Taxes of the Ancient State Of Seleucus

Photo: pexels.com

The ancient state of Seleucus is the subject of the following chapter in the history of taxation.

BASIC CONCEPTS

State of Seleucus, crown (wreath) tax, indirect taxes, poll tax, direct taxes, salt tax, customs duty, phoros.

TAXATION UNDER ALEXANDER THE GREAT

The foundation of Alexander’s future empire was laid by his father, the Macedonian king Philip II (382–336 BCE), who turned a small state into the leader of the Hellenic world with an effective policy and military force built on new principles. After Philip’s assassination, Alexander exempted the Macedonian population from taxes to strengthen his authority, despite the treasury debt of 500 talents. He recovered p art of this amount (about 440 talents) by selling into slavery the inhabitants of Thebes who rebelled against him.

Macedonia did not have enough resources: the land tax and customs duties could bring in about 240 talents a year. With a minimum expenditure of 3 obols per warrior a day, this would allow the state to maintain no more than 8,000 soldiers, whereas at the beginning of the first campaign in Asia Minor, the army of Macedonia consisted of 35,000 soldiers. The only way to maintain such an army was to take spoils from Persia, Macedonia’s only rival at that time.

Legend has it that when Alexander the Great and Diogenes met, the commander offered the philosopher to fulfill his any wish. Diogenes said, “Stand out of my light.”^[3]

According to the surviving historical records, Alexander was attentive to his soldiers, took care of the wounded, and exempted parents and children of fallen warriors from land taxes, all personal duties, and property contributions.

Having conquered Asia Minor, in a bid to strengthen his position, Alexander forbade raising taxes higher than they had been under the Persians. The taxation system remained the same.

Under the Achaemenids, the conquered territories were divided into satrapies. They were managed by a civil governor, the commander of the garrison left by Alexander to maintain order, and the financial manager responsible for taxes. Financial officials were subordinate not to the satrap but to the chief treasurer, who was personally accountable to the king.

Alexander dealt harshly with rulers who abused their powers and illegally collected extra taxes. He executed many of them. One example of local lawlessness was the behavior of Alexander’s childhood friend, Harpalus, who was also Alexander’s personal treasurer and the satrap of Babylon. After learning about the executions of dishonest rulers, he fled with 6,000 mercenaries and 5,000 talents.

Tax revenues to Alexander’s treasury included phoros from conquered countries and syntax, which was a tax from allies. In addition to taxes, subordinate poleis were supposed to provide soldiers. The Greek poleis were exempted from paying taxes to Alexander after their warriors were allowed to go home.

Alexander’s main revenues were ransoms from conquered cities (50 talents from cities that did not resist and 100–200 talents from those that did), as well as the huge treasures of the Persian Empire. According to the most conservative estimates, Alexander’s plunder exceeded 5,000 tons of silver.

Alexander’s sudden death, apparently from fever (although there are other stories), did not allow a centralized system of authority to be fully established in the vast territory. The empire was divided between the Diadochi, that is, Alexander the Great’s former comrades-in-arms and generals. Attempts of Alexander’s heirs to regain authority led to wars between the Diadochi, leading to the dissolution of the empire.

FORMATION OF THE STATE OF SELEUCUS

After the assassination of Perdiccas, the de facto ruler of the Macedonian Empire (365–321 BCE), Seleucus I Nicator (358–281 BCE), commander and former bodyguard of Alexander the Great, gained control over Babylonia. As a result of a well-thought-out policy, Seleucus, who did not have large military forces, managed to expand his possessions significantly, thanks to a coalition with other Diadochi.

Scholars invented the name “Seleucid state.” The surviving documents usually mention the possessions of related kings. In the 2nd century BCE, the Seleucid ruler was called the king of Syria.

The dynasty founded by Seleucus ruled for two and a half centuries. The period of its greatest power occurred during the reign of Seleucus himself, who created more than 70 cities. Some of them were inhabited by Macedonians and arranged according to Greek traditions. Their population was probably the basis for the army. The lands allocated for living on were exempt from land tax. Other colonies were formed in an equivalent way. Their main purpose was to supply recruits for the army.

The colonization helped, among other things, to deal with internal conflicts and political problems associated with attempts to Hellenize the population. For example, to break local resistance in Asia Minor, Antiochus III (241–187 BCE) resettled Jews there and gave them tax benefits.

