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

Some genealogical questions

Expand Messages
  • Renzo Lucherini
    Dear epimeletes Your site is very interesting, even if I would have preferred a more positive vision of the poor Seleucus II. I would also like that you
    Message 1 of 15 , Nov 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear epimeletes

      Your site is very interesting, even if I would have preferred a more
      positive vision of the poor Seleucus II. I would also like that you
      completed your short but interesting biographies of the Seleucid
      kings.
      In connection with, will you please explain two questions to me?

      1) You write that Antiochus I had two daughters: Apama and Laodice.
      It seems to me that the name of the latter is Stratonice. Eusebius,
      derived from Porphyrius, quotes: " Antiochus begot by Stratonice
      Demetrius' daughter some children: a son, Antiochus and two
      daughters, Stratonice and Apama.". As you rightly pointed there was
      another son, the elder, Seleucus that rebelled and was probably
      executed. Then you write about other two children: Laodice and
      Alexander. What is the primary source on which you found your
      statement? Polyaenus calls Laodice, wife of Antiochus II "omopatria
      adelpha", but no ancient author points this kinship

      2) The family of Achaios ( the well-known usurper).
      Laodice (II) wife of Antiochus II was (according to Eusebius )
      daughter of a certain Achaios. As for the wife of Seleucus II
      Polybius in IV. 51 writes:" Andromachos was father of Achaios, and
      brother of Laodice (III), wife of Seleucus" and in VIII. 22 "
      Achaios was Andromachos' son, brother of Laodice (III), wife of
      Seleucus".
      Another member of this family was Alexander on which Porphyrius 8:
      Antiochus Hierax was supported by "Alexander that ruled the town of
      Sardes and was brother of his mother, Laodice".
      Some scholars (W.W. Tarn, P. Green for instance) maintain that this
      family was a branch of the Seleucids and think that Achaios I was a
      son of Seleucus I In fact in Areia the town of Achaia was founded
      by one Achaios ( Strabo XI.10.1) that may have been a Seleucid
      prince.
      I would appreciate if you or some members of the list could help me
      in clarifying my doubts.
      Thanks you in advance

      Best regards

      Renzo Lucherini
      Livorno Italy
      rluckyr@...
    • Mark Passehl
      Dear Renzo It seems more likely that the Andromachid family were not Seleukids (that is, in direct line from Seleukos I), but that the father or mother of
      Message 2 of 15 , Nov 7, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Renzo

        It seems more likely that the "Andromachid" family were not Seleukids (that is, in direct line from Seleukos I), but that the father or mother of Achaios the Elder was brother/sister of Seleukos Nikator (i.e. they were "Antiochids", or a tochterstem of Seleukos' father Antiochos; with a significant role under their Seleukid cousins rather like the great Conde family under the Bourbon branch of the Capetian Kings in France).
        Certainly the naming/renaming of Achaia (Strabo xi.10.1: by Achaios himself) or Achais (Pliny NH vi.48: by Antiochos Soter) in Areia after Achaios the elder was a great honour which requires that he was a very important relative.

        The parentage of Antiochos Theos' queen Laodike is variously reported, and the contradictions seem to directly concern the degree of her relationship to the Andromachids.
        As you note, Eusebius (Armenian Chronicle ap. Jacoby FGrH 260 [appendix] F32) says she was daughter of Achaios the elder and sister of Alexandros the governor of Sardeis,
        but Polyainos (who often used excellent contemporary sources) says that she was her husband's half sister by the same father (iv.7, viii.50), i.e. daughter of Antiochos Soter and his (unknown) first wife.

        Now this constitutes a direct contradiction, and there are good arguments for and against both traditions, e.g.
        1) brother-sister matches were rare among the Seleukids, though they did occur (e.g. Antiochos and Laodike in 194 BC). That being the case, who did the authors followed by Polyainos expect to fool by inventing such an unusual relationship between Antiochos Theos and his first queen if she were really daughter of Achaios ?
        Therefore it cannot be an invention and is either correct or an honest mistake without (historically) sinister implications (there were so many princesses called Laodike, and at least in the case of Antiochos Megas' principal wife, a Laodike from the royal house of Pontik Kappadokia and his first cousin, the Seleukid Queen was sometimes called sister of the king in official documents).

        2) Eusebius' version impels belief owing to its level of detail; in particular his knowledge of the birth-names of some of the kings before they assumed the diadem and changed their names, and the involvement of Antigonos'/Antiochos Hierax's uncle Alexander of Sardeis in his war with Kallinikos.
        It is possible, however, that Eusebius (or his sources) misunderstood the precise relationship between Hierax and Alexander, and the one notable lacuna in Eusebius' genealogical record of the early Seleukidai is precisely in the matter of the first marriage of Antiochos Soter and its progeny (especially prince Seleukos the rebel), which he omits altogether and gives only the second marriage with Stratonike and its issue (Stratonike queen of Demetrios II of Makedonia, Apama of Kyrene, and Antiochos Theos).

