Discussion: The Greatest Diadochi Kingdom

[messiah]

I'm not angry, I'm just surprised that no one cares about anything else.

[Spartan 666]

I think because people don't consider Corupedium as "epic" and "awesome" when put up against Ipsus. Also, probably because there were no more real Diadochi Wars. Previously there were two great alliances which fought each other (or, in the case of Antigonos, a superpower versus everyone), but the war between Lysimachus and Seleucus was pretty much one-on-one.

About this subject not being popular at schools. Nothing of military history seems interesting to anyone in Latvia, only learning about "how the russians were bad to us and we rock because we got independent". Most Latvians don't give a damn about anyone else in their history, which is very sad. I am one of the rare people who orders books on military history (not counting the fact that they're in English).

The very same things you say apply also in my case, with the only difference of the country: Italy instead of Latvia.

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

The Seleucids tried that (the eastern anabis of Antiochus III)and it was nothing more than a short term fix.
By the time of Antiochus IV, the Seleucids had no influence in Asia Minor. Or rather they had whatever influence the kingdoms in Asia minor gave them. The treaty of Apamea forbade the Seleucids from entering Asia Minor. And the Romans wouldn't have it anyway at this point.
Prior to the Romans, its not suprising these states decided to bugger off on their own. The Seleucids purveyed weakness. Squabbling amongst themselves, the reliance on Galatians etc. Not good really.



The 300,000 people includes perhaps 80,000-100,000 actual soldiers. The rest would have been wives, children, camp followers, slaves etc. Remember, the Hellenistic army had a lot of non-combatants with it.
I forget where I read this, but it was estimated that for every soldier, there could have very well been upto 4 non-combatants present.
I believe Antiochus VII got Jewish troops too. Plus, many of the Greek cities revolted against the Parthians, possibly giving him additional troops. Please see the gospel on all things Seleucid.

It should be viewed as a nearly-successful war of conquest? That ended in a debacle!
The Athenian expedition didn't end in a debacle, it was a debacle from virtually the get-go.
Did Mark Anthony wage a nearly-successful war of conquest against the Parthian state too?
If Varus had a different guide, would that have been a nearly-successful camping trip in the woods?


Even if Antiochus VII had not been killed, he was taking back what the Seleucids had lost to the Parthians some years before.

How many Seleucid Kings were lost in the East? Antiochus III was killed in Media if i'm not mistaken.
Demetrius II was captured by the Parthians. Wasn't he also killed by them too?
Antiochus IV died while about to march on the Parthians. Antiochus VII was also killed. Plus how many thousands of soldiers and others were killed trying to hold onto or take back the east?
And what was in the east that was so important? Elephants?
None of these provinces brought in the kind of tax revenue that could support all of this.
With the possible exception of Media, no province provided soldiers valued in the west.
I believe Bactria was quite rich agriculturally at this time. But it was so far away keeping contact would have been difficult. And expensive.



But material gain is the bottom line really.
I agree with you that getting favourable agreements with kingdoms on the periphery was the only way to go.
It seems apparent to me that the Seleucids certainly had resources. They just did not have the resources to keep east and west. By trying to keep both, they lost both. Not at once, but gradually.
I find the decision of Antiochus III to not invade Egypt after Panion and Gaza to be stupifying. Egypt was wide open for attack. The Romans couldn't have done anything to stop it.
Speaking of the Romans, this decision would be comparable to the Romans after Zama, getting back on their ships and leaving Carthage alone.
If Antiochus could have added Egypt to his kingdom........................
Ouch!

A big part of the problem were the guys at the top. A lot of these kings failed to adequately make clear who their heir was. I know some kings died before it was prudent to do so, and sometimes there was outside interference; yet when I compare this to the Antigonid, and even the Ptolemaic kings, the Seleucids seem very lacking in this regard.
They also don't always seem to have been very focused. How else can you explain them not paying much attention to Asia Minor. Asia Minor was teeming with Greek cities and colonies. Not to mention a cash cow.
Its just mind boggling to me they didn't concentrate more on the west.

Well put, my friend, well put.

The 300,000 people includes perhaps 80,000-100,000 actual soldiers. The rest would have been wives, children, camp followers, slaves etc. Remember, the Hellenistic army had a lot of non-combatants with it.
I forget where I read this, but it was estimated that for every soldier, there could have very well been upto 4 non-combatants present.
I believe Antiochus VII got Jewish troops too. Plus, many of the Greek cities revolted against the Parthians, possibly giving him additional troops. Please see the gospel on all things Seleucid.

Ah, but I too have some small knowledge in this area. Yes, the sources said that the army was that size, and the camp follower numerical is somewhat possible. But let me put a question to you: do you really believe that the Syrian populace was capable of furnishing such a force? The Syrians were fickle to start with; only twenty or so years before, they almost lynched a king, Demetrios I, for holding similar territorial ambitions and for demanding national effort from them. Were I an idealist who believed that my namesake was a god, I'd believe that; but I do not. Again, I'd estimate 40,000; that's a very large Hellenistic army in any case and is very plausible.

On the subject of the campaign...yes, it was a debacle. But it was ALMOST not a debacle; as you said, the Athenian campaign was doomed from the start. Antiochos VII's anabasis had no such condition. In his first campaign he reclaimed very large parts of the east; Bevan has him winning several battles against the Parthians, led by one Indates. If, again, he hadn't made a critical logistic error, he might very well have pursued the Parthians into their homelands and subjected them to dominion, much as Antiochos III did.

And see here's the thing about the focus of the dynasty (good call by the way). It varied depending on the individual. Antiochos IV obviously made it his goal to conquer Egypt; only when he was forbidden to do this did he turn east and fail once more. Demetrios I concentrated almost completely on the west to the exclusion of the east, putting a Cappadocian prince of his own making on the throne of that nation and engaging in some cloak-and-dagger work in Cyprus. The list goes on. Each king did achieve some limited good for the dynasty in those areas, but the general lack of focus crippled them, much as you said.

As to the East, the client kings and generals were able to furnish large amounts of tribute repeatedly when put under the sword. If these regions were poor, I'd advise you to take a look at Darius I's assessment of these areas for the royal tribute; not so much changed between then and the time of the Seleucids, barring a few irrigation canals decaying and being sporadically repaired.

[Sardaukar One]

I agree that getting 80,000 men from essentially Syria does seem like a stretch to me. I know some Jewish contingents fought also. But I wouldn't rule this amount of men completely out of the question.
Clearly the levy phalanx would have had to have been included. So getting to 50,000 men or so, including the national levy, seems plausible to me. This number would include the standing army.

Lets also remember that the Seleucids did not have much territory left outside of the Levant, so its not as if they needed to have garrisons everywhere. This could have freed up a lot more manpower.
Also, Syria seems to have been the major recruiting ground for the Macedonian pikemen. Asia Minor might have provided more types of troops, but Syria furnished the bulk of the phalanx.

