|
Seleukid Empire
Antiochos X Eusebes Philopator – King circa 94-88 B.C.
Bronze 19mm (5.9 grams) Antioch on the Orontes mint
Reference: SC 2432.1; HGC 9, 1292
Diademed head right.
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟV ΕVΣΕΒΟV ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤOΡΟΣ, Piloi of the Dioskouroi (Caps of the Dioscuri); monogram to outer left. . Condition: Near extremely fine.
You are bidding on the exact item pictured, provided with a Certificate of Authenticity and Lifetime Guarantee of Authenticity.
 Gemini is one of the constellations of the zodiac. It was one of the 48 constellations described by the 2nd century AD astronomer Ptolemy and it remains one of the 88 modern constellations today. Its name is Latin for “twins,” and it is associated with the twins Castor and Pollux in Greek mythology. Its symbol is  (Unicode ♊).
In Greek and Roman mythology, Castor and Pollux or Polydeuces were twin brothers, together known as the Dioskouri. Their mother was Leda, but Castor was the mortal son of Tyndareus, the king of Sparta, and Pollux the divine son of Zeus, who seduced Leda in the guise of a swan. Though accounts of their birth are varied, they are sometimes said to have been born from an egg, along with their twin sisters Helen of Troy and Clytemnestra.
In Latin the twins are also known as the Gemini or Castores. When Castor was killed, Pollux asked Zeus to let him share his own immortality with his twin to keep them together, and they were transformed into the constellation Gemini. The pair were regarded as the patrons of sailors, to whom they appeared as St. Elmo’s fire, and were also associated with horsemanship.
They are sometimes called the Tyndaridae or Tyndarids, later seen as a reference to their father and stepfather Tyndareus.
Antiochus X Eusebes Philopator (Greek: Ἀντίοχος Εὐσεβής Φιλοπάτωρ; c. 113-92 or 89 BC) was a Hellenistic Seleukid monarch who reigned as the King of the Seleukid empire between 95 and 92 or 89 BC. He was the son of Antiochus IX and perhaps his Egyptian wife Cleopatra IV. He lived at a period that witnessed a general disintegration of Seleukid empire characterized by civil wars, foreign interference by Ptolemaic Egypt and incursions by the Parthians. Antiochus IX was killed in 95 BC at the hands of his nephew Seleucus VI, the son of his half-brother and rival Antiochus VIII. Antiochus X declared himself king and avenged his father by defeating Seleucus VI, who was eventually killed.
Antiochus X did not enjoy a stable reign as he had to face three of Seleucus VI’s brothers. Antiochus XI and Philip I defeated Antiochus X and expelled him from the capital Antioch in 93 BC, but he was able to regain his position and killed Antiochus XI. This led to the interference of Demetrius III, who supported his brother Philip I. The civil war continued but its final outcome is uncertain due to the contradictions of ancient historians’ accounts. Antiochus X married his step mother, Antiochus IX’s widow Cleopatra Selene, and had several children with her, including later king Antiochus XIII.
The death of Antiochus X is shrouded in mystery. The year of his demise is traditionally given by modern scholars as 92 BC, but other dates are also possible including the year 89/88 BC. The most reliable account of his end is that of the first century historian Josephus, who wrote that Antiochus marched east to fight off the Parthians when they attacked a queen called Laodice; the identity of this queen and who her people were are debated. Other accounts exist: the ancient Greek historian Appian has Antiochus defeated by the Armenian king Tigranes II and losing his kingdom; the third century historian Eusebius wrote that Antiochus was defeated by his cousins and escaped to the Parthians before asking the Romans to be reinstated on the throne. Modern scholars prefer the account of Josephus and question practically every aspect of the versions presented by other ancient historians. Numismatic evidence shows that Antiochus X was succeeded in Antioch by Demetrius III, who controlled the capital c. 88/87 BC.
