Discussion: The Greatest Diadochi Kingdom

[Sardaukar One]

The Seleucid strategy at the top was highly flawed. They tried to keep hold of the east and it simply wasn't worth what it cost them to do so. And as it was, they eventually lost the east.
The price of this was that they allowed Asia Minor to slip through their fingers.

From a territory standpoint, obviously the Seleucids.
From a longevity standpoint, its the Ptolemies.
From a "we better band together if we want to survive the night" standpoint, its Antigonus.

Twice, Antigonus put together an army of 80,000 men. For his invasion of Egypt and for the Ipsus campaign. And he did it with Asia Minor and the Levant only.
The Seleucids best was 70,000 at Panion I believe. And they had a much larger kingdom.
The key? Antigonus didn't lose sight of what was important and what was realistic. Asia Minor was a goldmine of income and manpower. And he didn't get seduced by the east.

As if the Seleucids could have handled four different kingdoms coming at them at once.

[Spartan 666]

I agree with you on mostly everything, except for what regards the sizes of the armies.

Antigonus had a smaller kingdom than Seleucus', no doubt. But it was more densely populated, with more greek population and with it was easier to rally up an army relatively quickly. And let's not forget Antigonus had most of the old Macedonian army under his command. While Seleucus had to deal with a large kingdom that made difficult to rally up an adequate-size army in short times. And he had only a few thousands of greek\macedonian soldiers, his army was mostly made up with babylonian, persian and median levies.

[Sardaukar One]

I would counter that Antigonus did not have access to Elephants. Or light cavalry the likes of which could be obtained in the east.

I'd add that Antigonus fought for and got these territories. Antigonus may not have retained much of the royal army. At least not the Macedonian elements. He had to do a troop exchange with Antipater, where Antipater gave him 10,000 Macedonians(8,500 phalangites and 1,500 companions) from the army of Macedonia. Intially, Antigonus gave up the most unruly elements of the royal army. And he did keep some Macedonians. But he had to let another 3,000 or so return home rather than let them join Alketas in Asia Minor. Suggesting that these were also from the Royal army.
The bottom line is that Antigonus almost certainly did keep some of the Macedonians from the Royal army.
And he certainly got his hands on the Asian units, whatever they may have been. But the Macedonians from the Royal army may not have been that many. Remember that Craterus had already taken some 10,000plus veterans back home in addition to whatever troops Antigonus had to let go.
The core of Antigonus Macedonian troops were those given to him by Antipater. Being a generation younger than the Macedonains already in Asia, it makes sense he would have built his main army around them. They were also more likely to be loyal to him rather than Alexander etc, which is in stark contrast to the veterans in Asia.
Lets not also forget that Antigonus was unable to get fresh drafts of men from back home. Its not as if he had Macedonians to spare. Kassander might well have been able to field more Macedonian pikemen than anyone.

After Ipsus, Seleucus got shortchanged because Ptolemy had taken most of the Levant which was meant to go to him. However, Seleucus still got Syria. And Syria contained a lot of Macedonian settlements.
Mainly because Antigonus had the foresight to found as many of these settlements as he could. Because he was very old, its unlikely he would have benefited from them during his own reign. But the heir/s to his kingdom would. Unfortunately for the Antigonids, this turned out to be the Seleucids.

But even after Ipsus, the Seleucids were never able to match the numbers that Antigonus fielded.
And considering how poorly the Seleucid state dealt with problems, there is no way they could have dealt with the threats posed to Antigonus. I know Antigonus lost at Ipsus, but it was a battle he frankly ought to have won. He also had a number of chances to knock out Kassander and Ptolemy, and failed to do so.
Though Demetrius really ought to be blamed for this.

Finally, lets go all sportscenter and look at stats.
Before Ipsus, Demetrius had an army of close to 50,000 men in Greece. Sure, a chunk of them were provided by the Greeks, but we can put at least half of them as being in direct Antigonid employ.
In addition, Antigonus had a field army with him or around 40,000 men.
Antigonus was chasing Lysmachus all over Asia Minor with this army until Seleucus showed up. At this point, he recalled Demetrius to even up the odds.
Compare this with Antiochus the Great and the forces he took to Greece. Antiochus took 15,000 men with him, and probably could have gotten another 10,000 men or so. When you compare the two, its pathetic really. And shows how much better a statesman Antigonus was than any of the Seleucids.

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

The Seleucid strategy at the top was highly flawed. They tried to keep hold of the east and it simply wasn't worth what it cost them to do so. And as it was, they eventually lost the east.
The price of this was that they allowed Asia Minor to slip through their fingers.

