In 281 BC, Seleucus I Nicator (the victor) crossed the hellespont and was very close to reunifying alexander's empire, except ptoelemy I soter's egypt, until he was assinated by ptoelomy keranous, who became king of macedonia and was absolutely obliterated by the celts that Antiochus I soter, (seleucus's son) would defeat in galatia (modern-day north-western turkey). Seleucus had the entire eastern portion of alexander's empire was planning on becoming king of his homeland and letting Antiochus I soter rule his asian possessions while seleucus ruled greece, epirus, macedonia, and thracia. My question is what if Seleucus didn't die and became king of macedon, how would this effect macedonian politics later on, how would it effect pyrrhus of epirus andf the punic wars, as well as the seleucid empire?

2. Can Antiochus III megas reunite alexander's empire by somehow defeating the big elephant in the ancient world, the roman republic in the roman syrian war?

3. can Antiochus IV epiphanes win in a war against rome after conquering egypt?

4. Can Antiochus VII conquer parthia keep the seleucid empire alive for a possible 100 or 150 years? (as you can tell I am a seleucid fanboy from Rome 2, HAIL SELEUCIA!!! HAIL ANTIOCH!)

your thoughts? (planning on a TL on this on alternate history.com soon, just need to know how this would work.)

Uh, shouldn't this be about AH with ponies?

4704784 actually the parthians constantly lost to the seleucids and was on the breaking point by antiochus VII until he decided to fight the entire parthian army with just his bodygurad. bactria was very much a friend to the seleucids after ntiochus III turned them into a satrapy, western persia and mesopatamia was super loyal to the seleucids and only fighting with the parthians after 63 BC when Rome annexed the seleucid, not only that, but Armenia was the seleucid's bitch for a very long time. about antiochus VI Epiphanes, he had all of egypt except alexandria under his control and was besieging the city until Gaius Popillius Laenas drew a circle around him after antiochus refused to leave egypt and said that if he left the circle before he agreed to leave, there would be war with Rome. Antiochus would then withdraw. that's where the phrase line in the sand comes from, it was in 168 BC. Remember that this was during the reign of perseus and around or some time after the battle of pydna and rome was very paranoid about the east. Antiochus the 3rd Megas could've used hannibal as a general instead of a fucking admiral and could've invaded greece with not 5,00 men, but 250-500,000 men which would've scared the shit out of Rome as they had never dealt with an army that large in any preivous engagement.

also ytoud idn't my question against Pyrrhus of epirus, would he marry into seleucus's family 1/3rd epirote, 1/3rd seleucid/ 1/3rd macedonian son become the new king of macedon when he died and also scythia was quite peaceful with Rome and the seleucids. hell it wasn't until Attila's time that they started to raise some hell in the east.

4704784 also it wasn't until antiochus the 2nd Theos that Arsaces lead the parni to become the parthians that we know today, before it was just an angry general. so if arsaces was crushed by antiochus theos, would that save the empire for a while. (there was TL about this top[ic called seleucid triumph, it could be a game if someone takes up the sword one day.)

4706308 that's the mauryan empire for everything west of the indus no Scythia didn't invade, antiocchus II was busy with egypt, antiochus 1st sioter was fighting the celts. also rome didn't start getting involved in greece until after the second punic war (during the reign of antiochus the 3rd, antochus the 2nd had been dead for a while) oh yeah we forgot bout what if hannibal was a general for antiochus and antiochus the 7ths campaigns in the east. wow, we both know a lot about an empire that most people never really know until they total war. hell, I think the creative assembly didn't have any prior knowledge to the seleucids when making rome 1 and planned on making the middle east full of rebels. I guess someone looked ancient kingdom s in the east and saw the seleucid empire in that exact era.

4706308 okay, I have a another scenario for you: Rome had won the seige of veii tagainst the etruscan league, what if they lost and what if pyrrhus was succesful in his pyrrhic wars aginst macedon, carhage, and the latin league (mostly just Rome), what would happen?

did you also read seleucid triumph?

4706308 for pyrrhus, no I'm saying what if he had a son that all that was listed above and when eh died, that man would be king of macedon, not the terrible politician that we know as Phillips the 5th. would it strenghten the relationship between greece, epirus, macedon, and the seleucids and what would happen to carthage during the punic wars. the new king of macedon might be a bit more careful when it comes to diplomacy after the ass-whooping rome gave carthage in first punic war. also, the persians and greeks would be more than happy to join arms with their king to fight off the roman barbarians who snacthed and seemingly raped their brothers in greece, epirus and macedon. the woman would twice the work effort in order for the economy and seleucids might start to use slavery though it wouldn't help their relationship with the east, who couldn't stand slavery. the slaves could be roman prisoners of war however, and antiochus could say that they were going to be released when the war was over (most likely the prisoners being sent to carthage with hannibal as a gift for friendship and peace for a long time.)

