Panhellenism

[Theodosius the Great]

Avete,

My question is about panhellenism or the panhellenic movement of mainland Greece in the Classical period. Did this idea or movement ever evolve to advocate permanent political unity of the Greeks? The idea would have been antithetical to traditional Greek chauvinism which existed among the Greek city-states. But did such an idea have many or any advocates?

I think Isocrates pushed this idea in terms of Athenian imperialism which, IMO, doesn't invalidate him as a panhellenist. But was he alone? And could Aeschines, the pro-Macedonian politician, fall into this category as well?

How strong was the movement? Is there evidence of Greek politicians from various city-states acting in concert to form a permanent political union in the form of Athenian rule, Macedonian rule, or something else?

~Theo

[Macedon]

IMO, I do not think that panhellenism was ever a dominant or even popular idea in the Greek world as far as full political union is concerned. Even the likes of Isocrates did not advocate the "everyone under the same sun" motto. To them, losing the political and cultural independence of their state would be inconceivable. On the other hand, hegemonies were a part of their reality, where a hegemon state was the head of an alliance that (although gained and maintained with the force of arms, since this was the only way of ensuring and keeping hegemony) would, when using its position with prudene and goodwill, protect and respect its members, be a philhellen (good to all Greeks and a promoter of their interests) and only wisely preside over their "dependencies" and lead them, inspiring a common Greek front.

This view permeates the works of many Greek writers, when criticising all hegemonies achieved by the major Greek states, especially that of Athens, which was considered the most tyranical. The views of Isocrates were not contrary to general wishful thinking, that anyways demanded such co operation and advertised Greekness as a trait that had to be respected, but he did put it down in words more eloquently, with all the tricks and exaggerations of a skilled orator and demagogue...

In short my answer would be that permanent political unity was not advocated, IMO, by Isocrates or anyone else in that period. Wise, just and phillhelenic hegemony/leadership was, where all Greek states would have retained their independence.

[Epictetus]

I don't think so, either. I have been reading a lot of stuff recently regarding the Greeks under the Roman Empire, and especially how they viewed their relationships with each other and with Rome. This isn't your time period, but there are quite a few mentions of historical interactions and beliefs dating back to the Classical era. I've been skimming through, and I don't see anything to suggest there was any real movement for a permanent political union.

[Ghostmojo]

It seems to me there were two specific strands to Pan-Hellenism in ancient Greece. However, both of them were minority movements.

The first strand was intellectual and recognised that the common culture; heritage; religion; language; ethnicity; values etc. could and should amount to more than just words or vague commonalities. There was the possibility of a united front that would make economic sense and more importantly be very strong for common defence. United we stand - divided we fall (which could sum up ancient Greek history). Sadly, this was always a pipedream since localism and sub-ethnicism (i.e. Dorian against Ionian, Akhaian against Aiolian) were always more potent forces.

The second strand was more successful, but only periodically and never completely. This was generally at the behest of a strong leader (e.g. Philip or Alexander) seeking a united front to promote personal or state ambitions; or as a quickfire and shakey response to an external threat (Persian Wars). This kind of attempt at federalising was usually just as adept at creating pro and anti factions, depending upon the various states' views regarding who was motivating the panhellenic fervour.

[Theodosius the Great]

In short my answer would be that permanent political unity was not advocated, IMO, by Isocrates or anyone else in that period. Wise, just and phillhelenic hegemony/leadership was, where all Greek states would have retained their independence.

Thanks. I had a feeling that was the case. But I forgot to mention Aristotle. He hated the Persians with a passion due to a personal grudge (a friend of his was killed, IIRC) and was in some sense panhellenic in his views. I thought maybe he advocated a long term view of Greek unity.

As a general observation I find it interesting that the March of the Ten Thousand did not inspire a notion of political unity that transcended the hegemony model.

The second strand was more successful, but only periodically and never completely. This was generally at the behest of a strong leader (e.g. Philip or Alexander) seeking a united front to promote personal or state ambitions; or as a quickfire and shakey response to an external threat (Persian Wars)

I suppose Aristotle would fall into this strand. It'd be interesting to know how he positioned himself in the aftermath of Alexander's death. I have to read up on the Diadochi period again to find out.

I don't think so, either. I have been reading a lot of stuff recently regarding the Greeks under the Roman Empire, and especially how they viewed their relationships with each other and with Rome. This isn't your time period, but there are quite a few mentions of historical interactions and beliefs dating back to the Classical era. I've been skimming through, and I don't see anything to suggest there was any real movement for a permanent political union.

Thanks. There seems to be consensus on this point. Now I wonder if any Greek writers expressed regret that such a movement did not exist which might have prevented Greece from falling under Roman rule. I think Greeks like Polybius lamented the current political state of Greek affairs but would that have sparked any reevaluation of the traditional view of independence of the Polis? Did any Greeks retrospectively acknowledge that their localisms/ regionalisms was politically suicidal?

~Theo

[Macedon]

Well.. yes, they did regret the fact that Greeks kept on weakening themselves through "civil" war and "using" (more like being used by) barbarians in order to promote their own individual interests. We can see such comments much before the Roman advent into Greek politics, when it is the Persians who keep the flow of Persian gold to ensure that Greece remains in perpetual war. Xenophon, Thucydides... Polybius even scolds Epirotans for siding with Illyrians instead of putting their trust in Greek alliances. Never though does anyone even propose a political union... this would sound like science fiction to them.

As for the 10,000... why should they inspire dreams of political unity? What they did inspire and prove, was that the Persians could be conquered by a strong Greek army. It is them that inspired Isocrates and with him Philip and Alexander but not just them. We see this comment many times expressed by Laconians and Athenians... Everyone seems to have entertained such thoughts after the exploits of the 10,000 and the subsequent campaigns of the Lacedaemonians in Ionia.

