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

Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais

Expand Messages
  • Oliver D. Hoover
    Dear Mark, Sorry for the delay in my response. In your response you cited the following as explanatory factors for ... With respect to a) what are the sources
    Message 1 of 11 , Apr 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Mark,

      Sorry for the delay in my response.

      In your response you cited the following as explanatory factors for
      Tigranes' return in 72/1:

      >a) this was the act of "rebellion" (contra the agreements reached in 83
      > BC) which caused Tigran to return
      > b) since Kleopatra did not shut those gates herself but had to induce the
      > locals to do so her power/influence was previously extremely restricted.

      With respect to a) what are the sources for an agreement between Cleopatra
      Selene and Tigranes in 83? I am not aware of them. Besides, I don't see
      how action taken by a legitimate ruler like Cleopatra (vis a vis both Rome
      and the cities that were under her authority) in the face of foreign
      occupation can constitute rebellion. Rebellion and/or "oppressive
      usurpation" both imply that Tigranes was the legitimate ruler in Syria,
      which most certainly was not the case. Although I see that the P manuscript
      has Cleopatra breaking the peace, which might make more sense in 72/1, I
      don't know what is so oppressive about the variant in V. My point about
      backdating Cleopatra's shutting of the gates to 83 hinges on the fact that
      if Cleopatra can be described as ruling in Syria presumably Tigranes was not
      also ruling there. Thus 83 seems like a more appropriate date if the
      reading in P is not the best manuscript tradition. I confess that I have
      not read up on the comparative reliability of the various AJ manuscripts.

      With respect to b) I don't see why her inducement of the cities to close
      their gates necessarily indicates a more restricted authority for Cleopatra
      than any of the other late Seleucid kings, who also depended to a large
      degree on the goodwill of the cities in order to maintain their power.
      Tigranes' authority in Syria may have been almost as ephemeral as that of
      the late Seleucids when we consider that Apamea, Seleucia-in-Pieria, and
      even Antioch (until 77/6 if not later), if not other cities, continued to
      produce civic coinage without any reference to the Armenian king.
      Eutropius 6.14 and Strabo 16.2.8 indicate that Seleucia maintained its
      freedom from Armenian domination and the coinages of Phoenicia provide no
      hint that Tigranes was even lurking in the area. Tigranes' royal mints in
      Syria were strictly limited to Antioch and Damascus (mints often held by the
      late Seleucids) again suggesting that his control was not so much more
      secure than what had existed under his Seleucid predecessors. Thus, I would
      argue that the conflict between Cleopatra and Tigranes was actually nothing
      more than the tiresome continuation of the Seleucid civil war with Tigranes
      taking on the traditional role of a Seleucid brother.

      I don't have access to your cuneiform evidence for Tigranes' Parthian
      activities and so I cannot comment on any insight into Tigranes' motives for
      a return to Syria that it may provide. It seems to me that you are assuming
      that the actions of Cleopatra provided the reason for Tigranes' return. The
      evidence, however, makes Bellinger's view that Tigranes planned a general
      southern conquest seem more likely. If the real problem was Cleopatra and a
      sudden revolt of the cities in her power, why does Tigranes first conquer
      Damascus, a Nabataean city unlikely to have recognized Cleopatra's
      authority, and why are the Hasmonaean Jews who also would have paid little
      attention to Cleopatra, afraid of him at the time of the Ake siege? As
      neither Damascus nor Jerusalem are likely to have participated in any
      Seleucid "revolt" Tigranes treatment of them makes more sense in the context
      of general southern expansion rather than the quelling of "rebellion".

      Oliver D. Hoover
      Epimeletes

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Mark Passehl" <mpassehl@...>
      To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:19 PM
      Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais


      > Dear Oliver
      >
      > I know of no evidence re the long-term resistance of any Syrian or
      Cananite
      > cities to Tigran's rule, so I assume that Kleopatra's long-term hold over
      > Seleukeia (the impregnable fortress) and other coastal cities is attested
      by
      > sequences of dated coinage (not available to me).
      > Certainly Tigran invaded in 83 BC (after being invited to do so circa 87
      > BC), conducted a campaign which gained control of most of the country,
      then
      > departed leaving Magadates as satrap of Syria-Kilikia and apparently had
      no
      > reason to return until 72/71 BC. Since Kleopatra's inducement of certain
      > locals to shut their gates against Tigran is attested at the time of that
      > king's return (in great strength) I have always supposed that
      > a) this was the act of "rebellion" (contra the agreements reached in 83
      > BC) which caused Tigran to return
      > b) since Kleopatra did not shut those gates herself but had to induce the
      > locals to do so her power/influence was previously extremely restricted.
      >
      > Still, there are certain problems with this passage of Josephus (xiii.419-
      > 422) which induce me to treat it with some caution. It seems that
      > Ptolemias/Ake might have been taken before Lucullus invaded Armenia in
      > spring 69, and Mithradates Eupator certainly did not flee to the Iberoi in
      > 71 BC but to Armenia itself. The compression of Lucullus' actions (pursuit
      > of Mithradates, invasion of Armenia) also rather disguises that those two
      > actions were separated by more than 18 months and indeed almost two years.
      > Finally at the time of Tigran's return in 72/1, Kleopatra might have been
      > "ruling some of those in Syria", but the mss. are not in uniform agreement
      > over the verb "katñrchen", and include variants more in keeping with an
      > oppressive usurpation and distrubance of the peace.
      > Overall I don't understand your interpretation that the shutting of the
      > gates can be referred back to 83 BC.
      > Why do you think Tigran returned in force in 72/1 BC ?
      >
      > Mark K.P.
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Oliver D. Hoover" <oliver.hoover@...>
      > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 11:17 PM
      > Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
      >
      >
      > > Mark,
      > >
      > > I don't quite understand your persistent reference to the actions taken
      by
      > > Kleopatra Selene as a "revolt" that suddenly took place in 72. There is
      > no
      > > evidence for this characterization in the primary sources as far as I
      can
      > > see. Josephus 13.420 explicitly refers to Selene "ruling" (kathrxen) in
      > > Syria at the time that "she caused the inhabitants to shut their gates
      > > against Tigranes," implying that the act of blocking access to some of
      the
      > > cities took place in 83. The resistance of Seleukeia-in-Pieria, which
      > lasted
      > > from 83 to 70, was no doubt one of the cities that Josephus had in mind.
      > > Thus, the defence of Ake against Tigranes should be seen as part of the
      > > larger picture of long-term Seleukid and civic resistance to Tigranes'
      > > initial invasion, rather than some isolated timed "revolt".
      > >
      > > Oliver D. Hoover
      > > Epimeletes
      > >
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "Mark Passehl" <mpassehl@...>
      > > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 4:22 AM
      > > Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
      > >
      > >
      > > > Ian
      > > >
      > > > Try Strabo xvi.2.3 on the eclipse of this Moon, which for
      > > > politico-geographic reasons must date to 69 BC or earlier, but really
      > > should
      > > > be in that year owing to her imprisonment "for a time" (chronon
      tina).
      > > > The chronology of Lucullus' campaigns is well documented. He sent off
      > his
      > > > brother-in-law Appius Claudius Pulcher to Tigran after reducing the
      > cities
      > > > and fortresses of Lesser Armenia in late summer 71 BC. Thus Appius
      > reached
      > > > Antioch some time that autumn, exactly when would depend upon how far
      > and
      > > > for how long he was misguided through northern Armenia.
      > > > On the other hand, Tigran made war on the Parthian King (Artaban
      III/IV
      > =
      > > > Sellwood type 30) around about this time, and some cuneiform evidence
      > > > indicates that his destructive invasion of Upland Media
      > (Isidoros/Photius)
      > > > probably took place in summer 72 BC.
      > > > Since the sons of the Moon seem to have returned from their Roman
      > embassy
      > > in
      > > > 72 BC with no good news (re stealing the Lagid diadem) it would be
      > likely
      > > > enough that Kleopatra was spurred by that disappointment to take
      > immediate
      > > > advantage of Tigran's absence in Parthia to begin her "rebellion" in
      > > summer
      > > > or autumn 72, apparently forcing the King (of Kings) to cut short his
      > > > Parthian War and return to Syria, where he would have arrived in or
      > before
      > > > spring 71.
      > > >
      > > > Mark K.P.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > From: "Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499@...>
      > > > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:47 PM
      > > > Subject: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Hello folks.
      > > > >
      > > > > I wonder if anyone has a source for Tigranes'
      > > > > siege of Ptolemais in which Selene Cleopatra
      > > > > was captured (other than Josephus, AJ 13,16,4)
      > > > > and hopefully an exact year for the siege.
      > > > >
      > > > > Plutarch gives Appius Clodius being sent by
      > > > > Lucullus in embassy to Tigranes, "who at that
      > > > > time was reducing some towns in Phoenicia",
      > > > > which I gather must have been a year or two
      > > > > before Lucullus's victory over Tigranes.
      > > > >
      > > > > This would seem to indicate perhaps 70 BCE,
      > > > > if Tigranes was forced north to deal with
      > > > > Lucullus in 69 BCE. Is this reasonable?
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Thanks,
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Ian
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Ian Hutchesson
      > > > > Rome.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > 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
      > > > >
      > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > 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
      > > >
      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > 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
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > 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
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    • Mark Passehl
      Dear Oliver I know nothing of Bellinger s work, nor indeed of any recent literature on the late Seleukids. But I do know that it is very easy to absorb the
      Message 2 of 11 , Apr 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Oliver

        I know nothing of Bellinger's work, nor indeed of any recent literature on
        the late Seleukids. But I do know that it is very easy to absorb the
        theories of outstanding modern scholars more fully than they sometimes
        warrant, even to the extent of treating their ideas with the same respect as
        the extant sources (sometimes more).

        There are two very important points in your note that need to be
        highlighted;

        1) you comment "I would argue that the conflict between Cleopatra and
        Tigranes was nothing more than the tiresome continuation of the Seleucid
        civil war with Tigranes taking on the traditional role of a Seleucid
        brother."
        I would stress that there is no evidence of any conflict between Tigran and
        Kleopatra prior to 72/1 BC and the return of Tigran documented by Josephus.
        The Seleukid coinage in certain Cananite cities may be taken to imply such a
        conflict, but such a conclusion remains a leap of faith and the coins
        themselves are by no means direct evidence for it. Is there any similar
        coinage in ANY Syrian city in the 70s BC ? Justinus (book 40) on the other
        hand attests the peacefulness of Tigran's reign in Syria which, being a
        summary, is compatible with a short-lived rebellion/war of liberation (circa
        71-70 BC) but not with the continuous conflict throughout the period of the
        Armenian occupation which you seem to regard as an irrefutable fact.

        2) you explain that you wish to back-date events securely dated to 72/1 BC
        to 83 BC because "if Cleopatra can be described as ruling in Syria
        presumably Tigranes was not also ruling there."
        This assumption is wrong.
        Appian says that Tigran attacked the Seleukids when he was already King of
        Kings because they refused to submit to him, defeated them, and left behind
        his commander Magadates as satrap. Now at the time of the invasion of Syria
        the Kings of Iberia, Albania, probably Kommagene, Atropatian Media,
        Korduene, Adiabene/the Arbelitis, and several Arabic sheiks were all vassals
        and subjects of Tigran, the King of Kings. How would the relationship
        between those kings and their own national subjects be described other than
        as a monarch "ruling" his subjects ? Yet that does not refute the notion
        that they were simultaneously subjects of a higher king, namely Tigran.
        Thus it is perfectly permissable (and in accord with all our evidence) to
        assume that when invading in 83 BC Tigran sought (and received) not the
        destruction of the Seleukids but their submission to him as overlord and
        acknowledgement of themselves as his vassals.
        Appian, Strabo and Justinus all comment on/summarise Tigran's conquest or
        occupation of Syria in 83 BC. They say nothing about any effective Seleukid
        resistance even then, let alone persisting FROM that date. Indeed Justinus
        does not mention them at all in regard to Tigran and thus implies that they
        had largely become irrelevant, while Appian baldly states that the Seleukid
        king was unable to withstand the Armenian. The coinage also attests that
        Tigran was able to expel the rising Nabataean power from Damascus, something
        no recent "Seleukid brother" had been able to do.
        Beyond that and despite the fact that he is summarising the history of the
        late Seleukids, Appian (Syr.70) refuses to include the 14 years of Tigran's
        reign in Syria in the total length of the old dynasty's rule there. This
        strongly supports the notion that they surrendered their sovereign rights to
        the Armenian - in return for a modest domain in Phoenicia/Canaan based on
        several cities there, but above all in return for survival, a future and
        thus a possible return to full power, as the only practicable means of
        avoiding destruction in (or soon after) 83 BC. We also observe the speed
        with which Kleopatra was sieged and captured after Tigran's return in force
        in 72/1 BC. This further reinforces the notion that the dynasty would soon
        have been taken and destroyed in 83 (or the next year) when Tigran
        originally invaded in force unless they had accepted some type of agreement
        of submission.
        The expedition of Kleopatra's two sons to Rome (74-72 BC) seeking nothing
        less than the transference of the Lagid diadem from the bastard Ptolemy
        Auletes to themselves, also implies a loss of sovereign rights in Syria and
        the Seleukis. In my view Kleopatra sought Egypt from the Romans (who had
        the power to grant it) as the easier alternative to trying to throw off
        Armenian overlordship in Syria-Phoenicia, and when that mission failed she
        attempted rebellion in Phoenicia as a last desperate gamble.

