Hellenistic time - SpeedyLook encyclopedia

The hellenistic time ({{S mini|IV|E}} - I er), if one excludes the figures of Alexandre Large the and Cléopâtre, is relatively ignored. She is often regarded as one transitional period, sometimes even of decline or decline, between the glare of the traditional time Greek and the power of the Roman Empire. However the splendor of the cities, such Alexandria, Antioche, Pergame, the importance of the economic exchanges, from the cultural interbreedings, the role dominating of the Greek language and its diffusion deeply will modify the face of the the ancient Middle East including later under the Roman domination.

The hellenistic time was defined by the historians of the 19th century (the term “hellenistic” is employed for the first time by the German historian Johann Gustav Droysen in Geschichte of Hellenismus (1836 and 1843)), starting from a linguistic and cultural criterion with knowing the spectacular increase in areas where one speaks Greek ( ἑλληνίζειν / hellênízein ) and thus of the phenomenon of expansion of the hellenism. However this phenomenon of hellenisation of the populations and meeting between old Eastern and Greek civilizations continues including under the “Empire gréco-Roman”, according to the expression of Paul Veyne. The chronological limits of the hellenistic period are thus conventional and political: they begin with death from Alexandre Large the and finish when the suicide of the large last sovereign hellenistic, the queen of Egypt Cléopâtre VII, made place with the Roman domination.

Archaeological and historical work recent results in revaluing this period and in particular two aspects characteristic of the time, the existence and the weight of the large kingdoms directed by dynasties of Greek origin or Macedonian (Lagides, Séleucides, Antigonides, Attalides, etc) but also the determining role of the hundreds of cities whose importance, contrary to a a long time spread idea, is far from declining.

Political evolution of the world hellenistic

The conquest of Alexandre

The period of diadoques (323 - 281 av. J. - C.)

The balance of the 3rd century

At third century BC a precarious balance settles between three dynasties resulting from the diadoques ones. The Macedonia is controlled by the descendants of Antigone One-eyed the (Antigonides), the Egypt by the Lagides, and the vastest empire but least homogeneous (Asia Mineure, Syria, Mésopotamie) by the Séleucides. But the hellenistic division of the world is more thorough. Indeed at the sides of three principal monarchies exist smaller kingdoms but whose role is not less paramount. Thus it is kingdom of the Attalides around Pergame, of the kingdoms of the Pont or Bithynie or even of that which founds Hiéron with Syracuse, in Grande Greece.

It is necessary to add to these many monarchies the confederations of cities which are opposed, sometimes successfully, with the hellenistic companies of the kingdoms in particular that of Macedonia. Two of these Federal states, the Achaean League with Aratos and the League étolienne, thus play a big role until the Roman conquest. Certain cities finally manage to preserve their independence completely and to maintain the relations between equal footing and the kingdoms, the city of Rhodos is the most famous example.

The Roman intervention and the political disappearance of the world hellenistic

At the end of the III E, the Grande Greece - i.e. Italy of the south and the Sicily - falls under the Roman domination after one century from confrontation, that it is with Pyrrhus or within the framework of the Punic Wars. But it is necessary to await the beginning of second century BC so that Rome really intervenes in Orient. Initially, it overcomes the Antigonides militarily and especially Antiochos III, the large last appears political of the sovereigns hellenistic before Mithridate and Cléopâtre. Then, in slow and complex process of nibbling which is spread out over nearly two centuries, with the complicity of cities and of the kingdom of Pergame, Rome makes sure the complete domination of the the Eastern Mediterranean. The last act of this conquest is the fight which opposes Octave to Marc Antoine, combined of the sovereign last of Egypt, Cléopâtre VII, and the defeat then the suicide of the latter in 30 av. J. - C.

However, this Roman penetration in the East hellenistic does not go without resistance and one should not less than three wars to the Romans to kill the king of the Pont Mithridate VI with I er Pompée removes in 63 av. J. - C. the kingdom séleucide and reorganizes the East under the Roman order. The world hellenistic then becomes the field of confrontation of the ambitions of the various generals of the Roman République (Bataille of Pharsale, Bataille of Philips, Bataille of Actium) until the final victory of Octave.

