The Triumph of Ptolemy Philadelphus

Ptolemy II Philadelphus (“Sibling-Loving”) is considered to be the greatest of the Ptolemaic pharaohs. He reigned over the Ptolemaic Kingdom at its cultural, social, and political apex; the city of Alexandria was a hub of Ancient Greek culture as well as being the intellectual and cultural center of the Mediterranean. Ptolemy practiced statecraft like no other of his immediate contemporaries, diplomacy invested in the splendor of the Alexandrian court and the Ptolemaic image. Alexandria attracted artists, poets, scientists, and philosophers from all around the Greek world. Ptolemy II managed the Greco-Egyptian culture obstacle with masterful skill, as Ptolemy embraced the traditional role of the pharaoh, unlike his father who had rejected the divine honors while he was alive. Ptolemy became a living god and sparked the Ptolemaic dynastic cult that would last until Cleopatra VII’s dying breath.

I am going to examine to the prosperous life, policies, and victories accredited to Ptolemy II Philadelphus, to analyze if he is not only the greatest Ptolemaic pharaoh, but also the ideal Hellenistic king.

Bust of Ptolemy II Philadelphus

Ptolemy was born in 309 BCE on the island of Cos, the son of Ptolemy I Soter (“the Savior”) and his queen Berenice I. Ptolemy was his father’s youngest son, raised in the court of Alexandria in which Ptolemy witnessed his father’s endeavors in the Wars of the Diadochi (“Successors”). Ptolemy also beheld his father’s sculpting of the royal Ptolemaic identity; Ptolemy I promoted the genius and legacies of Greek culture as well as the development of Hellenization, though he also adapted to the sociocultural customs of the Egyptians, in respect as he was their ruler. In 306/305 BCE Ptolemy I declared himself pharaoh, reigniting the traditional rulership and government of Egypt that had been forsaken since the Egyptians were subjugated by the Persians, but then resumed with the proclamation of the divine kingship of Alexander the Great.

Ptolemy was a very different character than his father; as Ptolemy I was looked upon as an ambitious, tough old Macedonian general, but his son was of a much frailer and delicate disposition. Ptolemy’s character was of intellect and culture: his interests were, notably, geography and zoology, as well as a collective love of the arts and sciences, specifically the studies of Aristotle. Ptolemy was given the best tutors the Greek world had to offer, the enlightened Alexandrian court attracting many philosophers, poets, artists, scientists, and writers who had added to the intellectual splendor of Alexandria. Ptolemy’s notable educators were the philosophers Strabo of Lampsacus and Philitias of Cos. It appeared that Ptolemy I intended for his youngest son (by his favorite wife) to succeed him, despite the presence of his older children (by different wives). Interesting, as the second Ptolemaic pharaoh would be a man of intellect and culture, who succeeded a king that was molded by war.

In either 289 or 285 BCE Ptolemy I had appointed the young Ptolemy as his co-ruler, as by 287 BCE Ptolemy had repudiated both his eldest son Ptolemy Ceraunus (“Thunderbolt”) and the boy’s mother Eurydice, favoring Berenice and her brood. Ptolemy Ceraunus, bearing resentment and a vindictive attitude, left for the court of King Lysimachus, as he was a readily potential rival to his younger brother; he would later become king of Macedon by means of murder and scheming. Ptolemy I arranged for his co-ruler and successor to marry Arsinoe I, daughter of Lysimachus, as an alliance with this fellow Macedonian king was viewed as reliable and more convenient, as the other successor kings (Seleucus I and Demetrius I) had threatened Ptolemy’s own power and majesty. Ptolemy II had three children with Arsinoe I, which included his successor (Ptolemy III). In 283/282 BCE Ptolemy I died, bequeathing his kingdom to Ptolemy II, who immediately devoted his enterprises to cultivate the material splendor and cultured reputation of Alexandria.

One of Ptolemy’s immediate acts was to deify his deceased father, and when his mother died (c. 279-268 BCE) she too was deified. The royal progenitors were thus known as Theoi Soteres (“Savior Gods”). Theocritus reports that Ptolemy II was the first person, in the Greek world, to institute the worship of deceased parents. Coins issued Ptolemy I’s name and image was changed from “Ptolemy the King” to “Ptolemy the Savior” (Ptolemy I had gained the epithet Soter from the Rhodians decades previous). There was also a new four-yearly athletic festival called Ptolemaeia, institutionalized in honor of the “Savior Gods”. Ptolemy decreed the winners of the athletics should receive the same honors as the winners of the Olympic Games.

Coin depicting “Ptolemy the Savior” and “Berenice the Savior”, issued by Ptolemy II Philadelphus

What truly distinguished Ptolemy’s reign from his father’s was how each approached the office of the pharaoh. Ptolemy I did not portray himself as a conventional pharaoh, as he did not receive divine honors, choosing not to instigate a cult of his own, instead heralding the cult of the divine Alexander. It was an unusual attitude to have considering the role of the pharaoh, at least if the native Egyptians were concerned. Perhaps it was because Ptolemy was such an immediate contemporary of Alexander that made the creation of his own personal cult seem excessive. As his father dismissed the pharaonic context of his own kingship, Ptolemy II, however, embraced the traditional role of the pharaoh. Ptolemy was given (or chose) the royal Egyptian name Weserkare Meryamun (“Powerful is Ra, Beloved of Amun”); by welcoming the customs of the pharaoh, Ptolemy made himself a living god. With this claim of divinity, Ptolemy began the Ptolemaic dynastic cult – a cult dedicated to the royal Ptolemaic household in the fashions of both Greek and Egyptian customs. Although an enthusiast of Greek culture, Ptolemy’s respect and adoration for Egyptian culture and society bolstered his image as a sovereign, as he continued to filter aspects of his rule through native Egyptian language, religion, and imagery.

Ptolemy’s royal cult was forged in different respects concerning the audience and intent. Like his pharaonic predecessors, Ptolemy related himself with specific gods, though he carefully constructed his divine image based on his audience; to the Greeks, Ptolemy was associated with Zeus, Apollo, and Serapis; to the Egyptians, he was identified with Ra, Amun, and Osiris. Another aspect of the Ptolemaic dynastic cult was the relationship between the ruling Ptolemies and the divine Alexander; Alexander was the official state god of the Ptolemaic Kingdom, the city of Alexandria honoring Alexander as both a god and hero. Ptolemy synthesized the worship of the Ptolemies and the worship of Alexander by first placing statues of his deified parents in the same shrines dedicated to the cult of Alexander. The priest of Alexander’s cult was assigned to perform the same rites to the divine Ptolemies, becoming theoi synnaoi (“temple-sharing gods”), underlining the superiority of Alexander with dynastic links to the house of Ptolemy. There was also the rumor that Ptolemy I was an illegitimate son of Philip II of Macedon, Alexander’s father, making their ties to him by virtue of blood. Both Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II most likely encouraged this rumor to help with their own majesty and importance. Ptolemy II is recognized as one of the most ardent champions of the Hellenistic ruler cult.

If I ascribe one thing to Ptolemy, it’s that his dynastic ambitions and shrewd diplomacy rivaled his father’s, and perhaps he was even greater. Under Ptolemy II’s rule, Alexandria became the cultural hub of the Mediterranean world, the court of Alexandria proving to be a setting of academic riches and evolving culture. Ptolemy eagerly carried on his father’s passions for cultural and political expansion, the Library of Alexandria fostering the knowledge of the Mediterranean, as every ship that entered Alexandria’s port was thoroughly searched for books and scrolls that had been purchased or could be copied, Ptolemy setting the objective for 500,000 scrolls to be collected. More ambitiously, Ptolemy requested the Egyptian priest Manetho to compile a history of Egypt based on records from the temples, translated from hieroglyphs to Greek. A famous story is of Ptolemy’s request of 72 Jewish scholars to translate the Torah from Hebrew to Greek, the tradition being that each translation was miraculously identical (the validity of the story is questionable).

Ptolemy established himself as a cultured and peaceful king, becoming a patron of scientific research, the arts, and developing academia. It was Ptolemy’s innovation that the Alexandrian court flourished with pomp and splendor; exotic animals were staged as spectacles while philosophers and poets were entertained as beneficial guests. Of the poets were Callimachus and Theocritus of Syracuse, the former officiating as the keeper of the great library while the latter was a host of lesser poets. It was through Ptolemy’s patronage of poets and artists that the Ptolemaic family was glorified. Many compare the grandeur and glory of Ptolemy II’s court to that of Versailles of Louis XIV.

“Ptolemy Philadelphus in the Library of Alexandria” by Vincenzo Camuccini

Among Ptolemy’s contributions to the Ptolemaic Kingdom were his economic overhaul, major building projects, and initiation of new laws; Ptolemy was emulating his father’s character, but to a grander degree. Ptolemy reformed the tax system to increase revenue, exploiting Egypt’s natural resources. Ptolemy introduced a new salt tax, as well as transferring the responsibility of the hekte (one-sixth tax) from the temples to the tax-farmers in order to give him more authority over both the levying and collection of taxation. Another innovation was the creation of the fiscal year to match the agricultural clock. He also reformed bronze coinage by introducing new denominations and widening the circulation of coins. It seems most of these economic reforms and practices were in part due to Ptolemy’s wars with the Seleucid Empire.

Ptolemy undertook a great deal of building ventures during his reign, one being the completion of the Lighthouse of Alexandria in a span of twelve years, a project his father had commissioned (and was thus dedicated to the Theoi Soteres). Other such projects were the Museum of Alexandria, a university (which rivaled the schools of Athens), the construction of new temples and renovations of older temples, as well as building new cities along the Red Sea coast, which helped strengthen trade links amongst the Mediterranean and stimulate Egypt’s economy. To ensure trade with the orient, Ptolemy constructed a canal that linked the Nile to the Gulf of Suez. It is reported he also established trade with India, likely with the Indian emperor Ashoka the Great. Ptolemy refashioned Egypt’s judiciary system to the point where royal law was promoted above Egyptian and Greek law. Ptolemy created three distinct courts: the Chrematistai was the royal judicial court, the Dikasteria which heard cases involving Greek speaking parties, and the Laokritai which attended to native Egyptian matters. Though, informal disputes were still handled under traditional Egyptian law, an indication of Ptolemy’s respect for the historical customs of Egypt.

Sometime after 280 BCE Arsinoe II, daughter of Ptolemy I and Berenice, arrived at her brother’s court, seeking refuge and solace from her mixed fortunes. After the Battle of Ipsus (301 BCE) Ptolemy I betrothed Arsinoe to Lysimahcus, King of Thrace, Asia Minor, and Macedon, pursuing an alliance with his fellow diadochus (“successor”) in order to contend with the growing power of Seleucus I Nicator (“the Victor”). Arsinoe had three sons with Lysimachus, though their princely status was threatened by the prominence of Lysimachus’ eldest son and heir, Agathocles. Arsinoe was a manipulative, wicked woman who proved her hunger for power when she convinced Lysimachus that Agathocles was plotting against him. Lysimachus, his mind corrupted by the ambitions of Arsinoe, gave into paranoia and had his eldest son executed. This act caused Lysimachus’ popularity and name to be degraded, many of his subjects and courtiers (including Ptolemy Ceraunus) fled to Seleucus, urging him to vanquish Lysimachus. Knowing of his difficult situation, Lysimachus called on Ptolemy for support in his conflict with Seleucus, though Ptolemy was quiet and offered no help. In the Battle of Corupedium (281 BCE), Lysimachus was killed and soon after Arsinoe fled to Cassandria, as her half-brother Ptolemy Ceraunus had seized the Macedonian throne (after he murdered Seleucus and was acclaimed by the Macedonian army). Both siblings lusted for power, and soon they were married. Their marriage was plagued by intrigue and ambition, as Arsinoe believed Ceraunus was trying to overshadow her in terms of authority, leading to her conspiring to assassinate him. Discovering her plan, Ceraunus had two of her sons by Lysimachus killed. Arisnoe then sought protection from her full-blooded sibling, Ptolemy II.

After arriving at the Alexandrian court, Arsinoe II conspired against Arsinoe I, her brother’s wife. Arsinoe II managed to persuade her brother and the court that Arsinoe I was plotting to kill her husband. Arsinoe I was banished from the Ptolemaic Kingdom, though she continued to live her life in splendor and pleasure, as she was the former wife of the pharaoh. Soon after, between 279 and 274 BCE, Ptolemy and Arsinoe II married; Arsinoe was declared Ptolemy’s co-ruler and fellow pharaoh. Ptolemy’s legitimate children by Arsinoe I were then adopted by Arsinoe II. This was the first sibling marriage Egypt had witnessed in centuries; both Ptolemy and Arsinoe were given the epithet Philadelphus (“Sibling-Loving”). Ptolemy’s decision to take his sister as his wife shocked the Greek public, though this did not predominately affect the Alexandrian court, as the poets of Alexandria celebrated the marriage, and the native Egyptians did not think it any dissimilar from the ancient pharaonic tradition concerning incestuous marriage. Although, the poet Sotades made a mockery of this marriage in his writings, and paid for it with his life.

The marriage was advocated in the likeness of the divine marriage of Zeus and Hera, as well as Osiris and Isis, both divine sibling rulers, in order to accustom Greek and Egyptian subjects. It is unknown whether Ptolemy had actual passionate affection for his elder sister, or that he married her for calculating political reasons, but nevertheless Ptolemy made a great show of devotion to her, especially after her death. Their effigies were portrayed on Ptolemy’s coins, coupled with profiles of their deified parents. With this union created the cult of the Theoi Adelphoi (“Divine Brother and Sister”), a ruler cult composed of both Greek and Egyptian developments. This specific cult of Ptolemy and Arsinoe was also linked to the Alexandrian cult of Alexander; the Alexandrian priests attended to the religious duties of both Alexander and the Theoi Adelphoi, reflecting a “dynastic” relationship to Alexandria’s founder and hero. Notably, commissioned images of Arsinoe represented her with the horns of Zeus-Amun in affinity to the deified Alexander. Also, the cult of Ptolemy and Arsinoe may have been encouraged in order to unify Egypt in a manner that appeared natural to the Egyptian subjects. Though, despite Ptolemy’s efforts to integrate his rule and image being that of the native theocracy, there were sentiments from priests of Upper Egypt that still regarded him as a foreign king. Nonetheless, Ptolemy and Arisnoe still received the pharaonic privileges and were treated as gods, a crucial example being Ptolemy’s promotion of Arsinoe’s cult, identifying her with the Greek Aphrodite and the Egyptian Isis.

Coin depicting “Divine Brother and Sister”

Despite his devotion to Arsinoe, his sister-wife, Ptolemy had numerous concubines and mistresses. Several of them were simple courtiers and performers at the Alexandrian court, of which Ptolemy provided excessive generosity to their stations. Ptolemy had a son with one concubine, and even deified another upon her death. As detailed, Ptolemy was a man of decadence, luxury, and intellectual pursuits, with many regarding him as the most “pleasant” of the Hellenistic kings. However, this did not mean that Ptolemy did not actively interfere with the ambitions and machinations of the other Hellenistic kings, particularly Antigonus II Gonatas (“Knock-Kness” or “from Gonnoi”).

While producing grand achievements at home in Alexandria, Ptolemy had mixed fortunes when it came to warfare. Ptolemy’s maternal half-brother, Magas, was the governor of Ptolemaic Cyrenaica, who, in 276 BCE, proclaimed himself an independent king. Magas then married Apama II, daughter of Seleucid King Antiochus I Soter; the two formed a pact to attack the Ptolemaic Kingdom in accordance with their ambitions. Since the establishment of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties the question of Coele-Syria flared the tensions between these Hellenistic monarchies, with the Seleucids claiming the whole of Syria as their domain while the Ptolemies had occupied the territory of Coele-Syria since the days of Ptolemy I. Both Hellenistic dynasties claimed this region of Syria, and for years to come there would be wars fought over the right for such territory. Thus, in 274 BCE Antiochus occupied Ptolemaic territory along the Syria coast while Magas attacked Egypt from the west. However, due to an internal issue Magas had to cease his operations, meanwhile Antiochus seized Ptolemaic possessions in southern Asia Minor. Antiochus, in his campaign, suffered a critical defeat, which in turn allowed Ptolemy to reconquer these territories and extend Ptolemaic rule as far as Caria and into most of Cilicia. In 271 BCE the war between Antiochus and Ptolemy ended, the latter receiving control of the Aegean Sea. Ptolemy conclusively left Magas alone, the independence of Cyrenaica ending with Magas death in 250 BCE, where then Cyrenaica was reabsorbed into the Ptolemaic Kingdom through the union of Ptolemy III and Berenice II, daughter of Magas.

