Seleucid Institutions
The Seleucid army
The most important royal institution was the Seleucid army; without it, the Seleucid Empire would simply cease to exist.1 Seleucid soldiers and sailors provided the coercive force that was necessary, if not always sufficient, to hold the realm together. The Seleucid army consisted of four main components: 1) citizen soldiers, drawn from the cities of the Empire, 2) a professional cadre of elite infantry and cavalry units, 3) native levies of subject peoples and 4) mercenaries hired from across the Mediterranean.
The citizen phalanx
The core of the Seleucid army was the Macedonian-style phalanx: a dense and deep formation of heavy infantry. The phalangite’s primary armament was an enormous pike called a sarissa, approximately 21 feet (6.3m) long.2 A phalangite also carried a round shield, between 2 to 2½ feet (.66-.75m) in diameter, smaller than the shield carried by Classical Greek hoplites, which allowed him to grasp his sarissa with both hands.3 As a secondary weapon he wore a short-sword (xiphos) or a small slashing machete called a machaira. The phalangite’s armour varied, but non-metallic armour made of laminated linen (kotthybos/linothorax) seems to have predominated.4 Since phalangites supplied their own equipment, there would have been reasonable variation, and metal cuirasses were likely also in use.
Phalangites fought in close formation, with each man occupying nearly three feet when on the offensive and closing tighter on the defensive in order to form a wall of interlocked shields (synaspismos). A phalanx was usually sixteen men deep, although it was common to make the formation even deeper (doubling to thirty-two) to provide extra defensive mass. Men in the front five ranks projected their pikes outward, although only the first few ranks would have a reasonably clear line of sight in front of them. Men in the rear would angle their pikes forward to provide a screen against arrows, javelins, and other projectiles raining down on the formation. The overall manoeuvrability of the phalanx was limited by these close-order intervals of the soldiers and the unwieldy nature of the lengthy sanssa. 5
Phalangites were recruited primarily from a class of military settlers who were descendents of Macedonian soldiers of Alexander the Great or the mercenaries of the diadochoi. Discharged veterans received a plot of land (kleros), which obligated them to serve as either Macedonian-style infantrymen or cavalrymen. Recipients of such land grants were most commonly referred to as katoikoi. While most veterans with kleroi were of Greek or Macedonian descent, other ethnicities could also obtain land grants, most notably 2000 Jewish military settlers granted land in Phrygia by Antiochus III in the 200s.6
The citizen phalanx was drawn largely from the major cities of the Seleucid Empire.7 Such recruitment was based on inheritable military obligation tied to land grants or through deeply rooted traditional patterns of military service. (The initial population of Greco-Macedonian settlers in cities founded by Seleucids may have been used to determine the rate of required conscription.) For example, Seleucus I had settled between 4000 and 6000 military settlers in each of the four cities of the tetrapolis, and the best attested Seleucid urban muster, from the city of Cyrrhus, produced a brigade of 6000 soldiers. Thus, from the urban centres in Syria and Mesopotamia (the tetrapoleis plus Seleucia on the Tigris and Cyrrhus), Antiochus could draw on 20–30,000 settlers with military obligations. This figure corresponds with the attested field strength of the Seleucid heavy phalanx, usually between 16,000 and 20,000 men.8 It is important to remember that the men of the Seleucid phalanx were not professional soldiers, but citizen soldiers mobilized in times of military crisis, though some might serve longer stints during protracted periods of warfare.
Native levies
In addition to the ‘Macedonian’ heavy infantry, the bulk of the Seleucid army consisted of lightly armed troops, most of whom wore native arms and armour. Native archers, slingers, and skirmishers proved a tremendous addition to the heavy and relatively immobile phalanx, but they also posed problems of command and control. It proved difficult to coordinate the actions of many different contingents, each with their own language, tactics, and native aristocrat commanders. This need to incorporate large numbers of non-Hellenistic light troops may have led to some unfortunate developments in Seleucid tactics, including excessive depth of troop formations and an over-reliance on pre-established battle plans. Nonetheless, the sheer numbers provided by native light troops were eminently valuable for garrison operations, foraging, securing and extending supply lines, and general skirmishing.
