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

Re: [seleukids] Re: Seleucus II (246-225 BC) and Seleucus III (225-222 BC)

Expand Messages
  • Farhad Assar
    Dear Friends I have just uploaded into the Files archive of our list a note on the inception and terminal dates of the reigns of Seleucus II and III. You may
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 3, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Friends

      I have just uploaded into the Files archive of our list a note on the inception and terminal dates of the reigns of Seleucus II and III. You may access the file at the following URL:


      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seleukids/files/

      Please kindly let me know of any error you may detect. The last note on this issue (dated 30.1.2006) had a serious error; I had mistakenly placed the beginning of the reign of Seleucus III in 224 BC rather than 225 BC.

      Best wishes,
      Farhad Assar
      =====================

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Renzo Lucherini
      Dear Dr. Assar I have a bit cursorily read your file in this list. It looks like a very good work that should resolve the question of the limits of the reign
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 10, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Dr. Assar


        I have a bit cursorily read your file in this list. It looks like a
        very good work that should resolve the question of the limits of the
        reign of the three Seleukid sovereigns Seleukos II, Seleukos II and
        Antiochos III.

        As you asked for eventual corrections, I have noticed a minor slip.
        Polybios' chapter in his IV book is not 47 but 48.
        Furthermore I do not think the same historian reports implicitly
        that Seleukos III reigned for about two years. "Two years" is
        referred to the period had spent between Seleukos' death and the
        events which Polybios narrates in IV. 48, that is the war between
        Rhode and Byzantium.
        This consideration does not weaken your theory because this conflict
        may be fixed in the Olympic year 221/220. According to Polybios,
        Seleukos III was assassinated about two Olympic year before (that is
        in 223/2), a datum that is consistent with your new datings.

        Best regards
        Renzo Lucherini




        --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, "Farhad Assar" <farhad.assar@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Dear Friends
        >
        > I have just uploaded into the Files archive of our list a note on
        the inception and terminal dates of the reigns of Seleucus II and
        III. You may access the file at the following URL:
        >
        >
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seleukids/files/
        >
        > Please kindly let me know of any error you may detect. The last
        note on this issue (dated 30.1.2006) had a serious error; I had
        mistakenly placed the beginning of the reign of Seleucus III in 224
        BC rather than 225 BC.
        >
        > Best wishes,
        > Farhad Assar
        > =====================
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Farhad Assar
        Dear Renzo, Thank you very much for your comments and corrections. I too have detected several bad typographic and grammatical mistakes. Most of these I have
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 10, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Renzo,

          Thank you very much for your comments and corrections. I too have detected
          several bad typographic and grammatical mistakes. Most of these I have
          amended and hope to add more evidence to the ones already there (in order to
          strengthen the accuracy of the dates in Goal-Year Texts). Unlike the
          Diaries, Almanacs, and Normal-Star Almanacs, the dates in Goal-Year Texts
          require careful handling otherwise they can lead to all sorts of historical
          confusion. Just as a hypothetical case, suppose we find "Year X (SEB), Kings
          A and B" at the beginning of one of the paragraphs that covers months I -
          XII. Here, we can be sure that Kings A and B were joint rulers in month I
          only. If other independent pieces of evidence show that those same kings
          ruled jointly up until month VII (for example) then we can apply that
          knowledge to the first VII months of the corresponding paragraph in the
          Goal-Year Text. But if we have no idea about the fate of the two rulers or
          know that one of them was still ruling in month IV, there is no way we could
          claim that Kings A and B jointly ruled during months I - III of that same
          year. This would have a 0 (zero) accuracy because the Goal-Year Texts were
          not intended to include historical events, e.g. change of reign or an
          important victory or defeat.

          As you've already noted, one of the crucial dates, attesting Antiochus III
          as early as month II of 90 SEB, is in a Goal-Year Text. Because of that, we
          have to do two things: 1)- to show that this statement is valid and
          accurate; 2)- that we don't know if Antiochus III actually ascended the
          throne in month I of that year (if Seleucus III died, for example, on the
          13th of month I, 90 SEB). So at the moment we have narrowed the gap between
          the death of Seleucus III and accession of Antiochus III to about a month
          which, given the state of our evidence, is not that bad.

