History of the Seleucid Empire | Ancient History Documentary 

Idk understand why life so weird but I literally was looking up and watching stuff on this earlier and most is old content here you post something new on it I find that wildd

@@jamesk5541 Part of that RU-vid algorithm, didn't know this channel existed till I search up about Secludid empire.

@@MrGeorge7823 I was already subscribed to him tho

Kush,Askum,China never felt it.

Just give me the data without the globalist circle jerking you do for good goy points, thank you!

I guess four children, two boys and two girls. He had one girl with Stratonice too named Phila who was married off to Antigonus Gonatas.

no need to say "greek-macedonian" culture that's like saying irano-persian culture

I don’t blame him.. some Iranian women can be gorgeous

Haha it was just an easy way of drawing people in keynote at the time!

​@@AncientHistoryGuysome people

" ahh I see you're a man of culture as well"

He really made his mark on RU-vid and I’m happy, I’ve watched that dude forever, probably why I got recommended you friend!

@@olesmokey3023 friend .... you don't know me ..... and me ..... just opinionated .... ✌

i doubt he would have Conquered it.

@@arishemghoul9571 I guess he would have.

@@user-rp5qy2mb6x Macedon would have beaten him on top of that they would probably have the whole the Greece and Ptolemy Egypt Support.

@@arishemghoul9571 Still I think he would have defeated them 🙄 He had armies of Persia and median lands and was ally of a powerful Indian Emperor

My fav too!

Why was their downfall a foregone conclusion? 😭

They are my favourite aswell!

@@Fallout3131 they haded terrible borders.

I like the guy because he was the only diadoch that I feel started from scratch, unlike others who basically were satraps or wielded power in some way. Unfortunately, much information of the guy conquests is not known

Thankyou!

Thankyou!

Thankyou!

Thankyou!

@@AncientHistoryGuy You are very welcome. I love learning about history.

It is somewhat isn't it? Thanks!

Awesome! Thank you!

i honestly want to know more about this, how were you able to trace your lineage back so far?

​@@vittoriolepporio122He's my ancestor too. He followed a line of kings through time. Royalty is easier to trace.

I'm a descendant of the Yngling dynasty of Scandinavia and I followed the line to Seleucus. I suppose we're related.

@@jhealey4826 Aren’t the Ynglings mythical?

@@TonyGModesto Freyr was a real king, he was worshipped as a diety afterwards. But there's a lot of myth that evolved with the actual history.

Same, and writing up the script now!

Yup! Interestingly one of the oldest ancient Persian units the Cardakes are noted at having served in seleucid armies all the way to antiochus the great!

Around the time of Antiochus III facing off with Rome, the Roman Republic had. A population between 2 and a half million to 3 million people. Meanwhile the Seleucid Empire had around 18 million inhabitants according to modern estimates. On paper the Seleucids should of had no problem dealing with the immense manpower reserves of Rome, but due to their exclusionary policy of non Greeks from the phalanx in essence the maximum mobilization of their army was around 80 thousand troops while they should've been able to mobilize much more men. Out of all the Mediterranean empires of the rise of the Roman Republic (Rome, Carthage, the kingdom of Macedon, Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid Empire) the Seleucids most definitely had the smallest mobilization rate out of all those empires.

@@zakariyaabdullahi5669 Well actually the Seleucids managed to field more soliders than Macedon the Macedonians fielded around 44,000-50,000 men during the battle of Pydna (mercenaries included) and the Ptolomies suffered from similar problems that the Seleucids did that they avoided recruiting natives and they fell behind the Seleucids heavily in terms of military power and (that is what lead to the Ptolomies turning to the native population and recruiting 20,000 natives in the phalanx. The native phalanx played a decisive role in the battle of Raphia and lead to the ptolomaic victory. The native phalanx did revolt however and caused issues but I really cant blame them. The only Ptolomy to learn the native language was Cleopatra) Also Carthage relied mainly on soldiers of fortune and its citizenry tried to avoid fighting and pay someone ells to do it for them.