In parallel, the political influence of the Séleucides brutally crumbles in Central Asia, in Perse then in Mésopotamie after the reign of Antiochos III (223 - 187 av. J. - C.). This last still has the means of directing a forwarding until the limits of the India. Under the reign of his/her son, Séleucides do not even manage to overcome the insurrection of the Macchabées in Palestine. The irruption of the Parthes accelerates this political decomposition and at the beginning of first century BC the sovereigns séleucides control nothing any more but the Syria.

Permanent political executives: kingdoms and quoted

The decline altogether relatively fast of these kingdoms brings to wonder about apparent brittleness and the nature of hellenistic monarchies like on the permanence of the other great political structure inherited the Greek world, the city.

The kingdom hellenistic, an absolute monarchy

Hellenistic monarchy is personal. That means that is sovereign that which by its individual merit, its actions, generally military, its control can aspire under basileus (“king”). Consequently the military victory is generally the act which legitimates the accession with the throne and which makes it possible to reign on a province or a state. The Séleucides use the catch of Babylon by Séleucos I {{er}} in 312 to legitimate their presence in Mésopotamie, or its victory of 281 over Lysimaque to justify their claims over the area of the straits and the Thrace. The kings of Bithynie also benefit from the pseudo-victory in 277 of their ancestor Nicomède I {{er}} (which actually yields territories and is combined with them) over the Galates to affirm their territorial claims.

This personal monarchy has precise rules of succession, from where ceaseless quarrels and many assassinations when there are several heirs, neither of fundamental laws, nor of texts regulating the capacities of the sovereign. All proceeds of the king and in particular the laws. This absolute and personal character is at the same time the force and the weakness of these hellenistic monarchies according to the character and of the personality of the sovereign. It is consequently necessary, apart from the Macedonia where monarchy is an old institution, to create ideologies justifying the domination of dynasties of origin Macedonian and Greek culture on completely foreign populations with this civilization. The Lagides become thus Pharaon S with the eyes of the Égyptiens and have the address to be combined the indigenous clergy by broad gifts with the temples.

But these sovereigns control also populations of Greek origin and Macedonian auprès of which they must show the image of a retributive king, ensuring the peace and which behaves as a benefactor. It is the concept of evergetism, which makes of the monarch hellenistic the benefactor of his subjects. The consequence so already initiated by Alexandre Large the, is the deification of their alive of a great number of sovereigns as well as the pertaining to worship honors which are returned to them by their subjects, or cities autonomous or independent to which they rendered service. That makes it possible to reinforce the cohesion of the kingdom around the dynasty.

The brittleness of the capacity of the sovereigns hellenistic obliges those with a ceaseless activity. It is initially necessary to overcome its adversaries militarily and this period consists of a succession of conflicts between sovereigns or against external adversaries: Parthes, Roman, etc Thus these sovereigns is constrained to enormously travel in order to install garrisons, to build cities to square their States. Antiochos III is without question that which moves more between the Syria, Egypt, the Mésopotamie, the Perse, the borders of the India, the Asia Mineure, the Greece before dying close to the city of Suse in 187 av. J. - C. In order to maintain these armies and to finance the construction of these cities, it is essential to the sovereigns to build solid administrations and before very tax. The kingdoms hellenistic are thus first of all of gigantic structures of tax exploitation and are thus posed of direct heirs to the empire achéménide. This exhausting work, to which the ceaseless complaints and recriminations are added - because the king is also a retributive king, make say to Séleucos I {{er}}:

“If people knew which drudgery it can be to write only and of reading so many letters, one would not like to collect a diadem even if he trailed by ground. ”
(Plutarque, Moralia , “If the policy is the business of the old men”, 11)

Around these sovereigns revolves a court or the role of the favorites of the monarch quickly becomes dominating. In general they are Greek or Macedonians which often carry the title of friends of the king ( philoi ). The desire of Alexandre Large the to associate the Asian elites with the capacity is abandoned and this political domination gréco-Macedonian by many aspects is connected with a colonial domination. To stick effective and faithful collaborators the king must enrich them by gifts, fields taken on the royal field. That does not prevent certain favorites having a doubtful fidelity and sometimes, especially in the case of a royal minority, from really exerting the power such Hermias, whose Antiochos III has all the sorrows to be demolished, or Sosibios in Egypt in which Polybe makes a sinister reputation.

