Panhellenism

[Theodosius the Great]

Yes, it is true that the Seleucids made such an attempt but its failure again showed the futility of such plans.

I think it may be more accurate to say the plan could have worked if Antiochus was less aggressive or more tactful in executing it. Clearly it did work to some degree since many Jews were being hellenized - adopting Greek names, customs, and even deities. Otherwise there would have been no civil war.

I think that Serapis was devised not to "unify" the two peoples but more like to make it easier for the locals to accept the Greeks by sharing a common God, more like make Greeks easier to tolerate. For a unification process, I expect to see some declarations of important people as to how people are "equal", how they should not be viewed as "barbarians", how they have become "hellenized"

I see. That seems to be the case, I agree.

And why should that mean that the Greeks felt like Egyptians?

You're right, they did not. The only Greek who may have felt Egyptian was Cleopatra VII who spoke the Egyptian language.

Yes, but we do not talk about courts here. The macedonizing of the Amphipolitans was full and that was direct assimilation - unification, I think to the standards you set. Eumenes was a Thracian Greek of course, not a Thracian, but what exactly do you mean by that statement?

I meant to point out that the Macedonian royal court or household had non-Macedonian members. Doesn't that show that Phillip and Alexander wanted Greeks to feel that they can aspire to a royal position in the government?

Brasidas the Lacedaemonian also fought for the Argeads of Perdiccas for example. Do you mean in the war of the Diadochi? Or did you mean to say an army of Macedonians?

Yes, I meant the war of the Diadochi. Brasidas, as a Lacedaemonian Greek, would not feel uneasy about fighting for the Argeads since his country was not conquered by Macedon, right? As a Greek Thracian Eumenes was loyal to the legitimate dynasty of Macedon. Does that show a possibility that old identifications were breaking down? Or do you think it just shows that Eumenes was a true mercenary?

Each time they created a city or colony, actually a new local ethnicity was created too!!!! So, even after some such amalgamations, the total number of Greek local and regional identities just kept rising... What were the Alexandrian Greeks if not an amalgamation of Greeks from all over the Greek world?

Very good point. Yes, I see how that would be a problem. Greek colonization often resulted in separatism rather than expansion or unification. :|

I see. But with the accession of Macedon under Phillip II such marriages may have led to something new, IMO. Pyrrhus' final years led me to this idea.

What do you mean? New for whom? There were no mass cross marriages made or encouraged as Alexander did in Asia. Mixed marriages were not uncommon, but as I stated abovem they were governed by strict laws and generally did not lead to Greeks feeling more Greeks than their local identity.

Yes, I mean a new and larger aristocracy may have formed from mixed marriages between Macedonian and Epirote nobles. I believe you when you say mixed marriages were not uncommon but I think there were not enough of them. If there were more such marriages then that may have put pressure to abolish the strict laws regarding citizenship, IMO. Alexander's policy may have worked for these two kingdoms if he lived longer.

I wouldnt say neutralized. For Pyrrhus to not destroy him completely, there has to have been some reason.

The reason, I think, was Pyrrhus himself - his old failing of not being determined enough to complete any conquest. Anyway, I see your point. He did not really administer the kingdom as a true king. I don't think he even minted Macedonian coins with his portrait. :lol:

Greek honor demanded to live and die as honoring your own state. It was too deeply engraved in what was meant to be Greek to easily overcome.

I agree, that was the challenge. Some revolution would be needed to overcome it.

Wouldn't that actually make it easier for them to unite? Not having rigid laws or such great egalitarian sentiments should IMO make them easier to accept unification under the strongest chieftain.

In some ways it would be easier. Other factors may complicate matters. Tribes may be nomadic or semi-nomadic, for example. Tribes like Celts were illiterate. Tribal systems are generally too primitive to form superstates. Of course there are exceptions - like the Huns.

Well, I guess that if you put such mechanisms in such long processes (I would say more than two generations, but even this is enough to make my point) then they would be possible. The problem would then be to found a political system that would keep this process going for so long. You would need someone to reign supreme for 50 years and in all those years keep and promote this policy. It would also demand at least adequate agreement among the locals to not actively sabotage such policies and a similar thinking in the next one or two governmets.

Yes, in this scenario of Macedonian/ Epirote / Greek unification I agree that is what it would require.

No, such terms were most often imposed immediately. But for hegemons, (actually the strong bullies...) to make such requests was common anyways..

Ahh! That's what I meant to say. Sorry, I messed up my sentence. Yes, such terms were imposed immediately after victory. Alexander imposed this condition of accepting exiles many years after his (or Phillip's) victory.

As for time of service, mercenary bands could indeed stay together for even decades... again I would not see the 10,000 here as sometjing so radically unique.

OK, I believe you're right. I didn't know mercenary bands stayed together after a campaign. I thought they normally disbanded during the short periods of peace.

Anyways... It took the Pax Romana and maybe a thousand years to finally subdue local identities as much as necessary to bring the ethnic idientity to the foreground. Eventually it happened.

Indeed, I wonder when the Polis mentality disappears from the Greek mind. Maybe during Justinian's reign?

I just started reading this book: A History of the Hellenistic World: 323 - 30 BC, Errington, R. Malcolm. Here is an excerpt I found interesting about relations between the Greek city-states and Macedon after the death of Alexander.

Personal diplomacy thus became increasingly important for the cities, and men who were able, for whatever reason, to get on well with the locally dominant Macedonian dynast or king could become extremely influential within their own city. Such men were usually financially well situated, often able and willing themselves to bear the costs of a diplomatic mission. One result of this, and other factors, was that over the long term such rich and influential citizens came to dominate the affairs of the Greek cities, even in cities where fully democratic structures were in place, at the cost of the effective participation of the mass of citizens meeting in the ekklesia (people’s assembly). The latter found they had ever fewer matters of importance on which they could really decide, and in the long term in many places the ekklesia ceased to meet with any regularity.

~Theo