north of Phrygia (an independent region of Galatia arose here), constantly disturbed the Seleucids.

In the east, in particular in Central Asia, the complexity of the situation was determined, firstly, by the remoteness of this region, the difficulty of ties with it, and secondly, by the presence of a constant threat from nomads located along the borders of the Seleucid state. In the III century. BC e. the movement of nomadic tribes began, which increased tension on the borders.

No less complex were the internal political problems of the Seleucid state. It covered a huge territory, a large number of societies differing in the level of socio-economic development and the nature of the political organization, which made the task of maintaining unity in the state extremely difficult. Another important feature of this state formation was that it arose as a result of the conquest of the East by the Macedonians and Greeks. Therefore, the main function of the state was to ensure the exploitation of the conquered peoples by the conquerors. As a kind of "program", this idea is set forth in the speech of Seleucus I, addressed to the army on the occasion of the marriage of his son Antiochus with Stratonika and granting Antiochus the rights of co-ruler and the title of king. Seleucus said that he created a state for the benefit of his Macedonian subjects. He emphasized that there was a close relationship between the dynasty he created and the Macedonians: the king and his family were called the guardians of the "hegemony" of the Macedonians. Although part of the top of the local population of the East was included in the ruling class, nevertheless, its main mass was made up of conquerors - Macedonians and Greeks. Due to these circumstances, the structure of the Seleucid state was determined by the main social divide: the ruling class - mainly the conquerors, the exploited mass - mainly the conquered population of the East.

The king was the head of state. His power was, in fact, absolute. He was the supreme head of the civil administration, the commander-in-chief of the army, the supreme judge and even the source of law. The founder of the dynasty, Seleucus I, belongs to the fundamental principle: "What is decreed by the king is always fair." The power of the kings of the Seleucid dynasty had the following legal grounds: 1) the right to conquer (in the era of antiquity it was considered the most important of the legal grounds); 2) inheritance of power from father to son. The Seleucid kings were deified. There are two forms of deification. The old Greek cities that entered the state made “voluntary” decisions to recognize the king as a god for the benefit of

310

gift for various good deeds. In the rest of the state, the royal cult was introduced by administrative measures. From the time of Antiochus III, the wife of the king was also deified. Four inscriptions have come down to us, found in different parts of the state, but absolutely identical in content - the decree of Antiochus III on the introduction of the cult of his wife. The names of the kings were accompanied by epithets testifying to their "divine" essence: Soter (Savior), Dikayos (Just),

In the state of the Seleucids, there was a fairly developed bureaucratic system, which, however, did not reach such proportions as in the Ptolemaic kingdom. The huge size of the state did not allow for comprehensive administrative control. A number of local political formations (individual tribes, Greek policies, temple communities, local dynasts) enjoyed a certain autonomy in internal affairs.

The highest dignitaries of the state were "in charge of affairs" (something like the prime minister), the head of the tsar's office and the financial controller, who was responsible for collecting taxes, etc. The tsar's inner circle consisted of "relatives" and "friends". These terms cannot be taken literally: they were court titles. “Friends”, in turn, were divided into simply “friends”, “revered friends”, “first and most revered friends”. It was from among the "relatives" and "friends" that the king chose people to occupy the highest posts in the central and local administration, as well as in the army. The territory of the Seleucid kingdom was divided into satrapies. According to Appian, there were 72 of them. The sizes of the satrapies were much smaller,

311

than in the state of the Achaemenids and the power of Alexander. The satrapies, in turn, were divided into dioceses, and the latter into hyparchies. The satrap (from the time of the administrative reform of Antiochus III - a strategist) had both civil and military power. The financial department was independent, and its officials were not subordinate to the satrap. Due to the huge size of the state, which made it difficult to manage effectively, sometimes special governorships were created, from several satrapies. The governors enjoyed great power, sometimes they even had the rights of a co-ruler and the title of king. For a long time there was an eastern governorship (the so-called "upper satrapies"), the center of which was the city of Selevkin on the Tigris. Sometimes all the Seleucid possessions in Asia Minor were also united under the rule of one ruler. The center of Seleucid Asia Minor was the city of Sardis. The creation of large governorates also had some negative consequences. The governors, who had enormous power, sometimes showed distinct separatist tendencies.

To conduct an active foreign policy and ensure internal security, the Seleucid state naturally needed a powerful army. Its dimensions (according to ancient scales) were very large. At the battle of Raphia, Antiochus III had 62,000 infantry and 6,000 horsemen; in the parade that Antiochus IV arranged in Daphne (a suburb of the capital of Antioch on the Orontes), 46 thousand foot and 4.5 thousand horse soldiers participated; in the most important of the battles given by the Seleucids - in the battle of Antiochus III with the Romans at Magnesia - the king had 60 thousand infantry and 12 thousand cavalry. At the same time, it must be taken into account that significant contingents of troops did not participate in these events, being in garrisons on the vast territory of the country. The basis of the army was the phalanx, in which the descendants of the Macedonians who settled in the Seleucid state, or the Greeks, armed and trained "in Macedonian", served. Part of the phalanx was the foot guard, the so-called argyrospids (that is, warriors with silver shields) - from the most physically strong, well-trained and distinguished warriors in battle. On campaigns, they usually marched in the vanguard of the army. From among them, as a rule, commanders were appointed to all other parts of the army. A significant part of the cavalry was made up of cataphracts, that is, warriors with heavy armor, sometimes horses were also covered with armor. The cavalry also had a guards unit-agem. The Seleucid army also included detachments of lightly encircled warriors (archers, slingers). War elephants played an important role. The regular army also included garrisons subordinate to the strategists (satraps) of the respective provinces, who occupied fortresses along the borders and acropolises of the largest cities.

The basis of the army was the Macedonians and Greeks, who lived on the territory of the state in military colonies (katoikias) and policies. Mercenaries, unlike Ptolemaic Egypt, played a minor role in the Seleucid army. An equally insignificant place was given to detachments from the local population. As a rule, they were not included in the regular army, they were involved only occasionally.