[Theodosius the Great]

Well.. yes, they did regret the fact that Greeks kept on weakening themselves through "civil" war and "using" (more like being used by) barbarians in order to promote their own individual interests... Never though does anyone even propose a political union... this would sound like science fiction to them.

One might think that upon reflection of the Greeks' misfortunes that some would be drawn to the conclusion that the Polis as an independent entity became obsolete in the new world of empires. I can see how a diehard democrat would be blinded by his archaic views but men like Polybius seemed to have questioned the institution and began examining the Roman oligarchy as a superior system of government.

If political unity was to be achieved I think it would have to have been done by monarchists or oligarchs in positions of power. Now that you mention the Epirotans, Pyrrhus almost achieved the political unity of the entire Balkan peninsula. He died as King of Epirus and Macedonia with a foothold in Italy. It's too bad he didn't live long enough to make a new marriage alliance to solidify the two kingdoms. In theory that is how any union would take place, marriage alliances. Although this didn't work in the Eastern Meditarranean - too many betrayals, wars, and deaths of would be dynasts undermined such efforts. So, since this was at least tried I can't see how a political union, especially in hindsight, would seem like science fiction to the Greek mind.

As for the 10,000... why should they inspire dreams of political unity? What they did inspire and prove, was that the Persians could be conquered by a strong Greek army. It is them that inspired Isocrates and with him Philip and Alexander but not just them. We see this comment many times expressed by Laconians and Athenians... Everyone seems to have entertained such thoughts after the exploits of the 10,000 and the subsequent campaigns of the Lacedaemonians in Ionia.

Well, the bulk of the survivors didn't break up which at least showed that Greeks could get along with each other even when the existential threat from Persia no longer compelled them to unite.

~Theo

[Macedon]

One might think that upon reflection of the Greeks' misfortunes that some would be drawn to the conclusion that the Polis as an independent entity became obsolete in the new world of empires. I can see how a diehard democrat would be blinded by his archaic views but men like Polybius seemed to have questioned the institution and began examining the Roman oligarchy as a superior system of government.

Actually, this was not the case until much much later. You see, Empires of the time were not that different to the Greek hegemonies. They were essentially a certain dominant nation which kept its own political traditions (kingship among the Persians, a republic among the Romans) with a whole lotta tributary states that were mostly indirectly governed by the central state, who kept overseers where it saw fit, garrisons at points of strategic interest etc. But those tributary states kept their own governments which were to a certain, sometimes even none at all, degree controlled by the central seat. If you think of it, this is no different than what the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians did when they held hegemony, so I think that what many view as a peculiarity of the Greeks is actually the norm at these times. Of course there are examples of larger states with a strangely homogenous sense of nationality, such as the Egyptians and, I think, the Latin colonies of Rome which were founded qute late in Rome's history. But think of the Celts, the Thracians, the Illyrians, the Paeonians, the Indians, actually the Persians themselves with all their tribes, the Numidians, the Phoenicians, the Germans... So, Polybius is indeed praising the Roman government but not because of some unity it provided, IMO.

Furthermore, a polis was not a democracy. It could have any governmental system and it need not even be a single city. We call them city states, but the rihgt translation would rather be just "state" and could comprise by any number of cities.

If political unity was to be achieved I think it would have to have been done by monarchists or oligarchs in positions of power. Now that you mention the Epirotans, Pyrrhus almost achieved the political unity of the entire Balkan peninsula. He died as King of Epirus and Macedonia with a foothold in Italy. It's too bad he didn't live long enough to make a new marriage alliance to solidify the two kingdoms. In theory that is how any union would take place, marriage alliances. Although this didn't work in the Eastern Meditarranean - too many betrayals, wars, and deaths of would be dynasts undermined such efforts. So, since this was at least tried I can't see how a political union, especially in hindsight, would seem like science fiction to the Greek mind.

Actually, Pyrrhus, IIRC, was king of Macedon only for a very limited period of time and then practically stepped down for it was evident that the Macedonians would go with his rival, so he did not die a king of Macedon, he did not even cross theAdriatic as one. As for Epirus, he also did not achieve their political union, not more than any other hegaemon. The Epirotans remained divided after him. The Macedonians remained as tribes more time "unified" although they always longed for independence from the Argeads as was later evident when the Romans split them up.

Actually I do not see it happening... indeed there were royal marriages and staff, but very very rarely any ancient nation achieved even partial unity. Do not confuse hegaemony, union under the force of arms, with union accepted by the people. OF course, there were many instances when a state became a dependency of another, but in those times, willing acceptance to participate in such an endeavor was indeed not considered at all.

Well, the bulk of the survivors didn't break up which at least showed that Greeks could get along with each other even when the existential threat from Persia no longer compelled them to unite.

Oh! They DID know they could co operate! They had already done so in both Persian wars, their battles were usually between sides with allies, often multiple allies. But uniting was very very uncommon. For example, Athens, was actually a little "kingdom" It was not just a city with its environs ut many large cities feeling united. Athens, Peiraeus, Elsusis, Acharnes... all these were Athenians. There are some more such examples, but they are quite rare. Some other attempts at such "unions" were the Achaean League and the Aetolian Confederation, the Common of the Boeotians etc, but again, regional over city identity was as far as Greeks could go...

As far as the 10,000 are concerned.... just read the last books of their exploits. There you will see that once the danger as ALMOST over, they could not co operate any more... They split up, they backstabbed each other... it was chaos...

