Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Seleucus Nikator I

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Poll Question: Seleukos Nikator
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
2 [50.00%]
0 [0.00%]
1 [25.00%]
1 [25.00%]
0 [0.00%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Seleucus Nikator I
    Posted: 29-Aug-2012 at 17:22
Seleukos was born to Antiochos and Laodike of Europos in Macedonia sometime between c. 358 and c. 354 BC. Both he and his father were part of the military aristocracy that contributed to the rise of Macedonian power under Philip II and Alexander the Great, although they were not as close to the kings as men like Ptolemy and Lysimachos.

During Alexander's eastern campaigns Seleukos was given command of the prestigious argyraspides ('Silver Shields') regiment. Shortly after Alexander's death in 323 Seleukos was appointed chiliarch (vizier) by the Macedonian general, Perdikkas. The latter claimed to have been given the right to rule the empire until Alexander's pregnant widow should give birth to an heir. Perdikkas also believed that it was his right to apportion the various administrative districts (satrapies) of the empire to deserving generals.

Jealous of Perdikkas' power and concerned about his inability to control many of the governors (satraps), in 321 Seleukos, leading a cabal of officers, murdered him.



Following the murder, Seleukos was appointed satrap of Babylonia during a conference of the generals in Syria. At the same meeting Antigonos Monophthalmos ('the One-Eyed') was given special powers to hunt down and destroy Eumenes of Kardia, a surviving Greek adherent of Perdikkas who was largely opposed to breaking up the empire among the generals.

After the removal of Eumenes, Antigonos' ambitions turned to imperialism and the restoration of Alexander's fragmented empire under his own authority. He threatened Seleukos in 315 BC, causing the satrap to flee Babylon and join the court of Ptolemy in Egypt where he became a nauarch (naval commander) charged with harassing Antigonid coastal positions.

In 312 BC Seleukos helped Ptolemy to victory over Antigonos' son, Demetrios Poliorketes ('the Besieger'), at the battle of Gaza. He used the confused aftermath of the battle to cover his return to and reestablishment in Babylon. Although Antigonos and Demetrios made several further attempts to remove Seleukos between 311 and 308 BC he was able to maintain control with the aid of the loyal Babylonians.

During a brief period of peace with Antigonos Seleukos campaigned in the east, forcing the satraps there to recognized his suzerainty. He also concluded a treaty with Chandragupta Maurya of India who gave him a gift of 500 war elephants.

In 305/4 BC Seleukos proclaimed himself king following the precedent established by his contemporaries: Antigonos, Ptolemy, Kassander and Lysimachos. Disturbed by the growing power of Antigonos in Asia Minor, the Levant and Greece, the latter three kings joined with Seleukos in a defensive coalition. At Ipsos in 301 BC the alliance was successful in defeating and killing Antigonos, leaving Seleukos to claim Syria where he founded the western capital of Antioch-on-the-Orontes. Shortly after the fall of Antigonos Seleukos founded his eastern capital at Seleukeia-on-the-Tigris. For his key role in the victory he was also supposed to receive Phoenicia and Palestine, but Ptolemy garrisoned the cities there before Seleukos could claim them. The dispute over this territory would pit Seleukid and Ptolemaic kings against one another for almost two centuries.

From 294 to 286 Seleukos was at war with Demetrios who had survived the debacle of Ipsos and continued to threaten the stability of the kings. The troops of Demetrios, however, were wearied by their long campaigning and Seleukos was ultimately able to defeat them and capture their leader in Kilikia. Although Seleukos kept him in honourable captivity Demetrios despaired and drank himself into oblivion.

Meanwhile, Lysimachos had made himself so unpopular in Asia Minor that his subjects invited Seleukos to remove him. The situation reached its climax in 281 when Lysimachos was defeated and killed at the battle of Koroupedion. Seleukos immediately consolidated his power in Asia Minor and advanced to take possession of Lysimachos' territory in Macedonia. In this year Seleukos was close to holding the entire empire of Alexander in his own name. But it was not to be.

