Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2212Re: Tagber: Seleucid Study Day III: War within the Family: The First Century of Seleucid Rule

Expand Messages
  • Jens
    Oct 23, 2012

      this was indeed a very interesting conference, thanks for posting about
      it. I'd be interested in reading any of these speeches. Alex McAuley's
      Seleucid Genealogy <The http://www.seleucid-genealogy.com/Home.html>
      site should also be recommended, a good complement to sites such as
      www.sfagn.info, www.livius.com or www.seleukidempire.org

      Personally, I am of course especially delighted that Richard Wenghofer
      found my article about Antiochus Nicator useful as a starting point for
      his reconstruction of early Bactrian history. Though I read with some
      anxiety that I've contributed to the vindication of the ideas of Sir
      W.W. Tarn. This is usually what people accuse me of! [:)]

      Jens Jakobsson

      --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Sandler Berkowitz"
      <berkowitz@...> wrote:
      > I don't belief that this has been posted here.
      > Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 4:09 PM
      > Subject: Tagber: Seleucid Study Day III: War within the Family: The
      > Century of Seleucid Rule
      > Seleucid Study Group, Classical Press of Wales, Université de
      > III
      > 05.09.2012-07.09.2012, Bordeaux
      > Bericht von:
      > Altay Coskun, Department of Classical Studies, University of Waterloo,
      > Ontario
      > E-Mail: acoskun@...
      > As hosts of the VIIth Celtic Conference of Classics [1], Anton Powell
      > (Classical Press of Wales, Swansea) and Jean Yvonneau (University of
      > Bordeaux III) invited the Seleucid Study Group to organize a panel on
      > the early Seleucid Kingdom (3rd century BC). After previous gatherings
      > at Exeter and Waterloo in 2011, this meeting was the third in a
      > (counted) series dedicated to a collaborative and interdisciplinary
      > research agenda on one of the most under-explored world empires. In
      > fact, the roots of this joint effort goes back to previous conferences
      > in Exeter (2008) and Waterloo (2010), as STEPHEN MITCHELL (Exeter)
      > explained in his welcome address.[2] In his introductory note, the
      > convenor KYLE ERICKSON (Lampeter) identified various desiderata: first
      > the necessity to more systematically integrate into the picture the
      > satrapies east of the Euphrates as well as to analyse the continuity
      > ruptures in the transition from the Achaemenid to the Seleucid
      > secondly, to focus more strongly on the periods intervening between
      > rules of Seleucus I (320/311-281) and Antiochus III (223-187); and
      > thirdly to reconsider the roles of Seleucid royal women.
      > Mitchell's paper highlighted caution in using a simple model of
      > subjugation by suggesting a new approach to Macedonian colonies in
      > Minor. Most of them had not been initiated and organized by
      > kings but were owed to Greek or Macedonian private initiatives mainly
      > during the years 325-275. A strong argument is that early colonies of
      > central Anatolia were not named after kings but leaders of the
      > as was the case with Dorylaeum or Themisonium. The kings very often
      > no more than, at a later stage, sanctioning and perhaps even
      > those settlements that were mainly beneficial to extending their
      > into the non-Hellenized areas.
      > LAURENT CAPEDETREY (Bordeaux) offered 3rd-century case studies on
      > autonomous rules in Asia Minor by dynasts without the royal title.
      > Admittedly, the fierce competition among the Hellenistic kings for the
      > control of that area was certainly an important condition for the
      > of power that Olympichus of Caria and Philhetaerus of Pergamum
      > But Capedetrey refused to equate such 'feudal' structures simply with
      > weakness of the monarch or to explain the later dissolution of the
      > empire with structures established in or even prior to the 3rd
      > Those dynasts rather fulfilled a similar function as the vassal kings
      > that were needed to rule an empire as vast and heterogeneous as that
      > the Seleucids.
