cristoraul.org

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

CHAPTER 30.

ANTIOCHUS SIDETES

The tedious circle in which the later history of the Seleucid kingdom runs—the rival claimant ousting the King in possession by the favor of the army and people, then making himself unpopular, and being in turn ousted by the oscillation of the people’s favor to another claimant—was about to fulfill itself in the case of Tryphon.

But the new claimant was not a man like the other ineffectual personalities who flit across the stage in that time of ruin and confusion. One more man capable of rule and of great action, one more luminous figure, the house which had borne the empire of Asia had to show the world before it went out into darkness.

Antiochus, the younger surviving son of Demetrius I, had grown up in the Pamphylian city of Side. Its people were among the boldest seafarers of that coast; their naval contingent had formed a principal element in the fleet of Antiochus the Great King. And that the seafaring tradition was maintained is shown by the fact that in the last century BC the people of Side were prominent among the pirates, and Side was a great pirate stronghold and mart. It was in close touch with the hill-peoples behind, who, as we have seen, were ready to join any adventure which promised fighting and loot. Such an environment might not be an ideal one for the education of a prince, but it was incomparably better than a Syrian palace, and wild seafaring men were better comrades than eunuchs and panders.

The young prince, now about twenty, was in Rhodes when the news that his brother was a captive in Iran reached him. He at once made ready to step into the breach and rescue the heritage of his house from strangers. The mercenaries were got together and a fleet, prepared no doubt in the docks of Side! He sent letters to the various communities of Syria announcing his purpose, and summoning them to give him their allegiance. If the document in the Book of the Maccabees can be trusted, he already assumed in these letters the title of king. But the coast cities of Coele-Syria, overawed by the garrisons of Tryphon, refused to open to him. Nor does he seem to have anticipated a favorable reception in those which acknowledged Demetrius.

But it was impossible for the party of the legitimate house to continue the struggle against Tryphon without a head. Even at Seleucia there was a movement to deliver up the city to Tryphon. The councillors of Queen Cleopatra at last told her that there was no course left but to call in Antiochus to take the place of Demetrius, both as king and as her (third) husband. Thus was entrance into the kingdom opened for Antiochus. He arrived at Seleucia in 138, married Cleopatra and assumed the diadem as King Antiochus Euergetes.

Antiochus was in Seleucia! At the tidings the star of Tryphon finally declined. Another king of the old house, whose record was as yet unstained, of whom men might hope anything—the news awoke all the old loyalty, and the soldiery upon whom Tryphon relied were soon flocking to Seleucia. Tryphon was left with only a remnant. He was rapidly driven from northern Syria, and Antiochus entered the capital.

Tryphon fell back upon the southern coast, the region with which his relations, like those of Alexander Balas, had been close, and shut himself in the strong town of Dora. Antiochus pressed his flight and invested the place both by sea and land. At last, reduced to extremities, Tryphon slipped out of the harbor in a boat and reached Ptolemais. But it was not safe apparently for him to stay there, for he went on to Orthosia, and thence crossing the hills into the Orontes valley, made his last stand in the place where he had been bred and had first built up his power, Apamea. In some fortress of that region he was again besieged and finally captured. Antiochus would not, of course, allow him to live, but he permitted him to be his own executioner. With the disappearance of Tryphon there were none left to claim the Syrian throne but the children of Demetrius Soter.

The vigorous spirit and the ability of his father had been inherited by Antiochus “of Side”. He addressed himself with success to remedy the frightful disorganization which the double kingship had produced in Syria. Communities which had broken away from all superior authority were taught that they were once more members of a kingdom. Among such communities was the Jewish state.

Already while Antiochus was sitting before Dora there were ominous signs of his intention to regulate this quarter of the kingdom. The immunity and internal freedom conceded to the Jews he did not revoke, but he could not pass over the complaints brought him by those who had been driven from their homes or subjected to forced contributions by the Jewish bands in the regions round Judaea, nor the seizure of places beyond the Jewish border, such as Gazara and Joppa. For the injury done to his subjects he demanded from Simon an indemnity of 500 talents, and for the places he had seized 500 talents more—a perfectly rational and, as far as we can judge, moderate demand.

