A Fight to Reclaim the Central Asian Frontier. The Seleucid and Parthian Rivalry in the 230s BC

AFigh o Reclaim he Cen al Asian F on ie . The Seleucid and Pa hian Ri al y in he 230s BC Nikolaus Leo O e oom ABSTRACT This a icle in es iga es he ini ial con lic be ween he Pa hians and Seleucids in he la e 230s BC ha es- ablished amuch longe pe iod o i al y be ween hese opposing o ces. A saces I ounded he independen Pa hian kingdom in no heas e n I an du ing ape iod o geopoli ical c isis h oughou he Hellenis ic Middle Eas . Al hough he success ully emo ed and eplaced he ebellious Seleucid sa ap in he egion and quickly in eg a ed his ollowe s in o he local a is oc acy, he Pa hian s a e emained ulne able. The Pa hians could expec some o m o imminen Seleucid e alia ion i he wa be ween Seleucus II and his b o he An iochus Hie ax subsided. This a icle econside s he eas e n campaign o Seleucus agains he Pa hians o app ecia e be e he agency and accomplishmen s o he Pa hians. I challenges he adi ion ha he Pa hians we e weak and ac ed cowa dly. Ins ead, i concludes ha he Pa hians p o ed esou ce ul, cle e , and iumphan . KEYWORDS Pa hians; Pa hia; Bac ia; A sacids; Seleucids; Cen al Asia; Middle Eas ; Hellenis ic. In he 240s–230s BC Seleucid hegemony o e he I anian pla eau collapsed du ing ape iod o c isis ueled by damaging ex e nal con lic s and in e nal u moil (O e oom 2016a; O e - oom 2020, 65–93).1 I was a his ime ha Seleucid go e no s in Pa hia and Bac ia b oke away om he Seleucid s a e o o m i al egimes. Mo eo e , he he e o insigni ican Pa ni ibe li ing along he Cen al Asian on ie , unde he leade ship o he capable and cha - isma ic A saces I, used his c isis o es ablish i sel in no heas e n I an, swi ly occupying a egion known as Pa hia and in eg a ing in o he local communi ies.2 Wi h his occupa ion he independen kingdom o Pa hia eme ged, es ablishing he A sacid dynas y as anew o ce wi hin he geopoli ics o he Hellenis ic Middle Eas and spa king i al y be ween he Pa hians and Seleucids. The ocus o his a icle is an in es iga ion o he ini ial con lic be ween he Pa hians and Seleucids in he la e 230s ha es ablished amuch longe pe iod o i al y. Wi h he success o A saces Iin ounding he independen Pa hian kingdom in no heas e n I an, he Pa hians could expec some o m o imminen Seleucid e alia ion. The disin eg a ion o he Seleu- cids’ eas e n on ie du ing he c isis made aSeleucid campaign o econque he egion and punish he Pa hians and Bac ians inc easingly necessa y. By he la e hal o he 230s, he Seleucid king, Seleucus II, could no longe a o d o igno e he g owing powe o he Pa hians and Bac ians in he eas . Jus in eco ds ha Seleucus ‘came o ake engeance on he ebels (ad de ec o s pe sequendos enien e)’ (Jus in, XXXXI, 4.9). Seleucus moun ed he i s oyal campaign in o he eas since his g ea -g and a he bu wi h much di e en esul s. 1 All da es in his s udy a e BC unless o he wise indica ed. 2 A saces success ully gained he suppo o he indigenous popula ion. F ye 1984, 208; Shahbazi 1986; Olb ych 2003, 73–75. STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1, 105–118 106 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1 I appea s ha he ini ial s ages o he eas e n campaign wen well o SeleucusII. He paci ied Babylonia, s eng hened Media, and eclaimed much o Pa hia, empo a ily o cing A saces I o wi hd aw owa d he Cen al Asian s eppe. S abo s a es, ‘La e A saces, when he led (φεύγων) om Seleucus Callinicus, wi hd ew in o he coun y o he Apasiacae’ (S abo, XI, 8.8). 3 Ye he e is no eco d o amili a y ic o y o e he Pa hians by Seleucus, no is he e su icien e idence o assume ha Seleucus es o ed Seleucid dominion o e no heas e n I an by es ablishing Pa hia as a assal p incipali y.4 Mo eo e , he Roman adi ion is clea ha A saces la e de ea ed Seleucus (Jus in, XXXXI, 4.9–10; Ammianus, XXIII, 6.3; Malalas, VIII, 198). A saces I’s esou ces we e qui e limi ed. 5 I Seleucus II had de ea ed he Pa hians decisi ely, his would ha e de as a ed A saces’ posi ion. I would ha e been almos impossible o him o hen aise ano he a my s ong enough o de ea Seleucus la e in he campaign. I he e was amili a y engagemen in he ea ly s ages o he in asion, i mus ha e been mino and inconclusi e. Thus, S abo’sb ie accoun is peculia and equi es u he conside a ion. A saces Ihad been eadying o aSeleucid in asion o