Should Seleucus be the most competent of the diadochi?

[Denkt]

Here is the attributs and traits of the 5 major diadochi from the first Egypt stream

Spoiler: Traits and abilities of the 5 major diadochi

Ptolemy Soter Lagid
Attributes: 7M 5F 4C 7R
Traits: Blood of the Lagidae, Cautious

Seleucus Nicator Seleucid
Attributes: 8M 9F 6C 5R
Traits: Blood of Seleucus , Deceitful, Ambitious, Steadfast
Antigonus Monophthalmus Antogonid
Attributes: 8M 7F 7C 6R
Traits: Blood of Antigonus, Just, Disciplined, One-Eyed

Cassander Antipatrid
Attributes: 7M 4F 3C 4R
Traits: Blood of Antipatros, unknown trait

Lysimachus Alcimachid
Attributes: 11M 8F 6C 5R
Traits: Blood of Lysimachus , Crafty, Brave

Attributes

• M = Material
• F = Finess
• C = Charisma
• R = Religious

Seleucus was the most successful of the diadochi and came by far the closest to uniting the empire. He as far as I know did not lose any battle to Another diadochi and he managed to keep an very large empire together and build a dynasty that managed to keep the empire together for a while.

 

[Amyntas]

Totally agree. You make a good point.

Seleucus came within reach of restoring the entire empire — after crushing Lysimachus at Koroupedion, he actually claimed Macedonia itself — we have coins minted at Thessalonica proclaiming him king. Plus, he had a capable pretender to the Egyptian throne in Ptolemy Keraunos — if that jittery moron Keraunos had just bided his time, Seleucus’ veteran army would likely have crushed the Egyptians and put him on the throne.

Instead, he assassinated Seleucus and claimed Macedonia, and his head ended up on the point of a Gallic pike.

I hope this amazing scenario can be modeled in game.

 

[Palando]

Did we really need another thread for this? You already opened a thread about their stats here, so why not discuss it there: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...chi-as-can-be-seen-in-the-livestream.1146849/

 

[Sarog]

It's obviously very difficult to get a sense of the personalities these men had, given how much of what we know of them comes through the lens of propaganda. Still I'm curious about some of those trait/stat distributions. Deceitful for Seleucus seems like an odd pick - maybe you can justify it with his involvement in Perdiccas' murder but that might be a stretch. Antigonus being just also feels a bit weird; what with the executions and being relatively quick to break his promises to the cities I would have given him Arbitrary in CK terms. I'm also surprised by Lysimachus' apparently god-tier stats (assuming 30 is as high as it seems). Not that I object, it would just be interesting to know the reasoning behind these picks.

To your central question I would agree that Seleucus should probably be the most competent of the successors. Not necessarily by much though, considering the extent to which he relied on Ptolemy to establish himself. But the fact that he went from fleeing Babylon with virtually nothing to eventually possessing the majority of Alexander's empire has to represent more than just luck and good connections. He also comes across as perhaps one of the more righteous of the successors, though of course propaganda is a factor and the murder of Perdiccas is a stain on his honour.

But yeah those stats on Lysimachus though. What an absolute unit.

 

[Denkt]

Seleucus as far as I know never lost a battle to Another diadochi and defeated Antigonus both in the Babylonia war as well as at Ipsus so he should probably have the best martial score out of the diadochi.
He managed to rule an very large empire for a long time while during war and Peace and also managed to pass it down in his dynasty so he should probably have the highest finess as well.
He managed his relations to the other diadochi and did never get into the same position as Antigonus as well keeping the satrapies in his empire atleast somewhat loyal so he should maybe the highest charisma as well.

 

[Amyntas]

Seleucus as far as I know never lost a battle to Another diadochi and defeated Antigonus both in the Babylonia war as well as at Ipsus so he should probably have the best martial score out of the diadochi.
He managed to rule an very large empire for a long time while during war and Peace and also managed to pass it down in his dynasty so he should probably have the highest finess as well.
He managed his relations to the other diadochi and did never get into the same position as Antigonus as well keeping the satrapies in his empire atleast somewhat loyal so he should maybe the highest charisma as well.

Antigonos successfully drove him from Babylonia during his first invasion -- Seleucus had to abandon his province and take refuge with Ptolemy. Plus, Demetrios the Besieger defeated his forces twice before finally being cornered and captured, so that is not strictly true. Still, he was definitely a pretty formidable commander.

I recommend you read the recent book Dividing the Spoils -- it looks at the wars of the Successors in an exciting way, and is very approachable for enthusiastic newcomers.

