Panhellenism

[Epictetus]

A few weeks ago I ordered this book from the National Library:

Local Knowledge and Microidentities in the Imperial Greek World.

I should get it soon, and I'm eager to see what Whitmarsh has to say. I'll give a review when I get it.

[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

[Macedon]

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.

Well, yes... I guess any plan can be a success if planned well, executed well, given the appropriate time etc, my point being that there were many hindrances from factors that resisted such notions at the time. It is interesting that there were many "barbarians" who imitated the Greeks out of admiration, interest etc. Indeed, there was much hellenization especially in the east. But what is also important is the fact that although these people were more acceptable to the Greek ruling and administrative classes, they were not acknowledged as Greeks nor were they given the chance to become Greeks. But, they could marry into Greekness, be adopted by Greeks, so that their offsprings would become Greeks... They themselves were just foreigners who could more easily socialize with Greeks.I guess that the first political decision for any government to expand "Greekness" would be to officially accept people as such. This would be nothing new. Some adoptions, marriages, some new law or other, some papers given... Much like the Romans did much later. In reality this of course happened but at a slow rate, not an organized, politically declared one. I wonder if the Seleucids aimed at creating an identity for their whole kingdom or just their non-Greek populations (or again only for those who were deemed unruly and easiest for such policies to impose on). I admit I have not reseached this matter. I will look into it in the future, since it does sound interesting.

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?

Oh yes.. it did. But what do you mean by "royal positions"? As hetairoi, generals and advisors? (Eumenes was also the treasurer). Again, I would not deem this strange for a non-democratic state. It seems that when it came to offices of power, the Greeks did not have a serious problem in utilizing other Greeks. Democracies usually did not do so at home although they would utilize other Greeks outside it, like in looking over their dominions, accompanying them as generals etc. Among barbarians this could also be the case. The Persians would make an x Greek ruler of an y Carian city for example. The court of the Great King was full of such foreigners, exactly like this of Philip and Alexander. The difference being that the Persians would eaily accept non-Persians among them while the Greeks would accept other Greeks but not barbarians... In that context, the Persians could be much more tolerant. Alexander of course was the exception. What would make the Macedonian court different would be the number of non-Macedonian Greeks partaking in the court as royal friends. True. IMO this was also a product of their system. I guess, though, that such experience did play a role in the shaping of Alexander the Great's mentality that made him adopt such views.

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?

Hmm... loyalty is a very debatable issue... This has troubled me a lot in the past. There are so many examples of Greeks striving against their "conquerors" Greek or barbarian and again so many where they proved their truest firends and allies. I guess that there should be a case by case study in order to draw conclusions. Eumenes followed the Argeads for decades as one of the royal friends. He held high offices since Philip's time. I guess that he was indeed loyal to the Argeads and was well loved by the Macedonian soldiery who knew him very well. Aristoteles also seemed to have been loyal although his city was destroyed by the Macedonians (even if later reconstituted). IMO, there are many factors to consider when trying to explain why an individual or state was loyal to another when (at least superficially) it seems they were wronged by it. I wouldn't say that Eumenes was a true mercenary. His life, as is described by the ancients, makes me view him more as a true and loyal friend.

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.

Why should they? They had to regulate their population. When they needed more citizens they did as you say. When not, these laws were regulating their numbers. I think this is more practical. It is interesting to see what these laws were in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms. I do not know. I assume that at least for the Seleucids there would normally be no such common law, probably they left it to the discretion of their individual dominions but I cannot really say.

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

Or just a long time under a regime that would suppress their aspirations for total independence, which would demand loyalty and provide adeuqte protection, like the Romans later.

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.

Oh no.. In peace time they would be employed as guards, being part of private and state armies. Polybius writes about the history of a certain Gallic band of mercenaries who were driven off their lands for having done some treachery. Then, they were employed by the Carthaginians in Agrigentum as garrison. They had some disputes regarding their pay and plundered the city... So, they were sent to Eryx. There, they tried to betray the city to the Romans and failed but they were accepted by the Romans. Because they plundered a temple of Aphrodite (near Eryx again), they disarmed them and sent them away forbidding them to enter Roman soil. So, they went to Epirus and there they were employed by the Phoenicians (a Greek city in Epirus) to garrison their city. And then they betrayed them to the Illyrians... (second book..2.7.)

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

I think it was a very gradual process but the polis mentality did not disappear from the Greek mentality for centuries to come... I guess you mean when was it less important than collective identity, to which I would say that it would depend. I am sure that the Greek cities of Italy and Sicily, for example, adopted to this notion sooner than others.

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.

Yes, I agree that taking away much of the policy making decisions lead to the acceptance that a smaller state belongs to something greater. In order for this to work, there should be a great degree of intervention which usually was impractical to impose. When it was not, give it time and you have happy citizens of a greater state... :grin:

[Ghostmojo]

One only has to look at the basic geography of old Greece and greater Greece to understand why pan-Hellenism would never work.

