How did Seleucus just talk his way into this?

>>1414550
perhaps others had the foresight that it was unrulable

File: 2000px-Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo_in_Africa.png (648KB, 2000x1889px) Image search: [Google]

648KB, 2000x1889px

>>1414550
The same say leopold talked his way into this.

>>1414550
What the hell is going on in the southern Levant?

>>1414686
Obviously ptolemalos is cucking seleucus out of more sea even though he already got the richest part of alexander's empire

Did ptolemy got the better end of the deal after alexander's death?

>>1414550
He knew he only needed the loyalty of some eastern kings, not the people. He was able to gain this loyalty bossing people around with his bigger and more prepared army.

>>1416964
Although Egypt was rich Ptolemy had to rely on the Egyptians for his army and they could be rebellious. I would say that Macedonia was the best slice of the pie because it gave a solid foundation from which to build.

>>1417100
I know territory does not mean anything, but it seems so small compared to the rest. how is it actually better ? A foundation is nothing without an army or goods

>>1417100
>Macedonia was the best slice of the pie.
>Juuust nearby the Romans, a Warlord from Epirus, migrating Celts, and rebellious Greeks.

>>1417138
It wasn't rich but it did have an army that almost reconquered Greece. You can acquire land and riches with an army, that's how the Romans got started.

>>1417150
Philip V conquered half of Greece and nearly joined up with Hannibal in Italy. Totally different picture if that happened.

>>1417100
I think that, If macedonia wasnt the worst slice, its was one of the worse. Literally all problems and 0 richness.

>>1417261
See my post >>1417186

I'd also add that Egypt on the other hand had fewer problems but still struggled to overcome them. Philip had very nearly overcome the challenges posed to him by Macedonia, and he had less time. This was because he only had to contend with minor powers, not Syria.