yea s by he ime Seleucus II en e ed Pa hia, le - ying soldie s, expanding his e i o y, and o ging an alliance wi h he new king o Bac ia, Diodo us II (Jus in, XXXXI, 4.8–9). I pe haps seems odd hen ha A saces would ‘ lee’ Pa hia wi hou amajo engagemen . S abo’spassage di ec ly connec s he ligh o A saces om Seleucus o he ligh o he Pe sian gene al, Spi amenes, om Alexande he G ea (S abo, XI, 8.8; A ian, Anab., III, 28.16, 29.12, 30.1). In S abo’saccoun bo h eas e n commande s appea cowa dly, despe a e, and in e io compa ed o hei Macedonian coun e pa s. Ye S abo he e ollows awell-es ablished G aeco-Roman li e a y adi ion o po aying eas e ne s as in e io , and he e o e hese s e eo yped cha ac e is ics o eas e ne s in his passage likely a e asupe icial exagge a ion o he ac ual mo i es o A saces.6 Ins ead o iewing A saces Ias aweak eas e ne , leeing in he ace o he supe io Mac- edonian gene al, Seleucus II, i is p e e able o conside he ac ions o A saces in amo e cons uc i e ligh . I we iew Seleucus’ eas e n campaign wi hin he la ge con ex s o along se ies o asymme ical de ensi e wa s waged by he Pa hians agains mo e adi ionally a med Macedonian and Roman in ade s o e he nex wo cen u ies, hen we ge asense ha A saces’ wi hd awal in he ace o Seleucus’ ad ance was in ac aplanned Pa hian s a egy, a he han acowa dly escape. 7 S abo he e inad e en ly appea s o eco d he i s 3 Fo backg ound on he Apasiacae and he ela ionship o Pa hia wi h o he Cen al Asian ibes, see Le ne 1999, 34, no e 6. Fo S abo and he Pa hians, see D ij e s 1998. 4 Many schola s a gue he Pa hians emained a leas loosely in eg a ed wi hin Seleucid hegemony du ing hei ea ly his o y; howe e , he de ea and/o submission o he Pa hians in his pe iod is an exagge a ion. Wiesehö e 1986; She win-Whi e– Kuh 1993; Wiesehö e 1994a; 1994b; B osius 2006; Engels 2011; S oo man 2011–2012; Engels 2014a; 2014b; Sampson 2015, 42; S - oo man 2015; Wengho e – Houle 2016; S oo man 2017; 2018; Wengho e 2018; E ickson ed. 2018; Kosmin 2018; O e oom 2020. 5 E en a e o ging an empi e, he Pa hian ield a my emained ela i ely small (be ween 20.000– 30.000 men). Po e 2010, 157; Olb ych 2016, 295; McLaughlin 2016, 223–224. A saces would ha e commanded only a ac ion o hese la e esou ces. 6 The G eeks and Romans iewed he Pa hians as amix u e be ween he Scy hians and Pe sians. Thus, o he Romans, he Pa hians we e ie ce han he Pe sians, bu hey oo su e ed om eas e n despo ism and duplici y. (Isaac 2006, chs. 4–5, 8; Le ouge-Cohen 2007; Le ouge-Cohen 2009; G ego a i 2015, 203–204; O e oom 2016b; Mülle 2017; Engels 2017; O e oom 2017a; 2017b). 7 Reimagining Pa hian mili a ism is asubjec upon which Iha e w i en ex ensi ely (O e oom 2016a; 2016b; 2016c; 2017a; 2017b; 2019a; 2019b; 2019c; 2020; o hcoming a; o hcoming b; o h- coming c; o hcoming d). 107NIKOLAUS LEO OVERTOOM su i ing e e ence o aunique mode o wa a e de eloped by he Pa hians, wha Iha e called hei ‘Feign Re ea , De ea in De ail’ mode o wa a e (O e oom 2017b; O e oom 2020, 27–64). The Pa hians’ unique mode o wa a e ga e hem an impo an ad an age in hei longs anding i al y wi h he Seleucids, and Iwould a gue played amajo ac o in he ailu e o Seleucus’ in asion. Wi hin his longs anding mili a y adi ion, he Pa hians applied hei ac ical app oach- es o ba le o hei la ge s a egic objec i es. Mobili y, lexibili y, decep ion, in imida ion, and concen a ion o o ce we e a he co e o hei campaign s a egies. The Pa hians had h ee undamen al s a egic app oaches, wha Icall he ‘O e whelm S a egy’, he ‘Ha ass S a egy’, and he ‘Decep i e Wi hd awal S a egy’ (O e oom 2020, 49). Simila o hei ac ical app oaches o wa , hese s a egies we e lexible and in e changeable o e he cou se o acampaign, and since he Pa hians a ely possessed anume ical ad an age in acon lic , hey ended o a o he la e wo s a egies. In campaigns whe e an enemy became ulne able h ough miscalcula ion, coe cion, o decep ion, he Pa hians u ilized hei O e whelm S a egy o engage he enemy agg essi ely wi h o e whelming o ce and de ea ha enemy in de ail (O e oom 2020, 49–50, 103, 124–125, 183, 204, 209–210, 236, 244–245, 266, 270). Fo example, he Pa hians implemen ed hei O e - whelm S a egy o a ack C assus a Ca hae and la e o des oy Ma c An ony’sbaggage ain du ing his in asion o Media. In 36 he Pa hians su ounded and annihila ed a ound 10.000 Roman soldie s along wi h An ony’slega e, Oppius S a ianus, and he c ucially impo an Roman siege engines (Pa e culus, II, 82; Plu a ch, An . 