 

[Sarog]

Antigonos successfully drove him from Babylonia during his first invasion -- Seleucus had to abandon his province and take refuge with Ptolemy.

That's not a reflection of either party's military skill though. Antigonus had the bulk of the army, Seleucus was in no position to resist him militarily, and if Seleucus had stayed he would have been executed without being able to put up a fight. That Seleucus had the wisdom to flee where others would have been blindsided and killed is a mark in his favour, not against it. It is true that Seleucus owes part of his rise to Ptolemy, but then Ptolemy wasn't there when Seleucus took the eastern satrapies.

 

[Denkt]

Did Antigonus actually win a battle after Eumenes? He lost the Babylonian war and probably the battles in that war which probably tells for Seleucus being more capable as a general. After that Antigonus also failed in the invasion of Egypt and lost at Ipsus against Seleucus and others. Sure Antigonus was old but Seleucus was winning battles right up to his assassination when he was in his late 70s.

 

[Amyntas]

That's not a reflection of either party's military skill though. Antigonus had the bulk of the army, Seleucus was in no position to resist him militarily, and if Seleucus had stayed he would have been executed without being able to put up a fight. That Seleucus had the wisdom to flee where others would have been blindsided and killed is a mark in his favour, not against it. It is true that Seleucus owes part of his rise to Ptolemy, but then Ptolemy wasn't there when Seleucus took the eastern satrapies.

Perhaps not tactically, as there was little actual combat. But it was a testament to their strategic mastery of the ruins of the Empire at that moment. Warfare is more than battles.

Did Antigonus actually win a battle after Eumenes? He lost the Babylonian war and probably the battles in that war which probably tells for Seleucus being more capable as a general. After that Antigonus also failed in the invasion of Egypt and lost at Ipsus against Seleucus and others. Sure Antigonus was old but Seleucus was winning battles right up to his assassination when he was in his late 70s.

His son Demetrios smashed the Ptolemaic navy off Cyprus, to be sure. And his subordinates did well in mainland Greece. But yeah, Antigonos himself was more formidable politically than he was on the battlefield. You are certainly right to say that Seleucus was more capable.

 

[Denkt]

But yeah, Antigonos himself was more formidable politically than he was on the battlefield.

But was it not Antigonus own fault that he made himself enemies to everyone which tell against him being political competent and he did not manage to hold together anything as large as Seleucus did for any long time. So should not Seleucus be better in all 4 attributes compared to Antigonus?

 

[Amyntas]

But was it not Antigonus own fault that he made himself enemies to everyone which tell against him being political competent and he did not manage to hold together anything as large as Seleucus did for any long time. So should not Seleucus be better in all 4 attributes compared to Antigonus?

In short, yes. He should.

With regards to Antigonos...he certainly made enemies, but he was trying to reunite the empire — so it was inevitable the great kings would assemble against him. But he managed to cajole and threaten a vast number of satraps across Asia and Europe to submit to him — and this was no mean feat. He should have good diplomacy.

 

[Denkt]

With regards to Antigonos...he certainly made enemies, but he was trying to reunite the empire — so it was inevitable the great kings would assemble against him. But he managed to cajole and threaten a vast number of satraps across Asia and Europe to submit to him — and this was no mean feat. He should have good diplomacy.

But they defected soon after Seleucus returned so they probably disliked Antigonus by alot so his diplomacy skills should probably not be that good, maybe average at best. Antigonus managed to go from a very strong position in around 315 bc to a quickly losing one just like a decade later. His best Days had been long Before the diadochi war started and much of his success simply seems to have been luck and once he run out of luck he lost quickly.

Maybe Seleucus got lucky that it was Antigonus and not someone else who managed to take Control over much of the empire because without Antigonus, could Seleucus had such success he had?

 

[Thure]

I'm sure most of the Greek city states liked Antognus enough to support the claim that he did diplomatically well. He did a great Job allying with them.

 

[Denkt]

I'm sure most of the Greek city states liked Antognus enough to support the claim that he did diplomatically well. He did a great Job allying with them.

But these did not do much for him and did not stop his empire from crumbling. At the end he made himself an enemy to all other successors which do not Point towards good diplomacy. Consider that Seleucus with all his success did never get into same position as Antigonus did so much of the reason why Antigonus lost was his own fault.