The main military center of the Seleucid state was the city of Apamea, in Northern Syria, not far from the capital. A significant part of the army was quartered here, there were military schools in which recruits were trained, and state weapons workshops. Detachments of war elephants were also located here. The fleet in the state of the Seleucids played a less significant role. Its main base was Seleucia in Pieria, which covered the capital of the state, Antioch on the Orontes, from the sea.

2. Policies in the Seleucid state. Army, in particular phalanx and regular

312

cavalry, replenished at the expense of military colonists and citizens of the Greek policies created by the Seleucids. Military colonies were located mainly along the borders in troubled areas, along the most important roads. A significant part of the new policies was created by the Seleucids in Syria and the eastern parts of the state. In Asia Minor there were colonies settled by Jews from Babylonia, and in Persis 3 thousand Thracians were settled as military colonists, but the overwhelming majority of the colonists were Macedonians and Greeks. The colonists had to be ethnically different from the main mass of the local population, which, from the point of view of the government, made it easier to control the local population, allowing them to "divide and rule." When the colony was founded, the colonist received a certain loan for the establishment of a farm and was exempted from taxes for several years. Most importantly, the state provided him with a plot of land for a house and two plots of land for farming (arable land for crops and a vineyard or orchard). The size of the plot depended on natural conditions, its location, and the rank of the colonist. According to documents from Asia Minor, three categories of such sites are known:

1) 125 plots of arable land + 12.5 plots of vineyard;

2) 100 plots of arable land + 10 plots of vineyard;

3) 50 plots of arable land + 5 plots of vineyard.

The size of the plots was such that in addition to the labor of family members, additional labor was also needed to cultivate them. Most likely they were slaves. The colonist's plot was inalienable. The colonist received it on the condition of military service in the tsarist army. The system was supposed to function as follows: a military colonist served in the army for a number of years (“active service”), then he moved to the “reserve” (called up only in the most extreme cases). At this point, the son of the colonist was supposed to replace his father in the ranks of the army. This system provided a close connection between the army and the ruling dynasty. The colonist was not the owner of the plot, the king was considered its owner. In addition, this system also had another important feature. She served the cause of instilling loyalty among the colonists towards the dynasty. Long service in the army left its mark on the life of the colonist. This was also because the king was not only considered, but actually was the commander in chief of the army, who had to personally lead the army on a campaign and fight in battles at the head of it. The Seleucids were well aware of the importance of the army, its loyalty was also ensured by the fact that the path to the highest ranks was open to distinguished soldiers.

The role of the Greek policies founded by the Seleucids in the general structure of the state was similar. The Seleucids were extremely active in creating new policies; according to sources, several dozen were built (about 70). Many scientists believed that the construction of policies was a manifestation of "ideal" motives in the policy of the "ruling dynasty": it was determined by the desire to spread the high Hellenic culture among the "barbarian peoples". However, a closer examination of the sources showed that the reasons for this urban activity were purely practical. Polises were created as strongholds of Seleucid power in the conquered lands. The point was not only that the policies were fortified and often contained garrisons from the tsarist army. The main thing was that the civil collective of each of the policies was in close social connection with the dynasty, the policy was created at the behest of the king, who allocated land for him first of all. The land was divided into plots (clear), distributed among the citizens. As far as possible

313

judging by the rather meager evidence of sources, these clairs were larger than the plots of military colonists. The fact that the plot of land of a citizen of the policy was not his full property, but was in conditional possession, is confirmed by the "Law of Inheritance" that has come down to us, originating from the city of Dura-Europos (on the middle Euphrates). It says that in the absence of heirs from the deceased citizen (at the same time, the degree of kinship is strictly stipulated), his plot is returned to the king. Thus, the policy created by the Seleucids and the military colony were the same type of formations. The difference was that the policy had more autonomy than the colony. In addition, the policy was not subject to the power of the satrap, but in all its affairs it had the right to apply directly to the king. In the policies there was a People's Assembly, a council, a system of magistracies. A special role was played by magistracy associated with the education of youth. The collective of citizens sought to educate the younger generation entirely in the spirit of Greek cultural traditions, protecting it, as far as possible, from any cultural influences from the local population. Excavations carried out in a number of Greek cities (Dura-Europos, Seleucia on the Tigris, Ai Khanum settlement in Afghanistan) showed that the culture of the citizens of these policies for a long time remained mainly Hellenic. Many Greek city-states, founded by the Seleucids, turned into major urban centers. Their population included not only Greeks (and Macedonians), but also a significant number of representatives of local peoples. The latter, however, did not enjoy civil rights in the policy, the circle of citizens was limited only to the descendants of the first settlers - the Greeks and Macedonians. So, in Seleucia in Pieria in 219 BC. e. there were 6 thousand citizens with a total population of 30 thousand people. In the huge city, the capital of the state - Antioch on the Orontes, there were only 10 thousand citizens. The creation of new policies was one of the most important directions of the policy of the first Seleucid kings. They sought to attract settlers from the old Greek cities of Asia Minor and mainland Greece. It is known, for example, that Greeks from Athens, Argos, Aetolia, Cyprus, Crete, and Euboea moved to Antioch on the Orontes. This policy continued until Antiochus IV.

The Greek policies played the role of the backbone of the Seleucid state. Closely associated with the royal dynasty, who received land from the kings and were obliged to perform military service for this, the citizens of the policies occupied a privileged place in the general structure of the state. It is known, for example, that the kings granted the rights of citizenship in the Greek city-states to their retired military leaders and officials. The polis, in addition to the land that made up the plots of citizens, usually controlled quite extensive territories occupied by communities of the local population. The exploitation of these communities was one of the most important foundations for the well-being of the citizenship of the policies. This was beneficial for the state, because the policy took over part of its functions in controlling the local population, collecting taxes, etc. The Seleucid state and the Greek policy acted as allies in the exploitation of the local population, and the Greek policies served, as a rule, as a reliable support for the dynasty .

