cristoraul.org

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

CHAPTER 18

THE CONQUEST OF PALESTINE

Antiochus had extorted a formal recognition of his sovereignty in all those countries which had fallen away under separate rulers from the Empire. To make that formal recognition something solid and durable would be in itself a work demanding all his energies and resources. But he was hurried on by his ambition to grasp at the other territories which the house of Seleucus regarded as its rightful property—those which were held, not by rebellious satraps or insurgent chiefs, but by a foreign power. They included that region in which, from its geographical union with the Empire’s base, the Seleucids felt a special interest —Coele-Syria, a region which the ancestors of Antiochus III had never indeed possessed, but only consistently coveted. Antiochus had not ceased since his repulse at Raphia to burn for a renewal of the contest with the house of Ptolemy. The enterprise, in which he had first drawn his sword, in which he had twice met with a mortifying repulse, might be renewed with better prospects by the conqueror of Asia.

The Egyptian Empire in the eastern Mediterranean had suffered little diminution even under Ptolemy Philopator. Seleucia-in-Pieria had been won back by the Seleucid, but the harbor-cities of southern Phoenicia, Tyre and Sidon, as well as Cyprus, gave Ptolemy a maritime base in Syrian waters. Thence the Egyptian stations extended all along the coasts of Asia Minor as far as Ephesus. They dotted the Aegean and dominated the Hellespont and Thracian coast.

It could hardly be expected that Antiochus the Great King should permanently acquiesce in such power being concentrated to his own prejudice in the feeble hands of the King of Egypt. And he was not the only one whose desires were excited by the Egyptian possessions. The house of Antigonus in Macedonia was now represented by a man as ambitious and energetic as Antiochus, Philip the son of Demetrius. What Coele-Syria was to the house of Seleucus, Thrace and the Hellespont were to the Antigonids. Philip was no more likely to rest than Antiochus so long as a valuable province geographically united with his own territory was in the hands of a Ptolemy.

It was therefore inevitable from the nature of the case that the Egyptian Empire should before long be assailed. During the reign of Ptolemy Philopator indeed relations between Egypt and the two rival powers continued formally friendly. Antiochus and Philip both tendered their aid to Ptolemy, on the occasion, probably, of a native rising. Negotiations were begun for a marriage between the royal houses of Egypt and Macedonia. But in 205-204 Ptolemy Philopator died. The succession devolved on a child of four years, Ptolemy V Epiphanes. The favourites who held the reins of power at the King’s death now tried to avert the catastrophe by sending an embassy to Antiochus to remind him of his treaty engagements, and an embassy to Philip to clinch the marriage project and to enlist his support, in case Antiochus attacked. Scopas, the ex-president of the Aetolians, who after his fall had taken service under Ptolemy, was at the same time sent to raise a new mercenary army in Greece. The favorites, however, were soon hurled from power by a popular rising in Alexandria. An understanding was come to between the courts of Antioch and Pella with a view to the partition of the Ptolemaic Empire (202).

As to the terms of this pact we have, as is not surprising in the case of a transaction by its nature secret, no exact information. Appian gives it as a popular story that, according to its stipulations, Antiochus was to get Cyprus and Egypt itself (including, of course, Coele-Syria), and Philip Cyrene, the Ptolemaic possessions in the Aegean, and the Ionian sea-board. But it is extremely unlikely that there was any intention to interfere with the African dominions of the Ptolemies. On the other hand it is true that the western sea-board of Asia Minor (or part of it) was made over to Philip. This is proved, not by Philip's invading it—since Polybius distinctly states that the two kings did not keep to their compact—but by the fact that Philip’s claim to be supported in that invasion by the Seleucid power was admitted.