        One solution could be that the first wife of Antiochos Soter was a daughter of Achaios the elder and she bore him both prince Seleukos (circa 300-266 BC) and Antiochos Theos' first queen Laodike.
        In that case Eusebius' account would have slipped by one generation -- Antiochos Theos' queen being granddaughter rather than daughter of Achaios, and niece (adelphide) rather than sister (adelphe) of Alexander of Sardeis. That is an easy slip and is documented elsewhere -- Plutarch's Lucullus makes Lucullus' wife Servilia a sister (adelphe) of Marcus Cato, although we know from Latin records that she was Cato's niece (adelphide in the Greek).

        Certainly there is much mystery surrounding the rebellion, defeat and execution of Antiochos Soter's long-associated eldest son and heir Seleukos. This prince might have been a victim of "harem politics", with the beautiful, love-match Antigonid queen Stratonike pushing forward her own son Antiochos Theos, as appears from Soter's unusual association of both sons (attested by the Babylonian colophons) soon after Antiochos Theos came of age. It might be that Antiochos Soter felt compelled to execute his heir but did not wish to simultaneously alienate his powerful and important "Andromachid" relatives and so carefully selected his own daughter Laodike to be his younger son's queen, even though she was older than her husband, because she was full sister of the executed prince Seleukos and shared his "Andromachid" mother.
        But this is just a suggestion and it would be nice to have further documentation.

        Best wishes

        Mark K.P.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Renzo Lucherini
        To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 5:37 AM
        Subject: [seleukids] Some genealogical questions


        Dear epimeletes

        Your site is very interesting, even if I would have preferred a more
        positive vision of the poor Seleucus II. I would also like that you
        completed your short but interesting biographies of the Seleucid
        kings.
        In connection with, will you please explain two questions to me?

        1) You write that Antiochus I had two daughters: Apama and Laodice.
        It seems to me that the name of the latter is Stratonice. Eusebius,
        derived from Porphyrius, quotes: " Antiochus begot by Stratonice
        Demetrius' daughter some children: a son, Antiochus and two
        daughters, Stratonice and Apama.". As you rightly pointed there was
        another son, the elder, Seleucus that rebelled and was probably
        executed. Then you write about other two children: Laodice and
        Alexander. What is the primary source on which you found your
        statement? Polyaenus calls Laodice, wife of Antiochus II "omopatria
        adelpha", but no ancient author points this kinship

        2) The family of Achaios ( the well-known usurper).
        Laodice (II) wife of Antiochus II was (according to Eusebius )
        daughter of a certain Achaios. As for the wife of Seleucus II
        Polybius in IV. 51 writes:" Andromachos was father of Achaios, and
        brother of Laodice (III), wife of Seleucus" and in VIII. 22 "
        Achaios was Andromachos' son, brother of Laodice (III), wife of
        Seleucus".
        Another member of this family was Alexander on which Porphyrius 8:
        Antiochus Hierax was supported by "Alexander that ruled the town of
        Sardes and was brother of his mother, Laodice".
        Some scholars (W.W. Tarn, P. Green for instance) maintain that this
        family was a branch of the Seleucids and think that Achaios I was a
        son of Seleucus I In fact in Areia the town of Achaia was founded
        by one Achaios ( Strabo XI.10.1) that may have been a Seleucid
        prince.
        I would appreciate if you or some members of the list could help me
        in clarifying my doubts.
        Thanks you in advance

        Best regards

        Renzo Lucherini
        Livorno Italy
        rluckyr@...



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        ADVERTISEMENT




        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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mark Passehl
        P.S. to the last note I forgot to add that equally pertinent to a generational slip or misunderstanding as adelphide/adelphe are the closely similar
        Message 3 of 15 , Nov 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          P.S. to the last note

          I forgot to add that equally pertinent to a generational "slip" or misunderstanding as adelphide/adelphe are the closely similar thygatride and thygater, especially because "thygatride" represents not just any grand-daughter but specifically a daughter's daughter, as in the proposed solution.

          Mark K.P.

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Renzo Lucherini
          To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 5:37 AM
          Subject: [seleukids] Some genealogical questions


          Dear epimeletes

          Your site is very interesting, even if I would have preferred a more
          positive vision of the poor Seleucus II. I would also like that you
          completed your short but interesting biographies of the Seleucid
          kings.
          In connection with, will you please explain two questions to me?

          1) You write that Antiochus I had two daughters: Apama and Laodice.
          It seems to me that the name of the latter is Stratonice. Eusebius,
          derived from Porphyrius, quotes: " Antiochus begot by Stratonice
          Demetrius' daughter some children: a son, Antiochus and two
          daughters, Stratonice and Apama.". As you rightly pointed there was
          another son, the elder, Seleucus that rebelled and was probably
          executed. Then you write about other two children: Laodice and
          Alexander. What is the primary source on which you found your
          statement? Polyaenus calls Laodice, wife of Antiochus II "omopatria
          adelpha", but no ancient author points this kinship