The role of the old Greek cities of Asia Minor, which became part of the Seleucid state, was somewhat different. They did not have that organic connection with the dynasty that existed in the new policies. They considered themselves as allies of the Seleucids, and the kings of this dynasty, due to various circumstances, were forced to reckon with this. The Greek policies of Asia Minor were the object of claims from the Seleucids, Ptolemies, Macedonia, Pergamum. The clash of these forces

314

allowed the policies of Asia Minor to maneuver, maintain a certain amount of autonomy, helped them avoid complete absorption by the Seleucid kingdom.

In the Hellenistic era in the East, the process that had already begun earlier continued - the development of various types of urban communities, approaching in their forms to the Greek policy. The Phoenician cities went the farthest along this path, quickly Hellenizing and acquiring all the features of the eastern Greek policies. Their Hellenization was so complete that the citizens of the Phoenician cities were allowed even to the Olympic ifs. It was these cities that provided the main personnel for the Seleucid fleet.

The Babylonian civil-temple communities (Uruk, Babylon, Nippur, Borsippa, etc.) had a slightly different character. In Babylonia, by the beginning of the Hellenistic era, a type of community had developed, which was formed as a result of the gradual merger of the servants of urban temples with the wealthy sections of the population of these cities. Such a community in the sources is called "city" or "city of people of temples." Temple positions were held by many members of these communities, but this was not a prerequisite for belonging to the community. The bulk of the members of the civil-temple community were private individuals who were not dependent on the temples, but associated with them. The main form of communication was receiving allowances (prebends) from the temple economy. The right to receive allowance was once associated with the performance of certain duties in the temple, but later this connection was broken and the right to receive allowance could be freely bought and sold. In Seleucid times, the issuance of allowances became one of the methods for distributing the surplus product created in temple households among citizens. Cities of this type had self-government, recognized and sanctioned by the Seleucid kings. There was a "meeting", the head of which was the economy. These meetings resolved property issues, imposed fines, and honored both their fellow citizens and representatives of the tsarist administration. The kings often donated land to these cities along with the population living on them, presented gifts to temples. The assignment to the Babylonian cities of lands donated by the king to private individuals was common. In addition to the members of the community, in the city itself and on the lands that belonged to it, there lived a population that was not part of the community. It consisted of incomplete freemen, slaves and semi-dependent farmers. The rights and privileges that were granted to the Babylonian cities extended only to members of the community and in no way to the producers of material goods exploited by it.

The place of the Babylonian civil-temple community in the structure of the state was peculiar. In terms of property relations, this community was in a more privileged position than the Seleucid polis. The central government recognized the community's ownership of its land, while the polis had only the right to own it. It has been suggested, apparently justly, that the recognition of the ownership and autonomy of the Babylonian civil-temple community dates back to the time of the beginning of the reign of Seleucus. This explains the support of Seleucus from the Babylonian cities. However, the favorable position of the Babylonian civil-temple communities from the point of view of property relations did not mean a privileged position in the political structure of the state. In the state apparatus, in the main pillar of the dynasty - the army - the Babylonians are not represented at all. Almost all posts

315

here were occupied by the Macedonians and Greeks. The Babylonian community was not organically included in the political structure created by the conquerors, it remained outside of it. This is precisely the main difference between the Seleucid polis, which served as one of the main elements of the political system that the conquerors created, and the Babylonian civil-temple community.

3. Socio-economic relations. The literature quite often defines the socio-economic relations that existed in the Seleucid state as feudal. On the other hand, some researchers believe that the conquest of Alexander the Great did not change the relations that previously existed in the East at all. These researchers believe that the Seleucid state was a typical ancient Eastern state. However, modern research has shown that the thesis about feudal relations in the Hellenistic East is not supported by the data of the sources. The question of the influence of the Greek-Macedonian conquest on the social relations of the East is more complicated. The conquest itself and the extensive colonization activities of the first Seleucid kings, the creation of a large number of military colonies and policies resulted in the introduction in the East of those social relations that were characteristic of Greece, primarily, of course, polis-type slavery. Slaves were widely used as domestic servants, worked in workshops and in the fields, there were especially many of them in the Greek policies. In Seleucia on the Tigris, there was a special tax on the sale of slaves, in Susa (which in Seleucid times turned into a policy - Seleucia on Evlea), during excavations, a fairly significant number of documents about the release of slaves to freedom - manummissions were found. All of them are made in accordance with Greek law. Freedmen were engaged in various crafts, trade, of which rich people, as a rule, selected managers for their estates and craft workshops. Slavery reached a particularly large scale in Asia Minor, Syria, and Babylonia.

The main category of the exploited population were the so-called "royal people" (laoi), i.e. community members. They were on royal soil, lived in villages, were organized into communities and paid taxes. The kings taxed the community as a whole, not the individual farmer. Apparently, the tax was not in kind, but in cash. This led to the fact that, for example, in the event of a crop failure, the treasury did not lose anything, because the community had to pay the amount due from it anyway. The "royal people" were attached to the community, even those who moved to another place remained members of their old communities and were obliged to pay the amounts that fell to their share. The "royal people" were considered personally free, they owned property, made deals. However, they cannot be considered completely free; they were peasants, dependent on the state and attached to the community. At the same time, it must be taken into account that this state arose as a result of conquest and ensured the exploitation of the peasants by the conquerors. Modern studies show that the situation of the bulk of the communal peasants gradually worsened, the degree of their exploitation increased, and control by the tsarist administration tightened. This usually happened as a result of the fact that the community could not (for example, in the event of a crop failure) pay the entire tax. The debt of the community to the treasury led to an increase in the dependence of the peasants, a decrease in their degree of freedom. Particularly difficult was the situation of those communities that were "assigned" to policies, because in addition to

316

taxes to the king, they also had to pay certain taxes and policies. Part of the land that belonged to the king was transferred to them by his close associates, relatives, and officials. These lands were not property and could be taken away by the king at any moment. On the lands transferred to private individuals, in addition to communal peasants, slaves also worked.

