Huehuecoyotl
Monthly Donor
Could he have successfully conquered Thrace and Greece, and even Egypt if he had lived longer? More importantly, can the empire he leaves behind survive, and for how long?
WI Seleucus I Nicator isn't assassinated in 281 BCE?
- Thread starter Huehuecoyotl
- Start date
Could he have conquered Greece? Sure, he probably would have. Would it stick? I really doubt his conquests in Greece would stick. If the Greeks don't rebel themselves, then someone, maybe Pyrrhus, will do the job of pushing the Seleucids out for them.
As for Egypt...I don't think he had enough time left to conquer Egypt himself. Though his successors could, as they very nearly did a few times OTL, especially if you keep the Romans from playing regional power broker and protecting the Ptolemies from certain destruction time and time again.
As for Egypt...I don't think he had enough time left to conquer Egypt himself. Though his successors could, as they very nearly did a few times OTL, especially if you keep the Romans from playing regional power broker and protecting the Ptolemies from certain destruction time and time again.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Seleucus could've conquered Thrace and Greece but he was an old man of 77 at the time of his assassination by Ptolemy Keraunos. I don't think he would have much time left to plan and execute the conquest of Egypt. His plans were to retire from the Seleucid throne, giving it to his elder son Antiochus, while he spend the remainder of his days ruling Macedonia. His living longer may delay the Gaulish invasion of the Balkans by a couple of years, or it may not.
As for the vitality of the empire that he leaves be, I fear that not much will change at best and its decline might actually accelerate. Seleucus' domains were overextended as is.
Nonsense. The Romans were the real reason it went into an unrecoverable decline.
But its own troubles were quite enough to make - and I say this as a Seleucid fan - its failure (at the goals it set itself, not necessarily surviving longer) likely.
Too thinly spread out with too many enemies.
Not so much doomed to be conquered in the sense of the latter as that the precious military manpower of the kingdom simply wasn't able to do everything, and it was in a position kinda requiring it to do "everything".
The haphazard line of succession really didn't help - the last generation saw kings so unpopular the Antiochenes paid Pompey to restore them. The generation before that saw five brothers and a couple of cousins plus a revolving door of stepmother-wife-aunt queens sit on the throne.
Plus, the farther west the Seleucid domains stretch, the earlier they'll get sucked into the Roman world/drama.
Plus, the farther west the Seleucid domains stretch, the earlier they'll get sucked into the Roman world/drama.
Yes, but without the Romans meddling in their affairs, they will almost certainly conquer Ptolemaic Egypt. And that in itself will be of huge help to them.
Because they easily should have conquered them OTL had Rome not meddled in their affairs. Seriously, the Romans were the only thing keeping Ptolemaic Europe afloat. Even then, had Antiochus killed Ptolemy IV at Raphia...there is no Egyptian heir, and it is hard to believe Antiochus would not follow up by marching on Alexandria.
Huehuecoyotl
Monthly Donor
The famous 'circle in the sand' anecdote comes to mind. I was given to understand that a Seleucid takeover of Egypt would've been an eventuality without Roman meddling.
So it was almost inevitable because they easily should have done it.
I'm fairly sure you have a basis for the idea that the Romans were keeping the Potlemies afloat, but repeating yourself isn't helping clear this up.
Well, there was the Queen Arsinoe - the Egyptians weren't adverse to a ruling princess and she could easily remarry and beget heirs. There was also King Lysimachus II of Telmessos, a Ptolemaic client and the grandson of Arsinoe II (by her first marriage to the diadochus Lysimachus). He had a son, brother and nephew, all of whom would make suitable matches for Arsinoe - there were also on good terms with the Seleucids, so perhaps they'd agree to pay tribute/act as vassals (until such a time as Egypt was strong enough again to assert itself).
Is it plausible that they could have conquered Egypt absent Roman demands? If so, then why is there a need to parse this further? If not, then say that.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Yes, because contending with rebellious satraps turned kings and Iranian nomads had nothing to do to sap the strength of the Seleucid Empire. Oh no, it was just the Romans who were in the way of Seleucid conquest.