          I am also grateful for your reminding me of the mess I made of the reference
          to Polybius. I have checked my volume and must certainly make the necessary
          adjustments.

          Another point I would like to raise here may have some interesting
          historical implications. I have found at least four references to "King
          Seleucus" during the reign of Antiochus II ONLY. I had to emphasise "only"
          because I have checked Professor Hunger's complete draft of his next volume
          (Goal-Year Texts) and found nothing like this. I am sure you needn't be
          reminded by me that Antiochus II never co-ruled with his son Seleucus II (at
          least as far as I know). However, there are several strange things from the
          reign of Antiochus II whose resolution has so far eluded us. For example, if
          Arsaces I scored his epoch-making victory against Seleucus II at some point
          in time after the death of Antiochus II, why did the Parthians take 247 BC
          in the reign of Antiochus II as the beginning of their era (as reported by
          Justin)? What we find in Justin about the beginning of the Parthian revolt
          can nicely be explained if we assume that although Seleucus II never
          appeared with Antiochus II in the extant Babylonian colophons, it is
          possible that occasionally he acted on behalf of his father in the east and
          that it was he who suffered a defeat by Arsaces I in 247 BC. As things
          stand, we have the necessary evidence, not just one, but four, that a "King
          Seleucus" was acknowledged in Babylon four times during the reign of
          Antiochus II (down to year 59 SEB). Couldn't he have been ordered by his
          father to attack the Parthians in 247 BC? According to Justin, Arsaces I won
          a victory against Seleucus II but Strabo says that the Parthian withdrew to
          the remote parts of his kingdom when attacked by Seleucus. Isn't it possible
          that Strabo is talking about a second attack by Seleucus II (ca. 228 BC) on
          Parthia while Justin speaks about the first (in 247 BC)? If Seleucus II
          wasn't an "occasional" king during the reign of his father, how are we to
          explain his appearance in four date formulas?

          I'll appreciate your and other members' views on this.

          All the best,
          Farhad Assar
          ================


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Renzo Lucherini" <rluckyr@...>
          To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 5:06 PM
          Subject: [seleukids] Re: Seleucus II (246-225 BC) and Seleucus III (225-222
          BC)


          > Dear Dr. Assar
          >
          >
          > I have a bit cursorily read your file in this list. It looks like a
          > very good work that should resolve the question of the limits of the
          > reign of the three Seleukid sovereigns Seleukos II, Seleukos II and
          > Antiochos III.
          >
          > As you asked for eventual corrections, I have noticed a minor slip.
          > Polybios' chapter in his IV book is not 47 but 48.
          > Furthermore I do not think the same historian reports implicitly
          > that Seleukos III reigned for about two years. "Two years" is
          > referred to the period had spent between Seleukos' death and the
          > events which Polybios narrates in IV. 48, that is the war between
          > Rhode and Byzantium.
          > This consideration does not weaken your theory because this conflict
          > may be fixed in the Olympic year 221/220. According to Polybios,
          > Seleukos III was assassinated about two Olympic year before (that is
          > in 223/2), a datum that is consistent with your new datings.
          >
          > Best regards
          > Renzo Lucherini
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, "Farhad Assar" <farhad.assar@...>
          > wrote:
          >>
          >> Dear Friends
          >>
          >> I have just uploaded into the Files archive of our list a note on
          > the inception and terminal dates of the reigns of Seleucus II and
          > III. You may access the file at the following URL:
          >>
          >>
          >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seleukids/files/
          >>
          >> Please kindly let me know of any error you may detect. The last
          > note on this issue (dated 30.1.2006) had a serious error; I had
          > mistakenly placed the beginning of the reign of Seleucus III in 224
          > BC rather than 225 BC.
          >>
          >> Best wishes,
          >> Farhad Assar
          >> =====================
          >>
          >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Community email addresses:
          > Post message: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
          > Subscribe: seleukids-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > Unsubscribe: seleukids-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > List owner: seleukids-owner@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Shortcut URL to this page:
          > http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/seleukids
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Farhad Assar
          Dear Friends, Yesterday, while rushing to meet a friend, I wrote the following: Another point I would like to raise here may have some interesting historical
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 11, 2006
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Friends,

