Discussion: The Greatest Diadochi Kingdom

[RedFox]

Sardaukar One, can I please have your brain?

Next thing people will be asking to have his babies for all we know...

[messiah]

Next thing people will be asking to have his babies for all we know...

I like this time in history, but I can't get all of these things (talking about the Diadochi wars) in my head unlike many others. There are only two other people I know with such knowledge of this era, both of them can be found in .com: Messalla Corvinus and Dogbeard.

Many, many, many people are very smart in history, but these three people (the above and SO) are the smartest I know aside from some documentary makers and book writers.

Anyway, back on topic. Most successful Diadochi Kingdom? Ptolemaic Empire. They held the bread basket of the Mediterranean and survived for the longest time. Greatest Diadochi Kingdom? The Seleucid Empire. They held many lands which gave them wealth and a large diversity of troops. If not for the lack of attention for the east, they could've survived longer*. The "What if" strongest Diadochi Kingdom? The one of Antigonos whats-his-name. He was close to remaking the Empire and it took all of his enemies to join together to beat him. If they wouldn't ally, he would've crushed them one by one.

*I think the Seleucids can't really be blamed for not paying attention to the east. They did not have the manpower to defend and launch assaults from both the east and the west. IMO it was simply impossible so they stayed with the region where they have a larger trading web - the west (though the east had India and China).

[Sardaukar One]

The Ptolemaic Empire is the most successful simply because it lasted the longest.
With Anthony's defeat at Actium, they were effectively finished.
Though Cleopatra's suicide the following year is probably when you sign off on the Ptolemies.

The Seleucids more or less finished the Ptolemies off as a military power at Panion in 200 BC.
This battle ended the contest for Syria and the rest of the Levant.
I think the Ptolemies made efforts to get the Levant back, but they were never the same after Panion as a military power.
Its also the crowning moment in the career of Antiochus III the Great!
In my opinion, Antiochus foolishly rejected the oppurtunity to invade and take Egypt down.
He went for the much easier Ptolemaic holdings in Asia Minor.

I will give the Ptolemies this. They were oppurtunists of the highest order. And they never tried to take more than they could handle. At least thats how it seems to me.
While the other dynasts were fighting Antigonus, Ptolemy took much of the Levant back.
Could not have done this had Antigonus not been occupied elsewhere.
When Demetrius returned to Macedonia, Ptolemy was able to take Cyprus, and eventually Sidon and Tyre.
When Seleucus was murdered, Asia Minor quickly became a mess. Ptolemy II grabbed most of the southern coastline of Asia Minor.
Basically, if you looked the otherway, the Ptollemies would rob you blind.
They got a lot off the graft of others.
And without Rome's patronage, Antiochus IV would certainly have done them in.

When Ptolemy took over Egypt, he inherited the richest satrapy in the empire. More than likely anyway. I'm not sure that Egypt was the cash cow it was this early on in its history with regards the European powers. Though it was clearly very rich.

Yet the kingdom of Antigonus is reported to have had an annual income of 11,000 talents per year.
This tally almost certainly did not include the east as he really had no direct control of some of these provinces.
His kingdom probably only relates to Asia Minor and northern Syria. And maybe Media and Babylon.
Regardless, this is a huge amount.
Egypt could not compete financially with that. Especially when they lost all their holdings in the levant.
And the loss of Cyprus won't have helped either.
One of the main reasons for war with Antigonus was that he had a huge armament, and was able to keep them all under arms.
By Ipsus, his military had increased from 60,000-80,000 men to 120,000 plus. And he added a pretty powerful navy.
Antigonus's income from his territories may well have increased as evidenced by a significant increase in his armed forces from the end of the second diadoch wars to the Ipsus campaign.
His income from Asia Minor, Cyprus and the Levant dwarfed anything any of the dynasts could afford.
Of course, Antigonus was the only individual who was able to rule these territories effectively till the Romans.
But considering how well Antigonus did with these territories, I find it incredible that the Seleucids seemingly did not give Asia Minor their full attention.
Asia Minor wasn't only just a cash cow, it was an excellent area for recruiting soldiers. Cappadocian horse, as used by Eumenes against Craterus, and there were plenty of Greek cities and colonies who could provide soldiers for the phalanx and sailors for the navy.
Plus greeks were highly prized as administrators etc.