What is the meaning of this strange abandonment to the house of Antigonus of regions in which the house of Seleucus was itself interested? To explain it one has first to recognize that neither party to the agreement meant it honestly. It was only meant to last till the Ptolemaic power was swept from the field. The conquest of Coele-Syria was the most important part of the whole to Antiochus, and to secure that he was willing to see Philip make a diversion in Asia Minor. As a matter of fact, he did not intend to give him serious support. Secondly, one must take account of the actual situation in Asia Minor. The alliance of the two kings was levelled not at Egypt only. Seleucid rule was threatened in Asia Minor by a more dangerous foe than Philip would prove, by the Pergamene king. Egypt and Pergamos both belonged to a group of powers which was more or less closely united by common sympathies and aims, and embraced beside themselves Rhodes, the Aetolian League, and, looming in the background, Rome. Three of the powers—Pergamos, Egypt and Rhodes—were established in Asia Minor, and their mutual friendship corroborated the bar to Seleucid ambitions. We see then why it might seem desirable that a power antagonistic to the group should take the place of Egypt in Asia Minor. The inevitable conflict between Philip and Attalus would wear down both powers, and the house of Seleucus would reap the benefit.

The compact concluded, Antiochus attacked Coele-Syria once more. And here again it is brought home to us how capriciously time has dealt with the ancient authorities. Whilst we have comparatively full information as to the campaigns of 219-217, we are left almost entirely in the dark as to the campaigns which really did lead to the transference of Coele-Syria from Ptolemy to the Seleucid.

The state of affairs in Egypt during the minority of Epiphanes—the court torn into rival factions, the natives rebelling—contributed largely to the success of Antiochus. How soon the conquest followed 202 we do not know. As to its completeness it extended at any rate to Judaea. By 199 Antiochus seems to have considered the conquest achieved and to have turned his attention to Asia Minor.

In that quarter the compact had meanwhile led to startling results.

Philip had flung himself immediately after its conclusion upon the Ptolemaic possessions in Thrace and the Asiatic shores of the Hellespont. In a few months his garrisons were in Lysimachia, Sestos and Perinthus, and Chios had been razed to the ground. In the following year (201) he appeared with a strong fleet in the Aegean and turned the people of Ptolemy out of Samos. Then Rhodes and Attalus allied themselves to stop him, for in Egypt there was no power to resist. Philip landed on the Pergamene coast, and, while the forces of Attalus retired behind the walls of the cities, wasted the open country with barbaric recklessness. Zeuxis, the Seleucid satrap of Lydia, gave him lukewarm support.

When Philip was got to sea again and making for Samos, a combined Rhodian and Pergamene fleet overtook him between Chios and the mainland. Attalus himself was on board. A battle of doubtful event followed—on the whole adverse to Philip. But a second sea-fight off Miletus between Philip and the Rhodians went in his favor. And the result was that Caria was left exposed to invasion. Miletus made haste to seek Philip’s friendship. Myus, Prinassus, Pedasa, Bargylia, Euromus and Stratonicea fell into his hands. The last was one of the possessions of Ptolemy. Presently, however, Rhodes and Attalus recovered the mastery of the sea and cut Philip’s communications with Macedonia. He was now hard put to it to provision his army in Caria. The supplies furnished by Zeuxis were found to be very short. He was reduced to such expedients as purchasing food with the territory he had won. Myus he made over to Magnesia-on-the-Meander in exchange for a consignment of figs. To extend his conquests in Caria was out of the question. He left garrisons here and there, and slipped through the enemy's fleets home to Macedonia.

Next year (200) Philip rounded off his conquest of the Thracian coast. Aenus and Maronea were still held by Ptolemaic garrisons, but these now fell before Philip's attack, beside a number of smaller towns. Then he crossed over and laid siege to Abydos.