Background, early life and name
The second century BC witnessed the disintegration of the Seleukid Empire due to never-ending dynastic feuds and foreign (Egyptian and Roman) interference. Amid constant civil wars, the Seleukid empire fell to pieces. Seleukid pretenders fought for the throne, tearing the country apart. In 113 BC, Antiochus IX declared himself king in opposition to his half-brother Antiochus VIII. The brothers fought relentlessly for a decade and a half until 96 BC, when Antiochus VIII was killed. The following year Antiochus VIII’s son Seleucus VI marched against Antiochus IX and killed him near the Seleukid capital Antioch.
Egypt and Seleukeia attempted dynastic marriages to maintain a degree of peace. Antiochus IX married several times; known wives are his cousin Cleopatra IV of Egypt, whom he married in 114 BC, and her sister Cleopatra Selene, the widow of Antiochus VIII. Some historians, such as John D. Grainger, maintain the existence of a first wife unknown by name who was the mother of Antiochus X. Others, such as Auguste Bouché-Leclercq, believe that the first wife of Antiochus IX and the mother of his son was Cleopatra IV, in which case Antiochus X would have been born in c. 113 BC. None of those assertions are based on evidence, and the mother of Antiochus X is not named in ancient sources. Antiochus is a Greek name meaning “resolute in contention”. The capital Antioch received its name in deference to Antiochus, the father of the Seleukid dynasty’s founder Seleucus I; the name became dynastic and many Seleukid kings bore it.
Reign
According to Josephus, following the death of his father, Antiochus X went to the city of Aradus where he declared himself king. Aradus was an independent city since 137 BC, meaning that Antiochus X made an alliance with it, since he would not have been able to subdue it by force at that stage of his reign. As the lines of Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX fought over the Seleukid empire, the descendants of each king portrayed themselves in the likeness of their respective fathers to indicate their legitimacy; Antiochus X’s busts on his coins showed him with a short nose that ends with an up-turn, like his father. Ancient Hellenistic kings did not use regnal numbers. Instead, they usually employed epithets to distinguish themselves from other kings with similar names; the numbering of kings is mostly a modern practice. On his coins, he appeared with the epithets Eusebes (the pious) and Philopator (father-loving). According to Appian, the king received the epithet Eusebes from the Seleukids because he escaped a plot on his life by Seleucus VI, and, officially, the Seleukids thought that he survived because of his piety, but, in reality, it was a prostitute in love with Antiochus who saved him.
Beginning his reign in 95/94 BC, Antiochus X was deprived of resources and lacked a queen. He therefore married a woman who could provide what he needed, his step mother, Cleopatra Selene. Antiochus was probably no more than twenty years old while his wife was forty or forty five. This union was not unprecedented in the Seleukid dynasty, as Antiochus I had married his stepmother Stratonice, but nevertheless the marriage was scandalous. Appian commented that he thought the real reason behind the epithet “Eusebes” to be a joke by the Seleukids, mocking Antiochus X’s piety, as he showed loyalty to his father by bedding his widow. Appian concluded that it was “divine vengeance” for his marriage that eventually led to Antiochus X’s fall.
One of Antiochus X’s first actions was to avenge his father; in 94 BC, he advanced on the capital Antioch and drove Seleucus VI out of northern Seluekeia into Cilicia, where he perished in Mopsuestia as a result of a revolt. During the Seleukid period, currency struck in times of campaigns against a rival or a usurper showed the king bearded, and what seems to be the earliest bronze coinage of Antiochus X shows him with a curly beard, while later currency, apparently meant to show the king in firm control of his realm, depicted Antiochus X clean shaven. Early in 93 BC, the brothers of Seleucus VI, Antiochus XI and Philip I, having avenged Seleucus by sacking Mopsuestia, advanced on Antioch, defeated Antiochus X and expelled him from the city. Antiochus XI then reigned alone in the capital. Antiochus X recruited new soldiers and attacked Antioch the same year. He emerged victorious, while Antiochus XI drowned in the Orontes River as he tried to flee.
