Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g7rbq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T21:02:24.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Sources and Chronology of Antiochus I's Battle against the Galatians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

B. Bar-Kochva
B. Bar-Kochva
Affiliation:
Tel-Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Galatian invasion of Asia Minor, which shook the foundations of the ancient Ionian civilization, finds echoes in a considerable number of epigraphical documents, all of which have been analysed several times over in the course of the complicated discussions of the chronology of the First Syrian War. In this paper I shall concentrate on the sources which have been related to Antiochus I's decisive battle against the Galatians, weigh their relevance to that battle and their authenticity, and attempt to date the events reflected in them.

The battle was probably commemorated in a comprehensive epic by Simonides of Magnesia. The Suda s.v. Σιμωνίδης reports: Σιμωνίδης Μάγνης Σιπύλου, ἐποποιός. γέγονεν ἐπὶ Ἀντιόχου τοῦ Μεγάλου κληθέντος, καὶ γέγραφε τἁς Ἀντιόχου τοῦ Μεγάλου πράξεις καὶ τὴν πρὸς Γαλάτας μάχην, ὅτε μετὰ τῶν ἐλεφάντων τὴν ἵππον αὐτῶν ἔφθειρεν. The difficulty of calling Antiochus τοῦ Μεγάλου has led some to suggest that the Suda is referring to Antiochus III, but the reference to the victory of the elephants over the Galatian cavalry, known from Lucian to have decided the battle of Antiochus I against the Galatians, excludes any alternative. Lucian, however rhetorical and inaccurate, can be trusted when he attributes the victory to the elephants (see below). The conjecture that the latter reference was a gloss, inserted by the compiler or someone acquainted with Lucian, might have been given credit had we information about any campaign conducted against the Galatians by Antiochus III. But for the period of Antiochus III, which is covered in the most comprehensive way, we have no record, not even the slightest indication, of a military operation against the Galatians, and if there had been some confrontation which escaped notice, it could only have been on a small scale, and would not have been commemorated as the most prominent achievement of this king, as the phrasing of the Suda seems to suggest.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 19 , 1973 , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1973

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

page 1 note 1 Momigliano, A., Boll, di Fil. Class. XXXVI (1929–1930), 151–2Google Scholar, et al.

page 1 note 2 Zeuxis 9–11.

page 1 note 3 See the text in Sacks, A. J.–Weisman, D. J., Iraq xvi (1954), 206Google Scholar; cf. Aymard, A., R.E.A. LVII (1955), 106Google Scholar.

page 1 note 4 Zeuxis 11.

page 1 note 5 See Niese, B., Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten (Gotha, 1893–1903), 71 n. 1Google Scholar; Bouché-Leclercq, A., Histoire des Séleucides (Paris, 1913), 1, 65Google Scholar.

page 2 note 1 So Niese, ibid. p. 80 n. 4; Wernsdorff, G., De rep. Galatarum (Norimb, 1744), p. 41Google Scholar.

page 2 note 2 On Apollo or Heracles as their eponymous heroes, and their legendary connection with the battle of Troy, see Niese, op. cit. 11, 613. Their massive shields, their preservation of single combat, their practice of fighting in the nude, and their huge physical bulk gave rise to these traditions.

page 2 note 3 von Bienkowski, P., Die Darstellungen der Gallier in der hellenistischen Kunst (Vienna, 1908), especially p. 37Google Scholar on the Homeric shield attributed to the Galatians.

page 2 note 4 See for instance Tarn, W. W., J.H.S. XLVI (1926), 157Google Scholar; Bevan, E., The House of Seleucus (London, 1902), 1, 143Google Scholar; Droysen, J. G., Geschichte des Hellenismus (Gotha, 1877–1878), 1, 167 n. 168Google Scholar; Stählin, F., Geschichte der kleinasiatischen Galater (Leipzig, 1907), p. 12 n. 2.Google Scholar

page 2 note 5 Par. 8. See the comment of Reinach, Th., Revue Celtique IX (1879), 124Google Scholar; F. Stählin, op. cit. p. 12 n. 2; Till, R., Klio XXXVI (1944), 245Google Scholar.

page 2 note 6 So Wernsdorff, op. cit. pp. 42–3, though for the opposite reason: in his view Lucian's version is worthless because of the suggested use of Simonides of Magnesia.

page 2 note 7 So Bevan, loc. cit.

page 2 note 8 Lucian, , Zeuxis 9Google Scholar.

page 2 note 9 See Tarn, W. W., J.H.S. XLVI (1926), 157Google Scholar, supported also by chronological considerations (see below). The text: Sidney Smith, , Babylonian Historical Texts (London, 1907), p. 156Google Scholar, l. 12. Otto's, W. objection (Beiträge zur Seleukidengeschichte, p. 23 n. 4)Google Scholar that Antiochus I must have had elephants in other parts of the empire is not convincing in view of the decline in the number of elephants in the Seleucid army during the third century.

