Rise to power Born around 215 BC, Antiochus was a son of the
Seleucid king
Antiochus III the Great. Antiochus appears to have been originally named Mithridates, although this name would be changed either after the death of his elder brother Antiochus or when he eventually ascended the throne. As a potential successor to the throne, he became a political
hostage of the
Roman Republic under the terms of the
Treaty of Apamea, concluded in 188 BC. After his older brother
Seleucus IV Philopator succeeded their father onto the throne in 187 BC, Antiochus was exchanged for his nephew
Demetrius, the son and heir of Seleucus. After this Antiochus lived in Athens and was there when his brother was assassinated in 175 BC by the government minister
Heliodorus. Heliodorus proclaimed himself regent afterward, essentially giving himself control of the government. This arrangement did not last long. With the help of king
Eumenes II of Pergamum, Antiochus IV traveled from Athens through Asia Minor and reached Syria by November 175 BC. Seleucus' legitimate heir Demetrius was still a hostage in Rome, so Antiochus seized the throne for himself, proclaiming himself co-regent with another son of Seleucus, an infant also named
Antiochus. The young Antiochus, son of Seleucus IV, would later die in 170 BC, possibly murdered by Antiochus IV.
Ruling style Antiochus IV cultivated a reputation as an extravagant and generous ruler. He scattered money to common people in the streets of Antioch; gave unexpected gifts to people he did not know; contributed money to the
Temple of Zeus at Athens and the altar at
Delos; put all his
Western military forces on a massive parade at
Daphne, a suburb of Antioch; and held opulent banquets with the aristocracy using the best spices, clothing, and food.
Wars against Egypt and relations with Rome coinage of Antiochos IV, depicting a victorious galley.|260x260px After his ascension Antiochus took care to maintain good relations with the Roman Republic, sending an embassy to Rome in 173 BC with a part of the unpaid indemnity still owed from the 188 BC
Treaty of Apamea. While there the embassy secured a renewed treaty of friendship and alliance with Rome, greatly helped by the fact Antiochus had come to power with the help of
Eumenes II, Rome's principal ally in the region. The guardians of King
Ptolemy VI Philometor demanded the return of
Coele-Syria in 170 BC, declaring war on the Seleucids on the assumption that the kingdom was divided after Antiochus' murder of his nephew. However, Antiochus had warning of the attack and had prepared more thoroughly. He had already built his forces and moved them into position; as soon as the Egyptian forces left
Pelusium they were attacked and defeated by Antiochus IV and his Seleucid army. The Seleucids then seized Pelusium, giving them supplies and access to all of Egypt. He advanced into Egypt proper, conquering all but
Alexandria and capturing King Ptolemy. This was partially achieved because Rome (Ptolemaic Egypt's traditional ally) was embroiled in the
Third Macedonian War and was not willing to become involved elsewhere. To avoid alarming Rome, Antiochus allowed Ptolemy VI to continue ruling as a
puppet king from Memphis. Upon Antiochus' withdrawal, the city of Alexandria chose a new king, one of Ptolemy's brothers, also named
Ptolemy (VIII Euergetes). The Ptolemy brothers reconciled and agreed to rule Egypt jointly instead of fighting a civil war. In 168 BC, Antiochus led a second attack on Egypt and also sent a fleet to capture
Cyprus. Before he reached Alexandria, his path was blocked by a single elderly Roman ambassador named
Gaius Popillius Laenas who delivered a message from the
Roman Senate directing Antiochus to withdraw his armies from Egypt and Cyprus or consider himself in a state of war with the Roman Republic. Antiochus said he would discuss it with his council, whereupon the Roman envoy drew a line in the sand around Antiochus and said: "Before you leave this circle, give me a reply that I can take back to the Roman Senate." This implied Rome would declare war if the King stepped out of the circle without committing to leave Egypt immediately. Weighing his options, Antiochus decided to withdraw. Only then did Popillius agree to shake hands with him. Ancient sources and traditional historiography describe this "Day of Eleusis" as a great humiliation for Antiochus IV that unhinged him for a time. Some more modern historians conjecture that Antiochus may have been more reconciled to this than ancient sources indicate, as the Roman intervention meant that Antiochus had been given an excuse to not undertake a potentially long and costly siege of Alexandria. He could instead return with treasure and loot having weakened the Egyptian state at little risk and cost compared to a larger-scale invasion.