Now Antiochus X ruled northern Seleukeia and Cilicia; around this time, Mopsuestia minted coins with the word “autonomous” inscribed. This new status seems to have been a privilege bestowed upon the city by Antiochus X, who, as a sign of gratitude for the city’s role in eliminating Seleucus VI, apparently not just rebuilt it, but also compensated it for the damage it suffered at the hands of Seleucus’ brothers. In the view of Hans von Aulock (de), some coins minted in the city may carry a portrait of Antiochus X. Other cities also minted the king’s coinage, including Tripolis, Berytus, and perhaps the autonomous city of Ascalon. In the capital, Antiochus X built a library and an attached museum on the model of the Library of Alexandria.
Philip I was probably centered at Beroea; his brother, Demetrius III, who ruled Damascus, supported him and marched north probably in the spring of 93 BC. Antiochus X faced fierce resistance from his cousins. In the year 93/92 BC, the city of Damascus stopped issuing coins in the name of Demetrius III then resumed the following year; this could have been the result of incursions by Antiochus X.
Children
The Roman statesman Cicero wrote about two sons of Antiochus X and Cleopatra Selene who visited Rome during his time (between 75 and 73 BC); one of them was named Antiochus. The king might have also fathered a daughter with his wife; according to Plutarch, the Armenian king Tigranes II, who killed Cleopatra Selene in 69 BC, “put to death the successors of Seleucus, and [carried] off their wives and daughters into captivity”. This statement makes it possible to assume that Antiochus had at least one daughter with his wife.
- Antiochus XIII: mentioned by Cicero. His epithets raised questions about how many sons with that name Antiochus X fathered; when Antiochus XIII issued coins as a sole ruler, he used the epithet Philadelphos (“brother-loving”), but on jugate coins that show Cleopatra Selene as regent along with her ruling son named Antiochus, the epithet Philometor (“mother-loving”) is used. Historian Kay Ehling (de), agreeing with the view of Bouché-Leclercq, argued that two sons, both named Antiochus, resulted from the marriage of Antiochus X and Cleopatra Selene. Cicero, on the other hand, left one of the brothers unnamed, and clearly stated that Antiochus was the name of only one prince. Ehling’s theory is possible but only if “Antiochus Philometor” was the prince named by Cicero, and the brother, who had a different name, assumed the dynastic name Antiochus with the epithet Philadelphos when he became king following the death of Antiochus Philometor. In the view of historian Adrian Dumitru, such a scenario is complicated; more likely, Antiochus XIII bore two epithets: Philadelphos and Philometor.
- Seleucus Kybiosaktes: the unnamed son mentioned by Cicero does not appear in other ancient literature. Seleucus Kybiosaktes, a man who appeared c. 58 BC in Egypt as a husband of Berenice IV of Egypt, is identified by modern scholarship with the unnamed prince. According to Strabo, Kybiosaktes pretended to be of Seleukid descent.
- Seleucus VII: the numismatist Brian Kritt deciphered and published a newly discovered jugate coin bearing the portrait of Cleopatra Selene and a co-ruler in 2002. Kritt’s reading gave the name of King Seleucus Philometor and, considering the epithet which means mother loving, equated him with the unnamed son mentioned by Cicero. Kritt gave the newly discovered king the regnal name Seleucus VII. He also considered it plausible to identify him with Seleucus Kybiosaktes. Some scholars, such as Lloyd Llewellyn Jones and Michael Roy Burgess (de), accepted the reading, but the numismatist Oliver D. Hoover rejected Kritt’s reading as the coin is badly damaged and some of the letters cannot be read. Hoover proposed a different reading where the king’s name is Antiochus, to be identified with Antiochus XIII.
End and succession
Information about Antiochus X after the interference of Demetrius is scanty. Ancient sources and modern scholars present different accounts and dates for the demise of the king. Antiochus X’s end as told by Josephus, which has the king killed during a campaign against the Parthians, is considered the most reliable and likely by modern scholars. No known coins issued by the king in Antioch contain a date. The year of Antiochus X’s death is not known; Josephus wrote that the king fell soon after Demetrius III’s interference, but this statement is vague. The year 92 BC is given by the majority of scholars.