Not really. Asia Minor did not slip through their fingers; it was brutally wrenched from them by the Romans AFTER the East was completely subdued. The East did not have substantial "cost" inherent in holding it; the main reason for the ease with which the Parthians overcame the House of Seleucus was that dynastic strife consumed the kingdom almost every twenty years. When the kingdom made concerted efforts, such as those under Antiochos III Megas or my namesake, the Parthian power was beaten again and again.

[Sardaukar One]

Not really. Asia Minor did not slip through their fingers; it was brutally wrenched from them by the Romans AFTER the East was completely subdued.

For me, they did not pay anywhere near the attention to Asia Minor they should have. A number of petty dynasts and kingdoms took root and grew. Pergamum, Pontus, Cappadocia & Bithynia to name a few.
When one looks at what Antigonus did with Asia Minor, its absolutely baffling to me that the Seleucids did not commit themselves to locking Asia Minor down. And this is all sometime before the Romans.
Antigonus put Cappadocia in its place. Or rather his nephew Polemais did. And the other petty kings got cowed into obediance. Compare that to the Seleucids who got defeated by Cappadocia.
I think Lysimachus also lost to one of these kingdoms too.

I'd add that the Seleucid part of Asia Minor slipped from their fingers rather than the Romans brutally wrenching it away from them. Magnesia was far more a Seleucid defeat than a Roman victory. And the Romans seemed to have realized that.

The East did not have substantial "cost" inherent in holding it;

Sure it did. The cost was Asia Minor. They didn't have the resources to keep both.

the main reason for the ease with which the Parthians overcame the House of Seleucus was that dynastic strife consumed the kingdom almost every twenty years. When the kingdom made concerted efforts, such as those under Antiochos III Megas or my namesake, the Parthian power was beaten again and again.

The Eastern Anabis of Antiochus III aka 'the Great' was certainly a testament to the superiority of Seleucid arms over not just the Parthians, but Armenia, Bactria and it would seem, India too.
However, the effects were essentially short term. If the Seleucids left garrisons, they would be overwhelmed if rebellion happened. And relief troops would most likely never get there in time.
If not, whose to say that the troops left out in Parthia or elsewhere would not themselves seek independence, like Bactria. And Antiochus did not have the manpower to hold Parthia and also keep the Ptollemies and others at bay.
Dynastic strife? Thats why the Antigonids were better statesmen is it not? They could do more with less!
You don't see them fighting with each other like the Seleucids did. If only they had won at Ipsus.
Its hard to see the Hellenistic world going down like it did if the Antigonids had been in charge. Oh well!

I think its too easy (and incorrect) to solely blame the Romans for the decline of the Seleucid empire.
The Seleucids really only have themselves to blame in my opinion. They failed to see the bigger picture.
You say that trying to hold onto the east was not costly. Antiochus VII lost as many as 300,000 people in his failed attempt to take back the east from the Parthians. Demetrius II was captured by the Parthians.
Who knows how many men he lost? And the loss of Asia Minor?
The price of trying to hold onto the east was too much. It took focus away from the west.
Also, the size of the Empire that made so much discord easy. What was the material gain to be had in the east that could match the cost of trying to maintain control? Nothing is the answer.

Antigonus saw this. The Seleucids did not. The kingdom of Antigonus was a model of efficiency, at least when compared to the Seleucids.

[Spartan 666]

True, Antigonus had no access to elephants.

As for all the other interesting informations you write, I can't stand a discussion with you because you are far too much informed on this timeframe than me.

[Cal20]

I am still reading Billows on Antigonos. I have had to sort of back track as I stopped reading it quite a while ago and had to refresh my memory. Luckily its so interesting I don't mind re-reading it.
Any recommendations on what I should read after as a sort of logical follow on?

[Sardaukar One]

For me, Antigonus was very much like the Romans in dealing with his enemies. He flat out tried to eliminate them a number of times(though not all the time).

The Seleucids for me seemed content to hold onto what they had. A number of exceptional kings boosted the kingdom here and there. Seleucus I, Antiochus I, Antiochus III and IV to name the most notable ones in my opinion.
And Antiochus VI Sidetes is quite right to point out that internal strife wrecked much of the strength of the Seleucid state at certain times. But whose fault is that? Its the Kings themselves.
Its not as if the Antigonids or the Ptolemies were immune from internal discord, but for the most part they seemed to cause themselves much less damage than the Seleucids did when it came to disunity at home.

