Your reading collapses because Daniel’s own structure forbids identifying Augustus and Tiberius as the kings of the north in Daniel 11:20–22, and it forbids identifying Rome as the little_horn_of_Daniel_8; Daniel 11 is explicitly about the Ptolemaic–Seleucid conflict (Dan 11:4–5), and the “raiser of taxes” in 11:20 is Seleucus IV, not Augustus, because the entire chapter is narrating the wars between the kings of the south and north, not jumping to Rome.
Likewise, Daniel 8’s “exceeding great” language does not refer to territorial size but directional expansion (east, south, toward the Beautiful Land), and the horn arises from one of the four Greek divisions, not from a fifth empire; Rome did not arise from the Diadochi, but Antiochus IV did, and he alone matches the sanctuary trampling, the removal of the daily sacrifice, the setting up of the abomination, and the persecution of the faithful — the exact pattern Daniel repeats in Daniel_11_31 and Daniel_12_11.
Your argument that the Seleucid Empire “never became greater than Alexander’s” misunderstands the Hebrew comparative: the horn is “exceeding great” relative to its targets, not relative to global empire size; Antiochus expanded farther east and south than any other post‑Alexander ruler and directly assaulted the covenant people, which is Daniel’s metric.
Rome is the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7, but Daniel 8 is explicitly Medo‑Persia → Greece → a horn from Greece; inserting Rome violates the angel’s own interpretation (Dan 8:20–22). And Daniel 11:22’s “prince of the covenant” is not Jesus under Tiberius but the high priest Onias III, killed during the Seleucid crisis — exactly where the narrative sits. Once you keep Daniel’s own historical sequence intact, Antiochus fits Daniel 8 and 11 precisely, Rome fits Daniel 2 and 7, and Jesus places the abomination future to His ministry (Matt 24:15), proving Antiochus is the type, not the final fulfillment.
