The Seleucids showed a profound interest in Babylonian religion, possibly in response to the Ptolemaic adoption of Egyptian traditions as a means of legitimizing their claim to rule. In the same vein, Sherwin-White noted: The Babylonian monarchy was a dynamic mechanism foreign rulers were careful to utilize . . . the kingship and the rituals associated with it gave both the king and his subjects a framework to operate in. The Seleucids actively exploited the system. In the footsteps of Alexander, the Seleucids seem to have appreciated the political dimensions of their religious profile already since the foundation of their dynasty. Apparently, the considerable role of the Babylonian priests in establishing royal authority was not lost in Seleucus, who tried to appeal to them right from the start. According to Diodorus, when Seleucus was about to defeat Antigonus and conquer Babylon and in an attempt to encourage his exhausted soldiers, he confided in them for the first time that the oracle of Apollo at Branchidae, near Cyme, had assured him of his future as king. This tradition was obviously intended to create a parallel between Seleucus and Alexander, who had also received confirmation of his divinity by the Apolline oracles of Erythrai and Didyma. At the same time, however, Seleucus followed a time-honoured ANE tradition about the divine selection of the king by Šamaš and/or (solarized) Marduk. Although the epigraphic and numismatic evidence indicates that Diodorus propagates a later tradition, formed at the earliest around 281–280 BCE – that is, very close to Seleucus’ death and hence quite probably an initiative of his son, Antiochus – his portrayal of the relationship of the king with the Babylonians and their priests deserves closer attention. Diodorus reported that Seleucus was certain of the support of the Babylonians when he was about to claim the city from Antigonus because he had established good relations with them during the 5 years he had been their satrap (320–315 BCE) when he was behaving “as their king.” It is certainly true that the Babylonians had a decisive role in the defeat of Archon, the previous satrap, whom the local population disliked and whom Perdiccas tried to replace with Docimus; and although, as Boiy pointed out, the Greek sources do not explicitly say that the Babylonians or their priests favoured Seleucus (or indeed whether their opinion mattered in his selection), Seleucus seems keen to fulfil his ritual obligations as the satrap of Babylonia. The priests also seem to have acknowledged Seleucus’ authority because, soon after his entering the city in October/November 320 BCE, they asked for his financial aid so that the “dust of Esagila could be removed,” that is, to have the temple of Bēl-Marduk cleaned (BCHP 3, obv.25 = ABC 10, CM 30). Although the reading of the Chronicle in question is unclear as to whether Seleucus granted the requested funds after all, later Seleucids clearly obliged.
Seleucids and Greek Contribution to Ancient Persia