But this doesn't change the fact that the Seleucids seemed to lose focus on what was important. Or rather, what was realistic and feasible. That their interests should have been focused more on the west.

[Sardaukar One]

As for all the other interesting informations you write, I can't stand a discussion with you because you are far too much informed on this timeframe than me.

@ Spartan 666

Ask away. Its what I do if I don't know something. To not ask is to err!

@ Cal20

Whats up Cal?
Antigonus by Billows was the first book I read on the period. After finishing it, I bought everything I could on the Successors. Plus Philip II.
The House of Seleucus is a good read. Its reasonably priced still I think.
The History of Macedonia is excellent. Its the House of Seleucus for Macedonia, but better.
But its very expensive. I only have volume II, which deals with Alexander's death to the battle of Pydna.
One day I will get volume I, but either one will cost $400 or so.

If you like the soldier aspect of it, get "The Mercenairies of the Hellenistic World" by Grifith. Its about $25 the last time I looked, and it goes into great detail on the armies of the Successor states and their use of mercs. Excellent, excellent book. Its stealing at this price. Assuming its still at this price.
Its the next best book I have after Antigonus(which you have) and the House of Seleucus and History of Macedonia.

Philip II of Macedonia is worth the $20-30 I paid for it. Philip was the ultimate statesman.

What did you like about Antigonus? The man himself? The history in general?

[Cal20]

Thanks for the recommendations, Sardaukar. I think I may treat myself to the Philip II of Macedonia next since I assume it catalogues the beginning of the era and puts some things into perspective - like his creation of the army and making Macedon the power that Alexander could build on. It might be more helpful for me since I don't know too much about the period outside of DTW and Billows's book.

Hmm I'm not sure yet, I will get back to you once I have finished the book. Like I said I am re-reading some of it to refresh my memory so I'm just up to the first War of the Diadochi. I quite enjoy the relationship between him and Eumenes, very colourful. Not sure what drew me to Antigonus as opposed to another of his contemporaries just seems to stand out as quite the enduring figure.

Thanks again, you are like a walking bibliography and a wealth of knowledge on the period. I enjoy reading yours and others like (Spartan and Sidetes) posts, extremely interesting and informative.
I was wondering just out of pure curiosity, would you say this period in history is well covered in the academic world? It just doesn't seem to come up much and I only really knew about the period from playing DTW. Not sure if it maybe a lack of source material or other factors. Seems like the Golden Age of Greece, Conquests of Alexander and then into the Roman period are some of the main, or more popular, areas of study.

[messiah]

Thanks for the recommendations, Sardaukar. I think I may treat myself to the Philip II of Macedonia next since I assume it catalogues the beginning of the era and puts some things into perspective - like his creation of the army and making Macedon the power that Alexander could build on. It might be more helpful for me since I don't know too much about the period outside of DTW and Billows's book.

Hmm I'm not sure yet, I will get back to you once I have finished the book. Like I said I am re-reading some of it to refresh my memory so I'm just up to the first War of the Diadochi. I quite enjoy the relationship between him and Eumenes, very colourful. Not sure what drew me to Antigonus as opposed to another of his contemporaries just seems to stand out as quite the enduring figure.

Thanks again, you are like a walking bibliography and a wealth of knowledge on the period. I enjoy reading yours and others like (Spartan and Sidetes) posts, extremely interesting and informative.
I was wondering just out of pure curiosity, would you say this period in history is well covered in the academic world? It just doesn't seem to come up much and I only really knew about the period from playing DTW. Not sure if it maybe a lack of source material or other factors. Seems like the Golden Age of Greece, Conquests of Alexander and then into the Roman period are some of the main, or more popular, areas of study.

If I may, I'd say that no, it is not greatly covered. All the books I have on the Diadochi era point out at the lack of knowledge (I mean, any in-depth knowledge) of the era. We have a basic understanding and at some points very nice details, but much is lost.

If you mean if writers today write a lot about it, I'd say no. I have most of the books Sardaukar has quoted and read, and those are the best ones and the most popular ones. At least as far as I know.

[S.W.A.T]

I'm going to say Seleucus and his empire...he went from being just Satrap of Babylon to having to flee from Antigonus, then once peace was made he once again expanded his empire in the east only to come back and defeat Antigonus and then defeated Lysimachus after a family dispute and added Thrace to his domain. Had he not been murdered he was on his way to add Macedon. Seleucus was the closest to uniting Alexander's empire and was an outstanding general.