Regardless of his success against Antiochus, Ptolemy as alarmed when Macedonian King Antigonus II began to gain ground in Greece and build up a naval empire of his own. However, Athens and Sparta were hostile to the Antigonid dominion, a factor Ptolemy sought to take advantage of. Utilizing his role as hegemon of the Nesiotic League (city-states of Cyclades), Ptolemy advocated for aggression against Antigonus, and eventually at the behest of the Athenian Chremonides did war erupt, claiming Ptolemy manifested a zeal for the freedom of the Greeks. It was during this time period that Arsinoe II’s son Ptolemy Epigonos (“the Heir”) was appointed as co-regent of the Ptolemaic Kingdom, indicating that he was Ptolemy II’s chosen successor. The Chremonidian War began in 267 BCE, commencing with only a few minor confrontations; the war became indecisive in the following years, boding ill for the Greek city-states. In 265 BCE Antigonus won a crucial victory outside Corinth where Spartan King Areus I fell. In response, Ptolemy sent a fleet to break the Macedonian naval blockade in the Aegean, the Egyptian admiral Patroclus landed on a small uninhabited island off the coast of Laurium, fortifying it as a base for naval operations. Seeing an opportunity, Magas persuaded Antiochus to attack Egypt while Ptolemy was preoccupied with Antigonus. To counter this, Ptolemy sent an outfit of pirates to raid Antiochus’ provinces. While Ptolemy was successful in defending Egypt, he was not able to save Athens from Antigonus. Eventually, worn down by the years of warfare, Athens and Sparta made peace with Antigonus in 261 BCE, surrendering to the Antigonid hegemony.

Cameo of Ptolemy II depicted as Alexander the Great

Having failed to halt Antigonus’ rule over Greece, Ptolemy’s influence over the Greeks waned increasingly, though this did not stop him from meddling in Greek affairs. Wanting to push Ptolemy out of the Aegean, Antigonus made a pact with the newly assumed Seleucid King Antiochus II Theos (“the God”). Like his father, Antiochus II was interested in regaining and expanding the Syrian territory, and thus in 260 BCE launched another war against Ptolemy, knowing he had the full support of Antigonus. Antiochus first attacked Ptolemaic outposts in Asia; these actions resulted in Ptolemy calling for the aid of Eumenes I of Pergamon, consequently achieving some success due to his ally’s help. Though, more trouble was brought upon Ptolemy circa 259 BCE as, for unknown reasons, Ptolemy Epigonos led a revolt together with the Milesian tyrant Timarchus. Though, Timarchus would be defeated and killed by Antiochus, he then claiming Miletus and neighboring cities under Seleucid sovereignty. With the revolt suppressed, Ptolemy discontinued his co-regency with Epigonos and had him renounce all claims to the Egyptian throne. In exchange, though, Ptolemy gave Epigonos the rule over the city of Telmessos, perhaps in order to establish his own dynasty but still act as a client-king to the royal Ptolemies. Ptolemy Epigonos governed Telmessos until his death in 240 BCE, a reign that displayed great autonomy under Ptolemaic regard.

It was roughly 255 BCE (or as early as 261 BCE) when the Battle of Cos took place, a naval engagement that pitted Antigonus against Ptolemy’s admiral Patroclus. Antigonus emerged victorious, severely damaging Ptolemy’s control of the Aegean. In the aftermath, a peace was concluded between Ptolemy and Antigonus, the latter now preoccupied by the rebellions of Corinth and Chalcis (possibly instigated by Ptolemy). Ptolemy seemed to have abandoned the Aegean for the time being, focusing his efforts on Antiochus, who had gained much ground in Asia Minor. The war eventually closed with a peace in 253 BCE, when Antiochus agreed to marry Ptolemy’s daughter Berenice Phernophorus (“Dowry-Bearer”); it appears that Ptolemy still held some authority in Cilicia. Also, it seems Ptolemy was involved in a war against the Nubian Kingdom of Kush during the 270s BCE, an adversary he defeated. Through this victory Ptolemy gained important gold-mining areas south of Egypt known as Dodekasoinos, as well as establishing hunting stations and ports as far as Port Sudan.

Circa 270-260 BCE Arsinoe II died; Ptolemy ushered a new royal cult, temples, and cities in honor of his sister-wife, firmly initiating the ruler cult of the Ptolemaic Kingdom. Ptolemy founded Arsinoe’s cult as a state institution, worshipping her as the “goddess Philadelphus”. In addition to Aphrodite and Isis, Arsinoe was identified with the gods Amun, Hera, Hathor, Zephyrus, Demeter, and many more. Ptolemy’s marriage to his sister would be a practice that the future Ptolemies would mimic in accordance to “royal tradition”. Was Ptolemy truly in love with his sister? No one will ever really know, but he made the greatest devotions to her image and memory, that some might call it more than brotherly affection.

Bust of Ptolemy II Philadelphus in traditional Egyptian art

Ptolemy II died in 246 BCE, his eldest son Ptolemy succeeding him as pharaoh. Ptolemy III would bring the Ptolemaic Kingdom to its greatest height, only made possible through the work of his father. Ptolemy II can be viewed as the ideal Hellenistic king; his cultivation of knowledge, the arts and sciences, and other intellectual and artistic pursuits made Alexandria the cultural hub of the entire Hellenistic world. His enthusiasm for Greek culture but respect for native Egyptian customs made him an almost perfect multicultural ruler, almost in the same mold Alexander dreamed of being. Never again would there be another Ptolemaic king who espoused such greatness and intellect; Ptolemy II is, in my opinion, without a doubt the greatest pharaoh of the Ptolemaic age. Ptolemy goes down in history as a pharaoh comparable to the great Ramesses II, for such achievements he brought to his kingdom – Egypt reached its apex under the rule of Ptolemy II. This is one of those few instances in which a great father is succeeded by an even greater son, as was the case of Philip II and Alexander, so is the case of Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II.

“Ptolemy Philadelphus giving freedom to the Jews” by Christmas Coypel

Recommended Reading:

The House of Ptolemy, E.R. Bevan

Ptolemy II Philadelphus and His World, Paul McKechnie and Philippe Guillaume

A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, Gunther Holbl

Epimanes (“the Mad One”)

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (“God-Manifest”) was the eighth king of the Seleucid Empire, ruling from 175 to 164 BCE. The third and youngest son of Seleucid King Antiochus III Megas (“the Great”), Antiochus IV inherited the Seleucid throne after the death of his elder brother Seleucus IV Philopator (“Father-Loving”), though it was under ambitious circumstances. Antiochus tried to reignite Seleucid dominance in Asia and the Near East, though he was halted by the Romans. Antiochus is infamously known for his persecution of the Jews of Judaea and Samaria, which finally led to the Maccabean Revolt. Jewish tradition casts Antiochus IV as an evil character associated with the story of Hanukkah. Antiochus was the first Seleucid king to inscribe divine epithets on coins, conveying the ethos of his father Antiochus III who had made himself a living god. His eccentric behavior and erratic actions, along with his cruelty, led his contemporaries to call him Epimanes (“the Mad One”), a word play on his epithet Epiphanes.

Bust of Antiochus IV Epiphanes

Born circa 215 BCE, Antiochus was originally named Mithradates, but once he became king he assumed the royal name of Antiochus. His father, Antiochus III, was renowned throughout the east for his ambitious conquests and likeness to Alexander the Great. Though, Antiochus’ bid for the Greek world put the Roman Republic on guard, having recently defeated Carthage and “freed” the Greek city-states from Philip V of Macedon. Both the Romans and Antiochus III claimed to be defenders of the Greeks, however Antiochus’s ambitions were crippled by the fact that many of the Greek city-states preferred the overlordship of Romans. Antiochus’ continued aggressive policies provoked war from the Romans, in which the Romans subsequently humiliated Antiochus in battle, culminating in the Battle of Magnesia (190 BCE) where Antiochus was finally defeated. In 188 BCE the Peace of Apamea was signed, which obliged Antiochus to abandon Europe and relinquish a vast amount of his Asian territories. Also, a hostage was required of the Romans to ensure Antiochus’ good behavior. They chose his youngest son Mithradates to be a hostage at Rome, however, in 187 BCE his elder brother Seleucus IV inherited the Seleucid throne and his son, Demetrius, was chosen to be the hostage at Rome by 178 BCE.

Seleucus IV Philopator’s reign was hamstrung by the heavy war-indemnity forced by the Romans, compelling him to seek an ambitious policy. Seleucus began to collect taxes in order to pay the Romans, sending his chief minister Heliodorus to Jerusalem to seize the treasury of the Temple. However, once back from Jerusalem the minister Heliodorus assassinated Seleucus and usurped the Seleucid throne. Seleucus’ son Demetrius was still a hostage at Rome, though Heliodorus was ousted and executed by Mithradates, who now seized the throne and proclaimed himself Antiochus IV. Declaring himself co-ruler with Seleucus’ infant son Antiochus, Antiochus IV soon had the child killed so he could rule alone. Antiochus then married his elder sister Laodice IV, who had previously been married to Seleucus.

Antiochus continued the process of Hellenization, but to a much more enforced and aggressive degree. He re-established Babylon as a Greek community, who revered him as Soter (“the Savior”), and appointed a Hellenized Judaean priest named Jason as high priest of the Temple of Jerusalem, effectively having a Greek oversee the Jewish community. He soon replaced Jason with a priest named Menelaus, on the promise of greater tribute. To win Antiochus’ favor, the rival priests completed the Hellenization of Jerusalem, inducting aspects of Greek culture and building an Olympic gymnasium.

Antiochus’ deprivation of military conquest and glory was offset by his policy of Hellenization, quickly becoming a known patron of Greek culture and society. Antiochus not only became a splendid benefactor of Greek temples across the Eastern Mediterranean, but also promoted the cult of the living Seleucid ruler, something implemented by his father Antiochus III. Antiochus gave himself the epithet Epiphanes – “God-Manifest”, legitimizing himself as a divine ruler, claiming to be Zeus in mortal guise. He would later give himself the epithet Nikephoros (“Bringer of Victory”), reflecting his success in war. True, it was Zeus Olympios (“the Olympian”) who Antiochus called forth with fevered imagination, building a new temple dedicated to Zeus in Athens and displaying the god on the reverse of his coins, something not done since the days of the Seleucus I Nicator (“the Victor”). Perhaps it is Zeus’ depiction as king of the Olympian gods that entertained Antiochus so much, and his claim to be the “mortal Zeus” is a result of such dreams of power and vanity. As the supreme god incarnate Antiochus became the patron to all religious facets and, most importantly, the Greek people of Asia.

Coin depicting Antiochus IV Epiphanes

In 170 BCE the guardians of the young pharaoh Ptolemy VI Philometor (“Mother-Loving”) demanded the territory of Coele-Syria be returned as a Ptolemaic possession, though Antiochus launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt, conquering all Ptolemaic territory with the exception of Alexandria. Though he did not capture Ptolemy VI, Antiochus essentially used the boy as a puppet ruler as he had basically conquered the Ptolemaic Kingdom. When Antiochus withdrew from Egypt, the Alexandrians chose Ptolemy VI’s brother, also named Ptolemy (Ptolemy VIII), as their king. The brothers ruled together peacefully, all under the heel of Antiochus. In 168 BCE Antiochus led a second assault on Egypt, intending on besieging Alexandria and claim the throne of the pharaoh as his own. Before he reached Alexandria he was stopped by an elderly Roman ambassador named Gaius Popillius Laenas. The Roman ambassador ordered Antiochus to withdraw his army from Ptolemaic Egypt or else face war with the Roman Republic. Antiochus said he would discuss the decision with his council, whereupon Popillius drew a circle in the sand around Antiochus demanding an answer to the Roman Senate before Antiochus crossed the line. Knowing the might of Rome and his possible delicate options, Antiochus said he would withdraw his army. Only then did Popillius decide to shake hands with Antiochus.

Angered and humbled by the Romans, Antiochus went to Jerusalem to find Menelaus and his supporters slaughtered by Jason and associates. Antiochus then sacked the city, venting his rage and desiring to completely remodel Jerusalem as a Hellenized city. Antiochus rebuilt Jerusalem as a Seleucid fortress, outlawing Jewish religious rite and traditions and ordered the worship of Zeus as the patron god of Jerusalem. The Jews initially refused, though Antiochus sent an army to enforce his rule, resulting in the massacre of many Jews.  It is ironic, as the Jews of Judaea respected his father Antiochus III for the mild autonomy he granted to the Jews in terms of their laws and tribute. As detailed in the first book of the Maccabees:

“The wicked ruler Antiochus Epiphanes, son of King Antiochus the Third of Syria, was a descendant of one of Alexander’s generals. Antiochus Epiphanes had been a hostage in Rome before he became king of Syria in the year 137. At that time there appeared in the land of Israel a group of traitorous Jews who had no regard for the Law and who had a bad influence on many of our people. They said, Let’s come to terms with the Gentiles, for our refusal to associate with them has brought us nothing but trouble. This proposal appealed to many people, and some of them became so enthusiastic about it that they went to the king and received from him permission to follow Gentile customs. They built in Jerusalem a stadium like those in the Greek cities. They had surgery performed to hide their circumcision, abandoned the holy covenant, started associating with Gentiles, and did all sorts of other evil things […] after the conquest of Egypt, Antiochus marched with a great army against the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem. In his arrogance, he entered the Temple and took away the gold altar, the lampstand with all its equipment, the table for the bread offered to the Lord, the cups and bowls, the gold fire pans, the curtain, and the crowns. He also stripped all the gold from the front of the Temple and carried off the silver and gold and everything else of value, including all the treasures that he could find stored there. Then he took it all to his own country. He had also murdered many people and boasted arrogantly about it. There was great mourning everywhere in the land of Israel

[…] Antiochus now issued a decree that all nations in his empire should abandon their own customs and become one people. All the Gentiles and even many of the Israelites submitted to this decree. They adopted the official pagan religion, offered sacrifices to idols, and no longer observed the Sabbath. The king also sent messengers with a decree to Jerusalem and all the towns of Judaea, ordering the people to follow customs that were foreign to the country. He ordered them not to offer burnt offerings, grain offerings, or wine offerings in the Temple, and commanded them to treat Sabbaths and festivals as ordinary work days. They were even ordered to defile the Temple and the holy things in it. They were commanded to build pagan altars, temples, and shrines, and to sacrifice pigs and other unclean animals there. They were forbidden to circumcise their sons and were required to make themselves ritually unclean in every way they could, so that they would forget the Law which the Lord had given through Moses and would disobey all its commands. The penalty for disobeying the king’s decree was death.”

There are horrific punishments detailed in Hebrew scripture to show Antiochus’ evil character, his absolute power and will dedicated to Hellenism. As such, the Maccabean Revolt, as expressed in First and Second Maccabees, was a cause for national identity. The rebellion was led by Judas Maccabeus, a Jewish priest whose father, Mattathias, sparked national resistance. Antiochus sent an army to deal with the revolt, though the Jews’ use of guerrilla warfare halted the reconquest effort, and in the end the Jews of Judaea achieved independence from the Seleucid Empire. Antiochus did not seem so interested in the Jewish rebellion, as he intended to reconquer the northern and eastern provinces which had been subdued by his father, Antiochus III. In 166 BCE Antiochus returned in triumph to Antioch where he added to the splendor and magnificence of the city by virtue of his war spoils, though this was offset by the Maccabean Revolt. Knowing of Antiochus’ western problems, King Mithridates I of Parthia took advantage of this and seized the city of Herat, disrupting the trade route from the Greek world to India. Also, the Armenians had proclaimed independence since the death of Antiochus III, something that bothered Antiochus, as well as the other “independent” peoples who were previously under Seleucid sovereignty.

In 165 BCE Antiochus marched with a large army in order to punish and conquer the Parthians and Armenians, as well as the reconquest of his father’s empire. He left behind his young son Antiochus in Antioch, who Antiochus associated as his co-ruler and successor since 170 BCE, in the care of his mother. Antiochus first attacked the Armenians, who he succeeded in conquering, offering them the same request of servitude that his father had dealt. Antiochus then advanced on Persia to fight the Parthians, in which he gained initial success. Suddenly, in 164 BCE, Antiochus died from illness. Though, according to 2 Maccabees, he died in this manner:

“But the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him an incurable and unseen blow. As soon as he ceased speaking he was seized with a pain in his bowels for which there was no relief and with sharp internal tortures – and that very justly, for he had tortured the bowels of others with many and strange inflictions. Yet he did not in any way stop his insolence, but was even more filled with arrogance, breathing fire in his rage against the Jews, and giving orders to hasten the journey. And so it came about that he fell out of his chariot as it was rushing along, and the fall was so hard as to torture every limb of his body.”

“The Punishment of Antiochus” by Gustave Dore

His son, Antiochus V Eupator (“Good Father”), succeeded him, though his reign only lasted two years as the eldest son of Seleucus IV, Demetrius, escaped from Rome and returned to Syria and usurped the Seleucid throne. The downfall of the Seleucid Empire is often dated with the death of Antiochus IV, as the Seleucids decayed into claimants who ignited civil wars and were restricted to Syria, eventually becoming a simple buffer state that the other Mediterranean powers tolerated.

The legacy of Antiochus IV Epiphanes is of cruelty and vainglorious ambition. Certainly, his eccentric and vicious behavior made the offensive byname Epimanes ring so true. Antiochus is forever remembered as the evil king who persecuted the Jews, his name living on in Jewish writings only as an associate of cruel, inhumane barbarity against the Jewish people. Antiochus is portrayed as the “little horn” in the prophecy of Daniel: “Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them. It set itself up to be as great as the commander of the army of the Lord; it took away the daily sacrifice from the Lord, and his sanctuary was thrown down. Because of rebellion, the Lord’s people and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground.” Interestingly, the Greeks of Asia praised Antiochus for his program of Hellenization and his dedication to Hellenism, as they surnamed his son and successor Eupator. Nevertheless, Antiochus IV was a cruel, conceited king whose grand ambitions did not make him so appreciated in history, looked upon as a monster for his evil deeds.

