056: The Seleucid Empire - A Royal Wedding, A Bactrian Revolt, & A Parthian Invasion

Hi there, you're listening to The Hellenistic Age Podcast, Episode 56, The Seleucid Empire, A Royal Wedding, A Bactrian Revolt, and a Parthian Invasion. Over 25 episodes ago, we covered the reigns of the first two kings of the Seleucid Empire, Seleucus I Nicator and his son, Antiochus I Soter. Despite some setbacks, the empire was easily one of the most powerful states in the known From 281 onwards, Antiochus continued his father's program of urbanization and city-building throughout the Near East and Central Asia, while successfully dealing with threats like marauding Celts in Asia Minor and Ptolemaic incursions into Syria. The last years of Antiochus' reign did not go so smoothly, however, as a defeat inflicted by his subordinate official Eumenes of Pergamon contributed to the king's death in 261 and left the situation of Asia Minor up in the air. But it has been argued that the wind had long been taken out of Antiochus' sails when he was forced to execute his son and joint ruler, Seleucus, sometime around the year 267. The details are murky and virtually non-existent, but it is possible that Seleucus was becoming impatient at the prospect of ruling the empire on his own. He had been a joint king for well over thirteen years, the longest of any known Seleucid monarch. Therefore, upon the king's death, it would be left to his youngest and last surviving son Antiochus II to assume the diadem. It seems that this wasn't a universally accepted move, as there appears to be a disturbance in Babylonia around the same time as his coronation involving someone named Seleucus. It could be an imposter pretending to be his dead brother or merely a rebellious official. Like the rest of Antiochus' reign, though, it is poorly documented and unfortunately not much can be said about it. But what would it be if the crowning of a new Seleucid king did not immediately lead to another war with the Ptolemaic ruler, Ptolemy II Philadelphus? From what we know about the Second Syrian War, its origins were linked to Antiochus' capture of the city of Miletus on the island of Samos and the execution of its tyrant Timarchus in 259, for which he was given the epithet theos, or divine, by its citizens. This seems reasonably innocuous, but the issue was that both Miletus and its mainland neighbor of Ephesus were under Ptolemy's jurisdiction, until his ambitious official Timarchus and stepson Ptolemy Epigonus seized both cities in rebellion. Epigonus had already been killed and Ephesus restored to Ptolemy, but Antiochus' intervention was seen as a hostile takeover of what was supposed to be a Ptolemaic-controlled city. Again, like the First Syrian War, the account is fragmentary and barely coherent. It appears that Ptolemy made some gains in Syria during the initial years of the conflict. The abandonment of the Seleucid-era calendrical system by the Phoenician island city of Aridos suggests a change-up in the pro-Seleucid government, and a horde of Ptolemaic coins dating to this period have been discovered near Antioch, but he was driven out as quickly as he had arrived. Antiochus had been able to make several diplomatic moves in the meanwhile to turn the tide of the war to his advantage. One of them was his successful alliance with Rhodes, a traditional ally of the Ptolemies that was invaluable in its role as a port for the Egyptian naval hegemony, and the Rhodian fleet was able to best Philadelphus in a naval engagement sometime around 258. Another was a marriage between Antiochus' daughter Stratonicae and Ariorathes III, an Iranian king whose family ruled over Cappadocia in eastern Turkey. This is the first time that the Seleucid dynasty allowed one of its princesses to marry into the local Iranian nobility, which received a considerable gain to their prestige and legitimacy as local ruling powers. Such a move is likely due to the Seleucid interest in maintaining control of Anatolia, an argument that is strengthened by the fact that another of Antiochus' daughters was married to the Iranian ruler Mithridates II of Pontus about a decade afterwards. For some five years, the war raged on in Syria, Asia Minor, and the Aegean Sea. In 253-252, a general peace would be imposed and bring an end to the conflict. It would be sealed with a marriage between Antiochus and Berenice, a daughter of Ptolemy II. This was and continues to be seen as a highly significant event that resulted in serious consequences for the Seleucids, but has been interpreted in a multitude of perspectives. In elaborate procession, Ptolemy escorted Berenice to the eastern edge of the Nile Delta at the city of Pelusium before transferring her to one of his officials in order to give her away to the Seleucid king at the border. With the bride came the dowry, a veritable dragon's hoard of silver and gold that earned her the nickname Phrenophoros, Berenice the dowry bringer. It is traditionally thought that this marriage was a diplomatic victory for Ptolemy. One of the conditions was allegedly the repudiation and divorce of Antiochus' first wife, Laodice I. In so doing this, Berenice would become the primary wife. Ptolemy is said to have kept a vested interest in his daughter's well-being, sending her water from the Nile to assist with her pregnancy. Barring the obvious like fatherly love, it