cristoraul.org

THE SELEUCID EMPIRE. 358-251 BC. HOUSE OF SELEUCUS

CHAPTER 6.

FROM ISSUS TO THE DEATH OF SELEUCUS

The battle of Issus is one of the landmarks of the period after Alexander. The Asiatic empire of Antigonus, which had been the great factor in the history of the last fifteen years, was annihilated forever. The house of Antigonus still survived in the person of Demetrius, who fled from the disastrous battle to Ephesus. His power was unbroken on the seas, and many places in the Levant were still held by his garrisons—Cyprus, Caunus, Tyre and Sidon. But for the moment the other four houses had almost driven the house of Antigonus from the field. “The victorious kings proceeded to cut up the empire of Antigonus like a great carcase, taking slices for themselves and adding its provinces to those they already ruled”. It was Seleucus and Lysimachus who gained the most in territory. Seleucus now annexed Syria, and Lysimachus a great part of the territory ruled by Antigonus in Asia Minor; where exactly the new frontier was drawn we cannot say. Cilicia was ceded to Plistarchus, the brother of Cassander.

There was one territorial controversy which the partition after Ipsus bequeathed to later generations—the question between the house of Seleucus and the house of Ptolemy as to the possession of Coele-Syria, the country we call Palestine. Ptolemy had long been concerned to possess Syria south of the Lebanon; during the war with Antigonus he had on several occasions seized this country and again lost it. When the alliance of the four kings had been renewed in 302, Ptolemy had stipulated for it as his share in the gains, and to this the others had agreed. At the same time that Lysimachus attacked Antigonus in Asia Minor, Ptolemy invaded and occupied Palestine. Then on some false report that Lysimachus had been crushed, Ptolemy made haste to evacuate it. This was the action on which the controversy turned. Seleucus, and apparently the other two kings whose forces had fought at Ipsus, contended that this withdrawal of Ptolemy’s was a desertion of the common cause, and that his claim to Palestine in virtue of the original agreement was forfeit. Ptolemy on the other hand maintained that it still held good. When Seleucus crossed the Taurus again after Ipsus to take possession of his new Syrian provinces, he found that Ptolemy had once more occupied Palestine. Seleucus could only obtain the country by superior force. But he felt himself restrained by decency from applying force to Ptolemy, not only an ally of old standing, but the man to whom he owed his own rise. He contented himself with an indignant protest. He declared to Ptolemy that “he would for the present take no active measures for friendship’s sake”, but that “he should consider later how to deal with a friend who seized more than his share”.

As a matter of fact, Seleucus, in consequence of the battle of Ipsus, had stepped, one might almost say, into the place of Antigonus, just as Antigonus had stepped into the place of Perdiccas. Seleucus now held a position which overshadowed that of all the other chieftains. And accordingly, just as Antigonus found himself in 315 in opposition to his old allies and allied with his old enemies, so it also happened with Seleucus. His neighbours Lysimachus and Ptolemy drew together. Lysimachus took Arsinoe, the daughter of Ptolemy, to wife. On his part Seleucus made overtures to the roving Demetrius. He asked the hand of Stratonice, his daughter by Phila the daughter of Antipater. Demetrius himself was invited to Syria.

This offer came to Demetrius as an “unexpected piece of fortune”. He at once set sail for Syria with Stratonice. On the way he raided Cilicia, the province of Plistarchus, and carried off 1200 talents from Cyinda, a residue of the Achaemenian hoards. Demetrius, Phila and Stratonice were received by Seleucus at the coast town of Rhossus. “The intercourse of the two kings was marked from the first by frankness, confidence and royal splendour. They took their pastimes, conversed and lived together with no setting of guards or wearing of arms, until Seleucus took Stratonice with imposing ceremony and went up to Antioch”. The new alliance was notified to the Greek cities in the occupation of Demetrius by envoys sent out in the name of both kings.

With his position thus improved, Demetrius began to meditate new aggressions. He occupied Cilicia, Plistarchus withdrawing apparently to complain to his brother, King Cassander. Seleucus would seem to have countenanced this proceeding, for we find him soon after using his good offices with Ptolemy, with whom his relations, in spite of the matter of Coele-Syria, were still friendly, to obtain the betrothal to Demetrius of one of Ptolemy's daughters. But the fresh ambitions of Demetrius showed that the house of Antigonus was not yet eliminated, and this to some extent restored the common antagonism of the four kings to their old enemy. A rupture between Seleucus and Demetrius took place. Its immediate cause was the demand of Seleucus that Demetrius should sell him Cilicia. When Demetrius refused, Seleucus in more menacing terms asked for Tyre and Sidon, which garrisons of Demetrius still retained. He received the proud answer that not even if Demetrius had to live through ten thousand other battles of Ipsus would he wish for Seleucus as a son-in-law on mercenary conditions, and the garrisons in the two cities were strengthened. Soon after this he left the East to restore his fortunes on the other side of the Aegean.