Recommended Reading:

The House of Seleucus, E.R. Bevan

1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees

Beloved Son of Rome

Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus was a Roman politician and military commander, also known as Drusus the Elder. The younger son of Livia Drusilla, Drusus was also the legal stepson of Emperor Augustus; he was the brother of Emperor Tiberius and the father of Emperor Claudius. Drusus is distinguished for launching the first major campaigns across the Rhine and beginning the conquest of Germania. Drusus spearheaded numerous successful campaigns against the Germanic tribes; his military success made him a favorite of Augustus. He died 29 years-of-age, tragically depriving the Roman Empire of one of its best generals. The descendants of Drusus would play major roles in the continuity of the Roman Empire.

Bust of Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus

Drusus was born in 38 BCE, the youngest son of Livia Drusilla and her first husband Tiberius Claudius Nero, a patrician. His original name was Decimus Claudius Drusus, though for reasons unknown Drusus chose the cognomen “Nero” to be his praenomen. Before the couple divorced, Nero was legally declared the boy’s father; Livia would divorce Nero in order to marry the triumvir and future first emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (later known as Augustus). There were rumors that Drusus was actually Augustus’ son, though this is highly unlikely. However, Claudius, during his reign as emperor, encouraged the rumors so as create the impression that he was more directly linked to Augustus. Drusus was raised in the house of Nero, along with his older brother Tiberius, until their father’s death. The relationship between Drusus and Tiberius was a famously close one, the brothers ever devoted to one another. Tiberius named his son after his brother, and Drusus did likewise with his son, the famed Germanicus.

Drusus was fast-tracked through the cursus honorum due to the patronage of his stepfather, holding the position of quaestor five years before he was legally able to do so. Augustus bestowed many honors on his stepsons, as in 15 BCE Drusus was assigned to the province of Gaul to serve as legatus Augusti pro praetore (“general of Augustus with the authority of a praetor”) after his previous military success. Likewise, a year earlier while Tiberius was away from Italy Drusus legislated in his place. That same year Drusus married Antonia Minor, a daughter of Mark Antony and Octavia Minor, sister of Augustus. Drusus gained a reputation of being completely faithful to Antonia, and the same was said of Antonia. They had several children, but only three survived to adulthood. Three emperors were direct descendants of Drusus: his son Claudius, his grandson Caligula, and his great-grandson Nero.

As governor of Gaul, Drusus established concilium Galliarum (“council of the Gaulish provinces”) and made the city of Lugdunum (modern Lyon) the headquarters of the province. The council would elect members as priests who oversaw celebratory games and venerated the goddess Roma as well as Augustus. His son Tiberius Claudius Nero (“Claudius”) was born in Lugdunum the same day the altar of the three Gauls was inaugurated in 10 BCE. Augustus annexed the Alps and the lands leading up to the Rhine and the Danube, so as to regulate the German frontier better, as he intended to annex Germania (Germany) beyond the Rhine. Augustus appointed Drusus, who was 23 years-old, to command the German campaign; Drusus was an inexperienced general at this point, but his experiences in the Alps would mold him into a great commander.

Northern Italy wasn’t completely under the domain of Rome, as a collection of Celtic tribes, specifically the Raeti, disturbed trade. In 15 BCE Drusus and his legions swept through the territory, making quick work of the Raeti. Augustus awarded the Drusus the title of praetor, encouraging Drusus to continue to campaign with unmatched success. Tiberius reinforced Drusus in the second phase of the campaign, leading legions against the Vindelici, a tribe located in modern-day Bavaria. Despite firm resistance, the Vindelici were crushed and Drusus established a new military base named Augusta Vindelicorum (modern-day Augsburg).Drusus and Tiberius marched eastward to the Kingdom of Noricum, in modern-day Austria. While Noricum was actually a trade ally of Rome, the brothers were given orders to annex it. They quickly achieved annexing Noricum without major struggle. Having completed his mission in a single campaign season, this is when Augustus gave him the authority of praetor and governorship of Gaul.

Drusus’ next assignment was to build a string of military bases along the Rhine, in preparation for the official annexation of Germania, though the Germanic tribes would not settle easily, and so methods of conquest were considered. In two years the massive military project of the age was completed, and in 12 BCE Drusus and his legions crossed the Rhine and began the campaign against the Germanic tribes. He first engaged the Sugambri and Usipete tribes, swiftly nullifying the opposition, and then continued on with an amphibious campaign to further the subjugation of the Germanic peoples. There were a few naval encounters between Drusus and the Bructeri, all ending in Roman victory. Drusus ordered some of his fleet to discover a route to the Caspian Sea, though they eventually had to turn back due to bad weather. Meanwhile, Drusus contended with the Chauci, who were defeated and sued for peace. After this Drusus returned to Gaul to winter until the forthcoming campaign season, though he used his new tribal alliances to navigate the North Sea.

“Drusus invades Germany”

Drusus was rewarded with the title of praetor urbanus by Augustus in 11 BCE; news of Drusus’ achievements caused great excitement in Rome. Drusus did not have it in him to stay in Rome, preferring to continue with his German campaign. So, Drusus took five legions and crossed the Rhine once again to subdue the Germanic tribes, ascending the Lippe and conducing military engagements against the Tencteri and Usipetes, in which he was victorious. Forts were then established in the region; on their way to the Weser Drusus came upon the Chatti, who fiercely fought the Romans but were eventually subjugated. Drusus then ordered the construction of forts in the Taunus Mountains, deciding to winter there. This was the first time a Roman army had spent a river on the right bank of the Rhine. On the return journey Drusus and the legions were ambushed by the Cherusci at Arbalo, quickly devolving into a hard-strung battle where the Cherusci failed to capitalize on their initial advantage and the Romans managed to defeat the German attackers. The soldiers then proclaimed Drusus as imperator.

To secure his position Drusus garrisoned men at multiple outposts, deciding again to winter in Germania. He rejoined his wife and children for a time at Lugdunum before returning to Rome. Drusus reported directly to Augustus to divulge his achievements, in which Augustus honored him with an ovation and, for a second time, closed the doors of the Temple of Janus, signifying that the Roman world was at peace. Drusus was then granted the office of proconsul for 10 BCE. In 9 BCE Drusus was easily elected consul, though he left Rome before assuming the office in order to trounce more Germanic tribes. Drusus’ consulship gave him the chance to gain the spolia opima, the most honorable of any war trophy a Roman commander could gain. Drusus eagerly returned to the field, but not before stopping in Lugdunum to confer with the council and dedicate a temple to Augustus. Drusus led his army through the territories of the Marsi and Cherusci until he crossed the Elbe. It is said that Drusus encountered an apparition of a German woman who demanded he leave her homeland immediately and that his days were numbered. Drusus turned back, but not before erecting a trophy to commemorate his reaching of the Elbe. Sources agree that Drusus sought at least three Germanic chieftains during his campaigns, engaging in “dazzling displays of singe combat”. The sources, while ambiguous, do imply that Drusus did take the spolia opim from a Germanic king, making him the fourth and last Roman to have this honor.

“Drusus and the Germanic Woman”

On his return Drusus fell from his horse, mortally injuring him as he lingered on for a month. Tiberius joined Drusus after hearing of this injury, and soon after Tiberius arrived Drusus died. Interestingly, before his death Drusus wrote to Tiberius complaining about Augustus’ rule, implying he may have had republican sentiments, and that he refused to return to Rome for an unknown reason. Drusus was cremated and his ashes were placed in the Mausoleum of Augustus. The Senate declared Drusus fecundi ingeni (“fecund genius”). Legionaries erected a monument (the Drususstein) to him in Mogontiacum (modern Mainz). Drusus’ family was gifted the hereditary victory title of Germanicus (“Victor of Germania), which his eldest son inherited as his byname. Augustus decreed that festivals were to be held in Mogontiacum on Drusus’ death day and birthday. Augustus also wrote a biography of Drusus, but it has not survived. Livia, his mother, was greatly affected by his death, requiring the help of the philosopher Areus who convinced her to put up statues and images of Drusus, also instructing her to speak often about him.

Upon Claudius accession Drusus received new public honors as well as celebratory games in the Circus Maximus to be held on his birthday. Claudius also constructed a road from Italy into Raetia, following Drusus’ route, where road-markers were stationed commemorating Drusus’ campaign achievements. Drusus was revered as a national hero, fondly looked back on as one of Rome’s greatest generals. All accounts refer to Drusus being of good character and sorely missed.

Recommended Reading:

Eager for Glory: The Untold Story of Drusus the Elder, Conqueror of Germania, Lindsay Powell

The King’s Final Cry

According to tradition, the Ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon was thought to have been founded in the late 9th century BCE by a man named Caranus, supposedly a descendant of the mythical hero Heracles and thus the progenitor of the Argead dynasty. The Argeads would rule Macedon for five more centuries, the most famous members of the clan would be Philip II and his son Alexander the Great. After Alexander’s death in 323 BCE the grand empire he created was fractured in the ensuing Wars of the Diadochi (“Successors”), and in the concluding years of the 4th century BCE the Argead dynasty would cease, with the deaths of Philip III Arrhidaeus, Alexander’s half-brother, and Alexander IV, his son.

The supplanting dynasty would be the Antigonids, founded by the diadochus (“successor”) Antignous I Monophthalmus (“the One-Eye”) and his son Demetrius I Poliorcetes (“the Besieger”). During the majority of the Hellenistic Age most of Greece was under the rule of the Antigonid dynasty, its most celebrated member being Philip V, called the “beloved of the Greeks”. Though, Philip’s ambitions would put him in conflict with the rising power of the Roman Republic who also wished to subjugate the east. Several Greek city-states sought protection from Rome, dissatisfied and tired of living under the Macedonian hegemony for so long. The Romans waged two wars against Philip V in order to halt his schemes of conquest and claim Greece for themselves. The Romans were victorious and the Antigonid Kingdom was restricted solely to Macedon, the Greeks finally “free”.

However, it would be Philip’s son and successor, Perseus, who again challenged Roman dominance and strove to reestablish his kingdom as the premier power in Greece. Perseus’ challenge would end in failure, as after the Battle of Pydna (168 BCE) the Macedonian monarchy would be dissolved and the Romans would install four republics to govern the region. With the defeat of Perseus, the Romans would become the masters of the Greek world and the supreme authority of the Eastern Mediterranean.

Coin depicting Perseus of Macedon

Perseus was born circa 212 BCE, the eldest son of Philip V and a concubine, most likely Polycratia of Argos. Perseus was personally trained by his father to be a military commander, as per tradition of the royal house of Macedon. Perseus went on to command battalions in his father’s wars against the Roman Republic and the Aetolian League, and he was noted in his besiegement of Amphilochia in 189 BCE. He also commanded victories against the Paeonians, who were aggressive and fearful of Macedon due to Philip’s expansionist aims. Philip then founded the city of Perseis in Paeonia in honor of Perseus. Though, Perseus feared that despite his favorable grooming by his father, he would conclusively be passed on in favor of his legitimate younger brother, Demetrius, whose mother Philip had taken as his queen. Also, Perseus was anxious due to possible Roman interference, as Demetrius had been a hostage in Rome (per the demands of the Romans after Philip’s defeat) and became a true friend to his detainers. So, in an effort to seize his inheritance, Perseus plotted against Demetrius for a three-year period. Eventually, Perseus succeeded in staging a plot in which he managed to convince his father that Demetrius was a traitor who was planning a coup in favor of a pro-Roman policy. Philip subsequently had Demetrius executed, securing Perseus’ inheritance.

In 179 BCE Philip died (his health declined due to the execution of Demetrius), Perseus now triumphant in his venture to seize the Macedonian throne. He would go on to strengthen Macedon’s image and resources in both diplomatic and militaristic fashions. He issued amnesty to all exiled debtors, pardoning those convicted or suspected of treason, and even returning property to those who were in exile. All the while, Macedon’s immediate neighbors feared for their safety, the Dardani sending an embassy to Rome to warn them about Perseus’ presence and intentions. Though, most prominently was Perseus’ conflict with Abrupolis, a Thracian tribal-king who had sprung attacks on Macedonian dominions, having overrun the gold mines of Mount Pangaios. Perseus would then oust Abrupolis from his territories, an unfortunate situation, as Abrupolis was a Roman ally. Though, his victory over Aburpolis seemed to impress the Greeks even more, earning Perseus the favor of the Greek city-states, as well as the Greeks of Asia Minor.

Perseus’ role in the death of Demetrius did not endear him to the Romans, though both parties came together to renew the peace treaty, one of first acts of Perseus’ reign. Though, the Romans were still ever suspicious of Perseus’ ambitions, as he had started to display behavior that aggravated them. Perseus engineered an expansion of Macedonian power and influence, having a remarkable diplomatic offensive, as in 178 BCE he accomplished strengthening the relationship between Macedonian and the Seleucid Empire, having married Laodice V, daughter of Seleucus IV Philopator (“Father-Loving”); with her he had four children. He then secured an alliance with Prusias II Cynegus (“the Hunter”) of Bithynia, marrying his sister Apama IV to him. He would also repair relations with Rhodes, advocating for “Greek freedom” which the Rhodians held dear, as well as mending the relationships with the Aetolian League and Thessaly. He even struck military alliances with Boeotia and Cotys IV of the Odrysian Kingdom. By the late 170s BCE Perseus could field an army larger than his father ever could – of some 43,000 soldiers. Never since Alexander had the Macedonian army been so large. Perseus utilized this army to suppress a rebellion in Dolopia, later paying a ceremonial visit to Delphi with his army still with him. Certain Greek leaders, however, became alarmed at Perseus’ military might, seeking Eumenes II Soter (“the Savior”) of Pergamon for help. Eumenes had been a consistent collaborator with the Roman Republic, having helped them in their victories against Philip V and Antiochus III Megas (“the Great”). In 172 BCE he personally appeared in the Senate, claiming that Perseus was as severe threat to the stability of the Greek world. Eumenes claimed that Perseus had fostered ambitions of conquest ever since he took the Macedonian throne, also declaring that Perseus was respected and feared in the east, and that his ambitions were ever-growing as he made alliances with Prusias II and Antiochus IV Epiphanes (“God-Manifest”). Eumenes said that if Rome were to ignore these developments then Perseus might attack Italy.

Envoys from Perseus reached the Senate a few days after Eumenes’ speech, professing that Perseus had not done anything hostile to spark Roman intervention. When the envoys returned to Macedon they told Perseus that while the Romans did not seek war they were, however, embittered due to Eumenes’ efforts. Perseus, angered and frustrated, sent assassins after Eumenes, but their attempts failed. Gaius Valerius, a senator who had been dispatched to oversee Greece and monitor Perseus, agreed with Eumenes’ claims that Perseus intended to reestablish the Macedonian hegemony. The Senate was convinced that Perseus was an immediate threat to their supremacy over the Greeks, and so the declared war against Perseus in 171 BCE. A commission was sent to Greece to analyze the situation there, where then one of the commissioners, Marcius, was invited by Perseus to attend a meeting in which he denounced the claims of Eumenes. Marcius advised Perseus to send an embassy to Rome and declare an armistice for safe passage for the envoys. Rome was not yet prepared for war with Perseus, only now having assembled an army. Perseus agreed to Marcius’ requests, and many in the Senate considered this a diplomatic achievement. However, the older senators disregarded this act of diplomacy and called for military action. The Senate was induced to send war-ships and soldiers to occupy Larissa, the capital of Thessaly, in order to prevent Perseus from garrisoning it. The ambassadors of Perseus arrived at Rome, arguing for peace, but the Senate would not hear them out. With the news of war reaching Perseus, he then marshaled his entire army at the city of Citium, eager for victory.

Perseus marched into northern Thessaly and seized all the towns north of the River Peneus. He then moved on to southern Thessaly, where he met the Roman army, supported by troops of Eumenes, and commenced the Battle of Callinicus (171 BCE). Perseus was victorious and the Roman-Pergamese army retreated briefly, though this did not overall affect the war’s progress as while it halted the Roman campaign, the Romans refused to desist, even when Perseus attempted to negotiate a peace. The Romans plundered several Greek cities and towns in the venture to cripple Perseus’ Greek support, making their way to Epirus. An Epirot leader wrote to Perseus for help, in which Perseus hurriedly met the Romans at Anticyra and was victorious once again. Perseus then decided to attack the Illyrians who were allowing safe passage for the Romans. The Illyrian king Gentius was wavering in who to support, though he held mixed Roman-Illyrian garrisons in his cities. Perseus marched on the city of Uscana, sending envoys to the garrison officers to peacefully surrender the city. They refused, and thus Perseus besieged the city. After a successful siege, the garrison commanders asked to be allowed to leave with their weapons. Perseus agreed, but then disarmed them, then moving the city’s population to Stubera and sold them as slaves. Perseus sent ambassadors to Gentius requesting an alliance, though Gentius replied he did not have enough money to support Perseus in the war. Perseus ravaged Illyrian cities and returned to Macedon.