“And when you have brought them to the places mentioned, you shall give each of them a place to build a house and land to cultivate and plant with vines, and shall exempt them from payment of taxes on the produce of the soil for ten years.”

The letter of Antiochus III to Zeuxis regarding the establishment of Jewish military colonies in Phrygia and Lydia.^[5]

And conversely, to break the resistance of the Jews, Antiochus IV (215–164 BCE) populated Palestine with Gentiles, taking land from the locals.

Under the descendants of Seleucus, the state’s territory mainly shrank, and the Romans conquered it in 64 BCE and made the Roman province of Syria.

Throughout almost its entire history, the Seleucid state was at war with its neighbors. None of its rulers died of natural causes. They either expired on the battlefield or were killed because of internal conspiracies in the struggle for the throne.

ROYAL PRIVILEGES

Power over a specific territory or city was based on victory. After every internal uprising or external conquest, a ruler had to affirm his rights to the city or territory by force of arms.

“When the victor prescribes his laws to the vanquished, he turns into the absolute master of those who have been betrayed by military fortune; he decides at his own discretion what he wants to take away from them or leave to them.”

From the speech of a Seleucid ambassador at the Roman Senate^[6]

Privileges of regions and cities, including full or partial exemption from taxes, depended on the conditions of their conquest, and were stipulated in a special royal act. When the ruler changed, these conditions were stipulated and clarified, and certain benefits and privileges could be added or taken away.

GOVERNMENT

The Seleucid empire was split into satrapies. According to various sources, there were about 20–30 of them. The satrapies consisted of smaller administrative units with various names. There were hyparchies, eparchies, phylaci, meridarchies and perhaps other subdivisions.

In general, there were two models of governance: some of the peoples and cities were free and self-governed (in fact, they were separate states); the rest were under the direct control of the royal government.

Under Alexander, the top leaders of the satrapies were a satrap, a strategos, and a financial official. The same person could hold these positions. The satrap exercised judicial power and settled other civil issues. The strategos commanded the royal troops and dealt with military affairs.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

In free territories, the form of governance depended on local traditions. For example, there was democracy in Greek cities, Jerusalem was ruled by the high priest and Gerusia (a council of elders consisting of priests and heads of major families), and in Phoenician cities, the power belonged to the local nobility. In addition, there were autonomous communities governed by dynasts, local rulers of lands, who received this right from the king.

Some cities were exempted from military service and even had their own troops, including mercenaries, minted their own coins, and kept their own calendar. However, freedom was not absolute. Orders of the king and the central government were binding, and local authorities took corresponding decisions to implement them.

The dynastic struggle for the crown and the weakening of the royal authority during wars contributed to the expansion of benefits, primarily tax benefits, for the cities. Local rulers offered their support to belligerents in exchange for the benefits. This is how Jonathan the Hasmonean, the leader of the Jewish uprising, who supported various candidates for the royal throne at various times, became the high priest of Judah and achieved Jerusalem’s exemption from taxes.

Some temples and even cities received the right of asylum, that is, they became shelters for hunted criminals, including tax debtors. Both the debtor who received asylum and his property, wherever it was, were inviolable. Cities noted this right by stamping the honorary title “sacred and inviolable” on coins. Certain cities gained an additional title: ”exempt from taxes” (national taxes).

“All who take refuge in the temple of Jerusalem or in any of its precincts, because of money they owe the king, or because of any other debt, shall be released, together with all the goods they possess in my kingdom.”

Letter of Demetrius I to the Jews.^[7]

PHOROS

Phoros, the “traditional” Greek tax of the period of the wars with Persia, was first adopted by the Persians, who imposed it on conquered Greek cities in Asia Minor and Phoenicia, and was then inherited by the Seleucids, who spread it over their territory. Since the time of Persian rule, this form of taxation became customary for the entire region. In fact, phoros was a regular annual tribute that all administrative units of the state had to pay.

According to another explanation, phoros included payments to the state treasury.

It is believed that the amount of phoros was fixed, but some available documents show that certain territories paid it as a tithe from the harvest. Officially, the phoros was contributed by the community, city, people, or tribe, but in fact it was eventually distributed among taxpayers. As under the Persians, some provinces paid tribute partially or fully in kind—with food and cattle. Some distinguished cities and localities were exempted by the king from paying phoros, mainly for their loyalty during wars.