Again, I agree with you that 80,000 sounds too high. But I don't think its that implausible.

The Seleucids longevity was in large part to a number of very strong kings who were able to prop them up from time to time. Antiochus I, Antiochus III and IV to name a few. They made some mistakes, but they had more than enough to breath life into the Seleucid empire.

As to the East, the client kings and generals were able to furnish large amounts of tribute repeatedly when put under the sword. If these regions were poor, I'd advise you to take a look at Darius I's assessment of these areas for the royal tribute; not so much changed between then and the time of the Seleucids, barring a few irrigation canals decaying and being sporadically repaired.

Darius and the Persians were very rich. But they did little re-investment in the Empire, especially in the east. The Persians made little or no improvement to the economy. They simply took their tribute and hoarded it in many cases. The infrastructure for the Persian empire was very poor.
Alexander found hoards in excess of 130,000 talents or something ridiculous like that.
I don't know enough about this to say for sure, but the Persians might well have been this rich in large part to the size of their empire as opposed to being good economists.


As for Ipsus vs Korupedion, there is one apparent reason why Korupedion is not considered the ultimate battle for rule of Alexander's empire.
If Seleucus had not been murdered, and was able to take control of Lysimachus' kingdom, it surely would have taken him at least four or five years to bring some order and stability to it.
Seleucus was in no position to attack the Ptolemies. Certainly not with overwhelming force on his side.
In any event, he was closing in on 80 years of age at Korupedion. Would he even have lived long enough to go after the Ptolemies?
Considering the lack of soldiers available to Antiochus I after his father's murder, the fact that Seleucus seems to have attacked during the winter, I would say that Korupedion perhaps had no more than 80 or 90 thousand men combined. Which is about half of what fought at Ipsus. And about 40,000 men short of Antigonus' entire military.
These numbers are of course nothing more than speculation on my part.

After Ipsus, Antigonus had the resources to certainly finish off Lysimachus and Kassander pretty much right away. I can't imagine their kingdoms having that many troops left anyway.
Antigonus had already gotten Ptolemy to scuttle back to Egypt with a ruse. Sidon and Tyre had held out against Ptolemy. An army of 20,000 men would have cleared the Levant of whatever troops Ptolemy had left behind.
Antigonus would have pretty much had the resources to do this right after Ipsus.

[Perdiccas_Nile]

Italy has good climate, landscape, food, women ...

But an awful government and government class. Also the way of thinking is the same of a bunch of sheep, because of the media-indoctrination (all media belong to King Silvio). The italian people is stupid and coward, they are like a mule that follow the man with a carrot.

I live in the north-east of Italy, some 40miles north of Venice..

I'm british-french (born in france) but my family on my mums side comes from Piedmont north italy (agree with u about religion)

[jrhindo]

Wow, lots of info to better understand the era thanks!

[luckyprince]

lol when i first see the world "Diadochi" i thought it was some kind of japnese word when i actually play the mod, i realize it was the name for period when the alexander empire collapse,

my favourite is the seleucid but they get attack from all side, riot everywhere and are pretty much screw, this mod show that very detail, so detail that i actually quit a campaign

[debux]

I suggest you play macedon, as it's relatively easy to take greece, which provides too much money . Selucids are just to hard to take on the beginning. You can also try the Phyrric provincial campaign, if you really want to play as the Selucids, it's really easy just to manage the western part of asia minor . In fact, it has been my only finished campaign in DTW

[luckyprince]

thanks dor the advice, i will try the phyrric campaign look very interesting beside i want to start as little kingdom and then expand into a superpower, alway make me proud when i see how much i have conquer

[Aiskhylos]

I nearly always play either Antigonids or Seleukids in any mod, but for reasons I cannot fathom I dislike the Ptolemies

[Emperor Of Seleucid]

You guys aren't giving the Seleucids the prestige that they had.

I agree with most of you in that Antigonus was a very great leader, but many you guys are forgetting that he lost. The coalitions against him were not powerful since they were divided by the Antigonus lands. Demetrius had defeated Cassander and destroyed the Ptolemy fleet while Anitgonus weakened the Ptolemies. So, the real coalition was just Seleucus and Lysimachus. It only took these two to defeat Antigonus. The arguement that Anigonus had built a powerful state is clearly not true since it only took one decisive to completely destroy it. In the end, all Antigonus acheived was reunifying a little bit of Alexander's Empire.

Keep in mind that the real winner of the War of the Diadochi was Seleukus. He started out with just 1500 men and by the time of his death, he nearly recaptured Alexander's empire. Seleukus was also a great general. He defeated Antigonus in the Babylonian Wars, Lysimachus, and Demetrius. His empire was able to bring the Egypt to its heels despite all the horrible Seleucid Emperors that followed Seleucus. After defeating Lysimachus, if Seleucus hadn't been assasinated, he would have easily captured Greece and his successors, no matter how weak, could easily destroy Ptolemies.

There is no way that anyone should consider Pergamon or Ptolemic Empire to be the greatest. They were on life support provided by Rome. The Seleucids were very powerful. Even after Antiochus Megas got defeated at Raphia, the Ptolemic Empire wasn't near ready to invade Seleucids. The closets the Ptolemies ever got trying to conquer the seleucids was during the third Syrian War and Ptolemy had no interest to continue. He probably didn't have the resources either. Antiochus III destroyed Ptolemies in the 5th Syrian War. At this point, Ptolemies becomes Rome's .

The reason that Seleucids began to decline was because they faced multiple front wars and they had horrible leadership. The only good leaders the Seleucids had were Seleucus himself, Antiochus Epiphanes, Demetrius, and Antiochus Sidetes. From Seleucus to Antiochus III, the leaders could not properly defend or organize the empire. Antiochus III ed the empire up. Although intially successful, he really didn't do much. When his reign ended, it was worse than when he began. This was all do to his Alexander syndrome. He recaptured the East only to lose it against. He defeated Egypt, but they not conquer it. Jerusalem proves to be a annoying piece of later on. After the defeat to the Romans, he has to collect money by sacking temples, which cost his life and made the empire unpopular. Antiochus Sidetes reign was a Belisarus, Battle of the Bulge styled last attempt. He managed to subdue rebels and states and reconquer a portion of Parthia. Sadly, with his death, the Seleucid Empire no longer exists. Only Antioch and a few cities remain.

[Sardaukar One]

I agree with most of you in that Antigonus was a very great leader, but many you guys are forgetting that he lost. The coalitions against him were not powerful since they were divided by the Antigonus lands. Demetrius had defeated Cassander and destroyed the Ptolemy fleet while Anitgonus weakened the Ptolemies. So, the real coalition was just Seleucus and Lysimachus. It only took these two to defeat Antigonus.