Athenobius, one of the Friends, was sent to convey the King's requisition to the High-priest Simon, according to the custom of the East, tried to bargain, and started low down with the offer of 100 talents. But the King's officer had had an opportunity to observe the great wealth already accumulated by the ruling family of the Jews, and he met Simon's attempt to bargain with stony silence.

Antiochus, on receiving his report, instructed Cendebaeus, the governor of the Philistine coast, to apply force. He himself was occupied for the time with the pursuit of Tryphon. But the attempts of Cendebaeus to enter Judaea were unfortunate. Simon was now too old to take the field in person, but his sons, Judas and John, commanded the Jewish forces and drove Cendebaeus back into the plain.

As soon as Antiochus had settled more pressing concerns he himself undertook the reduction of the Jews to order. This was not till the fourth year of his reign (in the spring or summer of 134). By then the last of the brethren of Judas was no more. Simon had ended his life a year before (February 135) by a family tragedy. His son-in-law, Ptolemy the son of Abub, designing to secure the first place in the Jewish state for himself, had invited Simon to a carousal in the fortress of Dok, and then fallen upon the old warrior while he was in his cups. But Ptolemy's design failed owing to the promptitude of John, the son of Simon, who at the time of the murder was in Gazara. Before Ptolemy could seize Jerusalem, John was already there installed in the room of his father as High-priest and head of the state. It was in the first year of John, surnamed Hyrcanus, that Antiochus took the subjugation of Judaea in hand.

The King came with a strength sufficient for the task before him. He had a just appreciation of the mixture of force and conciliation required to meet the case. To put down the religion of Israel, to trample upon Jewish prejudice were ideas that he was too good a statesman to entertain. But till the supremacy of the Seleucid government had been asserted there could be no talk of compromise, and Antiochus, when he struck, struck home. The Jewish forces were driven from the field into Jerusalem and a business-like siege of the city begun. Seven camps hemmed it in. The pinch of famine was soon felt, and Hyrcanus was embarrassed by the great population of non-combatants. He tried to expel them, but they were not allowed to pass the besiegers' lines, so that they wandered starving under the walls of the city. The feeling which the spectacle awoke in the city overbore the plans of Hyrcanus, and when the Feast of Tabernacles (October 132 ?) came round, he was compelled to receive the miserable people back. Antiochus showed his conciliatory spirit by granting a truce during the sacred season. He even sent in on his own account a splendid offering of victims and incense to the Temple. This wise consideration on the point where the Jews were most sensitive effected as much as his victorious arms. Hyrcanus sent to ask for terms. The short-sighted councillors of the King now urged him to follow the policy of his great-uncle Antiochus and break down Jewish exclusiveness by the forcible violation of its sanctities. Now that the Jewish state was at his feet, let him take the opportunity to make away with it once and for ever. The character of Antiochus VII emerged above the influences which surrounded him. He would not even attempt to re-impose the financial burdens, whose remittance he had promised, before coming into the kingdom, to confirm, or interfere with the internal affairs of the Jews. But he insisted that the besieged should surrender their arms, that a rent or tribute should be paid for the places occupied by the Jews outside Judaea, like Joppa and Gazara, and that the city should admit a garrison. To this last condition, however, the Jews showed such repugnance that Antiochus accepted their alternative proposal that they should pay 500 talents of silver and give hostages, amongst whom was to be the brother of Hyrcanus himself. Antiochus also, before he retired, saw the strong ring- wall built by the Hasmonaeans around Jerusalem pulled down (132).

Antiochus had attained a satisfactory result with the minimum of irritation. Respect had been won for the Seleucid power and the Jewish state rendered inoffensive, whilst its religious and internal liberty was left unimpaired. It is a remarkable testimony to the greatness of Antiochus as a statesman that he, the very prince who broke the Jewish power and took Jerusalem, should have got from the Jews the surname of Eusebes, the Pious.

It is regrettable that we cannot trace the reorganizing and adjusting work of Antiochus in the other provinces of the kingdom besides Judaea. Now those who had been true to the house of Seleucus in the day of adversity received their reward. Seleucia, the faithful city, appears as “sacrosanct and inviolable” from the accession of Antiochus VII.

About 134 the ambassadors of Antiochus were in Rome. It is recorded that they were charged with splendid presents for Scipio Aemilianus, who was then besieging Numantia in Spain, presents which, instead of receiving in secret, as other Senators did in like cases, he publicly made over to the state.

