Editing Antiochus X Eusebes (section)

=== Manner of death ===
The manner of the king's death varies depending on which ancient account is used. The main ancient historians providing information on Antiochus X's end are Josephus, Appian, Eusebius and Saint [[Jerome]]:{{sfn|Hoover|2007|pp=290–292}}

'''The account of Josephus''': "For when he was come as an auxiliary to [[Laodice of the Sameans|Laodice]], queen of the [[Gileadite]]s, when she was making war against the Parthians, and he was fighting courageously, he fell."{{sfn|Josephus|1833|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=9sA5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA421 421]}} The Parthians might have been allied with Philip I.{{sfn|Wright|2011|p=12}} The people of Laodice, their location, and who she was are hard to determine,{{sfn|Sievers|1986|p=134}}{{sfn|Dumitru|2016|pp=264, 266}} as surviving manuscripts of Josephus's work transmit different names for the people.{{sfn|Olbrycht|2009|p=166}} Gileadites is an older designation based on the Codex Leidensis (Lugdunensis) manuscript of Josephus's work, but the academic consensus [[Laodice of the Sameans#The name of the tribe|uses the designation Sameans]],{{sfn|Dumitru|2016|p= 264}} based on the ''Codex Palatinus (Vaticanus) Graecus'' manuscript.{{sfn|Olbrycht|2009|p= 166}}
* Based on the reading Gileadites: In the view of Bouché-Leclercq, the division of Syria between Antiochus{{nbsp}}X and his cousins must have tempted the Parthian king [[Mithridates II of Parthia|Mithridates II]] to annex the kingdom. Bouché-Leclercq, agreeing with the historian [[Alfred von Gutschmid]], identified the mysterious queen with Antiochus X's cousin [[Laodice VII Thea|Laodice]], daughter of Antiochus VIII, and wife of [[Mithridates I Callinicus|Mithridates I]], the king of [[Commagene]], which had recently detached from the Seleucids, and suggested that Laodice resided in [[Samosata]].{{sfn|Bouché-Leclercq|1913|p=[https://archive.org/stream/histoiredessle01bouc#page/420/mode/2up 421]}}{{sfn|Von Gutschmid|1888|p= [https://archive.org/stream/geschichteirans01nlgoog#page/n90/mode/2up 80]}} Bouché-Leclercq hypothesized that Antiochus{{nbsp}}X did not go to help his rivals' sister, but to stop the Parthians before they reached his own borders.{{sfn|Bouché-Leclercq|1913|p=[https://archive.org/stream/histoiredessle01bouc#page/420/mode/2up 421]}} The historian Adolf Kuhn, on the other hand, considered it implausible that Antiochus{{nbsp}}X would support a daughter of Antiochus VIII and he questioned the identification with the queen of Commagene.{{#tag:ref|The ''Codex Leidensis (Lugdunensis)'' manuscript have Γαλιχηνών (which was rendered as Gileadites by the seventeenth century historian [[William Whiston]] in his English translation of the work of Josephus) as the name of Laodice's people.{{sfn|Dumitru|2016|p=264}}{{sfn|Josephus|1833|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=9sA5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA421 421]}} The name from the manuscript is obviously damaged and altered; von Gutschmid identified the Laodice mentioned by Josephus with the queen of Commagene and corrected Gilead to Kαλλινιχηνών (the people of Callinicos, i.e. modern [[Raqqa]]).{{sfn|Dobiáš|1931|pp= [https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.105038/2015.105038.Archiv-Orientalni-Journal-Of-The-Czechoslovak-Oriental-Institute-Prague-Vol3#page/n233/mode/2up 222–223]}}{{sfn|Von Gutschmid|1888|p= [https://archive.org/stream/geschichteirans01nlgoog#page/n90/mode/2up 80]}} Kuhn, citing the archaeologist [[Otto Puchstein]]'s rejection of von Gutschmid's identification, questioned von Gutschmid's reading of Kαλλινιχηνών, and noted that the name came to designate Raqqa at a much later date than the period of Antiochus X.