Demetrius had driven Kassander out of Greece. Its not the same as defeating him. In fact, the coalition plan may well have been for Kassander to try and keep Demetrius engaged in Thessaly while Lysimachus and Seleucus fought Antigonus in Asia Minor.

Though Kassander was not present at Ipsus, he sent a contingent under his general, Prepelaos. He joined Lysimachus in Thrace and they crossed over into Asia Minor together.
In fact, its quite possible that as much as half of the coalition phalanx was provided by Kassander. Kassander sent further reinforcements of 12,000 infantry and 500 cavalry under his brother, Pleistarchus. Saying that, as much as two thirds of his brother's troops failed to reach Asia Minor. Demetrius closed the Hellespont to them, and they had to sail across the Black Sea. There were not enough ships intially, and this army ended up making three crossings. The first made it, the second crossing the ships were captured by an Antigonid fleet, and the final third of the army were able to muster enough ships to transport them all, but ran into a storm, with most the of this third crossing being lost.

In conclusion, while Kassander was not present in person in Asia Minor, his contribution was far from negligible. Though perhaps not intentionally, Kassander had kept Demetrius occupied in Greece and Thessaly prior to Ipsus. Had he not, the army of Demetrius in combination with the army of Antigonus would have wiped Lysimachus and Seleucus out.

Its unclear how much of the heavy infantry was provided by each of the dynasts on the coalition side.
The coaltion had 64,000 infantry present at Ipsus, of which 44,000 men were provided by Lysimachus and Kassander. Seleucus brought 20,000 infantry, but many of these would have been light infantry, archers and slingers etc. Probably no more than 10,000 men would have been heavy infantry, and this might be rather generous.
The figures for Lysimachus' military during the Diadochi wars are hard to come by, but nowhere do we see him with a large army. In fact, it took him the better part of two decades to get Thrace under control and we don't see him in action anywhere else. Compare this to Ptolemy, who operated in different spheres, such as Greece and Cyprus and Antigonus who fought battles over Asia and his generals in Greece.
Lysimachus was easily the weakest of the dynasts and its a stretch for him to have provided much more than 20-25,000 men total to the campaign, cavalry and light troops included. This means that Kassander probably made a significant contribution, almost certainly in the phalanx, with which without, the coaltition would have almost certainly lost Ipsus.

Its often assumed that because Kassander received little to nothing of the Antigonid Empire that he contributed little or nothing to the campaign. But for Kassander to have held territories in Asia Minor would have been awkward and unweildy. As we seen when his brother Pleistarchus was given Cilicia. Which is a curious decision to say the least.
But Kassander's ultimate goal was to remove the Antigonid threat to him in Greece and Macedon. A reward that was perhaps worth as much to him as any territory in Asia.

The threat of Ptolemy almost certainly required that Antigonus kept at least 10,000 men or so in cities such as Sidon and Tyre. Whose to say that these troops could not have made a difference at Ipsus?

The arguement that Anigonus had built a powerful state is clearly not true since it only took one decisive to completely destroy it. In the end, all Antigonus acheived was reunifying a little bit of Alexander's Empire.

The Antigonid Empire was not destroyed after Ipsus. Demetrius retained Cyprus, a number of cities in Asia Minor, including Ephesus. Furthermore, both Sidon and Tyre remained under his control, making Ptolemies retaking of Phoenicia very hollow.
Demetrius also took with him from Ipsus 10,000 men, probably the heavy cavalry.
Right after Ipsus, Demetrius ravaged the Hellespont and there was nothing Lysimachus could do about it.
I should also mention that Demetrius retained by far and away the most powerful fleet of the day.
And his retention of Cyprus, Sidon and Tyre ensured his supremacy at sea. Simply put, none of the dynasts could touch him at sea.
And for awhile, Demetrius also controlled Cilicia. He took it from Pleistarchus, but would lose it to Seleucus sometime later.

Demetrius lost Cyprus to Ptolemy around 294 BC. But this was because he was given an oppurtunity to grab Macedon. And he took most of his navy and military with him, otherwise its hard to see how Ptolemy could have retaken Cyprus.
Sidon and Tyre held out till 287 BC or so, when I think they finally went over to Ptolemy.

Antigonus set up a lot of colonies for his Macedonians, primarily in Syria. And some in Asia Minor.
And as the years rolled on, the Seleucids took great advantage of this. But for a long time, Seleucus was concerned that Demetrius might invade Syria and the former soldiers in the Army of Antigonus would join their former generals son.
We see an example of this when Agathocles, the son of Lysimachus, chose to sheperd Demetrius out of Asia Minor in 286 BC rather than risk a battle where the loyalties of the former Antigonid soldiers might be put to the test. Agathocles herded Demetrius into Seleucid Cilicia, where Seleucus also seemed reluctant to engage Demetrius until the very end.

Lysimachus was never able to dominate Asia Minor as Antigonus had. Lysimachus didn't even come close.
In fact, the Seleucids also failed miserably in controlling Asia Minor. And much of the colonization program was started by Antigonus, not the Seleucids.

At Raphia, the Seleucids had something like 50,000 men. At Panion, they had closer to 70,000 men.Their empire stretched from the hellespont in the west to Syria and Egypt in the south and to India in the east. At Ipsus, Antigonus had 80,000 men and controlled Asia Minor and the Levant. And his fleet was bigger than the other dynasts combined by a factor of at least two. And he made more money than the Seleucids.

Frankly, its not even close who had a better run state.

Antigonus didn't want the east. Its why he basically abandoned it and emptied the eastern treasuries and moved them to the west after defeating Eumenes.

Also, Antigonus was 80 plus years old at Ipsus. The Antigonus who defeated Eumenes flattens Lysimachus and Seleucus.

Keep in mind that the real winner of the War of the Diadochi was Seleukus. He started out with just 1500 men and by the time of his death, he nearly recaptured Alexander's empire. Seleukus was also a great general. He defeated Antigonus in the Babylonian Wars, Lysimachus, and Demetrius. His empire was able to bring the Egypt to its heels despite all the horrible Seleucid Emperors that followed Seleucus. After defeating Lysimachus, if Seleucus hadn't been assasinated, he would have easily captured Greece and his successors, no matter how weak, could easily destroy Ptolemies.

Seleucus was only able to defeat Lysimachus because of family discord that tore Lysimachus' kingdom to pieces.
I don't disagree that Seleucus was a great general, but his best trait was that he was patient and bided his time.
Seleucus' victory over Antigonus in the Babylonian war, or rather the scope of his victory is open to debate. Had it been noteworthy in any real way, its hard to see how the other dynasts would not have turned it into propoganda. As they didn't, the victory was probably small in scale.
Seleucus ought to thank Demetrius for Ipsus, without whom victory would likely not have been obtained.