is little wonder why he would be so concerned. Any children produced of that union could potentially be seen as the heirs to the Seleucid throne and by extension allowed for claims by the Ptolemies. Compared to such an imperial figure like Berenice, Laodice possessed a lesser pedigree as the descendant of a seemingly unimportant Anatolian landowner, more on that in the next episode. Combine this with the delivery of an enormous amount of Egyptian wealth that was to be his dowry or bribe, the choice was obvious for Antiochus. This is why this marriage was seen as something of a poison pill for the Seleucids, as the repudiation of Laodice is seen as the unintentional catalyst for several years of strife within the Seleucid dynasty. To the author of the Book of Daniel, the marriage between the King of the North to the daughter of the King of the South ironically guaranteed further conflict for both despite its purpose to bind the two parties together as a peace treaty. Despite the rather pessimistic attitude towards the marriage, there is a fair amount of evidence that this was more of a diplomatic victory for Antiochus rather than Ptolemy. The incredibly large dowry accompanying Berenice is perhaps less a bribe and more likely part of the indemnities for the Second Syrian War. Antiochus' successes in the conflict had left Ptolemy in the weakened position during the peace negotiations, as evidenced by Ptolemy's inability to reclaim the territories that were snatched by the Seleucids. It certainly carried significance as the first marriage arranged between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid houses. Philadelphus may have felt pressured to do so, since the Seleucids were proverbially and literally in bed with his rivals, like the Antigonids of Macedonia and Machas and nearby Cyrene. We must not also forget that for Hellenistic kings, polygamy was an acceptable practice and often politically expedient. Even if Ptolemy demanded it, Antiochus was not under any stipulation to divorce Laodice once Berenice arrived in Seleucid territory. In any case, it isn't as if Antiochus was concerned about getting a younger wife to provide future potential heirs. Laodice had already mothered multiple daughters and two teenage sons named Seleucus and Antiochus. From surviving inscriptions and writings, it seems like neither Laodice nor her children lost any sort of prestige or standing from the marriage. She is recorded as gifting vast estates to the communities of Babylonia and attended a ceremony in Babylon with her children to symbolize the unity of the house. There does exist a copy of a land sale and its associated privileges between Antiochus and Laodice, which is noted for the absence of any royal titles on her behalf and is sometimes suggested to be a description of a divorce settlement. Such protocol was inconsistent at best, and the lack of any extra information makes it impossible to tell whether it was a divorce settlement or merely a gift between husband and wife. Perhaps the reason that the wedding between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic houses was seen in such a negative light by ancient historians is due to the outbreak of the Third Syrian War in 246. Laodice has often been unfairly assigned the lion's share of the blame on rather spurious grounds. Sufficient motivation was needed for a spurned and jealous ex-wife to take action, even for such deeds like murder. That's another story for another time though. It is extremely unlikely that this was planned as a realistic and permanent peace solution to their dynastic rivalry, and with Ptolemy II in his late seventies, another war was something that was to be expected upon the crowning of his soon-to-be successor. But the final years of Antiochus's reign were relatively quiet, with little in the way of anything going on to warrant significant discussion, at least in the Seleucid heartland. In the East, things were a bit different. For now, let us pause our narrative of the affairs of the royal family. We will return to Antiochus II in the next episode, and for now, let me spend the rest of our time discussing events that are unbelievably convoluted yet integral to the Seleucid story. Let us talk about the Parthians and Greco-Bactria. Before you click that fast-forward button, I wanted to let you all know that I recently commissioned an amazingly talented artist to design some new merchandise for the show, two beautifully done full-colored portraits of Alexander the Great and Cleopatra, modeled after their depictions on ancient coinage, paintings, and statues. These can be found on my store page on redbubble.com, where you can order them as t-shirts, stickers, and a wide variety of other products. Each sale directly supports the show, so check out the link I have provided on my website's homepage, the podcast description, or by searching Hellenistic Age Podcast on redbubble.com. Now, back to the show. From mid-250s to the 230s BC, a series of events transpired in the eastern part of the Seleucid Empire. They are immeasurably important to the fate of both the Hellenistic Far East and the Seleucids, but we have so little information about what transpired and how, if at all, they are connected to each other. I am talking, of course, about the regions of Parthia and Bactria. Before I do a complete analysis of what happened, let