        Overall I believe that your interpretation of the numismatic evidence
        conforms with a "fixed idea" which is contradicted by the literature, and
        that the coinage can be viewed in other ways which conform with the
        literature. Tigran had no need for mints in every major Syrian city to
        "prove" the extent of his power to either contemporaries or modern
        historians. The production of his silver in the two greatest cities, Antioch
        and Damascus, did that job nicely. Together they symbolise his control over
        the capitals of the Makedonian and Arabic dynastic powers which were
        contending in the region before his advent. Nor did he have to interfere
        with the civic coinage of subject cities, so long as they acknowledged him
        as their overlord. The output at Antioch, which issued its own civic coinage
        side by side with his royal silver, underlines this.
        A weak old dynasty chaffing at its subjection to vassal status might feel
        the need to strike coinage in every city where its authority was allowed to
        endure, but not so the King of Kings who was its overlord and had many other
        conquest possessions besides Syria.
        This reminds me of the realities of relative power, which can hardly be
        stressed enough in the context of this discussion. There is considerable
        evidence to show that Tigran was able to muster huge armies, and whatever we
        may think of the accuracy of the various figures the fact remains that he
        was strong enough to attack and defeat Parthian armies, and really embarass
        them from time to time (Plutarch Lucullus 21.4, 36.6), and to rapidly
        subject a sub-kingdom like Atropatian Media, formidable both for its
        military strength and the difficulty of its terrain (cf.Strabo xi.13.2ff.).
        The notion that the chronically weak late Seleukidai were capable of
        resisting him for years on end strikes me as almost laughable, and in any
        case is refuted by the testimony of the literary sources already mentioned.

        It seems to me that your comments in your final paragraph reverse the facts.
        You say that I am assuming that Kleopatra's actions induced Tigran's return.
        Not at all. Josephus' text implies that, as shown by the description of
        Kleopatra's actions in a "gar" sentence, i.e. explaining what has been
        described before.
        First we are told that news reached Judaea that Tigran had invaded Syria
        with an enormous army and was moving against Judaea.
        This frightened the Jews and their Queen, who sent gifts and envoys to
        Tigran while he was besieging Ptolemais. Then comes the "gar" sentence which
        explains why he was sieging Ptolemais.
        Tigran gave the Jews a promising reply, and it may well be that he had no
        more intention of invading Judaea than he really had an army of 300,000,
        though it is hard to tell what was in his mind, or what his exact subsequent
        movements were owing to Josephus' splicing of events of summer-autumn 71 and
        spring 69 BC together as though they were contiguous.
        What is certain is that Tigran was besieging Ptolemais in 71 BC because
        (gar) Kleopatra induced the inhabitants to shut their gates against him.
        Never mind the manuscript conflict in Josephus. I too have no expertise in
        the relative value of these mss., although Ralph Marcus (who did) was
        sufficiently unsure about the true reading to include two variants in his
        (very modest) apparatus criticus (I believe that something has dropped out
        of his text here and that he might have said something about the breaking of
        the peace). In any case Marcus' translation that Kleopatra was "ruling over
        Syria" is not a good one. The Greek text says she was ruling(?) "hoi" or
        maybe "ta" (gen.pl.) in Syria, i.e. certain places or communities in Syria,
        not Syria as a whole.

        Re Tigran's conquest of Damascus before sieging Ptolemais in 71 BC, I
        know of no reference to Damascus in Josephus' passage, so maybe the two
        events were not so contemporary as some have assumed.
        I don't see any evidence in support of Bellinger's idea, except the "news"
        which reached Judaea and frightened the country and its Queen. Perhaps this
        news (including the size of the Armenian army) was slightly exaggerated, as
        war news sometimes is. But anyhow it would be perfectly natural for the Jews
        to fear a large Armenian army so close to their frontiers, and rumours might
        abound concerning the ultimate ambitions of this King of Kings, well known
        for his expansionism, having mobilised such a large force and introduced it
        into their region.

        There are several other points I would like to address but have run out of
        spare time for the moment.
        I don't think that Strabo's comment (xvi.2.8) about Pompeius (circa 64 BC)
        shutting Tigran out from Seleukeia-in-Pieria and granting the place liberty
        implies that this city was never subject to the Armenian. If anything the
        opposite !
        I cannot find my copy of Eutropius, but will certainly do so and get back to
        you re his information about Seleukeia. From memory he is another source re
        Tigran's successful campaigns against Parthia. And I will certainly pass on
        the evidence (which is indirect) about Tigran's invasion of Upland Media in
        about summer 72 BC.
        Looking forward to your comments and criticisms.

        Mark K.P.


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Oliver D. Hoover" <oliver.hoover@...>
        To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 2:40 AM
        Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais


        > Dear Mark,
        >
        > Sorry for the delay in my response.
        >
        > In your response you cited the following as explanatory factors for
        > Tigranes' return in 72/1:
        >
        > >a) this was the act of "rebellion" (contra the agreements reached in 83
        > > BC) which caused Tigran to return
        > > b) since Kleopatra did not shut those gates herself but had to induce
        the
        > > locals to do so her power/influence was previously extremely restricted.
        >
        > With respect to a) what are the sources for an agreement between Cleopatra
        > Selene and Tigranes in 83? I am not aware of them. Besides, I don't see
        > how action taken by a legitimate ruler like Cleopatra (vis a vis both Rome
        > and the cities that were under her authority) in the face of foreign
        > occupation can constitute rebellion. Rebellion and/or "oppressive
        > usurpation" both imply that Tigranes was the legitimate ruler in Syria,
        > which most certainly was not the case. Although I see that the P
        manuscript
        > has Cleopatra breaking the peace, which might make more sense in 72/1, I
        > don't know what is so oppressive about the variant in V. My point about
        > backdating Cleopatra's shutting of the gates to 83 hinges on the fact that
        > if Cleopatra can be described as ruling in Syria presumably Tigranes was
        not
        > also ruling there. Thus 83 seems like a more appropriate date if the
        > reading in P is not the best manuscript tradition. I confess that I have
        > not read up on the comparative reliability of the various AJ manuscripts.
        >
        > With respect to b) I don't see why her inducement of the cities to close
        > their gates necessarily indicates a more restricted authority for
        Cleopatra
        > than any of the other late Seleucid kings, who also depended to a large
        > degree on the goodwill of the cities in order to maintain their power.
        > Tigranes' authority in Syria may have been almost as ephemeral as that of
        > the late Seleucids when we consider that Apamea, Seleucia-in-Pieria, and
        > even Antioch (until 77/6 if not later), if not other cities, continued to
        > produce civic coinage without any reference to the Armenian king.
        > Eutropius 6.14 and Strabo 16.2.8 indicate that Seleucia maintained its
        > freedom from Armenian domination and the coinages of Phoenicia provide no
        > hint that Tigranes was even lurking in the area. Tigranes' royal mints in
        > Syria were strictly limited to Antioch and Damascus (mints often held by
        the
        > late Seleucids) again suggesting that his control was not so much more
        > secure than what had existed under his Seleucid predecessors. Thus, I
        would
        > argue that the conflict between Cleopatra and Tigranes was actually
        nothing
        > more than the tiresome continuation of the Seleucid civil war with
        Tigranes
        > taking on the traditional role of a Seleucid brother.
        >
        > I don't have access to your cuneiform evidence for Tigranes' Parthian
        > activities and so I cannot comment on any insight into Tigranes' motives
        for
        > a return to Syria that it may provide. It seems to me that you are
        assuming
        > that the actions of Cleopatra provided the reason for Tigranes' return.
        The
        > evidence, however, makes Bellinger's view that Tigranes planned a general
        > southern conquest seem more likely. If the real problem was Cleopatra and
        a
        > sudden revolt of the cities in her power, why does Tigranes first conquer
        > Damascus, a Nabataean city unlikely to have recognized Cleopatra's
        > authority, and why are the Hasmonaean Jews who also would have paid little
        > attention to Cleopatra, afraid of him at the time of the Ake siege? As
        > neither Damascus nor Jerusalem are likely to have participated in any
        > Seleucid "revolt" Tigranes treatment of them makes more sense in the
        context
        > of general southern expansion rather than the quelling of "rebellion".
        >
        > Oliver D. Hoover
        > Epimeletes
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "Mark Passehl" <mpassehl@...>
        > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:19 PM
        > Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
        >
        >
        > > Dear Oliver
        > >
        > > I know of no evidence re the long-term resistance of any Syrian or
        > Cananite
        > > cities to Tigran's rule, so I assume that Kleopatra's long-term hold
        over
        > > Seleukeia (the impregnable fortress) and other coastal cities is
        attested
        > by
        > > sequences of dated coinage (not available to me).
        > > Certainly Tigran invaded in 83 BC (after being invited to do so circa 87
        > > BC), conducted a campaign which gained control of most of the country,
        > then
        > > departed leaving Magadates as satrap of Syria-Kilikia and apparently
        had
        > no
        > > reason to return until 72/71 BC. Since Kleopatra's inducement of certain
        > > locals to shut their gates against Tigran is attested at the time of
        that
        > > king's return (in great strength) I have always supposed that
        > > a) this was the act of "rebellion" (contra the agreements reached in
        83
        > > BC) which caused Tigran to return
        > > b) since Kleopatra did not shut those gates herself but had to induce
        the
        > > locals to do so her power/influence was previously extremely restricted.
        > >
        > > Still, there are certain problems with this passage of Josephus
        (xiii.419-
        > > 422) which induce me to treat it with some caution. It seems that
        > > Ptolemias/Ake might have been taken before Lucullus invaded Armenia in
        > > spring 69, and Mithradates Eupator certainly did not flee to the Iberoi
        in
        > > 71 BC but to Armenia itself. The compression of Lucullus' actions
        (pursuit
        > > of Mithradates, invasion of Armenia) also rather disguises that those
        two
        > > actions were separated by more than 18 months and indeed almost two
        years.
        > > Finally at the time of Tigran's return in 72/1, Kleopatra might have
        been
        > > "ruling some of those in Syria", but the mss. are not in uniform
        agreement
        > > over the verb "katñrchen", and include variants more in keeping with an
        > > oppressive usurpation and distrubance of the peace.
        > > Overall I don't understand your interpretation that the shutting of the
        > > gates can be referred back to 83 BC.
        > > Why do you think Tigran returned in force in 72/1 BC ?
        > >
        > > Mark K.P.
        > >
        > >
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: "Oliver D. Hoover" <oliver.hoover@...>
        > > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
        > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 11:17 PM
        > > Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
        > >
        > >
        > > > Mark,
        > > >
        > > > I don't quite understand your persistent reference to the actions
        taken
        > by
        > > > Kleopatra Selene as a "revolt" that suddenly took place in 72. There
        is
        > > no
        > > > evidence for this characterization in the primary sources as far as I
        > can
        > > > see. Josephus 13.420 explicitly refers to Selene "ruling" (kathrxen)
        in
        > > > Syria at the time that "she caused the inhabitants to shut their gates
        > > > against Tigranes," implying that the act of blocking access to some of
        > the
        > > > cities took place in 83. The resistance of Seleukeia-in-Pieria, which
        > > lasted
        > > > from 83 to 70, was no doubt one of the cities that Josephus had in
        mind.
        > > > Thus, the defence of Ake against Tigranes should be seen as part of
        the
        > > > larger picture of long-term Seleukid and civic resistance to Tigranes'
        > > > initial invasion, rather than some isolated timed "revolt".
        > > >
        > > > Oliver D. Hoover
        > > > Epimeletes
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > > From: "Mark Passehl" <mpassehl@...>
        > > > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
        > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 4:22 AM
        > > > Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > > Ian
        > > > >
        > > > > Try Strabo xvi.2.3 on the eclipse of this Moon, which for
        > > > > politico-geographic reasons must date to 69 BC or earlier, but
        really
        > > > should
        > > > > be in that year owing to her imprisonment "for a time" (chronon
        > tina).
        > > > > The chronology of Lucullus' campaigns is well documented. He sent
        off
        > > his
        > > > > brother-in-law Appius Claudius Pulcher to Tigran after reducing the
        > > cities
        > > > > and fortresses of Lesser Armenia in late summer 71 BC. Thus Appius
        > > reached
        > > > > Antioch some time that autumn, exactly when would depend upon how
        far
        > > and
        > > > > for how long he was misguided through northern Armenia.
        > > > > On the other hand, Tigran made war on the Parthian King (Artaban
        > III/IV
        > > =
        > > > > Sellwood type 30) around about this time, and some cuneiform
        evidence
        > > > > indicates that his destructive invasion of Upland Media
        > > (Isidoros/Photius)
        > > > > probably took place in summer 72 BC.
        > > > > Since the sons of the Moon seem to have returned from their Roman
        > > embassy
        > > > in
        > > > > 72 BC with no good news (re stealing the Lagid diadem) it would be
        > > likely
        > > > > enough that Kleopatra was spurred by that disappointment to take
        > > immediate
        > > > > advantage of Tigran's absence in Parthia to begin her "rebellion" in
        > > > summer
        > > > > or autumn 72, apparently forcing the King (of Kings) to cut short
        his
        > > > > Parthian War and return to Syria, where he would have arrived in or
        > > before
        > > > > spring 71.
        > > > >
        > > > > Mark K.P.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > > > From: "Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499@...>
        > > > > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
        > > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:47 PM
        > > > > Subject: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Hello folks.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I wonder if anyone has a source for Tigranes'
        > > > > > siege of Ptolemais in which Selene Cleopatra
        > > > > > was captured (other than Josephus, AJ 13,16,4)
        > > > > > and hopefully an exact year for the siege.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Plutarch gives Appius Clodius being sent by
        > > > > > Lucullus in embassy to Tigranes, "who at that
        > > > > > time was reducing some towns in Phoenicia",
        > > > > > which I gather must have been a year or two
        > > > > > before Lucullus's victory over Tigranes.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > This would seem to indicate perhaps 70 BCE,
        > > > > > if Tigranes was forced north to deal with
        > > > > > Lucullus in 69 BCE. Is this reasonable?
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Thanks,
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Ian
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Ian Hutchesson
        > > > > > Rome.
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > 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
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > 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
        > > > >
        > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > 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
        > > >
        > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > 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
        > >
        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > 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
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
      • egil4870
        My question here is: From what kind of position did Kleopatra Selene act when facing the Armenian invasion? Doesn t much of this conflict stem from the fact
        Message 3 of 11 , Apr 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          My question here is: From what kind of position did Kleopatra Selene
          act when facing the Armenian invasion? Doesn't much of this conflict
          stem from the fact that we do not know the earlier fate of the
          Cyzicenus branch of the family? Some sources state that Antiochus X
          died in 93 in a campaign against the Commagenes (in that case against
          Mithradates Callinicus, who had married a daughter of Antiochus VIII
          and thus was likely to side with his sons), whereas Appian mentions
          him being defeated by Tigranes in 83 B.C. Don't these two conflicting
          accounts describe totally different situations:

          a) If 93 B.C. is correct, then the Cyzicenian line must have been
          more or less excluded from power at the time of Tigran's invasion.
          Chris Bennett on his homepage mentions one coin found of Selene with
          child Antiochus (Asiaticus) and one with Seleucus Philometor, but
          IMHO it seems that the Cyzicenians, without a male protagonist, were
          reduced to ruling perhaps a few cities in 83. In this case, could not
          Selene even have partly welcomed the Armenian invasion, as an
          efficient (albeit highly dangerous) means of getting revenge on her
          archenemies, the Grypus branch?

          IIRC, there is little known of what the Grypus branch actually did
          during Tigran's invasion. The mother of Philip II Barypos (I once
          again rely on Bennett here) is not even known, and I have not read
          about any coins being issued by the Grypus family 83-69 B.C. Where
          was Philip II hiding - with the Nabateans (who might have been allies
          of his father, given that they defeated Antiochus XII)? And who
          supported his comeback in the 60's?

          Is there any reason to believe that the Cyzicenus branch was
          favourised (such as the favours were: a status as vassals) compared
          with the Grypus branch, who were completely wiped out by Tigranes?

          b) Whereas if Antiochus X was killed by Tigranes, the situation was
          wholly different. In this case the Cyzicenians might have held sway
          in larger portions of Syria by 83, perhaps even taking part in the
          calamities that recently had befallen Antiochus XII in Damascus and
          Philip I in Antiochia, and certainly would have opposed Tigranes with
          whatever powers they possessed, at least until Antiochus X was
          killed. After that Selene had no choice but accept whatever treaty
          was allowed to sign, but the relation between her and the King of
          kings must have been a lot worse than in scenario A.

          And as for the passage:

          >Appian says that Tigran attacked the Seleukids when he was already
          >King of Kings because they refused to submit to him, defeated them,
          >and left behind his commander Magadates as satrap.

          What does he mean with "the Seleukids" at that time? All of them?
          They were hardly known for unison actions...