These kings thus have an absolute capacity but are subjected to multiple constraints, to stick their entourage, to overcome their enemies, to prove their royal nature by their behaviors, to legitimate their function by a deification of their person. With the traditional time, the model of monarchy, rejected by the Greek philosophers, is Asian; at the time hellenistic, it is Greek.

The golden age of the cities?

Comparison with the traditional period of Greece, it is frequent to conclude with the decline from the city at the time of the hellenistic period. There is undoubtedly more advisable to remain moderate. Thus Sparte, Athens and Thèbes is cases isolated enough from cities imperialists, but the vast majority of the Greek cities to the {{Ve}} - IV E must compose with them and be subjected to their authority or that of the kings Achéménides. This situation is identical at the time hellenistic, if it is not that the capacity of the cities imperialists does not exist any more (Athens) or is definitively broken as for Sparte in 222 av. J. - C. a certain number of cities are organized in powerful federations, especially in Greece, like the Achaean Ligue or the Ligue étolienne. Others brilliantly succeed in preserving a time their independence, such Rhodos or Héraclée of the Bridge on the Black Sea. Many are the cities which play of the conflicts between the sovereigns to preserve, even temporarily, an independence to which they are savagely attached.

Actually, the number of cities more than increased probably considerably during this period. The monarchs hellenistic found several tens of cities in their kingdoms, to start with their capitals: Alexandria, Antioche, Séleucie or Pergame. Séleucides base cities on the plate Iran IEN (Apamée, Laodicée), in Mésopotamie (Néapolis), several Séleucie S in Syria, the Lagides with Cyprus (Néa-Paphos, Arsinoé) and in Asia Mineure. It is either about a Greek city refondée by a monarch, thus Sicyone moved and refondée by Démétrios Poliorcète in Démétrias, or of an indigenous city transformed Greek downtown - Damas becomes thus Arsinoéia and Kélainai is thus transformed into Apamée de Phrygie. Actually, few cities are really founded ex nihilo , but the majority replace former indigenous establishment or settle in the vicinity.

Essentially, these foundations go back to the beginnings of the hellenistic time between the conquest of Alexandre and the medium of the III E, the largest builders being the Séleucides. The main objective is not the hellenisation, which is rather a consequence of the phenomenon of urban extension, but well a military and strategic objective: to install a garrison in order to control a territory, trade route. In Greece the will is added to it to gather small cities in order to constitute a more solid entity. Lastly, there is clearly a political will of the sovereigns hellenistic in the foundation of their capitals, in order to mark with force their rooting in the regions which they direct. Although not being dominating, the economic aimings are not always absent during the construction of these cities. Their foundation makes it possible to parcel out the soldiers, or of the poor colonists, and thus to exploit an area with the profit of a monarch who will levy high taxes of them.

Certain cities are of important size as of their origin (Antioche, Alexandria, Pergame, Séleucie of the Tiger or even Have Khanoum in Central Asia), but much are at the origin only of simple military forts and change downtown only at second century BC: thus of Doura Europos or Zeugma-Séleucie on the Euphrate. Some foundations are besides failures and the given up cities, such Apamée of Euphrate.

In these cities, the civic model knows vitality always such a marked. The kings do not base only simple cities but many poleis on the traditional Greek model. This model will extend on the communities which hellénisent themselves, thus in Central Asia and Phénicie. The civic life, known by a documentation more important than for the former period, is rich. It seems that the oligarchical mode is in lose speed and that the Démocratie, according to the criteria of the time, becomes the most widespread standard in the world hellenistic. A total consensus is set up, sometimes broken by some frequent civil wars in fragile and unstable communities, so that the notable ones lead the policy of the city, but under the sovereign control of the remainder of the citizens. The attachment in its city, its fatherland, is always also strong and the examples are numerous citizens taking the weapons to defend their threatened independence.