me explain to you what is given by the few sources we have. Technically, this will involve spoilers for events that won't be covered until the next episode, but I couldn't find a natural way to combine the reigns of Antiochus II and Seleucus II while also including this admittedly major digression. In the late 250s, early 240s BC, there were two Satraps. In Parthia, there was Andragoras, and Bactria was overseen by Diodatus. Parthia is approximately the region of northeastern Iran and southern Turkmenistan. While Bactria encompassed parts of Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, essentially they were next-door neighbors, but also far away from the cores of the Seleucid Empire that personal visits by the king were uncommon. Taking advantage of the king's absence during the chaos of the Third Syrian War, Andragoras is said to have revolted in the year 246-245. In the same period, Diodatus also rebelled and declared himself king, marking the official breakaway of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom. Either during these events or shortly thereafter came the Parni, a nomadic horse-rearing tribe of the Steppes who broke off from the Dahai Confederacy and settled along the Caspian Sea sometime around the turn of the 4th century. They had once clashed with Seleucid forces under the command of a general Demodamas in the 280s after raiding into the satrapy of Margiana, what had remained largely quiet since then. Under the leadership of their ambitious new king, Arsakes, the Parni descended upon Parthia and killed Andragoras, claiming it as part of their own kingdom. Once Parthia was theirs, Arsakes took Hyrcania along the southern Caspian Sea and attempted to raid into Bactria, but a defeat by Diodatus quickly put the kibosh on those plans. After the passing of Diodatus I, his son Diodatus II made an alliance with Arsakes, and the Parni king was able to consolidate his territory in peace. The Parni, now known as the Parthians, would establish themselves as an up-and-coming power in the Hellenistic world that would rival and eventually triumph over the Seleucids in both Mesopotamia and the Iranian Plateau. In the meanwhile, the Diodatids were the first rulers of Greco-Bactria before being overthrown by another ambitious Greek named Euthydemus. The political successors of Euthydemus would eventually invade northern India, and establish the Indo-Greek kingdoms which would last down to the 1st century AD. Okay, so it doesn't sound like too complicated a story, right? Well, what I just gave you, though, is an attempted reconciliation of very poor and outright contradictory sources. Most of these were written centuries after the fact, and are often incongruous with one another. Although he provides the most complete and relied-upon account, Justin has a lot of problems in his narrative. He dates Andragoras' revolt to the reign of Antiochus' successor, Seleucus II, during the outbreak of the Third Syrian War in 246, but also mentions the names of contemporary Roman consuls, whose terms would either be in 261 or 255 BC. Justin does not give us a specific sequence for Diodatus' revolt, instead using the vague expression, in the same period. The earlier Appian agrees with the idea that the Third Syrian War was the cause of Parthian independence, but does not mention Bactria nor the Parni. The geographer Strabo is the least specific of all, saying that the revolts took place when the Seleucid kings were distracted. With the invasion of Parthia by Arsacis and the Parni, Justin claims that it took place after Seleucus II was defeated at the Battle of Ancyra in 239, while Strabo suggests it occurred after the Bactrian revolt. This conflicts with the foundation date of the Parthian era, an adaptation of the Seleucid era we talked about in episode 54, which dates to 248 or 247. From what little accounts there are, this can be a bit overwhelming, and not make much sense. Despite the general acceptance of the date 246 as the turning point of Seleucid control in Central Asia, we have a possible range of 255 to 239 BC to reconcile the revolts of Diodatus and Andragoras, and the invasion of Arsacis. There has even been the emergence of two camps, a high chronology and a low one. High chronologies date several of these events to the reign of Antiochus II, while others push it to Seleucus II. What also adds to the confusion are the writers' use of the term Parthian, which can simultaneously refer to the people living in Parthia, the Satrapi, and the nomadic Parni who invaded and became the Parthians. Instead of only relying on literary accounts, one of the key tools that can be used to analyze this chain of events is numismatics, the study of coinage. This is going to be a bigger issue when it comes to Greco-Bactria and the later Indo-Greek kingdoms, since we have many finely preserved specimens that are sometimes the only pieces of evidence that can be used to give us even the faintest chronologies or presence for dozens of kings. Andragoras is recorded as being the Seleucid Satrap of Parthia by Justin, which seems to be confirmed by an inscription discovered in nearby former Huracania. He was likely of Iranian or local background, and may be the descendant of an official of the same name who served under Alexander, though this could very well be propaganda to establish a fictitious dynasty. Gold