Editing Antiochus XI Epiphanes (section)

==Reign==

[[File:Syria under the Seleucids 95 BC.svg|thumb|alt=Map depicting the kingdom of Syria in the year 95 BC when it was divided between Seleucus VI in the north with his capital at Antioch; Demetrius III in the south with his capital at Damascus; and Antiochus X in the west with his base at Arwad|Syria in 95 BC]]
[[File:Silver Coin of Antiochus XI Epiphanes Philadelphus, Philip I Epiphanes Philadelphus.jpg|thumb|Antiochus XI and Philip{{nbs}}I bearded]]
[[File:Antiochus 11 and Philip I.png|thumb|Jugate coin of Antiochus XI and [[Philip I Philadelphus|Philip{{nbs}}I]]. Antiochus{{nbs}}XI is depicted with a sideburn.]]

The reigns of the late Seleucid kings are poorly attested in ancient literature through brief passages and summaries, often riddled with conflations and contradictions;{{sfn|Hoover|2007|p=280}} the numismatic evidence is therefore the primary source when reconstructing the reigns of late Seleucid monarchs.{{sfn|Hoover|2007|p=281}} During Seleucus{{nbs}}VI's reign, Antiochus{{nbs}}XI and his twin probably resided in Cilicia.{{sfn|Bevan|1902|p= 260}} In the aftermath of Seleucus{{nbs}}VI's death, Antiochus{{nbs}}XI and Philip{{nbs}}I declared themselves kings in 94 BC; the historian [[Alfred Bellinger]] suggested that their base was a coastal city north of Antioch,{{sfn|Bellinger|1949|p= 93}} while Arthur Houghton believed it was [[Aleppo|Beroea]], because the city's rulers were Philip{{nbs}}I's allies.{{sfn|Houghton|1987|p= 82}}{{sfn|Houghton|1998|p= 67}}

It is more likely that [[Tarsus, Mersin|Tarsus]] was the main base of operations;{{sfn|Houghton|Lorber|Hoover|2008|p=573}} both Antiochus{{nbs}}XI and Philip{{nbs}}I's portraits appeared on the obverses of [[jugate]] coins they struck,{{sfn|Houghton|1987|p= 79}} and all the jugate coins were minted in Cilicia. Three series of jugate coins are known; as of 2008, one series has six known surviving specimens,{{sfn|Houghton|Lorber|Hoover|2008|p= 573}} depicting both kings with beards.{{sfn|Houghton|Lorber|Hoover|2008|pp= 573, 575, 576}} The excellent craftsmanship of the portraits depicted on the coins of the six specimen series indicates that the minting facility was located in a city that was a center of culture, making Tarsus the likely site of the mint and so the probable base of operations.{{sfn|Houghton|Lorber|Hoover|2008|p=573}}

The other two coin series have fewer surviving specimens and depict Antiochus{{nbs}}XI with a sideburn.{{sfn|Houghton|Lorber|Hoover|2008|pp= 573, 575, 576}} Those coins were not minted in Tarsus, and the sideburn indicates that those issues were produced by cities west of the main base, as the king passed them on his way to Tarsus; by the time Antiochus{{nbs}}XI arrived at his headquarters, he was depicted with a full beard. On all jugate coins, Antiochus{{nbs}}XI was portrayed in front of Philip{{nbs}}I, his name taking precedence,{{sfn|Houghton|Lorber|Hoover|2008|p= 573}} showing that he was the senior monarch. According to [[Josephus]], Antiochus{{nbs}}XI became king before Philip{{nbs}}I, but the numismatic evidence suggests otherwise, as the earliest coins show both brothers ruling jointly.{{sfn|Bellinger|1949|p= 74}}