The years following Ipsus were, no doubt, fruitful in the internal development of the Empire of Seleucus. Seated now in Antioch, the new city he had built on the Orontes to replace Antigonia, Seleucus could survey both East and West and consolidate his power throughout the vast regions he had come to rule. But here again all record has perished. One administrative measure only finds mention in our traditions, the division of the Empire into an eastern and western part, the former with its capital in Babylonia, in the new city of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. Here the son of Seleucus and the Bactrian Apama is installed as viceroy of the dominion beyond the Euphrates.

This measure, however, owes its mention, not to its historical importance, but to its being connected with a story of that sentimental flavour, tinged with incest, which so pleased the taste of the later Greeks. Appian elaborates the story in greater detail than any other part of the history of Seleucus and his successors. Briefly, the prince Antiochus conceived a passion for his young step-mother Stratonice, and pined in silence. When, however, the court physician Erasistratus discovered the nature of his malady and revealed it to the King, Seleucus, with a paternal devotion considered exemplary, resolved to pass on his wife to his son. He further determined to make over to him at the same time the eastern half of the Empire. An assembly of all ranks of the Macedonian troops at Antioch was convoked, and the King proclaimed to them the betrothal of Antiochus and Stratonice, and their appointment to be King and Queen of the East. To remove any scruples as to a union abhorrent to Greek morality, Seleucus adopted the maxim of statecraft which Herodotus attributes to the royal judges of Cambyses, that the King is above law: “The King’s decree makes every action right” (about 293).

Its association with a story of this kind has served to rescue a great political measure from oblivion. Otherwise the history of Seleucus after Ipsus is lit up for us only by the meteoric personality of Demetrius. In 297-296 Cassander died, leaving no strong successor. His eldest son, Philip, died a year after his father; and then came a divided kingship in Macedonia, two other sons, Antipater and Alexander, reigning conjointly, held in leading strings by their mother, Thessalonice, the great Philip’s daughter. Such a state of things gave Demetrius his chance. He began once more to make himself master of the cities of Greece. The children of Cassander were not in a position to hinder his progress. Soon there were open feuds in the house of Cassander. Antipater murdered his mother, the last representative of the old royal line, and the two brothers fell to fighting. Demetrius dashed into this chaos and seized the Macedonian throne (293).

It is certainly one of the ironies of history that the object which Antigonus the One-eyed, with all his resources as lord of Asia, had vainly pursued so long should have been attained by his son after that Asiatic empire had perished. But the throne of Demetrius was anything but secure. The other three kings, alarmed at this resurrection of the house of Antigonus, united once more against it. Lysimachus had already driven the forces of Demetrius from a number of the coast cities of Asia Minor, where they had held on after Ipsus; Ptolemy had reconquered Cyprus. The three kings found an instrument in Pyrrhus of Epirus. He and Lysimachus simultaneously invaded Macedonia, whilst Ptolemy’s vessels appeared off the coast of Greece. It was perhaps at the same time that Seleucus occupied Cilicia.

Demetrius was driven by the desertion of his troops to quit Macedonia, and the country was divided between Lysimachus and Pyrrhus (287). For a while after this Demetrius mixed in the confused politics of Central Greece, where there were still troops afoot which paid him allegiance, and he had soon collected a sufficient power to annoy Athens. But it was too narrow a world for his ambitions and he was outmatched by Pyrrhus. Then once more he turned his eyes to the East. With an army of 11,000 foot and a body of cavalry he landed in Asia Minor. He met with some success. Even Sardis fell. The tide of desertion in Caria and Lydia began to set in his favor. But Agathocles, the son of Lysimachus, drew near with a force to redress the balance. Demetrius plunged into the interior. He conceived the daring plan of invading Iran. Perhaps he counted on the favor of his daughter, who reigned as queen of that land. The great difficulty in his plan was to reach Iran at all. It was difficult for two reasons: the mercenaries of those days had a profound objection to expeditions into out-of-the-way regions, whence it was difficult to bring back loot and where there was no opportunity of changing their service; and secondly, Agathocles pressed the pursuit so closely that Demetrius was unable to procure supplies. There was soon famine in his camp. Then he lost a number of men in the passage of the river Lycus. Then disease broke out. His army was, from all causes, reduced by 8000 men.