On the one hand you have the original country with its mountain ranges and isolated valleys; its wildly exaggerated coastlines and gulfs; its north eastern plains and its remote north western rugged terrain. It was a curious mixture of small cities, towns and villages, with some sections unified under a dominant polis; others under looser tribal confederations; others under feudal aristocratic houses; and so on. The insular battles were fought over territory and resources. They were fragmented societies which only united in extraordinary circumstances, and even then with great difficulty and caveats. Take the Persian Wars which brought three of the dominant states (Athens, Korinth, Sparta) together - but failed to embrace fully others like Thebes and Argos (who both took a different view upon things).

On the other hand you have the new territories scattered all over the Aegean, Mediterranean and Black Seas, some of which maintained close relations (but at a distance of time as well as space) with the motherland, and some of which did not. This resulted over time in new growing power bases like Syracuse, Kyrene and Rhodes; some of whom may choose to help out in the affairs of old Greece (in often limited fashion) and some of whom did not (for various reasons).

Add to that the internal tribal differences between the Dorians, Akhaians, Ionians, Aiolians and others who would often conglomerate against each other's ethnicities; or even worse than that - within each other's ethnic groups (i.e. Sparta and Argos; Thebes and other Boiotian cities) and it is not difficult to see that these people were never going to be voluntarily and fraternally united.

It would always be under the (unwanted) yoke of either a Spartan, Athenian, Theban or Makedonian hegemony. And very few of them were prepared to tolerate such a situation because of basic pride, jealousies, prejudices etc.

No - it was always going to be a lost cause ...

[Lyceum]

This seems like a lengthy debate to just jump into, so I won't. I will ask though, is anybody familiar with the work of Gregory Nagy and Margalit Finkelberg on this topic?

[Paralus]

Eumenes followed the Argeads for decades as one of the royal friends. He held high offices since Philip's time [...] I wouldn't say that Eumenes was a true mercenary. His life, as is described by the ancients, makes me view him more as a true and loyal friend.

Eumenes is described as having been "secretary" to both Philip and Alexander. At the end of Alexander's campaign he is commanding cavalry. He seems to have been comfortably off as a "companion" to both kings as well as enjoying the access to power such offered him. That all came to a crashing end when Alexander died.

In the immediate wars that followed the conqueror's death Eumenes is depicted as a loyal servant of the Argaed line. He'd no choice if his access to power and privilege was to continue. Hence we find Eumenes in Perdiccas' camp as that marshal grasped control. Once again that all came crashing down when the grasping Perdiccas was killed. Worse, the Macedonians in the royal army (which included the Argyraspides) condemned Eumenes to death.

At his lowest ebb (after his release on condition of subordinating himself to the rebel Antigonus) Inspector Plod (Polyperchon) offers him the choice of returning to Macedon to share in the care of the kings or the position of "royal general" in Asia. Eumenes might well have chosen to restore himself to power and influence in the company of the kings in Macedon. Instead, he chose to deal himself back into the game for what were clearly higher rewards. Had he held his baggage at Gabiene he will likely have found himself, like Antigonus, acknowledged the "lord of Asia" by the Persians.

Eumenes is no starry-eyed supporter o the royal house. His motives were, in my view, far more complex.

I guess that he was indeed loyal to the Argaeds and was well loved by the Macedonian soldiery who knew him very well.

That is far too sweeping a statement. Whilst too much is made of his ethnicity in many quarters, the evidence of "love" for him from the Macedonian soldiery is conflicting. Yes, Macedonians defected to him (others - Craterus' fellows from the homeland one suspects - did not). And whilst those in his immediate entourage voted him a guard (hypaspists one imagines), this was in response to Eumenes' handing out of the royal purple to them and the death sentence imposed by the Macedonian soldiery of the royal army. An army Eumenes' forces were, ostensibly, a detachment of.

Finally there is the infamous bargaining away of Eumenes by his Macedonians. Whilst the inducement (a lifetime's booty, wives and family) explains much, the relationship was never one of unbridled "friendship".

On the Errington quote, he is here discussing the Hellenistic institution of the Friends. He is dead right. The Diadoch kingdoms all kept a large retinue of Friends. These were the functionaries of state. Diodorus' narrative of Antigonus' conniving at empire is replete with the activities of the One-Eyed's Friends. His most trusted Friend, Boeotus, died fulfilling his ultimate duty as a Friend: the defence of Demetrius, Antigonus' "appointed heir".

