Seleucid Empire

« Rendez à César ce qui est à César et à Dieu ce qui est à Dieu » : cette phrase bien connue des Évangiles s’éclaire d’un jour nouveau à mesure que se poursuivent les enquêtes historiques portant sur la fiscalité en Judée du tournant de notre ère.
Cette première synthèse complète sur la fiscalité de Judée invite à se demander si cette matière froide et technique ne serait pas, au contraire, une matière brûlante, « éveilleur de révoltes », à la fois un reflet et un condensé des complexités économiques, politiques, sociales voire théologiques ?
Quels sont les impôts prélevés ? Quels sont les moyens de paiement ? Est-il vrai que le temple de Jérusalem n’acceptait que les shekels de Tyr ? Pourquoi l’impôt romain dérangeait-il les contemporains de Jésus ? Quelle est la place des relations financières dans l’histoire politique de la Judée ? Ces questions, parmi tant d’autres, reçoivent ici une réponse à la fois à jour des découvertes les plus récentes et accessible au public spécialiste autant que curieux.

This thesis takes an interdisciplinary approach combining research methods in history and political science to propose that the fundamental cause of Rome’s entry into and later domination of the Greek world was its reaction to a series of geopolitical developments in the Mediterranean region around the years 219 – 188 BCE. The thesis contends that the dominant paradigm in current scholarship on Roman imperialism assigns too much value to the internal structures of Roman society and consequently overlooks the importance of developments in the interstate system, in which the Roman state was a participant.

Following Alexander’s unexpected death in 323, his subordinates waged constant warfare for the next four decades to divide the spoils of his vast empire. By the 280s, these wars subsided, and an unstable balance of power emerged in the east Mediterranean, between the Antigonid, Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties.

This balance of power shattered seventy years later due to a sudden decline in Ptolemaic power, caused by a massive native uprising in Egypt, chronic domestic maladministration and a series of unfortunate coincidences. Ptolemaic collapse triggered what political scientists term a power-transition crisis, as it motivated the Antigonid and Seleucid rulers to launch aggressive wars with the aim of capturing Ptolemaic territory. Their aggression threatened the independence of minor Greek states, which attempted to recreate a tripolar balance of power in the region by appealing to Rome for intervention in the crisis.

With the Roman defeat of the two great dynasties and the collapse of the third, a new interstate system emerged in the Mediterranean: hegemony under the government of the Romans.

UVOD Seleukidsko carstvo predstavlja jedno od najvećih carstava poslije Aleksandra Makedonskog. Od njegovog osnivanja do njegovog kolapsa bit će praćeno njegova uloga u tadašnjem svijetu. Iako su razni vladari seleukidskog carstva pokušali da obnove nekadašnje Aleksandrovo vidi se da su nailazili na razne potoškoće prilikom te kampanje. Mnogi građanski ratovi kao i upadi raznih plemena te kidanje carstva dovelo je do pada ovog carstva. Rad se sastoji od više poglavlja unutar kojih će biti obrađen historijski razvoj carstva, odnos Seleukida sa Rimljanima a posebno poglavlje će govoriti o njihovom kulturnom životu.

Despite Daniel Ogden’s and Alex McAuley’s work in collecting, organizing, and rationalizing the often contradictory information delivered by the ancient sources, the Seleukid genealogy still appears to be the most complex and chaotic maze of marital relations in the Hellenistic world. This chapter offers a fresh look at the matter by approaching the royal dynasty holistically as an ensemble of familial forces, which fluidly interacted with diverse geographical and chronological contexts, rather than as a line of rulers hypothetically matched with concurrent consorts. In so doing, I will use the term dynastic politics as embracing the alliances— and ruptures— created through marriage and all that royal marriage implies: inheritance, legitimation, regency, interdynastic blood relationships, and dynastic continuity.