            Yesterday, while rushing to meet a friend, I wrote the following:

            "Another point I would like to raise here may have some interesting
            historical implications. I have found at least four references to "King
            Seleucus" during the reign of Antiochus II ONLY. I had to emphasise "only"
            because I have checked Professor Hunger's complete draft of his next volume
            (Goal-Year Texts) and found nothing like this."

            Please note that I meant to say "I had to emphasise "only" because I have
            checked Professor Hunger's complete draft of his next volume (Goal-Year
            Texts) and found nothing like this from other reigns, with two or simply one
            ruler attested at Babylon.

            I apologise for any confusion this may have caused.

            All the best,
            Farhad Assar
            ===================



            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Farhad Assar" <farhad.assar@...>
            To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 6:53 PM
            Subject: Re: [seleukids] Re: Seleucus II (246-225 BC) and Seleucus III
            (225-222 BC)


            > Dear Renzo,
            >
            > Thank you very much for your comments and corrections. I too have detected
            > several bad typographic and grammatical mistakes. Most of these I have
            > amended and hope to add more evidence to the ones already there (in order
            > to
            > strengthen the accuracy of the dates in Goal-Year Texts). Unlike the
            > Diaries, Almanacs, and Normal-Star Almanacs, the dates in Goal-Year Texts
            > require careful handling otherwise they can lead to all sorts of
            > historical
            > confusion. Just as a hypothetical case, suppose we find "Year X (SEB),
            > Kings
            > A and B" at the beginning of one of the paragraphs that covers months I -
            > XII. Here, we can be sure that Kings A and B were joint rulers in month I
            > only. If other independent pieces of evidence show that those same kings
            > ruled jointly up until month VII (for example) then we can apply that
            > knowledge to the first VII months of the corresponding paragraph in the
            > Goal-Year Text. But if we have no idea about the fate of the two rulers or
            > know that one of them was still ruling in month IV, there is no way we
            > could
            > claim that Kings A and B jointly ruled during months I - III of that same
            > year. This would have a 0 (zero) accuracy because the Goal-Year Texts were
            > not intended to include historical events, e.g. change of reign or an
            > important victory or defeat.
            >
            > As you've already noted, one of the crucial dates, attesting Antiochus III
            > as early as month II of 90 SEB, is in a Goal-Year Text. Because of that,
            > we
            > have to do two things: 1)- to show that this statement is valid and
            > accurate; 2)- that we don't know if Antiochus III actually ascended the
            > throne in month I of that year (if Seleucus III died, for example, on the
            > 13th of month I, 90 SEB). So at the moment we have narrowed the gap
            > between
            > the death of Seleucus III and accession of Antiochus III to about a month
            > which, given the state of our evidence, is not that bad.
            >
            > I am also grateful for your reminding me of the mess I made of the
            > reference
            > to Polybius. I have checked my volume and must certainly make the
            > necessary
            > adjustments.
            >
            > Another point I would like to raise here may have some interesting
            > historical implications. I have found at least four references to "King
            > Seleucus" during the reign of Antiochus II ONLY. I had to emphasise "only"
            > because I have checked Professor Hunger's complete draft of his next
            > volume
            > (Goal-Year Texts) and found nothing like this. I am sure you needn't be
            > reminded by me that Antiochus II never co-ruled with his son Seleucus II
            > (at
            > least as far as I know). However, there are several strange things from
            > the
            > reign of Antiochus II whose resolution has so far eluded us. For example,
            > if
            > Arsaces I scored his epoch-making victory against Seleucus II at some
            > point
            > in time after the death of Antiochus II, why did the Parthians take 247 BC
            > in the reign of Antiochus II as the beginning of their era (as reported by
            > Justin)? What we find in Justin about the beginning of the Parthian revolt
            > can nicely be explained if we assume that although Seleucus II never
            > appeared with Antiochus II in the extant Babylonian colophons, it is
            > possible that occasionally he acted on behalf of his father in the east
            > and
            > that it was he who suffered a defeat by Arsaces I in 247 BC. As things
            > stand, we have the necessary evidence, not just one, but four, that a
            > "King
            > Seleucus" was acknowledged in Babylon four times during the reign of
            > Antiochus II (down to year 59 SEB). Couldn't he have been ordered by his
            > father to attack the Parthians in 247 BC? According to Justin, Arsaces I
            > won
            > a victory against Seleucus II but Strabo says that the Parthian withdrew
            > to
            > the remote parts of his kingdom when attacked by Seleucus. Isn't it
            > possible
            > that Strabo is talking about a second attack by Seleucus II (ca. 228 BC)
            > on
            > Parthia while Justin speaks about the first (in 247 BC)? If Seleucus II
            > wasn't an "occasional" king during the reign of his father, how are we to
            > explain his appearance in four date formulas?
            >
            > I'll appreciate your and other members' views on this.
            >
            > All the best,
            > Farhad Assar
            > ================
          • Renzo Lucherini
            Dear Dr. Assar Apologies for the delay in replying and thank you very much for your clarification on the Goal Year Texts. It has really been a noticeable
            Message 5 of 8 , Feb 16, 2006
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Dr. Assar