4706375 Indo-schythians hated just bactria, they didn't really care much for seleucids and fought the maurans a lot.

I'm talking about the scythians of western russia.

4706937 both were kinda west of the urals, just the scythians were a tiny bit more south then the samartians and can you answer the question about the antiochus's?

4707160 hanniobal barca ageneral for antiochus the third, antiochus the 7th conquering parthia and the east, antiochus IV epiphanes conquering egypt and then somehow defeating rome, and finally how could pyrrhus win his wars, also did ypou read seleucid triumph.

4707880 here also, antiochus VII had basically brought parthia to it's knees before he faced the main parthian army with just his bodyguard, hannibal knew how to deal with rome's legions and also how to combat it with his strategy and the greeks hated carthage but not as much as they hated Rome, the native egyptians would be more loyal to the seleucids who liberated tfrom the ptoelemies who basically used the native egyptians as they're toys until the battle of raphia where the army was changed and allowed native egyptians to have training and experience , Huge Mistake as we would see later on, they would be loyal to antiochus unless he decided to try and change the egyptians, rome didn't do that because they learned from persia, antiochus might do the same, hell the macabee revolt was just some jews who hated the idea of hellenizing, not the entire jew population like most people think. also, antiochus didn't ban judaism, he banned circumcison, which is understandable and most jews accepted that, not the maccabees though. hannibal would also know how to fight the roman armty and would actually have numbers on his side during this and would be able to shift the phalanx into a usable position for a battle that happened from out of nowhere, just like how Rome actually fought, the phalanx does best on prepared battlefields, not ambush and crap like that, hannibal might be able to change that. also pyrrhus was actually planning on liberating the samnites and bruttians from Rome, thus giving the greeks to more threating protectors until Rome forcefully shoved dowen their throat to be an ally, not an enemy of rome. Rome used the sons of kings as leveragefor an ally ( cough Antiochus VI cough) and then brought that son to power so he could spread "good" Roman culture to his/here kingdom. carthage would just go okay, you can have italy we found Iberia to be a lot richer, because Iberia was how Hannibal funded his war on carthage. Wow, we talked about this all night.

4708208 Antiochus the seventh had parthia on the run, but he decided to attack the parthian royal army and was unsurprisingngly defeated leadind to the selecuids keeping just mesopatamia and syria, and it took generations for the parthians to conquer mespatamia. Hannibal did very un-hannibal things at zama amagnesia. in the pyrrhic wars, I beleive that if he wins, the umbrians and etruscan would and pyrrhus would include them in the treaty, this would keep carthage wouldn't give two shits about losing Sicily, just malta, corisca, and sardinia, they could colonial views to Southern and eastern Iberia for the valuable Silver mines.

Anyways, what do you think of Seleuicd Triumph? also the victory of Veii is quickly followed by a capture of Rome, ending the young republic. at zama, hannibsl did very un-hannibal things, and sipio Africanus (the man who would later defeat antiochus at magnesia and hannibal at Zama) had defeated hadsrubal at the materus and hadsrubal and hannibal used the same tactics as his brother.

antiochus the 7th did face parthia's main army and had it on the run but he attacked the parthian king's army with a bodyguard unit and was defeated. there is an TL about this called Antiochus the savior for hannibal called Romes turns east. then there is one for antiochus the 3rd called Arche Seleucia give them some reads. oh and here is a pyrrhus one called another victory like this one enjoy.

4708208 Antiochus VII did fight the main Parthian army plenty of times, it was just at one point he believed that he was the new Alexander and tried to attack the fleeing parthians with just his Bodyguards. For anti-epirot, I meant to say Pyrrhus' son being 1/3rd Macedonian, 1/3rd epirote, 1/3rd seleucid if he married into Seleucus's family, would his son be an ally for the seleucids. also, What I meant to say for Pyrrhus vs everyone is that he destroys both Rome and Carthage, absolutely crushing Most Latin and Punic resistance for the next 30-60 years. How would this affect ancient Politics in the East with the selecuids now being Large and in charge because of egypt's internal turmoil, a stable epirote empire ally in the west and the celts conquered. My scenario: Antiochus III Megas Pushes and conquers armenia, Persia, and Bactria, He declares Seleucia to be the Capitol of the seleucid empire, allowing the the east to be more loyal but he loses some of the west's trust, not all.

With the east soothed over, he finishes his ancestor's unfinished business with the ptolemies and conquers them. Without a magnesia because of no room, the Epirote empire falling into decay, and the mauryan empire wrecked by internal politics, the seleucid empire could become the superpower of the east and could survive until, at the least, 120 AD.

Thoughts?

5339083 just felt like it, plus saw some misunderstandings and decided to rectify them.

5339083 want to do a TL Collab together?

5339615 alright, I'll send you a PM about what it is about and my account on AH:here