The Romans decided to advance on Macedon, though they had to march through the Olympus range which gave Perseus enough time to evacuate from Pella to Pydna. Skirmishes about Macedon and Thessaly did not bring the Romans or Perseus any favors, only depleting their resources and soldiers. In late 169 BCE ambassadors from Bithynia and Rhodes appeared in the Senate asking for peace. Prusias had promised Perseus to act as a mediator for peace, and the Rhodians pleaded for the war’s end as it disrupted trade and they had begun a friendship with Perseus, of which the Romans forced the Rhodians to stop their Macedonian support and help Rome. The Rhodians had also sent envoys to Perseus to request for peace. The Senate, who considered this request arrogant, denied such peace. Once Perseus was defeated, then Rome would consider how to make due retribution.

In 168 BCE one of the consuls for the year was Lucius Aemilius Paullus, who was assigned to command the Roman campaign against Perseus. Meanwhile, Perseus sought aid from Antiochus IV and, surprisingly, Eumenes. Antiochus refused to help, and Perseus met with Eumenes in person to discuss an alliance, wanting peace in the Greek world. Despite being an enemy of Macedon, Eumenes considered Perseus’ proposal, yet demanded he immediately receive a sum of money for his support. The negotiations failed, and Eumenes continued to support the Romans. However, Perseus managed to gain an alliance with Gentius, in which Perseus pressured him to attack any Romans within his domain. Unfortunately, the Romans put Gentius under siege, where then Gentius surrendered and asked for a truce. Paullus’ campaign progressed favorably, as he gained a victory against Perseus’ army in the Pythian mountains which compelled Perseus to again withdraw to Pydna. Paullus met Perseus at Pydna in June, where the decisive battle of the war took place. The battle was hard fought and bloody, especially for the Macedonians, having already suffered great losses in any battle they had with the Romans. The Romans won the day, Perseus fled to Pella where his advisors and friends shunned him for the great defeat. The Battle of Pydna broke the Macedonian strength and made Perseus a fugitive in his own country.

Ambassadors of Perseus reached Paullus, giving him a letter that pleaded for mercy, which was “anything but kingly”. Paullus did not reply, and so Perseus sent him another letter begging Paullus to confer on their relations. Nothing came of it, and Perseus tried to flee but was caught by Roman officers. Perseus surrendered to Paullus, who was then taken captive and shipped to Rome to be paraded in Paullus’ triumph. The Senate decided to dissolve the Macedonian kingdom into four republics loyal to Rome, extinguishing the Macedonian monarchy forever. In 146 BCE the Romans would suspend the four republics and formally annex Macedon as a Roman province. With this victory the Romans tightened their control on Greece, granting voices to the pro-Roman factions in Greek cities. Once Paullus returned to Rome he celebrated a triumph, Perseus and his family marched in chains behind Paullus’ golden chariot. Perseus would remain in captivity for the rest of his life, dying in 165 or 162 BCE. His young son, Alexander, was educated in an Italian town where he became acquainted with metalworking and the Latin language, becoming a public notary.

“King Perseus and Aemilius Paullus” by Jean-François-Pierre Peyron

Perseus was the last of the Antigonid dynasty and the last king of Macedon in history. He inherited the ambitions of his father, perhaps to a more practical and capable scale, though Perseus could not bring victory and glory to the Macedonian kingdom as it had been in Alexander’s day. Like many of the Macedonian kings, he wished to be an Alexander-type figure, something his father emulated, yet the power and might of the Romans were too much for the Macedonians to recover such glories. Beginning his reign as a capable and ambitious ruler, Perseus descended into a defeated fugitive whose schemes and cruelties followed his name wherever he went. Forsaken by his people, retinue, and even his royal title, Perseus had no choice but to surrender to Aemilius Paullus and let the Romans reign as overlords of the Greek world. Perseus represented the last challenge to the Roman Republic if they were to completely conquer Greece. The line of Antigonus the One-Eye ended in utter capitulation, as well as the heritage of the Macedonian kings.

Recommended Reading:

History of Rome, Livy

Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, William Smith

The History of Ancient Greece, J. Giles

A History of Macedonia, Robert Malcom Errington

Invincible

Demetrius I Aniketos (“the Invincible”) was a Greek king of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom who is known for creating the Indo-Greek state, coupled with his military renown. Demetrius inherited the easternmost Hellenistic kingdom which had originally been a province of the Seleucid Empire until circa 250 BCE, where after it struggled with independence, expansion, and usurpers. Demetrius, however, was ambitious and capable enough to invade India and successfully conquered most of the northwest Indian territory. Demetrius was undefeated in battle and was posthumously given the epithet Aniketos – “the Invincible”. Contemporaries and historians refer to Demetrius as the “second Alexander”.

Coin depicting Demetrius I Aniketos (the elephant scalp indicates his conquests in India)

The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom was a Hellenistic state that was created circa 256-246 BCE when the Seleucid governor Diodotus seceded his province (Bactria) from the Seleucid Empire. This independence movement was either before or after the death of King Antiochus II Theos (“the God”); the high-chronology suggests Antiochus was deprived of Bactria during his mid-reign, mostly theorized because Antiochus issued very few coins from Bactria. The low-chronology, however, suggests Diodotus claimed independence just after Antiochus’ death, whereas the following catastrophic Third Syrian War critically weakened the Seleucid Empire. In 246 BCE Pharaoh Ptolemy III Euergetes (“the Benefactor”) captured Antioch, the Seleucid capital, causing more eastern provinces to seceded, notably Andragoras, the governor of Parthia. Andragoras apparently conceived an alliance with Diodotus, both of them claiming to be independent kings. Though, the Parni tribe soon invaded and conquered Parthia, killing Andragoras in the process. This cut off Bactria from the rest of the Greek world, reducing overland trade, though sea trade between Bactria and the Ptolemaic Kingdom developed.

Diodotus I died circa 239 BCE, posthumously given the epithet Soter (“the Savior”). He was succeeded by his son Diodotus II, who had made peace with Arsaces I of Parthia in order to forestall the Seleucid reconquest of Parthia and Bactria. Circa 230 BCE Didotous was killed by the governor of Sogdiana and his brother-in-law, Euthydemus. Euthydemus, father of Demetrius, usurped the Greco-Bactrian throne, founding the Euthydemid dynasty. Not much is known about his reign except circa 209/208 BCE Euthydemus was attacked by the Seleucid King Antiochus III Megas (“the Great”), who had been on an anabasis of the east. After a two/three year siege of his capital Bactra, which caused great exhaustion for both Euthydemus and Antiochus, Euthydemus relented and accepted Antiochus as his overlord, obtaining an “honorable peace”. Demetrius was sent to Antiochus to conduct the peace negotiations. Antiochus was highly impressed with the demeanor of Demetrius, so much so that he offered the hand of his daughter to Demetrius. Polybius writes: “And after several journeys of Teleas to and fro between the two, Euthydemus at last sent his son Demetrius to confirm the terms of the treaty. Antiochus received the young prince; and judging from his appearance, conversation, and the dignity of his manners that he was worthy of royal power, he first promised to give him one of his own daughters, and secondly conceded the royal title to his father.” As Demetrius is referred to as a “young prince”, it suggested he is around 16 years-old, making his birthdate circa 222 BCE.

Euthydemus died circa 200 BCE (possibly 195 BCE) and was succeeded by Demetrius as king. Nothing is really known of Demetrius’ early reign, only that he was already recognized as a great conqueror, as the Kuliab inscription (dated 200-195 BCE) details: “Heliodotus dedicated this fragrant altar for Hestia, venerable goddess, illustrious amongst all, in the grove of Zeus, with beautiful trees; he made libations and sacrifices so that the greatest of all kings Euthydemus, as well as his son, the glorious, victorious and remarkable Demetrius, be preserved of all pains, with the help of Tyche with divine thoughts.” It is possible that during the last years of Euthydemus’ reign that the Greco-Bactrians made advancements into the Indian subcontinent. Demetrius is referred to as Demetrius Callinicus, meaning “Demetrius the Glorious Conqueror” or “Demetrius the Beautiful Victor”.  In 180 BCE (or the earlier date of 185 BCE) Demetrius launched an invasion of northwestern India, as several years earlier the once powerful Mauryan Empire was dissolved after the victories of Indian general Pushyamitra Shunga, who founded the new Shunga Empire. The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom is considered to have been allies with the Muaryan Empire, though Demetrius’ invasion might have been to protect the Greeks of India.

Demetrius may have first recovered the province of Arachosia, south of the Hindu Kush. He then founded the city of Demetrias, said to have been within the dominion of the Parthians. The campaign is said to have gone as far as Pataliputra in eastern India, though this is generally attested to the efforts of the later Indo-Greek king Menander I Soter. It is theorized that Demetrius only invaded and conquered modern-day Pakistan, as accounts say he occupied a large part of the Indus Delta. Nevertheless, it is said Demetrius (along with the later Menander I) subjugated more Indian tribes than Alexander the Great had. With these conquests, Demetrius created the Indo-Greek Kingdom, which lasted for more than two centuries, albeit the legitimate rulers varied. Demetrius is speculated to have ruled in the city of Taxila, where many of his coins have been found. The Indo-Greeks ruled northwestern India, while the Shungas held dominion over central and eastern India.

The Indo-Greek Kingdom, circa 180 BCE

Demetrius was undefeated in his conquests, believed to have assumed the title “King of India” for his achievements south of the Hindu Kush. On his coins Demetrius is depicted wearing an elephant scalp headdress, in the same manner as Alexander is depicted on the coins of Ptolemy I Soter, a token of his victories in India. Demetrius is attributed to have initiated the Yavana era of India (Yavana being the Indian name for the Greeks). The culture and art of Greco-Buddhism is said to have flourished under Demetrius and the later Indo-Greek kings; Demetrius apparently practiced Buddhism along with his ancestral Greek polytheism. After 180 BCE nothing is known of Demetrius’ life, as he died of unknown reasons at an unknown time. The Indo-Greek Kingdom did not survive as one entity, as many rival usurpers and chieftains claimed specific territories and thus variant kingdoms emerged with their own dynasties, akin to the aftermath of Alexander’s death. The Indo-Greek king Agathocles Dikaios (“the Just”), a successor and possible son of Demetrius, minted coins bearing the effigy of Demetrius, posthumously qualifying him as Aniketos – “the Invincible”, a cult title which Alexander adorned.

Demetrius is regarded as a legend and enigma, for what we know about him stems from his military achievements and comparison to Alexander. Apparently of dignified character, Demetrius stands as a great conqueror who brought about a new era to the Indian subcontinent. And just like Alexander, none of Demetrius’ successors quite prospered like he did.

Recommended Reading:

The Greeks in Bactria and India, W. W. Tarn

Monnaies Gréco-Bactriennes et Indo-Grecques, Osmund Bopearachchi

The Histories, Polybius

Geographica, Strabo

A Decadent King, A Decaying Empire

Antiochus VIII, known by the epithets Epiphanes (“God-Manifest”), Callinicus (“Beautiful Victor”), and Philometor (“Mother-Loving”), though popularly nicknamed Grypus (“Hook-Nose”), was the nineteenth Seleucid king, ruling essentially Syria as a rump state as the great Seleucid Empire had gradually declined to Syrian borders. Crowned as a boy, as he aged Antiochus VIII cultivated an image of decadency, luxury, and divine favor, despite the obvious shortcomings and issues of the Seleucid Empire at the time. His sons would fight over the rule of Syria, stimulating the decay of the Seleucids.

Coin depicting Antiochus VIII Grypus

Prior to Antiochus’ birth, the Seleucid Empire had sustained a major decline in power and authority, stemming from civil war and external threats. Ever since the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid Empire had been in an almost frequent state of civil war, whether it be from cousins and brothers fighting for the throne or the establishment of pretender kings. Also, rival powers had increasingly grown stronger and more able than the Seleucids, most notably the expansion of the Parthian Empire and the pressures put on by the Roman Republic. Rebellions in provinces had as well hindered Seleucid control, as Judaea had become completely independent. The Parthians had claimed Mesopotamia and the Persian plateau as their own, restricting Seleucid influence exclusively to Syria.

Antiochus was the son of Demetrius II Nicator (“the Victor”) and Cleopatra Thea (“the Goddess”); his birthdate is unknown, though some had suggested the year 141 BCE. His father, Demetrius, assumed the Seleucid throne in 146 BCE with the backing of Pharaoh Ptolemy VI Philometor. The Egyptian king forced his daughter, Cleopatra, to divorce the pretender king Alexander I Balas (“Lord”), who had then been defeated by Demetrius in the Battle of Antioch (145 BCE). Demetrius proved to be an aspiring but fundamentally unsuccessful and reckless king, desiring to reclaim past Seleucid provinces which had been ruled by the Parthians. Demetrius was not a popular king, being seen as a puppet of Ptolemy VI’s inclination. The citizens of Syrian Antioch rebelled against Demetrius’ rule, urged on by the actions of the Seleucid general Diodotus Tryphon (“the Magnificent, Luxurious, Arrogant”) who had proclaimed Antiochus VI Dionysus (“God of Wine”), the young son of Alexander and Cleopatra, as king. Diodotus conquered Antioch, the Seleucid capital, and the rival king Antiochus VI was regarded as the legitimate Seleucid ruler. However, the child Antiochus did not rule in his own right, being used as a figure-head of Diodotus.  In 141 BCE Antiochus VI died, presumably killed on Diodotus’ orders, who then claimed the Seleucid kingship as his own.

In 139 BCE Demetrius launched a campaign against the ever-active Parthians, but this resulted in his imprisonment by them and the loss of Babylonia. With Demetrius detained by the Parthians, this motivated his brother Antiochus VII Euergetes (“the Benefactor”), nicknamed Sidetes (“from Side”), to take the throne, marrying Cleopatra with who he had several children. Antiochus VII successfully campaigned against Diodotus, who was either executed or committed suicide. By 130 BCE Antiochus initiated a campaign against the Parthians to reconquer old Seleucid territory, wishing to restore the Seleucid Empire to its former glory. The Parthian King Phraates II released Demetrius from captivity hoping the brothers would wage war against each other, as Antiochus was gaining much ground in his military expedition. However, Antiochus VII died on the battlefield before Demetrius could contact him. Demetrius safely returned to Syria and resumed his rule.

Demetrius learned of the instability of Syria, many of his subjects detesting him for his cruelties, vices, and past humiliation. Knowing of his unpopularity, the Ptolemaic queen Cleopatra II dispatched an army to Demetrius in the effort to stir up war between him and her brother Ptolemy VIII Euergetes (nicknamed Physcon – “Potbelly”). Cleopatra II’s troops, however, proved disloyal and adhered to Ptolemy VIII, who then set up a pretender king named Alexander II Zabinas (“Purchased Slave”) against Demetrius. In 126 BCE Demetrius was defeated in a skirmish at Damascus, prompting him to flee to the city of Ptolemais where his wife Cleopatra Thea resided. Cleopatra, however, closed the gates to him, forcing him to flee to Tyre where he was killed. Alexander II ruled parts of Syria, but was not ultimately recognized as the legitimate sovereign. Cleopatra crowned her eldest son by Demetrius, Seleucus V Philometor, ruling as regnant. In 125 BCE Cleopatra had Seleucus killed, possibly because Seleucus intended to rule without her authority or because he perchance wanted to avenge his father who had been betrayed by Cleopatra, which frightened her. Cleopatra then crowned the teenage Antiochus VIII, defining herself as his co-ruler.

Coin depicting Antiochus VII Grypus and Cleopatra Thea as co-rulers

Cleopatra Thea, an ambitious and unpleasant woman, became wary of her son Antiochus as he displayed an attitude of independence from her guidance. By 123 BCE Antiochus defeated the pretender Alexander II, and now seized control of the Seleucid Empire in his own name and sovereignty. Antiochus had married the Ptolemaic princess Tryphaena, promoting her as the true queen of the Seleucid Empire, which invoked a hostile reaction from his mother. In 121 BCE Cleopatra decided that her son must die, prompting her to poison a cup of wine which she offered him when he returned from a hunt. Suspicious of his mother’s kind gesture, Antiochus forced Cleopatra to drink the wine, which killed her.

For the next five years Antiochus developed an image of a luxurious and hedonistic ruler, hosting lavish banquets and fostering an essence of royal magnificence. Stories claim that after splendid parties Antiochus sent food home with his guests who had attended, along with beasts of burden and attendants. Antiochus’ feasts and magnanimous character were of a conscious image, as Antiochus wanted to display the Seleucid Empire as being bountiful and opulent, despite the obvious harsh reality. Antiochus strove to invoke the Hellenistic idea of Tryphe (“Extravagance” or “the Good Life”), trying to reform the image of the Seleucids as prolific lavish monarchs, instead of the impression of a quarrelling royal family. Another aspect of Antiochus’ image was his appeal to be divinely favored and essentially divine himself, taking the epithet Epiphanes – “God-Manifest”, encouraging the portrayal as the supreme god incarnate of the Seleucid Empire. Antiochus VIII proved to be a very popular king, with his decadence and grandiose persona attracting Syrian subjects to his court just to experience the luxury illustrated. Though, this continued extravagance heavily depleted the royal treasury. The unsightly, lazy appearance of Antiochus on coins gave him a relatable character, much unlike the idealized portraits of previous Seleucid rulers.