In 130 Antiochus considered that the reorganization of Seleucid rule in Syria was sufficiently complete for him to take in hand the recovery of the Eastern provinces.

Demetrius was still a captive at the Parthian court in Hyrcania. He had become more or less transformed into a Parthian prince. His beard had been allowed to grow, as the fashion was among barbarian kings. Mithridates had even, before he died in 138, caused him to establish a new household, and had given him his own daughter Rhodogune for wife; he used to talk to his captive about one day driving out Tryphon by the Parthian arms and restoring Demetrius to his throne. We are already familiar with such promises given to an exiled king, and know in what sense they were intended to be carried out. Mithridates was succeeded by his son Phraates II. After this Demetrius made attempts to escape. He was helped by the most faithful of his friends, a certain Callimander, whom, when he went to the East, he had left behind in Syria. When later on the news came of his capture, Callimander resolved, however difficult it might be, to join him. He had found some Arabs willing to conduct him for a sum of money to Babylon by the desert tracks, and when the party arrived in Babylon, Callimander was disguised as a Parthian. Thence he had made his way to Hyrcania and revealed himself to Demetrius. His experience on this adventurous journey he thought to turn to account by making it, together with Demetrius, in the reverse sense. The two set out, but before reaching the frontier they were headed off by the horsemen sent in pursuit and brought back to the Parthian kingh’s presence. For Callimander, Phraates had nothing but praise, and he rewarded so signal an instance of fidelity substantially; but Demetrius be reprimanded severely, and sent him back to his Parthian wife. His confinement was made stricter. When, however, Rhodogune had borne him children he was thought to be rooted, and the guard was relaxed. But again Demetrius made the attempt with Callimander, and again they were dragged back from the frontier. Phraates sent Demetrius in mockery the present of some golden dice, to give interest to a life which he apparently felt irksome. But Demetrius’ possible usefulness as a tool in Syria preserved him from worse treatment.

Whatever the intentions of Antiochus with regard to his brother may have been, it was of prime necessity to get him out of the Parthians’ hands. He set out with an army of 80,000, drawn in great part from Syria itself—a visible sign and outcome of its restored unity. Even the Jews furnished their contingent, commanded by the High-priest Hyrcanus himself. The army, according to the bad custom of the East, was accompanied by women and children of the royal house: Antiochus had at any rate his young son Seleucus with him in 129, and a daughter of Demetrius. The appearance of Antiochus proved, as that of Demetrius had done, a signal for all the discontented elements under Parthian supremacy to rally. Petty kings and chieftains with their various followers continually arrived in his camp, eager to range themselves against the house of Arsaces. Antiochus seems to have encountered opposition at an earlier stage than Demetrius. Three battles had to be fought before he was master of Babylonia. In one of them he defeated the Parthian general Indates on the river Lycus (mod. Greater Zab)—the region where Alexander had won his crowning victory at Gaugamela over the Persians. The Parthians evacuated Babylonia, and their general Enius—the Parthian satrap presumably of Babylonia—found a frightful end at the hands of the people of Seleucia. Antiochus pressed the enemy’s retreat into Iran. Instantly the rebellion against their rule became universal. When the winter of 130 closed in, Nearer Iran had once more been joined to the Seleucid kingdom. The Arsacid dominion, which was in fact mere military occupation, had ceased, except in the northern valleys which constituted Parthia. A greater result could not possibly have been desired for the first campaign. Antiochus, as conqueror of the East, began to be styled, like his ancestor, Great King.

But what the campaign had achieved the winter rest was fated to undo. The problem of housing and feeding the great army and its still greater following during the winter months was no doubt a difficult one. Antiochus adopted the expedient of quartering his troops in dispersed bodies on the several cities. It was to put too great a strain upon their loyalty. One of his generals, Athenaeus, aggravated the burden by wanton annoyances. The adherence of the Greek cities had given Antiochus his advantage; their alienation turned the scale against him.