{{sfn|Kuhn|1891|p=[https://archive.org/stream/beitrgezurgesch01kuhngoog#page/n41/mode/2up 36]}} The historian {{ill|Josef Dobiáš (historian)|cs|Josef Dobiáš (historik)|lt=Josef Dobiáš}} noted that regardless of when Callinicos started to be applied to Raqqa, it is doubtful that the city belonged to Commagene at all.{{sfn|Dobiáš|1931|p= 223}}|group=note}}{{sfn|Kuhn|1891|p=[https://archive.org/stream/beitrgezurgesch01kuhngoog#page/n41/mode/2up 36]}} Ehling, attempting to explain Antiochus X's assistance of Laodice, suggested that the queen was a daughter of Antiochus IX, a sister of Antiochus X.{{sfn|Ehling|2008|p= 241}}
* Based on the reading Sameans: the historian {{ill|Josef Dobiáš (historian)|cs|Josef Dobiáš (historik)|lt=Josef Dobiáš}} considered Laodice a queen of a nomadic tribe based on the similarities between the name from the ''Codex Palatinus (Vaticanus) Graecus'' with the Samènes, a people mentioned by the sixth century geographer [[Stephanus of Byzantium]] as an Arab nomadic tribe. This would solve the problems posed by the identification with the queen of Commagene, and end the debate regarding the location of the people, as the nature of their nomadic life makes it impossible to determine exactly the place where the fight took place. Dobiáš attributed the initiative to Antiochus{{nbsp}}X who was not merely trying to defend his borders but actively attacking the Parthians.{{sfn|Dobiáš|1931|p= 223}}

'''The account of Appian''': Antiochus X was expelled from Syria by Tigranes II of Armenia.{{sfn|Appian|1899|p= [https://archive.org/stream/romanhistoryapp01whitgoog#page/n426/mode/2up 324]}} Appian gave Tigranes II a reign of fourteen years in Syria ending in 69 BC.{{sfn|Sayar|Siewert|Taeuber|1994|p=128}} That year witnessed the retreat of the Armenian king due to a war with the Romans. Hence, the invasion of Syria by Tigranes, based on the account of Appian, probably took place in 83 BC.{{#tag:ref|Eusebius gave Tigranes a reign of seventeen years in Syria, thus, according to this account, Tigranes conquered the country in 86 BC.{{sfn|Sayar|Siewert|Taeuber|1994|p=128}} Based on several arguments contradicting Appian's account, Hoover suggested that [[Philip I Philadelphus#Succession|Tigranes invaded Syria only in 74{{nbsp}}BC]].{{sfn|Hoover|2007|p= 297}}|group=note}}{{sfn|Sayar|Siewert|Taeuber|1994|p=128}}{{sfn|Brennan|2000|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=LZW_IKQciiQC&pg=PA410 410]}} Bellinger dismissed this account, and considered that Appian confused Antiochus{{nbsp}}X with his son Antiochus XIII.{{sfn|Bellinger|1949|p= 75}} Kuhn considered a confusion between father and son to be out of the question because Appian mentioned the epithet Eusebes when talking about the fate of Antiochus X. In the view of Kuhn, Antiochus{{nbsp}}X retreated to Cilicia after being defeated by Tigranes II, and his sons ruled that region after him and were reported visiting Rome in 73 BC.{{sfn|Kuhn|1891|p=[https://archive.org/stream/beitrgezurgesch01kuhngoog#page/n41/mode/2up 36]}} However, numismatic evidence proves that Demetrius III controlled Cilicia following the demise of Antiochus X, and that [[Tarsus, Mersin|Tarsus]] minted coins in his name {{circa|225}} SE (88/87 BC).{{sfn|Lorber|Iossif|2009|pp= 103, 104}} The Egyptologist [[The Egyptian Royal Genealogy Project|Christopher J. Bennett]], considered it possible that Antiochus{{nbsp}}X retreated to [[Ptolemais in Phoenicia|Ptolemais]] after being defeated by Tigranes since it became his widow's base.