[Theodosius the Great]

Actually, this was not the case until much much later. You see, Empires of the time were not that different to the Greek hegemonies. They were essentially a certain dominant nation which kept its own political traditions (kingship among the Persians, a republic among the Romans) with a whole lotta tributary states that were mostly indirectly governed by the central state, who kept overseers where it saw fit, garrisons at points of strategic interest etc. But those tributary states kept their own governments which were to a certain, sometimes even none at all, degree controlled by the central seat.

How much later? I was thinking of the successor states to Alexander's empire. Those states do seem to have continued a tradition of local autonomy but to a lesser extend if I'm not mistaken. Ptolemaic Egypt was probably the most united state despite popular uprisings and civil wars. Macedonia itself seems more united than you make it sound, IMO. The nobility was very strong but they don't seem to have threatened to fragment the state. Someone always wanted to be king. And the fact the Philip made a marriage alliance with the Epiroite kingdom seems to suggest that a new, stronger unity was emerging than in the past. This was partially successful since Alexander never had to worry about his kingdom being threatened by Epirus while he was in Asia. And because of this marriage alliance Pyrrhus had a legitamate claim to the throne of Macedonia through his kinship with Alexander. So, I agree that traditional divisions remained but I detect a trend toward a new, greater degree of unity however brief it may have been. If I'm right then a panhellenic movement might seem possible.

So, Polybius is indeed praising the Roman government but not because of some unity it provided, IMO.

He admired the apparent stability the Roman model provided. Democracy by its nature is divisive and was thus an impediment to permanent political unity among Poleis who are more or less equally powerful, IMO.

Furthermore, a polis was not a democracy. It could have any governmental system and it need not even be a single city.

Yes, I understand that. But democracy reenforces localism/ regionalism and was an impediment toward unity which should have naturally occurred given the cultural similarities, IMO.

Actually, Pyrrhus, IIRC, was king of Macedon only for a very limited period of time and then practically stepped down for it was evident that the Macedonians would go with his rival, so he did not die a king of Macedon, he did not even cross theAdriatic as one.

Yes and no. He was a two-time king of Macedon. You mentioned his first reign when he shared power with Lysimachus who drove him out of the kingdom and bought him off to go to Italy. After Lysimachus was killed in Asia Pyrrhus eventually decided to invade Macedon to help pay his troops. The kingdom was already in chaos and Pyrrhus was remembered and admired by the Macedonian troops who were sent by Antigonos II to oppose him. They defected en masse during the battle which gave him an easy victory over the Gallic mercenaries who remained loyal to Antigonos. So, he effectively and unexpectedly reconquered the kingdom and ruled most of it for at least a couple of years. Remember, he died trying to conquer the Peloponesse. He would never invade the peninsula as merely king of Epirus with a hostile Macedonia in his rear. I just finished re-reading his biography. Very interesting figure!

As for Epirus, he also did not achieve their political union, not more than any other hegaemon. The Epirotans remained divided after him.

Yes, he was a "three-time" king of Epirus (having been dethroned twice) but he was the most successful ruler the kingdom ever had in spite of that. So, success can bring a greater degree of unity however shortlived, IMO. Because of Pyrrhus' lineage and his military talent he almost succeeded. But you're right, Epirus was never as stable as Macedon.

Alexander could have united the Balkin peninsula had he choosen to do so instead of conquering the whole Persian empire. Had he just taken Asia Minor, returned to Macedon as an enriched monarch he could have pulled it off.

Do not confuse hegaemony, union under the force of arms, with union accepted by the people.

Right, Alexander's status as hegemon was a sham like the Spartans'. It was facesaving for the Greeks. I think Alexander accepted the status not merely because it was a traditional role but because it was practical due to his need for mercenaries and his depleted treasury. After he established himself as King of Kings he adopted an undisguised imperious attitude toward the Greeks when he ordered them to accept their political exiles. Why would he do such a thing? Would these exiles be instrumental in establishing a true political unity in the near future had he lived longer? Hmm...

As far as the 10,000 are concerned.... just read the last books of their exploits. There you will see that once the danger as ALMOST over, they could not co operate any more... They split up, they backstabbed each other... it was chaos...

Okay but AFTER the survivors were safe most of them stayed together, right? They returned to Asia under Spartan command. This was unusual since Persia was not an existential threat at that point. Or am I mistaken?

~Theo

[Macedon]

How much later? I was thinking of the successor states to Alexander's empire. Those states do seem to have continued a tradition of local autonomy but to a lesser extend if I'm not mistaken. Ptolemaic Egypt was probably the most united state despite popular uprisings and civil wars. Macedonia itself seems more united than you make it sound, IMO. The nobility was very strong but they don't seem to have threatened to fragment the state. Someone always wanted to be king.

The Successor States of Alexander are good examples. There is no Successor State that persuaded its inhabitants that they should stand united, that they had common interests, that they should look at each other in a brotherly fashion. Whatever "ethnicities", "tribes" etc were before them, the same existed after and during their existence. You do not see any new people, any Seleucidians or Lagides emerging. You have planted Greek colonies, Greeks enjoying rights, locals living their lives in semi-independent states, more or less like during Persian rule. Egypt is indeed a unified country as far as the locals are concerned, as I have already stated, but the Greeks, now a very sizable minority form a ruling class that is not nor does it feel Egyptian. They have evolved some new identities, the ones of their new cities again, as would be expected from Greeks... But again, you don't see any new lands that fall under the seay of the Lagides really feel a part of a common state. Cyprus, parts of Ionia, Phoenice, islands in the Aegean... came and went as Ptolemaic dependencies but never actually were "Ptolemaics" or "Egyptian". Macedonia was "unified" before Alexander, but again this unity was imposed and was kept with force of arms. You have the Lyncestae fighting, the Orestae... Again it is true that they did feel they shared a common regional identity that enabled them to accept Macedonian rule much easier than any other. They might be the only ones who actively managed to "create" new Macedonians from conquered places taken by Philip II but not later (e.g. Amphipolis). Yet, even they, as already stated, did not go beyond regional unity.