38.2–3; Dio, XXXIX, 25–26; Flo us, II, 20.3; Li y, Pe ioch. 130). Ye he Pa hians also u ilized he O e whelm S a egy o de ea he Seleucids se e al imes (Jus in, XXXVI, 1.5, XXXVIII, 9.2, 10.7–10, XLI, 4.9–10; Jus in, P ol. 35–36; Diodo us, XXXIII–XXXV; Josephus, An . XIII, 186, 218–219, 253; IMaccabees, 14.2–3; VMaccabees, 21.23–24; Appian, Sy . 11.67-8; Ammianus, XXIII, 6.3; Malalas, VIII, 198; A henaeus, 5.38; Posi- donius, 16 = FG H, III.258). The mobili y, lexibili y, and sus ainabili y o he Pa hian a my on campaign gene ally was an e ec i e, o en de as a ing app oach o wa a e ha us a ed many o he Pa hians’ nume ous enemies. I he Pa hians aced an enemy ha could no be o e come wi h b u e o ce, hey p e e ed o ac agg essi ely wi h an asymme ic s yle o s a egic wa a e ha dis essed, hounded, and con used ha enemy o e g ea dis ances. The Pa hians’ Ha ass S a egy a emp ed o o ce an enemy h ough coe cion in o making mis akes du ing i s ad ance o e ea ha migh c ea e an oppo uni y o he Pa hians o exploi (O e oom 2020, 50–51, 121, 124–25, 182, 183, 202–203). I u ilized mobili y, coo dina ion, and psychological wa a e o demo alize and weaken an enemy. Fo example, he Pa hians implemen ed hei Ha ass S a egy especially du ing he e ea s o C assus and An ony. The Pa hians ou maneu e ed, isola ed, and en el- oped Roman de achmen s nume ous imes du ing An ony’sad ance and e ea om Media as hey agg essi ely pu sued he Roman a my (Plu a ch, An . 39.2–50.1; Flo us, II, 20.4–10). Ye he Pa hians also u ilized he Ha ass S a egy o manipula e mul iple Seleucid a mies (Poly- bius, X, 29.3–31.3; Jus in, XXXVI, 1.4, XXXVIII, 9.2). I he mo e agg essi e Ha ass S a egy did no wo k o was no applicable, he Pa hians could u n o hei Decep i e Wi hd awal S a egy (O e oom 2020, 50–51, 99, 103, 114, 117–118, 203). Because o hei supe io mobili y, he Pa hians decep i ely could wi hd awal deep in o hei e i o y in he hope ha hey could encou age o e con idence o complacency in an enemy. Fo example, he Pa hians implemen ed he Decep i e Wi hd awal S a egy o pe suade C assus o ad ance owa d Ca hae and o encou age An ony o lea e his baggage ain in a ulne able posi ion. Ye he Pa hians also u ilized he Decep i e Wi hd awal S a - egy o ou maneu e and decei e he Seleucids se e al imes (S abo, XI, 8.8; Jus in, XXXVIII, 108 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1 10.6–10, XLI, 4.9–10; Polybius, X, 28.5–7, 31.3–5; Josephus, An . XIII, 251). Once he enemy had elaxed i s gua d o made adange ous blunde , he Pa hians could coun e a ack wi h hei O e whelm o Ha ass s a egies. Some migh wonde i he s a egic decep i e wi hd awals o he Pa hians in hese a i- ous campaigns simply could be eal e ea s. Amili a y e ea is no necessa ily asu ende o ade ea ; i can be pa o apolicy o s a egic wi hd awal, he main in en o which is o p ese e one’s o ces and o eengage la e unde ci cums ances ha a e mo e a o able. How- e e , i s , he Pa hian s yle o e ea was unique compa ed o mo e con en ionally a med Pe sian, Hellenis ic, o Roman examples because o i s mo e mobile and lexible nomadic elemen s. Ancien a mies adi ionally sough ou climac ic, decisi e ba les wi h ace- o- ace s eng h o a ms as he de e mining ac o . Ye he Pa hians a ely did his because hei s yle o wa a e was non adi ional, and hey ne e de eloped he hea y in an y necessa y o ma ch Hellenis ic o Roman a mies on mo e adi ional e ms. This majo di e ence in mili a y philosophy helps explain he con usion and us a ion o he Seleucids and Ro- mans in hei nume ous unsuccess ul con lic s wi h he Pa hians. The s a egic decep i e wi hd awals o he Pa hians, because o hei as ly supe io mobili y and di e en mili a y philosophy, we e indeed unique compa ed o he mo e s anda d unde s anding o e ea s by o he con empo a y mili a ies in he G aeco-Roman wo ld. Second, i is clea om he sou ces ha he Pa hians wan ed hei enemies o assume ha hey we e no only e ea ing bu also leeing. The Pa hians wen h ough g ea di icul ies o implemen asys em o o ganized chaos du ing hei s a egic wi hd awals. They wan ed o c ea e he imp ession o diso de and weakness, while main aining s ic discipline and awa eness, o capi alize on oppo uni ies. Thus, he Pa hians eigned