          --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Passehl" <mpassehl@c...>
          wrote:
          > Dear Oliver
          >
          > I know nothing of Bellinger's work, nor indeed of any recent
          literature on
          > the late Seleukids. But I do know that it is very easy to absorb the
          > theories of outstanding modern scholars more fully than they
          sometimes
          > warrant, even to the extent of treating their ideas with the same
          respect as
          > the extant sources (sometimes more).
          >
          > There are two very important points in your note that need to be
          > highlighted;
          >
          > 1) you comment "I would argue that the conflict between Cleopatra
          and
          > Tigranes was nothing more than the tiresome continuation of the
          Seleucid
          > civil war with Tigranes taking on the traditional role of a Seleucid
          > brother."
          > I would stress that there is no evidence of any conflict between
          Tigran and
          > Kleopatra prior to 72/1 BC and the return of Tigran documented by
          Josephus.
          > The Seleukid coinage in certain Cananite cities may be taken to
          imply such a
          > conflict, but such a conclusion remains a leap of faith and the
          coins
          > themselves are by no means direct evidence for it. Is there any
          similar
          > coinage in ANY Syrian city in the 70s BC ? Justinus (book 40) on
          the other
          > hand attests the peacefulness of Tigran's reign in Syria which,
          being a
          > summary, is compatible with a short-lived rebellion/war of
          liberation (circa
          > 71-70 BC) but not with the continuous conflict throughout the
          period of the
          > Armenian occupation which you seem to regard as an irrefutable fact.
          >
          > 2) you explain that you wish to back-date events securely dated to
          72/1 BC
          > to 83 BC because "if Cleopatra can be described as ruling in Syria
          > presumably Tigranes was not also ruling there."
          > This assumption is wrong.
          > Appian says that Tigran attacked the Seleukids when he was already
          King of
          > Kings because they refused to submit to him, defeated them, and
          left behind
          > his commander Magadates as satrap. Now at the time of the invasion
          of Syria
          > the Kings of Iberia, Albania, probably Kommagene, Atropatian Media,
          > Korduene, Adiabene/the Arbelitis, and several Arabic sheiks were
          all vassals
          > and subjects of Tigran, the King of Kings. How would the
          relationship
          > between those kings and their own national subjects be described
          other than
          > as a monarch "ruling" his subjects ? Yet that does not refute the
          notion
          > that they were simultaneously subjects of a higher king, namely
          Tigran.
          > Thus it is perfectly permissable (and in accord with all our
          evidence) to
          > assume that when invading in 83 BC Tigran sought (and received) not
          the
          > destruction of the Seleukids but their submission to him as
          overlord and
          > acknowledgement of themselves as his vassals.
          > Appian, Strabo and Justinus all comment on/summarise Tigran's
          conquest or
          > occupation of Syria in 83 BC. They say nothing about any effective
          Seleukid
          > resistance even then, let alone persisting FROM that date. Indeed
          Justinus
          > does not mention them at all in regard to Tigran and thus implies
          that they
          > had largely become irrelevant, while Appian baldly states that the
          Seleukid
          > king was unable to withstand the Armenian. The coinage also attests
          that
          > Tigran was able to expel the rising Nabataean power from Damascus,
          something
          > no recent "Seleukid brother" had been able to do.
          > Beyond that and despite the fact that he is summarising the history
          of the
          > late Seleukids, Appian (Syr.70) refuses to include the 14 years of
          Tigran's
          > reign in Syria in the total length of the old dynasty's rule
          there. This
          > strongly supports the notion that they surrendered their sovereign
          rights to
          > the Armenian - in return for a modest domain in Phoenicia/Canaan
          based on
          > several cities there, but above all in return for survival, a
          future and
          > thus a possible return to full power, as the only practicable means
          of
          > avoiding destruction in (or soon after) 83 BC. We also observe the
          speed
          > with which Kleopatra was sieged and captured after Tigran's return
          in force
          > in 72/1 BC. This further reinforces the notion that the dynasty
          would soon
          > have been taken and destroyed in 83 (or the next year) when Tigran
          > originally invaded in force unless they had accepted some type of
          agreement
          > of submission.
          > The expedition of Kleopatra's two sons to Rome (74-72 BC) seeking
          nothing
          > less than the transference of the Lagid diadem from the bastard
          Ptolemy
          > Auletes to themselves, also implies a loss of sovereign rights in
          Syria and
          > the Seleukis. In my view Kleopatra sought Egypt from the Romans
          (who had
          > the power to grant it) as the easier alternative to trying to throw
          off
          > Armenian overlordship in Syria-Phoenicia, and when that mission
          failed she
          > attempted rebellion in Phoenicia as a last desperate gamble.
          >
          > Overall I believe that your interpretation of the numismatic
          evidence
          > conforms with a "fixed idea" which is contradicted by the
          literature, and
          > that the coinage can be viewed in other ways which conform with the
          > literature. Tigran had no need for mints in every major Syrian city
          to
          > "prove" the extent of his power to either contemporaries or modern
          > historians. The production of his silver in the two greatest
          cities, Antioch
          > and Damascus, did that job nicely. Together they symbolise his
          control over
          > the capitals of the Makedonian and Arabic dynastic powers which were
          > contending in the region before his advent. Nor did he have to
          interfere
          > with the civic coinage of subject cities, so long as they
          acknowledged him
          > as their overlord. The output at Antioch, which issued its own
          civic coinage
          > side by side with his royal silver, underlines this.
          > A weak old dynasty chaffing at its subjection to vassal status
          might feel
          > the need to strike coinage in every city where its authority was
          allowed to
          > endure, but not so the King of Kings who was its overlord and had
          many other
          > conquest possessions besides Syria.
          > This reminds me of the realities of relative power, which can
          hardly be
          > stressed enough in the context of this discussion. There is
          considerable
          > evidence to show that Tigran was able to muster huge armies, and
          whatever we
          > may think of the accuracy of the various figures the fact remains
          that he
          > was strong enough to attack and defeat Parthian armies, and really
          embarass
          > them from time to time (Plutarch Lucullus 21.4, 36.6), and to
          rapidly
          > subject a sub-kingdom like Atropatian Media, formidable both for its
          > military strength and the difficulty of its terrain (cf.Strabo
          xi.13.2ff.).
          > The notion that the chronically weak late Seleukidai were capable of
          > resisting him for years on end strikes me as almost laughable, and
          in any
          > case is refuted by the testimony of the literary sources already
          mentioned.
          >
          > It seems to me that your comments in your final paragraph reverse
          the facts.
          > You say that I am assuming that Kleopatra's actions induced
          Tigran's return.
          > Not at all. Josephus' text implies that, as shown by the
          description of
          > Kleopatra's actions in a "gar" sentence, i.e. explaining what has
          been
          > described before.
          > First we are told that news reached Judaea that Tigran had invaded
          Syria
          > with an enormous army and was moving against Judaea.
          > This frightened the Jews and their Queen, who sent gifts and envoys
          to
          > Tigran while he was besieging Ptolemais. Then comes the "gar"
          sentence which
          > explains why he was sieging Ptolemais.
          > Tigran gave the Jews a promising reply, and it may well be that he
          had no
          > more intention of invading Judaea than he really had an army of
          300,000,
          > though it is hard to tell what was in his mind, or what his exact
          subsequent
          > movements were owing to Josephus' splicing of events of summer-
          autumn 71 and
          > spring 69 BC together as though they were contiguous.
          > What is certain is that Tigran was besieging Ptolemais in 71 BC
          because
          > (gar) Kleopatra induced the inhabitants to shut their gates against
          him.
          > Never mind the manuscript conflict in Josephus. I too have no
          expertise in
          > the relative value of these mss., although Ralph Marcus (who did)
          was
          > sufficiently unsure about the true reading to include two variants
          in his
          > (very modest) apparatus criticus (I believe that something has
          dropped out
          > of his text here and that he might have said something about the
          breaking of
          > the peace). In any case Marcus' translation that Kleopatra
          was "ruling over
          > Syria" is not a good one. The Greek text says she was ruling
          (?) "hoi" or
          > maybe "ta" (gen.pl.) in Syria, i.e. certain places or communities
          in Syria,
          > not Syria as a whole.
          >
          > Re Tigran's conquest of Damascus before sieging Ptolemais in 71 BC,
          I
          > know of no reference to Damascus in Josephus' passage, so maybe the
          two
          > events were not so contemporary as some have assumed.
          > I don't see any evidence in support of Bellinger's idea, except
          the "news"
          > which reached Judaea and frightened the country and its Queen.
          Perhaps this
          > news (including the size of the Armenian army) was slightly
          exaggerated, as
          > war news sometimes is. But anyhow it would be perfectly natural for
          the Jews
          > to fear a large Armenian army so close to their frontiers, and
          rumours might
          > abound concerning the ultimate ambitions of this King of Kings,
          well known
          > for his expansionism, having mobilised such a large force and
          introduced it
          > into their region.
          >
          > There are several other points I would like to address but have run
          out of
          > spare time for the moment.
          > I don't think that Strabo's comment (xvi.2.8) about Pompeius (circa
          64 BC)
          > shutting Tigran out from Seleukeia-in-Pieria and granting the place
          liberty
          > implies that this city was never subject to the Armenian. If
          anything the
          > opposite !
          > I cannot find my copy of Eutropius, but will certainly do so and
          get back to
          > you re his information about Seleukeia. From memory he is another
          source re
          > Tigran's successful campaigns against Parthia. And I will certainly
          pass on
          > the evidence (which is indirect) about Tigran's invasion of Upland
          Media in
          > about summer 72 BC.
          > Looking forward to your comments and criticisms.
          >
          > Mark K.P.
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "Oliver D. Hoover" <oliver.hoover@s...>
          > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 2:40 AM
          > Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
          >
          >
          > > Dear Mark,
          > >
          > > Sorry for the delay in my response.
          > >
          > > In your response you cited the following as explanatory factors
          for
          > > Tigranes' return in 72/1:
          > >
          > > >a) this was the act of "rebellion" (contra the agreements
          reached in 83
          > > > BC) which caused Tigran to return
          > > > b) since Kleopatra did not shut those gates herself but had to
          induce
          > the
          > > > locals to do so her power/influence was previously extremely
          restricted.
          > >
          > > With respect to a) what are the sources for an agreement between
          Cleopatra
          > > Selene and Tigranes in 83? I am not aware of them. Besides, I
          don't see
          > > how action taken by a legitimate ruler like Cleopatra (vis a vis
          both Rome
          > > and the cities that were under her authority) in the face of
          foreign
          > > occupation can constitute rebellion. Rebellion and/or "oppressive
          > > usurpation" both imply that Tigranes was the legitimate ruler in
          Syria,
          > > which most certainly was not the case. Although I see that the P
          > manuscript
          > > has Cleopatra breaking the peace, which might make more sense in
          72/1, I
          > > don't know what is so oppressive about the variant in V. My
          point about
          > > backdating Cleopatra's shutting of the gates to 83 hinges on the
          fact that
          > > if Cleopatra can be described as ruling in Syria presumably
          Tigranes was
          > not
          > > also ruling there. Thus 83 seems like a more appropriate date if
          the
          > > reading in P is not the best manuscript tradition. I confess
          that I have
          > > not read up on the comparative reliability of the various AJ
          manuscripts.
          > >
          > > With respect to b) I don't see why her inducement of the cities
          to close
          > > their gates necessarily indicates a more restricted authority for
          > Cleopatra
          > > than any of the other late Seleucid kings, who also depended to a
          large
          > > degree on the goodwill of the cities in order to maintain their
          power.
          > > Tigranes' authority in Syria may have been almost as ephemeral as
          that of
          > > the late Seleucids when we consider that Apamea, Seleucia-in-
          Pieria, and
          > > even Antioch (until 77/6 if not later), if not other cities,
          continued to
          > > produce civic coinage without any reference to the Armenian king.
          > > Eutropius 6.14 and Strabo 16.2.8 indicate that Seleucia
          maintained its
          > > freedom from Armenian domination and the coinages of Phoenicia
          provide no
          > > hint that Tigranes was even lurking in the area. Tigranes' royal
          mints in
          > > Syria were strictly limited to Antioch and Damascus (mints often
          held by
          > the
          > > late Seleucids) again suggesting that his control was not so much
          more
          > > secure than what had existed under his Seleucid predecessors.
          Thus, I
          > would
          > > argue that the conflict between Cleopatra and Tigranes was
          actually
          > nothing
          > > more than the tiresome continuation of the Seleucid civil war with
          > Tigranes
          > > taking on the traditional role of a Seleucid brother.
          > >
          > > I don't have access to your cuneiform evidence for Tigranes'
          Parthian
          > > activities and so I cannot comment on any insight into Tigranes'
          motives
          > for
          > > a return to Syria that it may provide. It seems to me that you
          are
          > assuming
          > > that the actions of Cleopatra provided the reason for Tigranes'
          return.
          > The
          > > evidence, however, makes Bellinger's view that Tigranes planned a
          general
          > > southern conquest seem more likely. If the real problem was
          Cleopatra and
          > a
          > > sudden revolt of the cities in her power, why does Tigranes first
          conquer
          > > Damascus, a Nabataean city unlikely to have recognized Cleopatra's
          > > authority, and why are the Hasmonaean Jews who also would have
          paid little
          > > attention to Cleopatra, afraid of him at the time of the Ake
          siege? As
          > > neither Damascus nor Jerusalem are likely to have participated in
          any
          > > Seleucid "revolt" Tigranes treatment of them makes more sense in
          the
          > context
          > > of general southern expansion rather than the quelling
          of "rebellion".
          > >
          > > Oliver D. Hoover
          > > Epimeletes
          > >
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: "Mark Passehl" <mpassehl@c...>
          > > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
          > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:19 PM
          > > Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
          > >
          > >
          > > > Dear Oliver
          > > >
          > > > I know of no evidence re the long-term resistance of any Syrian
          or
          > > Cananite
          > > > cities to Tigran's rule, so I assume that Kleopatra's long-term
          hold
          > over
          > > > Seleukeia (the impregnable fortress) and other coastal cities is
          > attested
          > > by
          > > > sequences of dated coinage (not available to me).
          > > > Certainly Tigran invaded in 83 BC (after being invited to do so
          circa 87
          > > > BC), conducted a campaign which gained control of most of the
          country,
          > > then
          > > > departed leaving Magadates as satrap of Syria-Kilikia and
          apparently
          > had
          > > no
          > > > reason to return until 72/71 BC. Since Kleopatra's inducement
          of certain
          > > > locals to shut their gates against Tigran is attested at the
          time of
          > that
          > > > king's return (in great strength) I have always supposed that
          > > > a) this was the act of "rebellion" (contra the agreements
          reached in
          > 83
          > > > BC) which caused Tigran to return
          > > > b) since Kleopatra did not shut those gates herself but had to
          induce
          > the
          > > > locals to do so her power/influence was previously extremely
          restricted.
          > > >
          > > > Still, there are certain problems with this passage of Josephus
          > (xiii.419-
          > > > 422) which induce me to treat it with some caution. It seems
          that
          > > > Ptolemias/Ake might have been taken before Lucullus invaded
          Armenia in
          > > > spring 69, and Mithradates Eupator certainly did not flee to
          the Iberoi
          > in
          > > > 71 BC but to Armenia itself. The compression of Lucullus'
          actions
          > (pursuit
          > > > of Mithradates, invasion of Armenia) also rather disguises that
          those
          > two
          > > > actions were separated by more than 18 months and indeed almost
          two
          > years.
          > > > Finally at the time of Tigran's return in 72/1, Kleopatra might
          have
          > been
          > > > "ruling some of those in Syria", but the mss. are not in uniform
          > agreement
          > > > over the verb "katñrchen", and include variants more in keeping
          with an
          > > > oppressive usurpation and distrubance of the peace.
          > > > Overall I don't understand your interpretation that the
          shutting of the
          > > > gates can be referred back to 83 BC.
          > > > Why do you think Tigran returned in force in 72/1 BC ?
          > > >
          > > > Mark K.P.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > > From: "Oliver D. Hoover" <oliver.hoover@s...>
          > > > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
          > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 11:17 PM
          > > > Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > > Mark,
          > > > >
          > > > > I don't quite understand your persistent reference to the
          actions
          > taken
          > > by
          > > > > Kleopatra Selene as a "revolt" that suddenly took place in
          72. There
          > is
          > > > no
          > > > > evidence for this characterization in the primary sources as
          far as I
          > > can
          > > > > see. Josephus 13.420 explicitly refers to Selene "ruling"
          (kathrxen)
          > in
          > > > > Syria at the time that "she caused the inhabitants to shut
          their gates
          > > > > against Tigranes," implying that the act of blocking access
          to some of
          > > the
          > > > > cities took place in 83. The resistance of Seleukeia-in-
          Pieria, which
          > > > lasted
          > > > > from 83 to 70, was no doubt one of the cities that Josephus
          had in
          > mind.
          > > > > Thus, the defence of Ake against Tigranes should be seen as
          part of
          > the
          > > > > larger picture of long-term Seleukid and civic resistance to
          Tigranes'
          > > > > initial invasion, rather than some isolated timed "revolt".
          > > > >
          > > > > Oliver D. Hoover
          > > > > Epimeletes
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > > > From: "Mark Passehl" <mpassehl@c...>
          > > > > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
          > > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 4:22 AM
          > > > > Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > > Ian
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Try Strabo xvi.2.3 on the eclipse of this Moon, which for
          > > > > > politico-geographic reasons must date to 69 BC or earlier,
          but
          > really
          > > > > should
          > > > > > be in that year owing to her imprisonment "for a time"
          (chronon
          > > tina).
          > > > > > The chronology of Lucullus' campaigns is well documented.
          He sent
          > off
          > > > his
          > > > > > brother-in-law Appius Claudius Pulcher to Tigran after
          reducing the
          > > > cities
          > > > > > and fortresses of Lesser Armenia in late summer 71 BC. Thus
          Appius
          > > > reached
          > > > > > Antioch some time that autumn, exactly when would depend
          upon how
          > far
          > > > and
          > > > > > for how long he was misguided through northern Armenia.
          > > > > > On the other hand, Tigran made war on the Parthian King
          (Artaban
          > > III/IV
          > > > =
          > > > > > Sellwood type 30) around about this time, and some cuneiform
          > evidence
          > > > > > indicates that his destructive invasion of Upland Media
          > > > (Isidoros/Photius)
          > > > > > probably took place in summer 72 BC.
          > > > > > Since the sons of the Moon seem to have returned from their
          Roman
          > > > embassy
          > > > > in
          > > > > > 72 BC with no good news (re stealing the Lagid diadem) it
          would be
          > > > likely
          > > > > > enough that Kleopatra was spurred by that disappointment to
          take
          > > > immediate
          > > > > > advantage of Tigran's absence in Parthia to begin
          her "rebellion" in
          > > > > summer
          > > > > > or autumn 72, apparently forcing the King (of Kings) to cut
          short
          > his
          > > > > > Parthian War and return to Syria, where he would have
          arrived in or
          > > > before
          > > > > > spring 71.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Mark K.P.
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > > > > From: "Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499@m...>
          > > > > > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
          > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:47 PM
          > > > > > Subject: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Hello folks.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > I wonder if anyone has a source for Tigranes'
          > > > > > > siege of Ptolemais in which Selene Cleopatra
          > > > > > > was captured (other than Josephus, AJ 13,16,4)
          > > > > > > and hopefully an exact year for the siege.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Plutarch gives Appius Clodius being sent by
          > > > > > > Lucullus in embassy to Tigranes, "who at that
          > > > > > > time was reducing some towns in Phoenicia",
          > > > > > > which I gather must have been a year or two
          > > > > > > before Lucullus's victory over Tigranes.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > This would seem to indicate perhaps 70 BCE,
          > > > > > > if Tigranes was forced north to deal with
          > > > > > > Lucullus in 69 BCE. Is this reasonable?
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Thanks,
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Ian
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Ian Hutchesson
          > > > > > > Rome.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > 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
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > > 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
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > 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
          > > > >
          > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > 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
          > > >
          > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > 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
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > >
          > >
          > >
        • egil4870
          My question here is: From what kind of position did Kleopatra Selene act when facing the Armenian invasion? Doesn t much of this conflict stem from the fact
          Message 4 of 11 , Apr 7, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            My question here is: From what kind of position did Kleopatra Selene
            act when facing the Armenian invasion? Doesn't much of this conflict
            stem from the fact that we do not know the earlier fate of the
            Cyzicenus branch of the family? Some sources state that Antiochus X
            died in 93 in a campaign against the Commagenes (in that case against
            Mithradates Callinicus, who had married a daughter of Antiochus VIII
            and thus was likely to side with his sons), whereas Appian mentions
            him being defeated by Tigranes in 83 B.C. Don't these two conflicting
            accounts describe totally different situations:

            a) If 93 B.C. is correct, then the Cyzicenian line must have been
            more or less excluded from power at the time of Tigran's invasion.
            Chris Bennett on his homepage mentions one coin found of Selene with
            child Antiochus (Asiaticus) and one with Seleucus Philometor, but
            IMHO it seems that the Cyzicenians, without a male protagonist, were
            reduced to ruling perhaps a few cities in 83. In this case, could not
            Selene even have partly welcomed the Armenian invasion, as an
            efficient (albeit highly dangerous) means of getting revenge on her
            archenemies, the Grypus branch?

            IIRC, there is little known of what the Grypus branch actually did
            during Tigran's invasion. The mother of Philip II Barypos (I once
            again rely on Bennett here) is not even known, and I have not read
            about any coins being issued by the Grypus family 83-69 B.C. Where
            was Philip II hiding - with the Nabateans (who might have been allies
            of his father, given that they defeated Antiochus XII)? And who
            supported his comeback in the 60's?

            Is there any reason to believe that the Cyzicenus branch was
            favourised (such as the favours were: a status as vassals) compared
            with the Grypus branch, who were completely wiped out by Tigranes?

            b) Whereas if Antiochus X was killed by Tigranes, the situation was
            wholly different. In this case the Cyzicenians might have held sway
            in larger portions of Syria by 83, perhaps even taking part in the
            calamities that recently had befallen Antiochus XII in Damascus and
            Philip I in Antiochia, and certainly would have opposed Tigranes with
            whatever powers they possessed, at least until Antiochus X was
            killed. After that Selene had no choice but accept whatever treaty
            was allowed to sign, but the relation between her and the King of
            kings must have been a lot worse than in scenario A.

            And as for the passage:

            >Appian says that Tigran attacked the Seleukids when he was already
            >King of Kings because they refused to submit to him, defeated them,
            >and left behind his commander Magadates as satrap.

            What does he mean with "the Seleukids" at that time? All of them?
            They were hardly known for unison actions...