      > ALTAY COSKUN (Waterloo) reconsidered the 'War of Brothers' whose
      > traditional reconstruction is based on Justin (27): Antiochus Hierax
      > revolted against Seleucus II (246-225) and defeated him at Ancyra only
      > after Ptolemy III Euergetes had withdrawn from the Third Syrian War
      > (246-241). But Porphyry more convincingly dates the domestic frictions
      > prior to Euergetes' invasion of Syria. As a result, Euergetes did not
      > open the war in defence of his sister Berenice Phernophorus, but
      > to seize a three-fold opportunity for military gains: the usurpation
      > Andragoras in Parthia (247), the betrayal of Ephesus by the Seleucid
      > strategos Sophron, and the dynastic strife in 246. New light was also
      > shed on the shifting allegiances of the Tolistobogian and Tectosagen
      > Galatians, the Mithridatids, the Attalids, and the Prusiads, all of
      > pursued agendas of their own when opting either for Seleucus or
      > Based on this new chronology, KYLE ERICKSON approached the problem of
      > the coinage with the legend of Antiochus Soter, which constitutes a
      > prime source for the discussion of the early dynastic cults of the
      > Seleucids. Previous discussions had ascribed the minting authority to
      > either Antiochus II, Berenice Phernophorus, Seleucus II or III,
      > numismatists have mainly opted for the 240s. Since no argument has so
      > far been conclusive, the revised date of the 'War of Brothers'
      > encouraged Erickson to place the coinage under the auspices of
      > Hierax (and perhaps his mother). This would also make sense in regards
      > of the reverses, since Hierax maintained the traditional
      > 'Apollo-on-the-Omphalus' type, whereas Seleucus altered the reverse
      > iconography to that of 'Apollo-leaning-on-the-tripod'. Furthermore,
      > ideological interpretations of the coinage all can be explained by
      > Hierax's cultivation of his ancestors' images, a practice not followed
      > by his brother.
      > JOHN R. HOLTON (Edinburgh) analysed the Seleucid concept of the
      > ruling son. While joint-kingship had been a success for Seleucus I and
      > his son Antiochus I, the latter's succession after his father's death
      > 281 was still troubled. But the most notable case of failure was the
      > execution of Seleucus, son of Antiochus I, before he was replaced by
      > other son Antiochus II as joint-king. Holton pointed out that previous
      > cases of joint kingship differed substantially in nature, whereas the
      > Spartan constitution or the couple Antigonus I / Demetrius I came
      > closest to the Seleucid model. It was argued that Seleucid
      > joint-kingship was at least in its ideological design a relation of
      > equals, thus potentially giving rise to - equally harmful - ambition
      > suspicion. While not original, joint-kingship was rare before the
      > Hellenistic world, and thus in some ways an aberration in the
      > structuring of royal power.
      > ALEX MCAULEY (Montreal) and MONICA D'AGOSTINI (Milan/Bologna)
      > to shed more light on the House of Achaeus. The most renowned member
      > Achaeus 'the Younger': the lieutenant of Seleucus III who revolted
      > Antiochus III, to be defeated in 213. He was the last representative
      > a family that had spent the 3rd century cultivating connections with
      > other potentates in Asia Minor. This notwithstanding, the family's
      > progenitor Achaeus 'the Elder' appears to have been a Macedonian
      > Seleucus I in high positions and also marrying into his family.
      > daughter Laodice was the famous wife of Antiochus II who, together
      > her brother Alexander, played a major role in the usurpation of
      > Antiochus Hierax. Another descendant, Antiochis, became the wife of
      > Attalus I. It was finally argued that this inherited power base in
      > Minor was a decisive condition for the usurpation of Achaeus I which
      > aimed at founding a local kingship and not to supplant Antiochus III
      > ruler of the Seleucid Empire.
      > Although Seleucus II spent most of his reign campaigning against
      > external and domestic enemies, ROLF STROOTMAN (Utrecht) questioned the
      > view of Seleucus' rule as a failure. True enough, the challenges posed
      > by the Ptolemaic invasion or the revolt of his own brother were
      > as were the upheaval in Khurasan and Bactria, and last but not least
      > incursions of the Parnian Arsacids into Parthia. In the previous
      > Seleucus ultimately prevailed, whereas he had to accept an autonomous
      > Parthian kingdom under Arsaces. This, however, should not be viewed as
      > the beginning of the decline of the empire, since first Seleucus
      > and later Antiochus III once more re-asserted overlordship over the
      > eastern satrapies. Hence, not the alleged weakness, but rather the
      > resilience of the Seleucids deserve to be accounted for.