​@@kasifhanif2046 Well, the Seleucid Empire did regularly field larger armies than the largest armies the Macedonian Kings could field. But if you look at it as a proportion of the population, Macedon fielded a much higher proportion of the population due to having a much smaller population than that of the Seleucids. At the battle of Pydna, King Perseus had to field nearly every available able-bodied man to field such a huge army. The Seleucid Kings never resorted to such mass mobilisation. You're right about the Ptolemies and the Seleucids facing similar problems with including the natives into the army. But the Ptolemies did more into incorporating the natives than the Seleucids did. But not as good as the Romans did. I'd disagree with what you said about Carthage. There is a big misconception that Carthage extensively relied on Mercenaries and barely used citizens, this doesn't paint the whole picture. Carthage was very similar to Rome, by the time of the 2nd Punic war, the Macedonian wars and beyond, the bulk of Rome's armies weren't made of 'Romans' but was made of Italian Socii (allies). This is actually very similar to the set up of Carthage where the core of the Carthaginian army was usually made up of Libyo-Phoenicians from the African hinterland around Carthage. Sure they weren't 'Carthaginians' but the relationship between the Libyans and Carthaginians was essentially the same as that between the Italian Socii and the Romans where they essentially had citizenship but to a lesser degree than the inhabitants of the city. In the Punic wars up to 50 thousand Libyans would be fielded and they would make up the bulk of the rowers in the Carthaginian fleet. Even if you look at the Iberian troops, at first they were utilized as mercenaries, but by the time of the Barcid conquest of Iberia, the Iberian troops functioned as some of the most loyal of Hannibal's troops, hardly mercenaries. While yes the Carthaginians did make heavy usage of Mercenaries, this reputation is overblown as the core of their army was made up of loyal subjects of their empire in the same way Rome made extensive usage of Socii and Auxiliaries.

@@zakariyaabdullahi5669 The Carthaginians usage of soldiers of fortune dwarfs anything Rome did. The Roman's would use mercenaries to supplement there force which would be 70%-80% recruits and topped up by auxiliaries and during the Republic the Roman and itallian allies fought together (the Itallian allies werent mercenaries) Meanwhile the Carthaginian armies were roughly 40/60 (in favour of mercenaries) or higher in favour of the mercs. Carthages heavy reliance on them lead to the mercenary war. Where the Hellenistic kingdoms are concerned I agree that the Seleucids wasted their potential hence my initial comment. However your comment that Perseus recruited every able bodied man to fight is way of the mark. The kingdom of Macedons population was roughly 4 million people and Perseus's army at Pydna numbered 40,000 to 50,000 men (including mercenaries, he could have had more merceneries but was a notorious miser) Also only 29,000 of Perseus's soldiery were Macedonians with the rest being mercenaries and thracians. During the Time of Philiph and Alexander the great the Macedonian army numbered around 80,000 men. So what lead to the huge decline in number of the Macedonian army (where in 222 BC they could only field 18,500 men) well Firstly the finest and best traveled to Egypt or Syria were they were given huge amount of land and paid handsomely (more than what the king of Macedon could afford) Secondly there had been a huge influx of gold and silver into Greece and Macedon increasing prices of mercenaries and thus an average soldiers pay would also have to increase. Thirdly Alexander the great had abolished direct taxation on Macedonians. So caught betwixt the finest soldiers leaving, spiraling wages and a lack of revenue the Kingdom of Macedon's army fell from roughly from North 80,000 during the time of Alexander the great (Alexander had roughly 47,500 men with him during the battle of Arbela and at the same time Antipater had 40,000 men with him during the battle of Megalopolis (and that's not including garrisons which Alexander had left behind) King Philliph 5th of Macedon fielded an army roughly 26,000 strong at Cynoscephalae. After the battle Philiph undertook huge reforms to increase the royal treasury which of course lead to his son Perseus managing to field 40,000-50,000 soldiers at Pydna. So for Macedon the small size of the army was more related to finaces than anything else.

The Greek language became popular because of trade.

@@kudjoeadkins-battle2502 Trade alone cannot make a language popular, it only becomes popular if rulers patronize it.

@@user-rp5qy2mb6x the rulers spoke mainly among themselves Greek did not become a part of any language traditions in that area until much later with the Romans. And that being in the Levant. Greek writing on the other hand was seen as more simple and easier to learn by no Greeks.