          2) The family of Achaios ( the well-known usurper).
          Laodice (II) wife of Antiochus II was (according to Eusebius )
          daughter of a certain Achaios. As for the wife of Seleucus II
          Polybius in IV. 51 writes:" Andromachos was father of Achaios, and
          brother of Laodice (III), wife of Seleucus" and in VIII. 22 "
          Achaios was Andromachos' son, brother of Laodice (III), wife of
          Seleucus".
          Another member of this family was Alexander on which Porphyrius 8:
          Antiochus Hierax was supported by "Alexander that ruled the town of
          Sardes and was brother of his mother, Laodice".
          Some scholars (W.W. Tarn, P. Green for instance) maintain that this
          family was a branch of the Seleucids and think that Achaios I was a
          son of Seleucus I In fact in Areia the town of Achaia was founded
          by one Achaios ( Strabo XI.10.1) that may have been a Seleucid
          prince.
          I would appreciate if you or some members of the list could help me
          in clarifying my doubts.
          Thanks you in advance

          Best regards

          Renzo Lucherini
          Livorno Italy
          rluckyr@...



          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          ADVERTISEMENT




          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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Oliver D. Hoover
          Dear Renzo, My apologies for this late response. First of all, thank you for the kind words concerning www.seleukids.org. I too would like to get the
          Message 4 of 15 , Nov 8, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Renzo,

            My apologies for this late response.

            First of all, thank you for the kind words concerning www.seleukids.org. I
            too would like to get the biographies finished, but I just haven't had the
            time. I hope to add a few more and update the bibliography over the
            Christmas holidays. I will make an announcement when the new material goes
            up. Could you please elaborate on your remark about my treatment of
            Seleucus II. I'm not sure what I said that was so negative. I assure you
            that I did my best to keep my natural political cyicism out of the text.

            Thank you for pointing out the genealogical confusion in the text for the
            children of Antiochus I. The first Laodice should indeed be Stratonice. The
            second Laodice and Alexander are a mistake and will be removed the next time
            I update the pages. They are in fact the children of Achaeus the Elder.
            Early scholars assumed that they were the heirs of Antiochus I. I committed
            the sin of including that assumption without first thoroughly checking it.
            I hope that you and other listmembers can forgive this hideous lapse in
            judgement.

            As for the relationship of Achaeus the Elder to the Seleucids, the best work
            on the subject is M. Worrle, "Antiochos I, Achaios der Altere und die
            Galater, eine neue Inschrift in Denizli," Chiron 5 (1975), 59-87. The
            inscription makes it pretty clear that Achaeus the Elder was not in any way
            a Seleucid by blood. Instead he was a powerful local ruler in Asia Minor,
            whose power probably originated in the days of Lysimachus. The marriage
            connection between his family and that of the ruling Seleucid dynasty was
            probably intended to bolster Seleucid authority in western Asia Minor.

            Best regards,

            Oliver D. Hoover
            Epimeletes
          • Mark Passehl
            Oliver I regret not having enough German to read Herr Worrle s account of Achaios family, seeing that it is the best. I have, however, seen a translation of
            Message 5 of 15 , Nov 9, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Oliver

              I regret not having enough German to read Herr Worrle's account of Achaios' family, seeing that it is the best.
              I have, however, seen a translation of the Denizli inscription, based on Worrle's text (S.M.Burstein TDGR 3.24-5, no.19) and it tells us some interesting things about estate ownership/administration in Anatolia among the elite of the Seleukid court, but nothing at all about the relationship between Achaios' family and the Seleukidai, nor whether Achaios' lordship of this estate near Smyrna (in 267 BC and earlier) was hereditary or one of the more usual royal grants (doreai), or even one of those estates taken by open seizure by the "philoi basilikoi" (i.e. robbery, cf.SEG 1.366 = M.M.Austin no.113). Certainly the estate in this document embraces a few villages and is not even based on a city or great fortress, and Achaios was absent during the Galatian War in the 270s, when his estate stewards, not he, took action on behalf of his captured villagers. So it doesn't look like he was a locally based prince at all, and what you say is "pretty clear" from the document is not there even by the faintest implication. In translation anyway.
              Perhaps Achaios was in the east in the 270s when Antiochos Soter arranged for some rebuilding and renaming of cities and towns following some destructive nomad invasions from the north (Massagetan ?).
              Since the Galatian War took place in the mid 270s and Achaios' ransom of his captured villagers is honoured in this document dated to winter 268-7 BC, it seems likely that Achaios was a long way away indeed during the war and for some years after, and hence the sluggishness of his response to his stewards' appeals.
              Above all, it would be interesting to know how Worrle accounts for the naming of a city after Achaios the elder at the other end of the empire, an honour reserved for members of the royal clan and its ancestors (as we know from Strabo's Geography, books xi-xvi). Indeed not even the greatest unrelated princes and commanders who served the Seleukidai well in the east, and wrote accounts of their deeds to the greater glory of the kingship and kingdom, were afforded such an honour (Patrokles and Demodamas). I'm pretty sure that this extraordinary honour is the main basis for the old belief that the "Andromachids" belonged to the Seleukid family, or at least to its wider clan.

              Best wishes

              Mark K.P.


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Oliver D. Hoover
              To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 8:59 AM
              Subject: RE: [seleukids] Some genealogical questions


              Dear Renzo,

              My apologies for this late response.

