CHAPTER XVIII

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-Cole-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 harbour-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.2

1 Soli is the most easterly named by Livy (who had Polybius before him). Jerome (on Daniel 11, 15) makes Antiochus capture Mallus in 197.

2 Niese (ii. p. 406, note 4) thinks that the Ptolemaïc protectorate of the

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 Cole-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.1 Negoti ations 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.2 The favourites, 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

Cyclades had ceased, but the evidence he adduces is far from decisive. We know that Samos was still Egyptian (Polyb. iii. 2, 8); the case of Lesbos is problematical (Niese ii. p. 357, note 1). [Delamarre brings forward evidence to show that Macedonia had displaced Egypt in the Cyclades, Revue d. Philol. xxvi. (1902), p. 301 f.]

1

Polyb. xv. 20, 1; cf. v. 107, 1.

2

Polyb. xv. 25, 13 f.

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, Cole-Syria), and Philip Cyrene, the Ptolemaïc possessions in the Aegean, and the Ionian sea-board.1 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 2 but by the fact that Philip's claim to be supported in that invasion by the Seleucid power was admitted.3

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 Ptolemaïc power was swept from the field. The conquest of Cole-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.5 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. 1 App. Mac. 4.

2 παρασπονδούντων μὲν ἀλλήλους, Polyb. xv. 20, 6.

5 In 220 Rhodes and Pergamos had been hostile (Polyb. iv. 48, 2).

6 Attalus had been allied with the Aetolians against Philip in the Social War.

L

The inevitable conflict between Philip and Attalus would wear down both powers, and the house of Seleucus would reap the benefit.

once more.

The compact concluded, Antiochus attacked Cole-Syria 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 Cole-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.1 How soon the conquest followed 202 we do not know.2 to its completeness it extended at any rate to Judaea. 199 Antiochus seems to have considered the conquest achieved and to have turned his attention to Asia Minor.

As

By

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 Cius 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.3

1 "Tantae enim dissolutionis et superbiae Agathocles fuit, ut subditae prius Aegypto provinciae rebellarent, ipsaque Aegyptus seditionibus vexaretur." Jerome on Daniel 11. Agathocles himself perished in 203, but the discords in the Alexandrian court continued.

=

2 Seleucid coins were struck at Tyre as early as 112 aer. Sel. 201-200 B.C., Babelon, Rois de Syrie, p. lxxxv. Niese (ii. p. 578) gives the date 201.

3 Polyb. xvi. 1, 8. There is little doubt that this is the Zeuxis who has left a trace of himself in an inscription found at Mazyn - Kalessi (the ancient Amyzon). Ιδριεὺς ̓Εκατό[μνου ἀνέθηκε· ] Ζεύξις Κυνάγου Μακεδὼν τοὺς ἀγροὺς τῶ[ι θεῷ . . . ἀποκατέστησε], Sitzungsb, Berl. 1894, p. 916.

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 favour. 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

VOL. II

1 Polyb. xvi. 24.

D