Editing Antiochus XI Epiphanes (section)

===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]}}