I think its interesting that we know far more about Demetrius' invasion of Babylon than of Seleucus' victory over Antigonus. I wonder why?

Seleucus never brought the Ptolemies to their heels. When did he defeat them?
Had Seleucus not been murdered, I suspect that it would have taken the rest of his natural life to have brought order to Macedon and Europe. Not to mention Asia Minor. Most likely his heirs would have had to finish this off.
Plus he would have had to deal with Pyrrhus and with the Gallic Invasion. Considering how little military his son had, I think Seleucus would have had his hands full.

The irony of Seleucus is that he nearly had all of the Empire outside of Egypt and the Levant with an armament a qaurter the size of Antigonus' army at Ipsus.
Otherwise, where were all these soldiers when he was murdered? Antiochus was desperate for troops after his father died and struggled to get an army together.
So where were they all? Clearly, none of Lysimachus former soldiers cared for the Seleucids in Europe, elsewise they would have turned on Ceraunus when he murdered Seleucus.
The answer is that Seleucus almost certainly did not have many men to begin with prior to Korupedion.

The reality was that after Korupedion, Seleucus control of Asia Minor and Europe was nominal at best. As evidenced by the fact that with his death, the Seleucids lost Europe and struggled to control an Asia Minor that was also being cherry picked by the Ptolemies.

There is no way that anyone should consider Pergamon or Ptolemic Empire to be the greatest. They were on life support provided by Rome. The Seleucids were very powerful. Even after Antiochus Megas got defeated at Raphia, the Ptolemic Empire wasn't near ready to invade Seleucids. The closets the Ptolemies ever got trying to conquer the seleucids was during the third Syrian War and Ptolemy had no interest to continue. He probably didn't have the resources either. Antiochus III destroyed Ptolemies in the 5th Syrian War. At this point, Ptolemies becomes Rome's

Antiochus III was his own worst enemy. He was unaware of Egypt's preparations prior to Raphia i.e. their enlarging of the army using native Egyptians, or that he was outnumbered by 20,000 men. Then, he mismanaged the battle by riding after the Egyptian left flank when he should have turned and crushed the Egyptian phalanx.

The Romans didn't want Antiochus to invade Egypt. But there was nothing they could do about it had he wanted to invade after Panion. And Antiochus III should have invaded.

The reason that Seleucids began to decline was because they faced multiple front wars and they had horrible leadership. The only good leaders the Seleucids had were Seleucus himself, Antiochus Epiphanes, Demetrius, and Antiochus Sidetes. From Seleucus to Antiochus III, the leaders could not properly defend or organize the empire. Antiochus III ed the empire up. Although intially successful, he really didn't do much. When his reign ended, it was worse than when he began. This was all do to his Alexander syndrome. He recaptured the East only to lose it against. He defeated Egypt, but they not conquer it. Jerusalem proves to be a annoying piece of later on. After the defeat to the Romans, he has to collect money by sacking temples, which cost his life and made the empire unpopular. Antiochus Sidetes reign was a Belisarus, Battle of the Bulge styled last attempt. He managed to subdue rebels and states and reconquer a portion of Parthia. Sadly, with his death, the Seleucid Empire no longer exists. Only Antioch and a few cities remain.

Antiochus III did not recapture the East. He essentially put the East in its place by putting the Kingdoms on his borders in their place by a show of military strength. There wasn't much else he could do.
If he left garrisons in the east, they could well be overwhelmed when he left and its doubtful reinforcements could make it to them in time if the alarm did reach him.
Also, whose to say the garrisons and governors he did leave wouldn't themselves seek independence as Bactria did?
But he sure could show them who was the most powerful. And that he did do. Plus he got a bunch of elephants from India.

Antiochus III should have taken Egypt after Panion. It was the biggest mistake the Seleucids ever made.
That and abandoning Asia Minor to minor dynasts and petty kingdoms.

[Sardaukar One]

I would also like to put forth the "anecdote of the Phrygian peasant who, when found digging a large hole and asked what he was doing, responded sadly that he was looking for Antigonos." (Plutarch Phok 29, 1-2).

The implication is that Antigonos was the better ruler than Lysimachus and the Seleucids. At least as far as Asia Minor went.

[Emperor Of Seleucid]

Seleucus was only able to defeat Lysimachus because of family discord that tore Lysimachus' kingdom to pieces.
I don't disagree that Seleucus was a great general, but his best trait was that he was patient and bided his time.
Seleucus' victory over Antigonus in the Babylonian war, or rather the scope of his victory is open to debate. Had it been noteworthy in any real way, its hard to see how the other dynasts would not have turned it into propoganda. As they didn't, the victory was probably small in scale.
Seleucus ought to thank Demetrius for Ipsus, without whom victory would likely not have been obtained.

I think Seleucus's trait as being well timed makes him the best general in the wars. His perfect entrances defeated many of his opponents. He was the big underdog.

I think its interesting that we know far more about Demetrius' invasion of Babylon than of Seleucus' victory over Antigonus. I wonder why?

The mere fact that Seleucus could defend against an army of up to 80,000 (probably around 40,000) with a much weaker army is impressive.

Seleucus never brought the Ptolemies to their heels. When did he defeat them?

His descendants did.

Had Seleucus not been murdered, I suspect that it would have taken the rest of his natural life to have brought order to Macedon and Europe. Not to mention Asia Minor. Most likely his heirs would have had to finish this off.

Had Seleucus not been murdered, I suspect that the transfer of rule to Antiochus would have been much smoother.

Plus he would have had to deal with Pyrrhus and with the Gallic Invasion. Considering how little military his son had, I think Seleucus would have had his hands full.

I don't think he would have attempted to completely conquer Greece, just bring it to submission.

The irony of Seleucus is that he nearly had all of the Empire outside of Egypt and the Levant with an armament a qaurter the size of Antigonus' army at Ipsus.

Yes, but he turned Mesopotamia and Syria into the central power base of the Seleucid dynasty. The military settlements provided 52,000 Macedonians to the Seleucid Army of his descendants. Even Sidetes had an army of 80,000.

The reality was that after Korupedion, Seleucus control of Asia Minor and Europe was nominal at best. As evidenced by the fact that with his death, the Seleucids lost Europe and struggled to control an Asia Minor that was also being cherry picked by the Ptolemies.

Seleucus's control was mainly nominal, but so was Alexander's control. Seleucus could have very well transferred power to Antiochus had he not died.

Antiochus III was his own worst enemy. He was unaware of Egypt's preparations prior to Raphia i.e. their enlarging of the army using native Egyptians, or that he was outnumbered by 20,000 men. Then, he mismanaged the battle by riding after the Egyptian left flank when he should have turned and crushed the Egyptian phalanx.