The emergence and development of the Seleucid state gave a significant impetus to the economic recovery of many of those areas that were part of it. The construction of a large number of new cities, the resettlement of Greeks (including artisans) contributed to the rise of many sectors of the economy. There is an increase in trade exchange, an important role is played, in particular, by international trade. From the 2nd century BC e. trade relations with China are being established, the so-called "Great Silk Road" is being created, linking the Mediterranean with the Far East. The volume of trade with India and the southern regions of Arabia is growing, from where ivory, gold, incense, and spices come. The Seleucids seek to control the most important trade routes, which, in particular, was one of the reasons for the constant wars with the Ptolemies. At the same time, commodity-money relations are also penetrating "deep", capturing many of those regions where more primitive forms of exchange used to exist. Numerous local markets are being created. The introduction of commodity-money relations was also facilitated by the state policy of the Seleucids, who demanded taxes in cash. In the Seleucid kingdom, a number of state mints functioned, producing silver and bronze coins. Many policies also had the right to mint their own coin - however, only bronze, which was in circulation exclusively in local markets.

However, this economic upsurge had a downside, it led to increased exploitation of the local population. The disintegration of archaic forms of social organization and the introduction of slavery also led to a deterioration in the position of the masses. The main factor that increased social tension and aggravated conflicts was the very nature of the Seleucid state, which arose as a result of conquest and served as an instrument of exploitation of the local working population. Only a part of the local nobility, to one degree or another, was included in the composition of the ruling strata of the Seleucid kingdom. Most of the population of the vast country was the object of exploitation, which gave rise to social protest, which took on various forms: from the distribution of religious writings hostile to the Seleucids (especially popular in Iran) to open armed uprisings. According to Polienus, it is known, for example, of the struggle in Persis between the Greek settlers and the local population. A revolt against Seleucid rule broke out in Judea.

4. The main events of political history. The political history of the Seleucids was determined by the main factors mentioned above. Already Antiochus I had to conduct military operations both in Asia Minor and in southern Syria. In Asia Minor, he defeated the Galatians (278-277 BC), for which he received the title of "Savior" (Soter). War elephants played the most important role in this victory. Less successful was his war with the Ptolemies (First Syrian War -274-271 BC). Although Antiochus's ally, the Macedonian king Antigonus Gonat, managed to neutralize the actions of the powerful Egyptian fleet, Antiochus, who waged a land war, failed to achieve any serious success. Ptolemy II retained all his possessions in southern Syria and even expanded his zone of influence in Malaya

317

Asia. By the end of the reign of Antiochus I, Pergamum became completely independent.

In the reign of Antiochus II - the successor of Antiochus I - the Second Syrian War broke out. Information about her in the sources is extremely fragmentary. Antiochus II managed to somewhat expand the boundaries of his possessions in Asia Minor and South Syria. At this time, the situation in the East changed dramatically. Around 250 BC e. there is a falling away from the central government of Bactria and Parthia. The reasons for this lie in the change in the general line of the Seleucid policy. Seleucus I and Antiochus I paid great attention to these areas. New cities were actively built here, the borders were strengthened, for example, a wall was built that surrounded the entire Merv oasis. However, in the future, the center of gravity of the Seleucid policy shifted to the West and the eastern satrapies began to be considered by the government only as an object of exploitation, obtaining funds for conducting an active policy in the West. The Greek and Macedonian population of these satrapies could not come to terms with this, since the situation here was also quite complicated (the threat of nomadic invasions, the growth of discontent among the local population), and further continuation of the short-sighted, from their point of view, policy of draining money and human resources could lead to disaster - the fall of the power of the Greek-Macedonians in these satrapies. The fate of the fallen satrapies develops in different ways. An independent kingdom is created on the territory of Bactria, which is usually called Greco-Bactria. In Parthia, the development of the political situation was sharply complicated by the intervention of the nomads of the Parnian confederation. Parns led by Arshak invaded Parthia. In the ensuing struggle, the satrap Andragora died, and the satrapy came under the rule of Arshak. Thus, two independent states appeared on the eastern territories that previously belonged to the Seleucids.

The Seleucid state experienced very severe upheavals at the very end of the reign of Antiochus II. When the king, at the end of the Second Syrian War, concluded a peace treaty with Egypt, as a guarantee of friendship between the two states, a marriage was concluded between Antiochus and Ptolemy's daughter Berenice. In order to marry an Egyptian princess, Antiochus had to divorce his first wife, Laodice, with whom he already had two sons. After the death of Antiochus II, a fierce dynastic struggle begins between the supporters of Laodice and Berenice. Berenice and her newly born son were killed, and Laodice's son Seleucus II had no rivals. However, Ptolemy intervenes in this struggle and the so-called Third Syrian War, or "War of Laodice", begins. Taking advantage of the dynastic strife that reigned in the Seleucid state, Ptolemy captures all the most important cities in Syria, including the capital of the state, Antioch on the Orontes. Seleucus II (246-225 BC) with great difficulty managed to restore his power. Based on an alliance with the rulers of Pontus and Cappadocia, he recaptured most of the cities captured by Egypt. However, he failed to return Seleucia in Pieria - the main base of the Seleucid fleet - and the port of Antioch on the Orontes. The further reign of Seleucus II was filled with a struggle with his younger brother Antiochus Hierax ("vulture"), who claimed power in the state. In the end, Hierax was killed by his own mercenaries, and Seleucus II soon died.

After the brief reign of Seleucus III, the throne passed to the youngest son of Seleucus II, Antiochus III (223-187 BC). The time of his reign is the time of the highest rise of the Seleucid state, but

318

at the same time the beginning of his fall. The political situation in the first years of the reign of Antiochus III was very difficult. In Asia Minor, power belonged to Achaea, a relative of Antiochus, who apparently had some reason to claim the royal title. He, however, ceded the throne to Antiochus without a fight, receiving in return power over Asia Minor, which he ruled as an independent ruler. In the East, the satrap of Media Molon and his brother Alexander, the satrap Persidg, rebelled against the central government.