===Epithets and royal image===

[[Hellenistic period|Hellenistic]] monarchs did not use [[regnal number]]s but usually employed epithets to distinguish themselves from other kings with similar names; the numbering of kings is mostly a modern practice.{{sfn|McGing|2010|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=D8kjH-4ehf4C&pg=247 247]}}{{sfn|Hallo|1996|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=SbsEtMon-dEC&pg=PA142 142]}} On his coins, Antiochus{{nbs}}XI appeared with the epithets ''Epiphanes'' (God Manifest) and ''Philadelphus'' (Brother-Loving).{{sfn|Newell|1917|p=115}}{{sfn|Dąbrowa|2011|p= 225}} Epiphanes served to emphasize Antiochus{{nbs}}XI's paternity as a son of Antiochus{{nbs}}VIII, who bore the same epithet;{{sfn|Houghton|Lorber|Hoover|2008|p= 574}} while ''Philadelphus'' was probably a sign of respect to Seleucus{{nbs}}VI and Philip{{nbs}}I.{{#tag:ref|The historian [[Alfred von Gutschmid]] suggested that whenever a Hellenistic king assumed the epithet Philadelphus, it meant that he had been asked by his reigning brother to share the throne.{{sfn|Muccioli|1994|p=402}} In the case of Antiochus{{nbs}}XI and Philip{{nbs}}I, since both used the epithet, von Gutschmid considered it an exception of the rule. He suggested that the brothers assumed their epithet to legitimize their claim to the throne, which was contested by the line of Antiochus{{nbs}}IX, by emphasizing their relation to their brother, the former king Seleucus{{nbs}}VI. Von Gutschmid's arguments were criticized by many scholars, especially {{ill|Annibale Evaristo Breccia|it|lt=Evaristo Breccia}},{{sfn|Muccioli|1994|p=403}} who considered the epithet a homage to Seleucus{{nbs}}VI and an affirmation of the fraternal concord between Antiochus{{nbs}}XI and Philip{{nbs}}I.{{sfn|Muccioli|1994|p=415}}|group=note}}{{sfn|Coloru|2015|p= 177}} The beard sported by Antiochus{{nbs}}XI on his jugate coins from Tarsus is probably a sign of mourning and the intention to avenge Seleucus{{nbs}}VI's death.{{sfn|Houghton|Lorber|Hoover|2008|p= 575}}{{sfn|Hoover|Houghton|Veselý|2008|p= 207}} The last issue of Antiochus{{nbs}}XI from Antioch depicts him beardless, highlighting that the [[Antiochus XI Epiphanes#Avenging Seleucus VI and taking the capital|vow was fulfilled]].{{sfn|Houghton|Lorber|Hoover|2008|p= 578}}
[[File:Antiochus XI.jpg|thumb|Portrait of Antiochus XI exemplifying the [[tryphé]] tradition]]