I think that we have to pinpoint our disagreement here, because frankly I am a bit lost, despite the thoroughly enjoyable discussion:

Could you again form a statement analyzing your position and points thereof? Do you advocate the possibility of a formation of a political entity that would simply encompass with various degrees of interdependence and authority a number of formerly separate states? Or the possibility that these states would somehow abolish their own system AND local "ethnicity" in favor of a broader one?

- If you simply claim that there were states formed by smaller states and could survice time, then I agree. They could last a decade or centuries, but they did.

- If the question is whether certain smaller states could form greater political entities with a variery of local dependence levels out of their own incentive and not by force of arms, I agree too. Sometimes, certain states would come into more than typical alliances and could indeed form a more unified political entity governed by a body of their choosing, a king or a council of elders etc.

- If the question is whether there could be some kind of fluid understanding of belonging and ethnicities on the making so that a newly formed state could inspire a new identitiy, there I would deisagree. Of course there were such examples, but they tended to require a good lot of time to come about and were veeeery rare in historical times if you rule out newly founded colonies.

- If the question is whether people could understand that they needed to belong to a greater state so that they could enjoy a safer and maybe more prosperous life, then, again, they did. They formed alliances, they willingly accepted to be subjugated and led, pay tribute and pay respects. But there was no effective way to govern local states back then apart from allowing them to govern themselves, only imposing certain rules. It was impossible to have a centralized government that would occupy itself with all the various needs of the member states. This necessity was what promoted local and regional identities and kept great states from really unifying, even when they belonged to the same "nation".

- If the question is whether the Greeks in particular ever actively and openly formed some movement that propagated total political union and not loose cooperation, there I would say that there was no such thought seriously entertained. They formed councils and alliances, but that's about it. Even they did not have the power to impose a policy if a member state would not agree UNLESS there was fear of force of arms.

I would also add that Greeks had a system of expanding the population of their states. Whenever they felt it necessary, they would accept new citizens "en mass".On the other hand, whnever they felt they were too many, they would send out a colony.

And the fact the Philip made a marriage alliance with the Epiroite kingdom seems to suggest that a new, stronger unity was emerging than in the past. This was partially successful since Alexander never had to worry about his kingdom being threatened by Epirus while he was in Asia. And because of this marriage alliance Pyrrhus had a legitamate claim to the throne of Macedonia through his kinship with Alexander. So, I agree that traditional divisions remained but I detect a trend toward a new, greater degree of unity however brief it may have been. If I'm right then a panhellenic movement might seem possible.

I would not say so. Do not forget that the Macedonian system of king election was not dependent on blood heritage. It was customary to award the position of the king to those sharing in the blood of Hercules but after Alexander III, things became much more fluid there. Again, we may say the same thing, it is only that you use the word "unity", where I would simply say political interests, alliance, good relations, treaties etc. The Molossians already had closer relations with the Argeads. They were Aeacids and they already had a share in Alexander's lineage through his mother Olympias. Such marriages were nothing new. But even that did not actually make Pyrrhus finally accepted by the Macedonians. It is true that shortly before his death, the Epirotan beat Antigonus Gonatas and was proclaimed (again) king of Macedon by the troops, but he did not actively become king of Macedon. And the Macedonian people, many of the troops included once things had cooled down would not support him over one of their own as also happened with Lysimcachus. Anyways, the greatest point is that he never advocated things like unity nor anyone of the writers who wrote about him, so it is very dangerous to interpret his conquests and alliances as efforts to unify any number of Greeks, conquer them yes, but "unifying" is a mighty word that assumes an active will to bring the actual people together and "bridge" their "ethnicities" instead of just treating them as conquered people as Pyrrhus did. Do you anywhere see Pyrrhus preaching the unity of Greeks? Philosophize on it? I guess that the best example of such a man would be Alexander the Great alone. Plutarch does place him above the rest regarding this particular approach of things, as looking beyond ethnicities, local and regional identities. And of course, he was hated and scolded for this by most Greeks.

He admired the apparent stability the Roman model provided. Democracy by its nature is divisive and was thus an impediment to permanent political unity among Poleis who are more or less equally powerful, IMO.

I agree. Many Greek "theoreticians" blamed the democratic system for much... But do not forget that oligarchies, tyrannies and kingdoms were not more "unifying" in Greece either. Yet, he really does not seem to have faith in democracies, due to their more unruly nature and lack of discipline. I especially like his views on Greek corruption, they sound sooo 21st century... But again, no matter how disapproving he is, he does not propose any kind of unity apart from loose cooperation to beat back any barbarians like the Romans. He approves of alliances but even he is incapable of envisioning some greater unification of Greeks.

Yes, I understand that. But democracy reenforces localism/ regionalism and was an impediment toward unity which should have naturally occurred given the cultural similarities, IMO.

Yes, it was. But this was not the main reason for states not unifying. Syracuse, Lacedaemon, the various Epirotan kings, Cyprus... kings all around, no ideas about any unification there either. And again I would bring to discussion the various "barbarian" states. Thracians had kings, so had Illyrians, Celts, Indians... They too did not unify.