It was in this predicament that he determined to enter the realm of Seleucus and throw himself upon the compassion of his late ally. He crossed the Taurus into Cilicia and entered Tarsus. But he was careful to show that he did not come as an enemy. The fields through which he passed were left unharmed, and from Tarsus he wrote a letter of appeal to Seleucus in Syria. Seleucus seems to have been a good-natured man, and even apart from that, the age was favorable to acts of showy magnanimity. He at once wrote orders to his generals in Cilicia to furnish Demetrius with all that befitted royalty and to victual his starving troops.

But here another voice was raised, that of Patrocles, the King’s chief counselor. He represented strongly to Seleucus the danger of allowing a man of Demetrius’ ambition and abilities to take up his residence in the kingdom. His arguments worked so upon Seleucus, that the King completely reversed his first intentions. He marched in person into Cilicia at the head of a large force to complete Demetrius’ ruin.

To Demetrius this sudden change of policy was disconcerting. He took refuge among the defiles of the Taurus, and thence dispatched fresh appeals. Might he be allowed to establish himself as the petty chief of some of the free mountain folk? He promised to be content with such a kingdom. At any rate he implored Seleucus to suffer him to maintain his force where it was during the winter (286-285), and not force him back into the clutch of his implacable foe, Lysimachus.

But Seleucus was still under the influence of Patrocles. He gave Demetrius leave to take up quarters for two of the winter months, if he liked, in Cataonia, the highland country adjoining Cappadocia, on condition that he sent his principal friends as hostages. He then proceeded to barricade the passes of the Amanus, just as Agathocles had those of the Taurus, so that Demetrius was penned up in Cilicia with no outlet either into Asia Minor or Syria. But now Demetrius turned fiercely like a beast at bay. He began to waste the fields that he had hitherto spared. He defeated detachments of the troops of Seleucus, including the scythed chariots. He secured the passes, beating the people of Seleucus from the barricades.

With these strokes the spirit of his followers rose. Their tidings caused anxiety at the courts of the other kings. In those days, when power was so swiftly lost and won, it was unwise to underrate the importance of any successes, and the prestige of Demetrius the Besieger was enormous. Lysimachus sent an offer of help to Seleucus. But Seleucus was in doubt which to fear most, Demetrius or Lysimachus. He declined the offer. At the same time he was not over-eager to join battle with the desperate man.

At this critical moment Demetrius fell ill. Thenceforward his cause was lost. When after forty days he was himself again, his army had melted away. Many of his soldiers were now in the ranks of Seleucus. With the few who remained a guerilla war could still for a while be carried on. Even in this extremity his genius secured him flashes of triumph. When the generals of Seleucus believed him about to raid the Cilician lowlands, he suddenly dashed across the Amanus and was in the rich plains of Syria, spreading havoc as far as Cyrrhestice, where Seleucus had been carefully planting the new civilization. Seleucus himself brought up a force to run him to ground. His camp narrowly escaped a surprise by night, and the next day Demetrius gained a partial success on one of his wings. But if Demetrius was bold, so too could Seleucus be. He understood where the weakness of Demetrius lay. With courage worthy of an old companion of Alexander, he took off his helmet, and with nothing but a light shield to defend his head, rode straight up to the enemy’s lines and himself, in a loud voice, invited them to desert. The effect was electrical. With a shout of acclaim the little band of Demetrius hailed Seleucus king. Demetrius made off with a handful of followers. His one idea was to reach the Aegean. His friends, he hoped, were still in possession of the harbor of Caunus. Till nightfall he took refuge in the neighboring woods, so that he might recross the Amanus in the dark. When, however, his party crept close to the passes they saw them lit up by the fires of Seleucus’ pickets. They were too late. The checkmate was achieved. The little party grew still less. All that night Demetrius wandered aimlessly in the woods. Next day he was at last persuaded to surrender himself to Seleucus.

Once more the first impulse of Seleucus was to show him­self generous. When he received Demetrius’ emissary he exclaimed that it was to him that fortune had been kind in preserving Demetrius alive to this hour, in affording him an opportunity to add to his other glories a signal exhibition of humanity and goodness. His chamberlains were ordered to erect a royal pavilion for the reception of the fallen king. He chose as his envoy to carry his answer to Demetrius a person of his entourage, Apollonides, with whom Demetrius had once been intimate. The King’s mood set the tune for the court. The courtiers, by twos and threes at first, then en masse, sped to Demetrius, almost tumbling over each other in their eagerness to be beforehand. For the favor of Demetrius, they reckoned, would be particularly worth having at the court of Seleucus in the days to come.