An introducion to the Seleucid Empire and its historiographical problems. Short description of the politicized discussion of the "western" versus "eastern" nature of that state. Aimed at the general reader and undergraduate students. [In Dutch]

The Iranian Expanse explores how kings in the ancient Iranian world utilized the built and natural environment—everything from royal cities and paradise gardens, to hunting enclosures and fire temples—to form and contest Iranian cultural memory, royal identity, and sacred cosmologies over a thousand years of history. Although scholars have often noted startling continuities between the traditions of the Achaemenids and the art and architecture of medieval or Early Modern Islam, the tumultuous millennium between Alexander and Islam has routinely been downplayed or omitted. The Iranian Expanse delves into this fascinating period, examining royal culture and identity as something built and shaped by strategic changes to architectonic and urban spaces and the landscape of Western Asia. Canepa shows how the Seleucids, Arsacids, and Sasanians played a transformative role in developing a new Iranian royal culture that deeply influenced not only early Islam, but also the wider Persianate world of the Il-Khans, Safavids, Timurids, and Mughals.

Excerpted from "Text No. 148, Part III: Late Babylonian Archival and Administrative Texts" by Ronald Wallenfels and Robartus J. van der Spek, in Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Vol. IV. The Ebabbar Temple Archive and Other Texts from the Fourth to the First Millennium B.C. Copyright 2016 by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Reprinted by Permission. --

This is the publication of the so-called Lehmann Text, a cuneiform grant of royal land in Babylonia by Antiochus II to his wife Laodice and their sons Seleucus (II) and Antiochus (Hierax), who in turn gave it to the Babylonians, Borsippaeans and Cuthians. It records a declaration by the shatammu (chief temple administrator) and the kinishtu (temple council) concerning ownership rights and tax exemptions granted by Antiochus II, confirmed by his son Seleucus II. --
Attached are two documents: 1) Transcription, translation and commentary by Ronald Wallenfels and myself. I thank the Metropolitan Museum of Art for granting permission to publish this on Academia. See for more texts, copies and photographs the webpage of Ronald Wallenfels on Academia.
2) A somewhat modified translation of my own, with some new comments. Ronald Wallenfels bears no responsibility for this attachment and cannot be blamed for any errors in the translation and comments in this.

Abstract
This article examines the longstanding rivalry of Rome and Parthia, which began as an unintended consequence of Crassus’ decisive defeat at Carrhae in 53 BCE. It synthesizes the accounts and opinions of numerous Graeco-Roman writers from the Augustan Age to late antiquity in order to help illustrate the new and interconnected post-Carrhae world and its legacy. The rivalry of the Romans and Parthians became a primary focus of their foreign policies and drastically expanded their perceptions of the world in which they interacted. Even after the fall of the Parthians to the rebellious Sassanid Persians in the 220s CE, the Romans continued to find their three-century-long rivalry with the Parthians of interest and relevant to the changing world of late antiquity.

This paper deals with the possibility of retracing the monumental setting of ancient contexts now lost and not documented directly by the study of indirect sources that describe them, literally or visually. The assumption is that monuments that did not come down to the present day can nonetheless be studied and contextualized thanks to what is echoed in literary or epigraphic sources and to their depiction in other media.
Here, the possibility that one or more now-lost statues representing the mušḫuššu, the serpo-dragon of Marduk, were erected at Babylon at least since the Late Babylonian period is discussed on the basis of both epigraphic and iconographic evidence.

Dynastic marriages in the Hellenistic world were an important diplomatic tool that provided distinct political benefi ts to one or both of the parties involved. The Parthian rulers from the Arsacid dynasty also engaged in such unions with other ruling houses. Surviving sources contain information on such marriages with the members of the Seleucid family, the Artaxiad dynasty, which ruled in Armenia, but also ruling houses in Commagene and Media Atropatene. Not all of these links resulted from a bilateral agreement, however; some were the result of imposition of the Arsacids’ will. The author attempts to demonstrate the circumstances in which each of the known dynastic marriages of the rulers of Parthia came about, as well as the objectives they hoped to
achieve as a result.