Same!

It just was a time of truly great and ambitious men all trying to be their hero Alexander the Great. It wasn't helped by a maniac like Hannibal coming in and stirring up a war with Rome.

​@@AncientHistoryGuyRomans were barbaric to Carthage though , Hannibal was a dominant figure in history and brutal enough to actually deal with romans.

​@@AncientHistoryGuyWon't call them great but definitely ambitious, Ptlomey forcing his kids to marry each other due to pureblood maniac and Seleucus trying to subtly colonize and favoring Greeks is not a very nice gesture but guess he was way better than whatever happened in Medieval era. Oh the horrors.

Thankyou!

thankyou!

Same!

Still Hollywood brutally ignores them and rather is obsessed with Cleopatra who was a prominent historical figure no doubt but is overrated

Completely new script and everything!

@@AncientHistoryGuy ok. By the way, have you ever thought of making what if scenarios?

Yup! But, i always find they become a bit to Alt History Hub-esk

@@AncientHistoryGuy I understand

Sandrocottus is a greek corruption of Sandrocoptus -Chandragupta And Aggrames was a greek corruption of Sanskrit Augrasainya which means son Or descendant of Ugrasena(Mahapadma Nanda)

Jesus: Hahaha I just see that they were my blood because God was controlling them so that they could be killed. Didn’t you see that the original Jews only exist in Iraq, in Syria, in Iran, and their numbers are very large in Iran, and they resemble the indigenous people. You cannot differentiate between them and the indigenous people.

Most advanced weapon and training wise in terms of armour and strategy not so much. Ancient indus weapons and fighting were notoriously bloody and effective. However their armies did rely heavily on poor conscripts. The actual warrior class was comparatively small, and only they would have been decked out in all of the advance armour. More often than not the mass Infintry block was made up of every able man of a village being led by the village leader but not stratified into distinct officers. However the training was absolutely brutal. There's a famous quote where a Greek is asking a general if they just use mass conscripts would you take someone with no combat experience into battle and the general replies rather bluntly "no". Wrestling and spear training could last for weeks before a conscript army was ready to march out. As these armies were predominantly conscript forces local Lords couldn't afford to equip everyone so they had the basics, a few rubbery leathery armour over the belly and one of the most brutal spears in the Ancient world. Hence the depiction :)

​​@@AncientHistoryGuyprobably you should be studying about mauryan more Because your perception is very wrong The army was very big and defeated greeks like no one

@@AncientHistoryGuy It was really more advanced than any army of that time India had the one of the best or the best Iron and Steel quality on that time even the Indica states Muryan army was comparatively more advanced than Greeks Megasthanese sates Muryan was the best in armoury and wepons also in number of troops

@@AncientHistoryGuy WTAF, well wont blame you as your sources are definitely altered but come on ,Mauryans were way superior than Seleucids in strategy. Poor guy don't know about Chanakya. Can't blame him though. The education system doesn't teach much in both worlds about each other. 😢

@@Worldcitizen7777 Jaane do yaar, use kya pata Magadhi lohe ki taqat, Chandragupta ke sasur ji ne to jhela hai. 😂🤣 Unse zyada thodi janta hoga 😂 Khaie, he won't accept it as his sources are predominantly western and also he has soft side for Seleucids 😂

Antiochus kids did though, one of his daughters basically married all of her brothers!

@@AncientHistoryGuy Lol 🤣and I thought they were slightly better 🤣😂

The Parthians spoke the Greek language

Yes india and chinese too underestimated they can be equal to greek and roman even more 

@@matthijs_de_ligt Indians were a force to reckon with, Alexander had a lot of trouble in north western India (including modern day Pakistan and Afghanistan). Seleucus was defeated by Chandragupta but it was customary in India to not be too brutal with the enemy if his borders were far away and rather make him a feudatory or a vassal. Won't call Seleucus a vassal but he also wasn't powerful like Chandragupta, well atleast not more powerful than him if not less. That's why both Emperors made marital alliance despite being so different in their worldly approaches. It was mutually beneficial.

Not what Ashok did.

​@@user-rp5qy2mb6xNo, Alexander defeated the Indians easily