Antiochus III had 68,000 troops and that wasn't even the entire Seleucid army. He was an incompetent general with no tactical understandings that made the same mistakes.

The Romans didn't want Antiochus to invade Egypt. But there was nothing they could do about it had he wanted to invade after Panion. And Antiochus III should have invaded.

I agree. The combined armies at Raphia totaled 140,000, which was nearly three times the size of the Rome at Cannae. Rome wouldn't do .

Antiochus III did not recapture the East. He essentially put the East in its place by putting the Kingdoms on his borders in their place by a show of military strength. There wasn't much else he could do.
If he left garrisons in the east, they could well be overwhelmed when he left and its doubtful reinforcements could make it to them in time if the alarm did reach him.
Also, whose to say the garrisons and governors he did leave wouldn't themselves seek independence as Bactria did?
But he sure could show them who was the most powerful. And that he did do. Plus he got a bunch of elephants from India.

Antiochus III deployed 100,000 troops on his Anabasis to the East. He could have easily used that to subject Anatolia. In my opinion, Anatolia is much more valuable than Greece or the East.

Antiochus III should have taken Egypt after Panion. It was the biggest mistake the Seleucids ever made.
That and abandoning Asia Minor to minor dynasts and petty kingdoms.

The Biggest Mistake Antiochus III made was losing at Raphia and at Magnesia. He broke through the flanks and could have easily destroyed the opposing army.

[Emperor Of Seleucid]

Another thing to note is Antigonus had the most power to began with. That explains why he possessed a superior domain compared to the young Diadochi, who won.

[Sardaukar One]

I think Seleucus's trait as being well timed makes him the best general in the wars. His perfect entrances defeated many of his opponents. He was the big underdog.

Yet generally speaking no one puts him ahead of Eumenes or Antigonus as being a better general. His greatest battle was Ipsus, and it would seem that much of that victory was owed to Lysimachus. Which would seem evident based on the division of spoils after the battle.

Seleucus was nowhere near the threat to Antigonus that Ptolemy and Kassander were. Certainly Antigonus was far more interested in gaining control of Europe and Egypt that he was the East. Which was another factor that spared Seleucus.

The mere fact that Seleucus could defend against an army of up to 80,000 (probably around 40,000) with a much weaker army is impressive.

It was more like 20,000 men that Demetrius brought with him when he invaded Babylon. And Seleucus did not stand upto Demetrius. He stayed in Media if memory serves me correctly.

His descendants did.

Yes they did, about a 100 years later. Not quite the same really.

Had Seleucus not been murdered, I suspect that the transfer of rule to Antiochus would have been much smoother.

I think thats stating the obvious. Though I don't know that that would mean no rebellions. Seleucus was already sharing power with Antiochus. Antiochus ruled the eastern part of the empire at the time of Seleucus' death.

I don't think he would have attempted to completely conquer Greece, just bring it to submission.

He would have had to have done as the Antigonids in Greece did with the fetters of Greece. Otherwise, he doesn't have control. Had he not been murdered, I doubt he would have had time to implement such a policy. Seleucus was in his late 70's. And the Gallic invasion would probably have taken up most of his attention.

Yes, but he turned Mesopotamia and Syria into the central power base of the Seleucid dynasty. The military settlements provided 52,000 Macedonians to the Seleucid Army of his descendants. Even Sidetes had an army of 80,000.

And who do you think started all these military settlements? It was Antigonus who started them. He had a far greater supply of Macedonians than anything Seleucus had. Seleucus continued the work started by Antigonus.

Seleucus's control was mainly nominal, but so was Alexander's control. Seleucus could have very well transferred power to Antiochus had he not died.

Alexander did not bother to control much of Asia Minor because he wanted to get to grips with the Persian military as fast as possible. Its why you don't see Alexander take much interest in the areas away from the royal road that ran through the Asia Minor. Whats the excuse for the Seleucids?

Antiochus was already co-ruler with Seleucus. Another problem is that much of Asia Minor may not have felt they owed allegiance to the Seleucids. That certainly seems to be the case in Europe where there seems to have been no support for them.

Antiochus III had 68,000 troops and that wasn't even the entire Seleucid army. He was an incompetent general with no tactical understandings that made the same mistakes.

I doubt Antiochus could have brought that many more men to the battle. At Panion he seems to have led from the center and from what little we know and can put together, he seems to have had much better control of his army than he did at either Raphia or Magnesia. Probably because he had a much better idea of what was going on.

I agree. The combined armies at Raphia totaled 140,000, which was nearly three times the size of the Rome at Cannae. Rome wouldn't do

Antiochus could not have taken this many men to attack Rome. Too many of these men would have been settler's and the levy who were needed at home; but it would make Rome invading the Seleucid empire and Asia minor a far more hazardous undertaking had Antiochus been able to incorporate Egypt into th Seleucid Empire.

Antiochus III deployed 100,000 troops on his Anabasis to the East. He could have easily used that to subject Anatolia. In my opinion, Anatolia is much more valuable than Greece or the East.

I don't know where you get 100,000 men from, but the army that Antiochus took with him would certainly have to have been 50,000 men or so. Antiochus was at peace with Egypt, so this was a good time to put the East in order I guess.

The Biggest Mistake Antiochus III made was losing at Raphia and at Magnesia. He broke through the flanks and could have easily destroyed the opposing army.

That goes without saying, but with Egypt in his pocket, defeat at Magnesia is far more manageable.

Another thing to note is Antigonus had the most power to began with. That explains why he possessed a superior domain compared to the young Diadochi, who won.

When Antigonus crossed Perdiccas, he had as many men with him as Seleucus did when he fled from Antigonus at Babylon. Antigonus took power as evidenced by his victories over Eumenes and Alketas to name a few.

[Emperor Of Seleucid]

Yet generally speaking no one puts him ahead of Eumenes or Antigonus as being a better general. His greatest battle was Ipsus, and it would seem that much of that victory was owed to Lysimachus. Which would seem evident based on the division of spoils after the battle.

Seleucus was the real general at ipsus. Lysimachus provided a lot of the army, but Seleucus provided the cavalry. Seleucus's actions during the battle won Ipsus.

Eumenes failed in the end as he did not recognize the importance of the baggage. Antigonus failed in letting the incompetent Demetrius succeed him.

Seleucus was nowhere near the threat to Antigonus that Ptolemy and Kassander were. Certainly Antigonus was far more interested in gaining control of Europe and Egypt that he was the East. Which was another factor that spared Seleucus.

Seleucus's level of threat to Antigonus has nothing to do with his skills. Kassander and Ptolemy were established well before Antigonus grew powerful.

It was more like 20,000 men that Demetrius brought with him when he invaded Babylon. And Seleucus did not stand upto Demetrius. He stayed in Media if memory serves me correctly.