Drawing his legitimacy from his father, Antiochus XI appeared on his coinage with an exaggerated hawked nose, in the likeness of Antiochus{{nbs}}VIII.{{sfn|Wright|2011|pp= 45, 46}} The iconography of Antiochus{{nbs}}XI's portrait was part of the ''[[tryphé]]''-king tradition, heavily used by Antiochus{{nbs}}VIII.{{#tag:ref|An engraved gem is kept by the [[Museum of Fine Arts, Boston]]. Its accession number is 13.244. Its style resembles the style used for Antiochus{{nbs}}XI's portraits; the gem could be depicting him, or his brother Demetrius{{nbs}}III.{{sfn|Plantzos|1999|pp=55, 116}} Such portraits on [[Engraved gem|intaglio]]s served a function parallel but different from the portraits depicted on coins. Both portraits emphasized the characters of the monarch they depicted,{{sfn|Plantzos|1999|p=62}} but while coin portraits were means of guaranteeing value and genuineness, and thus followed standardized models, aimed at delivering a political message of continuity which signified the king's dynastic connections and his prowess as a monarch, gem portraits did not follow the standards used for coinage,{{sfn|Plantzos|1999|p=42}} and served a more private purpose, depicting the ruler in a more delicate manner.{{sfn|Plantzos|1999|p=62}} Gems bearing royal portraits and cut under direct royal auspice served many functions; they were probably used as personal gifts to followers and foreign ambassadors, and bearers of royal intaglios indicated their loyalty to the king, or his memory, by using his portrait as their [[Seal (emblem)#Signet rings|signet]].{{sfn|Plantzos|1999|p=111}}|group=note}} The ruler's portrait express ''tryphé'' (luxury and magnificence), where his unattractive features and stoutness are emphasized.{{#tag:ref|Gluttony and corpulence were a sign of a monarch's wealth in Hellenistic art. Many kings were depicted with double chins and fleshy faces.{{sfn|Bradley|2011|p=23}}|group=note}} The tradition of ''tryphé'' images started in Egypt, and was later adopted in Syria. The [[Ancient Rome|Romans]] considered the ''tryphé'' portraits as evidence of the degeneracy and decadence of Hellenistic kings; the softness depicted in the portraits was seen as a sign of the rulers' incompetence, a way to explain the decline of the Hellenistic dynasties. However, the Roman view is not factual; those images were an intentional policy in a kingdom ravaged by civil war. Most late Seleucid monarchs, including Antiochus{{nbs}}XI, spent their reigns fighting, causing havoc in their lands. The image of a warrior king on coins, as was customary for Hellenistic [[Greco-Bactrian Kingdom|Bactrian]] kings for example, would have alienated the already impoverished population suffering the consequences of war. The people needed peace and copiousness, and the ''tryphé'' portrait was an attempt to imply that the king and his people were living a pleasurable life. By employing the ''tryphé'' image, Antiochus{{nbs}}XI suggested that he would be a successful and popular king like his father.{{#tag:ref|Evidence that the Roman conception of the meaning of ''tryphé'' portraits was incorrect, includes the iconography of [[Seleucia Pieria]]'s [[Tyche]] ([[tutelary deity]]) during the reign of Antiochus{{nbs}}VIII. The goddess's features resemble those of the king. If ''tryphé'' was a sign of degeneration, then it would have never been used to portray a deity.{{sfn|Fleischer|1996|p= 36}}|group=note}}{{sfn|Fleischer|1996|p= 36}}

===Avenging Seleucus VI and taking the capital===

According to Eusebius, the brothers sacked Mopsuestia and destroyed it to avenge Seleucus{{nbs}}VI.{{sfn|Eusebius|1875|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=1iNSAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA261 261]}} Eusebius's statement is doubtful because in 86 BC, [[Roman Republic|Rome]] conferred inviolability upon the cult of [[Isis]] and [[Sarapis]] in Mopsuestia, which is proven by an inscription from the city.{{sfn|Rigsby|1996|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=0Y5Ur_7lPW4C&pg=PA466 466]}} After Mopsuestia, Antiochus{{nbs}}XI left Philip{{nbs}}I in Cilicia and advanced on Antioch, driving Antiochus{{nbs}}X from the city at the beginning of 93 BC.{{#tag:ref|Eusebius stated that both brothers marched on Antioch, while the first century historian Josephus mentioned only Antiochus{{nbs}}XI; the latter account is more accurate and is supported by numismatic evidence.{{sfn|Houghton|Lorber|Hoover|2008|p=573}}|group=note}}{{sfn|Houghton|Lorber|Hoover|2008|p=573}} Ancient historians do not note Antiochus{{nbs}}XI's reign in the capital, stating that he fought against Antiochus{{nbs}}X and was defeated.{{sfn|Newell|1917|p=115}} The 6th-century [[Byzantine Empire|Byzantine]] monk and historian [[John Malalas]], whose work is considered generally unreliable by scholars,{{sfn|Scott|2017|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=RtMuDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA76 76]}} mentions the reign of Antiochus{{nbs}}XI in his account of the Roman period in Antioch.{{sfn|Downey|1938|p= 113}} The material evidence for Antiochus{{nbs}}XI's success in taking the capital was provided in 1912, when an account of a coin struck by him in Antioch was published.{{sfn|Newell|1917|p=115}}
[[File:Antiochus XI Philadelphos.jpg|thumb|Tetradrachm of Antiochus XI, Antioch mint]]