            --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Passehl" <mpassehl@c...>
            wrote:
            > Dear Oliver
            >
            > I know nothing of Bellinger's work, nor indeed of any recent
            literature on
            > the late Seleukids. But I do know that it is very easy to absorb the
            > theories of outstanding modern scholars more fully than they
            sometimes
            > warrant, even to the extent of treating their ideas with the same
            respect as
            > the extant sources (sometimes more).
            >
            > There are two very important points in your note that need to be
            > highlighted;
            >
            > 1) you comment "I would argue that the conflict between Cleopatra
            and
            > Tigranes was nothing more than the tiresome continuation of the
            Seleucid
            > civil war with Tigranes taking on the traditional role of a Seleucid
            > brother."
            > I would stress that there is no evidence of any conflict between
            Tigran and
            > Kleopatra prior to 72/1 BC and the return of Tigran documented by
            Josephus.
            > The Seleukid coinage in certain Cananite cities may be taken to
            imply such a
            > conflict, but such a conclusion remains a leap of faith and the
            coins
            > themselves are by no means direct evidence for it. Is there any
            similar
            > coinage in ANY Syrian city in the 70s BC ? Justinus (book 40) on
            the other
            > hand attests the peacefulness of Tigran's reign in Syria which,
            being a
            > summary, is compatible with a short-lived rebellion/war of
            liberation (circa
            > 71-70 BC) but not with the continuous conflict throughout the
            period of the
            > Armenian occupation which you seem to regard as an irrefutable fact.
            >
            > 2) you explain that you wish to back-date events securely dated to
            72/1 BC
            > to 83 BC because "if Cleopatra can be described as ruling in Syria
            > presumably Tigranes was not also ruling there."
            > This assumption is wrong.
            > Appian says that Tigran attacked the Seleukids when he was already
            King of
            > Kings because they refused to submit to him, defeated them, and
            left behind
            > his commander Magadates as satrap. Now at the time of the invasion
            of Syria
            > the Kings of Iberia, Albania, probably Kommagene, Atropatian Media,
            > Korduene, Adiabene/the Arbelitis, and several Arabic sheiks were
            all vassals
            > and subjects of Tigran, the King of Kings. How would the
            relationship
            > between those kings and their own national subjects be described
            other than
            > as a monarch "ruling" his subjects ? Yet that does not refute the
            notion
            > that they were simultaneously subjects of a higher king, namely
            Tigran.
            > Thus it is perfectly permissable (and in accord with all our
            evidence) to
            > assume that when invading in 83 BC Tigran sought (and received) not
            the
            > destruction of the Seleukids but their submission to him as
            overlord and
            > acknowledgement of themselves as his vassals.
            > Appian, Strabo and Justinus all comment on/summarise Tigran's
            conquest or
            > occupation of Syria in 83 BC. They say nothing about any effective
            Seleukid
            > resistance even then, let alone persisting FROM that date. Indeed
            Justinus
            > does not mention them at all in regard to Tigran and thus implies
            that they
            > had largely become irrelevant, while Appian baldly states that the
            Seleukid
            > king was unable to withstand the Armenian. The coinage also attests
            that
            > Tigran was able to expel the rising Nabataean power from Damascus,
            something
            > no recent "Seleukid brother" had been able to do.
            > Beyond that and despite the fact that he is summarising the history
            of the
            > late Seleukids, Appian (Syr.70) refuses to include the 14 years of
            Tigran's
            > reign in Syria in the total length of the old dynasty's rule
            there. This
            > strongly supports the notion that they surrendered their sovereign
            rights to
            > the Armenian - in return for a modest domain in Phoenicia/Canaan
            based on
            > several cities there, but above all in return for survival, a
            future and
            > thus a possible return to full power, as the only practicable means
            of
            > avoiding destruction in (or soon after) 83 BC. We also observe the
            speed
            > with which Kleopatra was sieged and captured after Tigran's return
            in force
            > in 72/1 BC. This further reinforces the notion that the dynasty
            would soon
            > have been taken and destroyed in 83 (or the next year) when Tigran
            > originally invaded in force unless they had accepted some type of
            agreement
            > of submission.
            > The expedition of Kleopatra's two sons to Rome (74-72 BC) seeking
            nothing
            > less than the transference of the Lagid diadem from the bastard
            Ptolemy
            > Auletes to themselves, also implies a loss of sovereign rights in
            Syria and
            > the Seleukis. In my view Kleopatra sought Egypt from the Romans
            (who had
            > the power to grant it) as the easier alternative to trying to throw
            off
            > Armenian overlordship in Syria-Phoenicia, and when that mission
            failed she
            > attempted rebellion in Phoenicia as a last desperate gamble.
            >
            > Overall I believe that your interpretation of the numismatic
            evidence
            > conforms with a "fixed idea" which is contradicted by the
            literature, and
            > that the coinage can be viewed in other ways which conform with the
            > literature. Tigran had no need for mints in every major Syrian city
            to
            > "prove" the extent of his power to either contemporaries or modern
            > historians. The production of his silver in the two greatest
            cities, Antioch
            > and Damascus, did that job nicely. Together they symbolise his
            control over
            > the capitals of the Makedonian and Arabic dynastic powers which were
            > contending in the region before his advent. Nor did he have to
            interfere
            > with the civic coinage of subject cities, so long as they
            acknowledged him
            > as their overlord. The output at Antioch, which issued its own
            civic coinage
            > side by side with his royal silver, underlines this.
            > A weak old dynasty chaffing at its subjection to vassal status
            might feel
            > the need to strike coinage in every city where its authority was
            allowed to
            > endure, but not so the King of Kings who was its overlord and had
            many other
            > conquest possessions besides Syria.
            > This reminds me of the realities of relative power, which can
            hardly be
            > stressed enough in the context of this discussion. There is
            considerable
            > evidence to show that Tigran was able to muster huge armies, and
            whatever we
            > may think of the accuracy of the various figures the fact remains
            that he
            > was strong enough to attack and defeat Parthian armies, and really
            embarass
            > them from time to time (Plutarch Lucullus 21.4, 36.6), and to
            rapidly
            > subject a sub-kingdom like Atropatian Media, formidable both for its
            > military strength and the difficulty of its terrain (cf.Strabo
            xi.13.2ff.).
            > The notion that the chronically weak late Seleukidai were capable of
            > resisting him for years on end strikes me as almost laughable, and
            in any
            > case is refuted by the testimony of the literary sources already
            mentioned.
            >
            > It seems to me that your comments in your final paragraph reverse
            the facts.
            > You say that I am assuming that Kleopatra's actions induced
            Tigran's return.
            > Not at all. Josephus' text implies that, as shown by the
            description of
            > Kleopatra's actions in a "gar" sentence, i.e. explaining what has
            been
            > described before.
            > First we are told that news reached Judaea that Tigran had invaded
            Syria
            > with an enormous army and was moving against Judaea.
            > This frightened the Jews and their Queen, who sent gifts and envoys
            to
            > Tigran while he was besieging Ptolemais. Then comes the "gar"
            sentence which
            > explains why he was sieging Ptolemais.
            > Tigran gave the Jews a promising reply, and it may well be that he
            had no
            > more intention of invading Judaea than he really had an army of
            300,000,
            > though it is hard to tell what was in his mind, or what his exact
            subsequent
            > movements were owing to Josephus' splicing of events of summer-
            autumn 71 and
            > spring 69 BC together as though they were contiguous.
            > What is certain is that Tigran was besieging Ptolemais in 71 BC
            because
            > (gar) Kleopatra induced the inhabitants to shut their gates against
            him.
            > Never mind the manuscript conflict in Josephus. I too have no
            expertise in
            > the relative value of these mss., although Ralph Marcus (who did)
            was
            > sufficiently unsure about the true reading to include two variants
            in his
            > (very modest) apparatus criticus (I believe that something has
            dropped out
            > of his text here and that he might have said something about the
            breaking of
            > the peace). In any case Marcus' translation that Kleopatra
            was "ruling over
            > Syria" is not a good one. The Greek text says she was ruling
            (?) "hoi" or
            > maybe "ta" (gen.pl.) in Syria, i.e. certain places or communities
            in Syria,
            > not Syria as a whole.
            >
            > Re Tigran's conquest of Damascus before sieging Ptolemais in 71 BC,
            I
            > know of no reference to Damascus in Josephus' passage, so maybe the
            two
            > events were not so contemporary as some have assumed.
            > I don't see any evidence in support of Bellinger's idea, except
            the "news"
            > which reached Judaea and frightened the country and its Queen.
            Perhaps this
            > news (including the size of the Armenian army) was slightly
            exaggerated, as
            > war news sometimes is. But anyhow it would be perfectly natural for
            the Jews
            > to fear a large Armenian army so close to their frontiers, and
            rumours might
            > abound concerning the ultimate ambitions of this King of Kings,
            well known
            > for his expansionism, having mobilised such a large force and
            introduced it
            > into their region.
            >
            > There are several other points I would like to address but have run
            out of
            > spare time for the moment.
            > I don't think that Strabo's comment (xvi.2.8) about Pompeius (circa
            64 BC)
            > shutting Tigran out from Seleukeia-in-Pieria and granting the place
            liberty
            > implies that this city was never subject to the Armenian. If
            anything the
            > opposite !
            > I cannot find my copy of Eutropius, but will certainly do so and
            get back to
            > you re his information about Seleukeia. From memory he is another
            source re
            > Tigran's successful campaigns against Parthia. And I will certainly
            pass on
            > the evidence (which is indirect) about Tigran's invasion of Upland
            Media in
            > about summer 72 BC.
            > Looking forward to your comments and criticisms.
            >
            > Mark K.P.
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: "Oliver D. Hoover" <oliver.hoover@s...>
            > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
            > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 2:40 AM
            > Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
            >
            >
            > > Dear Mark,
            > >
            > > Sorry for the delay in my response.
            > >
            > > In your response you cited the following as explanatory factors
            for
            > > Tigranes' return in 72/1:
            > >
            > > >a) this was the act of "rebellion" (contra the agreements
            reached in 83
            > > > BC) which caused Tigran to return
            > > > b) since Kleopatra did not shut those gates herself but had to
            induce
            > the
            > > > locals to do so her power/influence was previously extremely
            restricted.
            > >
            > > With respect to a) what are the sources for an agreement between
            Cleopatra
            > > Selene and Tigranes in 83? I am not aware of them. Besides, I
            don't see
            > > how action taken by a legitimate ruler like Cleopatra (vis a vis
            both Rome
            > > and the cities that were under her authority) in the face of
            foreign
            > > occupation can constitute rebellion. Rebellion and/or "oppressive
            > > usurpation" both imply that Tigranes was the legitimate ruler in
            Syria,
            > > which most certainly was not the case. Although I see that the P
            > manuscript
            > > has Cleopatra breaking the peace, which might make more sense in
            72/1, I
            > > don't know what is so oppressive about the variant in V. My
            point about
            > > backdating Cleopatra's shutting of the gates to 83 hinges on the
            fact that
            > > if Cleopatra can be described as ruling in Syria presumably
            Tigranes was
            > not
            > > also ruling there. Thus 83 seems like a more appropriate date if
            the
            > > reading in P is not the best manuscript tradition. I confess
            that I have
            > > not read up on the comparative reliability of the various AJ
            manuscripts.
            > >
            > > With respect to b) I don't see why her inducement of the cities
            to close
            > > their gates necessarily indicates a more restricted authority for
            > Cleopatra
            > > than any of the other late Seleucid kings, who also depended to a
            large
            > > degree on the goodwill of the cities in order to maintain their
            power.
            > > Tigranes' authority in Syria may have been almost as ephemeral as
            that of
            > > the late Seleucids when we consider that Apamea, Seleucia-in-
            Pieria, and
            > > even Antioch (until 77/6 if not later), if not other cities,
            continued to
            > > produce civic coinage without any reference to the Armenian king.
            > > Eutropius 6.14 and Strabo 16.2.8 indicate that Seleucia
            maintained its
            > > freedom from Armenian domination and the coinages of Phoenicia
            provide no
            > > hint that Tigranes was even lurking in the area. Tigranes' royal
            mints in
            > > Syria were strictly limited to Antioch and Damascus (mints often
            held by
            > the
            > > late Seleucids) again suggesting that his control was not so much
            more
            > > secure than what had existed under his Seleucid predecessors.
            Thus, I
            > would
            > > argue that the conflict between Cleopatra and Tigranes was
            actually
            > nothing
            > > more than the tiresome continuation of the Seleucid civil war with
            > Tigranes
            > > taking on the traditional role of a Seleucid brother.
            > >
            > > I don't have access to your cuneiform evidence for Tigranes'
            Parthian
            > > activities and so I cannot comment on any insight into Tigranes'
            motives
            > for
            > > a return to Syria that it may provide. It seems to me that you
            are
            > assuming
            > > that the actions of Cleopatra provided the reason for Tigranes'
            return.
            > The
            > > evidence, however, makes Bellinger's view that Tigranes planned a
            general
            > > southern conquest seem more likely. If the real problem was
            Cleopatra and
            > a
            > > sudden revolt of the cities in her power, why does Tigranes first
            conquer
            > > Damascus, a Nabataean city unlikely to have recognized Cleopatra's
            > > authority, and why are the Hasmonaean Jews who also would have
            paid little
            > > attention to Cleopatra, afraid of him at the time of the Ake
            siege? As
            > > neither Damascus nor Jerusalem are likely to have participated in
            any
            > > Seleucid "revolt" Tigranes treatment of them makes more sense in
            the
            > context
            > > of general southern expansion rather than the quelling
            of "rebellion".
            > >
            > > Oliver D. Hoover
            > > Epimeletes
            > >
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: "Mark Passehl" <mpassehl@c...>
            > > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
            > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:19 PM
            > > Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
            > >
            > >
            > > > Dear Oliver
            > > >
            > > > I know of no evidence re the long-term resistance of any Syrian
            or
            > > Cananite
            > > > cities to Tigran's rule, so I assume that Kleopatra's long-term
            hold
            > over
            > > > Seleukeia (the impregnable fortress) and other coastal cities is
            > attested
            > > by
            > > > sequences of dated coinage (not available to me).
            > > > Certainly Tigran invaded in 83 BC (after being invited to do so
            circa 87
            > > > BC), conducted a campaign which gained control of most of the
            country,
            > > then
            > > > departed leaving Magadates as satrap of Syria-Kilikia and
            apparently
            > had
            > > no
            > > > reason to return until 72/71 BC. Since Kleopatra's inducement
            of certain
            > > > locals to shut their gates against Tigran is attested at the
            time of
            > that
            > > > king's return (in great strength) I have always supposed that
            > > > a) this was the act of "rebellion" (contra the agreements
            reached in
            > 83
            > > > BC) which caused Tigran to return
            > > > b) since Kleopatra did not shut those gates herself but had to
            induce
            > the
            > > > locals to do so her power/influence was previously extremely
            restricted.
            > > >
            > > > Still, there are certain problems with this passage of Josephus
            > (xiii.419-
            > > > 422) which induce me to treat it with some caution. It seems
            that
            > > > Ptolemias/Ake might have been taken before Lucullus invaded
            Armenia in
            > > > spring 69, and Mithradates Eupator certainly did not flee to
            the Iberoi
            > in
            > > > 71 BC but to Armenia itself. The compression of Lucullus'
            actions
            > (pursuit
            > > > of Mithradates, invasion of Armenia) also rather disguises that
            those
            > two
            > > > actions were separated by more than 18 months and indeed almost
            two
            > years.
            > > > Finally at the time of Tigran's return in 72/1, Kleopatra might
            have
            > been
            > > > "ruling some of those in Syria", but the mss. are not in uniform
            > agreement
            > > > over the verb "katñrchen", and include variants more in keeping
            with an
            > > > oppressive usurpation and distrubance of the peace.
            > > > Overall I don't understand your interpretation that the
            shutting of the
            > > > gates can be referred back to 83 BC.
            > > > Why do you think Tigran returned in force in 72/1 BC ?
            > > >
            > > > Mark K.P.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > > From: "Oliver D. Hoover" <oliver.hoover@s...>
            > > > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
            > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 11:17 PM
            > > > Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > > Mark,
            > > > >
            > > > > I don't quite understand your persistent reference to the
            actions
            > taken
            > > by
            > > > > Kleopatra Selene as a "revolt" that suddenly took place in
            72. There
            > is
            > > > no
            > > > > evidence for this characterization in the primary sources as
            far as I
            > > can
            > > > > see. Josephus 13.420 explicitly refers to Selene "ruling"
            (kathrxen)
            > in
            > > > > Syria at the time that "she caused the inhabitants to shut
            their gates
            > > > > against Tigranes," implying that the act of blocking access
            to some of
            > > the
            > > > > cities took place in 83. The resistance of Seleukeia-in-
            Pieria, which
            > > > lasted
            > > > > from 83 to 70, was no doubt one of the cities that Josephus
            had in
            > mind.
            > > > > Thus, the defence of Ake against Tigranes should be seen as
            part of
            > the
            > > > > larger picture of long-term Seleukid and civic resistance to
            Tigranes'
            > > > > initial invasion, rather than some isolated timed "revolt".
            > > > >
            > > > > Oliver D. Hoover
            > > > > Epimeletes
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > > > From: "Mark Passehl" <mpassehl@c...>
            > > > > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
            > > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 4:22 AM
            > > > > Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > > Ian
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Try Strabo xvi.2.3 on the eclipse of this Moon, which for
            > > > > > politico-geographic reasons must date to 69 BC or earlier,
            but
            > really
            > > > > should
            > > > > > be in that year owing to her imprisonment "for a time"
            (chronon
            > > tina).
            > > > > > The chronology of Lucullus' campaigns is well documented.
            He sent
            > off
            > > > his
            > > > > > brother-in-law Appius Claudius Pulcher to Tigran after
            reducing the
            > > > cities
            > > > > > and fortresses of Lesser Armenia in late summer 71 BC. Thus
            Appius
            > > > reached
            > > > > > Antioch some time that autumn, exactly when would depend
            upon how
            > far
            > > > and
            > > > > > for how long he was misguided through northern Armenia.
            > > > > > On the other hand, Tigran made war on the Parthian King
            (Artaban
            > > III/IV
            > > > =
            > > > > > Sellwood type 30) around about this time, and some cuneiform
            > evidence
            > > > > > indicates that his destructive invasion of Upland Media
            > > > (Isidoros/Photius)
            > > > > > probably took place in summer 72 BC.
            > > > > > Since the sons of the Moon seem to have returned from their
            Roman
            > > > embassy
            > > > > in
            > > > > > 72 BC with no good news (re stealing the Lagid diadem) it
            would be
            > > > likely
            > > > > > enough that Kleopatra was spurred by that disappointment to
            take
            > > > immediate
            > > > > > advantage of Tigran's absence in Parthia to begin
            her "rebellion" in
            > > > > summer
            > > > > > or autumn 72, apparently forcing the King (of Kings) to cut
            short
            > his
            > > > > > Parthian War and return to Syria, where he would have
            arrived in or
            > > > before
            > > > > > spring 71.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Mark K.P.
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > > > > From: "Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499@m...>
            > > > > > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
            > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:47 PM
            > > > > > Subject: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Hello folks.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > I wonder if anyone has a source for Tigranes'
            > > > > > > siege of Ptolemais in which Selene Cleopatra
            > > > > > > was captured (other than Josephus, AJ 13,16,4)
            > > > > > > and hopefully an exact year for the siege.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Plutarch gives Appius Clodius being sent by
            > > > > > > Lucullus in embassy to Tigranes, "who at that
            > > > > > > time was reducing some towns in Phoenicia",
            > > > > > > which I gather must have been a year or two
            > > > > > > before Lucullus's victory over Tigranes.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > This would seem to indicate perhaps 70 BCE,
            > > > > > > if Tigranes was forced north to deal with
            > > > > > > Lucullus in 69 BCE. Is this reasonable?
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Thanks,
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Ian
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Ian Hutchesson
            > > > > > > Rome.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > 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
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > > 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
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > 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
            > > > >
            > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > 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
            > > >
            > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > 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
            > >
            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >
            > >
            > >
          • Mark Passehl
            No, actually this dispute concerns the extent of Tigran s sovereignty and power in Syria and Phoenicia following his invasion in 83 BC. While the Seleukids
            Message 5 of 11 , Apr 8, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              No, actually this dispute concerns the extent of Tigran's sovereignty and
              power in Syria and Phoenicia following his invasion in 83 BC.
              While the Seleukids were not exactly cooperating in this period, that does
              not mean that they did not hold similar views in some respects - e.g. they
              viewed themselves as kings, and refused to recognise Tigran as their
              overlord.