At this high point of his career Seleukos was struck down by the blade of the assassin. Ptolemy Keraunos, a refugee from the Ptolemaic court to whom Seleukos had given asylum, murdered his benefactor on the shores of Thrace and briefly usurped the diadem in Macedonia. Asia Minor and the east was left to Seleukos' son and heir Antiochos I Soter.

http://www.seleukidempire.org/Seleukos.htm

I've taken up Seleukos as my second favorite ancient general, ahead of Pyrrhus. He was a brilliant military man, admistrator and politician. Any thoughts?
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6217
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 03:28
I think he was good, the fact is that he couldn't establish an empire but just captured part of an empire, there wasn't any serious enemy except some fellow Macedonians, of course there were certainly some revolts and uprisings within his empire, anyway he and his successors can be called the only westerners who could ruler over the whole land of Iran for almost a long time.
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 07:19
Couldn't establish an empire? Thats blatantly false look at the Seleucid empire. He went from leading 2,000 troops to having a huge empire.
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4735
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 08:10
I don't like him, because I find him too scrupleless - but tis is a very private opinion.
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 08:16
How does he lack scruples?
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4735
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 12:57
Murdered Perdikkas, for example.
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 13:29
What great man didn't kill a rival? Pyrrhus did, Alexander did, the fact is Perdikkas failed.
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4735
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 13:52
With Perdikkas was different - like killing a person you worked with, not just some nameless person or a relative one is stuck with and hates. 
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 16:19
Pyrrhus killed his coworker, Alexander killed his subordinates, it was a cutthroat game the sucessor's killed or murdered each other regularly. Don't rate a man on his supposed morals but his deeds.
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 16:41
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Pyrrhus killed his coworker, Alexander killed his subordinates, it was a cutthroat game the sucessor's killed or murdered each other regularly. Don't rate a man on his supposed morals but his deeds.
 
 
 
That's been done constantly and to include by historians throughout the eons.....hence it's a legitimate consideration.....trick is...whether it's an objective one.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 16:45
It is, how is a man any less a genius if he kills someone? He eventually established a large stable and very economically viable state with his subjects treated well for the time. He crushed Antigonus at Ipsus and created an empire with 2,000 men, if thats not greatness...
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 16:49
At best he was an excellent opportunist who continued to build on the success and foundations of others prior. To include his former companions success and failures in the regional distribution of Al's empire. He does ntl reserve credit for the maintenance of his position until his murder.
 
As an assassin, struck down by another, the irony then turned full circle and was complete.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 17:03
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

It is, how is a man any less a genius if he kills someone? He eventually established a large stable and very economically viable state with his subjects treated well for the time. He crushed Antigonus at Ipsus and created an empire with 2,000 men, if that's not greatness...
 
Has nothing to do with the point... so assuming your not dodging the issue she raises and I confirm...the point is.... that men are rated; have been examined and rated by historians and scholars; and that has included their morals. You don't have to like it but you had better get used to the fact that objective analysis of a historical military and or ruling figure is not simply based on military genius or tactical skill. Unless it is your intent to specifically examine that element of their life experience. And that alone. That's an entirely different rationale for the examination.
 
Because if you don't.. your fast approaching a very narrow and single minded approach to possible glamorization of a specific element at the expense of others. And not the objectivity in toto, which one is  hopefully trained and educated to do, in order to be objective in the examination of the individuals entire experience.
 
It's referred to as 'the whole man concept'. Iow. You begin your examination with a well written general overview but then here, as elsewhere, you have a tendency to only highlight an emphasis on military prowess or lack thereof, in your defense, while still attempting to justify the generality without examining other factors.
 
At worst that's lazy history...at best an incomplete version.
 