coins minted in Andragoras' name have been recovered, likely dating to the reign of Antiochus II or just shortly following his death. On the front is a heavily bearded man wearing the royal diadem, and on the reverse is a four-horse chariot led by the goddess Athena, with the name of Andragoras written in Greek. The profile of the man is unlike those of contemporary Hellenistic kings who were typically beardless, but beards were a feature of Iranian kings. The quadriga was associated with the Seleucids, though normally with elephants rather than horses, and the female figure could very likely be a Hellenized depiction of the Iranian goddess Anahita. From the evidence, it appears that Andragoras was attempting to communicate his status as a monarch in a Greek royal language while still heavily appealing to the indigenous Iranian living in Bactria, and perhaps his own ancestry. The coins of the first Greco-Bactrian kings have proved to be a very divisive topic among scholars and numismatists, but we can look to it to see evidence of Diodotus' independence. There are specimens of Seleucid coins minted in Bactria, with the profiles of Antiochus I and Antiochus II on them, but there is a stark contrast in the amount that have survived, 62 for Antiochus I and only 2 for his son. Does this indicate a gradual disregard for Seleucid authority by the Satrap? Perhaps, but it also could be due to circumstances of luck. Bactrian coinage has been exceedingly rare to find anyways, and might not necessarily reflect the true volume minted, and Antiochus was more personally involved in the management of the other Satrapies during the joint kingship between him and his father Seleucus. At some point, a coin was struck bearing the image of Diodotus wearing a diadem. The reverse replaced the seated Apollo, the patron deity of the Seleucid house, with the god Zeus, wielding a thunderbolt often referred to as the Thundering Zeus, which is also the title of a book by Frank Lee Holt on the coinage of Hellenistic Bactria, which I've been heavily relying on for this episode. I will also provide examples and links to images of these coins on my website and in the show notes, so please do check that out. There is a bit of controversy regarding the Thundering Zeus coinage. There are specimens stamped with the name of Diodotus on them, and there are some with the name of Antiochus. It could very well be that the transition from Satrap to independent ruler was a lengthy process, and the gradual replacement of Seleucid elements with Diodotid ones goes along with the idea that the furthermost upper satrapies were relatively unsupervised since the early days of Antiochus I. Justin indicates that the process of independence was an overnight occurrence following the Third Syrian War. This is reinforced since there are no surviving specimens of Seleucus II that were minted in Bactria, so the date of 246 does seem to line up as the official breaking point from the Seleucid dynasty. But it is thought that the coins of Diodotus I were minted both before and after his death. The specimens with the name Antiochus would have also been minted by Diodotus I as a sort of nominal allegiance to the Seleucids, while the ones with the Satrap's name on them would have been minted by his son, Diodotus II. If this was done upon Diodotus I's death, then Diodotus II would be the one responsible for the official independence of Bactria. To make it even more complicated, it is possible that the Antiochus Diodotus coins do not belong to either ruler, but instead a missing third Diodotic king named Antiochus Nicator. But let's not get over our heads though, shall we? What role does Arsacis and the Parni play in all of this? The tribe had been gradually migrating closer towards Seleucid territory for several decades now. Driven by the unstable conditions of the steppe, both Alexander and the Seleucids maintained an aggressive disposition towards the nomads, and it is thought that they had disrupted the long-established cultural and economic links of the regions between the steppe and places like Bactria and Margion. Previously, the Parni had tried to raid into the empire, but it faced fierce resistance from the Greeks living there. The political instability of Bactria and Parthia, and the turmoil of the Seleucid government during both the Third Syrian War in 246 and the War of the Brothers in 239 provided an excellent opportunity not only for the Parni to raid, but also to migrate to lands that were more prosperous and stable than that of the steppe. But there were also issues with dating this as well. Some scholars believe that the conquest of Parthia by the Parni compelled Diodotus to declare himself as an independent king. There might be some evidence for this found on a coinage type of Diodotus I, often described as Type B, which is stamped with a victory wreath upon it, and dates to the early 230s BC. Diodotus and Arsaces clashed at least once following the latter's invasion of Parthia and murder of Androgoras, with Diodotus coming out as the winner. A military victory, especially against non-Greek invading tribes, could easily be utilized as an opportunity to proclaim themselves as a king during the Hellenistic period. To throw a wrench in the spanner, there is another question we can raise. Did the Parthians and Greco-Bactrians actually declare