What if Seleucos Nicator was never assasinated?

[Seleukos]

As I have now reached my 1000th post I thought I better make it a good one.

What if Seleucos Nicator was not assasinated on the shores of Thrace?


In 301 BCE he joined Lysimachus in Asia Minor, and at Ipsus Antigonus fell before their combined power. A new partition of the empire followed, by which Seleucos added to his kingdom Syria, and perhaps some regions of Asia Minor. The possession of Syria gave him an opening to the Mediterranean, and he immediately founded here the new city of Antioch upon the Orontes as his chief seat of government. His previous capital had been the city of Seleucia, which he had founded upon the Tigris and this continued to be the capital for the eastern satrapies. About 293 BCE he installed his son Antiochus there as viceroy, the vast extent of the empire seeming to require a double government.

The capture of Demetrius in 285 BCE added to Seleucos's prestige. The unpopularity of Lysimachus after the murder of Agathocles gave Seleucos an opportunity for removing his last rival. His intervention in the west was solicited by Ptolemy Keraunos, who, on the accession to the Egyptian throne of his brother Ptolemy II, had at first taken refuge with Lysimachus and then with Seleucos. War between Seleucos and Lysimachus broke out, and at the decisive battle of Corupedium in Lydia, Lysimachus fell in 281 BCE. Seleucos now held the whole of Alexander's conquests excepting Egypt in his hands, and moved to take possession of Macedonia and Thrace.

But when he landed at the shores of Thrace. He was assasinated by Ptolemy Keraunos who, fearing that he has become unstoppable, assasinated him while trying to claim the Thracian throne.

If Seleucos was not assasinated or if Ptolemy's plan became foiled and after claiming Thrace moved onto the weak and seperated Macedonia and Greece. Then moving on the Ptolemaic Kingdom. Would they become too powerfull for the Romans to defeat or even rise? What would happen to the Romans who havent even moved out of central Italy? Would they send aid to either side in the Punic Wars? Would the Romans even be able to become the power they became?

[John I Tzimisces]

Interesting question. However...All men die in time. Seluecos would have died eventually...and would there have been any reason for him to look eastward? I am of the opinion, that even if Nicator was successful in taking down greece and macedon, and even egypt, his death would have brought about a series of civil wars much like at the death of Alexander. Besides, such an empire would have been larger than any ever before, and difficult, very difficult to maintain/administer. And who is to say that the silver shields would not revolt (Again...), or perhaps the companions? Perhaps Seluecos would have been preoccupied invading further into india...perhaps he would enact Alexanders goal of conquering Carthage. Ah! that would have been history changing! Rather than the Punic Wars, the Hellenic Wars! Unfortunately for Rome...Carthage at its apex would have paled in comparison to such a Seluecid empire, the heir of Alexander...

[Seleukos]

Originally posted by eXc|Imperator@May 1 2005, 08:54 PM
Besides, such an empire would have been larger than any ever before, and difficult, very difficult to maintain/administer. And who is to say that the silver shields would not revolt (Again...), or perhaps the companions? Perhaps Seluecos would have been preoccupied invading further into india..

The eastern portion of the Seleucid Kingdom was ruled by his son, Antiochus. Who was acting as viceroy. While Seleucos was running his campaigns in Asia Minor and Thracia.

I highly doubt that the Silver Sheilds would revolt again. They were the elitest soldiers in the army and were enjoying the conquests and battles in Asia Minor, sam with the companions.

I doubt that he or his army would even think about trying to move past the Indus again. There was too much at stake. Seleucos already lost his daughter to Cagraputra Marya. Would he risk more?

[hannibal89]

He was on the verge of gaining the throne of Greece and Macedon before he was assassinated was he not?

So the Seleucid Empire would have been pretty impressive.

He might even had added Egypt to his empire and defeated the Ptolemies

[Seleukos]

Originally posted by hannibal89@May 2 2005, 01:29 AM
He was on the verge of gaining the throne of Greece and Macedon before he was assassinated was he not?

After defeating Lysimachus at Corpedium. He went to claim the Thracian throne. Cassander was trying to rule the Macedonian kingdom without much success. Greece was torn and Seleucos could have taken Greece without too much trouble.

[hannibal89]

After defeating Lysimachus at Corpedium. He went to claim the Thracian throne. Cassander was trying to rule the Macedonian kingdom without much success. Greece was torn and Seleucos could have taken Greece without too much trouble.

So thats long for saying "yes hannibal89 you are correct" :whistle

[Ran Taro]

The problem would likley come from the nature of power in such an empire. In a large state, centralisation of power into one individual (even with loyal subordinates) is going to lead to internal strife and destabilisation eventually. Especially in an empire as far flung as Seleucos'. Whether this would lead short term dissolution and defeat is hard to say, but I think it's a good bet that the far eastern parts of the empire, at least, were always a great risk of breaking away. And in the long term (without the systematic infrastructure, administrative and military capabilities the Roman's developed) Greece was always going to cause more trouble than it was worth.