weakness o accomplish simila objec i es, namely he de ea o an o e con iden and ulne able enemy in de ail. When he Pa hians ‘ led’ an impo an e i o y in he ace o amajo in asion; hey we e no eally abandoning i . They ul ima ely wan ed o lu e hei enemies in o making poo mili a y decisions so ha he Pa hians could isola e, ha ass, and o e whelm hem. Finally, he e is enough e idence o sugges ha he Pa hians’ s a egic app oach o wa a e, including hei policy o s a egic decep i e wi hd awals, was ai ly uni o m o e he cou se o wo cen u ies (O e oom 2020). The Pa hians could apply hei asymme ic mode o wa a e in awell-de eloped s a egy o e many mon hs and o e hund eds o miles. The Pa hians’ unique app oach o implemen ing a e ea in he o m o s a egic decep i e wi hd awals complimen ed hei mili a y ad an ages. I also helps explain hei abili y o wi hs and majo e o s on se e al occasions by he Seleucids and Romans o subdue hem. A e ag eeing o a uce wi h his b o he , An iochus Hie ax, in 236, Seleucus II came o he eas o ake engeance on he Pa hians and Bac ians. Al hough A saces Io Pa hia and Diodo us II o Bac ia had o med amili a y alliance agains his impending h ea , Pa hia was he mos immedia e and ulne able a ge o he Seleucids (Hol 1999, 62–64; O e oom 2020, 95–99). When Seleucus in aded Pa hia some ime in he la e hal o he 230s, he Pa - hians we e no able o o e whelm him in acon en ional ba le. S abo eco ds ha A saces led in he ace o Seleucus’ in asion o his allies on he Cen al Asian s eppe. Howe e , S abo’sbiased po ayal o weak eas e ne s in di ec compa ison o Alexande he G ea and Seleucus dis ega ds any s a egic objec i es on he pa o he Pa hians (S abo, XI, 8.8). Again, he e is no e idence o amajo engagemen ea ly in his con lic , and he e o e, we should conside why A saces chose o ‘ lee’. I we conside he eas e n campaign o Seleucus II wi hin he con ex o he Pa hians’ unique asymme ic mode o wa a e, A saces I’swi hd awal in o he Cen al Asian s eppe does no appea o be acowa dly o diso ganized ou ; a he , i appea s o be acalcula ed, 109NIKOLAUS LEO OVERTOOM s a egic maneu e (O e oom 2020, 99–107). Despi e A saces’ ecen e o s o solidi y his egional s eng h and expand his a my, he quickly ecognized ha his o ce was no ma ch o he oyal Seleucid a my in acon en ional ba le, and he e o e, he did no isk amajo engagemen a his ime. A saces decided o conse e his s eng h and a emp ed o decei e Seleucus in o hinking he Pa hians we e weak. Wi hin hei unique mode o wa a e, A saces Iimplemen ed he i s possible example we ha e o he Pa hians’ Decep i e Wi hd awal S a egy. Because o his a my’ssupe io mobili y, A saces could a o d o wi hd aw deep in o his e i o y in he hope ha he could encou age o e con idence o complacency in SeleucusII. Thus, he Pa hian s a egy, a leas ini ially, was o buy ime and encou age Seleucus in o making amis ake. The Pa hian a my had he mobili y and he lexibili y o a oid enemy o ces, which allowed hem o main ain he ini ia i e du ing campaigns e en hough hey we e in e ea . Wi h ex- pe ience om yea s o in e ac ions along he Seleucid eas e n on ie and a e wa ching he ecen c isis in he Hellenis ic Middle Eas un old, A saces Iunde s ood ha in he la e hal o he 230s Seleucus II could no main ain as a ic campaign in he a -o eas e n lands o he I anian pla eau o an ex ended pe iod. Tensions wi h Seleucus’ b o he , An iochus Hie ax, who uled om Ana olia, emained conside able and a enewal o he ci il wa was looming. In ac , Jus in s a es ha a e Seleucus su e ed ade ea a he hands o he Pa hians he was ‘ ecalled in o Asia [Mino ] by new dis u bances’ (Jus in, XLI, 4.9–5.1). Meanwhile, A saces was no Seleucus’ only a ge . Seleucus also wan ed o punish he Bac ians while he was in he eas . Wi h aclea unde s anding o he many obs acles ha Seleucus aced, A saces could a o d o be cau ious and bide his ime. Seleucus could no o ce amajo engagemen wi h he mo e mobile Pa hians, bu he also could no emain in Pa hia pe manen ly. Whe he he Seleucids e u ned o Sy ia o in aded Bac ia, he posi ion o A saces emained s ong on he sou he n edge o he Cen al Asian s eppe i he could e ain con ol o e his a my. A saces could wai o he Seleucids o lea e sou he n Pa hia, and he was in ag ea posi ion o ake ad an age o any mili a y oppo uni ies in he mean ime. I we accep ha he mili a ily expe ienced and capable A saces