              Apologies for the delay in replying and thank you very much for your
              clarification on the Goal Year Texts.
              It has really been a noticeable result the fixation with a very good
              approximation of the dating of Seleukos III's death and Antiochos
              III's incept. By the way these dates fit very well with all the
              extant documentation.
              I have indeed got some doubts about the date of the beginning of the
              reign of Seleukos III and of the death of his father, Seleukos II,
              because the Uruk King List gives to the latter a reign of 20 years
              and I think that this contemporary source is more credible than a
              later and often messy one, like Eusebius.

              Thanks also for your interesting information about the references
              to "King Seleucus" during the reign of Antiochos II. You are right
              there is no hint of a co-regency between Antiochos II and his son
              Seleukos. Maybe Seleukos acted in the Eastern province as "ho epi
              ton ano satrapeion" (Governor of the Upper Satrapies), a title
              probably corresponding to the Akkadian "General that is above the
              Four Generals". But as far as I know, this title appears on the clay
              Babylonian tablets only in 229 BC. In the literary sources the first
              person that looks like having kept this office was possibly Molon,
              under Antiochos III. But the problem is that Seleucus in the
              documents you have found is called "King" and
              not "General", "Governor" etc. So these quotations might refer to a
              previous "King Seleucus" like Seelukos I Nikator or Seleukos, son
              and co-regent of Antiochos I Soter. It would need to know the
              context in which "King Seleucus " is mentioned.