This article discusses the concept of ownership of land in the Late Babylonian period, especially the Hellenistic period. All kinds of transaction concerning land ownership are discussed, such as contracts of sale, lease, pledge, donation and quitclaims. Attention is paid to different legal formularies and the ways in which ownership was protected. The article challenges the accepted opinion, expressed by Koschaker, Petschow and Cardascia, that the Babylonians lacked a concept of ownership that knew the distinction between ownership as ultimate right (in Latin dominium) and actual possession or holding (in Latin possessio and detentio). Koshaker and Petschow argued for a Babylonian concept of  “divided ownership” of e.g. lessor and lessee of land and Cardascia calls pledge a “conditional alienation” and lease a “temporal alienation”. In my view the Roman distinction between ownership as highest and ultimate right and actual possession, though not identical, is closer to the Babylonian situation.
Another point at issue is the status of temple land and royal land, that was in the possession of individuals, could be sold and leased, yet remained in ownership of the temple or palace (bIt ritti).

At the end of the article ten cuneiform texts are presented in transcription, translation and brief commentary. One of these texts is a very important tablet, discovered already the beginning of the 19th century and copied by Carl Bellino by c. 1818. It was published by Robert Ker Porter in 1822. It was one of the first published tablets, copied and published in a time when the cuneiform script was not yet deciphered. Yet the copy is quite good and readable. I first edited this tablet in my dissertation, where I reproduced Bellino’s copy op p. viii and a transliteration and Dutch translation in the Appendix, text 5, p. 202-11. My dissertation, Grondbezit in het Seleucidische Rijk (Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij 1986), is available online:
http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/handle/1871/15433  or
http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/15433/2/Grondbezit%20in%20het%20seleucidische%20rijk.pdf

In this article I provide an edition with English translation in the appendix as text 9, pp. 238-241. Meanwhile, however, after this publication (1995) a new (partial) edition was provided by Francis Johannès, ‘La Babylonië méridionale: continuité, déclin ou rupture?’ in: P. Briant, F. Joannès eds., La Transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques (vers 350-300 av. J.-C.). Actes du colloque organisé au Collège de France par la « Chaire d’histoire et civilisation du monde achéménide et de l’empire d’Alexandre » et le « Réseau international d’études et de recherches achéménides » (GDR 2538 CNRS), 22-23 novembre 2004, (Paris: De Boccard, 2006), 101-35, on pp. 113-4. In the same volume Michael Jursa discussed the text in note 32 of his article ‘Agricultural management, tax farming and banking: aspects of entrepreneurial activity in Babylonia in the Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods’, ibid., 137-222, esp. p. 148.
Both authors suggested improved readings which I shall present here and I shall present a new English translation of lines 4-15, slightly differing from Joannès’s and Jursa’s (esp. line 10).

4. Add ina IGI in the break (Jursa)
7. Add KUR in the break (Joannès)
9. Read [i-(te)-ri-i]š instead of [iš-ku]n; Joannès reads ina áš-bi instead of ina qí-bi, but Bellino’s copy has a very clear qí (KI), so I shall not follow him in this. He reads the personal name mPar-ta-ri-ih?-li-su as mtu!?-ri-il!-li-su (Troilos?). The copy, however, has a clear par-ta. The reading of the first sign, par (UD, tú), is a mere guess. The reading –ut-  is a good alternative. The sign read as ih or il is difficult to interpret. Collation (1984) did not help. It seems indeed that a Greek name is at issue, ending on –lēs, -lios or –klēs perhaps.
10. Read [lúGAL] É LUGAL (Jursa) and ig!-re-e’ instead of EN re-‘i (Joannès and Jursa), from the verb gerû, ‘to start a lawsuit’. See CAD G, p. 62, s.v. gerû, 1 b 3’: dīna gerû. Certainly correct. It is uncertain whether the phrase mišil ... našatat?, “half of the barley which returns from the land, the property of Shamash, is (to be) brought(?) to the royal treasury”, is the result of the verdict (so Jursa), or the reason to start the lawsuit. I opt hesitatingly for the latter option: I suspect that the legal dispute originated in the fact that suddenly in year 9 the chief of the royal treasury requisitioned half of the yield of the entire estate of the Shamash temple.
11. Joannès reads ta-tu-ru instead of ta-tur-ru, but this is erroneous. Taturru is the present tense, which means that the barley is not harvested yet or is in the process of being harvested. Jursa reads na-šá-ti?! sup. ras. instead of na-šá-tat?; both readings problematic. Collation did not help. I assume that the form is a fem. stative of našû. Note that taturru is also feminine . The subject, uțțatu, “barley”, is feminine.
13. Read mu-šu-ur instead of  MU-šu lu (Joannès and Jursa). Certainly correct. From the verb uššuru (wuššuru, muššuru), “to let go; to release; the hand over; to exempt, remit debts, annul obligations”; cf. CAD U and W, s.v. uššuru, p. 310-325. It is probably a stative: muššur ; cf. undašar for undaššar in line 13.
19. Both Joannès and Jursa read É LUGAL TIN.TIR.KI as Bīt šar Bābili, and do not interpret it as Treasury (Bīt šarri =lit.  ‘house of the king’, but always ‘royal office’, ‘royal treasury’ or ‘royal estate’) of Babylon (TIN.TIR.KI), but as the locality with the name Bīt šarri Bābili (mostly written, however, with the determinative for ‘city’ URU), a locality close to Babylon. N.B.: the royal treasury is mentioned in line 10! If so, Iltalimatu has nothing to do with the royal treasury of Babylon and is no more than some city governor who accidentally had rented an estate belonging to the temple of Shamash.