Persecution of the Jews and the Maccabean revolt holding
Nike and scepter. Greek inscription reads: ,
Basileōs Antiochou Nikēphorou Theou Epiphanous, "of victorious god manifest king Antiochus." The Seleucids, like the
Ptolemies before them, held a
suzerainty over
Judea: they respected Jewish culture and protected Jewish institutions. This policy was drastically reversed by Antiochus IV, seemingly after what was either a dispute over leadership of the Temple in Jerusalem and the office of
High Priest, or possibly a revolt whose nature was lost to time after being crushed. of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.|260x260px Local revolts against the Seleucid Empire were not unusual, but most were not successful. The revolt that Antiochus IV ultimately triggered in Judea was unusually well chronicled and preserved, however. According to the book of
2 Maccabees, the crisis had its origins in the years leading up to the
Sixth Syrian War. In 171 BC, Antiochus had deposed the High Priest
Jason and replaced him with
Menelaus, who had offered Antiochus a large bribe to secure the office. In 168 BC, when Antiochus was campaigning in Egypt, a rumor spread in Judea that he had been killed. Jason gathered a force of 1,000 soldiers and made a surprise attack on the city of
Jerusalem. Menelaus was forced to flee Jerusalem during the ensuing riot. Jason's intention may have been to retake his former office by force and present his reassumption of power as
fait accompli to the regency that would take power in the wake of the king's death, assuming that they would allow him to stay in power rather than invite further conflict during a delicate political moment. But Antiochus was still alive, and returned from Egypt enraged by the reverse he had suffered at the hands of the Romans and by the Jews' rejection of his chosen candidate for High Priest; he attacked Jerusalem and restored Menelaus, then executed many Jews. {{blockquote|When these happenings were reported to the king, he thought that Judea was in revolt. Raging like a wild animal, he set out from Egypt and took Jerusalem by storm. He ordered his soldiers to cut down without mercy those whom they met and to slay those who took refuge in their houses. There was a massacre of young and old, a killing of women and children, a slaughter of virgins and infants. In the space of three days, eighty thousand were lost, forty thousand meeting a violent death, and the same number being sold into slavery. According to
1 Maccabees, after restoring Menelaus, Antiochus IV issued decrees aimed at helping the most enthusiastically pro-Greek faction of Hellenized Jews against the traditionalists. He outlawed
Jewish religious rites and traditions and the Temple in Jerusalem was forcibly changed to a syncretic Greek-Jewish cult that included worship of
Zeus. The Greek historian
Diodorus wrote that Antiochus "sacrificed a great swine at the image of Moses, and at the altar of God that stood in the outward court, and sprinkled them with the blood of the sacrifice. He commanded likewise that the books, by which they were taught to hate all other nations, should be sprinkled with the broth made of the swine's flesh. And he put out the lamp (called by them immortal) which burns continually in the temple. Lastly he forced the high priest and the other Jews to eat swine's flesh." These decrees were a departure from typical Seleucid practice, which did not attempt to suppress local religions in their empire, though they may be similar to other instances in the Hellenistic era when local polities were punished for revolt against their imperial suzerain by having their autonomy and local laws repealed and local shrines removed from their control. Such steps triggered a revolt against his rule, known as the
Maccabean Revolt. Scholars of
Second Temple Judaism therefore sometimes refer to Antiochus' reign as the 'Antiochene crises' for the Jews. Traditionally, as expressed in the
First and Second Books of the Maccabees, the Maccabean Revolt was painted as a national resistance to a foreign political and cultural oppression. In modern times, however, scholars have argued that Antiochus IV was more intervening in a
civil war between the traditionalist Jews in the country and the Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem. Scholars think the revolt also led to the writing of the
Book of Daniel, where a villain called the "King of the North" is generally considered to be a reference to Antiochus IV. The portrayal of Antiochus there attacking the holy city of Jerusalem but eventually meeting his end would influence later Christian depictions of the
Antichrist.
Final years , ca. 1738 King
Mithridates I of
Parthia took advantage of Antiochus' western problems and attacked from the east, seizing the city of
Herat in 167 BC and disrupting the direct trade route to India, effectively splitting the Greek world in two. Antiochus recognized the potential danger in the east but was unwilling to give up control of Judea. He sent a commander named
Lysias to deal with the
Maccabees, while Antiochus himself led the main Seleucid army against the Parthians. Antiochus had initial success in his eastern campaign, capturing king
Artaxias and reconquering the
Kingdom of Armenia. His campaign went through
Ecbatana and he and his forces attacked
Persepolis but were driven off by the populace. On his return home, he died at
Isfahan in 164 BC. Various religious explanations exist for Antiochus IV's death. Apparently, he attacked a temple of the Mesopotamian deity
Nanaya in Persia shortly before his demise, and his death was possibly attributed to impiety and punishment by Nanaya in some quarters. Jewish sources gave credit for Antiochus's death to his earlier impiety at the Temple of Jerusalem. When read literally, there is an apparent contradiction between the books of 1 & 2 Maccabees. The Book of 1 Maccabees places the death of Antiochus IV shortly after the
reconsecration of the Jewish temple, while 2 Maccabees places the death of the king before the reconsecration of the temple. Some scholars have theorized that the "abomination" torn down in 1 Maccabees 6:7 was due to a form of civil unrest, and the true reconsecration of the temple occurred after the death of Antiochus IV. According to 2 Maccabees, he died from divinely-inflicted disease: According to the later rabbinical work, the scroll of Antiochus (
Megillat Antiochus), when Antiochus heard that his army had been defeated in Judea, he boarded a ship and fled to the coastal cities. Wherever he came the people rebelled and called him "The Fugitive," so he drowned himself in the sea. This story is from the 2nd century, however, much further removed from the event than Polybius or 2 Maccabees. It is generally considered secondary and unlikely to be accurate. ==Legacy==