Native equestrian traditions were critical to the recruitment of Seleucid cavalry. The vast Iranian plateau in particular supplied some of the best cavalry in the ancient world, and cavalry contingents from Persia, Media, and other parts of Iran are well attested. An important military development with potential Persian roots was the introduction of cataphractoi, a new type of heavy cavalry.9
Traditionally Mediterranean cavalry rode and fought lightly armed and armoured. Horsemen were admired for their agility in the saddle and valued for their manoeuvrability, not the shock of their charges. While light Mediterranean cavalry was highly manoeuvrable, it lacked the ability to clash directly with heavily armed massed infantry. Instead, they manoeuvred at the flanks and harassed formations with javelins, butchering fugitives in the pursuit.
Unfortunately, there is no good evidence on the exact nature of cataphracts during the Selecucid period. We do know that by the Roman period, the term ‘cataphract’ described heavy Iranian cavalry clad head to toe in scale armour, with a similarly armoured horse. These ‘boiler boys’ (clibanarii) were designed to shock. Their heavy armour gave them confidence to plunge their horses into the iron bristle of a heavy infantry formation, a manoeuvre that would have been suicidal for a lightly armoured cavalryman. We do not know if the Seleucid cataphracti were identical to the Parthian and Persian cataphracts attested during the Roman Empire or the late Roman units that mimicked them. However, there is reason to speculate that Seleucid cataphracts were far more heavily armed and armoured than most traditional Mediterranean cavalrymen, as they successfully defeated the Roman legionary infantry at the Battle of Magnesia.
The professional cadre: Silver Shields and royal cavalry
In addition to the standard phalanx, Seleucid kings also maintained a special unit of heavy infantry, the ‘Silver Shields’ (argyaspides). The Silver Shields had their origins in a special brigade of Hypaspists formed by Alexander the Great. Following Alexander’s death, diadoch generals granted favoured brigades of soldiers special status by allowing them to gild their shields with various metals: gold, silver and bronze shields are attested in the sources.10 By the reign of Antiochus, the Silver Shields were a professional brigade, with an attested strength of 10,000.11 This number would also correspond to the 10,000 ‘Immortals’, the full-time infantry brigade that accompanied the Persian king, whose strength was maintained at 10,000, and may represent an administrative survival from the Achaemenid military tradition.12
Seleucid kings maintained two professional cavalry regiments of 1000 men apiece. The first was known as the hetaitroi or ‘companions’ (sometimes referred to as ile basilike, or ‘the king’s company’). The second elite cavalry regiment was called the agema. Both of these units were composed of professional soldiers recruited from across the empire, and were thus polyethnic. The agema was said to be men primarily of ‘Medes and a mixture of many peoples drawn from many regions’, while the hetairoi were drawn from ‘Syrians, mingled with Phrygians and Lydians.’13 Professor Bar Kochba has hypothesized that these cavalrymen were drawn from the sons of military settlers living in Media, Syria, Phrygia and Lydia, but there is no proof of this assertion. Like the Roman emperor with a Germanic bodyguard, the Seleucid king may have preferred to draw his closest ranks from outside peoples, whose loyalty was ensured by their outsider status and subsequent dependence on the king’s favour and goodwill for their position in society.
Mercenaries
Seleucid kings also employed mercenaries to supplement the field armies during major campaigns. Mercenaries remained the minority of Seleucid soldiers, and the overall characterization of Hellenistic armies as mercenary hordes is incorrect. Mercenaries seldom comprised more than 20 per cent of any large army fielded by Antiochus III. The most prominent mercenaries were the ferocious Galatians, who consistently provided both light infantry and cavalry contingents to the Seleucid army; while the most notorious were perhaps the Cretans. Known for their skill in archery, Cretans were widely sought as specialist troops, although they could also fight as conventional light infantry. Other sources of mercenaries included the nomadic Dahae (a tribal group of the Eurasian steppes), Thracians from Europe, and, of course, Greeks. Greek mercenaries were particularly valuable, as they could integrate tactically and linguistically with the main phalanx. Mercenary officers were heavily employed throughout the Seleucid army and even commanded non-mercenary units. Nor were all mercenaries opportunistic killers; many spent long careers in the service of a particular power. Rewarded afterwards with a land grant, many saw mercenary service as a form of honourable immigration.