The spring of 129—the Median spring with its transitory burst of greenness and beauty—opened under clouded circumstances for Antiochus. Phraates understood that the position of the conqueror had changed for the worse, and tried negotiations. But Antiochus had come to restore the Empire, and he would entertain no terms which did not make Arsaces tributary. His authority in Parthia Antiochus would allow Phraates to retain, but he was immovable on the three conditions—(1) that the Arsacid king must abandon everything outside Parthia; (2) that he must pay a regular tribute; and (3) deliver up Demetrius. Phraates threw up the negotiations and prepared to renew the fight. That, in spite of the change of mood in the cities, he felt the conflict a redoubtable one, is shown by the fact that in order to raise complications for Antiochus in the rear, he let so valuable a tool as Demetrius go. Demetrius was sent westward with a Parthian escort to re-establish himself in Syria.

Before the army of Antiochus was concentrated for the new campaign, Phraates dealt his blow. The scattered detachments were suddenly and simultaneously attacked by the population of the various Median cities. It was a plan arranged by the secret agents of Phraates. When the intelligence was carried to Antiochus—living too jovially, one fears, in the palace of Ecbatana—he hastened out with the troops he had by him to support the nearest of the bodies attacked. The confused fighting which followed we cannot trace, but the last scene can be reconstructed. It was in some place near the hills that Antiochus, marching along with his own column, became aware that the main Parthian army, commanded by Phraates himself, was coming down upon him. His staff besought him not to risk an engagement; the Parthians had only to withdraw into the steep places behind them to baffle the Syrian cavalry. But Antiochus would not hear of retiring. Were the Macedonians to show weakness in the face of barbarians whom they had beaten again and again? He ordered a stand. The Parthians came on and closed, and Antiochus fought where the fight was hottest. Presently the barbarians gave back into the hills. Antiochus and the Syrians imprudently followed. They found themselves caught in a narrow gully. Athenaeus, the general who had vexed the Greek cities, was the first to flee, and the panic was infectious. Antiochus was left almost alone, and he saw that the end of all his ambitions was come. But it was only the dead body of the Great King of which the Arsacid was allowed to become master.

The great army which Antiochus had brought to the East was made captive. How much of it survived to become the slaves of the Parthian we do not know. We are only told of the fate of the traitor Athenaeus. He came as a starving fugitive to those villages which he had afflicted in the day of his authority. No one would now receive him or give him a morsel to eat, and he died outcast by the wayside. Phraates also got possession of those members of the royal house who had come in Antiochus’ company. But to offer indignity to the imperial house of the East would not have been according to the Parthian king’s view of what was fitting. The body of Antiochus he had treated with all possible honor. The son of Antiochus, the boy Seleucus, was brought up at the Parthian court as a son of kings. The daughter of Demetrius was taken into the royal harem.

But the generosity of Phraates, shown as that of a king to kings, did not extend to those whom he held rebellious subjects. He remembered against the city of Seleucia what it had done to his officer. When it sent envoys to implore forgiveness, they were taken to a place where an eyeless man was sitting upon the ground. He was a Greek, perhaps a Seleucian, on whom the Parthian government had set the mark of its displeasure. The envoys were ordered to go and tell the Seleucians what happened to rebels. We hear of the city soon after suffering days of horror under the rod of Himeros or Euemerus, a vile favourite of Phraates, to whom he delivered the kingdom during his expedition against the Scythians. The Greek cities had cause to regret their desertion of Antiochus.

In Antiochus Sidetes it was not only an individual who perished. It was the death-blow of the Seleucid dynasty. The last great king of that house was gone; for the last time it had stood before the world as the imperial house of the East. It had no more revivals. And the last real king whom it produced embodied in a striking way the typical qualities of his race—impulsive energy, a high and generous courage, the old Macedonian delight in wassailing and war. Like his predecessors, Antiochus VII drank freely in his convivial hours. “Boldness and wine”, Phraates is recorded to have said, “these, Antiochus, were thy destruction! Thou didst think to drink up the kingdom of Arsaces in thy large cups”. But his success in dealing with the Jews—the only case where we can observe his political action—seems to argue a degree of adroit statesmanship more than belonged to the majority, if to any, of his predecessors. On the other hand, it is perhaps characteristic of the history of his house that its ultimate fall was due to neglect of the dull work of organizing the winter quarters and commissariat of troops which on the field of battle the king would lead with such splendid élan. Here we perhaps touch the weakness which rendered so much of the brilliant ability of Antiochus VII, so much of the shining qualities of the Seleucid dynasty as a whole, ultimately frustrate.