When Demetrius invaded, Seleucus was busy somewhere else, but if I remember correctly, he defeated the garrison left behind.

I think thats stating the obvious. Though I don't know that that would mean no rebellions. Seleucus was already sharing power with Antiochus. Antiochus ruled the eastern part of the empire at the time of Seleucus' death.

There would still be rebellion, but there would probably be less as more will be rebel when they hear that the Emperor as died in a campaign than if the Emperor dies after transferring all his powers to someone else. Seleucus was power sharing with Antiochus, but really Antiochus did not rule over much. He was probably more of a administrative ruler.

He would have had to have done as the Antigonids in Greece did with the fetters of Greece. Otherwise, he doesn't have control. Had he not been murdered, I doubt he would have had time to implement such a policy. Seleucus was in his late 70's. And the Gallic invasion would probably have taken up most of his attention.

Seleucus's age has been debated, but he was old. I think he wouldn't stay in Greece for long and would withdraw after the Gallic Invasions.

And who do you think started all these military settlements? It was Antigonus who started them. He had a far greater supply of Macedonians than anything Seleucus had. Seleucus continued the work started by Antigonus.

Seleucus created his own military settlements. They were developed during Seleucus's time, but by the time of his successor's, they provided a strong army.

I doubt Antiochus could have brought that many more men to the battle. At Panion he seems to have led from the center and from what little we know and can put together, he seems to have had much better control of his army than he did at either Raphia or Magnesia. Probably because he had a much better idea of what was going on.

Antiochus couldn't have brought more men, but his total strength was divided between Egypt and revolts in Asia Minor and Cyrrhestica.

Antiochus could not have taken this many men to attack Rome.

Antiochus could not have attacked Rome anyways, but Rome wouldn't have been able to challenge him in the Asian minor.

I don't know where you get 100,000 men from, but the army that Antiochus took with him would certainly have to have been 50,000 men or so. Antiochus was at peace with Egypt, so this was a good time to put the East in order I guess.

Justin has Antiochus with 100,000 men and 20,000 cavalry. This is plausible as Antiochus had no rebellions and could send his full force.

That goes without saying, but with Egypt in his pocket, defeat at Magnesia is far more manageable.

Magnesia was manageable already. Antiochus did need to plunder temples. By the time of Epiphanes, the money had been paid and the restrictions were ignored. Usually when Rome wins a war, they make sure their enemies can never regain strength. Clearly they couldn't do that to the Seleucids.

When Antigonus crossed Perdiccas, he had as many men with him as Seleucus did when he fled from Antigonus at Babylon. Antigonus took power as evidenced by his victories over Eumenes and Alketas to name a few.

Yes, but when Antigonus came to power, it was still a will scramble. When Seleucus went back to Babylon, Antigonus, Cassander, and Ptolemy were already established. Antigonus's greatest enemy when he came to power was of his strength. Seleucus had to deal with powerful established rulers.

[gangstamaori]

I am no expert on the diadochi, but I do have a question. It seems to me from a bit of light reading that Macedonia under the Antigonids seemed quite weak (subjective term, but which I mean they struggled to deal with uniting Hellas). I know Macedonia was the battleground for a few dynasties until it fell into Antigonus II's lap; but was it perhaps weakened due to manpower shortages due to Alexander's campaigns and the new cities founded by the Macedonians? Also, I assume that there was no replacing the excellent army that Philip II spent his life building up.

[Sardaukar One]

Seleucus was the real general at ipsus. Lysimachus provided a lot of the army, but Seleucus provided the cavalry. Seleucus's actions during the battle won Ipsus.

And who was it that bought the time for Seleucus to win the battle? We don't know enough about Ipsus, but it seems highly unlikely a general of the caliber of Antigonus would have failed to see the movements of 400 Seleucid elephants, nor guessed their intent without some work being done by the infantry to hide their battle plan.

Without the infantry under Lysimachus' command, of which a serious part of the phalanx was provided by Kassander, Seleucus would not have stood a chance against Antigonus. Lysimachus was able to survive being chased around Asia Minor by Antigonus for a good few months while he was waiting for Seleucus to arrive. While I have no doubt that Antigonus let Lysimachus off the hook(a younger Antigonus destroys him in my opinion), Lysimachus did a good job holding on for dear life.

Eumenes failed in the end as he did not recognize the importance of the baggage. Antigonus failed in letting the incompetent Demetrius succeed him.

Eumenes was also Greek, which played against him somewhat. Once he lost the Silver Shields, it all fell apart. Demetrius was the main reason for Antigonus being defeated. He screwed up the Egyptian campaign, he dallied in Greece when it looks as if he could have eliminated Kassander had he pressed him and his failure to maintain contact with the phalanx cost Antigonus his life at Ipsus.

Seleucus's level of threat to Antigonus has nothing to do with his skills. Kassander and Ptolemy were established well before Antigonus grew powerful.

Kassander was not well established before Antigonus grew powerful. Kassander was set aside in Antipater's will, in preference of Polyperchron, whom Antipater named as his heir. Kassander went to Antigonus who provided him with support in order to take Macedon and Greece.
Ptolemy was a fledgling power at this time. Like Seleucus, he picked his targets at opportune times.

When Demetrius invaded, Seleucus was busy somewhere else, but if I remember correctly, he defeated the garrison left behind.

Antigonus' orders to his son were to return in a few months time, which suggests that the scope of Seleucus' victories in the East were not yet known to Antigonus and Demetrius. They clearly did not know that Media and most of Iran had been lost, as evidenced by Demetrius only taking 20,000 men or so.

I would imagine the garrison surrendered or were allowed to depart.

There would still be rebellion, but there would probably be less as more will be rebel when they hear that the Emperor as died in a campaign than if the Emperor dies after transferring all his powers to someone else. Seleucus was power sharing with Antiochus, but really Antiochus did not rule over much. He was probably more of a administrative ruler.

That's not true. There were no rebellions in the east when word reached Antiochus that Seleucus had been killed. Suggesting that Antiochus was something more than just a pencil pusher. That Antiochus was able to retain as much as he did with as little military resources as he had, suggests he was a lot more than just an administrator. Kings needed to be soldiers first.

The problem was that much of the 'territory' lost after Seleucus was murdered, was territory that had only just come under Seleucid control. All of this territory had been under the control of Lysimachus. So there was no loyalty to the Seleucids there.

Seleucus's age has been debated, but he was old. I think he wouldn't stay in Greece for long and would withdraw after the Gallic Invasions.

The only debate about Seleucus' age is if he was in his early 70's or late 70's. If Seleucus had not been murdered, he would have had to fight the Gauls. And I think he would have stayed in Macedon. It's assumed that he wanted to return home before he died.
It explains why he went to Europe while Asia Minor was only nominally under his control.