Elephants and chariots
Elephants were considered a crucial military asset. Antiochus III’s herd peaked at 150 beasts, making it the largest in the world at that time (Carthage possessed perhaps 80 war-elephants in 202 BC). In this respect Seleucid kings benefited from the shared border with India. During the third century BC, two types of elephants were in use, the Indian elephant and the now extinct North African forest elephant (Loxodonta africana pharaoensis). The largest and most aggressive species of elephant, the African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana), was not used in Ancient Mediterranean warfare.14
Significantly larger than the North African forest elephant, the Indian elephant (Elphas maximus indicus) was considered superior for war purposes. Furthermore, an elephant was worthless without a specially trained mahout, and the best mahouts also came from India. Antiochus III therefore enjoyed the best elephants and the best elephant drivers.15
The rival Ptolemies were not so lucky in their access to the pachyderms. Ptolemy II had undertaken epic provisions to secure African bush elephants in the Sudan, establishing the garrison town of Ptolemais ‘of the Elephant Hunts’ and even digging a canal to transport the captured beasts. From these significant efforts, it is clear that Ptolemy II considered it vital to match the Seleucid war-herd. While some moderns have doubted the efficacy of war-elephants, ancient evidence suggests that they could prove a terrible and effective force on the battlefield. Trampling infantry and scattering cavalry, they could only be countered by heavy infantry formations with the highest levels of discipline and poise. The physical damage they inflicted was exceeded only by their psychological impact, as the size and appearance of such animals intimidated men unfamiliar with the animal. The smell of elephants was even believed to frighten cavalry horses. Despite these advantages, the deployment of elephants on the battlefield was problematic, as they could badly disrupt friendly formations if spooked.
A less-useful weapon in the Seleucid arsenal was the scythed chariot, a weapon employed by the Persians for several centuries and used in a failed charge against Alexander at Guagamela.16 Molon used them with equal lack of effect against Antiochus. While these contraptions looked ferocious, and no doubt gave kings extravagant visions of easily mowing through enemy formations, they were difficult to employ effectively even on relatively level ground. Nonetheless, scythed chariots remained part of the Seleucid arsenal and were deployed against the Romans at the battle of Magnesia with little success. Their continued existence must be attributed almost entirely to their fearsome appearance.
The court of Antiochus III
Like any modern executive, the Seleucid king was obliged to delegate power in order to manage his kingdom.17 Unfortunately, individuals entrusted with this power could prove dangerous to the king if not carefully managed. In many court settings, kings disperse social favours with the hope that competition for these will forge a culture of loyalty and cooperation among otherwise ambitious and aggressive noblemen.
It is important to note that the term ‘court’, a word derived from the European medieval and early modern experience, did not have a direct equivalent in Greek. Rather, Hellenistic courtiers described themselves using terms of friendship or kinship with the king. In the early Macedonian court in the fourth century BC, high-ranking noblemen who enjoyed the king’s favour were known as hetairoi, ‘companions’, a term that emphasized their personal relationship to the king and the rough equality they shared with the monarch, drinking, hunting, and fighting by his side.
Philip II radically altered the court culture in Macedonia, modelling it upon more absolutist Persian lines. He forced powerful noblemen to send their sons to serve as ‘royal boys’ (bailikoipaides), effectively holding them hostage in his court and indoctrinating them into the mindset of royal service as playmates and friends of the heir apparent.
The Macedonian royal page system survived in the Seleucid court, and we find former basilikoi paides holding important commands: Myiskos, for example, who later commanded a contingent of war elephants for Antiochus at the Battle of Raphia.18 Other men are referred to as ‘foster brothers’ (syntrophoi – literally ‘fellow nursling’) of the king, pages raised alongside the young prince.