In 116 BCE Antiochus’ half-brother (son of Antiochus VII), also named Antiochus, challenged his rule of Syria. Having lived in exile, when he returned to Syria he proclaimed himself Antiochus IX Eusebes (“the Pious”), though he was nicknamed Cyzicenus (“from Cyzicus”). Antiochus IX had married Ptolemaic queen Cleopatra IV, sister of Antiochus VIII’s wife, who had recently been divorced from her husband and brother Ptolemy IX Soter (“the Savior”), also known as Lathyros (“Chickpea”). This marriage supplied Antiochus IX with an army, which he then used to occupy southern Syria. Antiochus IX then seized Antioch, though in 112 BCE he was compelled to flee as Antiochus VIII’s army hounded him throughout Syria. Antiochus VIII then laid siege to Antioch, knowing Cleopatra IV still held control of the city and its garrison. Antiochus had brought his wife Tryphaena with him, and when the city was breached Cleopatra hid at the sanctuary of Daphne. Tryphaena hated her sister Cleopatra, demanding she be executed. Over the protests of her husband, Tryphaena ordered the soldiers to kill Cleopatra, which was seen as dramatic. A year later, Typhaena was imprisoned by Antiochus IX after he had defeated Antiochus VIII in a battle. She was then executed, used as a sacrifice to the deified soul of Cleopatra IV. Antiochus VIII would marry again in 103/102 BCE; his new wife Cleopatra Selene I, a sister of Tryphaena.

By 110 BCE both Seleucid kings sought allies in Egypt, Antiochus VIII pleading to the new Ptolemaic king Ptolemy X Alexander. Meanwhile, Antiochus IX won the support of the deposed king Ptolemy IX. It appears Antiochus VIII also won the approval of Rome, furthering his cause of rightful kingship. The city of Antioch would persistently change its loyalties, as the city had become the battleground for the civil war. Thoroughly exhausted, the Seleucid kings decided to divide Syria between them, Antiochus VIII taking the north while Antiochus IX held the south. In 96 BCE Antiochus VIII was murdered by his minister Heracleon, who then tried to usurp the throne but failed, presumably due to the presence of Antiochus’ sons.

The decaying Seleucid Empire now belonged to Antiochus IX, who then immediately married the widowed Cleopatra Selene. However, his sole rule would not last as the eldest son Antiochus VIII then crowned himself Seleucus VI Epiphanes. Antiochus IX was killed in battle, and the blood feud would continue with his son and the sons of Antiochus VIII.  Antiochus’ sons would all declare themselves kings in time, but they practically held no real power as Syria was essentially a buffer state to be used by the major powers of the Mediterranean.

Antiochus VIII was the last Seleucid king to hold any actual power, for a short time, and was also the last Seleucid to be popular and loved amongst his subjects, for the enduring Seleucids were simply warlords whose ambitions did not reflect reality. Antiochus used his power to portray an empire and court of an age long past. He wished to bring prestige and splendor to the Seleucid Empire once again, as in the days of Seleucus the Victor and Antiochus the Great.

Recommended Reading:

The House of Seleucus, E.R. Bevan

History of Rome (“Syrian Wars”), Appian

Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, Justin

Alexander’s Heir

Seleucus I Nicator (“the Victor”) was a Macedonian infantry general of Alexander the Great who would become the greatest of his successors. No one would expect Seleucus to become to so powerful and so great out of all the competing diadochi (“successors”), though Seleucus’ ambitions were much like Alexander’s own. His empire and legacy would prove to do right by Alexander and his vision of a multicultural realm, something his other warring generals did not fully understand or even consider. Seleucus is an interesting character, in that he rose from the ranks of Alexander’s army to become one of the most important challengers of his other prestigious generals who had grabbed territory in the effort to elevate themselves over the bones of Alexander’s empire. Seleucus knew of the military genius his king had taught him throughout the Asian campaigns, and it is through Seleucus’ knowledge and actions we understand how this little-known Macedonian general became the master of the Asia and the reviver of the Persian Empire. Out of all of Alexander’s successors, Seleucus proved to make the impossible a reality, truly earning his epithet “the Victor”.

Now, I will summarize and analyze Seleucus’ life and legacy.

Bust of Seleucus I Nicator

Seleucus was born circa 358 BCE to the Macedonian nobleman Antiochus and his Greek wife Laodice. Though, there was a Seleucid legend that Seleucus’ true father was the god Apollo as mandated by Seleucus’ anchor shaped birthmark, although this is probably later Seleucid propaganda invented to praise and esteem Seleucus, probably fabricated by Seleucus himself. Nonetheless, Apollo was regarded as the patron god of the Seleucids forever after. His father Antiochus was reported to be amongst Philip II’s most dutiful generals, gaining distinction in Philip’s wars against his neighbors and the Greek mainland. Seleucus was raised in the traditional elite Macedonian fashion, becoming a royal page to King Philip as was customary to all noble-born males who would later become officers in the king’s army. It is suspected he met Alexander while serving his father Philip, creating a bond between the two boys who would subsequently become soldiers in their own manner. In 334 BCE Seleucus accompanied Alexander on his Asian campaign to conquer the Achaemenid Empire, serving as an infantry soldier who would eventually rise to the rank of commander of the elite infantry corps known as the Hypaspistai (“Shield-Bearers”, later known as the “Silver Shields”) by 327 BCE. Seleucus later gained distinction fighting in India against King Porus and his elephant squadrons.

During Alexander’s campaigns Seleucus met his future wife, Apama, a Sogdian princess. Possibly received as a reward for his diligent duty, Seleucus would take Apama as his mistress throughout the rest of Alexander’s wars, even having a son with her named Antiochus in 324 BCE. During the mass wedding ceremonies at Susa Seleucus would formally marry Apama and was noted to be the only Macedonian officer not to divorce or reject his Asian wife after Alexander’s death. Was he in love with her? Perhaps. Or, was Seleucus devoted to Alexander’s image of a multicultural empire? Or was Seleucus smart enough to know that maintaining a marriage with his Sogdian wife was the best way to secure a friendly and grounded relationship with the new Asian subjects? Perhaps a combination of all these theories.

In the aftermath of Alexander’s death the empire was divided up amongst his generals, the supreme regent being Perdiccas. Seleucus was chosen by Perdiccas to command the Hetairoi (“Companions”)  and was also named first chiliarch, making him the the most senior officer of the entire army after Perdiccas. In 321 BCE Ptolemy, a former general and bodyguard of Alexander, hijacked Alexander’s corpse and ignited war amongst the generals. As the other generals rebelled against Perdiccas, Seleucus still showed his support of the regent, likely thankful for the amount of command and prestige that was awarded to him. However, when Perdiccas marched on Egypt to fight Ptolemy that is when things went sour. Perdiccas was unsuccessful in his assault on Memphis, and later in the night he was assassinated by his officers – Antigenes, Peithon, and possibly Seleucus. It is unconfirmed whether Seleucus definitely took part in the murder of Perdiccas, but it suspected he at least knew of the plot.

With the death of Perdiccas the empire was once again divided. Antipater, Alexander’s governor of Macedon and Greece, was chosen as the supreme regent and protector over the feeble-minded Philip III and the infant Alexander IV. Antipater awarded the governorship of Babylonia to Seleucus, a source of wealth yet with insignificant military power. Seleucus arrived at the city of Babylon to find himself at odds with the Babylonian priesthood, a faction that essentially controlled the populace. Seleucus was eventually compelled to give the priests monetary gifts and vocal support to win their favor and see Babylon fold under his rule. In 319 BCE Antipater died and left the regency to his lieutenant, Polyperchon, instead of his son Cassander who proved to be rash and hotheaded. Cassander, soured by this decision, waged war against Polyperchon. Elsewhere, Antipater’s death gave incentive to Peithon, governor of Media, to expand his domain. Both of these events put Seleucus in a vulnerable position, as Polyperchon’s lieutenant Eumenes and his army were just north of Babylon being trailed by Antigonus Monophthalmus (“the One-Eye”), a supporter of Cassander’s claim. Meanwhile, Peithon arrived at Babylon in late 317 BCE, he having more soldiers than Seleucus could muster.

Eumenes inched closer and closer to Babylon by the spring of 316 BCE with the hopes of crossing the Tigris River. Seleucus sent two triremes along with other ships to stop the crossing of Eumenes. He even opened the flood barriers of the river to try to halt Eumenes, but to no avail. It seems Seleucus had no plans to actually stop Eumenes. However, Eumenes kept marching on toward Susa, passing Babylon and thus allowing Seleucus to join up with Antigonus and Peithon in their hunt for Eumenes. Antigonus left a small contingent of soldiers with Seleucus to prevent Eumenes from reaching the Mediterranean, a gesture not needed as Antigonus would end up defeating Eumenes at the Battle of Gabiene (316 BCE). With Eumenes’ execution the war finally subsided. Though, soon enough Antigonus’ treatment of Seleucus would provoke conflict.

In the summer of 315 BCE Antigonus arrived in Bablyon and to a  warm welcome from Seleucus, the former now reigning over most of the empire’s Asian territories. However, conflict would arise when Seleucus punished one of Antigonus’ officers without imploring Antigonus. Antigonus became angry at Seleucus’ disregard for his authority, demanding the province’s treasury be gifted to him as a settlement. Seleucus refused, and with the Babylonian priesthood conspiring against him, Seleucus was compelled to flee to Egypt where Ptolemy, the ever-independent governor, welcomed him. After arriving in Egypt, Seleucus sent associates to inform Lysimachus, governor of Thrace, and Cassander, regent of Macedon, of Antigonus’ actions. With Antigonus now the most powerful of the diadochi, Seleucus relied on the integrity of the other generals to unite against him. The allied diadochi sent a request to Antigonus, demanding that Seleucus be allowed to peacefully return to Babylon. Antigonus refused, instead developing an invasion plan to attack Ptolemy. War once again resumed, and Seleucus was appointed as an admiral under Ptolemy’s leadership.

Ptolemy first sent Seleucus to attack Rhodes, who allied with Antigonus. The fleet was too small to properly conquer the city, but this show of strength was enough to make Asander, governor of Caria, to join up with Ptolemy. In an effort to demonstrate his power, Seleucus invaded the city of Erythrae and continued to plunder the coastline of Antigonus’ domain. Seleucus later joined Ptolemy’s half-brother, Menelaus, in the besiegement of the city-kingdom of Kition. The while Antigonus dispatched his fleet to the Aegean Sea and kept his army in Asia Minor. However, this presented Ptolemy with the opportunity to invade Syria, in which he did. Seleucus and Ptolemy met with Antigonus’ son, Demetrius Poliorcetes (“the Besieger”), at the Battle of Gaza (312 BCE) in which they defeated him. In the battle Peithon (son of Agenor), Antigonus’ governor of Babylonia, was killed, thus allowing Seleucus to return to Babylon. Ptolemy subscribed 800 infantry and 200 cavalry to his cause, along with friends that had followed Seleucus after his expulsion from Babylon. On the road to Babylon, Seleucus managed to recruit more soldiers from Greek colonies, acquiring about 3,000 soldiers. Seleucus was now prepared and confident in his return to his rightful seat of governance.

 Seleucus arrived at Babylon to discover the city under the governance of the general Diphilus, a supporter of Peithon and Antigonus. Diphilus barricaded himself inside the city’s citadel and waited for Seleucus’ assault, unsure of his fate. These defenses were no trouble for Seleucus as he managed to conquer Babylon with great speed and the citadel just as quick. Seleucus then freed his friends and associates who had remained in Babylon. Once a fleeting fugitive now a conquering ruler, Seleucus’ triumphant return to Babylon is regarded as the official start date of the Seleucid Empire and the first year of the Seleucid era.

Bust of Seleucus

With the word of Seleucus’ return to Babylon spreading, supporters of Antigonus conspired to gain it back. Two of Antigonus’ governors, Nicanor and Evagoras, collaborated with each other in the effort to win back Babylon. Seleucus, knowing his small army could not withstand direct open battle, ordered his soldiers to hide in the marshes around the Tigris. As Nicanor and Evagoras approached Babylon with their armies, Seleucus sprung a surprise attack and in the battle Evagoras was killed. Evagoras’ death hit the troops hard, surrendering en masse to Seleucus while Nicanor escaped with a handful of men. Employing the surrendering soldiers, Seleucus now had a sizeable army, though not enough to confront Antigonus. Although, Seleucus knew that at least two eastern provinces were without governors, and he had enough soldiers under his command hailing from these regions to make the land easier to subdue. Seleucus then began conjuring different stories about himself amongst his soldiers that eventually reached the eastern provinces, stories that carried great propagandic value in that compared him favorably to Alexander, or in that it made Seleucus appear to be Alexander’s heir. As Seleucus marched east with Alexander he could use his deceased king in his propaganda, whereas Antigonus could not having been stationed in Phrygia during Alexander’s eastern campaigns. Seleucus became a popular and famous ruler in Babylon, so much so that the Babylonians did not wish for another governor that lacked Seleucus’ character.

Seleucus became more agressive in his political ambitions, immediately moving eastward and conquering Media and Susiana, as well as adjoining eastern regions such as Persis, Aria, and Parthia. Seleucus did not manage to reach Bactria and Sogdiana for some unknown reason. Though, with Nicanor’s defeat there was no one to oppose Seleucus’ eastward expansion. Eventually, Antigonus did conduct a counterattack against Seleucus, sending his son Demetrius with 15,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry to recapture Babylon, though Antigonus gave his son a time limit in which he must return to Syria. It seems Antigonus did not know that Seleucus had conquered most of the eastern territories. Seleucus was still campaigning when Demetrius arrived at Babylon, having left the general and geographer Patrocles to govern and defend the city. The citizens of Babylon were transferred out of the city and settled in neighboring villages and outposts, some as far as Susa. Babylon had two strong fortresses garrisoned with soldiers left behind by Seleucus, the city itself being used as a fortified barbican. Also, the surroundings of Babylon were excellent for defense, a setting with canals, rivers, and swamps. Demetrius managed to seize one of the towers, but the second tower proved too difficult and so Demetrius left his lieutenant Archelaus in charge of the siege while he returned west. Ancient sources do not mention what happened to Archelaus and his troops, though perhaps Seleucus had to reconquer Babylon.

In 311 BCE Antigonus made peace with Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Cassander. Though, this would not halt his ambitions as well as utilizing his numerical superiority to take advantage of Seleucus, having a personal grudge against him. Antigonus appeared at Babylon to find Seleucus’ army much bigger than previously seen, having perhaps recruited men from Archelaus’ regiments. Seleucus also may have received help from the Cossians, a Near Eastern people whose lands had been devastated by Antigonus. Many of Seleucus’ soldiers hated Antigonus, along with the Babylonian populace being hostile. Antigonus occupied Babylon, yet the entire city was against him, ever loyal to Seleucus. There is little information about the war between Seleucus and Antigonus, though there are a few sources mentioning how Antignonus occupied Babylon, though to no success as Ptolemy decided to aid Seleucus and attacked Cilicia due to malicious intrigue that took place on Cyprus. One source presents us how Seleucus managed to defeat Antigonus in at least one decisive battle. It reports that Seleucus and Antigonus fought for a whole day before retiring for nightfall, the two armies agreeing to a temporary truce and to resume fighting in the morning. However, Seleucus ordered his soldiers to sleep and eat breakfast in battle formation during the night. Seleucus then attacked Antigonus and his soldiers while they were eating breakfast, quickly achieving victory. The historical accuracy of this event is questionable.

Antigonus accepted defeat and retreated west, relinquishing the provinces of Media and Elam to Seleucus. Though, war soon resumed while Ptolemy was expanding his power in the Aegean and Seleucus went on a grand tour of the east to consolidate his authority. From 311 to 302 BCE Seleucus achieved bringing the whole eastern part of Alexander’s empire as far as the Jaxartes and Indus under his rule. During his campaigns and ventures Seleucus would establish a number of cities, numerous Seleucias, Apameas, Laodiceas, and Antiochs. It was said that Seleucus surpassed Alexander in the building of cities, having had more cities in Asia Minor than the whole of Alexander’s empire. The most famous of his cities was Antioch-on-the-Orontes (“the cradle of Christianity”).The city was possibly named after Seleucus’ father or son, both named Antiochus, and was reputed to be built on a sacred site where Alexander camped for a night. Similarly, Seleucus founded Antioch through ritual means. Antioch would become the chief capital and foremost trade center of the Seleucid Empire, eventually rivaling Alexandria of Egypt in terms of importance. Other famed Seleucid cities were Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, initially the new capital of Seleucus’ realm before Antioch was built, and Seleucia Pieria (“Seleucia by the Sea”) which was the captial seaport of the Seleucid Empire. With the establishment of these new cities, Seleucus’ original capital of Babylon became insignificant as the most of the Babylonian population was moved to either Seleucia-on-the-Tigris or Antioch. It was said of Seleucus that “few princes had ever lived with so great a passion for the building of cities.”