              Best regards
              Renzo Lucherini



              --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, "Farhad Assar" <farhad.assar@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > Dear Renzo,
              >
              > Thank you very much for your comments and corrections. I too have
              detected
              > several bad typographic and grammatical mistakes. Most of these I
              have
              > amended and hope to add more evidence to the ones already there
              (in order to
              > strengthen the accuracy of the dates in Goal-Year Texts). Unlike
              the
              > Diaries, Almanacs, and Normal-Star Almanacs, the dates in Goal-
              Year Texts
              > require careful handling otherwise they can lead to all sorts of
              historical
              > confusion. Just as a hypothetical case, suppose we find "Year X
              (SEB), Kings
              > A and B" at the beginning of one of the paragraphs that covers
              months I -
              > XII. Here, we can be sure that Kings A and B were joint rulers in
              month I
              > only. If other independent pieces of evidence show that those same
              kings
              > ruled jointly up until month VII (for example) then we can apply
              that
              > knowledge to the first VII months of the corresponding paragraph
              in the
              > Goal-Year Text. But if we have no idea about the fate of the two
              rulers or
              > know that one of them was still ruling in month IV, there is no
              way we could
              > claim that Kings A and B jointly ruled during months I - III of
              that same
              > year. This would have a 0 (zero) accuracy because the Goal-Year
              Texts were
              > not intended to include historical events, e.g. change of reign or
              an
              > important victory or defeat.
              >
              > As you've already noted, one of the crucial dates, attesting
              Antiochus III
              > as early as month II of 90 SEB, is in a Goal-Year Text. Because of
              that, we
              > have to do two things: 1)- to show that this statement is valid
              and
              > accurate; 2)- that we don't know if Antiochus III actually
              ascended the
              > throne in month I of that year (if Seleucus III died, for example,
              on the
              > 13th of month I, 90 SEB). So at the moment we have narrowed the
              gap between
              > the death of Seleucus III and accession of Antiochus III to about
              a month
              > which, given the state of our evidence, is not that bad.
              >
              > I am also grateful for your reminding me of the mess I made of the
              reference
              > to Polybius. I have checked my volume and must certainly make the
              necessary
              > adjustments.
              >
              > Another point I would like to raise here may have some interesting
              > historical implications. I have found at least four references
              to "King
              > Seleucus" during the reign of Antiochus II ONLY. I had to
              emphasise "only"
              > because I have checked Professor Hunger's complete draft of his
              next volume
              > (Goal-Year Texts) and found nothing like this. I am sure you
              needn't be
              > reminded by me that Antiochus II never co-ruled with his son
              Seleucus II (at
              > least as far as I know). However, there are several strange things
              from the
              > reign of Antiochus II whose resolution has so far eluded us. For
              example, if
              > Arsaces I scored his epoch-making victory against Seleucus II at
              some point
              > in time after the death of Antiochus II, why did the Parthians
              take 247 BC
              > in the reign of Antiochus II as the beginning of their era (as
              reported by
              > Justin)? What we find in Justin about the beginning of the
              Parthian revolt
              > can nicely be explained if we assume that although Seleucus II
              never
              > appeared with Antiochus II in the extant Babylonian colophons, it
              is
              > possible that occasionally he acted on behalf of his father in the
              east and
              > that it was he who suffered a defeat by Arsaces I in 247 BC. As
              things
              > stand, we have the necessary evidence, not just one, but four,
              that a "King
              > Seleucus" was acknowledged in Babylon four times during the reign
              of
              > Antiochus II (down to year 59 SEB). Couldn't he have been ordered
              by his
              > father to attack the Parthians in 247 BC? According to Justin,
              Arsaces I won
              > a victory against Seleucus II but Strabo says that the Parthian
              withdrew to
              > the remote parts of his kingdom when attacked by Seleucus. Isn't
              it possible
              > that Strabo is talking about a second attack by Seleucus II (ca.
              228 BC) on
              > Parthia while Justin speaks about the first (in 247 BC)? If
              Seleucus II
              > wasn't an "occasional" king during the reign of his father, how
              are we to
              > explain his appearance in four date formulas?
              >
              > I'll appreciate your and other members' views on this.
              >
              > All the best,
              > Farhad Assar
              > ================
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "Renzo Lucherini" <rluckyr@...>
              > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 5:06 PM
              > Subject: [seleukids] Re: Seleucus II (246-225 BC) and Seleucus III
              (225-222
              > BC)
              >
              >
              > > Dear Dr. Assar
              > >
              > >
              > > I have a bit cursorily read your file in this list. It looks
              like a
              > > very good work that should resolve the question of the limits of
              the
              > > reign of the three Seleukid sovereigns Seleukos II, Seleukos II
              and
              > > Antiochos III.
              > >
              > > As you asked for eventual corrections, I have noticed a minor
              slip.
              > > Polybios' chapter in his IV book is not 47 but 48.
              > > Furthermore I do not think the same historian reports implicitly
              > > that Seleukos III reigned for about two years. "Two years" is
              > > referred to the period had spent between Seleukos' death and the
              > > events which Polybios narrates in IV. 48, that is the war between
              > > Rhode and Byzantium.
              > > This consideration does not weaken your theory because this
              conflict
              > > may be fixed in the Olympic year 221/220. According to Polybios,
              > > Seleukos III was assassinated about two Olympic year before
              (that is
              > > in 223/2), a datum that is consistent with your new datings.
              > >
              > > Best regards
              > > Renzo Lucherini
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, "Farhad Assar" <farhad.assar@>
              > > wrote:
              > >>
              > >> Dear Friends
              > >>
              > >> I have just uploaded into the Files archive of our list a note
              on
              > > the inception and terminal dates of the reigns of Seleucus II and
              > > III. You may access the file at the following URL:
              > >>
              > >>
              > >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seleukids/files/
              > >>
              > >> Please kindly let me know of any error you may detect. The last
              > > note on this issue (dated 30.1.2006) had a serious error; I had
              > > mistakenly placed the beginning of the reign of Seleucus III in
              224
              > > BC rather than 225 BC.
              > >>
              > >> Best wishes,
              > >> Farhad Assar
              > >> =====================
              > >>
              > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >>
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Community email addresses:
              > > Post message: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
              > > Subscribe: seleukids-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > > Unsubscribe: seleukids-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > > List owner: seleukids-owner@yahoogroups.com
              > >
              > > Shortcut URL to this page:
              > > http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/seleukids
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
            • Farhad Assar
              Dear Renzo, Thank you for your additional comments on the Seleucid regnal dates. As for the references to King Seleucus these are unfortunately in several
              Message 6 of 8 , Feb 16, 2006
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Renzo,