It is known from numismatic evidence that Demetrius III eventually succeeded Antiochus X in Antioch. In 1949, a jugate coin of Cleopatra Selene and Antiochus XIII, from the collection of the French archaeologist Henri Arnold Seyrig, was dated by Alfred Raymond Bellinger (it) to 92 BC and ascribed to Antioch. Some modern historians, such as Ehling, based on that dating proposed that Cleopatra Selene enjoyed an ephemeral reign in Antioch between the death of her husband and the arrival of his successor. Bellinger doubted his own dating and the coin’s place of issue in 1952, suggesting Cilicia instead of Antioch. This coin is dated by many twenty-first century scholars to 82 BC.
Year of death
Most scholars, such as Edward Theodore Newell, understood Josephus’ statement to indicate 92 BC. According to Hoover, the dating of Newell is hard to accept; a market weight from Antioch bearing Antiochus X’s name, from 92 BC, might contradict the dating of 93/92 BC. On the other hand, in the year 92/91 BC, the city of Antioch issued civic coinage mentioning no king, indicating important developments taking place at that time. Hoover noted that the civic coinage mentions Antioch as the “metropolis” but not as autonomous; this might be explained as a reward from Antiochus X bestowed upon the city for supporting him in his struggle against his cousins.
In 2007, using a methodology based on estimating the annual die usage average rate (the Esty formula), Hoover proposed the year 89/88 BC for the end of Antiochus X’s reign. Later in 2011, Hoover noted that this date is hard to accept considering that during Antiochus X second reign in the capital, only one or two dies were used per year, far too few for the Seleukid average rate to justify a long reign. Hoover then noted that there seem to be several indications that the coinage of Antiochus X’s second reign in the capital, along with the coinage of Antiochus XI and Demetrius III, were re-coined by Philip I who eventually took Antioch c. 87 BC, thus explaining the rarity of those kings’ coins. Hoover admitted that his conclusion is “troubling”. Marek Jan Olbrycht (pl) considered Hoover’s dating and arguments too speculative, as they contradict ancient literature.
Manner of death
The manner of the king’s death varies depending on which ancient account is used. The main ancient historians providing information on Antiochus X’s end are Josephus, Appian, Eusebius and Saint Jerome:
The account of Josephus: “For when he was come as an auxiliary to Laodice, queen of the Gileadites, when she was making war against the Parthians, and he was fighting courageously, he fell.” The people of Laodice, their location, and who she was, are hard to determine, as surviving manuscripts of Josephus’ work transmit different names for the people. Gileadites is an older designation based on the Codex Leidensis (Lugdunensis) manuscript of Josephus’ work, but the academic consensus uses the designation Sameans, based on the Codex Palatinus (Vaticanus) Graecus manuscript.
- Based on the reading Gileadites: In the view of Bouché-Leclercq, the division of the Seleukid empire between Antiochus X and his cousins must have tempted the Parthian king Mithridates II to annex the kingdom. Bouché-Leclercq, agreeing with Alfred von Gutschmid, identified the mysterious queen with Laodice, daughter of Antiochus VIII, and wife of Mithridates I, the king of Commagene, which had recently detached from the Seleukids, and suggested that Laodice resided in Samosata. Bouché-Leclercq hypothesized that Antiochus X did not go to help the sister of his cousins and rivals, but to stop the Parthians before they reached his own borders. Adolf Kuhn, on the other hand, considered it implausible that Antiochus X would support a daughter of Antiochus VIII and he questioned the identification with the queen of Commagene. Ehling, attempting to explain Antiochus X’s assistance of Laodice, suggested that the queen was a daughter of Antiochus IX, a sister of Antiochus X.