New translation of lines 4-20:

4.  [.......... arable land,] property (makkūru) of Shamash, king of the world,
5.  [.......... was at the disposal of Ilt]alimatu, the governor
6.  [of Bīt-šar-Bābili,] the slave of Intaphernes, the governor
7.  [of the land? Sa?]-gashtu. Later, in the 9th year
8.  [of Alexand]er, son of ditto (=308-7 BC), he jointly (with the temple) [cultivate]d(l. 9)  the land in question
9.  and he started lawsuits at the command of Partarihlisu (Uttari x lisu),
10. [the chief] of the royal treasury (on account of the fact that) half of the barley in question, which will return from the arable land,
11. [the pro]perty (makkūru) of Shamash, is (to be) brought to the royal treasury.
12. Iltalimatu will leave(l.13)  the arable land at the disposal
13. of the exchequer (makkūru) of Shamash and the barley, the rent (sutu) of this arable land,
14. is relinquished(l. 15) by the exchequer of Shamash to Iltalimatu.
15. There will not be(l. 17) any lawsuit, legal proceeding or claim on the part of the Temple Council (kiništu)
16. of Ebabbar with regard to the barley, the rent (sutu) of these arable lands,
17. against Iltalimatu in perpetuity
18. and there will not be(l. 21) any lawsuit, legal proceeding or claim on the part of Iltalimatu,
19. the governor of Bīt-šar-Bābili, with regard to these arable lands
20. against the exchequer of Shamash and the Temple Council of Ebabbar in perpetuity.

This document is a verdict concerning a legal conflict between two parties, namely Ebabbar, the temple of the god Shamash in either Sippar or Larsa, and a certain Iltalimatu, the governor of Bit-šar-Babili (= a settlement at the edge of the city of Babylon, perhaps the summer palace of Babylon). Apparently some arable land, belonging to the Ebabbar had become at the disposal of Iltalimatu and he cultivated it jointly with the temple, which probably meant that the profit should be divided, half would go to the temple, half to Iltalimatu. The conflict seems to concern the fact that half of the harvest was requisitioned by the state (represented by Partarihlisu), so that Iltalimatu could not pay half of the harvest to the temple (his sutu, his rent). Now Partarihlisu seems to have ordered or advised a lawsuit (or perhaps better a settlement), so that the mutual claims by temple and Iltalimatu were rescinded: Iltalimatu relinquishes his right to cultivate the temple land and at the same time is freed from the obligation to pay his rent to the temple. One should note that it was during or briefly after the Babylonian War between Antigonus and Seleucus (311-308) when the grain prices were extremely high.  Now the result of this lawsuit is: half of the yield of year 9 (308-7 BC) goes to the royal treasury and the contract between Iltalimatu and the temple is dissolved: the temple is granted ownership rights of the arable land and Iltalimatu is freed from paying rent to the temple in perpetuity.