The central government did not care how taxpayers obtained funds to pay phoros. It was up to the community, whose leader was responsible for transferring the tax to the royal treasury.

As a rule, phoros was paid once a year, but in some cases, it could be split into parts. For example, the city of Sardis, devastated after a war with the Romans, was granted the right to pay phoros in three installments.

DIRECT TAXES

Besides phoros, there were other direct taxes. Surviving documents refer to a poll tax, crown (wreath) tax, and salt tax. But we do not know how widespread they were throughout the state.

The poll tax is mentioned in Antiochus III’s decree for the Jews dated 200 BCE, in which he exempts the members of Jerusalem’s Gerusia and church servants from paying it. There are also references to this tax in Asia. However, its amount and the details of the calculation are not known. The sources mention a poll tax on artisans, also without much detail.

The crown (wreath) tax implied the obligation of a conquered city or people to present a triumphal wreath to the king. It could be a wreath of gold, or an ordinary wreath of leaves supplemented with precious gifts. We do not know how regular this tax was. Perhaps it was awarded once in connection with the next ruler’s ascent to power. According to another account, the wreath was given only when the king visited the conquered city or people. References to the abolition of the crown tax show that its payment was somehow regulated. For example, the decree of Antiochus III says, “I now free you and exempt all the Jews from the tribute, the salt tax, and the crown levies.”^[8] By the way, these tax benefits from Antiochus III were granted during the years of the war with Egypt for Judah, which changed hands several times. They were a form of bargaining for Judah’s favor.

The salt tax is mysterious too. According to the most popular interpretations, the salt tax was an obligation to buy a set amount of salt per capita or a requirement to supply salt or money instead. It is hypothesized that there was also a tax on salt wholesaling.

Another hypothesis says that all the mentioned direct taxes were annual.

LAND TAXES

All the land belonged to the king as the victor. He granted it to various owners to use: cities, temples, peoples, tribes, and individuals. A major part of the land was the royal domain, which brought income to the treasury. The owners of the remaining plots were obliged to pay taxes.

Most farmers were laoi, dependent people under the authority of the owner of the land on which they worked. Laoi communities were jointly responsible for cultivating the land and paying taxes to the king and their landowner. There are also references to other categories of dependent inhabitants: oiketes, close to laoi, andropodes, who had the right to trade, and paroikoi, who worked on city lands.

According to Pseudo-Aristotle, the main tax in the Seleucid state was the land tax. There were two terms for it: the ekphorion, a fixed crop tax that apparently depended on the area of land plots, and the zekat, a harvest-dependent tithe.

Pseudo-Aristotle is a generalized name for authors of works attributed to Aristotle.

The form of collection and the amount of the land tax are known only for Judah, where one third of the grain harvest and half of the tree fruits were paid. The amount of the land tax may have varied between provinces, since historical documents mention tithes from everything received from the land.

As for taxes from cattle breeders, there are references to pikarpia and zekat. There are two theories regarding pikarpia: perhaps it was a tax on offspring or on the right to graze. And zekat is a tithe, like the land tax, but perhaps only from small cattle. An additional duty imposed on cattle breeders was to provide cattle for state needs.

City lands and plots in rural areas near cities were also taxed. Some cities were exempt from taxes, while others paid syntax, an ally’s contribution to a war effort.

We do not know how the land taxation system was organized throughout the kingdom. There is fragmentary information about only some territories.

INDIRECT TAXES

In addition to direct taxes, there were taxes levied at the time of sale and related to consumer goods. Basically, these were customs duties and fees for transferring property to another person.

Customs duties were taken both from imports and exports at the borders and ports of the state and for the movement of goods at the borders of provinces. There were duties even within one province, for example, when importing goods from Judah to Jerusalem.

The amount of the duty was, as a rule, 10% of the goods’ value. But other rates apparently also existed. Distinguished merchants from some countries received the right to duty-free trade. Specifically, such rights were granted in different years to merchants from the island of Rhodes and the city of Miletus. Certain types of goods could be exempted from duties. For example, during the construction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the wood necessary for this effort was exempt from duties.

Additional fees from merchants were taken for camels, for escorts through the desert, for moving along the Tigris and Euphrates, for transit through the province, for using land and river trade routes—and this is far from a complete list.

There were fees for holding fairs. Sales and purchases, that is, the transfer of property and slaves from one person to another, were taxed too.