This rush had not been expected by Seleucus. It alarmed him. The enemies of Demetrius got his ear. He began actually to dread that in his own house this magnetic personality might supplant him. Once more, therefore, his generous impulse was revoked by second thoughts. Apollonides had hardly reached Demetrius and charmed away his bitterness by the picture of what Seleucus intended towards him, an assurance confirmed by the courtiers who came pouring in, when the party found itself surrounded by a thousand men, foot and horse. Demetrius was a prisoner indeed.

He never saw the face of Seleucus. He was carried to the ‘Syrian Chersonese’, the steamy, luxuriant plains about the middle Orontes where the new city of Apamea was rising, and there were royal parks full of all sorts of game. Here, under a strong guard, he was given liberty to hunt and drink.

No material provision for his comfort and dignity was omitted. Any friends who chose were allowed to keep him company. Sometimes people from the court joined him. They brought gracious messages from Seleucus. Antiochus and Stratonice were expected at Antioch, and when they came—it was always when they came—Demetrius would be set free. As a matter of fact, Seleucus may well have wished to keep Demetrius in reserve as a bolt he might, if need were, launch upon the world.

In 285 Lysimachus succeeded in ousting Pyrrhus from his share of Macedonia and in annexing Thessaly. The Empire of Alexander was now become three kingdoms, under the three survivors of that great generation, Seleucus, Lysimachus, Ptolemy. Of these three Seleucus held the most commanding position. It was he whom the popular story represented to have put on the diadem of Alexander. “Seleucus”, Arrian says, “became the greatest of those kings who inherited the Empire of Alexander, the most kingly in his designs, the ruler of more land than any save Alexander himself”. And now his prestige had been raised yet higher by his capture of Demetrius, by his holding the sometime king of Macedonia, the representative of the great house of Antigonus, in a cage.

But the position of Lysimachus at this time was hardly less imposing. He was King in Macedonia, in the original seats of the ruling race. His dominion stretched from the Cilician Gates westward over the tableland of Asia Minor, the Greek cities of the coast, Bithynia, Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly, to the pass of Thermopylae. Would the three kings acquiesce in the existing tripartite division?

It is probable that Seleucus at any rate nursed the hope of making the whole Empire his. He held in Demetrius an instrument by which the actual king in Macedonia could be assailed with some show of legitimacy. Lysimachus was not insensible to this danger. He sent to Seleucus an offer of 2000 talents if he would put Demetrius to death. Seleucus repelled the suggestion with demonstrative indignation. “Not only to break faith, but to commit such foulness towards one connected with his own house!”. He now wrote to Antiochus in Media announcing his intention to restore Demetrius to the Macedonian throne. Antiochus was to plead for his release, as Seleucus wished that his act of generosity should go to the credit of his son.

Whatever the real intentions of Seleucus with regard to his prisoner may have been, his opportunity to execute them was soon gone. Demetrius sought to drown the bitterness and tedium of his captivity in wild indulgence. In two years he drank himself to death (283).

Seleucus, even with what he had already attained, must still have seemed far from possessing the whole Empire. The houses of Lysimachus and Ptolemy were well provided with heirs. Agathocles, the son of Lysimachus, had won distinction as a commander and had hunted Demetrius himself across the Taurus. Ptolemy, besides his eldest son Ptolemy, nicknamed Keraunos, had several other sons already grown to manhood.

And now Fate seemed to work miracles on Seleucus’ behalf and set his rivals to destroy their own defences. A chain of events took place which began with the old Ptolemy abdicating in favor, not of his eldest son Keraunos, but of his son by Berenice, the Ptolemy whom later generations called Philadelphus (end of 285). Keraunos at once fled, and found reception at the court of Lysimachus. But Lysimachus was taking a serpent into his bosom. His court was soon riddled with subterranean intrigue, and Ptolemy Keraunos contrived to awake the suspicions of Lysimachus against his son. Agathocles was assassinated by his father’s orders and a massacre of his adherents began. This criminal outbreak had two consequences. In the first place, as soon as the truth came to light and Agathocles was cleared, Ptolemy Keraunos had once more to flee, and this time betook himself to Seleucus. Fate without any effort of his had brought into Seleucus hand the claimant by right of birth to the Egyptian throne. In the second place the murder of Agathocles raised about Lysimachus a swarm of domestic enemies. The father’s yoke had never been easy, but the son was universally popular, and now all the hopes which had been fixed upon him had failed. The city-states within the dominions of Lysimachus began to fall away from allegiance. The remnant of the party of Agathocles, his wife and children, had taken refuge with Seleucus. The army was thoroughly disaffected and officers continually made their way to Syria. Even a son of Lysimachus, Alexander, followed the current. Hundreds of voices called on Seleucus to take up arms against the tyrant. Fate had made his way open into the realm of Lysimachus.