The Seleucids, the dominant power in the Mesopotamian geography of the Early Hellenistic Period, began to fall short in the administration of the Eastern lands after their founding king, Seleucus Nicator I. This inadequacy was especially related to the efforts of the Parthians, one of the centralist structures established after the Persians in Ancient Iran, to gain strength and establish themselves politically in Mesopotamia. It has been understood that the Parthians began to be politically organized during the Seleucid period when the Persian State was accepted as one of the important centers and administered by the governors appointed by the Seleucids. The great resistance of the Parthians against Antiochus Megas III in 205 BC and the agreement made with the Seleucids as a result of this resistance enabled the Parthians to be registered as a regional political power in the East. In an effort to maintain these gains against the Seleucids, the Parthians had the opportunity to expand their political sphere of activity with the withdrawal of the Seleucids from Babylon and Iran in 130/129 BC due to the changing political balances and internal rebellions during the reign of Antiochus VII. In the period when the Seleucids struggled with Rome for the western lands and lost this struggle, the Parthians had to struggle with Rome as a powerful kingdom in Mesopotamia after the Seleucids. In this study, which aims to chronologically examine the existence struggles of the Parthians and Seleucids in Mesopotamian geography, ancient records of the period and modern literature were used.

Now in paperback: https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-courts-and-elites-in-the-hellenistic-empires.html.

During the Hellenistic Period (c. 330-30 BCE), Alexander the Great and his successors reshaped their Persian and Greco-Macedonian legacies to create a new kind of rulership that was neither ‘western’ nor ‘eastern’ and would profoundly influence the later development of court culture and monarchy in both the Roman West and Iranian East. Courts and Elites in the Hellenistic Empires approaches the Argead, Seleucid, Ptolemaic, and Antigonid empires not as territorial states but as network polities based on personal relations converging at the respective dynastic courts. Drawing on the socio-political models of Norbert Elias and Charles Tilly, and covering topics such as palace architecture, royal women, court factions, and monarchical ritual, the book shows how the Hellenistic courts were instrumental in the integration of local elites in the empires, and the (re)distribution of power, wealth, and status. It analyses the competition among courtiers for royal favor and the, not always successful, attempts of the Hellenistic rulers to use these struggles to their own advantage.

This volume provides a comprehensive overview of the history and culture of the Parthian Empire, which existed for almost 500 years from 247 BC to 224 AD. The Parthians were Rome's great opponents in the east, but comparatively little is known about them. The Parthians focuses on the rise, expansion, flowering and decline of the Parthian Empire and covers both the wars with the Romans in the west and the nomads in the east. Sources include the small amount from the Empire itself, as well as those from outside the Parthian world, such as Greek, Roman and Chinese documents.

FOR  DETAILED  TABLE OF  CONTENTS and FOREWORD please open --> download

Chapter III (55)

How Roman Arms Came to Conquer the Successors of Alexander (55)

How Much More Successful Was the Roman Legion than the Macedonian Phalanx? (57)

The Best Soldiers versus the Best Formation (59)

Why the Greeks Were Shocked after Rome’s Domination of Macedon (60)

Final Thoughts on the Impact of Alexander on Polybius’ Work (63)

The Raphia Decree of Ptolemy IV Philometor is best preserved in multiple Demotic redactions, but two fragmentary copies of the hieroglyphic portion have also survived.  Both stelae were published long ago by Kamal and Gauthier (Cairo, CG 31008 and 50048), yet lacunae and other uncertainties plague the first editions.

Through collation of the hieroglyphic texts, comparison to the corresponding Demotic redaction and other trilingual decrees, several troublesome passages are clarified. 

In one section, the divinities of Egypt speak to Ptolemy IV in an oracular dream, their message reported using direct speech.  Elsewhere, the text notes that Antiochus III was accompanied at Raphia by his wife, the distinguished stateswoman Laodike III, yet another example of a Hellenistic queen going to battle.