Yes and no. He was a two-time king of Macedon. You mentioned his first reign when he shared power with Lysimachus who drove him out of the kingdom and bought him off to go to Italy. After Lysimachus was killed in Asia Pyrrhus eventually decided to invade Macedon to help pay his troops. The kingdom was already in chaos and Pyrrhus was remembered and admired by the Macedonian troops who were sent by Antigonos II to oppose him. They defected en masse during the battle which gave him an easy victory over the Gallic mercenaries who remained loyal to Antigonos. So, he effectively and unexpectedly reconquered the kingdom and ruled most of it for at least a couple of years. Remember, he died trying to conquer the Peloponesse. He would never invade the peninsula as merely king of Epirus with a hostile Macedonia in his rear. I just finished re-reading his biography. Very interesting figure!

Correct, I had forgotten about the last incident. Yet as you had put it it sounded to me as though he was king of Macedon for the whole interim period which he was not. And I cannot say that his last term as regent of Macedonia could actually count since he did not actually rule IIRC.

Yes, he was a "three-time" king of Epirus (having been dethroned twice) but he was the most successful ruler the kingdom ever had in spite of that. So, success can bring a greater degree of unity however shortlived, IMO. Because of Pyrrhus' lineage and his military talent he almost succeeded. But you're right, Epirus was never as stable as Macedon.

Of course, people are gathering around a grand persona and Pyrrhus was not just great, he was grand. Yet, after this person is no longer there, such "unity" usually does not last long.

Alexander could have united the Balkin peninsula had he choosen to do so instead of conquering the whole Persian empire. Had he just taken Asia Minor, returned to Macedon as an enriched monarch he could have pulled it off.

Unify Illyrians, Thracians and Greeks as peoples and ethnicities??? Nooooo way IMO. He had many more chances to accomplish that in the east. Keeping them under his rule? Yep, he could and did. Force them to stop following their own political customs? No reason for that. He would not have because there was no actual alternative. Anyways, Alexander did have such plans and tried to create a new breed of men unifying Greek with eastern blood, so yes, he DID think of it and did his best to actually have it done. But the resistance he was met with was great and this also shows the actual futility of such ideas at the time. It is though a bit encouraging to think that he would actually be able to achieve something like that, isn't it?

Right, Alexander's status as hegemon was a sham like the Spartans'. It was facesaving for the Greeks. I think Alexander accepted the status not merely because it was a traditional role but because it was practical due to his need for mercenaries and his depleted treasury. After he established himself as King of Kings he adopted an undisguised imperious attitude toward the Greeks when he ordered them to accept their political exiles. Why would he do such a thing? Would these exiles be instrumental in establishing a true political unity in the near future had he lived longer? Hmm...

Alexander was not acknowledged as a hegemon, but as a Strategos Autocrator. Hegemony was not awarded. It was only a term that meant that a certain Greek state had achieved to politically and militarily control a great part of the Greeks and more importantly of Greece proper. He was "voted" a General with Absolute Power this is what a Strategos Autocrator is, that is a general who could take military decisions without having to undergo some kind of voting procedure as was the case with allied and other Greek armies.

His imperious attitude was considered a blemish and was not well accepted by any Greek.

As for returning exiles to their cities, this was a very common term imposed on conquered states. Greeks would very often send into exile those that disagreed with the current status quo and goals of their state. When they would lose a war, then the victors would order such a reinstate if those exiles were politically closer to them, if they fought with or in anyway assist them or just to prevent this state from keeping a common policy. The Lacedaemonians would reinstate the oligarch exiles, the Athenians would in turn reinstate the democrats. In all, the return of exiles would always create sympathizers (the exiles and their families and friends) and helped control and espionage. This is why they always played a role and were part of the treaties.

Okay but AFTER the survivors were safe most of them stayed together, right? They returned to Asia under Spartan command. This was unusual since Persia was not an existential threat at that point. Or am I mistaken?

What do you mean here? The 10,000 (or what was left of them) were experienced mercenaries and were used in the region by the Lacedaemonians who campaigned there, by the Thracians etc. Their use was not unusual and Persia played an important role in the region. They were not liberators, they were swords for hire and followed whoever paid them, Greek or barbarian. How do you link that to any Greek unification scheme?

[Ghostmojo]

Pyrrhos suffered from the same weaknesses as Alexander - he was vain, he was an adventurer, he was single-minded and was basically out for personal glory. He wasn't quite the tactician that his near relative had been and didn't exactly make the best of his adventures in either Sicily or Italy. His plans were haphazard, often spontanteous, periodically initiated by others (invitees) and I don't think he could be credited with any kind of grand vision (that might actually have worked for a greater Greece).

He was, however, a fascinating character and a more than able general with plenty of energy and ambition. But as an Epeirote he was almost alone in this. Unlike their neighbours and relatives the Makedonians, Epeiros did not throw up a legacy of such men. Pyrrhos was a bit of a one-off and Epeiros' time in the sun was short. The union of tribes within Epeiros was shakey and it had taken somebody of his zeal to unite them in the first place. However, each Greek state or region invariably had its day, before being eclipsed by somebody else. In Epeiros' case it was brief.

His demise was in some respects what could well have happened to Alexander. The latter was more lucky in his scrapes on the front line - the former less so, suffering a very undignified ending. However, given the rather volatile and chance-ridden nature of his reign and activities - perhaps there was a certain poetic justice to it?

Panhellensim was the fading dream of a very few, and a cynical tool of perhaps a few more.

[Theodosius the Great]

The Successor States of Alexander are good examples. There is no Successor State that persuaded its inhabitants that they should stand united, that they had common interests, that they should look at each other in a brotherly fashion. Whatever "ethnicities", "tribes" etc were before them, the same existed after and during their existence. You do not see any new people, any Seleucidians or Lagides emerging.