Having suppressed the rebellion of Molon, Antiochus III was able to act in the south, the Fourth Syrian War (219-217 BC) began. The Seleucid army returned Seleucia to Pieria, military operations were successfully deployed in Phoenicia and Palestine. However, in a decisive battle at Raphia (217 BC), the Seleucid army was completely defeated. As a result, Antiochus III lost all acquisitions in Syria, with the exception of Seleucia in Pieria.

In the following years, Antiochus III waged military operations in Asia Minor, where he eventually managed to crush the power of Achaea. Achaeus himself was captured during the siege of Sardis and put to a painful execution. Having thus consolidated his power, Antiochus III launched the famous eastern campaign (212-205 BC), the purpose of which was to restore the power of the Seleucids over the lost eastern provinces. Media served as the base for this campaign. To obtain money, on the orders of Antiochus, the temple of Anahita in Ecbatana was robbed, which gave a huge amount of 4,000 talents. The result of the campaign was

319

rhenium of Parthia and Greco-Bactria, which, however, retained their statehood as vassal kingdoms in relation to the Seleucids. Then the army of Antiochus crossed the Hindu Kush and invaded India; an agreement was concluded with the local king Sophagasen, according to which Antiochus received Indian war elephants. The Seleucid army made its way back through the territory of Southern Iran. Antiochus strengthened the position of his state in the Persian Gulf, from Persia he carried out an expedition to Arabia. Antiochus himself attached such great importance to this campaign that after its completion he took the title of "Great".

After the end of this campaign, Antiochus III again returned to the problem of relations with the Ptodemeans. Based on an alliance with Macedonia, Antiochus was able to capture southern Syria, Phoenicia and Palestine, and somewhat later a number of cities belonging to the Ptolemies in Asia Minor.

It was at this time that Antiochus III encountered Rome. Before that, he had already captured Thrace and supported all those in Greece who were dissatisfied with the Roman power. The Romans began, in turn, to prepare for a confrontation with Antiochus. A period of diplomatic and propagandistic confrontation lasted for some time. Roman diplomacy turned out to be more successful: Pergamon, Rhodes and, most importantly, Macedonia, which had recently been defeated by the Romans, and Antiochus especially counted on its support, became allies of Rome. In 192 BC. e. direct military clashes began. They took place on the territory of Greece, where the Seleucid army landed. However, miscalculations in the policy of Antiochus III led to the fact that only the Aetolians became his allies. The army of Antiochus III was defeated at Thermopylae. The war was moved to Asia Minor. Here Antiochus was finally defeated at the Battle of Magnesia on Maeander (190 BC). Unable to resist further, he accepted the conditions dictated by the Romans: he renounced almost all Seleucid possessions in Asia Minor, all warships (except 10) and war elephants were given to Rome. In addition, within 12 years it was necessary to pay Rome a huge indemnity of 15 thousand talents.

Experiencing extreme financial difficulties, Antiochus III decided to remedy the situation in an already tried and tested way: to rob the local temples in Elimande, which caused an uprising of the local population, during which Antiochus himself died. The disintegration of the state recreated by Antiochus III began immediately. Greco-Bactria and Parthia again separated from the Seleucid state, Persis fell away, unrest began in many areas.

5. The decline of the Seleucid state. The time after Antiochus III is the gradual decline of the Seleucid kingdom, which some of the Seleucid kings stubbornly, albeit unsuccessfully, try to fight. One such attempt was made by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-163 BC). He led a skillful, very cautious policy. He made two successful campaigns in Egypt, which gave huge booty. However, the attempt to annex Egypt was unsuccessful. The Romans closely watched the developments in the Eastern Mediterranean and resolutely opposed this action of Antiochus, rightly believing that the union of the two kingdoms under the rule of one king would pose a serious threat to Roman interests. Antiochus IV was especially active in the internal affairs of the state. He was aware that the state was disintegrating, and he was looking for means that could strengthen its internal unity. This means, as it seemed to him, he found in the Hellenization of the country. The time of Antiochus IV is the last period of active urban development in the Seleucid kingdom. In addition to creating new policies, the king tried to support all the Hellenized elements in all parts of the country.

320

you are among the local population. They received various privileges, and their settlements received a city statute. So, at this time, Babylon became a polis. The policy of Antiochus IV sometimes led to exactly the opposite results than those for which he counted. This was explained by the fact that Hellenization meant breaking local traditional relations, intensifying the exploitation of the masses. Therefore, the local population actively opposed the adoption of everything Hellenic, relied on local traditions. This is exactly what happened in Judea. The transformation of Jerusalem into a polis, the introduction of Greek cults, the creation of a gymnasium were joyfully welcomed by only one of the social groups of the local society - the so-called Hellenists. The protest of the popular masses resulted in a popular war under the leadership of the so-called Maccabees (167-142 BC). These events are known due to the abundance of sources that covered them. However, similar, but less known to us, conflicts unfolded in other parts of the Seleucid state. Apparently, during a campaign in Elimaida to suppress the uprising that broke out there, Antiochus IV died.