              First of all, thank you for the kind words concerning www.seleukids.org. I
              too would like to get the biographies finished, but I just haven't had the
              time. I hope to add a few more and update the bibliography over the
              Christmas holidays. I will make an announcement when the new material goes
              up. Could you please elaborate on your remark about my treatment of
              Seleucus II. I'm not sure what I said that was so negative. I assure you
              that I did my best to keep my natural political cyicism out of the text.

              Thank you for pointing out the genealogical confusion in the text for the
              children of Antiochus I. The first Laodice should indeed be Stratonice. The
              second Laodice and Alexander are a mistake and will be removed the next time
              I update the pages. They are in fact the children of Achaeus the Elder.
              Early scholars assumed that they were the heirs of Antiochus I. I committed
              the sin of including that assumption without first thoroughly checking it.
              I hope that you and other listmembers can forgive this hideous lapse in
              judgement.

              As for the relationship of Achaeus the Elder to the Seleucids, the best work
              on the subject is M. Worrle, "Antiochos I, Achaios der Altere und die
              Galater, eine neue Inschrift in Denizli," Chiron 5 (1975), 59-87. The
              inscription makes it pretty clear that Achaeus the Elder was not in any way
              a Seleucid by blood. Instead he was a powerful local ruler in Asia Minor,
              whose power probably originated in the days of Lysimachus. The marriage
              connection between his family and that of the ruling Seleucid dynasty was
              probably intended to bolster Seleucid authority in western Asia Minor.

              Best regards,

              Oliver D. Hoover
              Epimeletes



              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT




              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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Oliver D. Hoover
              Mark, If you look at the Denizli inscription you will see that Achaeus the Elder lacks a position of authority commensurate with the status of a member of the
              Message 6 of 15 , Nov 9, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Mark,

                If you look at the Denizli inscription you will see that Achaeus the Elder
                lacks a position of authority commensurate with the status of a member of
                the royal house. He is only the kyrios tou topou ("lord of the district")
                under the authority of a certain Hellenus, the epimeletes tou topou. If
                Achaeus were a blood relative of the Seleucids we should expect him to have
                additional titulature, such as uios basileos Seleukou or adlephos basileos
                Antiochou, and certainly a rank higher than kyrios tou topou.

                Despite your remarks, there is nothing in the document that indicates that
                Achaeus was absent from his territories during the Galatian war. It is true
                that the laoi reported their Galatian problems to Banabelus and Lachares,
                the administrators of Achaeus' estates, who then reported to Achaeus
                himself, but this only reflects the chain of command between subject and
                ruler. It is not evidence for Achaeus' absence or of his supposed
                "sluggishness" to act (where do you get that from?) It certainly cannot be
                spun out to your suggestion that he was away in the east attending a city
                foundation. Neither Strabo nor Pliny indicate that the founding of
                Achais/Achaea in Aria took place under Antiochus I and that therfore the
                reference must be to Achaeus the Elder. If the Antiochus of Pliny is
                Antiochus III then it would make perfect sense for the city to be named
                after Achaeus the Younger.

                The apparent disdain in which you hold most modern scholarship
                (incidentally, in polite conversation it is Herr Doktor Worrle),
                particularly when it disagrees with your own opinions, leads me to ask what
                the credentials are that underlie your authoratative statements? Even more
                importantly, I would like to know where I can find your publications. They
                are presently absent from the bibliography at www.seleukids.org. I would
                very much like to correct this terrible lacuna.

                Oliver D. Hoover
                Epimeletes
              • Mark Passehl
                Oliver! Thanks for the lesson in polite conversation. It is even more polite not to make assumptions. I fear that the apparent distain in which I appear to
                Message 7 of 15 , Nov 10, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Oliver!

                  Thanks for the lesson in polite conversation. It is even more polite not to make assumptions.
                  I fear that the apparent distain in which I appear to hold most modern scholarship is a figment of your imagination, like so much else you say.
                  I'm not sure of the basis for this extraordinary statement, unless you take yourself to be somehow typical and representative of modern scholarship, which wouldn't surprise me. Even if we confine your somewhat hazy words to modern historical scholarship of the ancient world, I certainly don't have any firm and fixed opinions regarding the many thousands of men and women with their various talents and personalities who constitute its majority. I have only read the works of a very few, and can say that there are some shockers but that the best of them deserve the highest admiration, in more ways than one.
                  Also, many years ago I undertook a basic course in history and the study and evaluation of ancient evidence, and it is probably a legacy of that enjoyable experience, combined with an on-going lively interest in ancient history, which stirs up feelings of annoyance and even mild revulsion when reading some of your cavalier tracts so dismissive of literary evidence, while simultaneously smothering documentary and numismatic remains with your own bizzare interpretations and treating that dribble with the same respect as the evidence itself.

                  As for Achaios' family and his probably inherited blood relationship with the Seleukids;

                  1) I do not think that he was a Seleukid (descendant of Seleukos Nikator). Read what I have posted in that regard.