Yes, the Hellenistic policy towards the local cultures largely followed that of the Persians'. But some attempts at unification seem to have been made and abandoned if we believe the story of Antiochus IV trying to forcibly Hellenize the Jews through his surrogate, the High Priest, by reforming Jerusalem into a Greek Polis.

The Ptolemies engaged in religious syncretism with the creation of the Serapis deity. Serapis survived well into the Roman period and appears on the Roman coinage minted specifically for Egypt. So, the Ptolemies seem to have had some limited success in forging a new Egyptian identity however superficial it may have been. My point is that an attempt at unification was made by both kingdoms based partly on Alexander's grandiose scheme.

Egypt is indeed a unified country as far as the locals are concerned, as I have already stated, but the Greeks, now a very sizable minority form a ruling class that is not nor does it feel Egyptian.

I'm not sure I agree. Alexandria was just an enclave of Greek culture. The countryside may have remained Egyptian in character. The temple architecture remained very traditional. Many Egyptian temples were restored and we know Cleopatra occassionally dressed up as Isis. In fact, I thought I read that most of the temple ruins that most people today think of as Egyptian were in fact from the Ptolemaic period.

You have the Lyncestae fighting, the Orestae... Again it is true that they did feel they shared a common regional identity that enabled them to accept Macedonian rule much easier than any other. They might be the only ones who actively managed to "create" new Macedonians from conquered places taken by Philip II but not later (e.g. Amphipolis). Yet, even they, as already stated, did not go beyond regional unity.

Both Phillip and Alexander also had non-Macedonians in their courts, Aristotle being the most famous but also Eumenes, a Thracian. The latter is particularly interesting as he was the only non-Macedonian who commanded an army of Greeks supporting the Argead dynasty. Might his status indicate a breaking down of traditional barriers?

I think that we have to pinpoint our disagreement here, because frankly I am a bit lost, despite the thoroughly enjoyable discussion:

I too am enjoying the discussion even though we might be drifting a bit from the original topic. I think we mostly agree and are engaging in some speculation based on later events.

Could you again form a statement analyzing your position and points thereof? Do you advocate the possibility of a formation of a political entity that would simply encompass with various degrees of interdependence and authority a number of formerly separate states?

Yes, a permanent Greek entity though it would be a multi-generational process of course. (Just talking about the Greek mainland, or the Aegean).

Or the possibility that these states would somehow abolish their own system AND local "ethnicity" in favor of a broader one?

I might use the word evolve rather than abolish. Some syncretism would be involved which would largely be facilitated by mixed marriages. Tiny ethnicities would unavoidably become assimilated.

- If the question is whether there could be some kind of fluid understanding of belonging and ethnicities on the making so that a newly formed state could inspire a new identitiy, there I would deisagree. Of course there were such examples, but they tended to require a good lot of time to come about and were veeeery rare in historical times if you rule out newly founded colonies.

Yes, I think this might have been achieved between oligarchies or monarchies through intermarriage. It might have undermined the old jealousies regarding citizenship. The first mixed marriages might lead to children having dual-citizenship. Then incrementally the concept of citizenship would be subordinate to ethnic identity. Citizenship, I think, was the main hurdle that prevented the formation of relatively homogeneous Greek superstates.

I would also add that Greeks had a system of expanding the population of their states. Whenever they felt it necessary, they would accept new citizens "en mass".On the other hand, whnever they felt they were too many, they would send out a colony.

Interesting, I've not read about new citizens being accepted. I guess they were more pragmatic than I thought. But their colonial policies always seemed strange to me. Rather than use colonies to hold territory they just sent their excess population away to be more or less independent. It sounds like a wasted opportunity when they could have used a numeric advantage to expand at their neighbors' expense.

The Molossians already had closer relations with the Argeads. They were Aeacids and they already had a share in Alexander's lineage through his mother Olympias. Such marriages were nothing new.

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.

It is true that shortly before his death, the Epirotan beat Antigonus Gonatas and was proclaimed (again) king of Macedon by the troops, but he did not actively become king of Macedon.

Well, if you'd rather say that he reigned rather than ruled in Macedon I'm okay with that . But he controlled the bulk of the Macedonian army, the royal treasury and the capital. Antigonos didn't rule for sure. He was bottled up in the fringes of the kingdom on the coast and totally neutralized.

Do you anywhere see Pyrrhus preaching the unity of Greeks? Philosophize on it?

No, he was a blockhead when he wasn't commanding an army. It would be left to his sons to embark on such a project if they were better rulers. Sort of like Phillip laying the groundwork for Alexander.

I guess that the best example of such a man would be Alexander the Great alone. Plutarch does place him above the rest regarding this particular approach of things, as looking beyond ethnicities, local and regional identities. And of course, he was hated and scolded for this by most Greeks.

Yes, Alexander went too far for the Greeks. Breaking down Greek jingoism was one thing. Breaking down chauvinistic views of non-Greeks was overreaching. But his successors took a more moderated approach.

But do not forget that oligarchies, tyrannies and kingdoms were not more "unifying" in Greece either.

Having a non-democratic government is only one element, IMO. There are other geopolitcal factors to consider. Two or more neighboring, non-democratic states may be more inclined to unite. Democracies tend to be more warlike.

Thracians had kings, so had Illyrians, Celts, Indians... They too did not unify.

I see them all as being far less politically sophisticated peoples. Their kings were really tribal chieftains.