                Thank you for your additional comments on the Seleucid regnal dates.

                As for the references to "King Seleucus" these are unfortunately in several
                date formulas and not "historical notices" in the Diaries. When I first saw
                them I thought that like Seleucus III who was originally called Alexander
                and then took the name Seleucus upon his accession, maybe Antiochus II too
                was called Seleucus. I wrote to Oliver about this and he kindly informed me
                that there are no indications in the literary sources that Antiochus II had
                a different name (or was called Seleucus). I must admit that one of the
                references is from year 46 SEB during which Antiochus I eliminated his elder
                son, Seleucus. But according to our cuneiform evidence that incident
                happened before month VII of 46 SEB. As you know, a text dated 4.V.46 SEB is
                still dated to Antiochus (I), Seleucus and Antiochus (II) while another from
                13.VII.46 SEB is only subscribed to Kings Antiochus (I) and Antiochus (II).
                However, one date formula from month XII of the same year gives "Kings
                Antiochus (I) and Seleucus" while two separate texts dated 49 SEB also give
                "Kings Antiochus (I) and Seleucus". We could certainly take the earlier
                document from 46 SEB to be a slip. The colophon of the corresponding Diary
                must have been quite complicate, dating the first 5-6 months to "Kings
                Antiochus (I), Seleucus and Antiochus (II)" and the next 7-6 months to
                "Kings Antiochus (I) and Antiochus (II)". Perhaps the scribe simply read the
                first part of the date formula and then applied that to the text he was
                compiling at the time. But the same "slip" in two occasions in 49 SEB is
                rather unusual unless Antiochus II was called "Seleucus". If so, that can
                solve some of the problems I mentioned in my last post regarding the early
                Parthian issues.

