Hi all Not posting a coin here (sorry), just asking some questions on what the "general consensus" is (if one exists that is) regarding the accepted time frames for Seleucid coins. I am looking to commence the Seleucid section of my ancient collection, and am toying with a range of what you might call 'accessibly' priced coins to kick it off, including Tetradrachms, Drachms, and a range of bronze coins. These more accessible coins seem to be in the later stages of the Empire when, arguably, it was no longer an empire - but instead what one might call a 'rump state'. My question therefore relates to the upper acceptable date for collecting Seleucid coins. The Treaty of Apamea in 188 BC is arguably the end of the Seleucid Empire (as far as an actual Empire goes). Is this correct? Or do we accept that they still limped along? If not the Treaty of Apmea, do we use the death of Sidetes in 129 BC to mark the end of the Empire? Or do we use the series of catastrophic events following his death up to around 100 BC to mark the end of the Empire? Or do we accept that they were still around in some way shape or form until Rome officially annexed them in 63 BC? Views appreciated! Cheers AC
Interesting question. Officially it ended 63 BC when it got anexed by Rome but in my opinion the treaty of Apamea was when the Seleucid empire was not that "great" anymore, the end that the Seleucid empire was not on its highest anymore. When Sidetes died and all the civil wars and the catastrophic events and assassination after assassination around 100 BC happened is for me the end of the Seleucid empire. If you read the stories about Gyrpos I am actually suprised how he managed to stay on the throne for almost 30 years, I don't call him a king anymore. Imagine what a citizen must have thinked about this in that time, one person could have had 10 different kings in 1 life time. In the summer I went to the Manchester museum and I spoke to the curator there and he decided to give me a 'tour behind the scenes'. He showed me over 1000 coins with many Seleucid coins as well, it was very interesting to see a tetradrachm of every Seleucid ruler in your own hand. If I remember correctly the last person who visited the 'behind the scenes' of the coins was somewhere in 1997, so I felt quite thankful about that.
I have always thought of 83 BC, the year Tigranes II of Armenia took control of Antioch and most of Syria, as the point that marked the death of the Seleucid Empire. If not for the Romans I doubt the Seleucid 'Empire' would have been restored. Tigranes struck some very nice tetradrachms, including this one at Antioch. It is not my coin, though the type is high on my want list.
IMO any group of coins can include a coin that is one step outside the normal bounds of the group. That means a Seleucid collection might include something Roman, Armenian, Parthian or anything that was eating away at the standard definition group. Certainly we don't stop collecting when an empire stops being significant. Look at how many people want a coin of the last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI who is about as insignificant as Romulus Augustulus and pretenders that hung around anywhere after their time had passed.
Thanks for your views Pavlos. I tend to agree with your assessment. If one were to think of their coin as from the 'Seleucid Empire', Sidetes is probably your last call. That sounds like it would have been an amazing experience! Very jealous. Although I suspect the answer is no.... do you have any photos? Yes, the loss of Antioch was certainly a defining moment. I hadn't thought of that before. Thank you for the insight. I 100% agree that we don't stop collecting after the empire loses significance. I'm certainly one of those collectors who wants a coin from Constantine XI (at the moment my latest Byzantine coin is Andronicus III), but I suspect I will never be able to get one. The reason for my question was rather about balance in the collection. I don't particularly want my coins skewed to when the Empire was in it's final death throes. I want the bulk to be when in a time period when it can still legitimately be called an Empire, including my first Tetradrachm. I am seriously eyeing off one of these types (I am in love the reverse design) from around 138 to 129 BC:
Aussie that coin looks like an Alexander I , usurper from 150-145 BC I'm with TheRed, would also like a Tigranes II the Armenian add to my collection. Currently my Antiochos VII 138-129 BC is the last in line for now.
I wanted to make tons of photos to share here on the forum but he didn't publish the catalog of all the coins yet so I was not allowed to make any pictures Yes it was an amazing experience and I learned a lot, I was holding coins which go for around 10.000 dollars at auctions, I think that will be the last time I hold such amazing but very expensive coins. I also got bombarded with coins from Metapontion, I think he showed me around 50-60 of them, since then I really want to have a coin from Metapontion and is at the moment on one of the highest in my wish list.