[messiah]

I'm going to say Seleucus and his empire...he went from being just Satrap of Babylon to having to flee from Antigonus, then once peace was made he once again expanded his empire in the east only to come back and defeat Antigonus and then defeated Lysimachus after a family dispute and added Thrace to his domain. Had he not been murdered he was on his way to add Macedon. Seleucus was the closest to uniting Alexander's empire and was an outstanding general.

The closest, one was Perdicas, who succeded, though I don't think he counts. Also, while Antipater was regent, he also held all of the empire. But Antigonos was also very close, and I say he was better than Seleucus.

[S.W.A.T]

The closest, one was Perdicas, who succeded, though I don't think he counts. Also, while Antipater was regent, he also held all of the empire. But Antigonos was also very close, and I say he was better than Seleucus.

True, both were regents who held the whole empire...though only for very short moments. Perdocas though never had any support after marring Alexander's sister and while Anipater was regent the commander of the army was Antigonos...so Antipater really didn't have the power so I don't count him.

While while Antigonos was close and a very able commander...part of building an empire also has political affairs...Antigonos always had coalitions against him. He was always alone fighting the world of the Diadochi. Seleucus was able to avoid this and use divide and conqueror so I always considered him more able than Antigonos.

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

For me, they did not pay anywhere near the attention to Asia Minor they should have. A number of petty dynasts and kingdoms took root and grew. Pergamum, Pontus, Cappadocia & Bithynia to name a few.
When one looks at what Antigonus did with Asia Minor, its absolutely baffling to me that the Seleucids did not commit themselves to locking Asia Minor down. And this is all sometime before the Romans.
Antigonus put Cappadocia in its place. Or rather his nephew Polemais did. And the other petty kings got cowed into obediance. Compare that to the Seleucids who got defeated by Cappadocia.
I think Lysimachus also lost to one of these kingdoms too.

I'd add that the Seleucid part of Asia Minor slipped from their fingers rather than the Romans brutally wrenching it away from them. Magnesia was far more a Seleucid defeat than a Roman victory. And the Romans seemed to have realized that.

Ah, I misunderstood you. In that sense, you're absolutely correct.

Sure it did. The cost was Asia Minor. They didn't have the resources to keep both.

Mmm, I'd argue that. A more progressive policy that involved alliances rather than hostility with the near-Eastern courts, something along the lines of Antiochos IV's policy in that area, would have allowed the Seleucids to maintain substantial influence in both areas.

manpower to hold Parthia and also keep the Ptollemies and others at bay.
Dynastic strife? Thats why the Antigonids were better statesmen is it not? They could do more with less!
You don't see them fighting with each other like the Seleucids did. If only they had won at Ipsus.
Its hard to see the Hellenistic world going down like it did if the Antigonids had been in charge. Oh well!

I think its too easy (and incorrect) to solely blame the Romans for the decline of the Seleucid empire.
The Seleucids really only have themselves to blame in my opinion. They failed to see the bigger picture.
You say that trying to hold onto the east was not costly. Antiochus VII lost as many as 300,000 people in his failed attempt to take back the east from the Parthians. Demetrius II was captured by the Parthians.
Who knows how many men he lost? And the loss of Asia Minor?
The price of trying to hold onto the east was too much. It took focus away from the west.
Also, the size of the Empire that made so much discord easy. What was the material gain to be had in the east that could match the cost of trying to maintain control? Nothing is the answer.

That number is far too high; authors like Justin do so love overexaggeration. I'd estimate the army size at more like 40,000; an army of 80,000 from only the Syrian provinces is somewhat preposterous. Plus, I don't know that those men being lost involves "holding on" to the east; rather, it should be viewed as a nearly-successful war of conquest waged against the Parthian state that ended in a debacle, like the Sicilian expedition of the Athenians.

Lastly, I believe that the Seleucid dominion was not so much based on material gain, as you have pointed out. The Seleucids depended on prestige rather than actual direct supremacy in most cases; while this was sort of a dangerous policy, as you have again made evident by your arguments, there really just wasn't another way for the kings to rule their empire. Not enough men, not enough Greeks, not enough time to garrison every windswept border town. As to discord, size was a huge factor, I agree. The Antigonids were indisputably better statesmen; I suppose it depends on your definition of "greatest".

[messiah]

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).

[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.

[RedFox]

messiah: Narrow-minded people are a curse to many countries. Unfortunately it's a part of life and the best we can do is not fall into the same pit. Don't feel angry at them, on the contrary, feel pity; for they live a life of ignorance. Alas, was it not said that ignorance is bliss? Maybe they are better off after-all...

[messiah]

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

[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