The general view is that the Seleucids got too entangled in the east. They lost focus on Asia Minor, where a number of relatively minor dynasts were allowed to grow and flourish e.g. Pontus, Bithynia, Cappadocia and Pergamum.
The eastern anabis of Antiochus III, where he cowed Parthia and Bactria back into submission, ultimately proved to be a short term fix only.
It was pointless to leave garrisons as they faced the threat of being overwhelmed once Antiochus left the region.
And relief forces would almost certainly never get there in time even if the alarm could be raised.
If Antiochus left a major force in these areas, whose to say they also wouldn't eventually rebel and head off on their own like Bactria?
And these troops were required elsewhere. Antiochus didn't have troops to spare.

Antiochus Sidetes lost 80,000 men whilst retaking Iran and Iraq from the Parthians. In fact, the number of people lost is probably closer to 250,000-300,000.
The army took their families. And there would have been the usual assortment of merchants, money lenders, carpenters, slaves etc accompanying them.

The Seleucids wasted a lot of energy trying to hold down the east, and frankly, got little in return for it.

[death to the romans]

where do you get all that information?
and you are right, the seleucids did to much efforts to hold the east, and got nothing in return
and the ptolemies only survived so long because of their alliance with rome, and they became eventually a semi-independent kingdom...........
and the seleucids had to take egypt under antiochus and avoid the romans

[Spartan 666]

Exactly...in the Sixth Syrian War Antiochus IV entered Egypt and was about to lay siege to Alexandria, when he received a delegation of Roman diplomats who persuaded him to give up the conquest of Egypt..

[Sardaukar One]

The head of the embassy to Antiochus IV was waiting for news of the war with Perseus, King of Macedonia.
He got news that the Romans had defeated Perseus at Pydna in 168 BC.

This meant that the Romans were free to act against Antiochus IV if he had chosen to continue his conquest of Egypt.
I have read that had the war not ended in Macedonia, Antiochus would have continued his invasion of Egypt. And there would not have been a lot the Romans could have done about it.

The head of the delegation to Antiochus met the King outside of Alexandria. He drew a circle in the sand around the king and told him that before he stepped out of the circle, he must give him an answer as to if he will or will not evacuate Egypt.
Antiochus crumbled and told him he would leave. He also had to give up Cyprus too.

The head of the delegation, Gaeus Popillius Laenus, knew Antiochus in Rome, and after the King had conceded defeat, asked him in a friendly way how he had done!



I would add that John D Grainger makes a very good point that Rome was very wary that neither the Ptolemies or the Seleucids should ever defeat the other.
That it was essential that these two kingdoms should never be fused together.

"The Seleucid king already ruled from the Aegean to the borders of India, he had reduced all the independent kingdoms on his borders - Kappadokia, Pergamon, Armenia, Atropatene, the Parthians, Baktria, the Paropamisadai, Gerrha in Arabia- to dependence on him. He had conquered Koile Syria at last, and was clearly going to keep it in the peace settlement. To add Egypt with its enormous welath of territories and resources to his empire would put Antiochos into the same power classification as Alexander the Great and Darius I. Between them Antiochos III and Ptolemy V had recruited armies whose total numbers in 217 at the battle of Raphia had approached 150,000 men, and in 200, well over 120,000 men had fought at Panion. The union of Seleukid and Ptolemaic lands would thus create a potential military force double the size of the Roman army which had been destroyed at Cannae. It was an army bigger by a factor of three than anything Carthage had ever fielded, and bigger by a factor of fiver or seven than the army Philip could produce."