The struggle of the diadochi reached its peak when, after the extinction of the royal Argead dynasty, in 306/305 BCE Antigonus and Demetrius declared themselves independent kings. Seleucus and the other diadochi (Lysimachus, Cassander, and Ptolemy) also proclaimed themselves kings. Seleucus then continued to attend to matters in the east, trying to occupy territory as far as the Indus River. As such, Seleucus came into conflict with the Indian Emperor Chandragupta Maurya, called Sandrokottos by the Greeks. Seleucus’ campaign to take the Indus territory from Chandragupta ended in failure; ultimately, an agreement was reached and sealed with a treaty. Seleucus would cede a considerable amount of eastern territory to Chandragupta in exchange for 500 war-elephants. Seleucus would also marry  his daughter to Chandragupta.

Illustrated portrait of King Seleucus

Seleucus returned from the east to participate in the final war against Antigonus, utilizing his new war-elephants to great effect. Seleucus and his son Antiochus engaged with Lysimachus in the Battle of Ipsus (301 BCE) where Antigonus was killed. Demetrius, who fought alongside his father, fled to Ephesus with the remaining Antigonid army and Antigonus’ Asian holdings were divided amongst Seleucus and Lysimachus. With this victory Syria was placed under Seleucus’ rule, yet Ptolemy still claimed Syria as his own. Soon after, Seleucus sparked an alliance with an overwhelmed Demetrius, marrying Demetrius’ daughter Stratonice as his first love Apama had died years prior. Seleucus became frustrated as he could not expand his domain westward, mostly because he lacked the loyal Macedonian and Greek soldiers needed for it. Seleucus had relied on his war-elephants and Persian cavalry as opposed to Lysimachus’ superior numerical army. In order to recruit more troops, Seleucus founded more cities and colonies in Asia.

In 294 BCE Seleucus instigated the marriage between his son Antiochus and his new wife Stratonice, doing so after discovering his son was in danger of dying of “lovesickness” for Startonice. Also, it is believed Seleucus arranged the marriage partially because Demetrius had become sole king of Macedon, so this way he could secure Stratonice’s safety in case he commenced conflict with her father. Soon enough, the alliance between Seleucus and Demetrius ended when Seleucus moved to conquer Cilicia. In 292 BCE Seleucus appointed Antiochus as his co-ruler and viceroy of the eastern provinces, as the large empire seemed to require a double government.

“Antiochus and Stratonice of Syria” by Johann Eleazar Schenau

In 286 BCE Demetrius invaded and easily occupied Cilicia, suggesting he was aiming to take Seleucus’ most important colonies in Syria. However, Demetrius’ soldiers were tired and were without proper payment. On the other hand, Seleucus had more than enough resources to supply his army as well as the adoration of his soldiers. Seleucus then blocked the roads leading south from Cilicia and urged the soldiers of Demetrius to join him. Though, at the same time he tried to avoid direct contact with Demetrius. Finally, after years of intimidation and challenges Seleucus met with Demetrius and his army, addressing Demetrius personally. He presented himself in front of the soldiers and removed his helmet, revealing his identity. With this act the soldiers abandoned Demetrius en masse. Totally forsaken, Demetrius surrendered to Seleucus.

Surprisingly, Seleucus acted generously toward Demetrius, in a show of goodness and faith. However, Demetrius became popular amongst Seleucus’ court, and from then on Demetrius was treated as a prisoner, being locked away in Apamea-on-the-Orontes. Demetrius died three years later in captivity, drinking himself to death. The only other remaining powers were Lysimachus and Ptolemy. Lysimachus, having previously supported Seleucus against Demetrius, began to fallout with Seleucus. In 285 BCE Lysimachus became the sole ruler of Macedon along with his domain over Thrace and western territories of Asia Minor. Seleucus became hostile to Lysimachus as he was suddenly less imposing, having most of Greece under his command. It seems Seleucus’ relationship with Ptolemy also deteriorated, mainly because Seleucus had become the most powerful diadochi and this caused Ptolemy to be cautious and cynical. It is suspected at this point Selelucus wished to reunite Alexander’s empire under his rule.

In 283 BCE Ptolemy died, leaving only Seleucus and Lysimachus as the enduring contemporaries of Alexander. Fate seemed to favor Seleucus at this moment as Lysimachus had been married to Arisnoe (later Arsinoe II), daughter of Ptolemy, and had recently taken in Ptolemy Ceraunus (“Thunderbolt”), the rejected eldest son of Ptolemy. Both Arisnoe and Ptolemy began to corrupt Lysimachus’ mind with suspicions about his son Agathocles. Agathocles was well liked by the people for his dashing warrior character, in which he also won the loyalty of the army. Lysimachus had his son executed on suspicions of treason, a very unpopular act which forever blemished Lysimachus’ reputation. City-states owing allegiance to Lysimachus began to wane in their support. Agathocles’ wife and children fled to the court of Seleucus, accompanied by Ptolemy Ceraunus, pleading to Seleucus to intervene. Members of the army soon defected and made their way to Syria, and even Lysimachus’ own son Alexander became wary. Hundreds of voices called upon Seleucus to vanquish Lysimachus.

As E.R. Bevan writes: “Seleucus felt indeed his moment had come. The world, weary of the long conflict, saw once more, forty years after the great conqueror’s death, his two remaining companions, now old men, address themselves to the crowning fight for his inheritance.” Seleucus, the most powerful of Alexander’s generals, gathered an army and launched a campaign against Lysimachus. Meanwhile, Lysimachus looked to Egypt for old alliances, though the new young pharaoh Ptolemy II, later known as Philadelphus (“Sibling-Loving”), kept quiet when Lysimachus requested assistance. In 281 BCE Seleucus and Lysimachus met on the plains of Corus; we known nothing about the battle except the results. Seleucus was victorious, Lysimachus had died during the fighting.

Seleucus had seen his last rival die. Now the only living contemporary of Alexander, Seleucus had restored rule over the old Achaemenid Empire, most of it at least. Seleucus took the task of administrating the provinces of Asia Minor, the region being ethnically diverse in that it consisted of a Greek populace and cities, a Persian aristocracy, and indigenous peoples. Apparently, Seleucus managed some respectable control over Asia, with the number of new cities being founded under his character. Though, he was unable to subdue Cappadocia, and Pergamon under Philetaerus, an old officer of Lysimachus, remained semi-indepedent in that he adhered to Seleucus. Still, Seleucus proved to be a popular ruler, as in the years since Ipsus, all cities in Asia sent embassies to his court. Seleucus even complained about the amount of letters he was receiving and forced to read. He would also be served an extra cup of wine during dinners according to local customs. In Lemnos he was celebrated as a liberator and a temple was erected in honor of him. By this period he was called Seleucus Soter (“the Savior”).

 

Coin of Philetaerus depicting Seleucus I Nicator

With the east under his rule and he at the apex of his power, Seleucus looked to his homeland. With the exceptions of Greater Egypt, Thrace, Macedon and all of Greece, Seleucus had become the master of Alexander’s inheritance. Now with the pivotal opportunity, Seleucus desired to establish an immortal legacy – reuniting Alexander’s empire. He intended to invade Thrace first, then moving on to Macedon and Greece, then finish with Egypt. It appears Greece had already welcomed him as their ruler, as he was named an honorary citizen of Athens. Seleucus resolved to leave his Asiatic domain to his son Antiochus while he reigned for the remainder of his days in Macedon. He had, however, only crossed the Thracian Chersonese when he was assassinated by Ptolemy Ceraunus. He was 77 years-old.

Seleucus was buried at Seleucia Pieria by his son and successor Antiochus I Soter. Antiochus eventually established a cult dedicated to his dead father, decreeing Seleucus should be worshipped as “Zeus Nicator”. Seleucus was also worshipped as the son of a god, as an inscription found at Illion advising priests to sacrifice to Apollo, the Seleucid ancestor. Seleucus was posthumously given the epithet “Nicator” – the Victor. Several anecdotes about Seleucus’ life became popular in antiquity.

Besides Antigonus, Seleucus had the closest chance to actually achieve what the other diadochi dreamed about, making him come across as the true victor of these successor wars in the aspects of authority and longevity. Seleucus, in his hard work and conclusive success, perhaps proved to be the most legitimate “successor” of Alexander, in that how he maintained not only Alexander’s eastern territories, but how the development of Hellenization processed throughout the Seleucid Empire, achieving Alexander’s goal of multicultural unity. Seleucus founded a Greco-Persian dynasty, the most remarkable of the Successor Kingdoms in its ethos and power. His empire would adhere to Alexander’s dream. He truly was the victor.

Recommended Reading:

The House of Seleucus, E.R. Bevan

Seleukos Nikator: Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom, John D. Grainger

Dividing the Spoils: The War for Alexander the Great’s Empire, Robin Waterfield

The Darling Flavian

Titus Flavius Sabinus Vespasianus (later known as Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasianus Augustus), commonly known as Titus, was the tenth Roman Emperor, reigning from 79 to 81 CE, and the second ruler of the Flavian dynasty. Titus is often regarded as one of the most exemplary emperors due to his good nature, charisma, and charitable acts, despite his short lived reign. An excellent general, Titus is remembered for participating in his father’s campaign against the the rebellious Jews of Judaea, in which he successfully reconquered the province and celebrated a grand triumph. Titus is also remembered for his charitable disposition, as the eruption of Mount Vesuvius occurred during his reign as emperor, in which Titus orchestrated a mass relief effort to help those in need. The completion of various public works, including the famed Colosseum, is attributed to Titus. By far one of the most beloved Roman emperors, his death is considered a great tragedy as who knows what prosperity was held in store for Titus’ future reign.

Let us delve into the life and legacy of Titus.

Bust of Titus

Titus was born in December 39 CE, the eldest son of the then Roman general Titus Flavius Sabinus Vespasianus (“Vespasian”) and his wife Flavia Domitilla Major. The gens Flavia, especially the Flavii Sabini, rose to prominence during the early imperial period of Rome, as the old Roman aristocracy had gradually died out. Titus’ family did not experience any fortune until his father Vespasian participated in Emperor Claudius’ invasion of Britain where he distinguished himself in several crucial battles. With Vespasian’s rise in both the military and political scene in Rome he was able to provide a court education for Titus. Titus became close friends with Claudius’ son Britannicus, he was even present at the dinner where Britannicus was poisoned by Nero, the adopted son and heir of Claudius. It is said Titus drank from the same poisoned glass as Britannicus had as a sign of sympathy, in which Titus became severely ill but still lived. In affection for Britannicus, when Titus was emperor he set up golden statues of Britannicus in the imperial palace.

According to the Roman biographer Suetonius, when Titus came of age “the beauty and talents that had distinguished him as a child grew even more remarkable […] he was both graceful and dignified, both muscular and handsome, except for a certain paunchiness. He had a phenomenal memory, and displayed a natural aptitude alike for the arts of war and peace […] could compose speeches and verses in Greek or Latin with equal ease […] He was something of a musician too: he sang pleasantly and had mastered the harp […] he claimed that he could imitate any handwriting in existence and might, in different circumstances, have been the most celebrated forger of all time.” However, Suetonius and other historians note that the adoration for Titus arose after his accession. As both a politician and his father’s colleague Titus was venomously loathed. It is unclear exactly why Titus was so despised, but when he became emperor he was “an object of universal love and adoration.”

From 57 to 59 CE Titus served as a military tribune in Germania (Germany), and by 60 CE he also served in Britannia (Britain), perhaps arriving with reinforcements to put down the revolt of Boudica. After the completion of his military services he returned to Rome where he participated as an advocate in the law courts, but only because it was a respectable occupation. In 66 CE Emperor Nero granted Vespasian a special command in the east with the task of settling the rebellions of Jewish people in Judaea. Titus was placed under his father’s command where he was in charge of Legio XV Apollinaris. The Jewish writer Josephus portrays Vespasian and Titus very favorably in their duties. By 68 CE the north and coast of Judaea were subjugated with pivotal victories at Taricheae and Gamala. During these battles Titus distinguished himself as a talented general.

Vespasian and Titus then focused their efforts on the fortified city of Jerusalem, the heart of the Jewish resistance. However, in 68 CE Nero committed suicide, putting the Roman Empire in a temporary crisis. The Roman Senate had declared Lucius Livius Ocella Sulpicius Galba (“Galba”) as emperor. Vespasian acknowledged Galba’s authority, sending Titus to Rome to greet the newly inducted emperor. Before he reached Italy, Titus learned that Galba had been murdered by Marcus Salvius Otho (“Otho”), who had then become emperor. Aulus Vitellius (“Vitellius”), governor of Germania, decided to march on Rome, and not wanting to be taken hostage by either side, Titus returned to his father in Judaea. In 69 CE, after the First Battle of Bedriacum, Otho committed suicide and Vitellius was now emperor. When the news reached the legions of Judaea, Egypt, and Syria they proclaimed Vespasian as emperor, Titus playing a vital role in his father’s acclamation. The Danubian legions soon followed, and after the Second Battle of Bedriacum Vitellius was taken prisoner and soon executed, Vespasian then officially declared emperor by the Senate. Vespasian had left Titus in command of the siege of Jerusalem, his most famous achievement.

The Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) was a tougher labor than the previous Judaean skirmishes, though Titus displayed his gifted mind in dealing with the city’s defenses. In command of four legions, Titus ordered the city to be enclosed on all sides, putting pressure on the food and water supplies. Though, Jewish raids continually harassed the Roman army, and on one occasion Titus was almost captured during a peace negotiation. In less than four weeks Titus and his legions breached the first and second walls of the city through the use of siege towers, catapults, and battering rams, leaving only the inner wall and the Temple protected. By this point the Jews were exhausted and famished, and to intimidate the rebels Titus ordered all Jewish deserters to be crucified. Titus then built a siege wall to confine the city and further the starvation of the resistance, and after several assaults the Romans eventually overwhelmed the Jews and breached the inner city.

The city was set ablaze and the inhabitants were slaughtered, though sources differ on Titus’ intentions when he breached the city. Some, like Josephus, claim Titus was moderate in his approach to the Jewish people, while others claim that Titus wanted to eradicate Judaism, killing the Jews and their sacred animals, effectively ending their god. Nevertheless, Titus ordered the remainder of the city to be destroyed, his goal being that no one would remember the name Jerusalem. One wall remained untouched – the “Wailing Wall” – a demonstration that none could withstand the might of the Roman army. During the onslaught of Jerusalem, a Roman soldier threw a torch into the Temple where it was then destroyed. Apparently, Titus had no intention of destroying the Temple, wanting to convert it into a temple dedicated to the Roman pantheon. As a final desecration, Titus made a sacrifice to the Roman standards in the Temple court. Titus was hailed as imperator by his soldiers, making this his greatest victory.

“The Conquest of Jerusalem by Emperor Titus” by Nicolas Poussin

The surviving Jews were taken as prisoners for Titus’ forthcoming triumph, including the rebel leaders Simon Bar-Giora and John of Jish. Titus then held a formal parade to thank and reward his soldiers, handing out crowns of gold to principal officers along with promotions, ending with three days of feasting. Ostensibly, Titus refused to accept a wreath, claiming that the Jewish god had used Titus as a manifestation for his wrath against his people. As it seemed Titus was about to relinquish his command, the soldiers begged Titus to stay or at least let them follow him. Such deep admiration and devotion did Titus inspire. Unable to sail to Italy during the winter, Titus traveled to the city of Zeugma where King Vologases I of Parthia awarded him a crown. He then visited Antioch where he confirmed the traditional rights of the Jews of that city. While traveling to Alexandria, Titus stopped at Memphis to attend the consecration of the Apis Bull, in which it required him to wear a diadem in the ceremony. This rose suspicions, as a diadem was traditionally identified with monarchy, and the soldier’s devotion to Titus made some assume he might try to usurp his father. Knowing of these rumors, Titus returned to Rome in 71 CE and greeted his father, who was not expecting him, with the simple words “Here I am, father, here I am!”

Upon his arrival at Rome, Titus was awarded a lavish triumph which he shared with his father and younger brother Titus Flavius Domitianus (“Domitian”). The conqueror of Judaea celebrated his triumph in the grandest of styles, enthusiastically hailed by the Roman populace as the spoils of the Second Temple were paraded along with the Jewish captives. Vespasian made a statement with this joint triumph, establishing Titus as his heir-apparent. The triumphal Arch of Titus, which was commissioned by Domitian, immortalized Titus’ achievements. Titus and Domitian were both bestowed with the honorific title of Caesar, and Titus would share practically every official honor that his father had. He held joint-tribunician power, the censorship, and seven consulships during the 70s CE. Titus was also appointed praetorian prefect and was in command of the domestic Roman army. Titus sustained the burdens of government in his father’s name, further strengthening his position as his father’s heir.

Titus’ exercised great power during his father’s regime, as he dealt with suspected traitors violently. In 79 CE, a plot by Aulus Caecina Alienus and Eprius Marcellus to overthrow Vespasian was discovered; Titus invited Alienus to dinner and ordered him stabbed to death before he left the room. Titus’ violence and severity made him notorious throughout Rome. Suetonius writes “He was believed to be profligate as well as cruel, of the riotous parties which he kept going with him more extravagant friends far into the night; and lustful too, because he kept a troop of toy boys and eunuchs, and nursed a notorious passion for Queen Berenice, to whom he allegedly promised marriage […] It was even prophesied quite openly that he would prove to be a second Nero. However, this pessimistic view stood him in good stead: as soon as everyone realized that here was no monster of vice but an exceptionally noble character, public opinion flew to the opposite extreme.”