page 2 note 10 See in detail pp. 3–5.

page 3 note 1 Diod. v. 29. 2; 30. 3–4; Polyb. 11. 28; Livy, x. 28. 8; and see Till, loc. cit.

page 3 note 2 Lucian, , Zeuxis 11Google Scholar.

page 3 note 3 See Smith, op. cit. l. 10.

page 3 note 4 Lucian, , Zeuxis 11Google Scholar.

page 3 note 5 Ibid. 9.

page 3 note 6 See Tarn, W. W., Hellenistic military and naval developments (Cambridge, 1930), pp. 96 ffGoogle Scholar.; cf. Polyb. XVI. 19. 5, Plut., Demetr. 29Google Scholar. 3, etc.

page 3 note 7 Polyb. v. 53. 4, 10.

page 3 note 8 Polyb. v. 53. 5. For tactical and topographical reasons the reserve troops seem actually to have been posted out of range of the rebels' observation (cf. Onasander, XXII. 2). See the discussion in my book, The Seleucid army, shortly to be published by Cambridge University Press.

page 3 note 9 Lucian, , Zeuxis 11Google Scholar.

page 3 note 10 Reinach, Sal.B.C.H. IX (1885), 484–93Google Scholar, Id.La nécropole de Myrina (Paris, 1887), p. 318, and see plate 10.

page 3 note 11 Lucian, , Zeuxis 8Google Scholar.

page 3 note 12 See the text in Sidney Smith, op. cit. pp. 156–7.

page 3 note 13 So Tarn, , J.H.S. XLVI (1926), 156Google Scholar, and see Dittenberger's note on τοὺς δ' ἐπιθεμένους (n. 6 ad loc.). The clear distinction between ἐν ἀρχῇ τε etc. (l. 3) and νῦν τε etc. (l. 13) refutes the conception (of Otto and others) that the battle against the Galatians preceded the First Syrian War (see Otto, W., Beiträge zur Seleukidengeschichte (Munich, 1928), pp. 22–4Google Scholar; Corradi, G., Studi ellenistici (Torino, 1929), p. 129, etc.)Google Scholar.

page 4 note 1 Smith, loc. cit. ll. 11–13; Lucian, , Zeuxis 9Google Scholar.

page 4 note 2 See O.G.I.S. 219, ll. 3–8.

page 4 note 3 See Tarn, op. cit. pp. 157 ff.

page 4 note 4 On the life expectancy of elephants in captivity see Allen, G. M., Proc. Acad. nat. sci. Philad. LXXXVIII (1936), pp. 25–6Google Scholar.

page 4 note 4 See Encyc. Brit. (1972), VII, 273Google Scholar.

page 4 note 6 The absence of the royal troops stationed in Babylonia from the front line against the Ptolemies (Smith, loc. cit. ll. 10, 13–14) may be explained by internal events in Babylonia: the strict economy measures taken in Tishri year 37 (see ibid. ll. 16–18), i.e. October 274 (on the chronology see p. 5 n. 5 below), and the long consultation of the governor and the magistrate with the king in Sardis (ibid. 1. 15), suggest that there was an uprising in Babylonia. Otto rightly reads on the Pithom stele mention of an Egyptian naval expedition to the Persian Gulf (op. cit. p. 5). This adventurous expedition may perhaps have been motivated by a Babylonian uprising. As the expedition took place some time before 1 January 273 (see Lehmann-Haupt, C. F., Klio III (1903), 508–23Google Scholar), the chronology does not argue against this suggestion. On literary evidence for the Babylonian religious resistance to the Seleucid occupation of the first half of the third century see Eddy, S. K., The king is dead (Lincoln, 1961), pp. 21–8.Google Scholar

page 4 note 7 Smith, loc. cit. ll. 10–13.

page 5 note 1 Lehmann-Haupt, op. cit. p. 525; Beloch, J., Griechische Geschichte (Berlin, 1922–1927), IV. 2, p. 297Google Scholar; G. Corradi, op. cit. p. 139. Ptolemy Phikdelphos' inspection of the border fortifications on 1 May 273 recorded by the Stele of Pithom (Brugsch, H., Zeitschr. für ägyptische Sprache XXXII (1894), 81, l. 1Google Scholar) does not in the least confirm this suggestion. It took place before his invasion of Syria, and a year and three months before the first Seleucid reinforcement from Babylonia got under way in March 272 (see below).

page 5 note 2 Smith, loc. cit. l. 10; and see Tarn, W. W., J.H.S. XLVI (1926), 156Google Scholar.

page 5 note 3 See Smith, loc. cit. l. 10. The dating of lines 10–14 to the year 38 was definitely established by Otto, op. cit. pp. 3–4.

page 5 note 4 Smith, loc. cit. l. 13.