did no simply lee in panic in he ace o Seleucus’ ad ance, hen his a emp o lull he Seleucids in o as a e o dange ous complacency and his calcula ions abou he p essu es acing Seleucus we e co ec . A saces would demons a e he e ec i eness o he Pa hians’ mode o wa a e. Un o una ely, only ab ie ou line o he campaign has su i ed; howe e , wo e en s a e ce ain. A e he ini ial wi hd awal o he Pa hians, hey soon a e de ea ed he Seleucids decisi ely in ba le. Jus in eco ds, ‘Engaging wi h king Seleucus [II], who came o ake enge- ance on he ebels [in Pa hia and Bac ia], he [A saces] ob ained a ic o y; and he Pa hians obse e he day on which i was gained wi h g ea solemni y, as he da e o he commencemen o hei libe y’ (Jus in, XLI, 4.9–10). Mo eo e , al hough Ammianus Ma cellinus con uses Seleucus II wi h his g ea -g and a he Seleucus I, he simila ly eco ds, ‘A e many glo ious and alian deeds, and a e he [A saces] had conque ed Seleucus [I] Nica o [in eali y, Se- leucus II], successo o he said Alexande , on whom his many ic o ies had con e ed ha su name, and [a e A saces] had d i en ou he Macedonian [ ha is, he Seleucid] ga isons [ om Pa hia], he passed his li e in quie peace, and was amild ule and judge o his subjec s’ (Ammianus, XXIII, 6.3).8 Jus in and Ammianus a e clea ha he de ea o Seleucus II’seas e n campaign was swi and unexpec ed. 8 John Malalas o e s asimila accoun and makes he same mis ake as Ammianus. See Malalas, VIII, 198. Fo he Pa hians in John Malalas, see Hackl– Jacobs– Webe eds. 2010, 285–292. 110 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1 I is also possible ha he Pa hians e en cap u ed Seleucus II in he a e ma h o hei ic o y. The p incipal e idence suppo ing he conclusion ha he ic o ious A saces Ialso cap u ed Seleucus is ab ie accoun in A henaeus, who s a es, ‘And in his [Posidonius’] ele - en h book [bu pe haps his six een h book], speaking o Seleucus [II] he king, and ela ing how he came agains Media, and wa ed agains A saces, bu was aken p isone by he ba ba ian, and how he emained along ime in cap i i y o A saces, being ea ed like aking by him’ (A henaeus, 5.38).9 Some schola s discoun his passage by a guing ha A henaeus and Posidonius he e mis ake Seleucus II ei he o Deme ius II, whom he Pa hians la e cap u ed, o simply o aSeleucus, who hey claim was ali le known son o he la e king, An iochusVII. 10 The e is a u he specula i e a gumen ha Seleucus II launched wo eas e n expedi ions, one ha succeeded in d i ing o A saces Iand ano he ha esul ed in de ea a he hands o A saces (Schippman 1980, 22; Wolski 1996, 182–183; Le ne 1999, 36–37).11 Ye i is highly unlikely ha Seleucus II had he ime o esou ces o conduc wo majo eas e n expedi ions; a he , he sou ces simply emphasize wo phases o Seleucus’ eas e n campaign. In he i s phase, he Seleucids encoun e ed ini ial success, o a leas wha appea ed o be success since he Pa hians looked o ha e led. Then in he second phase, Seleucus su e ed aconside able de ea agains he Pa hians, a e which he e u ned o he wes .12 Wha emains o be conside ed is he a e o Seleucus II du ing his eas e n campaign.13 A henaeus and Posidonius s a e ha he became ap isone , and Seleucus’ adop ed pe sonal image and coinage pe haps also suppo s he conclusion ha he Pa hians held him in cap- i i y, a leas b ie ly.14 Seleucus adop ed he epi he Pogon (‘Bea ded’), and he and Deme ius II, whom he Pa hians la e cap u ed, p oduced coinage po aying hemsel es wi h a ull bea d (an image ha became s anda d in Pa hian coinage). 15 Seleucus II also adop ed he epi he Callinicus (‘Glo iously T iumphan ’); howe e , his appella ion celeb a ed his ic o y o e his b o he , no he Pa hians (Le ne 1999, 37; Coşkun 2018: 221–222; Olb ych o h- coming). I is pe haps mos likely ha Seleucus and la e Deme ius adop ed hei bea ded iden i ies o e lec he leng h and emphasize he eligious impo ance o hei eas e n cam- paigns (Lo be – Iossi 2009, 105, 111–112). Ye i is highly unlikely ha hei bea ded images ma ked majo ic o ies o e he Pa hians, which hey did no gain, o symbolized an a emp o associa e hemsel es di ec ly wi h senio G eek gods, such as Zeus (Lo be – Iossi 2009, 87, 105, 107–111).16 A e e u ning o he wes , hei bea ds likely se ed as a eminde o hei 9 Posidonius, 16 (= FG H, III.258). 