Vespasian died in June 79 CE and Titus succeeded him without question. To the surprise of the Roman people, Titus displayed honest integrity and kind character. The people loved Titus and praised his virtues that overshadowed his vices. “No emperor could have been less of a robber than Titus, who showed the greatest respect for private property and would not even accept the gifts sanctioned by tradition. Nor had any of his predecessors ever displayed such generosity […] Titus was naturally kind-hearted, and though no emperor, following Tiberius’ example, had ever consented to ratify individual concessions granted by his predecessor unless these suited him personally, Titus did not wait to be asked but signed a general edict confirming all such concessions whatsoever […] Even when warned by his staff how impossible it would be to make good on such promises, Titus maintained that no one ought to go away disappointed from an audience with the emperor. One evening at dinner, realizing that he had done nobody any favor since the previous night, he spoke these memorable words : ‘My friends, I have wasted a day.'”

Coin of Imperator Titus

Titus sought to demonstrate the Flavians as the legitimate successors to the Julio-Claudian dynasty; he first deified his father upon his accession in accordance to the imperial cult (though, this would not be ratified until six months later) and would produce a series of coins depicting the previous emperors, notably Augustus and Claudius. Titus also funded construction projects of both his own invention and of his father’s will, the most remarkable being the Flavian Amphitheatre (known today as the “Colosseum”) as well as various bathhouses. In celebration of the completed amphitheatre, Titus hosted a grand hundred day festival with elaborate spectacles including gladiatorial fights, artificial sea battles, and wild beast hunts. One of his first acts as emperor was to halt the trials based on treasonous charges which had long afflicted the early days of the empire. Charges for slander and libel were done away with, as Titus said “It is impossible for me to be insulted or abused in any way. For I do naught that deserves censure, and I care not for what is reported falsely. As for the emperors who are dead and gone, they will avenge themselves in case anyone does them a wrong, if in very truth they are demigods and possess any power.” Consequently, no senators were executed during his reign.

Another aspect of Titus’ life that had long entertained the Roman populace was his love life, eventful and somewhat scandalous. Titus was first married to Arrecina Tertulla, a woman of equestrian rank who had died shortly into their marriage. Titus then married Marcia Furnilla, whose distinguished family had helped Titus in his early political career. She bore him his only child, a daughter named Julia Flavia. Though, Titus later divorced Furnilla for unknown reasons, perhaps because her family was connected to the Pisonian conspiracy during Nero’s reign. Titus was known for his indulgence in young men and eunuchs, which spawned tales of his alleged debauchery.

However, his most famous (or infamous) romance was with the Jewish queen Berenice of Cilicia. During the Judaean rebellion, Titus met Berenice who immediately fell in love with him despite Titus being eleven years her junior. The sister of Herod Agrippa II, the Herodians had sided with the Romans during their reconquest of Judaea and when Nero’s death induced a succession crisis Berenice used her wealth and influence to support Vespasian’s claim. In 75 CE they reunited and lived with him in the imperial palace, acting in every aspect as his loyal wife. The Romans, however, perceived Berenice to be an intrusive foreigner. When the pair was publicly denounced by Cynics in a theatre Titus yielded and sent her away, which was painful for both of them. Also, it was rumored that Titus had an affair with Domitia Longina, the wife of his brother Domitian, though she had denied the allegation.

“The Triumph of Titus” by Lawrence Alma-Tadema (notice the longing gazes of Titus and Domitia)

Titus had a strained relationship with his brother Domitian, as Suetonius writes “Titus’ brother Domitian caused him endless trouble: he took part in conspiracies, stirred up disaffection in the armed forces almost openly, and toyed with the notion of escaping from Rome and putting himself at their head. Yet Titus had not the heart to execute Domitian, dismiss him from court, or even treat him less honorably than before. Instead, he continued to repeat, as on the first day of his reign, ‘Remember that you are my partner and chosen successor,’ and often took Domitian aside, begging him tearfully to return the affection he offered.” Nevertheless, Domitian contributed greatly to Titus’ memory after he died, erecting monuments to his brother.

Titus’ reign is noted for the series of catastrophes that occurred, notably the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE which destroyed the cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum. Titus reacted by appointing two ex-consuls to coordinate the relief effort and spent huge sums of money from the imperial treasury to help the victims. In 80 CE an immense fire broke out in Rome, burning considerable amounts for three days and three nights. Not as disastrous as the Great Fire of 64 CE, the city still lost a number of public buildings including Agrippa’s Pantheon, the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, parts of the Theatre of Pompey among others. Like before, Titus personally compensated for the damages. Also, a plague spread during the fire, yet the nature of the disease is unknown, only described to be horrendous. Titus’ only comment on the fire at Rome was “This has ruined me!”

As a result of Titus’ actions during these blights he gained a reputation for generosity and cordiality. In 81 CE at the closing of the ceremonial games Titus wept openly and officially dedicated the amphitheatre and bathes, which were to be his final recorded acts as emperor. Titus set off for the Sabine territories, though suddenly he fell ill with an intense fever. On his way back to Rome in his litter he is said “to have drawn back the curtains, gazed up at the sky, and complained bitterly that life was being undeservedly taken from him – since he had done nothing at all which he had cause to regret, save for one thing only.” Allegedly, his last words before dying were “I have made but one mistake.” It has been speculated that Titus may have been referring to his rumored love affair with Domitia.

Statue of Titus

Titus was succeeded by Domitian, who forthwith deified Titus. Upon hearing of his death, the Roman people went into mourning “as though they had suffered a personal loss.” Senators rushed to the Senate House and began “speaking of him with greater thankfulness and praise than they had ever used while he was alive and still among them.” The Flavian dynasty would not last beyond Domitian, who was assassinated in 96 CE.

Titus stands as one of the most exemplary emperors of any period in Roman history. True, his legacy is enhanced by his early death, nonetheless Titus displayed a good disposition that is remarked upon by his winning personality and charitable acts. The Roman historian Cassius Dio remarks upon Titus’ death and legacy, writing:

“His satisfactory record may also have been due to the fact that he survived his accession but a very short time, for he was thus given no opportunity for wrongdoing. For he lived after this only two years, two months and twenty days—in addition to the thirty-nine years, five months and twenty-five days he had already lived at that time. In this respect, indeed, he is regarded as having equalled the long reign of Augustus, since it is maintained that Augustus would never have been loved had he lived a shorter time, nor Titus had he lived longer. For Augustus, though at the outset he showed himself rather harsh because of the wars and the factional strife, was later able, in the course of time, to achieve a brilliant reputation for his kindly deeds; Titus, on the other hand, ruled with mildness and died at the height of his glory, whereas, if he had lived a long time, it might have been shown that he owes his present fame more to good fortune than to merit.”

One must always wonder what would become of the Roman Empire if Titus had lived longer. Would it prosper beyond imagination? Did he inherit good fortune? That is left up to the individual.

Recommended Reading:

 Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Suetonius

The War of the Jews, Josephus

Roman History, Cassius Dio

In the Name of Rome: The Men who Won the Roman Empire, Adrian Goldsworthy

Beloved of the Greeks

Philip V of Macedon was the sixth Antigonid king of Macedon, reigning from 221 to 179 BCE; a most ambitious king famed for his unsuccessful struggles with the Roman Republic, as Philip wanted to expand Macedonian influence beyond Greece into Asia. Though, his venturous attitude attracted hostile reactions from neighbors and, most importantly, the Roman Republic. The Romans declared themselves champions of “Greek Freedom” and fought against Philip, in which they were victorious. After this defeat Philip was forced to absolved his control of Greece and gained Asian territories, reducing Macedon back to its borders. Philip was a dashing and courageous warrior, so much so that he was compared to Alexander the Great, an example he tried to emulate.

Philip V is perhaps the most celebrated Antigonid king as his ambitions and resolve were remembered as the conquering policies of Alexander, though he was defeated. The last Macedonian king who held hegemony over the Greek states, Philip was called the “beloved of the Greeks” due to his charitable inclination.

Now, let’s look at Philip’s life and legacy.

 

Coin depicting Philip V of Macedon

Philip was born in 238 BCE, the son and heir of the Macedonian king Demetrius II Aetolicus (“of Aetolia”) and his fourth wife Chryseis. Demetrius II was distinguished for his defiance to invading neighbors and his success at expanding into the Greek mainland, greatly enlarging the Macedonian kingdom. King Demetrius died in 229 BCE when Philip was 9 years-old, resulting in the appointment of his elder cousin Antigonus as regent until Philip came of age. Antigonus was soon regarded as king and ruled Macedon as such, yet still considered himself as a caretaker of Philip. Antigonus III Doson (“given great promise”) faced threats from the southern Greek states, but chose to invoke diplomacy in order to calm the Greeks and achieve victory. In 221 BCE Antigonus died from illness and complications while campaigning against the Illyrians, leaving the Macedonian kingdom to the 17 year-old Philip. For a brief time the courtier Apelles acted as regent for Philip, but he was soon cast aside for Philip to take the reins of his kingdom and the Greek world.

In 220 BCE war broke out amongst the Greek states and leagues. Called the Social War (or the Aetolian War), the Aetolian League had become defensive as many of its rivals had become stronger with expansionist policies and secure alliances. The Aetolian League was the only power that hindered Macedon’s complete control of Greece, though they were known for peaceful and cautious policies. However, Sparta and Elis allied themselves with the Aetolian’s cause, raising alarm amongst the other Greek states. Philip V gathered the head members of the Hellenic League at Corinth to discuss how to proceed with the Aetolian League’s defiance to their presence. Philip, as the leader of the Hellenic League, declared war and soon the Aetolian League sent armies to attack the holdings of the Achaean League and pending an invasion of Macedon. With the Achaean League near collapse due to the attacks by the Spartans and Aetolians, Philip marched south with an army and won victory after victory against the Eleans. Philip then took a fleet to the coasts of Aetolia and began to raid cities, moving inward to Thermum and subsequently devastated the city. Philip sailed to Corinth and marched against the Spartans where he gained more victories, though he was forced to go back to Corinth as his soldiers were dissatisfied with their plunder. During the war Philip became a famed and respected military leader, with Macedon becoming the premier military power of Greece.

In 217 BCE Philip received news of Hannibal Barca’s victory over the Romans at the Battle of Lake Trasimene. Hannibal’s success against the Romans caused Philip to turn his interests westward, aspiring to replace the newfound Roman influence amongst the Adriatic Sea. Philip quickly called an end to the Social War and made peace with the Aetolian League. With Rome preoccupied with Carthage, this allowed Philip to extend his influence to islands and cities who were under Roman “protection”. It was at the urging of his advisor Demetrius of Pharos that Philip was persuaded to take action against the Romans and invade Illyria, a protectorate of the Roman Republic. Philip spent the winter of 217-216 BCE building a large fleet to assault the coasts of Illyria and, if needed, to repel the Romans. Though, word of a Roman fleet sailing towards Greece caused panic and Philip returned to Macedon “without loss indeed, but with considerable dishonor.”

By 215 BCE Philip and Hannibal allied with each other after the Battle of Cannae (216 BCE). They agreed to mutually support each other against their own enemies, and that if any peace with Rome was struck then they would have to relinquish major Balkan cities into Philip’s domain. Philip’s alliance with Hannibal provoked immediate alarm from the Romans, as they were under great stress from Hannibal’s presence in Italy. By the late summer of 214 BCE Philip once again attempted to invade Illyria by the sea, capturing a few cities before the Romans intervened by sending the propraetor Marcus Valerius Laevinus with a fleet and legions to “rescue” the besieged Illyrian cities. He reached Apollonia and in the night commanded his army to attack Philip’s camp, quickly secured a victory as Philip was compelled to flee back to Macedon as he burned his remaining ships and left thousands of soldiers at the mercy of Laevinus. Philip spent the next two years carefully making advancements in Illyria by land, taking the inland towns and defeating various tribes. Philip finally gained access to the Adriatic by capturing the city of Lissus and its seemingly impenetrable citadel. The surrounding territories surrendered to Philip, though the fear of a Roman invasion still clouded Philip’s mind and he now relied on Carthage for a fleet just in case.

The Romans sought out allies in Greece due to the possibility of Philip sending reinforcements to Hannibal in Italy. Laevinus attempted to coerce the Aetolian League to join the Romans, but they were war-weary and had made peace with Philip. Though, five years later the Aetolian League decided to take up arms against Macedon due to Rome’s rising fortunes in the Second Punic War. In 211 BCE a treaty was signed between the Roman Republic and the Aetolian League in which the Romans would collect any slaves or plunder while the Aetolians would receive conquered territory. The treaty also included the assistance of of allies such as the states of Elis, Sparta, Messenia, and, most importantly, Attalus I Soter (“the Savior”), King of Pergamon. Attalus supported the Aetolian League years before during their struggle with Philip, and now he was elected as one of the two strategoi (“generals”) of the Aetolian League. Laevinus campaigned in Greece in which he captured several islands before alerting Philip. Upon hearing of Laevinus’ campaign, Philip secured his northern borders by conducting raids in Illyria, Dardania, and possibly Paeonia. He then attacked the Thracian Maedi before returning to Macedon, though he soon received an urgent plea for help from the Acarnanians as the Aetolians under their general Scopas had decided to mobilize and prepared to invade Acarnania. Ill-prepared and outnumbered, the Acarnanians were still determined to resist which halted the Aetolian’s ambitions. Hearing of Philip’s army marching to aid the Acarnanians, the Aetolian League abandoned their invasion plans and Philip returned to Pella, the Macedonian capital, for the winter.

There were concerns over Rome’s intentions and methods, nevertheless the coalition against Philip grew and with the help of Attalus’ fleets the sea was secured and forced Philip to fight on land where his enemies became more prevalent. Laevinus returned to Rome to assume his consulship, confident in the Roman strategy to pit the Greek states against Philip. However, the Greek coalition remained passive as Philip continued to advance on the Greek mainland, capturing city after city. In the spring 0f 209 BCE the Achaean League requested help from Philip as they were being attacked by the Spartans and Aetolians. Knowing of Attalus’ involvement and fearing he might cross from Asia Minor into Greece, Philip gathered an army and advanced into southern Greece. At Lamia Philip met with an Aetolian army supported by Roman and Pergamene auxiliaries, in which he defeated them in two decisive battles. The Aetolian force retreated inside the walls of Lamia, allowing Philip to go to Phalara where he met with representatives from Egypt, Athens, Rhodes, and Chios. The ambassadors intended to convince Philip to end the war as it was hurting trade in the Mediterranean. A truce of thirty days was struck and a peace conference was set up at Achaea. Philip went to the town of Aegium for the peace conference, though it was disrupted with reports that Attalus had arrived at Aegina and a Roman fleet was at Naupactus. The Aetolian representatives then demanded Philip renounce several of his captured cities to their respective states. Angry and disrespected, Philip quit the negotiations.

With the Roman fleet now commanded by the proconsul Publius Sulpicius Galba, he and Attalus attended a meeting in Heraclea Trachinia in which representatives from Aetolia, Egypt, and Rhodes were still trying to negotiate a peace settlement. Hearing of this council, Philip swiftly marched south in an attempt to break up the meeting but arrived too late. As he was now encompassed by enemies, Philip adopted a defensive policy and set up a beacon system to alert of enemy movements. When Attalus sacked the city of Opus, a signal fire notified Philip and he attacked Attalus’ army as they were gathering their plunder. Attalus had barely managed to escape to his ships and fled to Asia. Philip considered Attalus’ escape a bitter defeat, though Attalus would be confined to Pergamon as King Prusias I Cholus (“the Lame”) of Bithynia, related to Philip via marriage to his sister Apama III, intended to move against Attalus. Philip now went on the offensive, occupying several cities and towns in central and western Greece. In 207 BCE the same ambassadors from Egypt and Rhodes tried to convince Philip to make peace, but to no avail as the war was going Philip’s way. Abandoned by Rome and Pergamon, the Aetolian League sued for peace in 206 BCE. Philip demanded immense sums of gold, he also burned down temples and public buildings of the Aetolians.

Bust of Philip V

The following spring the censor Publius Sempronius Tuditanus was sent to Dyrrachium to spur the tribes to revolt against Philip. Philip soon arrived and forced Sempronius to retreat. The Romans had no more allies in Greece, yet they succeeded in preventing Philip from aiding Hannibal. In 205 BCE the so-called Peace of Phoenice was signed, formally ending the First Macedonian War. Though, this did not stop Philip from stirring up trouble as later that same year Philip pressed Crete into attacking Rhodes. Having defeated Pergamon, the major Greek state of Asia Minor, and formed an alliance with the Aetolian League, Philip was opposed by no one save Rhodes. Wishing to be master of the Greek world, Philip sought to disrupt Rhodian dominance of the sea. Enlisting the help of the Cretans and Spartan pirates, Philip commanded them to raid Rhodian ships and other territories. Weakened by these continuous raids, Rhodes asked the Roman Republic for help, though the Second Punic War had just ended and the Romans were too tired to lend aid. The Rhodians did, however, gain the allegiance of Pergamon, Cyzicus, and Byzantium.