              Selene probably did not face the Armenian invasion. Instead she seems to
              have been left, with her two sons, as the only survivors of the dynasty at
              liberty in the wake of Tigran's onslaught, apart from Philip II (the son of
              Philip I Philadelphos) who, as you say, might have taken refuge with the
              Arabs (or Parthians ??). She might have been forced to flee into Kilikia or
              even to Cyprus, and only returned to Syria in 72 BC, or she might have been
              permitted to retain a few cities in Canaan as sub-king (for her sons) to
              Tigran. That depends on the numismatic evidence, above all the coins struck
              in her name and those of her sons in the Canaanite cities, and how many of
              those are dated. I have not seen this evidence, but believe that A.Houghton
              has just published 2 volumes on all the Seleukid coinage.

              Appian says that Tigran drove Antiochos X Eusebes from his dominion (Syr.48,
              69),
              Plutarch (Lucullus 14.5) in part of a speech put into Lucullus' mouth (by
              Strabo or Sallust) in winter 72-71 BC to illustrate the magnitude of the
              power of this King of Kings, says that Tigran rules Syria and (Syria)
              Palaistina, slays the kings (plural) descended from Seleukos and drags away
              their daughters and wives into his own fastnesses.
              This passage may be a slight anticipation of events of 71/70 BC when Selene
              was dragged off into captivity and her son Seleukos VII might have been put
              to death (hence the present tense used by Plutarch ?), but it mainly refers
              back to 83 BC when Philip I Philadelphos and Antiochos X Eusebes seem to
              have been destroyed by Tigran (hence "basileis").

              As I understand the Seleukid genealogy Antiochos Grypos had five sons who
              became kings; Seleukos VI (assassinated 95 BC), Antiochos XI Philadelphos
              (killed 94/93), Demetrios III (taken into Parthian captivity 87 BC, and
              dying sometime before his host Mithradates III, who seems to have died in 77
              BC), Philip I Philadelphos, and Antiochos XII Dionysos (died 84 BC), though
              the latter (contra Josephus) may be a son of Seleukos VI.
              Appian's silence about Philip at the time of Tigran's invasion implies that
              Antiochos X Eusebes (son of Kyzikenos) was at that time the more important
              and powerful of a pretty impotent lot. But Plutarch's evidence indicates
              that both Antiochos X and Philip I defied Tigran and lost.

              The testimony of both Appian and Plutarch that Tigran held sway over all the
              Syrias as far as Egypt indicates that in 83 BC Jannes Alexander agreed to
              recognise Tigran as his overlord and thus avoided open conflict. Josephus'
              silence on the matter is no refutation of this possibility. Josephus'
              silences are legion, and sometimes as interesting as what he does say. Note
              his peculiar treatment of the Jewish civil war of circa 93-87 BC - a few
              brief and hideous glimpses beneath a generally comprehensive veil.

              Mark K.P.


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "egil4870" <jens.jakobsson.187@...>
              To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 2:21 AM
              Subject: [seleukids] Re: Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais


              My question here is: From what kind of position did Kleopatra Selene
              act when facing the Armenian invasion? Doesn't much of this conflict
              stem from the fact that we do not know the earlier fate of the
              Cyzicenus branch of the family? Some sources state that Antiochus X
              died in 93 in a campaign against the Commagenes (in that case against
              Mithradates Callinicus, who had married a daughter of Antiochus VIII
              and thus was likely to side with his sons), whereas Appian mentions
              him being defeated by Tigranes in 83 B.C. Don't these two conflicting
              accounts describe totally different situations:

              a) If 93 B.C. is correct, then the Cyzicenian line must have been
              more or less excluded from power at the time of Tigran's invasion.
              Chris Bennett on his homepage mentions one coin found of Selene with
              child Antiochus (Asiaticus) and one with Seleucus Philometor, but
              IMHO it seems that the Cyzicenians, without a male protagonist, were
              reduced to ruling perhaps a few cities in 83. In this case, could not
              Selene even have partly welcomed the Armenian invasion, as an
              efficient (albeit highly dangerous) means of getting revenge on her
              archenemies, the Grypus branch?

              IIRC, there is little known of what the Grypus branch actually did
              during Tigran's invasion. The mother of Philip II Barypos (I once
              again rely on Bennett here) is not even known, and I have not read
              about any coins being issued by the Grypus family 83-69 B.C. Where
              was Philip II hiding - with the Nabateans (who might have been allies
              of his father, given that they defeated Antiochus XII)? And who
              supported his comeback in the 60's?

              Is there any reason to believe that the Cyzicenus branch was
              favourised (such as the favours were: a status as vassals) compared
              with the Grypus branch, who were completely wiped out by Tigranes?

              b) Whereas if Antiochus X was killed by Tigranes, the situation was
              wholly different. In this case the Cyzicenians might have held sway
              in larger portions of Syria by 83, perhaps even taking part in the
              calamities that recently had befallen Antiochus XII in Damascus and
              Philip I in Antiochia, and certainly would have opposed Tigranes with
              whatever powers they possessed, at least until Antiochus X was
              killed. After that Selene had no choice but accept whatever treaty
              was allowed to sign, but the relation between her and the King of
              kings must have been a lot worse than in scenario A.

              And as for the passage:

              >Appian says that Tigran attacked the Seleukids when he was already
              >King of Kings because they refused to submit to him, defeated them,
              >and left behind his commander Magadates as satrap.

              What does he mean with "the Seleukids" at that time? All of them?
              They were hardly known for unison actions...