{{sfn|Bennett|2002a|p= [http://www.instonebrewer.com/TyndaleSites/Egypt/ptolemies/selene_i.htm#Selene.31 note 31]}} In his history, Appian failed to mention the reigns of Demetrius III and Philip I in the capital which preceded the reign of Tigranes II. According to Hoover, Appian's ignorance of the intervening kings between Antiochus{{nbsp}}X and Tigranes II might explain how he confused Antiochus XIII, who is known to have fled from the Armenian king, with his father.{{sfn|Hoover|2007|p= 291}}

'''Eusebius and others''': According to Eusebius, who used the account of the third century historian [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]], Antiochus{{nbsp}}X was ejected from the capital by Philip I in 220 SE (93/92 BC) and fled to the Parthians.{{#tag:ref|In the view of the numismatist Edgar Rogers, Philip I was able to rule Antioch immediately after Antiochus XI,{{sfn|Rogers|1919|p= 32}} but it cannot be maintained that Philip I held the capital at any time before the demise of his cousin Antiochus{{nbsp}}X and his brother Demetrius III; this would contradict both the numismatic evidence and ancient literature, since no source indicates that Demetrius III pushed Philip I out of Antioch.{{sfn|Hoover|2007|p= 294}}|group=note}}{{sfn|Hoover|2007|p= 290}}{{sfn|Bellinger|1949|p= 75}} Eusebius added that following the Roman conquest of Syria, Antiochus{{nbsp}}X surrendered to [[Pompey]], hoping to be reinstated on the throne, but the people of Antioch paid money to the Roman general to avoid a Seleucid restoration. Antiochus{{nbsp}}X was then invited by the people of [[Alexandria]] to rule jointly with the daughters of [[Ptolemy XII Auletes|Ptolemy XII]], but he died of illness soon after.{{sfn|Dumitru|2016|p= 265}} This account has been questioned by many scholars, such as Hoover and Bellinger.{{sfn|Hoover|2007|p= 290}}{{sfn|Bellinger|1949|p= 75}} The story told by Eusebius contains factual inaccuracies, as he wrote that in the same year Antiochus{{nbsp}}X was defeated by Philip I, he surrendered to Pompey,{{sfn|Houghton|Lorber|Hoover|2008|p=565}} while at the same time Philip I was captured by the governor of Syria [[Aulus Gabinius]].{{sfn|Hoover|2007|p= 290}}{{sfn|Eusebius|1875|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=1iNSAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA261 261]}} However, Pompey arrived in Syria only in 64 BC,{{sfn|Houghton|Lorber|Hoover|2008|p=566}} and left it in 62 BC.{{sfn|Burns|2007|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=cYqCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA46 46]}} Aulus Gabinius was appointed governor of Syria in 57 BC.{{sfn|Downey|2015|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=gTTWCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA148 148]}} Also, the part of Eusebius's account regarding the surrender to Pompey echoes the fate of Antiochus XIII;{{sfn|Hoover|2007|p= 292}} the writer seems to be confusing the fate of Antiochus{{nbsp}}X with that of his son.{{sfn|Bellinger|1949|p= 75}}{{sfn|Schürer|1973|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=oG5jAgAAQBAJ&pg=135 135]}} The second century historian [[Justin (historian)|Justin]], writing based on the work of the first century BC historian [[Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus|Trogus]], also confused the father and son, as he wrote that Antiochus{{nbsp}}X was appointed king of Syria by the Roman general [[Lucullus]] following the defeat of Tigranes II in 69 BC.{{sfn|Hoover|2007|p= 291}}{{sfn|Dumitru|2016|p= 265}}