Many of the troops would have been local levies. Men obligated to fight due to land they had received from the king. But they would not have been expected to fight much past the campaign in question, and generally speaking, they would not have been expected to fight that far from home.
So even if Antiochus had conquered Egypt, I doubt he would have been able to take 150,000 men on the offensive against Rome.
Saying that, he probably would have been able to raise these numbers in defense of his realm.

Also, adding the wealth of Egypt would probaly have meant an increase in his standing army.
I believe Antiochus had a central army of about 30,000 to 40,000 men around him most of the time.
One would have expected for him to be able to have increased this significantly.

[Sardaukar One]

@ Death to the Romans

I can think of three Seleucid kings who died while campaigning in the east.

Antiochus III and Antiochus Sidetes were both killed whilst campaigning against the Parthians.
Though Antiochus III I think got wacked by local tribes.
Antiochus IV died from illness whilst campaigning against the Parthians.

And Demetrius was held captive for awhile by the Parthians.

The east chewed up Seleucid resources.

[Pelopidas_Of_Thebes]

Sorry to but in, but if any of us are going to reference or source something, make it a primary source. Secondary sources aren't good enough, generally.

[Sardaukar One]

"Sorry to but in, but if any of us are going to reference or source something, make it a primary source. Secondary sources aren't good enough, generally"

I didn't realize you got to make rules around here.

Generally, you would still be wrong. I say only generally, because even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Pelopidas!

Shame on you! You gotta stop being such a stick in the mud!

We both know the writers of the primary sources can't think like this. Its not their fault they are behind.
That some observations are beyond them! Some people got it, some don't!

Grainger's point is a very good one. Don't be salty that you don't have access to the same material that some of us do.

He got his core information from the primary sources. So they can take some of the credit for someone else coming along and doing even better with their work!

And if these postings of constructive points aggravate you so much, heck, just don't read the posts!

That in itself would be constructive.

[Sardaukar One]

You know who could have been a beast was Lysimachus.
By 285 BC, he had removed Pyrrhus from western Macedonia, and added Macedon and Thessaly to his holdings. When you add this addition to Thrace, control of the Hellespont and a major share of Asia Minor, he had the potential to become the strongest of the Diadochi.
He had the potential base to become arguably stronger than Antigonus.

[death to the romans]

yes but he killed his son
his sons widow fled to seleucus, who killed lysimachus and added asia minor to his kingdom

[Sardaukar One]

Lund makes the claim that Lysimachus may have had to kill his son because Agathocles actually was plotting against him. The general view is that Arsinoe had false charges made up against Agathocles for one reason or another. One rumor is that Agathocles had spurned the advances of Arsinoe and that she was furious. Another that she was merely protecting the succession of her own son.
Strabo says that "Lysimachus was compelled to kill his son". (Strabo XIII 4.1-2)

Antigonus had made his son Demetrius co-king with him in 306 BC.
Demetrius had also made it quite clear that his own son, Antigonus Gonatas, would be his heir.

Seleucus had made Antiochus joint ruler with him in the 290's. Seleucus took the western part of his kingdon, Antiochus the eastern part.

In Egypt, Ptolemy I had made his second son, Ptolemy Philadephus co-ruler in the mid 280s.

In all these instances, the current King was making it very clear who their intended heir would be.
It was prudent to do so, and it helped stabilize the future of the kingdom as everyone would know in advance who the next ruler would be. Presumably, the various nobles and factions would then suck up to the next in line to the throne. Anyone of importance would most likely be accomodating to the heir in order to protect their own positions. Not a bad way to ensure stability if you think about it.
The ministers, nobles etc, would essentially be transferring their allegiance to the heir.
Not foolproof of course, but all things considered, not bad by half.