10 Fo Deme ius’ cap u e, which admi edly bea s se e al simila i ies, see Jus in, XXXVI, 1.5, XXXVIII, 9.2; Jus in, P ol. 35–6; Appian, Sy . XI, 67; Josephus, An . XIII, 186, 218–9; IMaccabees 14.2–3; Diodo us, XXXIII, 28.1; Eusebius, Ch on., 255; Sebeos in Thomson ed. 1978, 364–365. No e Kidd 1988, 303. 11 Assa sugges s an e en mo e unlikely scena io ha Seleucus o iginally ough A saces unsuccess- ully in 247 be o e conduc ing an inconclusi e in asion o Pa hia again in 229 (Assa 2011, 114). 12 S oo man sugges s Seleucus success ully assalized Pa hia (S oo man 2011; 2015; 2018). How- e e , he e is no e idence ha A saces se ed as Seleucus’ assal, and he sou ces a e clea ha Seleucus’ eas e n campaign was a ailu e (Jus in, XL, 4.9–10, 5.1; Ammianus, XXIII, 6.3; Malalas, VIII, 198; A henaeus, 5.38; Posidonius, 16 = FG H, III.258). 13 Fo hose who a gue ha Seleucus was aPa hian cap i e, see F oelich 1744, 30–31, 66; Clin on 1881, 311–313; Cunningham 1884, 113–114; Eckhel 1888, 218; Head 1911, 639; Le ne 1999, 35; Olb ych 2019. Fo hose who a emp o ejec his a gumen , see Viscon i 1808, 298–299; Babelon 1890, lx ; Newell 1938, 64, 135, 200–203; Will 1967, i311–313; Kidd 1988, 304; S oo man 2011; 2015; 2018. 14 Fo Seleucus’ bea ded coinage, see Newell 1938, 64, 135, 200–203; Lo be – Iossi 2009, 95–96. 15 Fo he use o bea ds in Seleucid coinage, see Messina 2003; Lo be – Iossi 2009. Fo Seleucus adop ing he epi he Pogon, see Polybius, II, 71.4. 16 Compa e Gün he 2011; W igh 2013. 111NIKOLAUS LEO OVERTOOM un inished business in he eas agains he Pa hians, and he e o e, ‘ he bea d would ha e been adamaging symbol o ailu e— ye he al e na i e o impie y was pe haps e en mo e unaccep able’ (Lo be – Iossi 2009, 105). Apa om A henaeus’ accoun o Posidonius, he e idence admi edly is ci cums an ial; howe e , he cap u e o Seleucus by he Pa hians emains possible and should no be ejec ed ou o hand. Al hough Seleucus II may o may no ha e become acap i e o A saces I, he Pa hians unde A saces’ guidance unequi ocally gained asigni ican mili a y ic o y o e he Seleu- cids, and Seleucus ell ic im o he Pa hians’ unique mode o wa a e. The sudden e e sal o Seleucus’ o une and he swi ness o his de ea makes i likely ha he made amili a y o logis ical e o ha le his a my ulne able o aPa hian coun e a ack. Wi h auni ied o ce, he Seleucids had been oo s ong o he Pa hians o con on in ba le, and he e o e, Seleucus’ de ea appea s o ha e been aconsequence o di iding his a my and his a en ion. Ammianus and Pho ius s a e ha A saces Ihad o emo e Seleucid ga isons om Pa hia a e his de ea o Seleucus II (Ammianus, XXIII, 6.3; Pho ius, Bib. 58). The e o e, a e he Pa - hians unde A saces ‘ led’ and appea ed no o be a h ea , Seleucus appa en ly a emp ed o eoccupy sou he n Pa hia by di iding apo ion o his a my in o ga isons.17 Once Seleucus had di ided his main o ce, A saces saw his oppo uni y and success ully coun e a acked agains wha emained o Seleucus’ di ided ield a my.18 I is qui e plausible ha , misun- de s anding he pu pose o he Pa hians’ unique mode o wa a e, Seleucus iewed A saces’ wi hd awal o he no h as asign o weakness. By no pu suing A saces and by di iding his a my o eoccupy Pa hia, Seleucus demons a ed ha he did no conside he Pa hians ase- ious h ea . Fu he , his complacency could ha e encou aged Seleucus o u n his a en ion owa d Bac ia, which a he ime was conside ed he s onge egional i al. Ye ama ch owa d Bac ia would ha e exposed he lanks o Seleucus’ di ided a my o A saces’ decisi e coun e a ack. In ac , some schola s a gue ha A saces’ new ally, Diodo us II, sen oops om Bac ia o aid he Pa hians (Wolski 1996, 182–183; Le ne 1999, 36). I Bac ian oops played any ole in he climac ic ba le be ween A saces and Seleucus, hen he con lic likely occu ed close o Bac ia in eas e n Pa hia. Seleucus II ne e eached Bac ia, and he e o e, his eas e n campaign ended in disas e a he hands o he Pa hians somewhe e in be ween his in asions o Pa hia and Bac ia. I appea s ha he Pa hians’ Decep i e Wi hd awal S a egy accomplished wo key objec i es. Fi s , i inspi ed complacency in Seleucus, who began eoccupying Pa hia ins ead o pu suing he Pa hians, and second, i encou aged o e con idence in Seleucus, who decided o di ide his a my and u n his a en ion owa d he Bac ians wi hou i s de ea ing he Pa hians. By di iding his a my, igno ing he h ea o he Pa hians, and inc easingly isola ing himsel be ween A