Of the financial organization of the Macedonian kingdoms we know
practically nothing, except in the case of Egypt. Here the papyri and
ostraca have put a large material at our disposal, but the circumstances
in Egypt[3] were too peculiar for us to generalize upon these data as to
the Seleucid and Antigonid realms. That the Seleucid kings drew in a
principal part of their revenues from tribute levied upon the various
native races, distributed in their village communities as tillers of the
soil goes without saying.[4] In districts left in the hands of native
chiefs these chiefs would themselves exploit their villages and pay the
Seleucid court and tribute. To exact tribute from Greek cities was
invidious, but both Antigonid and Seleucid kings often did so
(Antigonid, Diog. Laërt. II., 140; Plut. _Dem._ 27; Seleucid, Michel,
No. 37; Polyb. xxi. 43, 2). Sometimes, no doubt, this tribute was
demanded under a fairer name, as the contribution of any ally ([Greek:
syntaxis], not [Greek: phoros]), like the [Greek: Galatika] levied by
Antiochus I. (Michel, No. 37; cf. Polyb. xxii. 27, 2). The royal
domains, again, and royal monopolies, such as salt-mines, were a source
of revenue.[5] As to indirect taxes, like customs and harbour dues,
while their existence is a matter of course (cf. Polyb. v. 89, 8), their
scale, nature and amount is quite unknown to us. Whatever the financial
system of the Antigonid and Seleucid kingdoms may have been, it is
clear that they were far from enjoying the affluence of the Ptolemaïc.
During the first Seleucid reigns indeed the revenues of Asia may have
filled its treasuries (see Just. xvii. 2, 13), but Antiochus III.
already at his accession found them depleted (Polyb. v. 50, 1), and from
his reign financial embarrassment, coupled with extravagant expenditure,
was here the usual condition of things. Perseus, the last of the
Antigonid house, amassed a substantial treasure for the expenses of the
supreme struggle with Rome (Polyb. xviii. 35, 4; Liv. xlv, 40), but it
was by means of almost miserly economies.
Special officials were naturally attached to the service of the
finances. Over the whole department in the Seleucid realm there presided
a single chief ([Greek: ho epi ton prosodon], App. _Syr_. 45). How far
the financial administration was removed from the competence of the
provincial governors, as it seems to have been in Alexander's system, we
cannot say. Seleucus at any rate, as satrap of Babylonia, controlled the
finances of the province (Diod. xix. 55, 3), and so, in the Ptolemaïc
system, did the governor of Cyprus (Polyb. xxvii. 13). The fact that
provincial officials [Greek: epi ton prosodon] (in Eriza, _Bull. corr.
hell._ xv. 556) are found does not prove anything, since it leaves open
the question of their being subordinate to the governor.