      > BORIS CHRUBASIK (Oxford/Exeter) re-evaluated the continuities and
      > ruptures in the transition to the Seleucid Empire from its Achaemenid
      > predecessor. First, administrative practices displayed in royal
      > were studied. Attention was paid to variations of the dating formula
      > which occurred in the course of the 310s, but also to the roles of
      > power-holders as authors or recipients of letters. Moreover, Seleucid
      > kingship was contrasted with that of the Persian 'Great Kings' mainly
      > focusing on royal opponents. The imagery of usurpers and counter-kings
      > were used to contrast the royal self-presentation and hence the
      > construction of both the Seleucid and Achaemenid kingship.
      > DAVID ENGELS (Brussels) enquired into the nature of Frataraka rule
      > Persia and early Arsacid rule over Parthia, in order to better
      > understand the interactions between the Seleucid house and the Iranian
      > aristocracies. Most scholars assume that the Frataraka and the
      > superseded regular Seleucid administration, aiming at complete
      > independence from Hellenistic influence and the re-establishment of
      > Iranian rule. Others, however, consider them as minor dynasts with
      > rather reduced autonomy, whereby Achaemenid allusions in their
      > iconography was complementary rather than an alternative to Seleucid
      > allegiance. Engels added strongly to the credibility of the latter
      > by re-assessing the parallels between the Greek and Aramaic legends on
      > some coins of Vahbarz and Arsaces I: both figured as karani, that is
      > strategoi, which clearly reveals their subordinate positions. Literary
      > sources were further adduced to demonstrate that it would be
      > anachronistic to construct 3rd-century rebellions in terms of ethnic
      > conflicts.
      > MARIE WIDMER (Lausanne) studied the sympoliteia dossier from Magnesia
      > ca. 243.[3] The first of these texts is a letter of the Smyrnaei to
      > Seleucus II: they stress their continued loyalty towards the ruling
      > dynasty even in the face of a dangerous though unspecified enemy, whom
      > Widmer identifies as Ptolemy III. They further boast themselves of
      > having established cults for Seleucus' father (Antiochus II) and
      > grandmother (Stratonice). Since Antiochus I is not mentioned and the
      > queen died in 254, it was inferred that those cults had been
      > between 261 and 254. Surprisingly, Queen Laodice is ignored here. This
      > was explained with the higher ideological potential of Stratonice: as
      > wife of first Seleucus I and then of Antiochus I, she linked Seleucus
      > to the founders of the dynasty, not to forget her own father
      > While this explanation was not questioned, it was pointed out in the
      > discussion that the new chronology of the War of Brothers would not
      > allow the identification of Hierax as the enemy, but also the
      > that Laodice might have befallen a damnatio memoriae.
      > With his reflexions on the Bactrian kings, RICHARD WENGHOFER
      > resumed the topic of the eastern satrapies. As a starting point, he
      > on J. Jakobsson's (NC 2011) suggestion that a series of Bactrian coins
      > depicting a king named Antiochus Nicator had not been minted by
      > I to honour Antiochus II Theos, but rather by a King Antiochus who
      > have been the brother of Diodotus II. Along these lines, Wenghofer was
      > able to reconfigure the observations of Jakobsson to a more detailed
      > outline of the dynasty's history and the events leading to the
      > secession of Bactria from the Seleucid Empire in the 230s and again by
      > 213. Moreover, the fact that this new Diodotid king was named
      > provides some evidence in support of W.W. Tarn's long since discarded
      > thesis that the main line of Greek kings of Bactria and India were in
      > fact related to the Seleucids.