But now the eyes of men were turning to the West. Within the lifetime of men living, the Greek world had watched the rise in the Italian peninsula of one of the “barbarian” states to a position of world-wide importance. Rome had come out of its war with Pyrrhus, seventy-five years before, the leading state of the peninsula, and the other Italian communities south of the country of the Gauls were soon in more or less direct subjection to the city on the Tiber. Since then its wars with Carthage had enormously raised its prestige and spread its influence. To Hellenism the new power was no less earnest to show its devotion than the Macedonian had been. On the first appearance of Roman armies east of the Adriatic in 229-228 the barbarian stigma had been to Rome extent removed from the Romans when they were allowed to participate in the Pan-Hellenic games of the Isthmus. Like the Macedonian houses, Rome rendered its homage to the Greek culture, and professed its adherence to the sacred principle of Hellenic autonomy. And to those among the Greeks who regarded the cause of freedom as having been under a cloud since the rise of Macedonia there seemed a promise of better days in the appearance of a great state in the West, which, whatever its nationality, was piously phil-Hellenic and a republic.

Now therefore that the Macedonian king was displaying a new activity, it was the voices of those powers whose Hellenism was the purest—of Athens, of Rhodes, and of Attalus—which called upon Rome to intervene in Greece. Philip was still besieging Abydos when he received the Roman ultimatum. Soon after that the strained relations reached breaking point. Rome declared war and two legions crossed the Adriatic.

In this way Rome was drawn into all the quarrels which Philip had with his neighbors, and these included the question in which the house of Seleucus was so nearly concerned of the Ptolemaic possessions in the Levant. Antiochus could not look with indifference upon a struggle which brought a collision between Rome and himself within measurable distance.

What dealings there had hitherto been between the house of Seleucus and the Republic of the West is a matter of question. There is a statement in a late writer that after the first Punic war, in 240, Rome offered help to Ptolemy against “Antiochus (sic) king of Syria”. It was the moment when Seleucus II was recovering Syria from Ptolemy III. That the statement in its present form is erroneous is obvious; that it has no historical basis it appears to me that we are not justified in asserting. Again we are told that the Emperor Claudius in writing to the Ilians cited an old Greek letter of the Roman Senate and People to “King Seleucus” promising him the friendship and alliance of Rome, on condition that he granted the Ilians immunity from tribute. There is no improbability, as it seems to me, in the statement; on the other hand, the authority for it is certainly bad.

It is in this year (200) that we hear of the first certain communication between Rome and the Seleucid kingdom. The embassy which left Rome for the East to carry the ultimatum to Philip was also charged to visit the Ptolemaic and Seleucid courts in order to make peace between Antiochus and Ptolemy. This is probably the embassy meant by Justin. It is represented as warning Antiochus after his conquest of Phoenicia and Coele-Syria to hold his hands from the Ptolemaic realm, which had been specially placed by the dying appeal of Ptolemy Philopator under the protection of Rome. Antiochus naturally disregarded an injunction which Rome was not in a position to back up by force, in view of the Macedonian complication. What attitude would he maintain in regard to that struggle?

He might throw Philip over and come to a frank understanding with Rome and Attalus. Or he might move to the assistance of his ally. Or, thirdly, he might observe a careful neutrality. The most essential thing was that he should clearly make up his mind what line to take and concentrate his powers on pursuing it. Destiny was putting the statesmanship of Antiochus III to the test by bringing him face to face with a situation which demanded the venture of a decision, but Antiochus had not the courage and grasp of mind which could steadily confront a problem of such large elements and on which such enormous issues hung. It was easier, as it was fatal, to waver, to try half-measures, to catch the suggestions of the moment, without looking ahead. His hopes were with Philip, but he was not prepared to provoke the hostility of Rome, his relations with the Republic being still (in the diplomatic sense) “friendly”. And yet he could not bring himself to preserve correct neutrality.