saces Iand Diodo us II as he con inued eas , Seleucus II c ea ed amajo oppo uni y o his enemies. A saces shi ed om he Pa hians’ Decep i e Wi hd awal S a egy o hei O e whelm S a egy, which he u ilized o engage Seleucus agg essi ely wi h o e whelming o ce and de ea him in de ail. The ulne abili y o he Seleucid a my made he sweeping ic o y o A saces possible. Thus, ou i s eco ded ins ance o he Pa hians implemen ing hei ‘Feign Re ea , De ea in De ail’ mode o wa a e demons a es i s ea ly 17 These ga isons migh ha e been necessa y win e qua e s. An iochus VII la e had o di ide his a my in o ga isons du ing his campaign agains he Pa hians as well (Jus in, XXXVIII, 10.8; Di- odo us, XXXIV/XXXV, 17.2). Con a y o S oo man’sconclusion ha Seleucus ansi ioned Seleucid impe ialism in he eas owa d a assalage model (S oo man 2011; 2015; 2018), i appea s Seleucus main ained he adi ional model o di ec impe ialism. 18 An iochus VII su e ed asimila de ea (Jus in, XXXVIII, 10.8–10; Diodo us, XXXIV/XXXV, 15–17; Appian, Sy . XI, 68). 112 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1 associa ion wi h he A sacids and i s e ec i eness. A saces execu ed he Pa hians’ asym- me ic app oach o wa a e o pe ec ion because Seleucus played di ec ly in o i s s eng hs. Seleucus II’sde ea and possible cap u e in he la e hal o he 230s had eno mous ge- opoli ical ami ica ions.19 The epu a ion o he al eady eeling Seleucid s a e was damaged conside ably and he p es ige o he Seleucid king signi ican ly diminished. This mili a y de ea agains he Pa hians, pai ed wi h he possible shame ul cap u e o he Seleucid king, se e ely h ea ened he s abili y o he Seleucid s a e in he wes and u he weakened Se- leucid au ho i y. This encou aged o he egions like Pe sis, Elymais, and Media A opa ene o challenge Seleucid hegemony and helped cause ano he cycle o ci il wa s (G ainge 2015, 20, 56; G ainge 2016, 52; Coşkun 2018; Olb ych o hcoming).20 Seleucus II’s ailu es in he eas also suddenly le Mesopo amia and Sy ia ulne able. Pow- e ela ions wi hin he lands o he Nea Eas es ablished by he 236 uce be ween Seleucus and An iochus Hie ax no longe e lec ed he eali ies o powe dis ibu ion in ha egion. The de ea o Seleucus d as ically and suddenly educed he powe o he Seleucid Empi e and Seleucus’ au ho i y. This helps explain why An iochus enewed he ci il wa agains Seleucus in 229/228 wi h he in asion o Sy ia and Mesopo amia (Jus in, XL, 5.1).21 The sudden weak- ness o Seleucus and his egime because o his ailed eas e n campaign encou aged u he p essu e om compe i o s. Meanwhile, in he eas he ailu e o Seleucus II o subdue Pa hia and Bac ia ein o ced he ipola balance o powe be ween he Seleucids, Pa hians, and Bac ians (O e oom 2016a, 985, 987–988, 992, 998–999; O e oom 2020, 77, 104). I also helped u he solidi y Pa hian powe egionally and expanded A saces I’s egional in luence.22 Finally, i allowed A saces o es ablish asolid economic and mili a y ounda ion in Pa hia ha his successo s con inued o de elop o e he nex cen u y (Olb ych 1998, 51–76; Olb ych 2003, 74–75; Ol- b ych 2010, 229; Shayegan 2011; O e oom 2019a; 2019b; 2020; O e oom o hcoming a). The de ea and possible cap u e o Seleucus II appea s also o ha e led o he es ablishmen o o mal and ecognized independence o Pa hia and Bac ia (Le ne 1999, 36–37).23 Jus in eco ds, ‘The Pa hians obse e he day on which i [ ic o y o e Seleucus II] was gained wi h g ea solemni y, as he da e o he commencemen o hei libe y (libe a is)’ (Jus in, XLI, 4.10). By de ea ing Seleucus and epulsing his eas e n campaign, he Pa hians and Bac ians had eassu ed hei so e eign y in di ec opposi ion o he Seleucid s a e. Ye A saces Iand Diodo us II s ill would ha e desi ed o mal ecogni ion o hei independence by Seleucus o enhance hei legi imacy and in e na ional s anding. They did no wan o emain ‘ ebels’ wi hin he Hellenis ic Middle Eas , and he de ea o Seleucus ga e hem he oppo uni y hey needed o demand o mal ecogni ion o hei independence. The e we e p ac ical easons o Seleucus II o ecognize he so e eign y o Pa hia and Bac ia as well. I appea s Seleucus conduc ed his eas e n campaign in he la e hal o he 230s, pe haps en e ing Babylonia as ea ly as 235/234 o p epa e he campaign (Sachs– Hun- 19 Le ouge-Cohen un ai ly beli les he Pa hian s uggle agains Seleucus (Le ouge-Cohen 2007, 274). 