                If this is impossible, we have another unusual date formula from 59 SEB that
                clearly mentions "King Seleucus". Could this too be an error? If so we have
                to ask why it was committed. There was nothing to influence the scribe to
                make that kind of mistake. He was working in 118 SEB under the rulership of
                Antiochus III and extracting information from an earlier tablet, a Diary,
                that must have been subscribed to Antiochus II. Unless we assume that the
                Diary from 59 SEB was wrongly dated to "King Seleucus" for an unknown
                reason, we have to explain why "king Seleucus" appears in this particular
                date formula. And that is why I started to think (nothing more than that)
                that perhaps like some of his predecessors and successors, Seleucus II also
                shared the throne with his father but only temporarily. These "anomalous"
                dates certainly give us something to think about: either Antiochus II had a
                second name like Seleucus, or that Seleucus II occasionally stood for his
                father in the east and it was he who suffered the epoch-making defeat in 247
                BC which the Parthians marked as the beginning of their era.

                Anyway, these are just some thoughts and not facts.

                All the best,
                Farhad Assar
                ===============
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Renzo Lucherini" <rluckyr@...>
                To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 9:38 AM
                Subject: [seleukids] Re: Seleucus II (246-225 BC) and Seleucus III (225-222
                BC)


                > Dear Dr. Assar
                >
                > Apologies for the delay in replying and thank you very much for your
                > clarification on the Goal Year Texts.
                > It has really been a noticeable result the fixation with a very good
                > approximation of the dating of Seleukos III's death and Antiochos
                > III's incept. By the way these dates fit very well with all the
                > extant documentation.
                > I have indeed got some doubts about the date of the beginning of the
                > reign of Seleukos III and of the death of his father, Seleukos II,
                > because the Uruk King List gives to the latter a reign of 20 years
                > and I think that this contemporary source is more credible than a
                > later and often messy one, like Eusebius.
                >
                > Thanks also for your interesting information about the references
                > to "King Seleucus" during the reign of Antiochos II. You are right
                > there is no hint of a co-regency between Antiochos II and his son
                > Seleukos. Maybe Seleukos acted in the Eastern province as "ho epi
                > ton ano satrapeion" (Governor of the Upper Satrapies), a title
                > probably corresponding to the Akkadian "General that is above the
                > Four Generals". But as far as I know, this title appears on the clay
                > Babylonian tablets only in 229 BC. In the literary sources the first
                > person that looks like having kept this office was possibly Molon,
                > under Antiochos III. But the problem is that Seleucus in the
                > documents you have found is called "King" and
                > not "General", "Governor" etc. So these quotations might refer to a
                > previous "King Seleucus" like Seelukos I Nikator or Seleukos, son
                > and co-regent of Antiochos I Soter. It would need to know the
                > context in which "King Seleucus " is mentioned.
                >
                > Best regards
                > Renzo Lucherini
              • Farhad Assar
                Dear Renzo, If you have further suggestions on my recent posts please send them to my personal email address. All the best. Farhad Assar =================
                Message 7 of 8 , Feb 19, 2006
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Renzo,

                  If you have further suggestions on my recent posts please send them to my
                  personal email address.

                  All the best.
                  Farhad Assar
                  =================
                • Oliver D. Hoover
                  Dear Farhad, For some reason I seem unable to access your uploaded file, despite being the list owner. Go figure. Still, I wanted to say that from what I have
                  Message 8 of 8 , Feb 19, 2006
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Farhad,

                    For some reason I seem unable to access your uploaded file, despite being
                    the list owner. Go figure.

                    Still, I wanted to say that from what I have seen here I would like to
                    believe in the new dating, if only to make better sense out of a peculiar
                    Seleucid tetradrachm of Simyra dated to year 35 (=225/4 BC) of the Aradian
                    Era (see Seleucid Coins no. 931). This has been traditionally attributed to
                    Seleucus III because of the date, but the coin employs the standing Apollo
                    with tripod reverse type of Seleucus II. SC describes the obverse portrait
                    as a barbarous rendering of Seleucus III, but it looks to me more like an
                    attempt at Seleucus II. Note the Seleucus II-like cowlick and sideburn.

                    In short, if the end of Seleucus II does indeed fall in 225, then perhaps
                    this issue should be reattributed to Seleucus II and possibly associated
                    with the preparations for the invasion of Asia Minor.

                    Best regards,

                    Oliver D. Hoover
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.