Philip I did not take residence in the capital and Antiochus{{nbs}}XI minted coinage as a sole king.{{#tag:ref|The numismatist Arthur Houghton attributed a jugate coin of Antiochus{{nbs}}XI and Philip{{nbs}}I to Antioch, but later retracted the attribution in favour of a [[Cilicia]]n mint.{{sfn|Hoover|2007|p= 289}}|group=note}}{{sfn|Bellinger|1949|pp= 74, 93}} Philip{{nbs}}I kept the royal title while remaining in the city which was his base during the preparations to avenge Seleucus{{nbs}}VI.{{sfn|Bellinger|1949|pp= 75, 93}} The numismatist [[Edward Theodore Newell]] assigned Antiochus{{nbs}}XI a reign of a few weeks in the capital, but according to the numismatist Oliver Hoover, estimating the average annual [[Coining (mint)#Ancient coin dies|die]] usage rate of the King suggests a reign of several months.{{#tag:ref|The estimation is conducted using the Esty formula, which was developed by the mathematician Warren W. Esty; it is a mathematical formula that can calculate the relative number of obverse dies used to produce a certain coin series. The calculation can be used to measure the coinage production of a certain king and thus estimate the length of his reign.{{sfn|Hoover|2007|pp= 282–284}}|group=note}}{{sfn|Hoover|2007|p= 289}} According to Malalas, King Antiochus Philadelphus, i.e. Antiochus{{nbs}}XI,{{#tag:ref|This epithet was also used by King [[Antiochus XIII Asiaticus|Antiochus{{nbs}}XIII]] ({{reign|82|64}} BC),{{sfn|Dumitru|2016|p= 267}} who had the distinction of being the last Seleucid king, after whose death Rome annexed Syria.{{sfn|Downey|1951|p=161}} Malalas used the epithet "Dionysus" when referring to Antiochus{{nbs}}XIII,{{sfn|Clinton|1851|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=YtQUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA349 349]}} which was in fact an epithet of Antiochus{{nbs}}XII, who never controlled Antioch.{{sfn|Downey|2015|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=gTTWCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA132 132]}} According to the historian Glanville Downey, the Byzantine historian conflated Antiochus{{nbs}}XIII with Antiochus{{nbs}}XII,{{sfn|Downey|1951|p=161}} and used the epithet "Philadelphus" when referring to Antiochus{{nbs}}XI.{{sfn|Downey|1938|p= 113}}|group=note}} built a temple for [[Apollo]] and [[Artemis]] in [[Harbiye, Antakya|Daphne]], and set up two golden statues representing the gods, as well as conferring the right of asylum to anyone who took refuge in the temple;{{sfn|Downey|2015|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=gTTWCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA131 131]}} this statement cannot be correct since the temple was attested during the time of [[Antiochus III the Great|Antiochus{{nbs}}III]] ({{reign|222|187}} BC).{{sfn|Den Boeft|Drijvers|Den Hengst|Teitler|1995|p= 229}} The historian Glanville Downey, observing Malalas's writing style in Greek, suggested that by "building", Malalas meant renovating or restoring, which indicates that a predecessor of Antiochus{{nbs}}XI may have desecrated the temple and melted down the golden statues.{{#tag:ref|The second-century theologian [[Clement of Alexandria]] ({{fl.|200}} AD) reported that Antiochus{{nbs}}IX melted a statue of [[Zeus]], making him a candidate for the monarch who melted the statues of Apollo and Artemis.{{sfn|Downey|2015|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=gTTWCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA131 131]}} On the other hand, Clement of Alexandria might have misread the accounts of the first-century BC historians [[Diodorus Siculus]] or [[Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus|Trogus]], who both reported the sacrilege of Zeus's statue by [[Alexander II Zabinas|Alexander{{nbs}}II]].{{sfn|Taylor|2014|p= 237}}|group=note}}{{sfn|Downey|2015|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=gTTWCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA131 131]}}