The conquest of Coele-Syria set him free to resume the Seleucid ambitions in Asia Minor. And a time when Attalus, the great rival of his house in that region, was away in Greece with the forces of the Pergamene kingdom offered too tempting an opportunity to be neglected. In the winter (199-198) Antiochus invaded the undefended territory of Pergamos. Even if the movement was not made on an understanding with Philip, it was obviously a breach of neutrality at a moment when Attalus was actually co-operating with the Roman and Aetolian forces against Philip. As a diversion in Philip’s favor nothing could be more effectually contrived. But yet so little resolution had Antiochus to strike a bold blow for Philip, that when Rome, at the instance of Attalus, protested, as Antiochus must have known it would, he immediately withdrew.

The Roman protests, however, were not the only cause of this retreat. News of a disconcerting kind reached the King from Coele-Syria. Antiochus seemed at one moment to be about to go through the experience of 217 again, to conquer the province only to see it wrested from his grasp. The man who was able to retrieve so signally for a time the Egyptian fortunes was the Aetolian Scopas, one of the prominent figures of his time. He had been strategos of the Aetolian League, the chief magistrate of the most powerful state in Greece, but, being thrown from power, had left his country and entered the Ptolemaic service. Such a man could hold no inferior position; he had been appointed commander-in-chief of the Egyptian forces, drawing pay at the rate of ten minas a day. He had recently levied a force of 6000 foot and 600 horse in Greece, and almost cleared his native state of men in doing so. He now invaded Coele-Syria, drove out the Seleucid garrisons, and recovered the province for King Ptolemy.

But Antiochus was soon on the march to reassert his authority in the contested region. He passed the defiles between the Lebanon and Anti-Libanus, and at the entry of the land, where the sources of the Jordan were marked by the precinct of a deity, in whom the Greeks recognized Pan,—the Panion he came into collision with Scopas. From the criticisms made by Polybius upon Zeno’s fanciful account of the battle we can gather only the two facts—that a son of Antiochus, bearing the same name, was present, and that the elephants (of which Antiochus had brought back a fresh supply from India) figured conspicuously. The result at any rate was a complete and decisive victory for Antiochus. The battle is the landmark denoting the fined and definite substitution of Seleucid for Ptolemaic rule in Palestine. Scopas shut himself up with the remainder of his force, 10,000 men, in Sidon, which Antiochus proceeded to invest. Egypt made an effort to relieve it, but without effect Sidon was obliged by famine to capitulate, Scopas being permitted to withdraw unhurt. Antiochus took formal possession of the land. The region of Greek cities east of the Jordan (Batanea, Abila, Gadara), as well as Samaria and Judaea, became incorporate with the Seleucid empire.

Jerusalem, or the bulk of its population, as we shall see when we come to speak of the Jews, received Antiochus with open arms. The Philistines were found, as usual, on the opposite side to the Jews. The great city of Gaza held, even in this day of disaster, by the house of Ptolemy. Their fidelity to the old allegiance provoked the admiration of the contemporary Greek. The siege which the city underwent till it was at last stormed by Antiochus was reckoned one of the great episodes in the military history of the time. It furnished an appropriate theme for the rhetorical historian. But of all the writing which it created nothing is preserved. Antiochus retired at the end of the summer of 198, the reduction of Palestine complete, to winter at Antioch and make preparation for the much more formidable business which awaited him in the West. But he was still careful to preserve the forms of amity with Rome, and sent a complimentary embassy during the winter. The Senate, whose diplomacy likewise aimed at keeping on good terms with Antiochus whilst there was a danger of his uniting with Philip, received the embassy with studied courtesy, and passed resolutions in honor of Antiochus which left nothing to be desired in the matter of fair words.

With Egypt after the conquest of Coele-Syria the relations of Antiochus are difficult to define. There was no longer technically a state of war between the two powers. Cleopatra, in fact, the daughter of Antiochus, was now betrothed to the young Ptolemy. No doubt the betrothal was one of the articles in the treaty of peace which Antiochus imposed. At the same time Antiochus pursued next summer his conquest of the Ptolemaic possessions. It was this ambiguous state of things which made it possible for the Roman embassy in 196 to demand a cessation of hostilities against Ptolemy and for Antiochus to reply that peace already existed.