DOI Heft:
Artikuły / Articles
DOI Artikel:Wójcikowski, Robert S.: Zeus Aëtophoros in the coinage of Seleucus I Nicator
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.43282#0064
ROBERT S. WÓJCIKOWSKI
There is no doubt that the Macedonian-born ruler wished to present himself as
the legitimate successor to Alexander III, whose coinage he attempted to continue.
He was also very much concerned with demonstrating his connection to Zeus,122
who played the essential role in the regal tradition of the Argeads, which would
permit him to associate his figurę with the Macedonian ruling dynasty. The image
of a man on a throne, with a sceptre in his hand, as the representation of a deity
(Baal, Marduk, Ahura Mazda) or a Great King was well-known in the territories
previously under Persian domination. The raptor may possibly be interpreted
as a direct reference to the Achaemenid dynasty, on whose Standards it was used as
the royal emblem; it may also have been interpreted or it may also be interpreted
as an expression of divine protection over the new dynasty. This kind of reasoning
did not have to be far-fetched to Seleucus, who had married an Iranian princess.
Beyond any doubt, he was concerned with receiving support from Babylonian and
Iranian elites and with preserving peace in the eastern provinces, for this enabled
him to carry on conscripting and mobilizing soldiers, which was necessary in view
of the state of constant warfare among the Diadochi.123
It would be of great interest to investigate the question as to what extent Seleucus I
made an effort to represent himself as the successor to the Achaemenid dynasty.
In his analysis of the model of the Seleucid monarchy, Ch. Tuplin points out that
Seleucus’ direct point of reference was Alexander the Great, not the Achaemenids.124
A similar view has been expressed by B. Eckhardt, who notes that even though
the Seleucids took over certain roles played by the kings of the Achaemenid dynasty,
including the religious cult practices, as the local Asian population (e.g. in Babylonia)
would have expected of them, they cannot be regarded as the direct successors to
the royal house of the Achaemenids; Seleucids were apparently uninterested in the
heritage of this royal house, and showed concern for and referred only to the legacy
of Alexander III.125 As W.W. Tarn has noted, the Seleucids attempted, in the early
3rd Century BC, to present Apama as the daughter of Alexander the Great and
Roxana (who was reputedly Darius IIFs illegitimate daughter), which would have
made them legitimate successors to both the Argeads and the Achaemenids alike.126
In consideration of the fact that the founder of the dynasty, Seleucus I, did not have
a drop of royal blood in his veins, this was without a doubt a magnificent prospect
for his own successors.
122 ERICKSON 2009: 37-41; HADLEY 1974: 58-59; NEWELL 1938: 38.
123 The process of the orientalization of the Greek/Macedonian anny had already started with Alexander III,
which is often overlooked among modern scholars (OLBRYCHT 2004: 200-204; IDEM 2011b).
124 TUPLIN 2008: 121.
125 ECKHARDT 2015: 271-272.
126 TARN 1929: 138.
There is no doubt that the Macedonian-born ruler wished to present himself as
the legitimate successor to Alexander III, whose coinage he attempted to continue.
He was also very much concerned with demonstrating his connection to Zeus,122
who played the essential role in the regal tradition of the Argeads, which would
permit him to associate his figurę with the Macedonian ruling dynasty. The image
of a man on a throne, with a sceptre in his hand, as the representation of a deity
(Baal, Marduk, Ahura Mazda) or a Great King was well-known in the territories
previously under Persian domination. The raptor may possibly be interpreted
as a direct reference to the Achaemenid dynasty, on whose Standards it was used as
the royal emblem; it may also have been interpreted or it may also be interpreted
as an expression of divine protection over the new dynasty. This kind of reasoning
did not have to be far-fetched to Seleucus, who had married an Iranian princess.
Beyond any doubt, he was concerned with receiving support from Babylonian and
Iranian elites and with preserving peace in the eastern provinces, for this enabled
him to carry on conscripting and mobilizing soldiers, which was necessary in view
of the state of constant warfare among the Diadochi.123
It would be of great interest to investigate the question as to what extent Seleucus I
made an effort to represent himself as the successor to the Achaemenid dynasty.
In his analysis of the model of the Seleucid monarchy, Ch. Tuplin points out that
Seleucus’ direct point of reference was Alexander the Great, not the Achaemenids.124
A similar view has been expressed by B. Eckhardt, who notes that even though
the Seleucids took over certain roles played by the kings of the Achaemenid dynasty,
including the religious cult practices, as the local Asian population (e.g. in Babylonia)
would have expected of them, they cannot be regarded as the direct successors to
the royal house of the Achaemenids; Seleucids were apparently uninterested in the
heritage of this royal house, and showed concern for and referred only to the legacy
of Alexander III.125 As W.W. Tarn has noted, the Seleucids attempted, in the early
3rd Century BC, to present Apama as the daughter of Alexander the Great and
Roxana (who was reputedly Darius IIFs illegitimate daughter), which would have
made them legitimate successors to both the Argeads and the Achaemenids alike.126
In consideration of the fact that the founder of the dynasty, Seleucus I, did not have
a drop of royal blood in his veins, this was without a doubt a magnificent prospect
for his own successors.
122 ERICKSON 2009: 37-41; HADLEY 1974: 58-59; NEWELL 1938: 38.
123 The process of the orientalization of the Greek/Macedonian anny had already started with Alexander III,
which is often overlooked among modern scholars (OLBRYCHT 2004: 200-204; IDEM 2011b).
124 TUPLIN 2008: 121.
125 ECKHARDT 2015: 271-272.
126 TARN 1929: 138.