The last decades of the existence of the Seleucid state are filled with almost continuous dynastic struggle, literally tearing the state apart. In the east, the Parthian kingdom is growing stronger, which, taking advantage of the weakening of the Seleucids, captures their possessions in the East province by province. The Parthian king attached such importance to the conquest of Media that after that he took the title "Great". After Media, Northern Mesopotamia, Babylonia, and Elimaida pass into the hands of the Parthians. The power of the Seleucid kings is now limited only to Syria. However, in 140-130 years. BC e. two more attempts were made to recreate the power of the Seleucids: first by Demetrius II, and then by Antiochus VII Sidet (138-129 BC). Both of these campaigns, especially the last one, show that the confrontation between the Seleucids and the Parthians had a certain social background. The Parthian conquests deprived the Greek policies of a privileged position, and therefore their citizens were ready to fight cruelly with the Parthians. When the Parthians conquered Mesopotamia and Babylonia, the citizens of the Greek policies called on the Seleucids to come to their aid and, in the event of the appearance of the Seleucid troops, they immediately raised uprisings, which created very serious difficulties for the Parthians,

All this was especially clearly manifested during the campaign of Antiochus VII in 130 BC. e. The Seleucid king brought to the East a very numerous and battle-hardened army. He was able to unite and send the main forces of the Greek cities of Syria on a campaign. An attempt to reconquer Mesopotamia and Media fully met their interests. This was the last opportunity to restore the Hellenistic political system - the dominance of the Greeks in the East. The Greeks and Macedonians who lived here openly rebelled against the Parthians and joined Antiochus. In three successive battles, the Parthian troops were defeated by Antiochus, all Mesopotamia, and then Media, fell into his power. The Seleucid army settled down for winter quarters in the indigenous lands of the Parthians, which led to its tragic end. The Seleucid troops stationed in the Parthian and Hyrcanian cities oppressed the local population, which eventually rose up against the conquerors. The uprising was well organized and began simultaneously in all cities. Antiochus tried to help his besieged units, but ran into the main body of the Parthians. In the ensuing battle, Antiochus VII was defeated and died in battle. Everything, that

321

recaptured Antiochus, immediately fell under the authority of the Parthians.

The further history of the Seleucids is continuous dynastic wars. After Antiochus IV, all 19 reigning kings die a violent death. All neighboring states actively interfere in the affairs of the Seleucids. Finally, in 83 BC. e. the remnants of the Seleucid state are conquered by the king of Armenia Tigran II. 20 years after the defeat of Tigranes by the Romans, Syria becomes a Roman province (63 BC).

The section is very easy to use. In the proposed field, just enter the desired word, and we will give you a list of its meanings. I would like to note that our site provides data from various sources - encyclopedic, explanatory, word-building dictionaries. Here you can also get acquainted with examples of the use of the word you entered.

Find

The meaning of the word Seleucids

Seleucids in the crossword dictionary

Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998

Seleucids

royal dynasty that ruled from 312-64 BC. e. in the Middle and Wed. East (main territory - Syria). Founded by Seleucus I - the commander of Alexander the Great, the Diadochi. The Seleucid state reached its peak in the 3rd century BC. under Antiochus III; in 64 conquered by Rome.

Seleucids

dynasty that ruled from 312-64 BC. e. in one of the Hellenistic states (see Hellenism) in Western Asia, formed after the collapse of the empire of Alexander the Great. Founder ≈ Seleucus I Nicator. Capitals ≈ Seleucia on the Tigris (up to 300), from 300 ≈ Antioch on the river. Orontes. The state of S. (sometimes called the Kingdom of Syria after its main territory) during the period of its greatest expansion included, in addition to Syria, also Mesopotamia, part of Asia Minor, the Iranian Highlands, and part of Central Asia.

The economic position of the state of Serbia and its role in the economic development of the Hellenistic world were determined by the variety of natural resources and favorable geographical position. Cultivation of cereals, legumes and oilseeds, cattle breeding, butter-making, viticulture, textile production, metal processing, and ceramics have been greatly developed. The presence of land and water trade routes connecting Asia Minor and Syria with Arabia, the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, India and China contributed to intensive internal and transit trade, the development of numerous old and new cities, differing in origin, structure and significance. Cities with the status of a Greek polis had some autonomy; the territory assigned to them was partly distributed among the citizens, partly cultivated by the dependent population. Power in the cities mainly belonged to a few privileged slave-owning elite (mainly Greek-Macedonian). Military-agricultural settlements (katekii) were founded at strategically important points. Along with the army and katekiyas, cities served as the main support of S.. The old temple associations, headed by the priestly nobility, retained their significance. The territory of the state of S. was divided into satrapies. There was a single monetary system, a single calendar (the beginning of the so-called Seleucid era ≈ 312 BC). The basis of the economy of the state of S. was agriculture. The lands were actually divided into royal and owned on different rights and conditions by cities, temple associations, Greek-Macedonian and local nobility. A significant part of the land was cultivated by dependent farmers (laoi). Slave labor was used in agriculture and especially in handicrafts.

The military-administrative association of the vast territory created by Seleucus I turned out to be fragile. Already under his first successors, Pergamon, Cappadocia, Bithynia, and Pontus fell away in Asia Minor; in the middle of the 3rd c. the eastern satrapies separated (in particular, the territory of Central Asia, where the Greco-Bactrian and Parthian kingdoms arose). The reign of Antiochus III the Great (223–187) was the highest point of rise and the beginning of the decline of Syria. on some military failures of S., ended with their conquest of Coele-Syria, Phenicia and Palestine. Antiochus the Great's eastward campaign (212–205) strengthened S.'s influence in Parthia and Baktrin. But the defeat in the war with Rome and the Apamean Treaty imposed by the Romans in 188 BC. e. completely destroyed the influence of S. in the Aegean Sea basin. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-163) attempted to restore the power of the state of Serbia (campaigns in Egypt in 170 and 168) and to strengthen its unity through forced Hellenization. This policy caused uprisings in Judea (171, 167-160) and other satrapies. Weakened by the struggle of the oppressed masses and internal dynastic strife (from 163 to 64, 19 kings were replaced), the S. lost their possessions. In 64 BC. e. the last part of their state (Syria) became a Roman province.

Lit .: Ranovich A. B., Hellenism and its historical role, M. ≈ L., 1950; Bouché-Leclrcq A., Histoire des Séleucides, v. 1≈2, P., 1913≈14; Otto W., Beitrage zur Seleukidengeschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts vor Chr., Münch., 1928; Bikerman, E., Institutions des Séleucides, P., 1938; Schmitt H. H., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antiochos "des Grossen und seiner Zeit, Wiesbaden, 1964; Will E., Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323≈30 av. J. C.), v. 1≈2, Nancy, 1966≈68 .