LOCAL TAXES

There is truly little information about local taxes. The primary income source for local budgets was probably property taxes, including levies on land and working cattle. Like the Greek practice, there were also taxes on slaves.

Otherwise, given peoples’ different level of development, different religions, and local traditions, we can assume a variety of forms of local taxation.

Local taxes allowed the state to maintain royal officials, as well as a standing army consisting of small garrisons in cities and fortresses that kept order in the satrapies.

The person responsible for assessing the amount of taxes and collecting them was called an eklogist, and a tax collector was named a logeutes. Taxes on sales and other transactions were collected by chreophylaci.

As there was no detailed land cadaster nor population census in the Seleucid state, taxes were levied not on individuals, but on communities—cities, peoples, tribes, temples, and other units. Such a system did not require a huge administrative apparatus like that of the Ptolemies in Egypt.

In addition to taxes, there were various obligations, such as billeting soldiers and passing officials, performing work for the “house of the king,” and supplying livestock and slaves to perform that work.

TAXES IN POLEIS

The poleis made a significant contribution to the state treasury. Their income was used to pay national taxes from territories controlled by the cities and various extraordinary fees, usually for conducting military operations. On the other hand, there is evidence that the central government provided financial assistance to cities for construction and to support religious events.

The cities had several sources of income, with a focus on the land tax from the territories they controlled. Farmers and tenants paid for it. As a rule, it was a tithe of the income received.

In addition, cattle were taxed. There is information about the taxation of plowing animals, draught oxen, and bred pigs. There was also a medical tax collected to support the activities of doctors. There was a tax on gardens and beehives in the city of Teos.

Most of the income was gained through indirect taxes, which were collected when importing and exporting goods, and purchasing and selling products, animals, materials, handicrafts, and slaves. Coastal cities had port and transit duties.

Large cities collected taxes from dependent smaller cities and used part of the amount to their own advantage.

A city’s revenues went to its politikon, state coffers managed by the treasurer. His functions included monetary management, allocation of funds to new citizens for the purchase of land, installation of monuments making wreaths for honorary citizens, and other activities on behalf of the city authorities. The treasurers leased city lands, collected rent, and monitored the receipt of money and goods from dependent settlements and territories. The treasurer’s primary duty was to pay phoros to the state treasury.

In addition to the phoros, there was the extraordinary Galatian levy collected from cities to pay indemnity to the troublemaking tribes known as the Gauls.

From time to time, some cities were granted ateleia, full or partial exemption from taxes and duties, usually for a certain period. For example, the war-ravaged city of Brusa received ateleia first for three years and later for another two years.

TAXATION OF TEMPLES

As the king was considered the supreme owner of the temple lands, temples located on the royal land paid the land tax. City temples paid it to the budget of the polis.

As a rule, the land tax from temples, as well as from other farmers, was a tithe, but not always: there are records indicating that, under Seleucus I, a tax of 50% of the harvest was paid from some temple lands.

Temples were centers of trade. Fairs, which were also taxable, were held on their grounds. Some temples were exempted from the tax on fairs and the tax on the purchase and sale of goods at those fairs.

The inhabitants and tenants on temple land paid land tax to the temple. But this was not the only tax they paid. Surviving documents contain information about taxes on small cattle, and there were apparently other taxes as well. The treasurer, known as the tamiai, was responsible for the tax receipts to the temple treasury. Paying taxes to the city or royal treasury was the responsibility of the temple’s priest, who was supervised by the royal official.

There were also special taxes on the priesthood. Their amount and the rules that introduced them are unknown. According to the only preserved information, the Temple in Jerusalem paid 15,000 silver shekels annually. The multiethnic Seleucid state might have taxed the property of temples of all religions and confessions in its territory.

Another tax for temples was for worship, which was paid by the temples of the various confessions that existed in the state.

TREASURY

The Seleucids’ reign cost the treasury considerable funds. These funds were required to maintain palaces in various cities of the state, friends, relatives, and numerous servants. Even more resources were needed to maintain the army, finance military activities, create colonies, strengthen city walls, support allies, present gifts to temples, organize holidays, and much more.

Besides taxes, there were other sources of income, primarily the king’s vast landholdings, which were leased and brought rent revenue to the treasury. Silver and gold mines located in the state generated income too. The king also had a monopoly on forests, the source of the main building material, as well as on water and irrigation facilities.

The royal treasury received additional revenue from the monopoly on coinage, including farming out mint operations.