              --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Passehl" <mpassehl@c...>
              wrote:
              > Dear Oliver
              >
              > I know nothing of Bellinger's work, nor indeed of any recent
              literature on
              > the late Seleukids. But I do know that it is very easy to absorb the
              > theories of outstanding modern scholars more fully than they
              sometimes
              > warrant, even to the extent of treating their ideas with the same
              respect as
              > the extant sources (sometimes more).
              >
              > There are two very important points in your note that need to be
              > highlighted;
              >
              > 1) you comment "I would argue that the conflict between Cleopatra
              and
              > Tigranes was nothing more than the tiresome continuation of the
              Seleucid
              > civil war with Tigranes taking on the traditional role of a Seleucid
              > brother."
              > I would stress that there is no evidence of any conflict between
              Tigran and
              > Kleopatra prior to 72/1 BC and the return of Tigran documented by
              Josephus.
              > The Seleukid coinage in certain Cananite cities may be taken to
              imply such a
              > conflict, but such a conclusion remains a leap of faith and the
              coins
              > themselves are by no means direct evidence for it. Is there any
              similar
              > coinage in ANY Syrian city in the 70s BC ? Justinus (book 40) on
              the other
              > hand attests the peacefulness of Tigran's reign in Syria which,
              being a
              > summary, is compatible with a short-lived rebellion/war of
              liberation (circa
              > 71-70 BC) but not with the continuous conflict throughout the
              period of the
              > Armenian occupation which you seem to regard as an irrefutable fact.
              >
              > 2) you explain that you wish to back-date events securely dated to
              72/1 BC
              > to 83 BC because "if Cleopatra can be described as ruling in Syria
              > presumably Tigranes was not also ruling there."
              > This assumption is wrong.
              > Appian says that Tigran attacked the Seleukids when he was already
              King of
              > Kings because they refused to submit to him, defeated them, and
              left behind
              > his commander Magadates as satrap. Now at the time of the invasion
              of Syria
              > the Kings of Iberia, Albania, probably Kommagene, Atropatian Media,
              > Korduene, Adiabene/the Arbelitis, and several Arabic sheiks were
              all vassals
              > and subjects of Tigran, the King of Kings. How would the
              relationship
              > between those kings and their own national subjects be described
              other than
              > as a monarch "ruling" his subjects ? Yet that does not refute the
              notion
              > that they were simultaneously subjects of a higher king, namely
              Tigran.
              > Thus it is perfectly permissable (and in accord with all our
              evidence) to
              > assume that when invading in 83 BC Tigran sought (and received) not
              the
              > destruction of the Seleukids but their submission to him as
              overlord and
              > acknowledgement of themselves as his vassals.
              > Appian, Strabo and Justinus all comment on/summarise Tigran's
              conquest or
              > occupation of Syria in 83 BC. They say nothing about any effective
              Seleukid
              > resistance even then, let alone persisting FROM that date. Indeed
              Justinus
              > does not mention them at all in regard to Tigran and thus implies
              that they
              > had largely become irrelevant, while Appian baldly states that the
              Seleukid
              > king was unable to withstand the Armenian. The coinage also attests
              that
              > Tigran was able to expel the rising Nabataean power from Damascus,
              something
              > no recent "Seleukid brother" had been able to do.
              > Beyond that and despite the fact that he is summarising the history
              of the
              > late Seleukids, Appian (Syr.70) refuses to include the 14 years of
              Tigran's
              > reign in Syria in the total length of the old dynasty's rule
              there. This
              > strongly supports the notion that they surrendered their sovereign
              rights to
              > the Armenian - in return for a modest domain in Phoenicia/Canaan
              based on
              > several cities there, but above all in return for survival, a
              future and
              > thus a possible return to full power, as the only practicable means
              of
              > avoiding destruction in (or soon after) 83 BC. We also observe the
              speed
              > with which Kleopatra was sieged and captured after Tigran's return
              in force
              > in 72/1 BC. This further reinforces the notion that the dynasty
              would soon
              > have been taken and destroyed in 83 (or the next year) when Tigran
              > originally invaded in force unless they had accepted some type of
              agreement
              > of submission.
              > The expedition of Kleopatra's two sons to Rome (74-72 BC) seeking
              nothing
              > less than the transference of the Lagid diadem from the bastard
              Ptolemy
              > Auletes to themselves, also implies a loss of sovereign rights in
              Syria and
              > the Seleukis. In my view Kleopatra sought Egypt from the Romans
              (who had
              > the power to grant it) as the easier alternative to trying to throw
              off
              > Armenian overlordship in Syria-Phoenicia, and when that mission
              failed she
              > attempted rebellion in Phoenicia as a last desperate gamble.
              >
              > Overall I believe that your interpretation of the numismatic
              evidence
              > conforms with a "fixed idea" which is contradicted by the
              literature, and
              > that the coinage can be viewed in other ways which conform with the
              > literature. Tigran had no need for mints in every major Syrian city
              to
              > "prove" the extent of his power to either contemporaries or modern
              > historians. The production of his silver in the two greatest
              cities, Antioch
              > and Damascus, did that job nicely. Together they symbolise his
              control over
              > the capitals of the Makedonian and Arabic dynastic powers which were
              > contending in the region before his advent. Nor did he have to
              interfere
              > with the civic coinage of subject cities, so long as they
              acknowledged him
              > as their overlord. The output at Antioch, which issued its own
              civic coinage
              > side by side with his royal silver, underlines this.
              > A weak old dynasty chaffing at its subjection to vassal status
              might feel
              > the need to strike coinage in every city where its authority was
              allowed to
              > endure, but not so the King of Kings who was its overlord and had
              many other
              > conquest possessions besides Syria.
              > This reminds me of the realities of relative power, which can
              hardly be
              > stressed enough in the context of this discussion. There is
              considerable
              > evidence to show that Tigran was able to muster huge armies, and
              whatever we
              > may think of the accuracy of the various figures the fact remains
              that he
              > was strong enough to attack and defeat Parthian armies, and really
              embarass
              > them from time to time (Plutarch Lucullus 21.4, 36.6), and to
              rapidly
              > subject a sub-kingdom like Atropatian Media, formidable both for its
              > military strength and the difficulty of its terrain (cf.Strabo
              xi.13.2ff.).
              > The notion that the chronically weak late Seleukidai were capable of
              > resisting him for years on end strikes me as almost laughable, and
              in any
              > case is refuted by the testimony of the literary sources already
              mentioned.
              >
              > It seems to me that your comments in your final paragraph reverse
              the facts.
              > You say that I am assuming that Kleopatra's actions induced
              Tigran's return.
              > Not at all. Josephus' text implies that, as shown by the
              description of
              > Kleopatra's actions in a "gar" sentence, i.e. explaining what has
              been
              > described before.
              > First we are told that news reached Judaea that Tigran had invaded
              Syria
              > with an enormous army and was moving against Judaea.
              > This frightened the Jews and their Queen, who sent gifts and envoys
              to
              > Tigran while he was besieging Ptolemais. Then comes the "gar"
              sentence which
              > explains why he was sieging Ptolemais.
              > Tigran gave the Jews a promising reply, and it may well be that he
              had no
              > more intention of invading Judaea than he really had an army of
              300,000,
              > though it is hard to tell what was in his mind, or what his exact
              subsequent
              > movements were owing to Josephus' splicing of events of summer-
              autumn 71 and
              > spring 69 BC together as though they were contiguous.
              > What is certain is that Tigran was besieging Ptolemais in 71 BC
              because
              > (gar) Kleopatra induced the inhabitants to shut their gates against
              him.
              > Never mind the manuscript conflict in Josephus. I too have no
              expertise in
              > the relative value of these mss., although Ralph Marcus (who did)
              was
              > sufficiently unsure about the true reading to include two variants
              in his
              > (very modest) apparatus criticus (I believe that something has
              dropped out
              > of his text here and that he might have said something about the
              breaking of
              > the peace). In any case Marcus' translation that Kleopatra
              was "ruling over
              > Syria" is not a good one. The Greek text says she was ruling
              (?) "hoi" or
              > maybe "ta" (gen.pl.) in Syria, i.e. certain places or communities
              in Syria,
              > not Syria as a whole.
              >
              > Re Tigran's conquest of Damascus before sieging Ptolemais in 71 BC,
              I
              > know of no reference to Damascus in Josephus' passage, so maybe the
              two
              > events were not so contemporary as some have assumed.
              > I don't see any evidence in support of Bellinger's idea, except
              the "news"
              > which reached Judaea and frightened the country and its Queen.
              Perhaps this
              > news (including the size of the Armenian army) was slightly
              exaggerated, as
              > war news sometimes is. But anyhow it would be perfectly natural for
              the Jews
              > to fear a large Armenian army so close to their frontiers, and
              rumours might
              > abound concerning the ultimate ambitions of this King of Kings,
              well known
              > for his expansionism, having mobilised such a large force and
              introduced it
              > into their region.
              >
              > There are several other points I would like to address but have run
              out of
              > spare time for the moment.
              > I don't think that Strabo's comment (xvi.2.8) about Pompeius (circa
              64 BC)
              > shutting Tigran out from Seleukeia-in-Pieria and granting the place
              liberty
              > implies that this city was never subject to the Armenian. If
              anything the
              > opposite !
              > I cannot find my copy of Eutropius, but will certainly do so and
              get back to
              > you re his information about Seleukeia. From memory he is another
              source re
              > Tigran's successful campaigns against Parthia. And I will certainly
              pass on
              > the evidence (which is indirect) about Tigran's invasion of Upland
              Media in
              > about summer 72 BC.
              > Looking forward to your comments and criticisms.
              >
              > Mark K.P.
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "Oliver D. Hoover" <oliver.hoover@s...>
              > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 2:40 AM
              > Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
              >
              >
              > > Dear Mark,
              > >
              > > Sorry for the delay in my response.
              > >
              > > In your response you cited the following as explanatory factors
              for
              > > Tigranes' return in 72/1:
              > >
              > > >a) this was the act of "rebellion" (contra the agreements
              reached in 83
              > > > BC) which caused Tigran to return
              > > > b) since Kleopatra did not shut those gates herself but had to
              induce
              > the
              > > > locals to do so her power/influence was previously extremely
              restricted.
              > >
              > > With respect to a) what are the sources for an agreement between
              Cleopatra
              > > Selene and Tigranes in 83? I am not aware of them. Besides, I
              don't see
              > > how action taken by a legitimate ruler like Cleopatra (vis a vis
              both Rome
              > > and the cities that were under her authority) in the face of
              foreign
              > > occupation can constitute rebellion. Rebellion and/or "oppressive
              > > usurpation" both imply that Tigranes was the legitimate ruler in
              Syria,
              > > which most certainly was not the case. Although I see that the P
              > manuscript
              > > has Cleopatra breaking the peace, which might make more sense in
              72/1, I
              > > don't know what is so oppressive about the variant in V. My
              point about
              > > backdating Cleopatra's shutting of the gates to 83 hinges on the
              fact that
              > > if Cleopatra can be described as ruling in Syria presumably
              Tigranes was
              > not
              > > also ruling there. Thus 83 seems like a more appropriate date if
              the
              > > reading in P is not the best manuscript tradition. I confess
              that I have
              > > not read up on the comparative reliability of the various AJ
              manuscripts.
              > >
              > > With respect to b) I don't see why her inducement of the cities
              to close
              > > their gates necessarily indicates a more restricted authority for
              > Cleopatra
              > > than any of the other late Seleucid kings, who also depended to a
              large
              > > degree on the goodwill of the cities in order to maintain their
              power.
              > > Tigranes' authority in Syria may have been almost as ephemeral as
              that of
              > > the late Seleucids when we consider that Apamea, Seleucia-in-
              Pieria, and
              > > even Antioch (until 77/6 if not later), if not other cities,
              continued to
              > > produce civic coinage without any reference to the Armenian king.
              > > Eutropius 6.14 and Strabo 16.2.8 indicate that Seleucia
              maintained its
              > > freedom from Armenian domination and the coinages of Phoenicia
              provide no
              > > hint that Tigranes was even lurking in the area. Tigranes' royal
              mints in
              > > Syria were strictly limited to Antioch and Damascus (mints often
              held by
              > the
              > > late Seleucids) again suggesting that his control was not so much
              more
              > > secure than what had existed under his Seleucid predecessors.
              Thus, I
              > would
              > > argue that the conflict between Cleopatra and Tigranes was
              actually
              > nothing
              > > more than the tiresome continuation of the Seleucid civil war with
              > Tigranes
              > > taking on the traditional role of a Seleucid brother.
              > >
              > > I don't have access to your cuneiform evidence for Tigranes'
              Parthian
              > > activities and so I cannot comment on any insight into Tigranes'
              motives
              > for
              > > a return to Syria that it may provide. It seems to me that you
              are
              > assuming
              > > that the actions of Cleopatra provided the reason for Tigranes'
              return.
              > The
              > > evidence, however, makes Bellinger's view that Tigranes planned a
              general
              > > southern conquest seem more likely. If the real problem was
              Cleopatra and
              > a
              > > sudden revolt of the cities in her power, why does Tigranes first
              conquer
              > > Damascus, a Nabataean city unlikely to have recognized Cleopatra's
              > > authority, and why are the Hasmonaean Jews who also would have
              paid little
              > > attention to Cleopatra, afraid of him at the time of the Ake
              siege? As
              > > neither Damascus nor Jerusalem are likely to have participated in
              any
              > > Seleucid "revolt" Tigranes treatment of them makes more sense in
              the
              > context
              > > of general southern expansion rather than the quelling
              of "rebellion".
              > >
              > > Oliver D. Hoover
              > > Epimeletes
              > >
              > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > From: "Mark Passehl" <mpassehl@c...>
              > > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
              > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:19 PM
              > > Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
              > >
              > >
              > > > Dear Oliver
              > > >
              > > > I know of no evidence re the long-term resistance of any Syrian
              or
              > > Cananite
              > > > cities to Tigran's rule, so I assume that Kleopatra's long-term
              hold
              > over
              > > > Seleukeia (the impregnable fortress) and other coastal cities is
              > attested
              > > by
              > > > sequences of dated coinage (not available to me).
              > > > Certainly Tigran invaded in 83 BC (after being invited to do so
              circa 87
              > > > BC), conducted a campaign which gained control of most of the
              country,
              > > then
              > > > departed leaving Magadates as satrap of Syria-Kilikia and
              apparently
              > had
              > > no
              > > > reason to return until 72/71 BC. Since Kleopatra's inducement
              of certain
              > > > locals to shut their gates against Tigran is attested at the
              time of
              > that
              > > > king's return (in great strength) I have always supposed that
              > > > a) this was the act of "rebellion" (contra the agreements
              reached in
              > 83
              > > > BC) which caused Tigran to return
              > > > b) since Kleopatra did not shut those gates herself but had to
              induce
              > the
              > > > locals to do so her power/influence was previously extremely
              restricted.
              > > >
              > > > Still, there are certain problems with this passage of Josephus
              > (xiii.419-
              > > > 422) which induce me to treat it with some caution. It seems
              that
              > > > Ptolemias/Ake might have been taken before Lucullus invaded
              Armenia in
              > > > spring 69, and Mithradates Eupator certainly did not flee to
              the Iberoi
              > in
              > > > 71 BC but to Armenia itself. The compression of Lucullus'
              actions
              > (pursuit
              > > > of Mithradates, invasion of Armenia) also rather disguises that
              those
              > two
              > > > actions were separated by more than 18 months and indeed almost
              two
              > years.
              > > > Finally at the time of Tigran's return in 72/1, Kleopatra might
              have
              > been
              > > > "ruling some of those in Syria", but the mss. are not in uniform
              > agreement
              > > > over the verb "katñrchen", and include variants more in keeping
              with an
              > > > oppressive usurpation and distrubance of the peace.
              > > > Overall I don't understand your interpretation that the
              shutting of the
              > > > gates can be referred back to 83 BC.
              > > > Why do you think Tigran returned in force in 72/1 BC ?
              > > >
              > > > Mark K.P.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > > From: "Oliver D. Hoover" <oliver.hoover@s...>
              > > > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
              > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 11:17 PM
              > > > Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > > Mark,
              > > > >
              > > > > I don't quite understand your persistent reference to the
              actions
              > taken
              > > by
              > > > > Kleopatra Selene as a "revolt" that suddenly took place in
              72. There
              > is
              > > > no
              > > > > evidence for this characterization in the primary sources as
              far as I
              > > can
              > > > > see. Josephus 13.420 explicitly refers to Selene "ruling"
              (kathrxen)
              > in
              > > > > Syria at the time that "she caused the inhabitants to shut
              their gates
              > > > > against Tigranes," implying that the act of blocking access
              to some of
              > > the
              > > > > cities took place in 83. The resistance of Seleukeia-in-
              Pieria, which
              > > > lasted
              > > > > from 83 to 70, was no doubt one of the cities that Josephus
              had in
              > mind.
              > > > > Thus, the defence of Ake against Tigranes should be seen as
              part of
              > the
              > > > > larger picture of long-term Seleukid and civic resistance to
              Tigranes'
              > > > > initial invasion, rather than some isolated timed "revolt".
              > > > >
              > > > > Oliver D. Hoover
              > > > > Epimeletes
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > > > From: "Mark Passehl" <mpassehl@c...>
              > > > > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
              > > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 4:22 AM
              > > > > Subject: Re: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > > Ian
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Try Strabo xvi.2.3 on the eclipse of this Moon, which for
              > > > > > politico-geographic reasons must date to 69 BC or earlier,
              but
              > really
              > > > > should
              > > > > > be in that year owing to her imprisonment "for a time"
              (chronon
              > > tina).
              > > > > > The chronology of Lucullus' campaigns is well documented.
              He sent
              > off
              > > > his
              > > > > > brother-in-law Appius Claudius Pulcher to Tigran after
              reducing the
              > > > cities
              > > > > > and fortresses of Lesser Armenia in late summer 71 BC. Thus
              Appius
              > > > reached
              > > > > > Antioch some time that autumn, exactly when would depend
              upon how
              > far
              > > > and
              > > > > > for how long he was misguided through northern Armenia.
              > > > > > On the other hand, Tigran made war on the Parthian King
              (Artaban
              > > III/IV
              > > > =
              > > > > > Sellwood type 30) around about this time, and some cuneiform
              > evidence
              > > > > > indicates that his destructive invasion of Upland Media
              > > > (Isidoros/Photius)
              > > > > > probably took place in summer 72 BC.
              > > > > > Since the sons of the Moon seem to have returned from their
              Roman
              > > > embassy
              > > > > in
              > > > > > 72 BC with no good news (re stealing the Lagid diadem) it
              would be
              > > > likely
              > > > > > enough that Kleopatra was spurred by that disappointment to
              take
              > > > immediate
              > > > > > advantage of Tigran's absence in Parthia to begin
              her "rebellion" in
              > > > > summer
              > > > > > or autumn 72, apparently forcing the King (of Kings) to cut
              short
              > his
              > > > > > Parthian War and return to Syria, where he would have
              arrived in or
              > > > before
              > > > > > spring 71.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Mark K.P.
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > > > > From: "Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499@m...>
              > > > > > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
              > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:47 PM
              > > > > > Subject: [seleukids] Tigranes' siege of Ptolemais
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Hello folks.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > I wonder if anyone has a source for Tigranes'
              > > > > > > siege of Ptolemais in which Selene Cleopatra
              > > > > > > was captured (other than Josephus, AJ 13,16,4)
              > > > > > > and hopefully an exact year for the siege.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Plutarch gives Appius Clodius being sent by
              > > > > > > Lucullus in embassy to Tigranes, "who at that
              > > > > > > time was reducing some towns in Phoenicia",
              > > > > > > which I gather must have been a year or two
              > > > > > > before Lucullus's victory over Tigranes.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > This would seem to indicate perhaps 70 BCE,
              > > > > > > if Tigranes was forced north to deal with
              > > > > > > Lucullus in 69 BCE. Is this reasonable?
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Thanks,
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Ian
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Ian Hutchesson
              > > > > > > Rome.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > 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
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > > 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
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > 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
              > > > >
              > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > 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
              > > >
              > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > 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
              > >
              > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > >
              > >
              > >