                  2) In the Denizli inscription Achaios is as you say "lord of the place" and Helenos "epimeletes of the place". The document does not say that the lord was subject to the epimeletes. That is your claim, and has no value as evidence whatsoever. Prima facie the lord and owner of an estate should be superior to any supervisor.
                  Stanley Burstein comments that this is the first appearance of the title "epimeletes" in the Seleukid realm and is appropriately reticent about its functions and competence.
                  I would tentatively suggest that since this person and position appear in the dating formula which heads the document and is not mentioned in the subsequent text then he is probably the annually elected eponym of the combined population on Achaios' estate (which was also able to meet in assembly and pass resolutions). I.e. a local area magistrate for the several villages who could represent his population before the local lord (or his stewards), and perhaps even settle legal disputes between the villagers.

                  3) I do not expect any such genealogy for Achaios in this document or any other like it, especially since I believe he was probably nephew or 2nd cousin of Seleukos Nikator, if not further removed. Anyhow your claim of what we should expect in the document, and arguing from its absence, is mere assertion, ignored with a good conscience.

                  4) "lord of the place" is Achaios' position on this estate near Smyrna. He could hardly be any higher there. This is not necessarily (nor even likely) his "rank" in the Seleukid court and hierarchy. He could well have been lord of many other places throughout the length and breadth of the Seleukid dominion, and there is nothing in the document to suggest that his lands were confined to the region about Smyrna.

                  5) Despite your remarks, there is real matter in the document to indicate Achaios' absence during the Galatian War. Read the text.
                  Banabelus and Lachares take action while the war is on, Achaios does not. Years later (circa 274 now becomes 268-7 BC) this document is engraved to record formal honours accorded to Achaios for ransoming his villagers. While there may be other explanations for this long delay between capture by Galatians and the production of this document, it looks likely that the main reason was a long delay in organising and paying the ransoms. And this is easily explained if Achaios was indeed away in the east for many years. But his actual whereabouts remains uncertain and the east is only a suggestion which fits the evidence for the rebuilding and renaming of Achaia/Achais in Areia.

                  6) I'm afraid that Pliny and Strabo do indeed indicate that Achaia/Achais in Areia was refounded and renamed during the reign of Antiochos Soter. Read their texts. Pliny tells us how "Antiochus Seleuci filius" refounded Alexander's capital of Margiana with his own name (Isidoros' "Antioch among the Waters") after it had been destroyed by "barbarians" (NH vi.47). He then proceeds to name various nations and geographical entities to the east and south before commenting on Alexander's foundation of Herakleia and how it was subsequently destroyed and restored, when "Antiochus" named it Achais (vi.48).
                  Now this does not constitute absolute proof that the Antiochos of vi.48 is the same man as Antiochos son of Seleukos in vi.47, but since he goes to the trouble of including filiation in the earlier passage and not in the second it is fairly likely that they are the same king.
                  Furthermore, in the very next passage (vi.49) Pliny names his principal source for this part of his work -- Demodamas the Baktrian-Sogdian satrap of Kings Seleukos and Antiochos ("Seleuci et Antiochi regum dux"), which should be Seleukos Nikator and Antiochos Soter, seeing that no Seleukid commander ever did what Demodamas did (crossed the Jaxartes) after the Diodotid rebellion of 246 BC.
                  Strabo tells us explicitly that the founder of Antioch in Margiana was Antiochos Soter (xi.10.2).

                  7) Your identification of Antiochos son of Seleukos in Pliny with Antiochos III can be ruled out because of the points made above and because following the rebellion of 246 BC, and Arsakes I's crushing defeat of Seleukos Kallinikos circa 228, all the east beyond Media remained outside of Seleukid control (or even presence) until Antiochos III's anabasis two decades later. We may suppose that Areia was then in the hands of the Baktrian kings (because they were stronger than the Arsakids until the reign of Mithradates I), and indeed Euthydemos first met Antiochos' army with his own at the River Arios and had fortified towns/positions three days' march further west (Polybius x.49).
                  By 208 BC Achaios the younger was long dead, though admittedly only according to literary sources, and I suppose it is not beyond you to undertake another die-count and averaging ceremony and thereby extend his life long enough to get him through Antiochos III's anabasis.


                  Mark K.P.

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Oliver D. Hoover
                  To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 6:43 AM
                  Subject: RE: [seleukids] Some genealogical questions


                  Mark,

                  If you look at the Denizli inscription you will see that Achaeus the Elder
                  lacks a position of authority commensurate with the status of a member of
                  the royal house. He is only the kyrios tou topou ("lord of the district")
                  under the authority of a certain Hellenus, the epimeletes tou topou. If
                  Achaeus were a blood relative of the Seleucids we should expect him to have
                  additional titulature, such as uios basileos Seleukou or adlephos basileos
                  Antiochou, and certainly a rank higher than kyrios tou topou.