Complex relations between sovereigns and cities

The relations between the kings hellenistic and the cities which they dominate, or seek to dominate, are complex. In the absolute, the Greek cities refuse to subject to the authority without division sovereigns. But reality is fluctuating and depends on the power struggle which settles. In general, a sovereign who seizes a city is in right to remove it, but generally an agreement is found and the city becomes thus allied (forced). In fact, one distinguishes an infinite range from nuances between the prone cities, on which royal control is narrow (presence of royal troops, royal civils servant, payment of a tribute, etc) and which can be sometimes yielded like simple share of the royal field, and the subordinate cities which are nominally free and preserve a broad autonomy. This case is frequent for the cities of the Aegean world, often valid before the creation of the kingdoms hellenistic.

The relationship between these two political entities is dominated by a political model which one names the exchange evergetic: benefits against honors. Taking as a starting point the usual model of relations between the cities and the citizens benefactors, it becomes the standard for the relations between cities and monarchs. The king is thus introduced like a powerful, benevolent sovereign towards the city (by its gifts or its freedoms from tax), guard (against a possible external attack) and parking prosperity. In exchange, the city proclaims its devotion (what is a means for the king of sitting his legitimacy), ensures to him the honors by the erection of statues or, if necessary, the pertaining to worship honors. The evergetism is thus the principal ideological framework of the political relationship between sovereigns and cities. It is even frequent that the evergetism appears towards cities not belonging to the zone of influence of the sovereigns. Thus Rhodos is supported by the whole of the monarchs hellenistic after terrible the Séisme of 227 av. J. - C. the Attalides finance many monuments of Athens of which famous the Stoa d' Attale, rebuilt at the 20th century by the American archaeological School of Athens.

As a whole, the cities were seldom the actors of foreground of the period but they maintain in the world hellenistic - what is an additional factor of unit - their identities, their traditions and their operating processes vis-a-vis the sovereigns. This relative unit is explained by the internal interactions and exchanges with space hellenistic.

Factors of unit and diversity of hellenistic civilization

What appears surprising to the contemporary historians, it is that the extension of space where one speaks and includes/understands the Greek , where Greek manners are adopted, associated with political division with space hellenistic hardly involves divergent cultural evolution according to the areas. On the contrary, the unit of this civilization only appears more remarkable about it. In corollary the question of the relations between this civilization gréco-Macedonian and those arises preexistent. There did it have an only colonial relation or true exchanges and interactions?

The hellenisation: languages, coexistence of the cultures

The koinè

Is there co-education of the cultures?

If the Greek language is essential, is it the same Greek lifestyle? Weren't the Greeks permeable with certain aspects of the cultures often multiséculaires of the countries which they controlled?

We have precise a enough answer for the Egypt, whose civilization is prestigious even with the eyes of the Greeks. Moreover the Egyptian worships are spread around the Mediterranean basin during this period. The worship of Isis at first century BC is attested in Phénicie, in Asia Mineure, Greece, Cyrénaïque and Sicily like with Rome. In 70 a. J. - C., it reaches the Gaulle and the Bétique. This diffusion of worships Eastern, at least generally of adaptations Greek divinities Eastern (Sarapis for example which is the god Oser - Api Egyptians), is carried out by Greeks originating in Egypt or Egyptians installed around the Mediterranean basin.

It does not seem, on the other hand, that the Egyptians were sensitive to the attraction of the lifestyle of Hellènes. Admittedly, the Egyptian elites, mainly sacerdotal, in addition to the training of the language, generally take a Greek name and impregnate Greek practices of government. They take part sometimes in the Greek worships, with that of the sovereigns all at least. But the mass of the population remains hermetic with the religion and the Hellenic culture. The Lagides respect the privileges of the temples and the worships autochtones and thus become, with the eyes of their subjects, of the sovereigns having adopted the ic model Pharaon of monarchy. In fact, it seems that many Greeks living in Egypt adopt certain Egyptian worships, some practical funerary. The mixed marriages are not an exceptional phenomenon (except in the royal dynasty) and many people carry a double name, Egyptian and Greek. Let us quote for example, an officer of Edfou, to the II E, known under the name of Apollonios in the Greek texts and under that of Pashou on the hieroglyphic steles . In a country where the ethnic identity is complex to establish, and is often given by the language, the double culture is rather widespread, in any case inside the leading classes. The courts of Egyptian right and Greek right cohabit, the call to one or the other being done only according to the language of the litigious contract (commercial, matrimonial, etc). In a total way, the identity results especially in the way in which an individual behaves, of its religious practices, policies, cultural and in the way in which it is perceived: is Greek that which is considered thus by the Greeks. The Juif S of Egypt, which speak Greek, are compared to Hellènes.