Seleucus felt indeed that 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. In view of the danger from Asia, Lysimachus looked, as of old, to an alliance with Egypt. His daughter Arsinoe was given in marriage to the young king Ptolemy. But Egypt seems to have remained true to its reputation as a broken reed. We do not hear of any help sent to Lysimachus from that quarter.

Asia Minor was the theatre of the campaign. We are nowhere told its movements. Whether the capture of Sardis by Seleucus and of Cotyaium in Phrygia by Alexander, the son of Lysimachus, preceded the decisive battle or followed it we do not know. The site of that battle is uncertain; it is convenient to call it, after Eusebius, the battle of Corapedion, the plain of Corus, but where that was we cannot say. The result, however, of the battle we know. Lysimachus fell. A refugee from Heraclea in the service of Seleucus gave the mortal blow with his lance. The widow of Agathocles would have had the victor leave the body unburied, but was mollified by Alexander, who got leave to take it away (Spring 281). The tomb of Lysimachus was visible for many centuries between the little towns of Pactye and Cardia in the Chersonese.

Seleucus had seen his last rival disappear. No doubt, to assume actual possession of the realm of Lysimachus would take some time. The garrisons distributed throughout it, the governments in the various cities may not have instantly accepted the conqueror. But there was no heir of Lysimachus able to offer serious resistance. And in many places the mere news of Corupedion was enough to overthrow the existing regime. The case of Ephesus probably shows the sort of thing that took place in a number of cities. Here Arsinoe, the queen of Lysimachus, was residing when the news of the battle arrived. The whole city was instantly in an uproar, the adherents of Seleucus seized the direction of things, and Arsinoe narrowly escaped in disguise. Already, by the overthrow of the Western king, Seleucus considered the West his. So the dream which had been the motive in all the wars of the last forty years—the dream which Perdiccas, Eumenes and Antigonus had perished in pursuing—had come true at last! The whole realm of Alexander from Greece to Central Asia and India was fallen to Seleucus, with the one exception of Egypt, and the claimant to the Egyptian throne by natural right was a pensioner of his bounty. As to Egypt then he could make the claims of Ptolemy Keraunos a specious ground for intervention, and indeed we are told that he intended to round off his work by so doing.

And now that Seleucus had touched the summit of his ambition, his heart turned to the land of his birth. Perhaps it was because his greatness as the last of his peers was so lonely that he was driven to the associations of the past; there might still be about his old home faces he would recognize. He intended, we are told, to resign all his Asiatic realm into the hands of Antiochus, and be content for the remainder of his days with the narrow kingdom of his race.

He pressed eagerly, Pausanias says, towards Macedonia. But Fate, which had given him so much, denied his last desire. His position left no room for any minor independent power. This was a reflection naturally disagreeable to one with the hopes of Ptolemy Keraunos. Keraunos was a man in whom no trace can be discovered of humanity or gratitude. He saw that the immense agglomeration of power rested as yet on one slight support—the person of Seleucus himself. Were he removed, the fabric must collapse, and smaller people would again have the chances of a scramble. The conclusion was obvious. Keraunos was soon at his old trick of intrigue; his plots ramified through the army of the King.

Seleucus crossed the Hellespont into Europe (Summer 281). The main part of the army accompanied him and was quartered at Lysimachia. At a spot not far from the city, a little way off the road, was a rude pile of stones. Tradition called it Argos, and asserted it to be an altar raised long ago by the Argonauts or the host of Agamemnon. The interest of the old king as he passed that way was excited by the story. He turned his horse aside to look at it. Only a few attendants followed him. Of these Ptolemy was one. It was while Seleucus was examining the monument and listening to the legend of remote heroic days which clung to it that Ptolemy came behind and cut him to the ground. Then the murderer leapt upon a horse and galloped to the camp at Lysimachia.