                  Despite your remarks, there is nothing in the document that indicates that
                  Achaeus was absent from his territories during the Galatian war. It is true
                  that the laoi reported their Galatian problems to Banabelus and Lachares,
                  the administrators of Achaeus' estates, who then reported to Achaeus
                  himself, but this only reflects the chain of command between subject and
                  ruler. It is not evidence for Achaeus' absence or of his supposed
                  "sluggishness" to act (where do you get that from?) It certainly cannot be
                  spun out to your suggestion that he was away in the east attending a city
                  foundation. Neither Strabo nor Pliny indicate that the founding of
                  Achais/Achaea in Aria took place under Antiochus I and that therfore the
                  reference must be to Achaeus the Elder. If the Antiochus of Pliny is
                  Antiochus III then it would make perfect sense for the city to be named
                  after Achaeus the Younger.

                  The apparent disdain in which you hold most modern scholarship
                  (incidentally, in polite conversation it is Herr Doktor Worrle),
                  particularly when it disagrees with your own opinions, leads me to ask what
                  the credentials are that underlie your authoratative statements? Even more
                  importantly, I would like to know where I can find your publications. They
                  are presently absent from the bibliography at www.seleukids.org. I would
                  very much like to correct this terrible lacuna.

                  Oliver D. Hoover
                  Epimeletes



                  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  ADVERTISEMENT




                  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Renzo Lucherini
                  Dear Mark and Oliver Thanks for your kind replies. My studies has formed in myself a positive idea about Seleukid empire. I think that it was a rather vital
                  Message 8 of 15 , Nov 11, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Mark and Oliver

                    Thanks for your kind replies. My studies has formed in myself a
                    positive idea about Seleukid empire. I think that it was a rather
                    vital body, at least, till Antiochos VII Euergetes. So I fully
                    share the vision of Amelie Kuhrt and Susan Sherwin-White, that was
                    already partially present in the last volumes of "Storia dei
                    Romani" of the old G. De Sanctiis.
                    Therefore Oliver, you seems to me pointing out more the failures of
                    Seleucus II ( that there were undoubtedly ) than the successes,
                    sometimes attributing them to pure fortune.
                    You know very well that his reign was very difficult: Ptolemaic
                    invasion, rebellion of the Eastern satraps, of his brother Antiochos
                    Hierax in Asia Minor, of his aunt Stratonice in Antioch, Parthian
                    secession…
                    There would have been enough to cause difficulties even to Alexander
                    the Great.
                    Before these seditions, he succeeded in maintaining ( as you rightly
                    write) the central nucleus of the kingdom, a very large territory
                    from Cilicia to Media, that was the basis for the successive re-
                    conquests, under his son Antiochos III.
                    I would have liked that you had pointed out more these aspects.

                    Thank you very much for your suggestion. I will try to read M.
                    Worrle' s article, testing my poor German.
                    However Hellenistic Asia Minor was a land of dynasties, small
                    principality and tyrants . Some of them, as Philomelos and Lysias,
                    founded new towns or renamed the old ones. The town of Temisonion
                    (South Phrigia) was maybe founded by Antiochos II in honour of his
                    favourite Temison. But the founder of the town might be Temison
                    himself (in his own estate?) perhaps after he had become
                    independent.
                    If Achaios the Elder was not a Seleukid prince we should guess that
                    Antiochos I had founded Achaia in Areia in honour of the father in
                    law of his son or had allowed to Achaios to found it.
                    Certainly the name of Laodice is typically Seleukid ( it was the
                    name of Seleucus I' s mother)
                    Therefore the possible guesses are three:

                    1 Achaios named his daughter in honour of his sovereigns.

                    2 Laodice had originally another name and changed it when she
                    married the future Antiochos II.

                    3 Achaios was a far relative of the Selukids (through the mother of
                    Selucus I ?).

                    I believe that Mark is right pointing out that probably the
                    foundation of Achaia happened under the reign of Antiochos I Soter
                    even if there was a possible indication for the reign of Antiochos
                    II.
                    However it is possible that Areia was still Seleukid after the
                    rebellion of Arsakes too. See the presence of Arian light soldier in
                    the army of Antiochos III at the battle of Raphia (217 BC). Their
                    enlisting was however antecedent to the reign of this king for Aria
                    is absent in the reorganization that he does in the Oriental
                    satrapies, after the defeat of Molon.

                    By the way, in your opinion ( and of the other interested List
                    members), is that Achaios that, together Andromachos, defeated
                    Antiochos Hierax, Achaios the Elder or his homonymous grandson ?
                    Seeing the order in which they are nominated by Polyaenus, I would
                    opt for the Elder but I realize that it is a rather weak evidence.

                    Mark, I do not know if I have well understood but would Antigonos be
                    the original name of Antiochos Hierax? Whether so it is, the use
                    of "Antigonid names" (Antigonos, Demetrios) in the Seleukid dynasty
                    is more ancient than I thoughts (Antigonos son of Demetrios I,
                    killed by Alexander Balas).
                    Thanks again.

