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

Pyrrhus of Epirus – The Failed Alexander

Pyrrhus of Epirus is mostly known for his war against the Romans and the eponymous Pyrrhic victory stratagem. He was a great general, and was praised and glorified in the years following his demise, from both the Greeks and the Romans. His character was of such insatiable ambition and military genius that he was continuously compared to Alexander the Great. In antiquity it was said that Pyrrhus was only second to Alexander in generalship, and Pyrrhus apparently emulated Alexander on the battlefield. Though, how alike are these two great commanders? They seem to be of similar dispositions, yet there are some aspects of Alexander that outweigh what has been detailed about Pyrrhus.

Both Alexander and Pyrrhus were renowned Greek kings famed for their conquests, though both of their tales exhibit differing virtues and sins. Alexander’s empire fractured only after his death, whereas Pyrrhus died with nothing to show for his accomplishments. While foreigners to the Romans, they nevertheless praised them for their military achievements and genius, but were also used as cautionary examples of cupiditas gloriae (“over-desire for glory”). Those a just a few noticeable aspects of these two acclaimed kings, but their characters were frequently paired that one must wonder why Pyrrhus is not as remembered as Alexander is.

Now, let’s look at the life and personality of Pyrrhus.

“The other kings, they said, represented Alexander with their purple robes, their body-guards, the inclination of their necks, and their louder tone in conversation; but Pyrrhus, and Pyrrhus alone, in arms and action.”

– Life of Pyrrhus, Plutarch

Bust of Pyrrhus of Epirus

Pyrrhus was born nearly five years after Alexander’s death, yet Pyrrhus found himself embroiled in the affairs created by Alexander’s demise, participating in the Wars of the Diadochi on behalf of Antigonus I Monophthalmus (“the One-Eye”) and his son Demetrius Poliorcetes (“the Besieger”). Pyrrhus was immensely popular amongst his soldiers, as on the battlefield he displayed dashing bravery and extreme capability. Even the opposing Greek armies found admiration for Pyrrhus, likening him to Alexander. When asked of who was the greatest general among his contemporaries, Antigonus replied “Pyrrhus, if he lives to be old.”

After the Battle of Ipsus (301 BCE), Pyrrhus was sent to Ptolemy I Soter (“the Savior”), Pharaoh of Egypt, as a hostage in accordance to the peace agreement between Demetrius and Ptolemy. The soldier-king once again proved to be popular while at Ptolemy’s court, as his martial prowess impressed Ptolemy and his courteous behavior won him the favor of Berenice I, Ptolemy’s queen. Pyrrhus was so popular that he won the betrothal of Berenice’s daughter, Antigone, making him Ptolemy’s stepson. Pyrrhus would eventually have a son with Antigone named Ptolemy in honor of his caretaker.

When war broke out between Pyrrhus and Demetrius, who was now the King of Macedon, the Macedonian soldiers regretted having to fight Pyrrhus for they held him in high regard. Plutarch writes “This fight did not so much exasperate the Macedonians with anger for their loss, or with hatred to Pyrrhus, as it caused esteem, and admiration of his valor…” The Macedonians came to believe Pyrrhus was Alexander come again, and in the end they deserted Demetrius. The Epirots called him “Eagle” for his courage and skill, and Pyrrhus acknowledged this by saying “By you, I am an eagle; for how should I not be such, while I have your arms as wings to sustain me?”

The war which Pyrrhus is noted for is his campaign against the Romans, where the Battle of Asculum (279 BCE) gave us the term Pyrrhic victory. For it was the fatal strategy of Pyrrhus to achieve victory despite heavy losses. When congratulated on this victory, Pyrrhus relied “If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.”

Pyrrhus would eventually be forced to flee back to Epirus on account of his behavior and demands towards the Sicilian Greeks. In Greece, he waged more war on Macedon, seeking to usurp the throne from Antigonus II Gonatas (“From Gonnoi” or “Knock-Knees”), the son of Demetrius. Pyrrhus insatiable hunger for war and glory proved to be his downfall, as he made no progress in Greece but only bloodshed. He was killed during his assault on Argos against the army of Antigonus II, paralyzed from a falling roof tile.

While praised for his valor, kindness, and ambition, Pyrrhus proved to be an impulsive glory-hound. He constantly plotted for possible campaigns as he found idle peace nauseating. After all his wars, all the bloodshed and death, Pyrrhus had nothing to show for his achievements at the end of his life.

“To his men he was not only their king but their comrade in arms […] He never asked his men to do what he would not do himself […] Incidents such as these bound his men to him with invisible and unbreakable moral ties. They endowed them with particles of his invincible will, and, under his leadership, they obliterated dangers, smoothed away adversities, and enabled him to lead them to what for them appeared to be the ends of the world.”

– The Generalship of Alexander the Great, J.F.C. Fuller

Bust of Alexander the Great

Both Alexander and Pyrrhus were commended for their personal bravery, military genius, compassion and generosity, and grand ambition. However, they both fell to the same criticisms of their passions for glory and ruthlessness. Yet, it is in their conquests where we see the difference. While campaigning for glory and legacy, Alexander fundamentally wished to unite the various peoples under his rule, and as king of Greece and Persia he intended to create unity between the east and west. Whereas Pyrrhus simply waged war for glory’s sake. Alexander had an empire, where Pyrrhus had nothing but the whims of his victories.

Plutarch notes that Pyrrhus had a dream where Alexander called to him, sick on his deathbed. Alexander claimed to assist Pyrrhus in his conquests, where then Pyrrhus boldly asked “How, Sir, can you, being sick, assist me?” and Alexander answered “With my name.” It is the emulation of Alexander that won Pyrrhus his fame and respect.

Jacob Abbot conclusively summarizes Pyrrhus’ personality and legacy:

“That Pyrrhus was a man of great native power of mind, and of extraordinary capacity as a military leader, no one can deny. His capacity and genius were in fact so great, as to make him, perhaps, the most conspicuous example that the world has produced of the manner in which the highest power and the noblest opportunities may be wasted and thrown away. He accomplished nothing. He had no plan, no aim, no object, but obeyed every momentary impulse, and entered, without thought and without calculation, into any scheme that chance, or the ambitious designs of others, might lay before him. He succeeded in creating a vast deal of turmoil and war, in killing an immense number of men, and in conquering, though temporarily and to no purpose, a great many kingdoms. It was mischief, and only mischief, that he did; and though the scale on which he perpetrated mischief was great, his fickleness and vacillation deprived it altogether of the dignity of greatness […] Still, he seems never really to have wished mankind ill.”

And like what Plutarch wrote before, Pyrrhus represented Alexander in arms and action alone, this gaining him the acclaim and regard of both his soldiers and enemies. Pyrrhus’ military genius was comparable to Alexander’s own, yet this is ultimately where the comparison ends. Pyrrhus is essentially a failed Alexander, with all the potential, achievement, and glory, yet without result.

 

Recommended reading:

Parallel Lives, Plutarch

Pyrrhus, Jacob Abbot

The Generalship of Alexander the Great, J.F.C. Fuller

Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman, N.G.L. Hammond