20 Fo Elymais unde he Seleucids, no e Dąb owa 2004; 2014. 21 C . Le ne 1999, 37. 22 In ac , Jus in compa es A saces’ mili a y success o Cy us he G ea and Alexande he G ea , each o whom capi alized on hegemonic wa du ing apowe - ansi ion c isis (Jus in, XLI, 5.1–6. No e O e oom 2016a, 985–987. Fo he ecep ion o Alexande in I anian and Roman adi ions, see O e oom 2011; 2012; 2013; Nabel 2017; Moo e ed. 2017). 23 C . Schippmann 1980, 22; Wolski 1996, 182. Con a Engels 2011; 2014a; 2014b; S oo man 2015; Wengho e 2018. 113NIKOLAUS LEO OVERTOOM ge 1989, no. 234; O e oom o hcoming c). A e se ling a ai s in Babylonia and Media, he a emp ed o eoccupy Pa hia be o e su e ing his de ea . This expedi ion seemingly spanned se e al yea s, las ing long enough o Seleucus o g ow his iconic la ge bea d. Whe he o no Seleucus was acap i e o he Pa hians o apo ion o his ime in he eas , i does no appea he e u ned o Babylonia un il 229/228 (Sachs– Hunge 1989, no. 229). Seleucus II’slong absence and e en ual de ea in he eas encou aged his b o he , An iochus Hie ax, o enew he ci il wa in he wes and o in ade Sy ia and Mesopo amia. An iochus’ agg ession in he wes c ea ed adespe a e si ua ion o Seleucus. I Seleucus emained a odds wi h he Pa hians and Bac ians (o , mo e despe a ely, i he emained ap isone ), he isked losing he wes e n po ion o he empi e o his hos ile b o he . By 229/228 Seleucus needed o come o e ms wi h A saces Iand Diodo us II o a oid a wo- on wa , o de e u he expansion by he Pa hians and Bac ians agains Seleucid lands, and o pu sue he ci il wa agains his b o he in he wes . A e his de ea agains he Pa hians, Seleucus had li le choice bu o acquiesce o he demands o A saces and Diodo us, and i Seleucus had become acap i e, he had e en less le e age. To his poin Je ey Le ne has a gued, ‘The e is also no hing o p eclude he possibili y ha one o he condi ions o Seleucus’ elease was his o mal ecogni ion o he so e eign y o A saces Iand ha o Diodo us II’ (Le ne 1999, 36). I Seleucus had in ac become aPa hian p isone , i is ha d o imagine ha A saces would ha e eleased Seleucus wi hou such assu ances. Ye Seleucus’ de ea in he eas and he e- newal o ci il wa in he wes was enough on i s own o o ce Seleucus’ hand in ecognizing he so e eign y o Pa hia and Bac ia. By ag eeing o peace wi h A saces, Seleucus was able o ake he ga isons he had es ablished h oughou Pa hia wi h him back o Babylonia. This allowed Seleucus o consolida e his emaining o ces o pu sue he wa agains his b o he and eed he Pa hians o he bu den o a acking o i ied ga isons, allowing A saces o eoccupy sou he n Pa hia wi h ease (Ammianus, XXIII, 6.3; Pho ius, Bib. 58; Jus in, XLI, 4.10). Al hough Seleucus II and he Seleucids did no abandon he possibili y o u u e eas e n campaigns o subdue he Pa hians and Bac ians, he ocus o he empi e was in he wes , and he enewed ci il wa agains An iochus Hie ax ook p ecedence. Jus in c i icizes Seleucus and An iochus o no pu ing aside hei di e ences o ace ou side h ea s o he empi e, s a ing, ‘Lea ing hei o eign enemies unmoles ed, [ hey] con inued he [ci il] wa o he des uc ion o each o he ’ (Jus in, XXVII, 3.6). Wes e n con lic s consumed Seleucus’ a en ion o he emainde o his eign, and i ell o his son, An iochus III, o a enge Seleucus’ ailu es in he eas . E en a e o ming an alliance wi h Bac ia and de ea ing he Seleucids in ba le, A saces I s ill unde s ood he dange s o he in e na ional en i onmen in he Hellenis ic Middle Eas and he po en ial powe and h ea o his neighbo s. Once Seleucus II e u ned o he wes o igh his b o he , A saces immedia ely se in o mo ion policies o maximize his powe and he secu i y o his kingdom. He se led he Pa hian go e nmen , le ied mo e soldie s, buil new o esses, and secu ed his u ban cen e s (Jus in, XLI, 5.1–4). Jus in p aises A saces, eco ding, ‘Thus A saces, ha ing a once acqui ed and es ablished akingdom, and ha ing become no less memo able among he Pa hians han Cy us among he Pe sians, Alexande among he Macedonians, o Romulus among he Romans, died a ama u e old age; and he Pa hians paid his hono o his memo y, ha hey called all hei kings hence o wa d by he name o A saces’ (Jus in, XLI, 5.5–6). 24 Thus, hese ac ions by A saces we e acon inua ion o his ea lie policy, when he had expanded his e i o y in no he n I an and enla ged his a my (Jus in, XLI, 4.8). 24 C . S abo, XV, 1.36.