                    Best regards

                    Renzo Lucherini
                    (Livorno-Italy)
                    rluckyr@...
                  • Jörn Kobes
                    ... Dear Renzo, since 1996 there is a German book on the local dynasts in Hellenistic Asia Minor. Sorry, ;-) it is advertising for my own dissertation: Kleine
                    Message 9 of 15 , Nov 11, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Renzo Lucherini schrieb:
                      > Dear Mark and Oliver
                      >
                      > Thanks for your kind replies...
                      > Thank you very much for your suggestion. I will try to read M.
                      > Worrle' s article, testing my poor German.
                      > However Hellenistic Asia Minor was a land of dynasties, small
                      > principality and tyrants . Some of them, as Philomelos and Lysias,
                      > founded new towns or renamed the old ones. The town of Temisonion
                      > (South Phrigia) was maybe founded by Antiochos II in honour of his
                      > favourite Temison. But the founder of the town might be Temison
                      > himself (in his own estate?) perhaps after he had become
                      > independent.

                      Dear Renzo,

                      since 1996 there is a German book on the local dynasts in Hellenistic
                      Asia Minor. Sorry, ;-) it is advertising for my own dissertation:
                      "Kleine Ko+nige. Untersuuchungen zu den Lokaldynasten im hellenistischen
                      Kleinasien (323-188 v. Chr.)", St. Katharinen 1996.
                      Perhaps you can get this book in an Italian library.

                      Best regards
                      Joern Kobes
                      ********************************************************
                      ************ Nail here (x) for a new monitor ***********
                      ********************************************************
                      **** Dr. Joern Kobes -- Seminar fuer Alte Geschichte *****
                      ************* Grueneburgplatz 1 -- Fach 135 *************
                      *****60323 Frankfurt -- +49 69 798 32466 / fax 32455****
                      ** www.uni-frankfurt.de/fb08/SAG/ueberuns/doz-jk.html **
                      **************** www.computus-druck.de *****************
                      ********************************************************
                    • Oliver D. Hoover
                      Dear Joern, Thanks for mentioning this. We always encourage this sort of advertising. Oliver D. Hoover Epimeletes
                      Message 10 of 15 , Nov 11, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Joern,

                        Thanks for mentioning this. We always encourage this sort of advertising.

                        Oliver D. Hoover
                        Epimeletes
                      • Renzo Lucherini
                        Dear Jorn Thank you very much for your suggestion. I read a positive review about your work some time ago, but I could have not yet read it. Thanks again Best
                        Message 11 of 15 , Nov 12, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Jorn

                          Thank you very much for your suggestion. I read a positive review
                          about your work some time ago, but I could have not yet read it.
                          Thanks again

                          Best wishes

                          Renzo Lucherini
                          rluckyr@...






                          > Dear Renzo,
                          >
                          > since 1996 there is a German book on the local dynasts in
                          Hellenistic
                          > Asia Minor. Sorry, ;-) it is advertising for my own dissertation:
                          > "Kleine Ko+nige. Untersuuchungen zu den Lokaldynasten im
                          hellenistischen
                          > Kleinasien (323-188 v. Chr.)", St. Katharinen 1996.
                          > Perhaps you can get this book in an Italian library.
                          >
                          > Best regards
                          > Joern Kobes
                          > ********************************************************
                          > ************ Nail here (x) for a new monitor ***********
                          > ********************************************************
                          > **** Dr. Joern Kobes -- Seminar fuer Alte Geschichte *****
                          > ************* Grueneburgplatz 1 -- Fach 135 *************
                          > *****60323 Frankfurt -- +49 69 798 32466 / fax 32455****
                          > ** www.uni-frankfurt.de/fb08/SAG/ueberuns/doz-jk.html **
                          > **************** www.computus-druck.de *****************
                          > ********************************************************
                        • Mark Passehl
                          Dear Renzo According to various versions/excerpts of Eusebius Chronicle (included by Felix Jacoby, in Karst s German translation, in his text of the fragments
                          Message 12 of 15 , Nov 12, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear Renzo

                            According to various versions/excerpts of Eusebius' Chronicle (included by Felix Jacoby, in Karst's German translation, in his text of the fragments of Porphyrios of Tyre, FGrH 260) Antiochos Hierax's personal name was indeed Antigonos before he assumed the diadem.
                            The relevant texts are also in Muller's older edition of the Porphyrios fragments, with Mai's Latin version.
                            The same source says that Seleukos III Keraunos was called Alexander before becoming king.

                            I think Oliver or another list member posted a note several months ago regarding an online version (translation?) of Schoene's edition of Eusebius, but I forget the details now.

                            Mark K.P.


                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Renzo Lucherini
                            To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 1:28 AM
                            Subject: [seleukids] Re: Some genealogical questions


                            Dear Mark and Oliver

                            Thanks for your kind replies. My studies has formed in myself a
                            positive idea about Seleukid empire. I think that it was a rather
                            vital body, at least, till Antiochos VII Euergetes. So I fully
                            share the vision of Amelie Kuhrt and Susan Sherwin-White, that was
                            already partially present in the last volumes of "Storia dei
                            Romani" of the old G. De Sanctiis.
                            Therefore Oliver, you seems to me pointing out more the failures of
                            Seleucus II ( that there were undoubtedly ) than the successes,
                            sometimes attributing them to pure fortune.
                            You know very well that his reign was very difficult: Ptolemaic
                            invasion, rebellion of the Eastern satraps, of his brother Antiochos
                            Hierax in Asia Minor, of his aunt Stratonice in Antioch, Parthian
                            secession.
                            There would have been enough to cause difficulties even to Alexander
                            the Great.
                            Before these seditions, he succeeded in maintaining ( as you rightly
                            write) the central nucleus of the kingdom, a very large territory
                            from Cilicia to Media, that was the basis for the successive re-
                            conquests, under his son Antiochos III.
                            I would have liked that you had pointed out more these aspects.

