abm wrote:It strikes me as rather odd that Antigonos who just fought a war against Peukestas would be so warmly welcomed in Persis, given the latter's popularity there (Diod. XIX 48.5).
marcus wrote:And I always had the impression that the reason Seleucus was able to take back and hold on to the "heartlands" (even though he didn't hold on to Persis for *that* long) so relatively easily, was because Antigonus had behaved in so heavy-handed a fashion there.
Being feted as king and claiming kingship are, as
abm says, not quite the same thing. Marcus is on track with his observation about Seleucus viz Antigonus. The clue lies in the impression Antigonus made and the full quote is worth reading:
Diod. 19.48.1-2:
As soon as Antigonus came into Persia, he was granted the dignity of kingship by the inhabitants as [if he was] the acknowledged lord of Asia, and he himself sitting in council with his friends considered the question of the satrapies. He permitted Tlepolemus to retain Carmania, and likewise Stasanor to retain Bactrianê, for it was not easy to remove them by sending a message since they had conducted themselves well toward the inhabitants and had many supporters. He sent Evitus to Aria, but when Evitus died soon afterwards he put Evagoras in his place, a man admired for both courage and shrewdness. He permitted Oxyartes, the father of Roxanê, to keep the satrapy in Paropanisadae as before, for he too could not be removed without a long campaign and a strong army.
Bosworth (Legacy of Alexander) notes that the Loeb translation wrongly adds the qualification. Again, Antigonus has not claimed this title, it has been offered and he will have been feted in Achaemenid royal tradition. There is no record of Antigonus correcting the record though.
Now it needs be stressed that Antigonus “came into Persia” at the head of an army larger than that of Alexander at Gaugamela. This army will have been in the order of over 50,000 foot and some 12,000 or more horse. Further he had just quelled a revolt of sorts in Media led by Eumenid partisans and followers of Peithon. Antigonus, whilst not having accompanied Alexander beyond Phrygia, was well versed in Alexandrine juridical practice. He had summoned the credulous former somatophylax to court with promises of rule over the upper satrapies. In a kangaroo court of his philoi he charged him with treason, obtained the verdict he wanted and murdered him.
And now he was in Persis, the effective ruler of Asia from the Hellespont to the borders of the former Indian satrapies. The obsequious reception, to me, is entirely understandable. More so if the local population hoped to keep their “popular” satrap who had just betrayed Eumenes at Gabiene. In a scene reminiscent of Babylon 323 and Triparadeisus, Antigonus divides “the spoils”. In the end, the feting by the inhabitants of Persis did not succeed: Peucestas was deposed and, wisely, not judicially murdered. Just as Peucestas was firmly "Alexander's man", the satrapy would now be ruled by "Antigonus's man".
As for Seleucus, he didn’t hold Persis until after 312. Antigonus cut his tenure as satrap of Babylonia short in 316. As with Peucestas Antigonus was not about to allow a popular satrap, not lacking in ambition, to retain a province as important as Babylonia. Seleucus was no Peithon and, being adept at reading the signs, scarpered to Ptolemy ahead of the sword. He did return though, in 312, and having re-established his position in Babylonia, set about defeating Antigonus’s man Nicanor over 312/11. He then invaded the upper satrapies in a campaign over spring / summer of 311. Whilst Demetrius, in a cameo invasion, plundered Babylonia in his absence, Seleucus’ position as satrap was indicated by the very act of plundering: these were not Antigonus’s lands.
The last real threat to Seleucus in the east was Antigonus’s invasion over 310-308. He retired from this campaign leaving Seleucus in firm control. A control he would exercise until his death.