Successful military campaigns replenished the treasury, while defeats emptied it. In such cases, some Seleucid kings resorted to confiscating temple treasures. Some of these attempts failed. For example, Antiochus III was killed during the looting of the temple in Elam. In times of need, the Seleucids did not shy away from other ways of refilling the treasury, including the sale of lands in their domain, loans from the population, fines, and confiscation of property.

Military operations were supported with funds and food from the inhabitants of the localities where they took place. And, in addition to the mandatory supplies, soldiers robbed the local population.

According to historians, 1,000 residents of the state brought 1 talent of silver to the royal treasury per year, which, given a population of 20–25 million people, meant an annual income of 20,000–25,000 talents. Other estimates show that the income was comparable to the income gained under the Achaemenids—about 7,000–11,000 talents.

Estimated basic expenses were as follows: about 7,000 talents for the maintenance of the army, and 2,000–3,000 talents both for the administration of satrapies and for the royal court. Besides these expenses, there were other costs, both internal and external. For example, it was necessary to pay tribute to the Gauls as a tax-farming payment from their destructive raids.

Despite the legends, the funds of the royal treasury were apparently not always adequate, since there is evidence that during wars the state was unable to pay salaries to soldiers.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

The Seleucid state’s financial structure was based on the system established under the Achaemenids and modified by Alexander the Great. The Seleucids’ royal treasury, the gazophulakion, was in several of the most fortified cities. The state’s territory was divided into financial districts known as chiliarchies. Provinces were linked to a specific treasury and delivered the collected taxes to it. As a rule, the head of the province was responsible for delivering taxes, but in Jerusalem, the high priest supervised tax payments.

The king was the chief financial administrator.

According to one account, satrapy finances were managed by the oeconomus, who were subordinate to the strategos. In hyparchies, the revenue chiefs accountable to the strategos were responsible for collecting taxes. According to another theory, the oeconomi were engaged in matters related to the king’s land and were subordinate to the revenue chiefs, who were answerable to the king.

There is no clear answer about the job title and functions of the head of the state’s entire financial service, but the most common hypothesis is that it was a dioiketes. This position was responsible not only for tax collection but also for other financial and economic issues, including the management of royal warehouses and land transactions.

In the satrapies, the royal treasury was headed by a gazophylacus. A bibliophylacus registered royal lands for land tax accounting, while a chreophylacus recorded private and public lands, transactions, including with slaves, and financial loans.

In addition to the state treasury, there was the king’s personal treasury, from which he paid for the rites of the Temple in Jerusalem. This treasury was replenished from proceeds from the royal domain.

It looks like the financial system was as diverse, if not “underorganized,” as the whole government.

[1] Image by Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:Silver_tetradrachm_Philip_II.jpg), „Silver tetradrachm Philip II,” marked as public domain, more details on Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old

[2] Image by Tarawneh. Louis Loeb creator QS:P170, Q6687688 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alexander_visits_Diogenes_at_Corinth_by_Louis_Loeb_(1898).jpg), „Alexander visits Diogenes at Corinth by Louis Loeb (1898),” marked as public domain, more details on Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old

[3] Cited in “Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers.” Chapter 2. R.D. Hicks, Ed. URL: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0258%3Abook%3D6%3Achapter%3D2#notea. Accessed: July 19, 2023.

[4] Image by Allan Gluck (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seleukos_I_Nikator_Bronze_Roman_100BCE-100CE_Museo_Archeologico_Nazionale_Naples_AN_5590_1.jpg), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

[5] Cited in Schalit, Abraham. “The Letter of Antiochus III to Zeuxis Regarding the Establishment of Jewish Military Colonies in Phrygia and Lydia.” The Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. 50, no. 4, 1960, pp. 289–318. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1453606. Accessed: July 19, 2023.

[6] Cited in E. Bikerman, The Seleucid State, Moscow: “Science,” 1985. § 1.

[7] Cited in Harrington, D. J. (2016). First and Second Maccabees, p. 64. United States: Liturgical Press. URL: https://www.google.com/books/edition/First_and_Second_Maccabees/t3PJDQAAQBAJ. Accessed: July 19, 2023.

[8] Cited in Harrington, D. J. (2016). First and Second Maccabees, p. 64. United States: Liturgical Press. URL: https://www.google.com/books/edition/First_and_Second_Maccabees/t3PJDQAAQBAJ. Accessed: July 19, 2023.