- Based on the reading Sameans: Josef Dobiáš (cs) considered Laodice a queen of a nomadic tribe based on the similarities between the name from the Codex Palatinus (Vaticanus) Graecus with the Samènes, a people mentioned by Stephanus of Byzantium as an Arab nomadic tribe. This would solve the problems posed by the identification with the queen of Commagene, and end the debate regarding the location of the people, as the nature of their nomadic life makes it impossible to determine exactly the place where the fight took place. Dobiáš attributed the initiative to Antiochus X who was not merely trying to defend his borders but actively attacking the Parthians.
The account of Appian: Antiochus X was expelled from the Seleukid empire by Tigranes II of Armenia. Appian gave Tigranes a reign of fourteen years in Seleukeia ending in 69 BC. That year witnessed the retreat of the Armenian king due to a war with the Romans. Hence, the invasion of Seleukid empire by Tigranes, based on the account of Appian, probably took place in 83 BC. Bellinger dismissed this account, and considered that Appian confused Antiochus X with his son Antiochus XIII. Kuhn considered a confusion between father and son to be out of the question because Appian mentioned the epithet Eusebes when talking about the fate of Antiochus X. In the view of Kuhn, Antiochus X retreated to Cilicia after being defeated by Tigranes, and his sons ruled that region after him and were reported visiting Rome in 73 BC. However, numismatic evidence proves that Demetrius III controlled Cilicia following the demise of Antiochus X, and that Tarsus minted coins in his name c. 88/87 BC. Christopher J. Bennett, considered it possible that Antiochus X retreated to Ptolemais after being defeated by Tigranes since it became his widow’s base. In his history, Appian failed to mention the reign of Demetrius III in the capital, or the reign of Philip I which followed, and preceded the reign of Tigranes. According to Hoover, Appian’s ignorance of the intervening kings between Antiochus X and Tigranes might explain how he confused Antiochus XIII, who is known to have fled from the Armenian king, with his father.
Eusebius and others: According to Eusebius, who used the account of Porphyry, Antiochus X was ejected from the capital by Philip I in 93/92 BC and fled to the Parthians. Eusebius added that following the Roman conquest of the Seleukids, Antiochus X surrendered to Pompey, hoping to be reinstated on the throne, but the people of Antioch paid money to the Roman general to avoid a Seleukid restoration. Antiochus was then invited by the people of Alexandria to rule jointly with the daughters of Ptolemy XII, but he died of illness soon after. This account has been questioned by many scholars, such as Hoover and Bellinger. The story told by Eusebius contains factual inaccuracies, as he wrote that Antiochus X surrendered to Pompey, while at the same time Philip I was captured by the governor of Seleukeia Aulus Gabinius. However, Pompey left Seleukeia in 62 BC, and Aulus Gabinius was appointed governor of Seleukeia in 57 BC. Also, the part of Eusebius’ account regarding the surrender to Pompey echoes the fate of Antiochus XIII; the writer seems to be confusing the fate of Antiochus X with that of his son. The 2nd-century historian Justin, writing based on Trogus, also confused the father and son, as he wrote that Antiochus X was appointed king of Seleukid empire by the Roman general Lucullus following the defeat of Tigranes in 69 BC.
 The Seleucid Empire was a Hellenistic state ruled by the Seleucid dynasty founded by Seleucus I Nicator following the division of the empire created by Alexander the Great. Seleucus received Babylonia and, from there, expanded his dominions to include much of Alexander’s near eastern territories.
The Seleucid Empire was a major center of Hellenistic culture that maintained the preeminence of Greek customs where a Greek-Macedonian political elite dominated, mostly in the urban areas. The Greek population of the cities who formed the dominant elite were reinforced by emigration from Greece. Seleucid expansion into Anatolia and Greece was abruptly halted after decisive defeats at the hands of the Roman army. Their attempts to defeat their old enemy Ptolemaic Egypt were frustrated by Roman demands. Much of the eastern part of the empire was conquered by the Parthians under Mithridates I of Parthia in the mid-2nd century BC, yet the Seleucid kings continued to rule a rump state from the Seleukid Kingdom until the invasion by Armenian king Tigranes the Great and their ultimate overthrow by the Roman general Pompey.
|