 
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 17:13
Then objectively no great man can be great. Neither Hannibal, Ghengis Khan, Caesar, Scipio, Alexander, Pyrrhus, or almost all the Sucessor's, Sulla, and such. These men all murdered, some were mass murderers yet they were still either geniuses or great men and you can't deny that. Don't substitute modern morales for an accurate view of history thats the worst sort of history there is. Its best as one of my acquaintances and another admin has stated that morales shouldn't usually be discussed in history die to cultural and time difference. So judge his accomplishments not a single murder that I commend him for. He crushed Antigonus at Ipsus and established an enormous empire starting with 2,000 men, if you can't leave the murder of one rival out I don't see how you can study history,
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 17:15
His administrative skills were also superb and so his rule was just, what am I missing?
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 17:47
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Then objectively no great man can be great. Neither Hannibal, Genghis Khan, Caesar, Scipio, Alexander, Pyrrhus, or almost all the Successor's, Sulla, and such. These men all murdered, some were mass murderers yet they were still either geniuses or great men and you can't deny that. Don't substitute modern Morales for an accurate view of history that's the worst sort of history there is. Its best as one of my acquaintances and another admin has stated that morales shouldn't usually be discussed in history die to cultural and time difference. So judge his accomplishments not a single murder that I commend him for. He crushed Antigonus at Ipsus and established an enormous empire starting with 2,000 men, if you can't leave the murder of one rival out I don't see how you can study history,
 
 
 
 
1. reference my black bold your post: Certainly they can...depends on the qualification criterion....used in concert with an objective analysis using the method.
 
 
2. reference my blue highlight your post: Don't ever presume to give me guidance on how to study or present opinions and or comment reference historical on subject matter. Especially given your rigidity, near borderline unwillingness, in accepting counter opinions and commentary. You neither have the academic credentials, nor the teaching credentials, nor the life experience credentials at this point. Your level of maturity and experience is totally insufficient. And this rigidity demonstrates it aptly.
 
And if you have been paying attention around here you would already have noted that I have never ascribed to that practice. But have constantly advised others to reject it and be ever wary of later non contextual era evaluations and moral prejudices when dealing with the subject. At the expense of consideration, first and foremost of the actual era's practices, philosophies and moral cultural development.
 
Neither should you ever presume I have made a superfluous and premature judgement on the man's character reference his morals. I have not done any such thing...that's a premature, immature and non objective judgement your making of me with no supportable evidence. Iow. your passion for his defence is clouding your ability to render objectivity when it comes to counter commentary and opposing viewpoints...none of which I have presented.
 
I pointed out that reference his moral examination:
 
''That's been done constantly and to include by historians throughout the eons.....hence it's a legitimate consideration.....trick is...whether it's an objective one.''
 
 
''Has nothing to do with the point... so assuming your not dodging the issue she raises and I confirm...the point is.... that men are rated; have been examined and rated by historians and scholars; and that has included their morals. You don't have to like it but you had better get used to the fact that objective analysis of a historical military and or ruling figure is not simply based on military genius or tactical skill.
 
 
Unless it is your intent to specifically examine that element of their life experience. And that alone. That's an entirely different rationale for the examination.
Because if you don't.. your fast approaching a very narrow and single minded approach to possible glamorization of a specific element at the expense of others. And not the objectivity in toto, which one is hopefully trained and educated to do, in order to be objective in the examination of the individuals entire experience.
It's referred to as 'the whole man concept'. Iow. You begin your examination with a well written general overview but then here, as elsewhere, you have a tendency to only highlight an emphasis on military prowess or lack thereof, in your defense, while still attempting to justify the generality without examining other factors.
At worst that's lazy history...at best an incomplete version.''
 
 
 
So accept it as constructive criticism or not...disregard my point if you will. ntl you are not objective in your examination of your subject if your later declared focus is not in association with your initial general presentation and or then further defined in a more precise and specific manner...which you have a tendency to not do...but rather focus more on one and only one element of the defense...when met with opposition.
 
And in conclusion what's not going to happen here is another example of your willingness to participate in circular augmentative communication for the purposes of satisfying your ego. Mine is already secure. Besides that constitutes trolling and you already know what happens to them.
 
So move on from here without me.
 