Unify Illyrians, Thracians and Greeks as peoples and ethnicities??? Nooooo way IMO. He had many more chances to accomplish that in the east. Keeping them under his rule? Yep, he could and did. Force them to stop following their own political customs? No reason for that. He would not have because there was no actual alternative. Anyways, Alexander did have such plans and tried to create a new breed of men unifying Greek with eastern blood, so yes, he DID think of it and did his best to actually have it done. But the resistance he was met with was great and this also shows the actual futility of such ideas at the time. It is though a bit encouraging to think that he would actually be able to achieve something like that, isn't it?

Yes, it is encouraging that he entertained such thoughts but the scheme was too grand.
No, I was thinking more like the southern Balkans - the Greeks/ Macedonians and maybe even the Thracians who were already partially Hellenized. Start with the kingdoms by marriage alliances then begin deconstructing/ reforming the Greek states through their political exiles. Uniting the kingdoms should take two generations. The Greek states would take longer to reform though, IMO.

Alexander was not acknowledged as a hegemon, but as a Strategos Autocrator.

My mistake. My point was that he always saw himself as much more than a suzerain lord and that he eventually dropped his mask.

As for returning exiles to their cities, this was a very common term imposed on conquered states.

Yes, this was a common condition imposed on a vanquished enemy as you say. What's not common is that this was done immediately after the conqueror's victory. Not years later.

What do you mean here? The 10,000 (or what was left of them) were experienced mercenaries and were used in the region by the Lacedaemonians who campaigned there, by the Thracians etc. Their use was not unusual and Persia played an important role in the region.

Yes and no. The Ten Thousand were a unique army of mercenaries for its large size and ethnic composition. They continued campaigning for years which suggests that they formed personal bonds with each other across ethnic lines. So, they do not seem like simple / typical mercenaries to me. And yes, Persia was still the world superpower but the threat of Persian conquest of Greece seemed remote in the Greek mind at that period. The Greeks were more confident than ever. Too confident.

~Theo

[Macedon]

Yes, the Hellenistic policy towards the local cultures largely followed that of the Persians'. But some attempts at unification seem to have been made and abandoned if we believe the story of Antiochus IV trying to forcibly Hellenize the Jews through his surrogate, the High Priest, by reforming Jerusalem into a Greek Polis.

Yes, it is true that the Seleucids made such an attempt but its failure again showed the futility of such plans. It is though a good yet one of the very rare examples of leaders actively wanting to suppress local identities. Usually, the Seleucids just tried to give incentives to more Greeks to inhabit their dominion and segregated Greeks from other nationalities, only (usually) allowing Greeks to man their phalanx, having more rights, immunities etc. But still, this is an example of such a plan being effected.

The Ptolemies engaged in religious syncretism with the creation of the Serapis deity. Serapis survived well into the Roman period and appears on the Roman coinage minted specifically for Egypt. So, the Ptolemies seem to have had some limited success in forging a new Egyptian identity however superficial it may have been. My point is that an attempt at unification was made by both kingdoms based partly on Alexander's grandiose scheme.

The Greeks were very open to foreign religions. They anyways from ancient years would honor foreign Gods, who they usually of course idneitfy with some Greek counterpart, but honored him with his foregn name. There are shrines to Issis, Attis etc in Greece also. The Ptolemies allowed the locals to keep their religious traditions but there was a problem. The Egyptians were, much like the Jews, not as open mided as the Greeks regarding religion. 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" (it would be veeery difficult to write or speak of Greeks becoming egyptianized...). Such fusion processes are also clearly described by Herodot in his Greek ethnogenesis decription, where he clearly and unambiguously talks of barbarians being hellenized (among them the Athenians by the Macednoi!!!, who later became Dorians...)

I'm not sure I agree. Alexandria was just an enclave of Greek culture. The countryside may have remained Egyptian in character. The temple architecture remained very traditional. Many Egyptian temples were restored and we know Cleopatra occassionally dressed up as Isis. In fact, I thought I read that most of the temple ruins that most people today think of as Egyptian were in fact from the Ptolemaic period.

And why should that mean that the Greeks felt like Egyptians? We know that they were called Egyptians as the Seleucid Syrian Greeks were called Asians by other Greeks (and Latins), but there is no evidence to my knowledge that they themselves felt anything else than x (Alexandrian, Memphian etc) Greeks and were considered "elite" citizens.

Both Phillip and Alexander also had non-Macedonians in their courts, Aristotle being the most famous but also Eumenes, a Thracian. The latter is particularly interesting as he was the only non-Macedonian who commanded an army of Greeks supporting the Argead dynasty. Might his status indicate a breaking down of traditional barriers?

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? 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, a permanent Greek entity though it would be a multi-generational process of course. (Just talking about the Greek mainland, or the Aegean).

Multi regional political entities surely were formed, although they never encompassed but a fraction of the Greek world and they never suppressed ethnic affiliations in favor of a "grander" one.

I might use the word evolve rather than abolish. Some syncretism would be involved which would largely be facilitated by mixed marriages. Tiny ethnicities would unavoidably become assimilated.

Yes.. this doesn't seem to have happened in a planned way. Again, exception of course existed but very rare. They in contrast seemed to fragment more and more through the creation of new cities and colonies... 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?

Yes, I think this might have been achieved between oligarchies or monarchies through intermarriage. It might have undermined the old jealousies regarding citizenship. The first mixed marriages might lead to children having dual-citizenship. Then incrementally the concept of citizenship would be subordinate to ethnic identity. Citizenship, I think, was the main hurdle that prevented the formation of relatively homogeneous Greek superstates.