                            Thank you very much for your suggestion. I will try to read M.
                            Worrle' s article, testing my poor German.
                            However Hellenistic Asia Minor was a land of dynasties, small
                            principality and tyrants . Some of them, as Philomelos and Lysias,
                            founded new towns or renamed the old ones. The town of Temisonion
                            (South Phrigia) was maybe founded by Antiochos II in honour of his
                            favourite Temison. But the founder of the town might be Temison
                            himself (in his own estate?) perhaps after he had become
                            independent.
                            If Achaios the Elder was not a Seleukid prince we should guess that
                            Antiochos I had founded Achaia in Areia in honour of the father in
                            law of his son or had allowed to Achaios to found it.
                            Certainly the name of Laodice is typically Seleukid ( it was the
                            name of Seleucus I' s mother)
                            Therefore the possible guesses are three:

                            1 Achaios named his daughter in honour of his sovereigns.

                            2 Laodice had originally another name and changed it when she
                            married the future Antiochos II.

                            3 Achaios was a far relative of the Selukids (through the mother of
                            Selucus I ?).

                            I believe that Mark is right pointing out that probably the
                            foundation of Achaia happened under the reign of Antiochos I Soter
                            even if there was a possible indication for the reign of Antiochos
                            II.
                            However it is possible that Areia was still Seleukid after the
                            rebellion of Arsakes too. See the presence of Arian light soldier in
                            the army of Antiochos III at the battle of Raphia (217 BC). Their
                            enlisting was however antecedent to the reign of this king for Aria
                            is absent in the reorganization that he does in the Oriental
                            satrapies, after the defeat of Molon.

                            By the way, in your opinion ( and of the other interested List
                            members), is that Achaios that, together Andromachos, defeated
                            Antiochos Hierax, Achaios the Elder or his homonymous grandson ?
                            Seeing the order in which they are nominated by Polyaenus, I would
                            opt for the Elder but I realize that it is a rather weak evidence.

                            Mark, I do not know if I have well understood but would Antigonos be
                            the original name of Antiochos Hierax? Whether so it is, the use
                            of "Antigonid names" (Antigonos, Demetrios) in the Seleukid dynasty
                            is more ancient than I thoughts (Antigonos son of Demetrios I,
                            killed by Alexander Balas).
                            Thanks again.

                            Best regards

                            Renzo Lucherini
                            (Livorno-Italy)
                            rluckyr@...






                            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                            ADVERTISEMENT




                            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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Oliver D. Hoover
                            The Eusebius translation (only Porphyry 1.40, not the full Schoene edition) is available at www.seleukids.org/porphyry.html. Unfortunately this does not
                            Message 13 of 15 , Nov 12, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              The Eusebius translation (only Porphyry 1.40, not the full Schoene edition)
                              is available at www.seleukids.org/porphyry.html. Unfortunately this does
                              not include the early material that Mark refers to.

                              Oliver D. Hoover
                              Epimeletes
                            • G.R.F. Assar
                              Dear Oliver et al., In my last note I forgot to add that classical literary material are useful sources of historical information when corroborated by the
                              Message 14 of 15 , Nov 12, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear Oliver et al.,

                                In my last note I forgot to add that classical literary material are useful
                                sources of historical information when corroborated by the extant
                                contemporary evidence. On their own and without confirmation from the
                                numismatic and other contemporary material, they must be treated with utmost
                                caution. As for occasional inconsistencies and slips in the contemporary
                                evidence, experience has shown that eradicating or amending these are far
                                simpler than those detected in the classical literature.

                                Regards,

                                Farhad Assar
                                ================
                              • "Robert mcSotskey"
                                Dear friends! I didn t participate in your discussion related to Seleucids genealogical questions (I join seleukids-yahoo-groups quite recently, latter than
                                Message 15 of 15 , Nov 14, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dear friends!

                                  I didn't participate in your discussion related to Seleucids genealogical questions (I join seleukids-yahoo-groups quite recently, latter than parthia one) so sorry if asked question wich have been discussed yet.

                                  I didn't read E. Bevan "The House of Seleucus" and A. Bouchй-Leclercq "Histoire des Sйleucides" - only
                                  Elias J. Bickerman's "Les Institutions des Sйleucides" (Russian edition, Moscow, "Nauka", 1985) and I can't find in which ancient sources was mentioned Philip II Philoromeus, Can you tell me how was revised father-son relationship between Philip I and Philip II, how was the fate of last and (!) what was the history of his bacoming as king in Cillicia.

                                  I will glad to received your replay on this letter with explains on my historical questions.

                                  Best regards,

                                  RObert
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.