There was no established empire-wide aristocracy, although there were many local influential notables. Men earned high position in the king’s court not through lineage but by winning the king’s personal favour: the ability to drink, dance, and engage in witty conversation could lead to important political postings. Heavy drinking and banqueting was important in both the Macedonian and Persian court traditions. Persians were reported to consider courses of action at least twice: once sober and again drunk, while Alexander’s binges may have substantially shortened his life.19 According to the Roman author Athenaeus (c 200 AD?), whose literary cast of ‘clever diners’ (deipnosophistai) preserves scenes of courtly life, Antiochus drank heavily at banquets and danced wearing his armour and weapons, encouraging his entourage to do likewise. Dancing with weapons and armour echoed a very old Macedonian court custom called the telesias, attested as far back as the mid-fourth century BC.20 In one instance, the poet Hegesianax reportedly declined the King’s insistence to join the dance, but had a witty comment at the ready: ‘Shall I dance badly, O king, or would you rather have me recite my poems well?’ According to the story, Antiochus ordered an impromptu recitation, and was so pleased with the poem that he promoted Hegesianax to the rank of ‘friend’ (philos).21 And as such a ‘friend’, he was subsequently given important diplomatic assignments, including missions to the Romans in 196 and 193 BC.22
Notable in this episode is Antiochus’ leadership role, even in fun and feasting. It is he who decides that his ‘friends’ will dance, and he subsequently takes the lead in dancing himself. He is the one who calls out courtiers such as Hegesianax who decline to participate in the revels, and he alone judges the quality of the poetry recital. The king is not an equal in drinking and dancing but rather remains fully in charge: elites at the party are socially honoured or humiliated as they compete for his attention and approval.23
The social environment of the court maintained the fiction that courtiers were the friends or even relatives of the king. The senior soldier Zeuxis, it seems, enjoyed the title of ‘father’, and later Seleucid kings would refer to close advisors as ‘brother’.24 In 193, the general Minnio is described by Livy as the princeps amicorum.25 This may be the Latinization of the Greek ‘first friend’ (protos philos), a title later attested in the book of Maccabees.26 Other ‘friends’ enjoyed specific titles based on their occupation: one important courtier was the chamberlain who controlled the king’s private bedroom. Nicanor was one such chamberlain (koites), whom Antiochus later appointed to the lucrative position of chief-priest of Asia Minor.
‘Friends’ in court also enjoyed special privileges, such as the wearing of purple garments, access to the royal stables, and physical proximity to the king and his family. One story even reports that Seleucus I granted a favoured courtier the privilege of dropping by while he was having sex with his wife.27 Yet what the king could give, he could also easily take away. Antiochus III’s murder of Hermeias and his family is perhaps the most dramatic example of royal retribution against a fallen and disgraced courtier.
A select group of friends constituted the king’s council, the boule or synednon, and here the king sought frank advice on various issues. The boule was likely relatively informal in its membership requirements and was based on the king’s preference of advisors. For example, Apollophanes the physician seems to have joined after demonstrating his loyalty during the Hermeias affair, despite lacking other military or administrative experience. Indeed, military talent did not on its own ensure a coveted spot: Hannibal Barca would later be relegated to the outer circle of the court due to Antiochus’ suspicion of his motives.
Not all titles were ceremonial indications of friendship or kinship. Some men within the Seleucid court held more generally defined offices. Chief among these was the epi ton pragamaton, the ‘man of affairs,’ or ‘prime minister.’ The epi ton pragmaton was a powerful figure, although his powers and duties were never entirely specified, and could therefore be abused or manipulated. Other titles include the epi ton prosodon, the ‘finance minister’, and the epistolographos, or royal secretary. Junior positions in the court include an archivist (bibliophylax) and the master of the elephants (elephantarchos).28
It comes as no surprise that doctors were also prominent players in the Seleucid court. We have already met Apollophanes, the ‘chief doctor’ (archiatros). Hailing from the island of Cos, the homeland of Hippocrates, Apollophanes was also the author of a treatise on cures for poisons, a field of research that likely made him even more useful in court.29
Finally, the court contained what Greeks dubbed ‘parasites’, men who flattered the wealthy and powerful in exchange for a dinner invitation. We know of several parasites in the Seleucid court, although none for the court of Antiochus III: Sostratus during the time of Antiochus I and Apollonios during the reign of Antiochus VIII.30 Most of these men simply had the misfortune of being at the bottom of the court hierarchy.31 Ironically, the most notorious parasites such as Sostratus and Apollonios were probably closer to real friendship with the king than most of his official philoi, as they provided him with companionship and good cheer untainted by manoeuvres for position and power.