independence? From what we have talked about so far, whether in regards to written or numismatic evidence, the general impression is that aspirations of kingship and self-autonomy were seen in figures like Androgoras and Diodotus. There are problems with this assertion, however. The Seleucids never tolerated the rebellions of any subordinate officials, so if there was any sort of gradual or an overnight independence movement in Parthia and Bactria, it would have certainly prompted an imperial response. Seleucid flexibility was hindered by the Third Syrian War, but that is assuming that the revolts occurred in 246 in the first place. So how can we explain this discrepancy? Well, there was actually something of a retaliatory campaign by Seleucus II in the mid-230s. Unfortunately, the mention is quite brief and there is little to go on. Justin states that Seleucus invaded Parthia in an effort to punish the revolting parties, and both he and Arsaces engaged in the battle that ultimately resulted in a Parthian victory. The only piece of evidence from Strabo is that at one point Arsaces had retreated from Seleucus to the territory of the Apasiakai, but the 4th century Ammianus Marcellinus seems to confirm that Arsaces ultimately emerged the winner. The Bactrian ruler, Diodotus II at this point, is not said to have played a part in the fighting. He did engage in some sort of alliance with Arsaces though, which could be seen as the main reason as to why he didn't get involved, but it is also quite possible that he was using Parthia as a shield and waiting to see how things turned out. Still, this campaign does not leave much in the way of dates and events, so any conclusion remains speculative at best. Recently though, a movement has developed against the standard view of the rise of Parthia and Greco-Bactria being tied to the ever-gradual decline of the Seleucid Empire since the heyday of Seleucus and Antiochus I. For some, the emergence of these autonomous or semi-autonomous leaders wasn't due to the Seleucid state being the sick man of the Hellenistic world, it actually reflected an empire that was capable of meeting the challenges of rule. In Boras, Trubasics were kings and usurpers in the Seleucid Empire, the men who would be king, there are what are called local power holders, a term that encompasses regional dynasties or client kings that would be granted a certain degree of freedom and autonomy while maintaining the interests of the Seleucid dynasty. As we extensively discussed in episode 54, governing an empire of this size was very difficult and required the king to be constantly on the move. In regions where the king could not constantly patrol, delegating control to such figures was a way to mitigate such logistical and spatial challenges. These local power holders could be given the right to mint coins in their own name, allow them to use the title of king, or control armies. In return, they would keep the peace and security of these territories. What evidence do we have to support this notion? From a political and military standpoint, the majority of the threats to the Seleucids during the 3rd century would arise in the western satrapies, either from civil wars or their conflicts with the Ptolemies. The 240s and 230s were tumultuous times, and to grant privileges to the Diodatids was a small price to pay in order to ensure overall cohesion while the king could handle the affairs on the home front. While Diodatus II's apparent absence from the Seleucid Parthian War in Justin's narrative raises several questions, it is interesting to note that he also states that Arsakis feared both Seleucus II and Diodatus I. This does possibly lend support to the idea that Diodatus I was a loyal agent of the Seleucids until his death, but his son may have strong-armed Seleucus into granting more explicit privileges to reflect his growing responsibility. Better to give someone the ability to wear the diadem than have a wealthy satrapy like Bactria fall out of Seleucid hands entirely. There are also two pieces of evidence suggesting that the Seleucids had ultimately retained control of their eastern territories. A copied inscription of Ptolemy III describes, or more accurately, exaggerates, his conquests of Seleucid lands as far as India during the Third Syrian War, and an anecdote by the author Polyainus suggests that Ptolemy sent letters to Seleucid officials to trick them into giving up their territory, which included lands like Bactria. Obviously, there are significant problems with these accounts, but it does suggest that at the time of these events, neither Bactria nor Parthia were seen as independent regions. The fate of Arsakis also lends evidence to this model of Seleucid suzerainty. Coins minted in the reign of Arsakis communicate the images of power in unmistakably nomadic terms. The profile of the king shows him wearing the headgarb commonly associated with the peoples of the steppe, while the reverse shows a seated nomad equipped with a bow. Now it is quite possible that the reverse is partially an adaptation of the seated Apollo of Seleucid coinage, but the king as an archer is a feature common in both Iranian and nomadic kingship models. Unlike Diodotus or Androgoras, none of the coins of Arsakis uses the term basileus. Instead, we find the word autocrator, which can carry royal connotations, but only in a