Philip’s plan was to control the Aegean Sea as he was not allowed to expand westward due to the Peace of Phoenice. So, Philip decided to raze several cities of Asia Minor and gift them to Prusias I. In return, Prusias promised to put pressure on Pergamon as he expanded his kingdom. Philip’s razing of these cities enraged the Aetolian League as two of them were members of said confederation. However, the Aetolian League continued to support and provide for Philip as they were afraid of him, and this incident only worsened their relationship. Sailing back to Macedon, Philip visited the island of Thasos off the coast of Thrace where he received envoys from the eponymous capital. The envoys said they would surrender the city to the Macedonians only if there was no garrison placed, they did not have to pay tribute, and they lived by their own laws. Philip agreed to these terms, though once he and his army were inside the city walls Philip ordered his soldiers to enslave the citizens and pillage the city. This action caused Philip’s reputation among the Greek states to drastically deteriorate as they viewed his raids as savage and no better than the Aetolians and Romans during the First Macedonian War.

In 204/203 BCE Philip was approached by ministers of the 5 year-old pharaoh Ptolemy V Epiphanes (“God-Manifest”). The diplomats attempted to create an alliance with Philip by offering a marriage contract with Philip’s daughter, Apama, and Ptolemy. The reason for this alliance was to hinder the ambitions of Antiochus III Megas (“the Great”), King of the Seleucid Empire. Antiochus was seeking to enlarge his empire at Egypt’s expense, also with the desire to increase his power and reputation among the Greek world. Philip declined the offer and instead forged an alliance with Antiochus and concluded a secret pact in which they would wage war against Egypt and divide the Ptolemaic possessions amongst themselves. Antiochus would take Egypt and Cyrene while Philip was awarded the Ptolemaic holdings in the Aegean. In 202 BCE the Aetolians sent ambassadors to Rome in order to create an alliance against Philip, as Philip’s aggressive policies induced them to seek outside protection. The Romans refused them, still seething from the fact that the Aetolian League allied with Philip at the conclusion of the First Macedonian War. This attitude from the Romans encouraged Philip to continue his campaign in the Aegean, considering it key to maintaining his dominance in the Greek world. By controlling the Aegean he would be able to restrict Roman interference in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Philip attacked Ptolemaic territories in Thrace, though he soon heard of Attalus’ alliance with Rhodes which enraged him. Philip then invaded Pergamese territory, seeking to besiege Attalus’ capital, though Attalus had strengthened the city’s walls which resulted in Philip retreating only after destroying a few temples. Philip and the Macedonian fleet then subdued the Cyclades, capturing the island of Samos which was under Ptolemaic protection. Philip planned to use the northern Aegean islands as stepping-stones as he worked his way down to Rhodes. However, as he was besieging the island of Chios a combined Pergamese-Rhodian fleet interrupted Philip’s operations, with Attalus at the head of the fleet. The Battle of Chios commenced, resulting in Philip’s defeat. Historian Peter Green describes the battle as “crippling and costly” as Philip sustained more casualties than any of his previous battles. After the battle, the Rhodian admirals decided to sail back home, though Philip attacked them as they entered the straits between Lade and Miletus. Philip defeated the Rhodian fleet, and the Milesians were so impressed that they awarded Philip garlands of victory when he entered the city of Hiera Cone.

Philip then campaigned in Asia Minor, plundering numerous cities and towns, though he halted his attacks when he heard of Attalus building a new fleet. Meanwhile, Philip’s allies the Acarnanians waged war against Athens after the Athenians murdered two Acarnanian athletes. Philip lent his help to the Acarnanians by sending his general Nicanor the Elephant and an army to pillage Attica before moving on Athens. However, Roman ambassadors in the city ordered the Macedonians to stop their assault or face war with Rome. Philip continued to press on Athens, though his orders were halted by another Pergamese-Rhodian fleet that forced the Macedonians to abandon their assault. The Athenians were so pleased by this rescue that they established a new tribe in honor of Attalus. Attalus and the Rhodians then convinced the Athenians to declare war on Macedon.

Delegations from Pergamon, Egypt, Rhodes, and Athens appeared in the Roman Senate to appeal for help. They informed the Senate of the pact between Philip and Antiochus, complaining about Philip’s aggressive actions. Meanwhile, Philip campaigned in Thrace and captured more Ptolemaic holdings. Advancing on the Thracian Chersonese, Philip besieged Abydos which was protected by a Pergamese-Rhodian garrison. The situation soon became grave for the citizens of Abydos, and they sent envoys to Philip offering to surrender the city to him only if the garrison and citizens were permitted to leave without harm. Philip replied that they should “surrender at discretion or fight like men.” Informed of Philip’s response, the Abydenians swore to fight or die trying. A young Roman ambassador named Marcus Aemilius Lepidus approached Philip, informing him that if he attacked any Greek state, Ptolemaic possession, or territory belonging to Pergamon and Rhodes, then Rome would ignite war. Philip rebuffed the young ambassador and continued his siege. Philip eventually breached the walls of Abydos and while he was walking in the city he saw people killing themselves and their families by methods of stabbing, burning, hanging, and jumping off roofs. Philip, shocked by these acts of suicide, proclaimed a three day truce in which any Abydenian wishing to commit suicide or surrender they could.

Philip’s reputation was now blemished by the atrocities he committed during his conquest of Greek cities. No longer the “beloved of the Greeks”, Philip realized he had few active allies in Greece, although there was little enthusiasm for the Romans as well. The Roman Senate declared war on Philip for his aggressive expansion, though the first two years of campaigning proved little to nothing until the Roman offensive was handed to the general Titus Quinctius Flamininus. A known philhellene, Flamininus demanded Philip remove his garrisons in the Greek cities and limit his influence to the original Macedonian borders. In 198 BCE Flamininus led a vivacious and unwavering campaign against Philip, forcing him to retreat to Thessaly while many of the pro-Macedonian cities soon declared for Rome. Philip announced his willingness to make peace with the Romans, though it came at a critical time when elections were being held in Rome and Flamininus did not know if his command would be prolonged. Later that year Flamininus and Philip met at Nicaea to discuss terms of peace, in which Flamininus demanded Philip should withdraw completely from Greece and confine himself to Macedon. Philip was willing to give up his conquests in Thrace and Asia Minor, but he refused to absolve his influence on Greece.

Flamininus’ command was extended and so he continued the war against Philip. In 197 BCE the Battle of Cynoscephalae took place, in which Philip was decisively defeated by Flamininus. The battle proved the superiority of the Roman legion to the Greek phalanx, forever changing warfare in the Mediterranean. Philip then sued for peace on Roman terms. Philip agreed to evacuate the whole of Greece, relinquish his recent conquests, and return to Macedon. The Roman Senate added further that Philip must pay a war indemnity and surrender his navy, as well as hand over his younger son Demetrius as a hostage. In 196 BCE at the Isthmian Games Flamininus declared the Greeks “free”.

Philip was forced to ally himself with the Roman Republic, supporting the Romans in their war against Antiochus. Philip spent the rest of his reign restructuring the kingdom’s internal affairs as well as securing its borders. Though, the Romans were always suspicious of Philip, and when Philip felt threatened by a possible Roman invasion he extended his influence in the Balkans by means of diplomacy and force. Philip’s efforts, however, were undermined by his son Demetrius who was pro-Roman as a result of his time spent in Rome as a hostage. Demetrius was endorsed by Rome to be Philip’s successor, as his eldest son Perseus was seen as illegitimate, being that his mother was a concubine. In 180 BCE Perseus staged a plot where it appeared that Demetrius was planning on making Macedon a full client-state of Rome, in which Philip reluctantly executed Demetrius for treason. This had a great effect on Philip’s health, as Philip died a year later. He was succeeded by Perseus, the last king of Macedon.

Philip V wanted to be a conquering king in the mold of Alexander, though perhaps his ambitions were too grand for him to accomplish. After nearly a century and a half of dominance the Macedonian hegemony was finally lifted, the Greek states once again “free”. In his efforts to expand his kingdom Philip ultimately crippled it. Once the “beloved of the Greeks”, Philip aggressive policies made him the enemy of the Greeks he was once so beloved by. Certainly the most memorable Antigonid king, apart from Demetrius I Poliorcetes (“the Besieger”), Philip V goes down in history as a formidable but essentially unfit enemy of the Romans. The last great Macedonian king. Had he not allied with Hannibal, would the Romans go so far to defeat him?

Recommended Reading:

The Histories, Polybius

Alexander to Actium, Peter Green

A History of Macedonia, Robert Malcom Errington

The Classical World, Robert Lane Fox

Scipio the Great

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, commonly known as Scipio Africanus or Scipio Africanus the Elder, was a Roman general and statesman who is famous for his victory at the Battle of Zama (202 BCE) against the great Carthaginian commander Hannibal Barca. The hero of the Second Punic War (218-201 BCE), Scipio Africanus is remembered as an unorthodox Roman who fancied a pro-Greek lifestyle which upset the “old Roman” faction in the Roman Senate, pitting him against statesmen such as Marcus Porcius Cato (“Cato the Censor” or “Cato the Elder”). Disenchanted with Roman political life, Scipio withdrew from Rome towards the end of his life and carried a bitter resentment of his home state. As his the inscription on his tomb stated, “Ungrateful fatherland, you will not even have my bones.” Referring to the fact that Scipio demanded his body be buried away from Rome in his country seat of Liternum.

Perhaps the greatest general Rome had ever fostered, Scipio Africanus is forever considered the man who saved Rome from the wrath of Hannibal. I will attempt to examine the personality and military genius of Scipio Africanus.

Bronze Bust of Scipio Africanus

       Scipio Africanus was a Roman who was ever bit confident in his destiny for greatness. Born circa 236 BCE to the Scipio branch of the illustrious and ancient Cornelii, we have no surviving record of Scipio Africanus’ early life. Though there are myths identified with earlier ones about Alexander the Great, claiming Scipio’s mother had lain with a snake of divine nature. Indeed, it seems his life and career of glory begins with the Second Punic War, joining in the struggle’s first year fighting alongside his father Publius Cornelius Scipio. The Second Punic War dominated Scipio’s life, as he was the savior general who rescued the Roman Republic from its destruction by Carthage. From his early exploits in Hispania all the way to his final victory at Zama do we see military genius in this young commander. He studied the tactics of Hannibal and turned them to Rome’s favor, his great victory at Zama the pinnacle of Scipio’s military genius from which he learned from Rome’s greatest enemy.

Scipio’s character was of the sensitive, intelligent, and overall charismatic. In his early military career he was considered Rome’s most dutiful commander, as there was one occasion while in Hispania (Spain) when some of his soldiers, the sons of distinguished magistrates, conspired to desert Rome for they thought the war was lost. Scipio confronted these men and at sword point forced them to swear that they would never abandon the Roman Republic. And in spite of his youth, Scipio commanded the greatest respect for he displayed a noble demeanor and enthusiastic language, and of course, his special military genius.

After the disaster of Cannae (216 BCE), which was Hannibal’s most celebrated victory, Scipio was one of the survivors who resolved to keep Rome safe and win glory. All the others of his class began to tremble before the might and supremacy of Hannibal, yet Scipio refused to believe Rome could ever be defeated and was determined to see absolute victory over the Carthaginians. Scipio’s youth and resolve made him stand out from the average high-class Roman, as he was given prestigious offices such as proconsul despite being 26 years-old. He was assigned the command of the campaign in Hispania, elected unanimously for his courage and resolution to bring victories to Rome and stop the Carthaginian menace.

Young and inexperienced, Scipio quickly demonstrated his tactical prowess by launching an offensive on the Carthaginian garrisons and assaulted New Carthage (modern Cartagena), the Punic seat of Spain. Knowing that a siege could take months and that the returning enemy armies would appear in a matter of weeks, Scipio sought information on the fortress from local fishermen, designed a fierce operation and then ordered his soldiers to attack the weakest points of entry. Once the citadel was taken the Scipio’s soldiers plundered the city and gave praise to their gifted commander. While characteristically Roman in its strategic origin, the assault on New Carthage exhibited careful preparation and planning on Scipio’s part. His tactical sophistication would develop throughout the war until he mastered Hannibal’s own tactics. Scipio’s capture of New Carthage changed the balance of power of Carthage’s dominance and further victories would see the Roman Republic survive.

There was a story during Scipio’s Spanish campaign where a captured woman of astonishing beauty was brought to Scipio as a war-prize, yet she was betrothed to an Celtiberian chieftain named Allucius. Scipio returned the woman to Allucius and the money offered to ransom her by her parents. The event is commonly called “The Continence of Scipio” and has inspired many paintings of the story. This humanitarian act characterized Scipio’s conduct and attitude toward those humbled by the Romans, gaining Spanish allies for Rome in the process. Scipio was known for being a young womanizer, yet he still kept his honor and deferred to duty instead of indulging in vices and greedy opportunity. Scipio treated these subjects honorably and ordered his soldiers not to harm or molest the people in any way, especially the noblewomen. His treatment of the captured women of New Carthage evoked the past tales of Alexander’s generosity and grace when dealing with the captive royal Persian household.

“The Continence of Scipio” by Giovanni Francesco Romanelli

Scipio’s campaign in Hispania proved greatly successful, as he was able to drive back Hasdrubal Barca, Hannibal’s brother, utilizing the stratagems of Hannibal and effectively ended the Carthaginian presence in Hispania. Yet more glory awaited Scipio for he had decided to take the fight to Carthage and invaded Africa with his now veteran army and his new position as consul, of which he was unanimously elected. Yet Scipio had rivals in the Roman Senate, and they did not allow him to train an immediate Roman army mustered from the city, instead looking to the Sicilian training camps. The Sicilian camp hosted “disgraced” veterans from the war’s early stages, but nonetheless they proved apt and Scipio now marshaled an army eager to fight for him and finally bring the war to Carthage’s homeland.

Scipio landed in North Africa in 204 BCE near Utica and gained a victory against a combined Carthaginian-Numidian army. Fearing Scipio’s marching army, the Carthaginian council recalled Hannibal from Italy to protect its holdings in Africa. The two great generals met at Zama in late 202 BCE; in preparation for the oncoming battle, Scipio realized that Hannibal’s Numidian cavalry was the core of what made his foe’s army so superior, resolving to press the Kingdom of Numidia for support, for which they did by the grace of Massinissa, Numidia’s first king. Scipio also managed to devise a strategy to make Hannibal’s elephant squadrons ineffective, setting up his legions in formation that they could be flexible and outmanoeuvre the elephants. Before the battle Scipio and Hannibal met and discussed terms of peace. Hannibal offered Scipio a chance to return to Italy and let the Roman and Carthaginian politicians settle a peace treaty, but Scipio refused. His entire military career had led to this moment, the confrontation between Scipio and Hannibal, Rome and Carthage’s best.

Meeting of Hannibal and Scipio at Zama

The Battle of Zama proved to be bloody and exhausting, but Scipio prevailed using Hannibal’s own tactics against him as well as his own crafty innovation. Hannibal was defeated, and this victory at Zama secured absolute Roman conquest of the Western Mediterranean. Scipio returned to Rome and celebrated a magnificent and dramatic triumph, for he was the hero of the Roman world. The Romans hailed Scipio as Africanus (“Victor of Africa”), Scipio taking the name as an agnomen, forever a permanent title for his grand achievement. Still in his early 30s, Scipio had accomplished the greatest feats every Roman wished to attain. The Roman people thrust various honors on Scipio, namely consul for life and dictator. Scipio, in his honorable manner, refused.

Scipio was an unorthodox Roman in that he was quite the philhellene. He wrote and spoke Greek, fashioning his toga in a Greek style, as well as admiring the Greeks for their development and pursuit of knowledge, art, and religion. Scipio also went clean-shaven, according to the example of Alexander, a men’s fashion that would last until the reign of the emperor Hadrian but would then again be revived by Constantine the Great. To the traditional Roman factions in the Senate he was seen was a threat to ancient Roman customs. Scipio’s political opponents, led by Cato the Elder, eventually wore down Scipio’s political resolve with allegations of treason and bribery, and forced him into retirement. Scipio felt utter resentment for Rome after this, deciding to live out the rest of his life in Liternum where he then died circa 183 BCE.

Triumph of Scipio Africanus

Scipio is undoubtably one of Rome’s greatest generals, if not the greatest. Like Alexander, he was undefeated in battle and forever remembered as a military genius. In an account by Livy there is a story (most likely fabricated) where Scipio and Hannibal meet in Ephesus and discuss who are the greatest generals. Hannibal replied “Alexander… because with a small force he routed armies of countless numbers, and because he traversed the remotest lands […] Pyrrhus. He was the first to teach the out of laying out a camp. Besides that, no one has ever shown nicer judgement in choosing his ground, or in disposing his forces. He also had the art of winning men to his side…” When Scipio asked who ranked third, Hannibal answered himself. Scipio laughed at this and asked who would be greater if he had not defeated him. Hannibal said “I should certainly put myself before Alexander and before Pyrrhus – in fact before all other generals!” By this Hannibal meant that Scipio was set apart from the other great generals, in that his worth was beyond calculation.

Scipio Africanus deserves the accolades and praise awarded to him, as he was the man to defeat Hannibal. The hero of the Second Punic War. He is Scipio the Great.

Recommended Reading:

History of Rome, Livy

Scipio Africanus: Greater Than Napoleon, B. H. Liddell Hart

In the Name of Rome: The Men who Won the Roman Empire, Adrian Goldsworthy