In terms of the court’s physical location, the king moved frequently, maintaining a peripatetic lifestyle that took him through multiple palaces in major cities throughout the empire. Unfortunately, only limited archaeological work has been done on Seleucid royal palaces, but we know that these were massive buildings with monumental architecture in the Greek style. Like traditional Macedonian palaces, a Seleucid royal palace was constructed around a large central courtyard surrounded by a series of smaller dining rooms. They also incorporated Persian elements, most notably the paradision, an expansive and luxurious park. The most impressive ‘paradise’ was likely located at the Seleucid court at Daphne, nourished by natural springs and spacious enough to accommodate enormous parades and feasts of more than 9000 people.32 Paradise parks contained manicured orchards, opulent gardens and well-stocked hunting grounds,33 following a long Near Eastern tradition of parks as both places of royal pleasure where groomed gardens and slaughtered animals symbolized the king’s domination over nature. Palace complexes were large, imposing, and often removed from the general city: the palace at Antioch was located on an island in the Orontes river, and occupied over 25 hectares of land.34
The maintenance of these palaces and of a court that required such feasting and entertainment was tremendously expensive. Theopompus, writing in the fourth century, claimed that the Persian king spent between twenty and thirty silver talents a day maintaining his court.35 Much of this went to support the Persian army, but G.G. Aphergis estimates that Seleucid kings still spent between 2000 and 3000 silver talents supporting the luxurious lifestyle of the king and his court.36
The arts and culture under Antiochus III
The Seleucids are generally not remembered for great patronage of Hellenic culture. The Ptolemies sponsored the Museion and Library in Alexandria, which became a great centre of scholarship and literary production in the ancient world.37 The Attalids to the north also established a vast library, and commissioned some of the most famous pieces of Hellenistic art: the Dying Gaul series and the reliefs of the great altar at Pergamon.
While patronage of art, literature, and other displays of culture was not a top priority for the Seleucids, there is evidence that Antiochus tried to compete culturally with his rivals in Alexandria in Pergamon. Antiochus patronized poets in particular: the prominent role of the court poet and historian Hegesianax has already been mentioned, and he also hired a Greek poet named Euphorion to head the public library in Antioch.38 The poet and historian Mnesiptolemos was active in the court of Antiochus III, so much so that Athenaeus claims that his presence ‘was especially prominent’.39 This is no doubt an exaggeration, or possibly an echo of the grumblings of rival courtiers, but it shows that men of letters claimed high standing in the Seleucid court as well as in Alexandria. Mnesiptolemos produced his histories in verse, including a poem about Seleucus II quaffing a potent draught of mead. Mnesiptolemos’ son Seleucus, the author of ‘cheerful songs’, was also a courtly poet. Athenaeus preserves a fragment of his work that praises pederasty in a military context:
Better to love the boys than take a wife
A boy lends a hand in times of strife.40
The royal economy
Like most other states in the ancient world, the economy of the Seleucid Empire was rooted in agriculture. More than 90 per cent of the population was devoted to farming or pastoralism. Most small farmers strove for self-sufficiency, but in reality no family or community could hope to achieve this. Variations in climate, soil, and weather patterns meant that the chance of local crop failures was high in any one area, and the grim reality of starvation enforced connectivity and cooperation; people had to trade and redistribute food to compensate for regional shortages. There was a brisk if low-level trade in basic foodstuffs, yet agricultural production focused on foods that were easy to store and redistribute: grain, wine, figs, and olive oil.41 The most important agricultural regions of the empire were Mesopotamia, the Amuk plain along the Orontes River, and following the capture of Koile Syria, the Gaza strip. Antiochus’ campaigns in Asia Minor primarily focused on the rich agricultural lands in that region.