I. F. Fikhman.

Wikipedia

Seleucids

Seleucids- a dynasty of rulers of the Hellenistic state formation, founded by the diadochos of Alexander the Great Seleucus (312 BC - 83, 68 - 64 BC).

Examples of the use of the word Seleucids in literature.

Pompey said that Seleucids were expelled by Tigranes, then Syria should rightfully be ruled by the Romans, the conquerors of Tigranes.

An Egyptian who smuggled mummies for a while attracted the attention of listeners by asserting that, they say, an unusually dressed pig was in fact only an appearance of such, or a phantom, after which he began to mutter something about the visions with which the animal gods honored people from him in the country, but because Seleucids drove the Ptolemies out of Tyre only a year ago, the Egyptian was quickly silenced.

Seleucids
Macedonian dynasty, which declared itself in 312 BC. heir to most of the Asian empire of Alexander the Great. Syria was the center of the Seleucid state, but over time it expanded its borders to include most of the Middle East, from Asia Minor to northern India. Under the Seleucids, Greek culture continued to spread throughout Asia. The rulers of the dynasty waged wars with the rebellious governors of the provinces, with other Hellenistic states that arose on the ruins of the empire of Alexander the Great, with the invading Galatians and, later, with the Romans. In the end, in 65 BC. Syria, ruled by the Seleucids, was annexed to Rome, becoming its province.
Seleucus I Nicator
Ruler and king of Asia
(c. 358-280 BC). The Seleucid dynasty got its name from the name of its founder Seleucus I, commander Alexander the Great. In 312 BC Seleucus took Babylon during the war that broke out after the death of Alexander. Like other heirs of Alexander the Great, Seleucus sought to seize power over the entire empire of Alexander. By the end of his reign, he conquered Asia Minor from his competitors, and also captured vast lands east of the Tigris, up to the border with India. On these vast expanses, Seleucus founded two capitals: Antioch (on the Orontes in northern Syria) and Seleucia (on the Euphrates), and in all he founded 70 cities. Like Alexander, Seleucus enforced the Greek way of life in the territories subject to him, but unlike Alexander, Seleucus and his successors ruled the country with the help of the Greek and Macedonian nobility alone (Alexander intended to include the Persians in the power structure as well). He died while trying to annex Thrace and Greece to his empire, having been defeated at Lysimachia (in Thrace) by Ptolemy Keravn.
ANTIOCH I SOTER

