THE SINKING OF THE ANCHOR
UNIVERSITY OF EXETER, 14-16 JULY 2008
Please send abstracts of 500 words maximum for papers of 30 minutes length
by 2 November 2007 to:
Kyle Erickson: ke214 AT exeter.ac.uk // Cristian Emilian Ghita: ceg204 AT exeter.ac.uk
or contact: Dept. of Classics & Ancient History, University of Exeter,
Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter, Devon, EX4 4RJ, UK
THE BEGINNING OF THE END
The notion of Seleukid dissolution has been understood either as a
prolonged decline lasting the entire dynasty or as the result of the
cataclysmic defeat at Magnesia.
Was the Seleukid demise triggered by a defeat – military or moral?
When does the personal ineptitude of the kings overcome bureaucratic
FENCED IN AND FENCED OUT
The “centre and periphery” debate when applied to the Seleukid empire
draws attention to the interchange of internal and external forces between
the regions and kingdoms making up and surrounding the empire.
What was the Seleukid centre? Or was there a Seleukid centre?
What did Seleukid control mean? How was it tempered by local sensitivities?
DEPENDENCIES AND SENSITIVE AREAS
The history of the later Seleukid Empire is written through the interplay
between its constituent regions, former satrapies, allies, vassal states
and hostile neighbours.
What factors determine a given region as dependent upon Seleukid authority
or sensitised towards Seleukid politics?
Why choose submission to or rebellion from the Seleukid king?
From its cradle to its grave, the position of the Seleukid Empire put it
at odds with other states, from one end of the world to the other.
Were the Seleukid kings their own worst enemies?
How desirable was peace with the Seleukids and, if achieved, did it have a