While perhaps less than 10 per cent of the population resided in cities, these were critical focal points of consumption, redistribution and craft production, although urban economies could also suffer from inefficient markets and local economic dislocation. The urban economy was driven in part by a phenomenon known as euergetism, or benefaction. Examples of euergetism might involve petty elites subsidizing grain and contributing to public works for a particular city. The most important benefactor was the king himself, with grants to individuals, cities, and peoples. Royal family members also engaged in the practice. For example, in 196 BC Antiochus’ queen Laodice gifted the city of Iasus with an annual gift of 45 tons of grain. The grain was to be sold at a subsidized price, and the town authorities were to utilize the cash proceeds to provide dowries for local girls.42 Such benefactions helped towns suffering from economic problems, and validated royal authority.
Seleucid kings generated most of their revenues through the control of agricultural land. In theory, Seleucus I and his successors claimed ownership of all the land under his control as ‘spear-won’. Despite such rhetoric, much of the king’s territory was either administratively controlled by tributary cities, subject peoples (ethne), or temples. Land not granted to communities or individuals was then directly administered as the kings’ personal property. A major form of royal benefaction was the granting of land, parcelled out as kleroi to veterans and others.
As discussed above, the recipients of kleroi were obliged to pay rent and provide military service in exchange for their land. Kleroi could take the form of vast seigniorial estates, complete with villages of serfs (laoi) who owed cash payments to the estate owner. In the third century BC, for example, a man named Mnesimachos was granted the right to exploit lands belonging to the Temple of Artemis, provided he paid tax to both temple and king. Estate holders and kleroi helped collect taxes from villages under their control, and forwarded these revenues to royal officials.43
The king also established local monopolies over important salt flats and created royal forests to control timber resources, his ‘private domain’(idios logos). Although we do not have a clear picture of the Seleucid tax system, excises were extensive and varied, consisting of land taxes, guild taxes, taxes on cattle, poll taxes, road tolls, and excise taxes.44 Our best depiction of the procedures of tax collection comes from Judea in the Book of Maccabees. Here, the hard work of tax collection was farmed out to the High Priests, who extracted the revenue from their people and then paid a lump sum of 300 silver talents to the Seleucid treasury. The Judean arrangement is an example of a relatively common type of delegation that flowed to local officials and even to native leaders.
No ancient source lists the exact revenues of the Seleucid king. According to Herodotus (3.90–96), Persian kings collected around 9000 (Attic) talents from the region controlled by Antiochus III, although significant economic development in Syria and Mesopotamia would have increased the revenues of these regions since the time of Darius I. Antigonus One-Eyed, whose reign in the 300s roughly overlapped that of Antiochus III, collected revenues of 11,000 talents.45 From both these textual references, there is reason to think that the minimum royal revenues of Antiochus consisted of approximately 10,000 talents, although Aphergis has estimated that they might have been close to double this.
While Antiochus enjoyed revenues of 10–20,000 talents, he also had enormous expenses. An active army of 100,000 soldiers could cost over 6000 talents per year.46 Benefactions to cities, often through tax breaks, but also in the form of gifts of food or oil, dowries for the daughters of the local elite, and monumental building projects cost the king a great deal of money, even if the exact amount is impossible to reconstruct. Maintenance of the court was another large if poorly attested expense, as the king was expected to feed and entertain his friends and companions in high style, and also to lavish gifts and money upon favourites. Thus, while the king was rich, he was also continually strapped for cash.
The Seleucid king had none of the sophisticated financial mechanisms available to modern governments. He did not issue government bonds or engage in deficit spending. There was no central bank. Private banks existed, but in very rudimentary form and not on a scale to assist state finance. In some cases, wealthy individuals might offer the state private loans for particular causes or initiatives: Hermeias loaned Antiochus cash to fund his army in 219 BC.