Seleucus created his own military settlements. They were developed during Seleucus's time, but by the time of his successor's, they provided a strong army.

Yes, but the majority of the colonies were started by Antigonus. Or do you think its a coincidence that Syria is the province where the Seleucids got the majority of their phalanx from? Antigonus had as much as 30-35,000 Macedonians under his command during his reign. Though not all at once of course.

Antigonus was given the royal army, and though some had to be sent home, he would have surely have had at least 5,000 Macedonians or so. Antipater gave him another 10,000 Macedonians. Antigonus added a bunch from Alketas and Eumenes when he defeated them plus the other Perdican generals. Perhaps another 10,000 or so here. Antigonus got another 6,000 or so from Eumenes. Demetrius got another 6,000 plus when they deserted Kassander. And these numbers don't include cavalry.

Some of these men would have been lost to war or disease. But that still leaves a pretty good pool of men. And for Antigonus to keep control, he would have planted towns and settlements for these soldiers. By comparison, Seleucus had a few thousand Macedonians at best. Any other Macedonians out in the East can hardly owe the origins of their settlements to Seleucus.

In the period after Ipsus, there was a very genuine fear that had Demetrius attacked Syria, that Syria would have gone over to him. If so, this can hardly refer to the feelings of the locals, but rather the military settlers. One reason Seleucus did not try to make his claim on Phoenicia good was because he needed to lock Syria down. Getting the good will of the military settlers was of paramount importance to Seleucus in this regards. Had he been their original benefactor, Seleucus might have been a bit more active.

Antigonus' kingdom was far better run than any of the other Successor kingdoms, past and present.

Antiochus couldn't have brought more men, but his total strength was divided between Egypt and revolts in Asia Minor and Cyrrhestica.

Unfortunately, you can't leave border areas without troops. At Ipsus, Antigonus had some 80,000 men. But he may well have had another 30,000 plus men elsewhere. 7,000 men had attacked Babylon, in an attempt to divert Seleucus. Tyre and Sidon probably had close to 10,000 men between them. Throw in garrisons elsewhere, and over 100,000 men seems plausible. Of course, some of these men weren't front line troops. But 60,000 men plus is a good sized army for those days.

Antiochus could not have attacked Rome anyways, but Rome wouldn't have been able to challenge him in the Asian minor.

I didn't mean invade Italy. I meant fight a war with them. Which he absolutely could have done in Greece and Macedon. And in fact he did.

Justin has Antiochus with 100,000 men and 20,000 cavalry. This is plausible as Antiochus had no rebellions and could send his full force.

This is plausible as a total military establishment for the Seleucids, though I would think they would have more cavalry. Probably more infantry too. But there is no way he could have taken this many men with him to the East. Understand that the large armies Antiochus used in the major campaigns e.g. Raphia, Panion and Magnesia, saw the Seleucids put armies of 50,000 or more men in the field. But they were able to do this because the bulk of the national army was recruited from Syria and nearby areas. Antiochus simply could not strip Syria of its levy for any great length of time. The loss of income would have been severe if these men were taken away from their homes for 8 years, which is about how long Antiochus was in the East.

Antiochus would have taken the royal army, which would probably number around 30-35,000 men. This would include the Silver Shields, perhaps some other more permanent infantry units i.e. bronze or gold shields, plus the Hypaspists, the Agema, Companions, Cataphracts, the Elephant core plus other specialist units i.e. Cretans, Dahae horse archers, slingers etc. As he passed into the east, I'm sure he would augment this army with local troops and levies. And I certainly think he would have had in excess of 50,000 men when he reached Bactria. But 100,000 infantry just isn't plausible.
There is no way Antiochus could supply an army of this size. There is no way he could strip this many men from his western territories for this length of time.

Justin is known for getting his facts a little bit wrong.

Magnesia was manageable already. Antiochus did need to plunder temples. By the time of Epiphanes, the money had been paid and the restrictions were ignored. Usually when Rome wins a war, they make sure their enemies can never regain strength. Clearly they couldn't do that to the Seleucids.

But if Antiochus had Egypt under his control, does he even make peace after Magnesiat? With the resources of Egypt added to the rest of his Kingdom, Antiochus has the manpower and income that could make the loss of Asia minor water off a ducks back.
Not to mention denying corn to Rome. Though I don't know how big this was at this point in time.

Asia Minor was a pain for the Seleucids. There were too many competing factions. But the Seleucids could get some good troops here i.e. Galatians.

Yes, but when Antigonus came to power, it was still a will scramble. When Seleucus went back to Babylon, Antigonus, Cassander, and Ptolemy were already established. Antigonus's greatest enemy when he came to power was of his strength. Seleucus had to deal with powerful established rulers.

Its because Kassander and Ptolemy were established that Seleucus was able to survive. Had they not been keeping Antigonus busy, how long would Seleucus have survived?
Antigonus overcame far more enemies on his way to power. Antigonus overcame far more obstacles. And the pack that Antigonus emerged from was arguably far more talented than those that overcame Antigonus. They were certainly more populous.

Another factor that helped Seleucus was that Antigonus seems not to have been that interested in the East. He removed all the treasures in the East to the West and lets Satraps who were hostile to him remain in power, though I believe they acknowledged him as "Overlord" of Asia" as the price of being left alone. Outside of Media, he seems to have exerted no direct control of any of the Eastern Satrapies.

[Sardaukar One]

I am no expert on the diadochi, but I do have a question. It seems to me from a bit of light reading that Macedonia under the Antigonids seemed quite weak (subjective term, but which I mean they struggled to deal with uniting Hellas). I know Macedonia was the battleground for a few dynasties until it fell into Antigonus II's lap; but was it perhaps weakened due to manpower shortages due to Alexander's campaigns and the new cities founded by the Macedonians? Also, I assume that there was no replacing the excellent army that Philip II spent his life building up.

I don't know of any cities of any note founded by the Macedonians. Certainly not by the Macedonians of Macedon.

You are right that Macedon was drained of men under Alexander. We have no idea how many Macedonians went out to the East during Alexander's lifetime. And also under the Successors. Macedon was fought over almost constantly from 320 BC down to 272 BC or so, when Antigonus Gonatas cemented his control of Macedon.
Kassander fought Polyperchron as well as campaigns against the Greeks. Then there was Olympias vs Kassander before Kassander finally secured control after Ipsus.
When Kassander died in 297 BC, his sons fought each other and then Demetrius showed up and took over. Then Demetrius fought Pyrrhus and Lysimachus.
Lysimachus drove Pyrrhus out of Macedon. Then he was killed and Ptolemy Ceraunus bought off Pyrrhus by giving/loaning him troops, including a large number of elephants. I believe he fought a battle with Gonatas, but I may be wrong about that.
Then the Gauls invaded, killing Ceraunus and causing untold damage. Gonatas was able to overcome one of these Gallic armies, which helped win Macedon to his side. Then Gonatas battled Pyrrhus on and off until Pyrrhus was killed in Argos.
This is a very broad outline, and one can only guess at what this cost the Macedonians in men and income. This doesn't account for those Macedonians who left for the East, where the East offered great rewards in comparison to remaining in Europe.