very limited fashion. While Seleucus II's campaign against the Parthians is so poorly documented, Arsakis' victory over the king makes it surprising that he would take such an implicitly subordinate role given the opportunity. I don't think that a single defeat would prevent Seleucus from further retaliating against the Parthians given the military and economic capabilities of the empire. True, the defeat at Ancyra may have prevented Seleucus from operating with the army at full capacity, and the lack of assistance from Diodotus II did not help either, but it is quite possible that the two leaders came to terms and recognized a mutual need. Arsakis wished to retain control of Parthia, while Seleucus needed some breathing space to deal with troubles in the west and to secure his eastern borders at the same time. If we look at it from a historical viewpoint, there is some credit to this idea. The emergence of smaller kings may indeed indicate a structural weakness, but there are also many instances of great powers and monarchs having several subordinate or basile rulers that served their interests to considerable success and prestige. The Roman Empire maintained vassal states on their eastern borders for centuries, and the concept of a king of kings had existed in the Near East since at least the time of the Assyrians. If we want something more contemporary, then the Adalids of Pergamon may be a good example. The clash between Antiochus I and Eumenes I in the early 260s is often seen as the definitive break of the Adalids from the empire, but the battle is quite unusual in the long view, as Eumenes' predecessor Philotyros was on very good terms with the Seleucids, and there was no further issue until Eumenes' fight against Antiochus Hierax, who was seen as a Seleucid usurper. The Adalids would also fight against the Galatians and figures like Achaios, who were also seen as enemies of the Seleucid government. Like Andragoras and Diodorus, Eumenes minted coins with his image crowned with a diadem, so there appears to be a similar pattern of privileges and autonomy in return for securing the general peace. Still, this is not the only theory, but I do find it to be an interesting alternative to the typical decline and fall model of the Seleucid state. In the long term, the rise of Parthia and Bactria during the mid 3rd century was truly an important event for not only the fate of the Seleucid Empire, but also for world history. Traditionally, it has been seen as the beginning of the end, with the emergence of several independent or quasi-independent states and powers providing evidence of the long decline of the Seleucid imperial state, but perhaps it could be viewed in a different light. As it has been pointed out before, one of the unique traits that empires possess is their ability to expand, collapse, and expand again. An appointment of subordinate officials in the face of such external and internal pressures suggests that the Seleucids were more capable at maintaining their state than has been previously thought. If anything, the nature of our sources for this period and region reveals much of our weaknesses in trying to tell a coherent narrative. I hope that my attempts at capturing a nuanced approach does not muddle your perspectives on Parthia and Greco-Bactria's origins. There are other details and arguments that I had to omit for the sake of clarity and brevity. But for the moment, the Iranian plateau remained within Seleucid hands, if loosely so. Ironically, the near collapse of Seleucid power during this time would not be due to invading nomads or rebellious Satraps. Instead, it would be caused by fractious infighting within the royal family and the violent nature of Hellenistic politics. By the end of the 220s BC, the dynasty would be teetering on the verge of extinction, much as Alexander's house had done less than a century before. On the next episode, we will largely be sticking to the Eastern Mediterranean, covering the rather tumultuous reign of Seleucus II Kallinicus. A vigorous attack from the newly crowned Ptolemy III Eurygetes would turn Seleuca-controlled Syria into a war zone, whilst Seleucus found a familial rival in the form of the usurper Antiochus Hyrax, leading to the appropriately named War of the Brothers, that looked to tear the empire apart at the seams. As ever, thank you all for listening and for your patience between the last episode and this one. Things got a little hectic over the last month, and unfortunately it's going to be a little slow due to work-related changes, but I have been modifying my production habits to compensate. If you're looking for some more additional content to hold you over, I was recently a guest on the Countries That Don't Exist Anymore podcast, where I talked about ancient Sparta and the Hellenistic world, so do please check out their show, which I will link to in my episode list section of my website. Like I said in the break, I am also proud to show off some new designs for this show merchandise done by the amazingly talented Stephanie Pepper, which you can find on my store at Revvable.com. You can find the links to these by checking out the podcast description and the episode notes, where you can also get access to the show transcript and bibliography for this episode. So, until next time, you've been listening to The Hellenistic Age Podcast.