Within a city state, there was assimilation. But usually, there were strict rules as to citizenship. I am not aware of a Greek being allowed to have a dual citizenship, although I guess that psychologically, a Greek could feel closer to his "second" nationality, if there was one. There were mixed marriages but there were also laws regrading the nationality of the child, laws that could differ from state to state. But a Syracusan living in Athens for years as a metoikos (resident-alien) would of course grow to feel more Athenian. But then, Greekway of thinking would make him strive to prove his love for Athens abover anything in order to some day be honrarily awarded citizenship. So, we often have texts talking about how these metoikoi were sometimes most valiant fighters for the glory of their adopted state. But putting citizenship in second place was not usual (or better not advertized as ethical). 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.

Interesting, I've not read about new citizens being accepted. I guess they were more pragmatic than I thought. But their colonial policies always seemed strange to me. Rather than use colonies to hold territory they just sent their excess population away to be more or less independent. It sounds like a wasted opportunity when they could have used a numeric advantage to expand at their neighbors' expense.

Oh yes, there were. Cities would make public announcements and Greeks from almost every other state would have the right to apply. Others would just en mass give citizenship to certain parts of their non-citizen population. The Athenians could make it easier for meroikoi and Lacedaemonians for non-Spartans to sign up.

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. Yet, feeling Greek was something that kept all of them together. It did exits as a determinant and did play a major role undoubtedly.

Well, if you'd rather say that he reigned rather than ruled in Macedon I'm okay with that . But he controlled the bulk of the Macedonian army, the royal treasury and the capital. Antigonos didn't rule for sure. He was bottled up in the fringes of the kingdom on the coast and totally neutralized.

I wouldnt say neutralized. For Pyrrhus to not destroy him completely, there has to have been some reason. But what I meant was that he did not actually act as Macedonian king. He made this blunder with the Gauls and then, before consolidating his rule, his acceptance, anything, he just went south and died... What I mean is that in both his "reigns" as king of Macedon, he never did act as true king long enough for the common people to show if they indeed accepted him or if they did not make them feel that he was one of them.

No, he was a blockhead when he wasn't commanding an army. It would be left to his sons to embark on such a project if they were better rulers. Sort of like Phillip laying the groundwork for Alexander.

Well... Had he been truly accepted by the Macedonian people, we could make some assumptions, but Pyrrhus seemed to loathe staying long in one place... This, IMO, made him always a foreigner among locals. Had he made the effort, maybe he could have achieved something like that but there was no such effort to ctiticize or judge.

Yes, Alexander went too far for the Greeks. Breaking down Greek jingoism was one thing. Breaking down chauvinistic views of non-Greeks was overreaching. But his successors took a more moderated approach.

.. a more Greek support... hehehe

Having a non-democratic government is only one element, IMO. There are other geopolitcal factors to consider. Two or more neighboring, non-democratic states may be more inclined to unite. Democracies tend to be more warlike.

Yes, indeed, this was my point too, but still... there are very rare if any such examples in the recorded history of the region (after the 6th century BC - before that there are many such gven examples, especially in Herodot, but these were relized spanning an undefined length of time, could be centuries...).

I see them all as being far less politically sophisticated peoples. Their kings were really tribal chieftains.

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.

Yes, it is encouraging that he entertained such thoughts but the scheme was too grand.
No, I was thinking more like the southern Balkans - the Greeks/ Macedonians and maybe even the Thracians who were already partially Hellenized. Start with the kingdoms by marriage alliances then begin deconstructing/ reforming the Greek states through their political exiles. Uniting the kingdoms should take two generations. The Greek states would take longer to reform though, IMO.

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, this was a common condition imposed on a vanquished enemy as you say. What's not common is that this was done immediately after the conqueror's victory. Not years later.

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

Yes and no. The Ten Thousand were a unique army of mercenaries for its large size and ethnic composition. They continued campaigning for years which suggests that they formed personal bonds with each other across ethnic lines. So, they do not seem like simple / typical mercenaries to me. And yes, Persia was still the world superpower but the threat of Persian conquest of Greece seemed remote in the Greek mind at that period. The Greeks were more confident than ever. Too confident.

They were not. 10,000 mercenaries were not so many. Of course they were many, but Darius, for example, seemed to have many more Greek mercenaries, some of the Macedonians (!), to use against Alexander. And in Greece itself, we have many accounts of many thousands of Greek mercenaries hailing from many states, as did the 10,000. Mercenaries would of course form bonds with each other. Simple citizens would also form such bonds. Ethnic lines were not considered such a barrier. As for Persia, sure, but I meant to just justify their being employed in the region (a numbero of the 10,000). Wherever there was a general who would pay for their services they would go. They did not stay for any nationalistic reasons, to protect the Greeks etc. They just were serving the highest bidder as did when they were employed by the Persians. 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.

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.

[Ghostmojo]

Local identities may well have broken down - but it was not just because of the Pax Romana nor the passage of time. Greece was ravaged by invasion just as the rest of the empire - think Alaric - and some parts considerably depopulated. Breakaway groups headed for the highlands (think the Mani and their closed world) and of course there was a considerable incursion of slavic peoples who mingled with the extant Greeks, and the domination by the Ottomans for hundreds of years. All of this produced the population that exists nowadays.

[Macedon]

All this was nothing really new. People tend to exaggerate on the magnitude of these events. Slavs were never that numerous in their invasions and by the time they descended to the Balcans, the people had already more or less put collective identity over their local one. As I see it, by the 5th century Greeks had already accepted that they were now members of a larger political entity. I would also suggest caution (this can be a very interesting issue) as to whether it was the Greeks that were in the end genetically mixed up more with the various invaders or the invaders with the Greeks. Anyways, this is not a discussion about genetics but about conscious political decisions and an abandonment of local ethnicism mainly because of planned and conscious Roman Imperial policies. I do not personally see, at least during the first 8 centuries AD migratory pressures playing much of a role in this process.