ers. The first Antiochus
aimed at adding the kingdom of Bithynia to his dominions, and attacked
successively the Bythynian monarchs, Zipcetas and Nicomedes I. (B.C.
280-278). This aggression brought him into collision with the Gauls,
whom Nicomedes called to his aid, and with whom Antiochus had several
struggles, some successful and some disastrous. He also attacked Eumenes
of Pergamus (B.C. 263), but was defeated in a pitched battle near
Sardis. The second Antiochus was not engaged in so great a multiplicity
of contests; but we hear of his taking a part in the internal affairs of
Miletus, and expelling a certain Timachus, who had made himself tyrant
of that city. There is also some ground for thinking that he had a
standing quarrel with the king of Media Atropatene. Altogether it
is evident that from B.C. 280 to B.C. 250 the Seleucid princes were
incessantly occupied with wars in the west, in Asia Minor and in Syria
Proper, wars which so constantly engaged them that they had neither time
nor attention to spare for the affairs of the far east. So long as the
Bactrian and Parthian satraps paid their tributes, and supplied the
requisite quotas of troops for service in the western wars, the Antiochi
were content. The satraps were left to manage affairs at their own
discretion; and it is not surprising that the absence of a controlling
hand led to various complications and disorders.

Moreover, the personal character of the second Antiochus must be taken
into account. The vanity and impiety, which could accept the name of
"Theus" for a service that fifty other Greeks had rendered to oppressed
towns without regarding themselves as having done anything very
remarkable, would alone indicate a weak and contemptible morale, and
might justify us, did we know no more, in regarding the calamities of
his reign as the fruit of his own unfitness to rule an empire. But
there is sufficient evidence that he had other, and worse, vices. He
was noted, even among Asiatic sovereigns, for luxury and debauchery; he
neglected all state affairs in the pursuit of pleasure; his wives and
male favorites were allowed to rule his kingdom at their will; and
their most flagrant crimes were neither restrained nor punished. Such a
character could have inspired neither respect nor fear. The satraps, to
whom the conduct of their sovereign could not but become known, would
be partly encouraged to follow the bad example, partly provoked by it to
shake themse