(324-261 BC). Seleucus was succeeded by his son Antiochus I. Antiochus had to deal with unrest and unrest in many areas of the state, but in most areas he managed to restore order. During his reign, a series of endless wars began between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, who reigned in Egypt. This rivalry continued throughout the 3rd-2nd centuries. BC. The main point of contention was control over southern Syria. In 278 BC In Asia Minor, the Celtic tribe of the Galatians invaded, who settled in the area called Galatia. Antiochus won a brilliant victory over them, but nevertheless they managed to get financial support from him and his successor Antiochus II. In terms of the number of cities founded, Antiochus was second only to Alexander.
ANTIOCH II THEOS
Seleucid king of Syria
(c. 287-246 BC). Information about the reign of Antiochus II is extremely scarce. Most of the time he waged wars with other Hellenistic states. In the eastern provinces, strong eparchs (deputies), remote from the central government, began to create their own independent states. OK. 256 BC the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was created, and ca. 248 BC - Parthian kingdom. The marriage of Antiochus to Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II, and the consequent abandonment of children by his first wife Laodice, led to the question of succession to the throne after the death of Antiochus.
Seleucus II Kallinikos
Seleucid king of Syria
(c. 265-226 BC). With the accession of the son of Antiochus II, Seleucus II, a new factor appeared in the history of the dynasty - dynastic disputes. When, during the war with Egypt, the king appointed his younger brother Antiochus Hierax (Greek "hawk") as the ruler of all Asia Minor, north and west of the Taurus ridge, he rebelled. Enlisting the support of the Galatians, he inflicted a crushing defeat on Seleucus at Ancyra (modern Ankara) approx. 236 BC and forced him to cede the western part of the state. However, these territories were soon taken by the king of Pergamon, Attalus. The falling away of the eastern regions also continued. By the end of the reign of Seleucus II, his state was reduced to Syria and the neighboring provinces of Persia.
ANTIOCH III the Great
Seleucid king of Syria
(c. 242-187 BC). After a short reign of Seleucus III in 223 BC. the young Antiochus III, the second son of Seleucus II, the greatest of the Seleucids, became king. Within 25 years, this energetic ruler restored the power of the Seleucids over the western regions and completely subjugated the entire territory up to India. In 211 BC, after the suppression of the rebellions, he undertook a military campaign in the eastern provinces of the country. First, he reconquered part of the territory of Parthia and forced the Parthians to conclude an alliance with him. Then he went to Bactria, where for two years he besieged its capital, Bactra. He could not take it, but he concluded another profitable alliance (206 BC) and went to India. The Indian campaign actually continued only as far as the Kabul Valley, where the local ruler provided Antioch with military supplies. Satisfied with this recognition of Seleucid authority, Antiochus returned to Mesopotamia. This campaign revived in the memory of his contemporaries the conquest of Alexander the Great, and Antiochus received the nickname "Great". Perhaps the greatest achievement of his campaign was that two ancient regions, Parthia and Bactria, turned from hostile rebellious states into allied kingdoms. Thus, around 210-197 BC. Antiochus became the greatest of the kings of all the Hellenistic states, comparable to Alexander the Great. However, he had to pass another, decisive test. When Antiochus began his eastern campaign, Rome intervened in Greek affairs. In 197 BC, after King Philip V of Macedonia was defeated in the 2nd Macedonian War, the Roman Republic began to play the role of arbiter in the Greek world. Antiochus, who had remained outside this struggle, now found himself face to face with all the might of Rome. Eventually, after much diplomatic maneuvering (197-192 BC), war broke out. The army of Antiochus met with the Roman legions at Thermopylae in northeastern Greece and was defeated (191 BC). Antiochus returned to Asia Minor, where he suffered a final defeat at the Battle of Magnesia (190/189 BC). To weaken Antiochus, the Romans forced him to make numerous concessions, in particular to give up all of Asia Minor north and west of the Taurus mountain range, the richest part of his state.
Seleucus IV Philopator
Seleucid king of Syria
(c. 218-175 BC). While Antiochus was at war with Rome, the rulers of Bactria began to take over the neighboring satrapies of the Seleucids. The power of Parthia grew, for which the unstable state of the Seleucids was an easy prey. When in 187 BC Antiochus III was killed while trying to seize treasures from the temple of Baal in Elimais, he was succeeded by his son Seleucus IV, who strictly carried out agreements with Rome and did not take any steps to stop the collapse of his empire in the east. He was killed as a result of a palace conspiracy.
ANTIOCH IV EPIFANUS
Seleucid king of Syria
(c. 215-163 BC). Seleucus IV was succeeded by his brother Antiochus IV, known for his quirks but also for his insight. He lived in Rome for many years as a hostage and knew the Romans well. The reign of Antiochus was made famous by two important events. The first was his invasion of Egypt in 169 BC. The Roman ambassador Popilius Lena, who came out to meet Antiochus, drew a circle on the sand around Antiochus and suggested that before stepping over him, consider whether he wants to remain a friend of Rome. This humiliation and the subsequent retreat of Antiochus from Egypt demonstrated the complete superiority of Rome and the impotence of the Seleucids. The second important development was that at the same time he allowed himself to be drawn into the attempts of a number of Jewish leaders to Hellenize Jerusalem. His intervention led to an uprising known as the Maccabean War, and eventually to the reign of the Jewish dynasty of the Hasmoneans. At the end of his reign, Antiochus launched a military campaign against Parthia. He managed to capture part of Armenia, but he never reached Parthia himself, dying in Persia in 163 BC. Antiochus was not only the most energetic representative of the Seleucid dynasty, but also practically the last to pursue an active policy. After his death, the legitimate heirs and other contenders quickly succeeded each other on the throne (or even reigned simultaneously). The task of the interim ruler was very simple: to protect the throne from pretenders. In the east, the Seleucid state continued to decline. OK. 160 BC The Parthian king Mithridates I captured the remaining provinces of the Seleucids east of the Tigris, Media and Elam. By the middle of the century, the Seleucid state included only Syria and the provinces in Upper Mesopotamia.
Final decline. Against the backdrop of complete anarchy that reigned during the last century of the existence of the Seleucid dynasty, two kings stood out, Demetrius II and Antiochus VII. Young Demetrius II ruled in 145-139 BC. and 129-126 BC Although Syria was at the time divided between him and his adversary, the usurper Trypho, Demetrius decided to follow Antiochus's example and retake the eastern provinces, marching out in 140 BC. against Parthia. After several victories at the initial stage of the war, he was taken prisoner. His younger brother Antiochus VII Sides invaded Syria (138 BC) and seized the throne. Having restored order here and consolidated his position, he finally stopped the Jewish uprising that had lasted 30 years by peaceful means, after which he also turned his eyes to the east and invaded Mesopotamia, heading for Parthia, where his brother was still in captivity. He succeeded in driving the Parthians back to their ancestral lands, but the following year he lost the support of the local population. Antiochus was killed in an unequal battle, and his army was captured (129 BC). This attempt by the legitimate branch of the Seleucid dynasty to reclaim the eastern provinces was the last, and Antiochus was the last of the Seleucids worthy of his ancestors. His brother Demetrius, released by the Parthians, returned to the throne, but was killed soon after. By 95 BC Syria itself, the stronghold of the entire dynasty, broke up into three separate states, ruled by three brothers. The dynasty was threatened by the king of Armenia, Tigranes II (ruled from 94 BC), who, together with the king of Pontus Mithridates VI, had already captured most of Parthia in the north and the Seleucid lands south of the Taurus Mountains in Asia Minor and Syria. In 83 BC Tigranes captured Antioch. In 69 BC The Romans, led by Lucullus, invaded Armenia, and the Armenian troops were forced to leave Syria. This was followed by a brief, virtually unmotivated revival of the Seleucids (as a result of the victories of Lucullus), which lasted from 68 to 65 BC. In 65 BC the Roman general Pompey the Great, inspired by his victory over Mithridates, annexed this now completely exhausted and weakened kingdom to Rome as a province.

Collier Encyclopedia. - Open Society. 2000 .

Synonyms:

See what "SELEUCID" is in other dictionaries:

Modern Encyclopedia

The royal dynasty, which ruled in 312 64 BC. e. in the Middle and Wed. East (main territory of Syria). Founded by Seleucus I, the commander of Alexander the Great, the Diadochi. The Seleucid state reached its peak in the 3rd century BC. under Antiochus III; in… … Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

The royal dynasty that ruled in 312 64 years. BC. in the Near and Middle East (the main territory is Syria). Founded by Seleucus I Nicator, the commander of Alexander the Great, the Diadochi. The Seleucid state reached its peak in the 3rd century BC. at … Historical dictionary

Exist., Number of synonyms: 1 dynasty (65) ASIS Synonym Dictionary. V.N. Trishin. 2013 ... Synonym dictionary

Seleucids- (Seleucids), the Macedonian dynasty that ruled Bl. and Wed. East from 312 BC, when Seleucus I, commander of Alexander the Great, annexed Media and Susiana to Babylon. Then his empire began to expand 3.: he occupied Syria, founding there in ... ... The World History

Seleucids- Seleucids, the royal dynasty that ruled in 312 64 BC in the Near and Middle East (the main territory of Syria). Founded by Seleucus I, the commander of Alexander the Great, the Diadochi. The Seleucid state reached its highest prosperity in the 3rd century ... ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

History of Iran ... Wikipedia