And what's stopping Rome once it has the ability to send armies to Asia Minor?
I guess I'm one of those insane maniacs who cares about details, but there's a substantial difference between "it's possible" and "it is inevitable/very likely" in my understanding of the English language.
But that's neither here nor there. My problem is that I'm not following why it was so very likely barring Roman meddling - all slydesertfox said is that absent Roman meddling it would have succeeded because it was very likely to succeed.
But why it was so likely to succeed is not explained. We're just told that the Romans were the only thing keeping the Ptolemies afloat as if it didn't need anything as helpful to the student as sources or explanations for why the Ptolemies were so dependent on Roman support.
Thrace: Yes. Lysimachus hadn't another large army in reserve, and his widow Arsinoe and her sons were unable to put up any sort of resistance to Ptolemy Keraunos once it became clear that he was their enemy. Those sons were all a bit too young to take command. Arsinoe was hated by many Lysimachid followers because she had engineered the execution of Lysimachus's original heir, Agathocles. Agathocles' sons were with the Seleucid army; it's possible that Seleucus intended to install one of them as a client king.
Egypt: probably not. He wasn't looking for that particular fight, and Egypt was strong and rich.
Subsequently (by over a century) it's true that Antiochus IV had the Ptolemies beaten before Rome bailed them out. However the Maccabean revolt wasn't far off, which would have cut communications between Syria and Egypt and provided a golden opportunity for a Ptolemaic restoration.
Egypt: probably not. He wasn't looking for that particular fight, and Egypt was strong and rich.
Subsequently (by over a century) it's true that Antiochus IV had the Ptolemies beaten before Rome bailed them out. However the Maccabean revolt wasn't far off, which would have cut communications between Syria and Egypt and provided a golden opportunity for a Ptolemaic restoration.
While it might be an exaggeration to say Selucids can almost surely conquer Egypt absent Rome, I don't see much difference from that if you say it's possible Selucids can conquer Egypt absent Rome for the purposes of the discussion.
Anyhow I am not by any means learned on the topic (I find the Diodachi/Hellenic period really boring), but Antiochus IV had already taken Cyprus and Memphis and was marching up to lay siege to Alexandria when he ran into the line in the sand. He'd done nearly that much the year before and pulled out only because of the Maccabee revolt. So he was basically a successful siege away from winning in successive years when external causes intervened. Sieges can obviously be a chancy business but that he'd been able to brush aside Egyptian resistance like he did and that Egypt sent to Rome for help, argues that the Egyptians didn't have much to resist with. They might not hold it long, or it might actually lead to a swifter Selucid collapse but that's something else entirely.
Last edited:
Alexandrians felt more connected to other Hellenic coastal cities in the eastern Med. than they did to most of Egypt beyond the (increasingly hellenized) delta. Most communication, trade etc. took place by ship.
Assuming (a) a Jewish revolt still happens and (b) it succeeds, Antioch would be just as connected to Alexandria as it was before (except f you wish to move large bodies of men and stuff for an invasion, which is not the case here).
Regarding a Seleucid conquest of Egypt, I think your best bet is during the reign of Antiochus III. During that time, Egypt was relatively weak, the court opulent and prone to infighting (which is what caused the desertions of the likes of Theodotos the Aetolian). Moreover, even with large bodies of mercenaries, they still couldn't match Seleucid numbers (neither in phalangites, light infantry, cavalry or elephants) and had to resort to training huge numbers of native Egyptians into the phalanx. This of course worked, but only because Antiochus showed no sense of urgency and played into the Ptolemaic delaying tactics. However, while this a hugely interesting topic for me and one I someday hope to make a TL out of, it isn't really connected to Seleucus I, and should deserve its own thread.
When they didn't have problems in the west, specifically with the Romans, they were more than capable of stabalizing things in the east.