[Macedon]

I do not disagree with any of your comments Michael. Yet, you run the danger of casting too much shadow on a career that spanned decades making Eumenes' motives not just through the war of the Diadochi but throughout his presence in the Macedonian court sound too Macchiavellian. Of course the Macedonians were not in perpetual and unconditional love with Eumenes. My point was that he was generally trusted and well-liked by them, which is what I meant by the use of the word "well-loved". This does not mean that they would abandon their properties and families in order to remain loyal nor that they did not "love" (respect/feel in awe before etc) others more than him (like legendary Craterus for example).

In my opinion, the trust shown to him by both Argead kings in his all too long career is proof enough that he was not just "a true mercenary" (which was the image of Eumenes I disputed) but after Alexander's death, he of course nurtured hopes as to what his place would be in the shaping empires after Alexander's death and with no strong and influential Argead heir. The very fact that he led such illustrious Macedonian forces against other Macedonian generals and his overall role in the schemes of the Diadochi also show that he was accepted/loved/liked/trusted much more than any non-Macedonian could hope for in such an endomacedonian struggle. Under a prism as strict as the one you seem to be applying, Alexander was also not that well-loved by his men and friends, openly engaging in mutinous movements against his plans, scolding him for his conduct, attested to have at multiple occasions planned his assassination and eventually maybe even contributing to his death. Pyrrhus also seems to have been "well-loved" by the Macedonian soldiery although they might in the end prefer Lysimachus...In my opinion, you seem to be overly strict in interpreting the "well-loved" adjective .

[Paralus]

The very fact that he led such illustrious Macedonian forces against other Macedonian generals and his overall role in the schemes of the Diadochi also show that he was accepted/loved/liked/trusted much more than any non-Macedonian could hope for in such an endomacedonian struggle.

I would also not agree with describing Eumenes as a "real" or "true" mercenary. The point was rather that people in such positions of power become rather attached to same. By the time of Alexander's death he was "well in" as they say and comfortable enough to rub the conqueror's favourite the wrong way.

Yes he led "illustrious" Macedonian troops - they don't come more illustrious than the conqueror's hypaspists. And that is the clue: Diodorus is clear that these troops followed Eumenes because they were under royal instructions from both the Argead kings and Alexander's mother:

Diod.18.59.3-4; 62.1-2:
Antigenes and Teutamus, the leaders of the Silver Shields, in obedience to the letters of the kings, came from a considerable distance to meet Eumenes and his friends.After bidding him welcome and congratulating him on his unexpected escape from very great dangers, they promised to co‑operate willingly with him in everything. The Macedonian Silver Shields, about three thousand in number, likewise met him with friendship and zeal. All wondered at the incredible fickleness of Fortune, when they considered that a little while before the kings and the Macedonians had condemned Eumenes and his friends to death [...] Ptolemy, who had sailed to Zephyrium in Cilicia with a fleet, kept sending to the commanders of the Silver Shields, exhorting them not to pay any attention to Eumenes, whom all the Macedonians had condemned to death. Likewise he sent to those who had been placed in command of the garrisons in Cyinda, protesting solemnly against their giving any of the money to Eumenes, and promised to guarantee their safety. But no one paid any attention to him because the kings and Polyperchon their guardian and also Olympias, the mother of Alexander, had written to them that they should serve Eumenes in every way, since he was the commander-in‑chief of the kingdom.

Notable is the fact that the garrison commanders also obeyed the instructions. That the former king's guards obeyed is not surprising.

Under a prism as strict as the one you seem to be applying, Alexander was also not that well-loved by his men and friends, openly engaging in mutinous movements against his plans, scolding him for his conduct, attested to have at multiple occasions planned his assassination and eventually maybe even contributing to his death.

The plots against Alexander (and other ructions - Cleitus, proskynesis, etc) indicate that the conqueror was not universally loved. To borrow Heckel's term, Alexander's fostering of the "politics of distrust" lead to much conniving and competition amongst his friends. At the time of Alexander's death they had been so well schooled in this that it was beyond inevitable that the empire would dissolve into vicious faction fighting.

[Macedon]

Again I agree.. So, I take that you do not disagree with what I wrote then? Do you just wish to expand on the possible motives that drove Eumenes and the exact degree of love and respect that he enjoyed? Or do you want me to give arguments and quotes as to whether Eumenes was indeed generally well-liked/loved/respected by the Macedonians?

[Paralus]

Perhaps when I return: off to the Snowy Mountains until Monday. Not very "snowy" at the height of summer though...

[Macedon]

Ah... Australia... It's always funny when I think of Santa Claus in a red swimming suit, his raindeer pulling some flying surfboard or something... Have a nice time Mike!

[Ghostmojo]

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 wonder where the nature of the following curio falls? In the 3rdC BC (Areos I's reign) there was the suggestion of a racial/cultural/historic link between the Ptolemaic Jews and the Spartans in First Maccabees. Later on this had become an accepted (probable) fiction as allies sought out potential allies and new kinships forged.

Is this is both a form of panhellenism and also hellenisation in the Hellenistic age?