I would not say Macedon fell into Gonatas' lap. Quite the opposite. Gonatas lost quite a few battles and when Demetrius was defeated in Asia Minor, he had Demetrias and some garrisons in a few cities including Corinth. Not much on its own.

One of the things quite notable about the reign of Gonatas and his descendants was that they were very conscious about not relying upon the Macedonian levies unless they had absolutely had to. After 272 BC, I don't believe Gonatas ever called up the levy phalanx. I think the next time we see the Macedonian phalanx called up was in 225 BC or so. Versus the Spartans I think. Gonatas realized that Macedon needed time to recuperate from the huge drain on its manpower. Almost 50 years straight of either providing troops for wars overseas or being a battleground itself. The Macedonians needed a rest and Gonatas ultimately gave it to them.
Gonatas used Mercs quite extensively. For garrisons and for campaigns. Of course, there were some standing Macedonian units i.e. the royal cavalry, agema etc. And presumably they would have partaken in some of the battles fought under Gonatas.
And I think Macedonians were used to garrison the key cities, such as Corinth and Demetrias. Otherwise it was generally mercs.

Gonatas did build up his navy. In the mid 250's, it was strong enough to get the better of the Ptolemaic navy in the Aegean. The Ptolemies had been able to influence Greek affairs in large part because of its strong navy. They could supply money and soldiers with their navy and this was quite noticeable in the Aegean. Gonatas saw this, and his winning of the Aegean effectively ended Ptolemaic interference in Greece. And it was a far more productive use of his resources. Certainly in light of his desire to give Macedon a rest from war.

Gonatas also had the fetters of Greece. The first fetter was the city of Demetrias, founded by Gonatas' father, Demetrius, which was a very formidable city. The Romans opted not to siege it when they fought Perseus a hundred years later or so. The location of Demetrias, in combination with their navy, meant that the Macedonians did not need to control Thermopylae. If an enemy occupied Thermopylae against a Macedonian advance, the Macedonians could simply use their navy to land troops at Demetrias and bypass Thermopylae entirely. And if an enemy tried to invade Macedon from Greece via Thermopylae, the Macedonians could use Demetrias to cut the lines of communications etc.

The second fetter was Corinth. The Macedonians had a strong garrison present. Corinth essentially performed the same function as Demetrias but for the Peloponnese. Though the Macedonians never had enough troops garrisoned at Corinth to oppose an enemy army, the Macedonians could cut off lines of communication and harass any enemy leaving the Peloponnese. Supplies, reinforcements etc could not be guaranteed safe passage. And this makes things difficult for an army leaving the Peloponnese. Also the Macedonians could use their ships to raid and harry the Aetolians.
I have even read that if needed, the Macedonians could drag ships across the Isthmus to the Saronic gulf to threaten Athens.

The third and final fetter was Chalcis. Chalcis was the main city of Euboea and was a pretty good base from which the Macedonian navy could watch Athens. It was also reasonably well situated to keep a check on the Aegean.

The Antigonids did garrison Athens, though I am not sure when or for how long.

With the aim of giving the Macedonian people a rest from war, Gonatas did a pretty good job of allocating his limited resources to get the most he could. The fetters of Greece did not stop resistance to Macedon, but it greatly reduced the ability of the Greeks to fight Macedon. And perhaps with no more than 10,000 men garrisoning the fetters of Greece, of whom many were mercs, Greece was effectively neutralized. This very much isolated the Greek states from helping each other and meant that in any war with Macedon, the Greek states would have to devote serious resources trying to counter the advantages the fetters of Greece gave Macedon.
Throw in the eventual naval dominance of the Aegean by the Macedonians, which denied Ptolemaic help to the Greek states and the potential of the Macedonian levy being called up and Gonatas pretty much put Greece in a head lock.

Undoubtedly Gonatas could have called up the Macedonian levy if needed. But Gonatas never needed to call them up. And perhaps never chose to get into a scenario where he would have to call them up. Though the Macedonian levies were still presumably doing some training, just no fighting.

The downside to this approach, is that the Macedonian army was clearly not going to be as good as the army of Philip. There were still some elite/royal units. But I don't think there were more than a few thousand of them. I think the royal infantry were one or two thousand strong and the "companions/agema" were four or five hundred strong. Under Philip, the Hypaspists were three thousand strong on their own.

Many of the Macedonians were part time soldiers, who would presumably drill a few times a month or however many times it was. They clearly were not the full time professional phalanx of Philip and Alexander. This is not say they should be despised on the battlefield. The phalanx of Philip V and his son Perseus were able to hold their own head on with the Roman legions. But the biggest drop off in the Macedonian army seems to have been in their cavalry. We see far fewer cavalry in the Macedonian army and they seem to be far less effective. If due to numbers or less skill is hard to say with certainty. But the noticeable difference seems to be the effectiveness of the cavalry arm. The Macedonians don't seem to have one of any note by the time they fought Rome. I can't be sure of this, but I don't think they ever fielded more than 1,000 Macedonian cavalry. They did use more cavalry, they just were not Macedonians.

Philip's army was battle tested almost every year of his reign. The army under Alexander was much the same. So from a skill/battle tested etc standpoint, the army of Gonatas is not going to be as good. But it may well have been impossible for Gonatas to have done as such, even if he had wanted to. It might also have been impractical. Could a Macedonian army of the size and skill of the one Alexander took to Persia have made that much difference for Gonatas? Garrisons would still have to be placed in cities. Macedonians instead of Mercs to garrison cities. Dominance on land would not neutralize the Ptolemaic navy. I'm not sure possession of such an army would have made much difference to Gonatas.

Philip chose not to garrison the cities of Greece. Firstly, Philip would not have had much of an army left to take to Persia if he had opted to garrison Athens, Corinth etc. Secondly, Philip wanted the Greeks to help him against Persia, the Athenian navy in particular. Outside of the Athenian ships, the Greek turnout seems pretty poor for Alexander. I think getting the Greeks to stay peaceful was probably seen as a win by Alexander and Philip.
But had he been forced to garrison the Greek cities, there would have been no invasion of the Persian Empire.

Macedon was also nowhere near as rich as it had been under Philip. The gold mines Philip used so well were exhausted long before Gonatas got to the throne.

Its my opinion that the true heirs to Philip's military legacy are the Seleucids. The Silver Shields and their cavalry arm in particular.