As in most ancient economies, war loot played a critical role in Seleucid finances. Success or failure in war reinforced itself through a vicious cycle: military success provided large sums of cash, which could be used to cover the immense cost of waging war (including the expense of hiring thousands of mercenaries) and fund subsequent campaigns. Defeat in battle left the loser saddled with tremendous debt and looted cities and resources. If not quickly reversed by energetic leadership and compensating victories elsewhere, a serious military setback could lead to long-term state decline.47
Seleucid religions and the royal cult
The Selecucid Empire was characterized by sweeping cultural and religious diversity. The official attitude of the Seleucids toward this religious variation swung between two poles: tolerance on one side to full-blown participation in native religious rituals on the other. Seleucus I, for example, patronized the temple of Atargatis, a native goddess whose cult centred on Bambyke in Northern Syria,48 and Antiochus I rebuilt the temple to Nabu in Borsippa, a suburb of Babylon, claiming to shape the bricks with his own hands.49
The Seleucid policy of toleration is best illustrated by Antiochus III’s policy toward the Jews, as he recognized the power of the Jewish priestly elite to enforce religious taboos with necessary force. After his capture of Jerusalem, he also would directly subsidize religious rituals performed at the Temple.
Yet royal toleration had its limits: at the end of the day, Seleucid kings needed cash to pay their armies. Native temples doubled as repositories of dedicatory treasures, and these stockpiles of wealth often proved irresistible. Seleucus I despoiled temples in Ecbatana and Babylon to help finance his campaigns against Antigonus One-Eyed, and Antiochus III would also find the riches locked within native temples a temptation too difficult to resist.50
With respect to the traditional Greek pantheon, Apollo stood out as a Seleucid favourite. Seleucus I Nicator claimed that he was, in fact, the natural son of Apollo, who had stamped him with an anchor birthmark as a sign of divine parentage.51 In many ways, this story mimicked earlier legends that claimed Alexander the Great was the natural son of Zeus Ammon.
Antiochus I assiduously patronized the temple of Apollo at Miletus, and the Seleucids turned the springs of Daphne near Antioch into a major shrine of Apollo and his sister Artemis.52 The native Babylonian deity Nabu, a frequent recipient of royal patronage, was syncretised with Apollo: the polytheistic Seleucids were capable of interactions with nearly all the gods they came across.53 Antiochus III sacrificed to Athena at Ilium prior to his invasion of Europe, and his son Antiochus IV would later claim a special relationship with Zeus Olympios, helping to finance construction of the temple of Zeus in Athens.54
In addition to Greek and native deities, Seleucid kings were themselves gods. Greeks had been honouring powerful persons as gods since the Classical era, most notably the Spartan admiral Lysander who received altars and sacrifices following a dramatic victory in the Peloponnesian War.55 Alexander the Great claimed divine honours for his companion Haephestion, and toward the end of his life seems to have demanded such a status for himself.56 In the age of the successors, successful warlords were the objects of voluntary worship by local communities: Antigonus One-Eyed and Demetrius Poliorcetes were welcomed as gods in Athens.57 As warlords transitioned into kings, many Greek cities bestowed them with divine honours, establishing cults for deceased kings as well as living monarchs and their families. These cults were for the most part voluntary and were initiated by the civic leadership of individual poleis.
Greeks active in the royal cult did not necessarily believe that the kings they honoured with libation and sacrifice were equivalent to the Olympian gods. Rather, such divine honours acknowledged the kings’ exceptional worldly power, their ability to mete out punishment and bestow material favours: tasks far more present and real, it seemed at times, than the immortal gods ever were.
A major change in the Seleucid royal cult took place under Antiochus III, who established the royal cult as an imperial institution, chiefly regulating its quality and content, and personally appointing high priests to oversee the cult at the satrapal level. In 193 BC, for example, Antiochus stated that his wife Laodice was to be honoured as a goddess, and he sent instructions throughout the empire to this effect.58