Antigonus maybe should have around 5 in all attributes, there is nothing spectacular about him as far as I know. He did Little to nothing during the years at the start of the game and the years Before had been mostly failures which do not speak for competence. By 315 bce he controlled most of the empire, by 304 bce he had lost most of it and made himself an enemy to all other diadochi.

Yes in Alexander's time Antigonus had been one of the most competent people in the empire but these Days was long gone and Antigonus was just a shadow of what he once had been.

In his best years he may probably been more competent than Seleucus the and other diadochi as he did win battles while outnumbered and did not make the mistakes other satraps did, but by the time he had any chance to rule the empire he was no longer capable at doing it. But it would be strange to base Antigonus stats on then he was at his peak as that was long Before the start.

 

[Trin Tragula]

But these did not do much for him and did not stop his empire from crumbling. At the end he made himself an enemy to all other successors which do not Point towards good diplomacy. Consider that Seleucus with all his success did never get into same position as Antigonus did so much of the reason why Antigonus lost was his own fault.

They also never set their goal as high. Seleucus settles for what he has, he does not attempt to build an as large an Empire as the one Antigonus had but rather divides the spoils and is content to consolidate his gains.
Seleucus and Antigonus are similar in some ways, neither of them were very likely to be seen as serious contenders at the start of the conflict of the successors, and both more or less created their empires out of their own abilities.
Both were also incredibly lucky at times. For instance Seleucus reclamation of Babylon with just a few trusted men was not in any way something that had to work out like it did.

The Antigonid success on the propaganda front should also not be discounted. Where all successors claimed to uphold the freedom of the Greek cities Antigonus seems to have been the only one to actually be able to be seen as a credible champion (despite Demetrius conduct in Athens), something both Cassander and Ptolemy failed spectacularly at.

At the end of the day it will be hard to compare the qualities of people like these to each other, I am not sure realistically it could be done. The diadochi were all exceptional people, if they had not been they would not have lasted long. The fates of the many other involved people during these wars clearly show that you were always just one mistake away from losing everything and being killed, no matter how shrewd your plan or how successful you were up to that point. This last part is something I would keep in mind about Demetrius as well, he had ample opportunity to fail but all in all did pretty well for himself, much unlike the sons of Cassander for instance. Failing against veteran generals of both the successor wars and Alexander's wars before that, is not necessarily a sign of lacking competence

Now, since I actually know a thing or two about why the stats currently are what they are I will add that any stats you see are unlikely to be the final product, both because they might be tweaked and because the traits they have may be tweaked themselves

 

[Martynios]

They also never set their goal as high. Seleucus settles for what he has, he does not attempt to build an as large an Empire as the one Antigonus had but rather divides the spoils and is content to consolidate his gains.

Weren’t both dominions about equal in size at their respective heights? Wasn’t Seleucus planning further conquests before his assassination?

 

[Sarog]

Wasn’t Seleucus planning further conquests before his assassination?

He kept Ptolemy Keraunos around, and that guy was basically just a walking CB on Egypt. Seems likely that there might have been an intervention there after things in Macedonia were settled. But man did that backfire.

 

[ImperatorIhasz]

In all fairness there are probably other considerations besides the individual skills of the diadochi balance wise. I mean I don’t know a ton about the diadochi but you kind of have to reconcile their starting position with stats. Like an example is Ptolemy having Egypt which seems like a industrial/agricultural powerhouse. So Ptolemy himself probably can’t have godly stats or he would annihilate all the other companions of Alexander.

 

[Denkt]

In all fairness there are probably other considerations besides the individual skills of the diadochi balance wise. I mean I don’t know a ton about the diadochi but you kind of have to reconcile their starting position with stats. Like an example is Ptolemy having Egypt which seems like a industrial/agricultural powerhouse. So Ptolemy himself probably can’t have godly stats or he would annihilate all the other companions of Alexander.

Egypt is not as powerful as the Seleucides as far as I know. Egypt is maybe more powerful than Phrygia but that is debatable. Egypt and Seleucides have a friendship between their leaders which probably make it easy for them to form an Alliance and divide the empire between them.

 

[ImperatorIhasz]

Egypt is not as powerful as the Seleucides as far as I know. Egypt is maybe more powerful than Phrygia but that is debatable. Egypt and Seleucides have a friendship between their leaders which probably make it easy for them to form an Alliance and divide the empire between them.

Possibly. I don't know too much about the time period it just seemed like Egypt was large and fertile in the stream. I could be wrong about which diadochi had a more powerful base. That's kind of cool the little friendship aspect. Seems like they are mixing some eu 4 gameplay with ck 2 gameplay.