Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T19:30:32.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The First Syrian War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

W. W. Tarn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Existing accounts of this war only know what now appears to have been its second phase; but the material now available should enable us partially to reconstruct the first phase, and recover for the history of Asia something of two lost years, 276 and 275. The starting point is Mr. Sidney Smith's new readings and translation of the fragment of the Babylonian chronicle concerning Antiochus I, with which the decree of Ilium, O.G.I. 219, works in and out; overlapping them come the letter of Ptolemy II to Miletus and the Milesian decree in reply.

The Babylonian chronicle shews that in spring 276 the army of Ptolemy II invaded Seleucid Syria, and some time later in 276 Antiochus defeated it and drove it out; while heretofore it has been supposed that it was Ptolemy who defeated Antiochus some time in 274–3. On the face of it, then, Ptolemy was the original aggressor in the long series of wars between the two kingdoms. But can the war be traced back before spring 276? There had been bond enough between Ptolemy I and Seleucus I to prevent actual war so long as either lived; but once Seleucus was dead (280), Ptolemy II immediately threw down the gauntlet by recognising Keraunos as king of Macedonia, which Antiochus I claimed; while next year he damaged Antiochus considerably, for Miletus, Seleucid in 280/79, became Egyptian some time in 279/8. It does not follow there was fighting; but Ptolemy restored to Miletus a long-lost piece of territory, which must have become King's Land; and if he took King's Land from Antiochus it was an act of war.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , 1926 , pp. 155 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1926

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Beloch, J., Griechische Geschichte 2, vol. iv. (1), 1925Google Scholar, will shew how the matter stands. See also Meyer, Ernst, Die Grenzen der hellenistischen Staaten des Kleinasiens, 1925.Google Scholar

2 Babylonian Historical Texts, 1924. Mr. Smith very kindly helped me over the meaning of this document; but the responsibility for the use here made of it is my own.

3 A. Rehm, No. 139 of the Delphinion inscriptions, in Wiegand, Th., Milet, iii. 1.Google Scholar See note 13 post.

4 I. Delphinion, 123 = Syll.3 322. I cannot follow Corradi, G., L'Asia Minore e le isole dell' Egeo sotto i primi Seleucidi, Riv. di fil. 48, 1920, p. 161Google Scholar, who believes Miletus wasstill Seleucid.

5 S.E.G. 1, 363.

6 Niese's dates here were substantially right; but the date of this treaty now depends on the fragment of Philodemus published by Mayer, A. in 1912 (Philol. 71, p. 226)Google Scholar, on which see the writer in J.H.S., 1920, p. 148. The date is independent of the Athenian archon-list and its troubles.

7 Memnon, 19 gives Nicomedes' treaty with the Gauls.

8 O.G.I. 57 gives the date; see Meyer, op. cit., p. 46. That the Lycian possessions were acquired by Ptolemy I in 295, though possible enough, is pure guesswork.

9 O.G.I. 748. As the treaty between Antiochus and Antigonus is 279 (note 6), Dittenberger's dates here are all one year too late.

10 Memnon, 18.

11 Lucian, , Zeuxis II.Google Scholar The Myrina terracotta of an elephant trampling on a Gaul, , B.C.H., 1885, p. 485Google Scholar, may refer to this victory.

12 Suidas s.v.

13 See especially de Sanctis, G. in Atti Acc. Torino, 1913, p. 1220Google Scholar; Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U. von in G.G.A. 1914, p. 65Google Scholar; Kolbe, W. in G.G.A. 1916, p. 433.Google Scholar Many others have copied. It has always been obvious that Rehm's dating could not stand, as I pointed out in J.H.S., 1924, p. 146 n. 29; and in fact Rostagni, A., Poeti Alessandrini, p. 374Google Scholar, had already stated in 1916 that the date must fall in Calibrates' nauarchate as established by me (note 16 post). Rostagni's dating has apparently attracted no attention, and I regret that I did not know of it myself till this article was practically complete; but I gladly acknowledge his priority. Of course it was not possible to see the exact placing of Ptolemy's letter till a correct translation of the Antiochus chronicle was available.

14 S.E.G. 1, 363. At the date of this inscription, Miletus, Myndus, and Halicarnassus were all Ptolemaic; it cannot therefore, on account of Miletus, be earlier than 278 (or very late in 279); and as it must be a peace year, it cannot well be later than 277.

15 Nauarch and Nesiarch, J.H.S. 1911, 251. Calibrates, formerly omitted from Pauly-Wissowa, has at last appeared in the 1924 Supplement volume, where P. Schoch is much puzzled to work in the accepted dating of Ptolemy's letter with the Callicrates inscriptions.

16 S.E.G. 1, 370 (Calibrates) and 2, 512 (Patroclus) add nothing for this purpose.

17 Invasions in either direction along the Syrian highway were often accompanied by a fleet, e.g. Perdiccas in 321, Antigonus in 306, Antiochus III and Ptolemy IV in 219.

18 I. Delphinion, 123.

19 Anyte, in Anth. Pal. 7, 492.Google Scholar

20 Beside Memnon, 18Google Scholar, it may be referred to in Syll.3 410; see de Sanctis, G., Contributi alla storia dell' impero Seleucideo, Atti Acc. Torino, 1911/1912, p. 793.Google Scholar

21 Wiedemann, A. in Rh. Mus. 1883, p. 391Google Scholar; Bouché-Leclercq, A., Hist. des Lagides, 1, p. 175.Google Scholar

22 As Demetrius against Rhodes and Cassander, Gonatas against Cassandreia, Ptolemy II. against Antiochus I. and Gonatas, Antiochus III. against Rome.

23 As I am pointing out the defects in Rehm's dating of one document, I should like also to say how much I have learnt from his great publication of the Delphinion inscriptions.

24 He was therefore not the Telmessian ‘Ptolemy son of Lysimachus’ of O.G.I. 55Google Scholar = Tit. Aaiae Min. II., No. 1. I gave my own reasons long ago (J.H.S. 1910, p. 215) for not accepting M. Holleaux' conjecture, which would import thathe was; (I doubt it being possible as Greek;) E. Kalinka in Tit. As. Min. now reads All we know of the Telmessian is that he claimed descent from King Lysimachus of Thrace (for this coin see Hill, G. F. in Anatolian Studies, p. 211Google Scholar), and must, from the fact that he accepted the rule of one small city, have been a man who was not in high politics. Obviously there were men of royal blood who had dropped out of the race, from choice or otherwise; for example, Demetrius' son by Deidameia, Alexander, lived quietly in Egypt (Webster, E. W. in Class. Phil., 1922, 357CrossRefGoogle Scholar), as did Cassander's nephew Antipater Etesias after his expulsion from Macedonia in 26 (Zeno Pap., Cairo, No. 70). Guesses are easy and worthless; if one be wanted, suppose the Telmessian's father Lysimachus to have been one of the children of King Lysimachus' son Agathocles (these children are lost to sight after 282), married to an illegitimate daughter of Ptolemy II. The generations would fit; for the Telmessian was still alive in 189.

25 Diod. 22, 4; Euseb. 1, 236.

26 Paus. 1, 7, 3.

27 For their extent see Meyer, op. cit.

28 O.G.I. 29, with Add. vol. 2, p. 539. The use of ὑπέρ shews that Arsinoe was still alive.