Its not beyond the realm of possibility that Agathocles really was plotting against his father.
After all, he seems to have been a very capable general as his handling of Demetrius' invasion of Asia Minor showed. He must have had a pretty strong following. Especially in Asia Minor it would seem.
Yet no sign from his father that he would be designated heir to the kingdom
The apparent ease with which Seleucus invaded Asia Minor suggests that a chunk of Lysimachus governors and generals in Asia Minor went over to Seleucus. Of course, cities deserting the cause of the Kings whose domain they lie within in face of an invading army is far from unique in this era. Yet you have to think that there was a sufficient amount of support for Seleucus in Asia minor. Otherwise, I'm not sure Seleucus was strong enough to take on Lysimachus. Especially with him being the odd one when Ptolemy was included into this triumvirate. One of the reasons Seleucus allied with Demetrius for awhile was to offset the good relations between Lysimachus and Ptolemy.
Its possible that many of the defectors preferred Seleucus to a future under Arsinoe and her son, or it could be that they had nothing to lose by joining Seleucus. If the latter, this might be because they were backing Agathocles. If a plot there was, and with Agathocles murder, these governors and generals would have been backed into a corner with only one way out. Seleucus!


Additionally, one of the reasons for the success of the gallic invasion of Macedon and Greece a few years later was because Thrace and Macedon were denuded of a fair amount of their armament.
Lysimachus was probably forced to strip his garrisons in Thrace(possibly Macedon also) to help form an army to fight Seleucus at Korupedion. This suggests that a sufficient amount of his military in Asia minor was no longer available to him. And probably had gone over to Seleucus.

Its a shame we have no sources on the matter.
Its a fascinating period of history.

[Visiar]

I think it was pergamum. It wasn't the largest but it was the strongest.

[Sardaukar One]

Pergamum was only strong due to its alliance with Rome.
Certainly they were strong, and had a pretty good military. But if left alone vs the Seleucids, or even the Macedonians, they would have been beaten.

[RedFox]

Pergamum had one of the finest cavalry during that time. The only reason the Romans were able to beat the Seleucids was thanks to Attalid cavalry and hoplites.
Pergamum had conquered and secured its borders in Asia-Minor long before the alliance with Rome. It was a rich and powerful city-state.

[Sardaukar One]

The Romans were able to beat Antiochus III at Magnesia due to the Seleucid's incompetent handling of its armament of chariots and its elephants. To add insult to injury, Antiochus, after crushing the Roman right wing, opted to pursue it back to its base instead of wheeling to attack/threaten the Roman center. A mistake he also made at Raphia.
Had he done as such, it could well have been a Seleucid victory.
Instead, the Romans were able to stampede the Elephants which were stationed within and between the units of the phalanx.
As one can imagine, disaster ensued once they ran amok.

@ Red Fox

I agree that Pergamum was indeed a compact little state that had a good military and a good cavalry arm.
They were one of the few to resist the Galatian attacks with any success.
But the Seleucids became entangled with destructive dynastic squabbling.
Pergamum was not the only kingdom in Asia Minor to take advantage.
But to think that Pergamum could have fought the Seleucids on their own and won out seems wishful thinking to me.
Pergamum got worried when Philip of Macedon stuck his oar into Asia Minor after Panion.
And they went running to Rome.

Also, the great Pergamum cavalry was successful at Magnesia in large part due to the Seleucid left wing cavalry having its chariots shred their formation after they got routed back into them. The Pergamum cavalry took advantage.
Not quite the same as them breaking the Seleucid formation ala Antiochus on the other flank at Magnesia, though the result was essentially the same.

[Tay333]

The greatest Diadochi kingdom was the Seleucid Empire since Selecus conquered nearly all of Alexanders empire and had the Romans not butted in to help Pergamum they possibly could still be around.Though Egypt lasted longer.

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

I agree with your result, but your reasoning is highly flawed.

[Spartan 666]

Yeah, Seleucids from Antiochos Soter onwards were always plagued with internal revolts and civil wars. This was the main cause of their dissolution.

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

Absolutely. If, for instance, Demetrios I Soter had not been toppled by the puppet Alexander Balas, the Seleucid Empire might very well have seen an Antiochos III-esque restoration. That man was damned capable.