And if you feel your unjustifiably being singled out... then take it to another moderator for examination and resolution. Because my comments to you on this thread have not been as a moderator but as a member.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 18:00
You have failed to contribute anything to the topic and have been way off base BESIDES the fact you're discriminating based on my age. You have accused me of trolling for having an argument. Accused my objectivity and such groundlessly and have generally been condescending. I have just as much right to state my opinion as any of you and I don't have to change MY views to fit yours.


So without the needless condescending, derogatory, and well ill be ironic and say trolling material would you please state your opinion instead of using a mass of text to hide behind? I'm not sure ehat brought this pointless and groundless rant and insulting posts on but you seem to have thin skin and a big ego.
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 18:07
Sorry for being hot and personal yet I only fling back what is thrown at me. Would you like to discuss the OP or? Here is my view, murder was a common way to gain a position in the age of Sucessor's and so Seleucus should be judged by that standard not ours. He also governed his people well enough with few revolts and not very much supression. As an administrator he was much much better than Alexander and very good at running the empire and keeping it stable. Under him the empire was prosperous and wealthy. He started out with 2,000 men and through a series of battles proceeded to conquer what has become known as the Seleucid empire. With victories all around he took huge swathes of territory and is known as one of the greatest sucessors. His dynasty was survived by only one sucessor state, Egypt.
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2012 at 18:36
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

You have failed to contribute anything to the topic and have been way off base BESIDES the fact you're discriminating based on my age. You have accused me of trolling for having an argument. Accused my objectivity and such groundlessly and have generally been condescending. I have just as much right to state my opinion as any of you and I don't have to change MY views to fit yours.


So without the needless condescending, derogatory, and well ill be ironic and say trolling material would you please state your opinion instead of using a mass of text to hide behind? I'm not sure that brought this pointless and groundless rant and insulting posts on but you seem to have thin skin and a big ego.
 
 
 
1. Reference your first black bold post. Nonsense a point was presented by another member I further elucidated on it.
 
 
 
2. Reference your second black bold post. Nonsense. I point out the obvious reference your maturity and the facts reference your credentials. This is neither to be viewed as condescending or derogatory in nature other then by yourself.
 
 
3. Reference your third black bold post. Nonsense. what I did... was state:
 
''And in conclusion what's not going to happen here is another example of your willingness to participate in circular augmentative communication for the purposes of satisfying your ego. Mine is already secure. Besides that constitutes trolling and you already know what happens to them.
So move on from here without me.''
 
You did not.
 
Because you specifically addresed the post to me. And merely continued it again for the sake of argumentative rhetoric in a surreptitious effort to defend yourself. As to whether you interpret it as condescending is immaterial.
 
 
I then went on and stated this: ''And if you feel your unjustifiably being singled out... then take it to another moderator for examination and resolution. Because my comments to you on this thread have not been as a moderator but as a member.''
 
You did not.
 
 
You are correct; I did point out your lapses in objectivity and your rigidity in accepting counter viewpoints and opinions. But they are certainly not groundless nor are they not without veracity.
 
 
Consequently you have deliberately continued to present circular arguementation for no positive purpose other then annoyance and disruption. Hence you are in violation of the CoC. Trolling. Negative attitude. Tone of confrantation. Disruptive communications.
 
 
Consequence?
 
 
Consider it... as you sit on the ''bench of woes'' for the next 15 days. Your suspended.
 
 
 
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4735
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 12:40
OK, I'll continue with my opinion here.
As I said, I personllay don't like him, because I fiind him too scrupleless.
Does a murder make a mn something less than great? It depends, I guess. I am the staounchest supporter on the idea that we cannot bring our morals in lives of people who lived centuries ago and expect tyhem to follow them; still there are some lines that, to me at least, mean something.

I respect the friendhsip bond between military people, nd for me to kill a brother-in-arms is like the greatest treason. Alexander killed reltives and subordinates, but I don't remember him killing for example, Hesphestion. The whole story of the generals of Alexander killing his wife and kid and cutting the empire in pieces iis a very sad story for me,  can hardly like any of them. Allexandre created something great, and they made a puzzle out of it, instead of stabiizing his empire.

In the case I'm probably subjective - and I don't claim objectivity here - but this is my opinion anyway.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.232 seconds.