              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

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • egil4870
              Thanks for much useful information! Mark Passehl wrote: Appian s silence about Philip at the time of Tigran s invasion implies that ... important ... As a
              Message 6 of 11 , Apr 8, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks for much useful information!

                Mark Passehl wrote:
                Appian's silence about Philip at the time of Tigran's invasion
                implies that
                > Antiochos X Eusebes (son of Kyzikenos) was at that time the more
                important
                > and powerful of a pretty impotent lot.

                As a matter of fact, what is most unclear to me is the reign of
                Antiochus X, basically because I have not read anything about his
                doings between his defence of Antiochia against Antiochus XI/Philip I
                in the 90's and the invasion of Tigranes. In the 80's the Grypus
                children seemed to have taken over completely - of whatever there was
                left to take over. Philip I was master of Antiochia (and thus
                the "official" king), whereas the notorious positions of the "Egypt-
                supported pretenders" were in fact his younger brothers: Demetrius
                III and later Antiochus XII, who both held Damascus.

                IMHO, there simply seems to be no space for Antiochus X in this
                tangle: Demetrius' position was strong enought for him to launch a
                campaign against the Hasmoneans before turning against his brother
                Philip. Even given the frequent back-stabbing between Seleucid
                brothers, a vigourous Antiochus X should have been a more obvious
                target for Demetrius, if only for the fact that any existing
                hinterland territory held by him or his family would have been
                situated between the realms of the two brothers.

                Neither do I know of any conflict between Eusebes and Antiochus XII,
                who took Damascus (from Philip?) with help from Ptolemy IX, brother
                of Kleopatra Selene. As Damascus was taken by the Nabateans in 84 and
                Antiochus XII killed, and an insurrection ended Philip's reign in
                Antiochia (Josephus), there might have been a brief period before the
                invasion when Antiochus X or his family regained some status because
                of the weakness of the Grypus branch, but by what means?

                And there are also sources hinting that Antiochus X died earlier:
                Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 13.13.4, writes that Antiochus X
                was killed fighting Parthians while Philip I and Demetrius III still
                ruled in Syria. I have also read that the fought against the
                Commagenes, but the Commagene dynasty was of Parthian origin, and
                also linked to the Grypus branch by marriage.

                Does anybody have a clearer picture? This relates somewhat to
                conflict between Selene and Tigranes by discussing what position she
                was in before the invasion, but I changed the subject line anyway.

                Thanks!

                --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Passehl" <mpassehl@c...>
                wrote:
                > No, actually this dispute concerns the extent of Tigran's
                sovereignty and
                > power in Syria and Phoenicia following his invasion in 83 BC.
                > While the Seleukids were not exactly cooperating in this period,
                that does
                > not mean that they did not hold similar views in some respects -
                e.g. they
                > viewed themselves as kings, and refused to recognise Tigran as their
                > overlord.
                >
                > Selene probably did not face the Armenian invasion. Instead she
                seems to
                > have been left, with her two sons, as the only survivors of the
                dynasty at
                > liberty in the wake of Tigran's onslaught, apart from Philip II
                (the son of
                > Philip I Philadelphos) who, as you say, might have taken refuge
                with the
                > Arabs (or Parthians ??). She might have been forced to flee into
                Kilikia or
                > even to Cyprus, and only returned to Syria in 72 BC, or she might
                have been
                > permitted to retain a few cities in Canaan as sub-king (for her
                sons) to
                > Tigran. That depends on the numismatic evidence, above all the
                coins struck
                > in her name and those of her sons in the Canaanite cities, and how
                many of
                > those are dated. I have not seen this evidence, but believe that
                A.Houghton
                > has just published 2 volumes on all the Seleukid coinage.
                >
                > Appian says that Tigran drove Antiochos X Eusebes from his dominion
                (Syr.48,
                > 69),
                > Plutarch (Lucullus 14.5) in part of a speech put into Lucullus'
                mouth (by
                > Strabo or Sallust) in winter 72-71 BC to illustrate the magnitude
                of the
                > power of this King of Kings, says that Tigran rules Syria and
                (Syria)
                > Palaistina, slays the kings (plural) descended from Seleukos and
                drags away
                > their daughters and wives into his own fastnesses.
                > This passage may be a slight anticipation of events of 71/70 BC
                when Selene
                > was dragged off into captivity and her son Seleukos VII might have
                been put
                > to death (hence the present tense used by Plutarch ?), but it
                mainly refers
                > back to 83 BC when Philip I Philadelphos and Antiochos X Eusebes
                seem to
                > have been destroyed by Tigran (hence "basileis").
                >
                > As I understand the Seleukid genealogy Antiochos Grypos had five
                sons who
                > became kings; Seleukos VI (assassinated 95 BC), Antiochos XI
                Philadelphos
                > (killed 94/93), Demetrios III (taken into Parthian captivity 87 BC,
                and
                > dying sometime before his host Mithradates III, who seems to have
                died in 77
                > BC), Philip I Philadelphos, and Antiochos XII Dionysos (died 84
                BC), though
                > the latter (contra Josephus) may be a son of Seleukos VI.
                > Appian's silence about Philip at the time of Tigran's invasion
                implies that
                > Antiochos X Eusebes (son of Kyzikenos) was at that time the more
                important
                > and powerful of a pretty impotent lot. But Plutarch's evidence
                indicates
                > that both Antiochos X and Philip I defied Tigran and lost.
                >
                > The testimony of both Appian and Plutarch that Tigran held sway
                over all the
                > Syrias as far as Egypt indicates that in 83 BC Jannes Alexander
                agreed to
                > recognise Tigran as his overlord and thus avoided open conflict.
                Josephus'
                > silence on the matter is no refutation of this possibility.
                Josephus'
                > silences are legion, and sometimes as interesting as what he does
                say. Note
                > his peculiar treatment of the Jewish civil war of circa 93-87 BC -
                a few
                > brief and hideous glimpses beneath a generally comprehensive veil.
                >
                > Mark K.P.
                >
              • Oliver D. Hoover
                The reign of Antiochus X at Antioch can be partially reconstructed from the evidence of the coinage. He appears to have had two periods of reign in Antioch,
                Message 7 of 11 , Apr 8, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  The reign of Antiochus X at Antioch can be partially reconstructed from the
                  evidence of the coinage. He appears to have had two periods of reign in
                  Antioch, from 94-early 93 and late 93-92, separated by a brief interlude by
                  Antiochus XI and Philip I. It is likely that Antiochus X maintained some
                  modicum of authority elsewhere in (northern?) Syria after his final eviction
                  from Antioch, since he is said to have died in a Parthian war while allied
                  with a certain Laodice, thought by some to have been the ruler of Samosata.
                  Bellinger is probably right to interpret the various accounts of his flight
                  to the Parthian court and his removal by Tigranes II as confusion with
                  events in the life of his son Antiochus XII.

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