With regard to the Phénicie, the Syria, the Mésopotamie and the Central Asia, our knowledge is more summary. If a certain number of indigenous languages disappear, in any case of the written texts, the Araméen remains very long-lived. Moreover, the Séleucides as a whole respect the local religions (if one excludes the episode between Antiochos IV and the Jews of Palestine) and political concepts autochtones (of monarchy in Mésopotamie for example). It is probable, as the example of shows it Have Khanoum in Bactriane, that the cities testify to a mixed culture and that coexist of the Greek and Eastern elements, in particular in the religious and architectural fields. In Palestine, we know the tensions which cause the hellenisation of part of the population and the reaction generated with under the Asmonéens.

It is in Syria and Phénicie that the hellenisation is strongest like in Asia Mineure. The lifestyle with Greek spreads in a very broad way with the development of the cities. The old commercial competition between Greeks and Phéniciens did not disappear but the political and cultural hegemonism Helene is such as certain Phéniciens send their children like beautiful young man S to Athens, even take part in contests in Greece. That means that they are thus considered as Greeks. Many Phéniciens of Greek culture, or Greeks installed with Sidon, does not hesitate to point out the mythical relationships between Sidon, Argos and Thèbes. In Syria, the construction of the large metropolis of the Séleucides, Antioche, reinforces considerably the hellenisation of this area, which remains the last bastion of the dynasty at the beginning of I er

In Minor Asia, the development of the number of cities, born in Decay and Lycie at fourth century BC, touches all the Western part and Southerner without really reaching the interior of the peninsula Anatolia nne. Not-Greek populations ask, often spontaneously, with sovereigns the authorization living in city. That supposes, with the control of the language, a practice of the political practices and Greek education (from where the many construction Gymnase S). However, if the towns of Asia Mineure cover temples, of Agora S and theaters, one should not accept disappearance indigenous traditions and worships. It is besides the same thing in Phénicie. Thus we know the case of an inhabitant of Sidon, called Diotimos (wire of Dyonisos), winner in Greece of the contests of Argos, and carrying the title of “judge”, i.e. sophet in the language phenician.

The reality of this international business escapes to us, for lack of documents, with regard to the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea or the Central Asia. In the same way, it is impossible to measure of them the real width and volumes. The contemporary historians tend to undervalue the great international business and to insist on the fragmentation of the Marché S (Délos trades thus primarily with the remainder of the Aegean Sea and relatively little with the Mediterranean East) and on the importance of the regional trade. In short, it is difficult to apprehend the reality of these exchanges. It is plausible to affirm that they progressed but that the major part remains confined with local scales. On the other hand, the identical business practices (use of the silver money, types of commercial contracts, etc) reinforce in this world hellenistic a common identity.

Art at the time hellenistic

Conclusion

The disappearance of the kingdom lagide of Egypt in 30 av. J. - C., with the suicide of its sovereign last Cléopâtre, mark the completion of the conquest by Rome of the Mediterranean world and closes the hellenistic period. The Romans have the skill to recover and use with their profit the heritage hellenistic. Thus, the model of the city continues its evolution, even if political independence is not possible any more, while the Greek language remains the dominant language in the oriental party of the Empire. The Greek culture as for it impregnates the Roman elites so much so that a common culture, resulting from the world hellenistic with Roman contributions, is essential in the Empire. It is not the same beyond the Eastern limits of the Roman Empire. Indeed, the conquest by the Parthes of the Mésopotamie with I er, the collapse of the Greek kingdoms of Bactriane put an end to the political, cultural and economic domination of the Greek world. If the heritage hellenistic perdure in the art, it does not act any more but of one composite aspect in a culture where the Asian elements and Indian become again dominating.

Random links:

Flancourt-Catelon | Loves of Ragonde | Theoren Fleury | Počekovina | Colwood