An estimate is made of the capacity of the hinterland of Seleucia on the Tigris and Babylon to feed their inhabitants. The estimate is made on the basis of archaeological surveys, data concerning the Babylonian yields, the size of the cities and irrigated area, data concerning famines. The conclusion is that Seleucia and Babylon could be fed by their own hinterlands even if we accept the highest figures for the population of Seleucia (600,000).

Qu'il s'agisse de l'usurpation de Molon en 222 ou du processus démancipation des Hautes satrapies, la seconde moitié du rrr" siècle apparaît dans l'histoire du domaine séleucide comme une période de fragilisation du pouvoir dynastique et surtout de fractionnement du royaume. Dans cette dynamique, lAsie Mineure occupe une place particulière. Cette région est en effet le théâtre de lémancipation politique des dynastes de Pergame. Elle est aussi le point de départ de deux usurpations menées par des membres de la famille royale qui, forts de leur pouvoir militaire, tentent de légitimer leur processus d'accession à la fonction suprême. Moins de dix ans après l'effondrement du pouvoir dAntiochos Hiérax (en228), ce fut Achaios, arrière-petitfils de séleucos I"'et cousin éloigné (ou neveu ?) dAntiochos III qui usurpa le titre royal. À la grande différence de Hiérax, Achaios ne fut jamais "o.riidé.é comme un usurpateur légitimé. Alors que séleucos II dut reconnaître, bien malgré lui, le pouvoir de son frère en Asie Mineure et diviser le royaume2, Antiochos III considéra toujours Achaios comme un gouverneur de haut rang entré en rébellion, sans que celle-ci ne soit jamais acceptée par Antioche. Pourtant la situation dAchaios ne semble pas, dans les faits, très différente de celle de Hiérax. Mais se trouvant face à un souverain plus habile et plus énergique que séleucos II, le pouvoir dAchaios n'eut pas la longévité de celui de Hiérax. s'appuyant sur ce précédent, Achaios a malgré tout pu vouloir restaurer le royaume dAsie Mineure détenu par son petit-cousin.

Antikçağ’da, Anadolu’nun ortasında İris (Yeşil Irmak) ve Halys Irmağı (Kızılırmak) arasındaki geniş bölgeye Kapadokya denmekteydi. Bölgenin geniş sınırlara ulaşması özelliği, birçok etnik grubu içerisinde bulundurmasını ve geniş siyasi bir tarihe sahip olmasını sağlamaktadır. Böylesine geniş bir coğrafyaya ve renkli bir etnik nüfus yapısına sahip olan Kapadokya’nın siyasi tarihini araştırırken, Hellenistik Dönem’i temel alarak Kapadokya’da Perslerden ve daha öncesi hakkında bilgi sahip olmak üzere Romalılara kadar geçen süreci bir bütün halinde kronolojik olarak vermek hedeflenmektedir.

Ai Khanoum is probably the most important and the best-known of the Greek settlements founded in Bactria by the Seleucid kings. The site was excavated between 1964 and 1978, but its chronology remains unclear. The purpose of this article is to give a more accurate view of its history, taking into account the results of recent research. As yet, we are still unable to date with precision the time of its foundation, which was not a single event but a process, going on for several decades between the time Alexander the Great entered eastern Bactria in spring 328 and the time a true city was planned there under Antiochos I. Nevertheless, the development of Ai Khanoum occurred only from the beginning of the second century BC, when the city had become, along with Bactra, the major city of the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom. Under the Seleucids as well as the Graeco-Bactrian kings, Ai Khanoum was thus a royal city and its history was subordinate to those of the Greek kings.

Kings and Usurpers in the Seleukid Empire: The Men who would be King focuses on ideas of kingship and power in the Seleukid empire, the largest of the successor states of Alexander the Great. Exploring the question of how a man becomes a king, it specifically examines the role of usurpers in this particular kingdom--those who attempted to become king, and who were labelled as rebels by ancient authors after their demise--by placing these individuals in their appropriate historical contexts through careful analysis of the literary, numismatic, and epigraphic material.