page 5 note 5 According to the Babylonian reckoning of the Seleucid era which went back to April 311: see Kugler, F., Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel (Münster, 1907), 1, 214Google Scholar.

page 5 note 6 Smith, loc. cit. l. 13.

page 5 note 7 Tarn and Otto, whose contribution to the chronology of the First Syrian War is the most outstanding, date the ‘elephant victory’ to 275 and 274 respectively. The first is misled by Smith's incorrect dating of ll. 10–14 in the Babylonian Chronicle (see n. 3 above) and by the wrong assumption that the revolt in Seleucis preceded the Egyptian invasion, the second by assuming that the Galatian War preceded the repulse of the Egyptians. Other scholars even date the battle as early as 277 (see Corradi, op. cit. p. 129; Segré, M., Athenaeum VIII (1930), 503 n. 1Google Scholar, and bibliography there). It is worth mentioning that Pompeius Trogus described Antiochus' battle against the Galatians in book XXV, which comprehends even the death of Pyrrhus in 272 (Prol, XXV).

page 5 note 8 Moffatt, ap. Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Oxford, 1913), 1, 142 n. 20Google Scholar; Abel, F. M., Les livres des Maccabées (Paris, 1949), p. 390Google Scholar; Lévy, I., Mélanges H. Grégoire, II (Brussels, 1950), 681 ff.Google Scholar; Edson, C., C.P. LIII (1958), 58, et alii.Google Scholar

page 6 note 1 See Lévy, loc. cit., suggesting the reading Βαγαδονία (between Lycaonia and Cappadocia).

page 6 note 2 Bull, di Fil. Class. XXXV (1929–1930), 151–5Google Scholar.

page 6 note 3 von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., S.B. Akad. Berl. 1918, pp. 736–9Google Scholar; Powell, J. U., Collectanea Alexandrina (Oxford, 1925), pp. 131–2Google Scholar.

page 6 note 4 Polyb. v. 54. 8. On the military settlers in Media, see Griffith, G. T., The mercenaries of the Hellenistic world (Cambridge, 1935), p. 150Google Scholar. In addition, I fail to follow the basis for Momigliano's statement that Antiochus III defeated the Medes in 197. In that year he was occupied in Asia Minor: see Will, Èd., Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (Nancy, 1967), II, 155–8Google Scholar.

page 6 note 5 The sources: Trogus, Pompeius, Prol. 27Google Scholar; Justin, XXVII. 2. 10; 3. 1; 5; O.G.I.S. 269, 271, 274, 275, 280; Euseb. (ed. Schone), 1, 251, l. 19; F. Stählin, op. cit. pp. 18–29.

page 6 note 6 Polyaenus IV. 17.

page 6 note 7 So Melber, J., ‘Über die Quellen und den Wert der Strategensammlung Polyäns’, Jahrb. Class. Phil. Suppl. XIV (1885), 640Google Scholar.

page 6 note 8 The sequence of events at the beginning of Polyaenus' ‘stratagem’ is not accurate. Seleucus'' commanders confronted Hierax when he tried to invade Mesopotamia, and not on his flight from Mesopotamia, see Trogus, loc. cit. For the same reconstruction cf. H. Droysen, op. cit. III, 304–5; Niese, op. cit. 1, 159; Bevan, op. cit. 1, 202; Beloch, op. cit. iv. 1, 685.

page 6 note 9 So Droysen, op. cit. p. 305.

page 7 note 1 So Polyaenus, loc. cit.

page 7 note 2 See Trogus, loc. cit.; Justin, XXVII. 3. 7.

page 7 note 3 So Beloch, op. cit. IV. 1, 685 n. 1. It is worth adding that the fragment of Agatharcides preserved in Joseph, . Ap. I. 206Google Scholar indicates that Stratonike's revolt at Antioch erupted when Seleucus was on his way to the East, which further facilitated Hierax's invasion. Some scholars have tried to date the revolt in Persia to the turbulent years of Seleucus II, but this is open to dispute.

page 7 note 4 Prol. 27.

page 7 note 5 See VIII. 20 .

page 7 note 6 See Schalit, A., J.Q.R. (1959), p. 297, etc.Google Scholar

page 7 note 7 See I Mace. III. 38, IV. 6; II Macc. VIII. 9, 21–2.

page 7 note 8 So rightly Abel, op. cit. p. 390; Edson, op. cit. p. 163.

page 7 note 9 Wilamowitz, op. cit. p. 737, l. 17.

page 7 note 10 Ibid. l. 1.

page 8 note 1 See the chronological discussion, pp. 3–5 above.

page 8 note 2 See p. 4 n. 6.

page 8 note 3 VII. 39.

page 8 note 4 O.G.I.S. 233, ll. 14 ff.

page 8 note 5 See App. Syr. 55 (278)Google Scholar.