      > To conclude, most of the individual papers of this Seleucid panel very
      > successfully addressed one or more of the desiderata mentioned
      > initially. While there was little overlap, many individual results
      > appeared to be converging. Most importantly, it has become apparent
      > Seleucid rule over the eastern satrapies was not continuously weakened
      > before the anabasis of Antiochus III, as is the traditional view, but
      > that the establishment of local dynasties with or without the royal
      > title could be as effectively integrated in the east as in the west. A
      > collaborative revision of Seleucid chronology has helped to reduce the
      > periods in which some areas had seceded from the central power;
      > genealogical studies enable us to see the marital web of the Seleucids
      > not only spread out over Asia Minor, but also extended beyond the
      > Euphrates; an analysis of the War of Brothers and the Third Syrian War
      > lends further credence to the view that Seleucus II was able to
      > mainly due to his substantial support from the eastern territories,
      > which implies that Arsaces and the Parni had managed to curb the
      > uprising of Andragoras in Parthia. In addition, the importance of
      > Seleucid royal women as political actors in their own right
      > Laodice I) and tokens of dynastic legitimacy (Stratonice, Berenice)
      > aptly illustrated. The latter strand of research will be pursued
      > at Seleucid Study Day IV, to be hosted at McGill University (Montreal,
      > Feb. 20-23, 2013). The proceedings of Seleucid Study Day III will be
      > published in ca. 2014.
      > Conference overview:
      > Stephen Mitchell (Exeter) / Kyle Erickson (Trinity St David,
      > Introduction
      > Stephen Mitchell: Geography of Seleucid Anatolia in the 3rd Century BC
      > Laurent Capdetrey (Bordeaux): Les premiers rois séleucides et les
      > dynastes d'Asie Mineure (d'Antiochos Ier à Séleucos III)
      > Altay Coskun (Waterloo): The War of the Brothers, the Third Syrian
      > and the Battle of Ancyra: a Re-Appraisal
      > Kyle Erickson: Antiochus Soter and the War of the Brothers
      > John Russell Holton (Edinburgh): Key Considerations for Seleucid
      > Joint-Kingship, 281-261
      > Alex McAuley (McGill, Montreal) / Monica D'Agostini (Milan / Bologna):
      > The House of Achaeus: the Missing Piece of the Anatolian Puzzle
      > Rolf Strootman (Utrecht): Seleucus II Kallinikos and the Coming of the
      > Parthians
      > Boris Chrubasik (Oxford): Heirs to the Great King? The Seleucid Empire
      > and Its Achaemenid Inheritance
      > David Engels (ULBrussels): Iranian Identity and Seleucid Allegiance -
      > Frataraka and Early Arsacid Coinage
      > Marie Widmer (Lausanne): De l'utilité des mères lors des
      changements de
      > règne
      > Richard Wenghofer (Nipissing): New Interpretations of the Evidence for
      > the Diodotid Revolt and the Secession of Bactria from the Seleucid
      > Empire
      > Notes:
      > [1] Cf. the program of VIIth CCC:
      > (11.10.2012).
      > [2] Cf. Tagungsbericht Seleucid Study Day I. 15.08.2011, Exeter, in:
      > H-Soz-u-Kult, 27.10.2011,
      > http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/tagungsberichte/id=3866
      > (11.10.2012), including a reference to the Seleucid Dissolution
      > Conference at Exeter (2008), and: Tagungsbericht Seleucid Study Day
      > 09.11.2011, Waterloo, Ontario, in: H-Soz-u-Kult, 09.01.2012,
      > http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/tagungsberichte/id=3979
      > (11.10.2012) on the previous Seleucid Study Days. For the report on
      > Hellenistic Workshop at Waterloo (2010), cf. WIHS Newsletter 1, 2011
      > (11.10.2012).
      > [3] I. Magnesia am Sipylos I = OGIS 229.
      > URL zur Zitation dieses Beitrages
      > <http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/tagungsberichte/id=4426>
      > Copyright (c) 2012 by H-Net, Clio-online, and the author, all rights
      > reserved. This work may be copied and redistributed for
      > educational purposes, if permission is granted by the author and usage
      > right holders. For permission please contact H-SOZ-U-KULT@...
      > _________________________________________________
      > H-SOZ-U-KULT@...
      > Redaktion:
      > E-Mail: hsk.redaktion@...
      > WWW: http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de
      > _________________________________________________

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic