3. Hellenistic science and philosophy. The influence of Hellenistic culture on the cultures of other eras and peoples.

4. Application.

5. Literature.

1. Cosmopolitanism of Hellenistic culture.

Cosmopolitanism– the concept and practice of denying the reality or fruitfulness of the national factor, “groundlessness,” absolutization of universal human interests and values.

Empire of Alexander the Great.

In 334, the conquest of Asia by the Macedonian army began. At first, the army of Alexander the Great was small, and he did not have the goal of conquering all of Western Asia. However, the weakness of the Achaemenids was obvious. After a series of victories, Alexander overtook Darius on the way from Media to Parthia, and the satraps stabbed him to death. But Alexander also found himself in a very difficult position, trying to avoid internal contradictions among his circle. In Central Asia there was a strong anti-Macedonian resistance, led by the Sogdian Spitamen. In 328 - 327 BC. Alexander had to fight a war in Central Asia. To win over the local elite to his side, he married Roxana, the daughter of Spitamen. This caused a crisis in relations with his inner circle. After an unsuccessful Indian campaign in 323, Alexander the Great died without leaving an heir.

In 10 years, he managed to create a huge state in which the financial system was strengthened, intensive urban development was carried out, and trade flourished. But after his death, the empire fell apart into several large parts. One of the largest was the Seleucid state. In 312 Seleucus returned to Babylon. The so-called "Seleucid era", and the largest Hellenistic state was created, which existed until the beginning of the 2nd century. BC e, after which it was divided between Rome and Parthia.

The emergence of Hellenic states contributed to the further interpenetration of Greek and Middle Eastern cultural elements. This process received the name Hellenism. The term was introduced in the 30s of the last century. It covers the period of the III-I centuries. BC.

As a result of events and processes associated with the creation and then the collapse of the power of Alexander the Great, special forms of socio-economic relations began to take shape in Asia Minor and Asia Minor. Many Macedonians and Greeks moved to this territory, bringing their customs and culture there. Commodity production developed. The political organization was built on the combination of the power of monarchies with self-governing communities. Cities that had their own possessions played a big role. The expression of the cultural community of this period was consolidated in the spread of two main languages ​​- common Greek and Aramaic, although many regions retained their own languages ​​and customs. There have been changes in everyday life. The differences between the culture of the city and the countryside became clearer. Ideology flourished cosmopolitanism and individualism. It was a time of development of science and art.

Hellenism, as such, ends in Western Asia along with the Roman and Parthian conquests.

Bronze statue of Alexander the Great. Roman copy from a Greek original from Herculaneum. Naples. Archaeological Museum. 330-320 BC.

During the period of early Hellenism, a major role was played by the Greeks who set the tone and controlled the monarchies, pushing into the background the local nobility who were striving for power. This was reflected in the character of many monuments of early Hellenism, which still preserved the traditions of classical art.

High Hellenism coincided with the fierce Punic Wars, which diverted Rome's attention from the eastern regions of the Mediterranean, and lasted until the Roman conquest of Macedonia in 168 and their destruction of Corinth. During these years, Rhodes flourished, the rich kingdom of Pergamon played a huge role under Attalus I (241-197) and Eumenes II (197-152), and majestic monuments of Ptolemaic Egypt were created. This period of intense pressure from the local nobility on the Greek-Macedonian ruling elite and a turbulent internecine war is characterized in art not only by the appearance of especially pathetic and dramatic images, a combination in art of tragic and idyllic themes, gigantism and intimacy, but also by the widespread development of landscape gardening decorative sculpture.

2. Literature and art of the Hellenistic era.

The art of Hellenism is the art of huge states that were formed after the collapse of the power of Alexander the Great, an artistic phenomenon of that stage when in the life of a slave society the main role began to be played not by the polis formation, but by the despotic monarchy. The specificity of Hellenistic art is not only in the exceptionally intensive development of all artistic forms, but, above all, in their connection with both Greek and “barbarian” principles of culture.

The chronological boundaries of Hellenistic art are considered to be, on the one hand, the death of Alexander the Great - 323 BC. e., on the other hand, the year of Egypt’s annexation to Rome - 30 BC. e. Within Hellenism, periods of early (323 - mid-3rd century BC), high (mid-III - mid-2nd century BC) and late Hellenism (mid-2nd century BC) are sometimes distinguished. . - 30 BC). Geographically, Hellenistic art was widespread throughout the predominantly eastern Mediterranean. After the fierce struggle of the Diadochi for power in the first two decades of early Hellenism formed large monarchies: Macedonian, Hellespontian, Western Asian and Egyptian. Their struggle with each other and internal strife, which lasted until the middle of the 3rd century BC. e., led to the fall from them and the strengthening of numerous new kingdoms.

The art of late Hellenism clearly showed the inconsistency of reality, the deep internal disharmony of life in Hellenistic cities. The struggle between Hellenic and “native” local ideas, tastes and sentiments intensified; hypertrophied individualism was accompanied by a fierce struggle for power, fear of those in power, and predatory desires for profit. This is a time of economic stagnation in Rhodes, the significance of which passed to Delos, the beginning of the impoverishment of Ptolemaic Egypt, weakened by the dynastic struggle, the years of the decline of the Kingdom of Pergamum, bequeathed by the last of the Athallids - Athallus III in 133 to the Romans.

In literature, the political comedy of Aristophanes was replaced by the everyday comedy of Menander (end of the 4th - beginning of the 3rd century), the mimiyambs of Geronda (3rd century BC) told about the common people and glorified life away from cities, in the lap of nature, idylls of Theocritus (end of the 4th - beginning of the 3rd century BC), such monumental works as “Argonautica” by Apollonius of Rhodes (3rd century BC) also appeared.

The deep inconsistency of Hellenistic reality caused noticeable contrasts in the art of this era, manifesting itself in the expression of feelings, sometimes dramatic, sometimes lyrical. The effect of violent emotions in monuments of art was sometimes combined with cold analyticity and rationality, just as new trends and forms coexisted with classicism and archaism (Fig. 1). The masters of Hellenism, both in literature and in the visual arts, loved to play with the effects of surprise and chance, different from the idea of ​​inevitability that prevailed in the 5th century. The Hellenistic sense of the boundless expanses of the world, manifested in particular in the emergence of the common Greek language Koine, found vivid expression in the forms of architecture.

Hellenistic world

SELUCID STATE

The general appearance of the Hellenistic era was primarily determined by several major monarchical states. The largest of these kingdoms in terms of territory was the so-called Seleucid state- named after the dynasty that ruled the monarchy, founded by the diadochi Seleucus I Nicator. Seleucus managed to unite under his rule most of the lands conquered by Alexander the Great in Asia, the main territory of the former Achaemenid power. During the period of the highest power of the Seleucids (in the first decades of the 3rd century BC, under the founder of the dynasty), their possessions covered Syria (it was the “core” of the state, which is why in sources it is sometimes called the Syrian kingdom), Phenicia and Palestine, part of Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Iran, southern Central Asia. Thus, the kingdom spread from the eastern coast of the Aegean to the borders of India.

However, the Seleucid state was not always so grandiose. In various periods, due to various external and internal circumstances, it either sharply decreased in size or grew again. Soon after the death of Seleucus I in the middle of St. BC e. Bactria (on the territory of modern Afghanistan) fell away, and an independent Greco-Bactrian kingdom arose on the lands of this eastern region. Around the same time, nomads of Iranian origin created their own state in the region of Parthia (in the territory of modern Iran). Thus, the Seleucids lost a significant part of their possessions in the east. In the west they suffered defeats in the fight against Egypt.

The situation was corrected by one of the most prominent rulers of the Seleucid state, Antiochus III the Great (reigned 223-187 BC). Antiochus revived the shaky power of his state and returned almost all the lost territories. Having completed in 212-205. BC e. military campaign to the east, he forced Parthia and Greco-Bactria to again recognize the power of the Seleucids. It was possible to recapture the lost areas from Egypt. However, on the battlefields he had to face the troops of Rome - and Antiochus was defeated.

After this, the decline of the Seleucid state began. The descendants of Seleucus I had to give up their possessions in Asia Minor. As a result of the uprising of the local Jewish population led by the Maccabee brothers, Palestine became free, where a small theocratic state was formed. Greco-Bactria and Parthia regained their independence. The Parthians, who brought Iran and Mesopotamia under their control, turned out to be especially dangerous enemies. The weakening of the Seleucid state was aggravated by the bloody internecine struggle for the throne between members of the ruling dynasty. As a result, in the last decades of its existence, at the beginning of the 1st century. BC e., the power of this state extended only to Syria.

Antiochus III

The capital of the Seleucid state also changed its place. Initially (but very briefly) it was ancient Babylon, which Alexander the Great made the main center of his power. At the end of the 4th century. BC e. Seleucus I founded the city of Seleucia on the Tigris in Mesopotamia and moved his residence there. But Seleucia remained the capital for only a few years. Around 300 BC e. In Syria, 20 kilometers from the Mediterranean coast, the new capital of the Seleucid state was founded - Antiochian-Oronte. Over time, Antioch became one of the largest cities of the ancient world (its population at its peak reached half a million people), the main economic, political and cultural center of Hellenistic Western Asia. Other important cities of the Seleucid state were Seleucia Pieria on the Mediterranean coast, which was the “sea gate” of Antioch, Seleucia na Evleia in Western Iran (on the site of the former Achaemenid Susa), etc. All these cities were completely Greek in appearance and had the status policy.

In its internal structure, the Seleucid power was the most heterogeneous among the Hellenistic states. It is no coincidence that it did not even have its own name, but in international legal acts it was designated by the name of the ruling king (“King Seleucus”, “King Antiochus”, etc.). In many ways, it resembled the Persian power that previously existed on the same territory. Under the rule of the Seleucids there were regions with different levels of development. There were also regions of ancient eastern civilizations: Babylonia, Assyria, Phenicia, Persia, and lands of tribes that were still at the stage of tribal relations (a number of territories in Iran and Central Asia), and numerous policies inhabited by Greeks who arrived from Europe. It should be noted that in the possessions of the descendants of Seleukos I there were much more poleis (several dozen) than in any other of the Hellenistic monarchies. The policies represented one of the main structural elements of the Seleucid state, the most important support of the power of its rulers. Their founding was encouraged in every possible way, the kings granted them various privileges.

The Seleucid state was headed by a king. His power was lifelong, hereditary (although there were often coups d'etat and conflicts between several claimants to the throne) and practically absolute (in any case, it was not limited by any laws). The king headed the civil administration, was the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and the supreme judge. In fact, he was even considered the personification of justice, from whom only good orders could come. In addition, the power of the king in the Seleucid state (as always in the East) had a pronounced sacred character. The monarch was perceived as a being of an unearthly order, as a superman, who became the subject of veneration, and sometimes even deification.

For effective management of the state under the king, there was a sufficiently large bureaucratic apparatus responsible for the collection of taxes, the functioning of the judicial system, etc. However, due to the huge size of the kingdom and the disunity of its regions, many powers remained in the hands of governors who exercised power locally (following the model of the Achaemenid power, the Seleucid state was divided into satrapies). This concealed a certain danger of separatism.

They had a special state legal status greek city policies, existing on lands subject to the descendants of Seleucus I: they were directly subordinate to the king. The policies retained self-government in internal affairs, a system of traditional governing bodies and magistrates, and owned the adjacent rural areas; their citizens received various kinds of privileges from the royal government, including freedom from taxes. By providing various kinds of benefits to the poleis, the monarchs of the Seleucid dynasty perceived them as their natural allies.

Outside the city limits lay vast spaces inhabited by local peasants united in communities. They were exploited by the state: they paid taxes in favor of the tsar and performed various duties. The king was considered the supreme owner of all land in the state. He transferred part of the land wealth belonging to him into the ownership of the policies. The situation of the peasants living on the “policy” lands was the most difficult, since they had to pay taxes to both the royal treasury and the treasury of the polis. Classic slavery in the Seleucid state was less widespread than in Greece? -І? centuries BC e. However, slave labor was used, and there were especially many slaves in the Greek city-states.

The Seleucid state was famous for its strong army. An important role was played by the infantry, which consisted of hoplites who fought in the phalanx, hypaspists, archers and slingers. There was a large cavalry, where the striking force consisted of heavily armed cavalry (heavy armor was not only on the rider, but often on the horse), as well as detachments of war elephants. The Seleucid army was staffed mainly by citizens of city policies (Greeks and Macedonians) and residents of specially created military colonies. The local population was rarely recruited into the army because it was considered unfit for combat.

HELLENISTIC EGYPT

Egypt was under the rule of the Ptolemaic dynasty (all the kings of this dynasty, without exception, bore the name Ptolemy in memory of their ancestor Ptolemy I, one of the most active participants in the wars of the Diadochi). The Ptolemaic kingdom was the second in size, and in terms of political significance and economic power, perhaps the first power of the Hellenistic world. It also turned out to be the most durable: it was the last to fall under the attack of the Romans in 30 BC. e. (it is no coincidence that this date is traditionally considered the end of the Hellenistic era).

Cameo Gonzaga. Ptolemy Philadelphus and Arsinoe (III century BC)

In the middle of the 3rd century. BC e. the Ptolemaic possessions included, in addition to Egypt itself with adjacent territories (Cyrenaica in North Africa, part of Ethiopia), also Palestine, Phenicia, Southern Syria, Cyprus, part of the coastal regions of Asia Minor; many islands of the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea straits were also under their control. Thus, the Ptolemies, thanks to a competent foreign policy, managed to establish themselves in the most important, strategically and economically key regions of the Eastern Mediterranean. The capital of the state was originally ancient Memphis, but already under Ptolemy I this status passed to Alexandria of Egypt.

Founded by Alexander the Great in 332 BC. e. on a narrow isthmus between the Mediterranean coast and a large lake, possessing excellent harbors and well protected from enemy attacks, Alexandria became the largest city in the entire Hellenistic world. The population of Alexandria at the turn of our era reached 1 million people. In addition to the capital, in Hellenistic Egypt there were only two policies of the Greek type: Naucratis in the Nile Delta, founded in the archaic era, and Ptolemais in the south of the country. True, there were quite a lot of policies in the extra-Egyptian possessions of the Ptolemies. But these territories, in essence, never became full-fledged parts of the state, remaining a kind of “appendages”.

The Ptolemies inherited a more “homogeneous” inheritance than the Seleucids. They reigned in the region of one of the world's oldest civilizations, in a country with a monoethnic population and centuries-old traditions that existed in political life, economics, and in the field of religious ideas and cults. The Greeks and Macedonians who settled in the city-states were only minor inclusions in the mass of local residents - Egyptians. These specific traditions formed a kind of stable civilizational unity that persisted for thousands of years, despite all the vicissitudes of an external nature. Whatever conquerors - be it Ethiopians, Assyrians or Persians - took possession of the territory in the Nile Valley, this country still remained the same “eternal Egypt”, resting on the foundations laid by the ancient pharaohs.

Plan of Alexandria of Egypt

The age-old foundations were not fundamentally shaken in the Hellenistic era. On the contrary, the Greco-Macedonian conquerors, perhaps, did not so much introduce Egypt to their way of life as they themselves became familiar with the Egyptian one. This is especially evident in the example of ideas about the nature of state power. The Ptolemies found in Egypt an absolute monarchy with the deification of the pharaoh kings, with their unlimited power over the population, with a powerful bureaucratic apparatus. All this was fully adopted by the new rulers. The Ptolemies, Macedonians by origin and Greeks by education and upbringing, nevertheless accepted the title of pharaohs. Over time, they agreed with their own deification - not only posthumously, but also during their lifetime. They even adopted the ancient Egyptian custom, according to which the pharaoh married his own sister. Many Ptolemies married sisters, even though such marriages must have been blasphemous from the Greek point of view. It is unlikely that anywhere else in the Hellenistic world royal power was as absolute and despotic as in Ptolemaic Egypt.

In the Ptolemaic state there was also more significant, than in any other Hellenistic monarchy, bureaucratization of management. The highest court ranks were called “relatives” and “friends” of the king, although in reality this definition of their relationship was only a tradition. From among these “relatives” and “friends” the heads of the main departments were appointed, among whom special mention should be made of the Dioiket, who headed the financial system of the state. Subordinate to the king and the higher bureaucracy were numerous minor officials who exercised local government – ​​in the administrative divisions of the state: nomes (regions), topos (districts) and komas (villages). All of these were officials appointed by higher authorities, answerable only to them and receiving various kinds of orders from them. The role of local government was minimal; some of its elements existed on the territory of Egypt only in three Greek city-states. The rural population, consisting of the descendants of the ancient Egyptians, was entirely in the position of powerless subjects.

As for extra-Egyptian territories, controlled by the Ptolemies, then the rulers there pursued a completely different policy. Outside of Egypt, they acted not as autocratic oriental despots, but as enlightened monarchs, relying in their power on the civil collectives of the policies and respecting their autonomy, since it did not conflict with the supreme sovereignty of the king.

The natural consequence of the bureaucratization of administration in the Ptolemaic state, taken to the limit, was the most detailed regulation of all aspects of life. This is especially true of the Egyptian economy, which was significantly different from the economy of the rest of the Hellenistic world. The king was the supreme owner of all the land. Egyptian peasants (royal farmers, as they were called) were considered tenants of this land and paid large rents in kind. It was so significant that it is even appropriate to talk about the bureaucrats confiscating the entire harvest from the peasants, except for the minimum necessary to prevent them from starving to death. Everything taken from the peasants as rent (grain, livestock, etc.) was placed in state storage facilities. At the beginning of each new agricultural season, the peasants received from these storehouses grain for sowing, tools, and draft animals, since they themselves did not have all this.

The progress of agricultural work was completely determined by circulars sent to the villages, in which literally everything was described - from the set of crops that needed to be planted in a particular area, to the timing of sowing and harvesting. State regulation of agriculture, coupled with favorable natural conditions (fertile soils of the Nile Valley), made Hellenistic Egypt exceptionally rich country. The treasuries of the Alexandrian rulers reached colossal sizes. But at the same time, in the richest state, the ordinary peasant lived in extreme poverty, since everything that could bring income was taken from him.

Formally, Egyptian peasants were considered personally free, but in reality they were completely dependent on state structures. It was in the Ptolemaic state that the property and social gap between the Greek-Macedonian elite of society and the mass of the local population was especially huge. In Egypt, it was as if two completely different worlds existed side by side, which could not merge together, but at the same time could not live without each other.

Ptolemy II

The kings ceded part of their lands to various kinds of privileged persons: officials, priests, and military colonists. Strict regulation and bureaucratic control applied to these lands to a lesser extent. They could even create farms of the ancient type, with extensive use of slave labor. However, slave relations were not the defining type of economic structure characteristic of Hellenistic Egypt.

Reached high development in Egypt craft production, the main centers of which were cities, and above all Alexandria. In terms of the volume of production of glassware and papyrus scrolls, which were widely sold throughout the Mediterranean, the Ptolemaic power had no equal in the world of that time. Trade, mainly maritime, also flourished. Conveniently located and having access to two seas - the Mediterranean and the Red, Egypt maintained active trade relations with the states of both the West and the East, in particular with India.

During the heyday of Hellenistic Egypt, in the 3rd century. BC e., the Ptolemaic army was famous. Since there were few policies in Egypt whose citizens could form an armed militia, the army was recruited mostly from mercenaries attracted to Egypt by high salaries: the rich Ptolemies paid soldiers more than other Hellenistic kings. At the beginning of the Hellenistic era, the Egyptian fleet was the most powerful in the Mediterranean basin (and not only in it). It is no coincidence that the largest ships of that time were built precisely in the Alexandrian shipyards.

Sources

An important category of sources for the study of the Hellenistic world and especially the Ptolemaic state is texts on papyrus scrolls(their study is carried out by a special auxiliary historical discipline - papyrology). Although writing on papyrus was widespread in antiquity, almost all of the monuments known to date were found in Egypt, where specific climatic conditions contributed to the preservation of the scrolls over the centuries. Documents of various kinds were written on papyri. Among them are royal decrees and orders of officials, tax documents, acts of sale or lease of land, wills, petitions, records of expenses and accounts, private letters, etc., as well as literary, historical, and philosophical works. The corpus of papyrus scrolls is constantly being replenished, and this makes the study of these monuments a very promising scientific direction.

Sometimes sets of papyri are found - archives of documents of certain persons. The largest is the archive of the Greek Zeno, who in the middle of the 3rd century. BC e. managed the personal household of Apollonius, dioicete of the Ptolemaic state. This archive includes instructions from the owner, reports from the manager on his activities, various types of lists, contracts, complaints and even denunciations.

MACEDONIAN STATE

Ancient Macedonia, which was ruled by the Antigonid dynasty after the end of the Diadochi wars, retained its sovereignty and continued to be considered one of the three largest powers of the Hellenistic world. However, during the Hellenistic era, the poor Macedonian state found itself in a very difficult situation. After all, now he had to compete with the powerful Ptolemaic and Seleucid monarchies, which were not comparable in size and economic resources. Without a doubt, Macedonia was also weakened by the outflow of its best forces, which during and after the campaigns of Alexander the Great rushed to the eastern lands. The bulk of the inhabitants of Macedonia were still free peasants. Therefore, the Macedonian kings did not, unlike the Hellenistic rulers in Asia and Africa, have such an inexhaustible source of income as the exploitation of the local conquered population. In addition, raids from northern tribes posed a constant danger.

And yet, despite all the difficulties, during the first half of the Hellenistic era, Macedonia managed to maintain its very high reputation, fight on equal terms for primacy with the Seleucid and Ptolemaic powers, exercise hegemony in Balkan Greece, and try to implement ambitious geopolitical projects. This was possible thanks to the outstanding military, administrative and diplomatic abilities of most of the Macedonian kings. Among the major figures of Hellenistic history are Antigonus II Gonatus (ruled 277-239 BC), Antigonus III Doson (ruled 229-221 BC) and Philip V (ruled 221-179 BC). Achieving significant military-political successes was made possible, first of all, by the all-out saving of material and monetary resources and the strengthening of the country's defense capability.

Like the rest of the largest Hellenistic states, Macedonia was a monarchy, but the royal power in it did not reach the same degree of absolutism as in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid powers, although gradually there were fewer and fewer restrictions. If in classical Macedonia the powers of the king were largely limited to a strong aristocratic entourage, then in the era of Alexander the Great and the Diadochi, the ambitions of the ruling aristocrats were largely over. But there remained one more force that traditionally limited the sovereignty of rulers. This force was the army, militia of Macedonian citizens, which was believed to express the will of the entire people. The army meeting, in particular, approved the accession of a new king to the throne; It also served as a judicial authority in the examination of cases of some important state crimes. The Antigonids also had to reckon with this kind of tradition. Under these conditions, in Hellenistic Macedonia there was no deification of kings, nor was there a developed bureaucratic apparatus.

The Macedonian armed forces were not as large as those of the Seleucids and Ptolemies, but were not inferior to them in their combat effectiveness. The basis of the army was the phalanx, made up of peasants who were called up for military service only during campaigns. As before, capable of adequately resisting any enemy, the Macedonian phalanx was perhaps the best in the Hellenistic world. There were also military units that were in a state of constant combat readiness - agema (i.e., the royal guard). Mercenaries were also recruited into the army of the Macedonian kings, but still it was not their units that were the determining force on the battlefields.

Sources

Roman historian Pompey Trog wrote in the 1st century. BC e. "The History of Philip." Although this work was largely compilative in nature (moreover, it came to us in an abbreviation made in the 2nd-3rd centuries by Justin), its importance as a source should not be underestimated. This is perhaps the only general outline at our disposal of the historical development of Hellenistic Macedonia and Balkan Greece.

KINGDOM OF PERGAMO

At one time, the Kingdom of Pergamon, with its capital in the city of Pergamum, laid claim to the role of the fourth “great power” of the Hellenistic era. This state arose in the northwestern part of Asia Minor, its center was the Mysia region. During the period of the struggle of the Diadochi, in 284 BC. e., the Greek Phileteros, having settled in the city of Pergamon, which was a fortress well located and well protected by natural conditions, became its de facto independent ruler and laid the foundation for the Pergamon royal dynasty of the Attalids.

At first, the Kingdom of Pergamon was small and did not play a significant political role. However, over time, at the end of the 3rd – beginning of the 2nd century. BC, its territory increased many times, and its importance in the Hellenistic world increased greatly. The newly annexed territories were taken away mainly from the Seleucid state by the hands of the Romans, whose faithful ally was Pergamon. Having accumulated significant wealth and skillfully maneuvering in a difficult foreign policy situation, the Attalids became quite powerful rulers. There was a period when they controlled most of Asia Minor. The history of the Kingdom of Pergamon ended with the fact that, according to the will of the last king Attalus III in 133 BC. e. it went to Rome and became the first Roman province in the Asian part of the world (this province was called Asia).

Pergamum. Reconstruction

The Pergamon state included regions, although eastern, but closest to the Greek world and therefore developed by the Hellenes from ancient times. Numerous Greek city-states that existed in the north-west of Asia Minor now submitted to the Attalids. Local peoples have also long been under strong Greek influence. For these reasons, in the kingdom of Pergamon the Greek element was not the only one, but it was undoubtedly the predominant one. In particular, classical slave relations occupied a prominent place in economic life; The local population was not subjected to such harsh exploitation as in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic powers. The kings of the Attalid dynasty, who sought to avoid crude despotism, enjoyed a reputation in the Hellenistic world as enlightened and even democratic monarchs. They defiantly called themselves “citizens of Pergamon”, making no attempt to organize a royal cult. The bureaucratic apparatus in Pergamon was also small. The Pergamon army, recruited mainly on a mercenary basis, consisted not only of Greeks, but also of representatives of local peoples.

BALKAN GREECE IN THE HELLENISM ERA

The cradle of Greek civilization - the south of the Balkan Peninsula and the Aegean Sea region - in new historical conditions has lost almost all its former positions. In the policies of mainland Hellas, there was a gradual decline in economic, social, and political life, the main centers of which shifted to the Hellenistic East. The campaigns of Alexander the Great were actually the implementation of the political program of Isocrates, but the final results of the processes that took place turned out to be in many ways different, and not as rosy as this ideologist of the classical era imagined. Indeed, the outflow of a significant part of the Greeks to the conquered eastern lands initially somewhat eased social tensions, removed internal contradictions and reduced the “land famine” that was a consequence of overpopulation.

However, then the decrease in the number of inhabitants began to lead to a real desolation of the country. It should be taken into account that the most energetic and enterprising citizens went to the East, i.e. there were not only quantitative, but also qualitative losses. At the same time, the influx of huge funds into Hellas from the East, from conquered Persia (this was provided for by Isocrates’ program) caused very controversial consequences. Since the amount of money in circulation increased sharply, and the goods produced in Greek policies did not increase, inflationary processes made themselves felt: the solvency of the coin decreased and prices for all agricultural and craft products increased significantly.

Greece had always been a poor country, but now its poverty became especially noticeable against the background of the wealth of the Hellenistic powers of the East. There were no fundamental changes in the organization of agricultural and handicraft production. Both in the socio-economic and political spheres, the crisis of the polis system, which began at the end of the classical era, continued. From a region advanced in all respects, Balkan Greece gradually turned into remote province Hellenistic world. Still covered in the halo of its former glory, it no longer played, as before, a significant historical role. The militias of the Greek city-states also could not stand up to the powerful armed forces of the Hellenistic monarchies on equal terms. All this determined one or another degree of political dependence of small states on stronger rulers.

Only in exceptional cases were individual policies able to maintain sovereignty and adapt to the new situation. And the island policy Rhodes even achieved prosperity. Became at the end?c. BC e. a single polis, during the classical era it was not among the advanced centers of Hellas. But in the Hellenistic era its importance increased enormously. During the wars of the Diadochi, Rhodes managed to defend its independence and subsequently remained an independent state, a moderate oligarchic republic. Polis became the strongest maritime power in the Aegean basin, one of the main economic, political, and cultural centers of the new era, an equal partner of the Hellenistic rulers. At this time, the Rhodians also owned mainland lands on the coast of Asia Minor.

The main reason for the flourishing of Rhodes was its exceptionally advantageous geographical position at the intersection of the most important sea routes. The island became the largest transit center for trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. It is no coincidence that geographers of that time made Rhodes the starting point of coordinates on their maps. The Rhodians had a magnificent merchant and military fleet. The city of Rhodes, the capital of the state, had the reputation of being one of the most beautiful in the world at that time. Sailors entering its port were greeted by the famous Colossus of Rhodes - a giant statue of the god Helios, the patron saint of the island. However, from the middle of the 2nd century. BC, after the Romans set out to undermine the economic role of Rhodes, both the wealth of the polis and its political independence gradually became a thing of the past.

The prosperity of Rhodes should be considered rather an exception. As for the majority of Greek city-states on the mainland, their position in the Hellenistic era was completely unenviable. Many cities were under the rule of Macedonia, which stationed its garrisons in them. Thus, the most important support of Macedonian rule in Hellas was Corinth, occupying a strategic position on the Isthmus (control over this isthmus made it possible to “cut off” Southern Greece from Central Greece) and had a perfectly fortified acropolis. Other Macedonian strongholds in Greece were Chalkis on the island of Euboea and Demetrias in Thessaly. Opponents of Macedonian hegemony called these three fortresses “The Chains of Hellas.”

Aphrodite. Fragment of a statue (III century BC)

The once leading political centers - Athens, Thebes – have lost their former role. Now, for the most part, they were forced to give up independence in foreign policy and mainly supported the Hellenistic monarchies, maneuvering between them and in this way trying to obtain certain benefits for themselves. So, in 267-262. BC e. Several Greek city-states, led by Athens, waged a war against Macedonia with the support of Ptolemaic Egypt. In this so-called Remonid war The Greeks were naturally defeated, and a Macedonian garrison was stationed in Athens. But even if the war had been successful for the states that started it, they would not have become virtually independent, but would only have fallen under Egyptian rather than Macedonian influence.

REFORM MOVEMENT IN SPARTA

In the 3rd century. BC e. Sparta remained perhaps the only Greek city that did not want to give up its traditional ambitions. However, these ambitions were increasingly difficult to realize, especially since the Spartan polis had been in existence since the 4th century. BC e. was in a state of severe crisis. Property inequality increased and the civil society disintegrated. If after the “reforms of Lycurgus” in the archaic era there were 9,000 Spartiate farms, now, in the middle of the 3rd century. BC e., in Sparta there were only 700 landowners, and the rest of the Spartiates went bankrupt and became completely impoverished.

Finding himself in a difficult situation, the young Spartan king Agis IV (Agides IV; reigned 244-241 BC) tried to carry out reforms under the slogan of returning to the “Lycurgus system.” With their help, it was supposed to restore and expand the civilian community, which would lead to the creation of a strong polis militia and the military-political strengthening of Sparta. Agis's program included measures such as increasing the number of Spartiates at the expense of bankrupt citizens and perieci, dividing land plots between them on an equal basis, canceling debt obligations, and restoring the ancient way of life and methods of education. However, these plans met with opposition from a significant part of the aristocracy, who owned almost all the land and did not want to share it with anyone. The very first steps in carrying out reforms led to the outbreak of internecine struggle, during which Agis was overthrown from the throne and killed.

Subsequently, all the reforms of Agis IV were carried out by the king Cleomenes III (reigned 235-221 BC). Turning out to be a more far-sighted politician, he managed to break the internal opposition and enlist the support of the bulk of citizens. Cleomenes supplemented innovations in the socio-economic sphere with political transformations. Under him, the royal power, which had never previously been truly empowered, was seriously strengthened. The College of Ephors, which supervised the kings and prevented the growth of their influence, was eliminated. Overall, the reforms strengthened the military power of Sparta. By reorganizing the Spartan army along the Macedonian model, Cleomenes achieved a number of serious successes on the battlefield, which allowed him to claim hegemony in the Peloponnese. The poorest part of the population of the Greek city-states was bribed by the determination of the Spartan authorities, who carried out the redistribution of land and cassation of debts.

Frightened by the growing popularity of Sparta, the Peloponnesian oligarchs called for help from the king of powerful Macedonia, Antigonus III Doson. In 221 BC. e. The army of Cleomenes III was defeated by the Macedonian army. The ruler fled to Egypt, but did not achieve support there and committed suicide. The reformer king Cleomenes was undoubtedly one of the most striking and tragic figures in the history of late Sparta. After his death, the Spartan polis lost its political significance. The tradition of dual royal power was interrupted, and control fell into the hands of successive tyrants.

The last of the tyrants, Nabis (Nabid; ruled in 207-192 BC) tried to continue the reforms of Agis and Cleomenes, and acted with even more radical methods: he confiscated the property of aristocrats, granted civil rights not only to the periecs, but even to the helots, as well as mercenary warriors. During the reign of Nabis, the last military-political rise of Sparta took place. However, with the combined efforts of Nabis' opponents in Greece, supported this time by Rome, the troops of the Spartan polis were defeated. The star of Sparta has set, this time completely.

AETOLIAN AND ACHEAN UNIONS

A completely new phenomenon in the political life of the city-states of Hellenistic Greece was the emergence of two major unions - the Aetolian and Achaean. The unusual nature of these alliances was that, built on the principles of equality of members, they were actually state-owned federal type associations, who did not have a hegemonic polis. It is also characteristic that both unions were formed in those areas of the country (Aetolia in the west of Central Greece and Achaia in the north of the Peloponnese), which were previously backward and did not play a significant role in the life of the Greek world. Now that the ancient centers of ancient civilization have fallen into decay, these regions have come to the fore.

Created back in the classical era (c. 370 BC), Aetolian Union during the Hellenistic period of Greek history it intensified significantly. Having become one of the most influential forces in Balkan Greece, he could even confront Macedonia on equal terms. In the 3rd century. BC e. The Aetolians extended their power to almost all of Central Greece, part of Thessaly and some states of the Peloponnese. They exercised control over the Panhellenic sanctuary at Delphi.

Little is known about the structure of the Aetolian League. There were practically no policies in the proper sense of the word in Aetolia, so the union retained elements of an archaic tribal structure. The highest authority was people's assembly, held twice a year in the city of Ferme, which was the religious center of the union. The People's Assembly annually elected officials, the highest of whom was the strategist, who commanded the army and headed the executive branch. In addition to the People's Assembly, there was a Council that met quite often. The administration of the Aetolian League was still very disorderly. It is no coincidence that many ancient authors characterize the union as a “robber state.” Wars with the aim of enriching themselves through military spoils played a very important role in the foreign policy of the Aetolians.

More information has been preserved about Achaean League. This association, which gives the impression of an orderly state, was created in 281 BC. e. four policies of the Achaia region, but subsequently constantly expanded. A significant moment in the history of the union was 251 BC. e., when Sicyon, the first city located outside Achaia, entered it. It was from Sikyon that the commander and politician Aratus came from, who for several decades, as the undisputed leader of the Achaean League, determined its internal and foreign policy. Under the leadership of Arat, the union turned into one of the strongest states Greece, to which more and more new policies were added (in some of them pro-Macedonian tyrannies were simultaneously eliminated). In 243 BC. e. Corinth, from which the Macedonian garrison was expelled, became a member of the union in 234 BC. e. – Megalopolis, in 229 BC. e. - Argos.

Then the Achaean Union temporarily became dependent on Macedonia, but at the beginning of the 2nd century. BC e. entered into allied relations with Rome and, with its assistance, restored its power and achieved new successes: in 192-191. BC e. The union included Sparta, Messenia, and Elis. Now the federal state created by the Achaeans occupied the entire Peloponnese and was the largest and most powerful political entity of Hellenistic Balkan Greece. At its peak, the union included about 60 policies. At this time, its recognized leader was the commander Philopoemen, nicknamed “the last Hellene.”

The Achaean League is the most striking example of the ancient Greek federal state. Allied policies had broad autonomy in internal affairs, but issues of foreign policy, waging war and making peace, as well as the minting of allied coins were the exclusive responsibility of the allied authorities. Citizens of the policies that were part of this union had dual citizenship - the union and their own policy.

The government structure of the Achaean League was moderately democratic, with some oligarchic elements. Held several times a year public assemblies allies, both regular and extraordinary. At first, the place where they were held was the city of Aegium in Achaia, and then meetings began to be appointed in other cities. All citizens of the union over the age of 30 could take part in the national assembly. The People's Assembly elected a strategist - the main official who had the highest military and civil powers - for a period of one year. Annual re-election was prohibited (even the most influential Arat could hold the post of strategist only once every two years). Another important official, also elected annually, was the hipparch, the military deputy strategist and commander of the allied cavalry. In the civil administration, a college of 10 damiurges played an important role. There was also a Council in the Achaean League, but its role and method of recruitment are not entirely clear. The policies that were part of the union had a uniform state structure, largely copying the union bodies.

The state structure of the Achaean League can be schematically represented as follows

By Greek standards, the Aetolian and Achaean leagues were a serious political force. However, the rather heterogeneous internal organization and the constant struggle between unifying and separatist tendencies ultimately doomed these structures to collapse. Another negative factor was the inconsistent, sometimes destructive foreign policy of both federations. Aetolians and Achaeans constantly competed with each other sometimes they were at enmity, sometimes they made peace with Macedonia. But the stumbling block for both alliances was relations with Rome. They developed according to a very similar pattern: friendly ties of the alliance with the Romans - a breakdown in relations and the beginning of a conflict between the two sides - the defeat of the Greeks due to the obvious inequality of forces and the recognition of Roman rule (the Aetolians submitted to Rome in 189, and the Achaeans - in 146 BC .).

Sources

The largest representative of historical thought of the Hellenistic era was Polybius – a native of Balkan Greece, who in his youth held high positions in the Achaean League. In 167 BC. e. together with other Achaean aristocrats, he was sent to Rome as a hostage. In Rome, where he lived for many years, Polybius became close to members of the ruling elite, including the commander Scipio Aemilianus. Only after the subjugation of Greece to Roman rule in 146 BC. e. Polybius returned to his homeland. In the last years of his life, he took part in organizing the administration of the Greek lands conquered by Rome and at the same time worked on fundamental work "General history"(out of 40 books, the first five have survived in their entirety, large fragments have survived from the rest).

“General History” lived up to its name: it described the history of almost the entire Mediterranean and covered the period from the middle of the 3rd to the middle of the 2nd century. BC e. Polybius saw the purpose of his work primarily in explaining the reasons for the establishment of Roman rule over the Hellenistic world. Therefore, the historian sought not only to present events in their real sequence, but also to find the cause-and-effect relationships of these events (he called this approach “pragmatic history”). Critical Approach to the events of the past, Polybius made an important contribution to the development of historical methods in ancient historiography. The historian felt antipathy to the “rhetorical” school of historical writing that was widespread in his time, which was more concerned about the entertaining nature of the narrative than about its reliability (he himself presented the material in a dry and monotonous manner). The standard for Polybius was the strictly scientific work of Thucydides.

The political orientation of Polybius's General History can be generally characterized as pro-Roman. The author was convinced of the superiority of the Roman government over any other and, as a consequence, of the inevitability of world domination of the Romans. The prerequisites for such a concept were not only the historian’s good knowledge of the successes of Rome, but also its political teaching. This doctrine was based on the idea of ​​a cyclical change of three “correct” forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) and three “deviant” forms (tyranny, oligarchy, ochlocracy). The historian gave preference to a “mixed” state structure, combining the advantages of its best forms, a state that is in a state of equilibrium and therefore not subject to the laws of the cycle. Polybius considered the Roman Republic to be an example of such a government system.

Polybius's work is the most important written source on the history of the Greek world during the Hellenistic era (as well as the Roman Republic). The reliability of his reports, based both on personal impressions and on deep knowledge of historical tradition, is assessed very highly, although in a number of cases his subjective approach to the interpretation of a particular issue is undeniable.

In subsequent centuries, historiographers were mostly more or less conscientious compilers, borrowing material from “early” authors. However, this made it possible to bring to our attention a lot of valuable information. The largest of the historical works of a compilative nature is "Historical Library"Diodorus Siculus, compiled in the 1st century. BC e. The work of Diodorus (out of 40 books, about half has survived) covered the history of the entire world known to the author from legendary antiquity to 60 BC. e. Diodorus did not conduct independent research, but relied mainly on the works of his predecessors. Despite a number of shortcomings (inaccuracies in chronology, lack of its own scientific understanding, a tendency to retell anecdotes, etc.), the “Historical Library” is still a valuable source on the history of the Greek world, especially Sicily.

Diodorus dedicated a number of books to the Hellenistic era - from the campaigns of Alexander the Great to the life of the historian himself. There is interesting information here about the wars of the Diadochi and the activities of the Sicilian ruler Agathocles (Diodorus relies on the works of very authoritative authors, including Timaeus of Tauromenium, as well as Jerome of Cardia, a historian who took an active part in the wars of Alexander’s successors).

PERIPHERY OF THE HELLENISTIC WORLD

Along with the largest Hellenistic monarchies that determined the fate of the Mediterranean and Western Asia, there were also less significant states that also played a certain historical role in the 3rd-1st centuries. BC e. Some of these states arose after the campaigns of Alexander the Great, others existed earlier, but in the new era serious changes occurred in their lives.

In the west, in Magna Graecia, the largest center remained Syracuse. Their political development was generally characterized by the same trends as in previous centuries: the existence of tyrannical regimes and the desire of tyrants to create a large territorial power under their rule, as well as the constant confrontation with Carthage. Relations with Rome became a new problem. The Syracusan tyrant Agathocles (ruled in 317/316-289 BC, and in 305 BC proclaimed himself king according to the model of the Diadochi), having placed a number of cities in Sicily under his control, successfully fought against the Carthaginians, even attacking their territories in Africa.

After the death of Agathocles, his power disintegrated, but was soon restored by another tyrant – Hieron II (reigned 275-215 BC), who also took the royal title. A subtle politician and diplomat, Pyrrhus Hiero skillfully maneuvered between stronger neighbors and ensured that during his reign independent Syracuse not only flourished, but also enjoyed significant authority in the Hellenistic world.

At the beginning of the 3rd century. BC e. there was a short-term surge in military activity of an underdeveloped, semi-barbaric Epirus, Macedonia's western neighbor. The Epirus king Pyrrhus (reigned 307-302 and 296-273 BC) was one of the best commanders of his time: he participated in the wars of the Diadochi, fought in Sicily with the Carthaginians, in Italy with the Romans, but in the end died ingloriously in one of the internecine clashes in Greece. After his death, Epirus quickly disappeared from the political scene.

Over time, the most significant of the small Hellenistic states of Asia Minor (Bithynia, Cappadocia, etc.) became Pont. This state was located in the northeast of the peninsula, on the shores of the Pontus Euxine (Black Sea), from which it took its name. Already at the end of the Hellenistic era, at the beginning of the 1st century. BC, the Pontic kingdom became a truly powerful power. The most famous of the rulers of Pontus, King Mithridates VI Eupator (reigned 120-63 BC) significantly expanded his possessions, occupied strategically important territories on the Black Sea coast and actually became its master.

The further logic of events involved Mithridates in a long-term series of wars with Rome, in which the Pontic king was defeated.

On such a distant outskirts of the Greek world as the Northern Black Sea region, the leading force remained Bosporan Kingdom with the capital Panticapaeum. Originating back in the 5th century. AD, it now became part of the system of Hellenistic states. Until the end of the 2nd century. BC e. The Spartokid dynasty was in power in the Bosporus. But in 106 BC. e. The Bosporan kingdom lost its independence and became part of the power of Mithridates VI. At the same time, Chersonesus, Olbia and a number of other centers of the Northern Black Sea region came under the rule of Mithridates. It was in the Bosporan Panticapaeum that Mithridates’ life was cut short: having been defeated in the fight against the Romans, the king committed suicide. His descendants managed to retain power over the Crimean possessions only by recognizing the suzerainty of Rome.

Finally, the easternmost of the Greek states of the Hellenistic era was Greco-Bactrian Kingdom (in the territory of modern Afghanistan and southern Central Asia).

Mithridates VI.Eupator

It arose in the middle of the 3rd century. BC e. as a result of separation from the Seleucid state. Greco-Bactria was a country with intense urban life and developed trade, with a very large influence of Greek culture for such a distant periphery of the Greek world. It is interesting, in particular, that it was in Greco-Bactria that the largest gold coins in the history of the ancient world were minted (weighing 160 grams). The Greco-Bactrian kings pursued such an active foreign policy that they annexed part of India to their possessions by military means (some of the kings even adopted Buddhism). Around 140-130 BC e. Greco-Bactria fell under the onslaught of eastern nomads.

FOREIGN POLICY IN THE HELLENISTIC WORLD

The international situation in the Hellenistic era was extremely complex and confusing. Unlike the previous historical period, the foreign policy arena was now dominated by several powerful kingdoms, whose interests opposed the interests of a number of smaller monarchies, unions of Greek poleis and individual poleis. It was necessary to find something in common in the aspirations of the states in conflict with each other, so as not to plunge the Greek world of the Eastern Mediterranean into complete chaos. One of the most important foundations of interstate relations was the idea of ​​a “balance of power,” according to which each state occupied its place in the political world and had a certain sphere of influence, recognized by its neighbors. However, this balance was constantly disrupted, which led to regular military clashes. The international situation was also complicated by the fact that the struggle of the Hellenistic states was periodically and increasingly successfully invaded by states that did not belong to the Greek world: Carthage and Rome - from the west, Parthia - from the east.

There were several regions where the intersection of interests of various participants in the system of interstate relations of the Hellenistic period was unusually acute. It was in these “hot spots” that conflicts and wars were especially frequent. Thus, the possession of strategically extremely important Phenicia, Palestine and Syria was followed by a series of so-called Syrian wars, waged by the Ptolemies and Seleucids. These wars between two giant states, which took place with varying success, only seriously exhausted both sides, without bringing victory to anyone.

The interests of various foreign policy forces in the Aegean Sea basin clashed even more irreconcilably. All the major Hellenistic powers competed for influence in this region. To one degree or another, they were supported by Greek federations and policies. And everyone had some special aspirations and ambitions: expanding their territory, capturing strategically important bridgeheads or fighting for their own independence. Accordingly, the Aegean was the scene of constant armed conflicts.

The balance of power between the participants in the military-political struggle did not remain unchanged. Throughout most of the 3rd century. BC e. The strongest power of the Hellenistic world was Ptolemaic Egypt, and the Seleucid state during this period was experiencing a process of weakening. On the Balkan Peninsula, Macedonia achieved decisive hegemony, establishing its dominance in almost all policies of Greece through military and political methods. At the end of the 3rd century. BC e. the primacy of the Ptolemies was shaken, and the power of the Seleucids as a result of the activities of Antiochus III, on the contrary, increased sharply. However, Antiochus was, in essence, one of the last major statesmen of the Hellenistic era. Having exhausted itself with incessant wars, the Hellenistic world entered a period of decline.

In this situation, a new powerful force entered the Mediterranean political scene - Roman Republic. Back in the 3rd century. BC e. Rome captured the Greek states of southern Italy and Sicily. Over the next century, Macedonia, Balkan Greece, and Pergamon gradually came under his rule. In the first half of the 1st century. BC e. Syria passed to Rome (the rest of the Seleucid Empire had by that time been captured by Parthia). Hellenistic Egypt retained its independence longer than others, although at the end of its existence the sovereignty of the Ptolemies was more a fiction than a reality: the last rulers were real puppets in the hands of the Romans. Finally, in 30 BC. e. Egypt was officially incorporated into the Roman Republic. This date is usually considered the end of the Hellenistic era.

Sources

The history of the Hellenistic world attracted the attention of not only ancient Greek, but also Roman authors, which is associated with the entry of the Greek world and Rome into direct contact. Eminent Roman historian Titus Livy(59 BC - 17 AD) in his work on the history of Rome, telling about the foreign policy relations between the Romans and the Hellenistic states, he could not avoid describing the history of these states (he relied mainly on the texts of Polybius, but interpreted the facts naturally, from a Roman point of view).

Historiography

The study of the specifics of Hellenism in the Black Sea region is one of the priority areas in Russian antiquity studies. The history of the various Hellenistic states of this region was subjected to comprehensive analysis: Olbia (Yu. G. Vinogradov), Chersonese (V.I. Kadeev, V.M. 3ubar) and especially the Bosporan kingdom (S.Yu.Saprykin, E.A. Molev, F.V. Shelov-Kovedyaev and etc.). It has been shown, in particular, that Hellenism in the Bosporus came later than in the Eastern Mediterranean, possibly due to the peripheral position of the North Pontic region.

Many historians are actively engaged in foreign policy relations in the Hellenistic era, the struggle between various Hellenistic states, starting from the time of the Diadochi and up to the conquest of the Eastern Mediterranean by Rome. [E. Ville(E. Will) UGH O lbank(F. Walbank), H. Habicht, B. McGing(B. McGing), etc.]. This topic is well developed in Russian historiography. (A. S. Shofman, V. D. Zhigunin, O. L. Gabelko). He illuminated the relationship between the Hellenistic world and Rome in his works V. I. Kashcheev. One of the achievements of Russian classical studies was the development of the concept of “balance of power” between the states of the Hellenistic era.

Literature on the topic

Bickerman E. Seleucid State. M., 1989.

Vinogradov Yu. G. Political history of the Olbian polis of the 7th-1st centuries. BC e.: Historical and epigraphic research. M., 1989.

Gabelko O. L. Consequences of the Apamean Peace: Rome and the First Bithynian War // Interstate relations and diplomacy in antiquity. Kazan, 2000.

Zhigunin V.D. International relations of the Hellenistic states in 280-220. BC e. Kazan, 1980.

Zubar V. M. Tauride Chersonesos in the ancient era. Kyiv, 1993.

Kadeev V.I. Tauride Chersonese in the first centuries of our era. Kharkov, 1981.

Kashcheev V.I. Hellenistic world and Rome. M., 1993.

Levesque P. Hellenistic world. M., 1989.

Molev E. A. Bosporus during the Hellenistic period. Nizhny Novgorod, 1994.

Molev E. A. Ruler of Pontus. Nizhny Novgorod, 1995.

Saprykin S. Yu. Bosporus kingdom at the turn of two eras. M., 2002.

Saprykin S. Yu. Pontic Kingdom. M., 1996.

Habicht X. Athens: History of the city in the Hellenistic era. M., 1999.

Shelov-Kovedyaev F.V. History of Bosporus in the 7th-4th centuries. BC. // The most ancient states on the territory of the USSR. 1984 M., 1985.

Shofman A. S. History of ancient Macedonia. Kazan, 1963. Part 2.

McGing V. The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden, 1986.

Walbank F. The Hellenistic World. N.Y., 1981.

WillE. Histoire politique du monde hellenistique. Nancy, 1966-1967. T. 1-2.

Hellenism - the meeting of East and West

The concept of Hellenism and its time frame

Hellenistic civilization is usually called a new stage in the development of material and spiritual culture, forms of political organization and social relations of the peoples of the Mediterranean, Western Asia and adjacent regions.

They began with the Eastern Campaign of Alexander the Great and the massive colonization flow of Hellenes (Greeks and Macedonians) into the newly conquered lands. The chronological and geographical boundaries of Hellenistic civilization are defined differently by researchers depending on the interpretation of the concept of “Hellenism,” introduced into science in the first half of the 19th century. I. G. Droysen, but still remains controversial.

The accumulation of new material as a result of archaeological and historical research has revived discussions about the criteria and specifics of Hellenism in different regions, about the geographical and temporal boundaries of the Hellenistic world. The concepts of pre-Hellenism and post-Hellenism are put forward, that is, the emergence of elements of Hellenistic civilization before the Greco-Macedonian conquests and their survivability (and sometimes regeneration) after the collapse of the Hellenistic states.

Despite all the controversy of these problems, one can also point to established views. There is no doubt that the process of interaction between Hellenic and non-Asian peoples took place in the previous period, but the Greco-Macedonian conquest gave it scope and intensity. New forms of culture, political and socio-economic relations that arose during the Hellenistic period were the product of a synthesis in which local, mainly eastern, and Greek elements played one or another role depending on specific historical conditions. The greater or lesser importance of local elements left an imprint on the socio-economic and political structure, forms of social struggle, the nature of cultural development and largely determined the further historical destinies of individual regions of the Hellenistic world.

The history of Hellenism is clearly divided into three periods:

• the emergence of Hellenistic states (end of the 4th - beginning of the 3rd century BC),
• the formation of the socio-economic and political structure and the flourishing of these states (III - beginning of the 2nd century BC),
• a period of economic decline, growing social contradictions, subordination to the power of Rome (mid-2nd - end of the 1st century BC).

Indeed, already from the end of the 4th century. BC e. You can trace the formation of Hellenistic civilization in the 3rd century. and the first half of the 2nd century. BC e. this is the period of its heyday. But the decline of the Hellenistic powers and the expansion of Roman rule in the Mediterranean, and in Western and Central Asia - the possessions of the emerging local states, did not mean its death. As a component element, it participated in the formation of the Parthian and Greco-Bactrian civilizations, and after Rome subjugated the entire Eastern Mediterranean, a complex fusion of Greco-Roman civilization arose on its basis.

The emergence of Hellenistic states and the formation of Hellenistic civilization

Wars of the Diadochi

As a result of the campaigns of Alexander the Great, a power arose that covered the Balkan Peninsula, the islands of the Aegean Sea, Asia Minor, Egypt, the entire Anterior, the southern regions of Central and part of Central Asia to the lower reaches of the Indus. For the first time in history, such a vast territory found itself within the framework of one political system. In the process of conquest, new cities were founded, new routes of communication and trade were laid between distant regions. However, the transition to peaceful land development did not occur immediately; For half a century after the death of Alexander the Great, there was a fierce struggle between his generals - the diadochi (successors), as they are usually called - over the division of his heritage.

In the first decade and a half, the fiction of the unity of the power was maintained under the nominal authority of Philip Arrhidaeus (323-316 BC) and the young Alexander IV (323-310? BC), but in reality already under the agreement of 323 BC e. power in its most important regions ended up in the hands of the most influential and talented commanders:

• Antipater in Macedonia and Greece,
• Lysimachus in Thrace,
• Ptolemy in Egypt
• Antigone in southwest Asia Minor,
• Perdiccas, who commanded the main military forces and was the de facto regent, was subordinate to the rulers of the eastern satrapies.

But Perdiccas’s attempt to strengthen his autocracy and extend it to the Western satrapies ended in his own death and marked the beginning of the wars of the Diadochi. In 321 BC. e. in Triparadis, a redistribution of satrapies and positions took place: Antipater became regent, and the royal family was transported to him from Babylon to Macedonia; Antigonus was appointed strategist-autocrat of Asia, commander of all the troops stationed there, and authorized to continue the war with Eumenes, a supporter of Perdiccas. In Babylonia, which had lost its significance as a royal residence, the commander of the hetairs, Seleucus, was appointed satrap.

Death in 319 BC e. Antipater, who transferred the regency to Polyperchon, an old commander devoted to the royal dynasty, against whom Antipater's son Cassander, supported by Antigonus, opposed, led to a new intensification of the wars of the Diadochi. Greece and Macedonia became an important springboard, where the royal house, the Macedonian nobility, and the Greek city-states were drawn into the struggle; during it, Philip Arrhidaeus and other members of the royal family died, and Cassander managed to strengthen his position in Macedonia. In Asia, Antigonus, having defeated Eumenes and his allies, became the most powerful of the diadochi, and a coalition of Seleucus, Ptolemy, Cassander and Lysimachus immediately formed against him. A new series of battles at sea and on land began in Syria, Babylonia, Asia Minor, and Greece. Imprisoned in 311 BC. e. In the world, although the name of the king appeared, in fact there was no longer any talk about the unity of the power; the diadochi acted as independent rulers of the lands belonging to them.

A new phase of the war of the Diadochi began after the killing of young Alexander IV by order of Cassander. In 306 BC. e. Antigonus and his son Demetrius Poliorcetes, and then other diadochi, appropriated royal titles to themselves, thereby recognizing the collapse of Alexander's power and declaring a claim to the Macedonian throne. Antigonus strove most actively for him. Military operations are taking place in Greece, Asia Minor and the Aegean. In the battle with the combined forces of Seleucus, Lysimachus and Cassander in 301 BC. e. At Ipsus, Antigonus was defeated and died. A new distribution of powers took place: along with the kingdom of Ptolemy I (305-282 BC), which included Egypt, Cyrenaica and Kelesyria, a large kingdom of Seleucus I (311-281 BC) appeared, uniting Babylonia , eastern satrapies and Western Asian possessions of Antigonus. Lysimachus expanded the borders of his kingdom in Asia Minor, Cassander received recognition of his rights to the Macedonian throne.

However, after the death of Cassander in 298 BC. e. The struggle for Macedonia, which lasted more than 20 years, flared up again. Her throne was occupied in turn by her sons Cassandra, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Lysimachus, Ptolemy Keraunus, and Pyrrhus of Epirus. In addition to the dynastic wars in the early 270s. BC e. Macedonia and Greece were invaded by the Galatian Celts. Only in 276 did Antigonus Gonatas (276-239 BC), the son of Demetrius Poliorketes, who won a victory over the Galatians in 277, establish himself on the Macedonian throne, and under him the Macedonian kingdom gained political stability.

The policy of the Diadochi in their domains

The half-century period of struggle of the Diadochi was the time of the formation of a new, Hellenistic society with a complex social structure and a new type of state. The activities of the diadochi, guided by subjective interests, ultimately revealed objective trends in the historical development of the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia - the need to establish close economic ties between the hinterland and the sea coast and connections between individual regions of the Mediterranean - and at the same time the tendency to preserve ethnic community and traditional political and cultural unity of individual regions, the need for the development of cities as centers of trade and craft, for the development of new lands to feed the increased population, and, finally, for cultural interaction, etc. There is no doubt that the individual characteristics of the statesmen who competed in the struggle for power, their military and organizational talents or their mediocrity, political myopia, indomitable energy and indiscriminateness in means to achieve goals, cruelty and greed - all this complicated the course of events, gave it acute drama, often the imprint of chance. Nevertheless, it is possible to trace the general features of the policy of the Diadochi.

Each of them sought to unite the inland and coastal regions under their rule, to ensure dominance over important routes, trading centers and ports. Everyone faced the problem of maintaining a strong army as a real support of power. The main backbone of the army consisted of Macedonians and Greeks, who had previously been part of the royal army, and mercenaries recruited in Greece. Funds for their payment and maintenance were partly drawn from treasures looted by Alexander or the diadochi themselves, but the question of collecting tribute or taxes from the local population, and consequently, of organizing the management of the occupied territories and establishing economic life, was quite acute.

In all regions except Macedonia, there was a problem of relations with the local population. There are two noticeable trends in its solution:

• the rapprochement between the Greco-Macedonian and local nobility, the use of traditional forms of social and political organization and
• a tougher policy towards the indigenous population as conquered and completely disenfranchised, as well as the introduction of a polis system.

In relations with the far eastern satrapies, the diadochi adhered to the practice established under Alexander (possibly dating back to Persian times): power was granted to the local nobility on the terms of recognition of dependence and payment of cash and in-kind supplies.

One of the means of economic and political strengthening of power in the conquered territories was the founding of new cities. This policy, begun by Alexander, was actively continued by the diadochi. Cities were founded both as strategic points and as administrative and economic centers receiving the status of a polis. Some of them were built on empty lands and populated by immigrants from Greece, Macedonia and other places, others arose through the voluntary or forced union of two or more impoverished cities or rural settlements into one polis, others - through the reorganization of eastern cities replenished with the Greek-Macedonian population. It is characteristic that new policies appear in all areas of the Hellenistic world, but their number, location and method of emergence reflect both the specifics of the time and the historical characteristics of individual areas.

During the period of the struggle of the diadochi, simultaneously with the formation of new, Hellenistic states, there was a process of profound changes in the material and spiritual culture of the peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia. Continuous wars, accompanied by major naval battles, sieges and assaults on cities, and at the same time the founding of new cities and fortresses, brought to the fore the development of military and construction technology. Fortress structures were also improved.

New cities were built in accordance with planning principles developed back in the 5th century. BC e. Hippodamus of Miletus: with straight streets and intersecting at right angles, oriented, if the terrain allowed, along the cardinal points. Adjacent to the main, widest street was the agora, surrounded on three sides by public buildings and trade porticoes; temples and gymnasiums were usually built near it; theaters and stadiums were built outside residential areas. The city was surrounded by defensive walls with towers, and a citadel was built on an elevated and strategically important site. The construction of walls, towers, temples and other large structures required the development of technical knowledge and skills in the manufacture of mechanisms for lifting and transporting super-heavy loads, improvement of various types of blocks, gears (such as gears), and levers. New achievements of technical thought were reflected in special works on architecture and construction that appeared at the end of the 4th-3rd centuries. BC e. and the names of the architects and mechanics of that time that have been preserved for us - Philo, Hegetor of Byzantium, Diad, Charius, Epimachus.

Political situation in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 3rd century. BC.

The struggle of the Seleucids, Ptolemies and Antigonids

From the second half of the 70s. III century BC e., after the borders of the Hellenistic states were stabilized, a new stage began in the political history of the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia. A struggle ensued between the powers of the Seleucids, Ptolemies and Antigonids for leadership, subordination to their power or the influence of independent cities and states of Asia Minor, Greece, Coelesyria, the islands of the Mediterranean and Aegean seas. The struggle took place not only through military clashes, but also through diplomatic intrigues and the use of internal political and social contradictions.

The interests of Egypt and the Seleucid state collided primarily in Southern Syria and, since in addition to the huge income that came from these countries as taxes, their ownership ensured a predominant role in trade with Arab tribes and, in addition, these areas were of strategic geographical importance position and wealth of the main building material for the military and merchant fleet - cedar forest. The rivalry between the Ptolemies and Seleucids resulted in the so-called Syrian Wars, during which the boundaries of their possessions changed not only in Southern Syria, but also on the Asia Minor coast and in the Aegean Sea.

Clashes in the Aegean and Asia Minor were due to the same reasons - the desire to strengthen trade ties and secure strategic bases for the further expansion of their possessions. But here the aggressive interests of the large Hellenistic states collided with the desire of the local small Hellenistic states - Bithynia, Pergamum, Cappadocia, Pontus - to defend their independence. So, in 262 BC. e. As a result of the war with Antiochus I, Pergamon achieved independence, and Eumenes I, proclaimed king, began the Attalid dynasty.

The confrontation between the Seleucids and Ptolemies went on with varying degrees of success. If the second Syrian war (260-253 BC) was successful for Antiochus II, and brought great territorial losses to Egypt in Asia Minor and the Aegean, then as a result of the third Syrian war (246-241 BC .) Ptolemy III not only returned the previously lost Miletus, Ephesus, Samos and other territories, but also expanded his possessions in the Aegean Sea and Coelesyria. The success of Ptolemy III in this war was facilitated by the instability of the Seleucid power. Around 250 BC e. The governors of Bactria and Sogdiana, Diodotus and Euthydemus, revolted; a few years later, Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana formed the independent Greco-Bactrian kingdom. Almost simultaneously, the governor of Parthia, Andragor, resigned, but soon he and the Seleucid garrison were destroyed by the rebel tribes of the Parni-Dai led by Arshak, who founded the new Parthian dynasty of the Arsacids, the beginning of which tradition dates back to 247 BC. e. Separatist tendencies apparently also existed in the western region of the state, manifested in the dynastic struggle between Seleucus II (246-225 BC) and his brother Antiochus Hierax, who seized power in the Asia Minor satrapies. The balance of power between the Ptolemies and Seleucids that emerged after the Third Syrian War lasted until 220.

The situation in Greece and Macedonia

The source of contradictions between Egypt and Macedonia were mainly the islands of the Aegean Sea and Greece - areas that were consumers of agricultural products, producers of handicrafts, a source of military personnel and suppliers of skilled labor. Political and social struggles within and between Greek city-states provided opportunities for Hellenistic powers to intervene in the internal affairs of Greece, with the kings of Macedonia relying primarily on the oligarchic strata, and the Ptolemies exploiting the anti-Macedonian sentiments of the demos. This policy of the Ptolemies played a big role in the emergence of the Chremonides War, named after one of the leaders of the Athenian democracy, Chremonides, who was apparently the initiator of the conclusion of a general alliance between Athens, the Lacedaemonian coalition and Ptolemy II. The Chremonid War (267-262 BC) was the last attempt by the leaders of the Hellenic world of Athens and Sparta to unite forces hostile to Macedonia and, using the support of Egypt, to defend independence and restore their influence in Greece. But the preponderance of forces was on the side of Macedonia, the Egyptian fleet was unable to assist the allies, Antigonus Gonatas defeated the Lacedaemonians near Corinth and, after the siege, subjugated Athens. As a result of the defeat, Athens lost its freedom for a long time. Sparta lost influence in the Peloponnese, the position of the Antigonids in Greece and the Aegean strengthened to the detriment of the Ptolemies.

However, this did not mean the reconciliation of the Greeks with Macedonian hegemony. Previous historical experience, confirmed by the events of the Chremonide War, showed that the independent existence of separate city policies under the system of Hellenistic monarchies became practically impossible, moreover, the trends in the socio-economic development of the cities themselves required the creation of broader state associations. In international life, the role of political unions of Greek city-states, built on federal principles, is increasing: while maintaining equality and autonomy within the union, they act in foreign policy relations as a single whole, defending their independence. It is characteristic that the initiative to form federations comes not from the old economic and political centers of Greece, but from underdeveloped areas.

At the beginning of the 3rd century. BC e. The Aetolian Federation (which arose at the beginning of the 4th century BC from a union of Aetolian tribes) acquired significance after the Aetolians defended Delphi from the invasion of the Galatians and became the head of the Delphic Amphictyony - an ancient cult association around the sanctuary of Apollo. During the Chremonid War, without entering into open conflict with Macedonia, Aetolia supported democratic groups hostile to the Antigonids in neighboring policies, thanks to which most of them joined the union. By 220 BC. e. the federation included almost all of Central Greece, some policies in the Peloponnese and the islands of the Aegean Sea; some of them joined voluntarily, others, such as the cities of Boeotia, were subjugated by force.

In 284 BC. e. The union of the Achaean city states, which had disintegrated during the wars of the Diadochi, was restored in the middle of the 3rd century. BC e. it included Sikyon and other cities of the northern Peloponnese on federal principles. Established as a political organization defending the independence of Greek city-states. The Achaean League, led by the Sicyonian Aratus, played a large role in countering Macedonian expansion in the Peloponnese. A particularly important act was the expulsion in 243 BC. e. Macedonian garrison from Corinth and the capture of Acrocorinth, a fortress located on a high hill and controlling the strategic route to the Peloponnese through the Isthmian Isthmus. As a result of this, the authority of the Achaean League increased greatly, and by 230 BC. e. this union included about 60 poleis, occupying most of the Peloponnese. However, failures in the war with Sparta, which had restored its political influence and military strength as a result of the social reforms of King Cleomenes, and fear of the desire of citizens for similar transformations forced the leadership of the Achaean League to come to an agreement with Macedonia and ask for its help at the cost of the concession of Acrocorinth. After the defeat of Sparta in 222 BC. e. The Achaean Federation joined the Hellenic League, formed under the hegemony of King Antigonus Doson, which included other Greek city states, except Athens and the Aetolian League.

The aggravation of social struggle led to a change in the political orientation of the propertied strata in many Greek city-states and created favorable conditions for the expansion of Macedonia's possessions and influence.

However, Philip V's attempt to subjugate the Aetolian Federation by unleashing the so-called Allied War (220-217 BC), in which all participants in the Hellenic Union were drawn, was unsuccessful. Then, taking into account the dangerous situation for Rome that developed during the Second Punic War, Philip entered in 215 BC. e. into an alliance with Hannibal and began to oust the Romans from their captured possessions in Illyria. This marked the beginning of the first war between Macedonia and Rome (215-205 BC), which was essentially Philip's war with his old enemies who sided with Rome - Aetolia and Pergamon - and ended successfully for Macedonia. Thus, the last years of the 3rd century. BC e. were the period of greatest power of the Antigonids, which was facilitated by the general political situation in the Eastern Mediterranean.

4th Syrian War

In 219 BC. e. The fourth Syrian war broke out between Egypt and the Seleucid kingdom: Antiochus III invaded Coelesyria, subduing one city after another by bribery or siege, and approached the borders of Egypt. The decisive battle between the armies of Antiochus III and Ptolemy IV took place in 217 BC. e. near the village of Rafii. The forces of the opponents were almost equal, and victory, according to Polybius, was on Ptolemy’s side only thanks to the successful actions of the phalanx formed from the Egyptians. But Ptolemy IV was unable to take advantage of the victory: after the Battle of Rafia, unrest began within Egypt, and he was forced to agree to the peace terms proposed by Antiochus III. The internal instability of Egypt, aggravated after the death of Ptolemy IV, allowed Philip V and Antiochus III to seize the external possessions of the Ptolemies: all the policies belonging to the Ptolemies on the Hellespont, in Asia Minor and in the Aegean Sea went to Macedonia, Antiochus III took possession of Phenicia and Coelesyria. The expansion of Macedonia infringed on the interests of Rhodes and Pergamon. The war that arose as a result (201 BC) was fought with an advantage on the side of Philip V. Rhodes and Pergamon turned to the Romans for help. Thus, the conflict between the Hellenistic states escalated into the second Roman-Macedonian War (200-197 BC).

Brief conclusions

End of the 3rd century BC e. can be considered as a certain milestone in the history of the Hellenistic world. If in the previous period economic and cultural ties prevailed in relations between the countries of the Eastern and Western Mediterranean, and political contacts were episodic in nature and predominantly in the form of diplomatic relations, then in the last decades of the 3rd century. BC e. There is already a tendency towards open military confrontation, as evidenced by the alliance of Philip V with Hannibal and the first Macedonian war with Rome. The balance of power within the Hellenistic world also changed. During the 3rd century. BC e. The role of small Hellenistic states increased - Pergamon, Bithynia, Pontus, the Aetolian and Achaean unions, as well as independent policies that played an important role in transit trade - Rhodes and Byzantium. Until the last decades of the 3rd century. BC e. Egypt retained its political and economic power, but by the end of the century Macedonia was strengthening, and the Seleucid kingdom became the strongest power.

Socio-economic and political structure of Hellenistic states

Trade and increasing cultural exchange

The most characteristic feature of the economic development of Hellenistic society in the 3rd century. BC e. There was an increase in trade and commodity production. Despite military clashes, regular maritime connections were established between Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece and Macedonia; trade routes were established along the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and further to India, and trade relations between Egypt and the Black Sea region, Carthage and Rome. New major trade and craft centers arose - Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch on the Orontes, Seleucia on the Tigris, Pergamon, etc., the craft production of which was largely designed for the foreign market. The Seleucids founded a number of policies along the old caravan roads that connected the upper satrapies and Mesopotamia with the Mediterranean Sea - Antioch-Edessa, Antioch-Nisibis, Seleucia on the Euphrates, Dura-Europos, Antioch in Margiana, etc.

The Ptolemies founded several harbors on the Red Sea - Arsinoe, Philotera, Berenice, connecting them with caravan routes with ports on the Nile. The emergence of new trading centers in the Eastern Mediterranean led to the relocation of trade routes in the Aegean Sea, the role of Rhodes and Corinth as ports of transit trade increased, and the importance of Athens fell. Money transactions and money circulation expanded significantly, which was facilitated by the unification of coinage, which began under Alexander the Great with the introduction into circulation of silver and gold coins minted according to the Attic (Athenian) weight standard. This weight standard was maintained in most Hellenistic states, despite the variety of stamps.

The economic potential of the Hellenistic states, the volume of handicraft production and its technical level increased noticeably. Numerous policies that arose in the East attracted artisans, traders and people of other professions. The Greeks and Macedonians brought with them the slave-owning way of life that was familiar to them, and the number of slaves increased. The need to supply food to the trade and craft population of cities gave rise to the need to increase the production of agricultural products intended for sale. Money relations began to penetrate even into the Egyptian "koma" (village), corrupting traditional relations and increasing the exploitation of the rural population. The increase in agricultural production occurred due to the expansion of the area of ​​cultivated land and through their more intensive use.

The most important incentive for economic and technical progress was the exchange of experience and production skills in agriculture and crafts between local and foreign, Greek and non-Greek populations, the exchange of agricultural crops and scientific knowledge. Settlers from Greece and Asia Minor brought the practice of olive growing and viticulture to Syria and Egypt and adopted the cultivation of date palms from the local population. Papyri report that in Fayum they tried to acclimatize the Milesian breed of sheep. Probably, this kind of exchange of livestock breeds and agricultural crops occurred before the Hellenistic period, but now more favorable conditions appeared for it. It is difficult to identify changes in agricultural implements, but there is no doubt that the large-scale irrigation work in Egypt, carried out mainly by local residents under the guidance of Greek “architects,” can be seen as the result of a combination of technology and experience of both. The need to irrigate new areas, apparently, contributed to the improvement and generalization of experience in the technology of constructing water-drawing mechanisms. The invention of a water pumping machine, which was also used to pump out water in flooded mines, is associated with the name of Archimedes (“Archimedes’ screw” or the so-called “Egyptian snail”).

Craft

In crafts, the combination of technology and skills of local and foreign artisans (Greeks and non-Greeks) and an increase in demand for their products led to a number of important inventions that gave rise to new types of handicraft production, narrower specialization of artisans and the possibility of mass production of a number of products.

As a result of the Greeks mastering a more advanced weaving machine, which was used in Egypt and Western Asia, workshops appeared for the production of patterned fabrics in Alexandria and gold-woven fabrics in Pergamon. The range of clothing and footwear has expanded, including those made according to foreign styles and designs.

New types of products have also appeared in other branches of handicraft production designed for mass consumption. In Egypt, the production of different types of papyrus was established, and in Pergamon from the 2nd century. BC e. - parchment. Relief ceramics, coated with dark varnish with a metallic tint, imitated in shape and coloring more expensive metal utensils (the so-called Megarian bowls), became widespread. Its production was serial in nature thanks to the use of ready-made small stamps, the combination of which made it possible to diversify the ornament. In the manufacture of terracottas, as in the casting of bronze statues, split molds began to be used, which made it possible to make them more complex and at the same time make numerous copies of the original.

Thus, the works of individual craftsmen and artists were transformed into handicraft products of mass production, designed not only for the rich, but also for the middle strata of the population. Important discoveries were also made in the production of luxury goods. Jewelers mastered the technique of cloisonne enamel and amalgamation, i.e. covering products with a thin layer of gold using its solution in mercury. In glass production, methods were found for making products from mosaic, carved two-color, engraved and gilded glass. but the process of making them was very complicated. Objects made using this technique were very highly valued, and many were genuine works of art (the objects that have come down to us date mainly from the 1st century BC, for example, the so-called Portland vase from the British Museum and a gilded glass vase kept in the Hermitage, found in Olbia , and etc.).

The development of maritime trade and constant military clashes at sea stimulated the improvement of shipbuilding technology. Multi-row rowing warships armed with rams and throwing guns continued to be built. 20- and 30-row ships were built in the shipyards of Alexandria, but, apparently, they turned out to be less effective (the Ptolemaic fleet was twice defeated in battles with the Macedonian fleet, built in Greek shipyards, probably on the model of the fast 16-row ships of Demetrius Poliorcetes). The famous tesseracontera (40-row ship) of Ptolemy IV, which amazed contemporaries with its size and luxury, turned out to be unsuitable for sailing. Along with large warships, small ships were also built - reconnaissance ships, messengers, for the protection of merchant ships, as well as cargo ships.

The construction of the sailing merchant fleet expanded, its speed increased due to the improvement of sailing equipment (two- and three-masted ships appeared), the average carrying capacity reached 78 tons.

Construction

Simultaneously with the development of shipbuilding, the structure of shipyards and docks was improved. Harbors were improved, jetties and lighthouses were built. One of the seven wonders of the world was the Pharos lighthouse, created by the architect Sostratus of Cnidus. It was a colossal three-tiered tower, topped with a statue of the god Poseidon; information about its height has not been preserved, but, according to Josephus, it was visible from the sea at a distance of 300 stadia (about 55 km), in its upper part a fire burned at night. Lighthouses began to be built according to the Pharos type in other ports - in Laodicea, Ostia, etc.

Urban planning developed especially widely in the 3rd century. BC e. This time saw the construction of the largest number of cities founded by Hellenistic monarchs, as well as renamed and rebuilt local cities. Alexandria became the largest city in the Mediterranean. Its plan was developed by the architect Deinocrates during the reign of Alexander the Great. The city was located on an isthmus between the Mediterranean Sea in the north and the lake. Mareotis in the south, from west to east - from the Necropolis to the Canopic Gate - it stretched for 30 stadia (5.5 km), while the distance from the sea to the lake was 7-8 stadia. According to Strabo’s description, “the entire city is crossed by streets convenient for riding on horseback and on horseback, and two very wide avenues, more than a plethra (30 m) wide, which bisect each other at right angles.”

The small rocky island of Pharos, located 7 stadia from the shore, where the lighthouse was built, was already connected to the mainland by Heptastadius under Ptolemy I - a dam that had passages for ships. Thus, two adjacent ports were formed - the Great Commercial Harbor and the Harbor of Eunost (Happy Return), connected by a canal to the port on the lake, where Nile ships delivered cargo. Shipyards adjoined the Heptastadium on both sides, on the embankment of the Great Harbor there were warehouses, a market square (Emporium), the temple of Poseidon, a theater, then, all the way to Cape Lochiada, there were royal palaces and parks, including the Museion (Temple of the Muses), a library and a sacred area with tombs of Alexander and Ptolemy. The main intersecting streets were adjoined by the Gymnasium with a portico more than a stade (185 m) long, the Dicasterion (courthouse), Paneion, Serapeion and other temples and public buildings. To the southwest of the central part of the city, which was called Brucheyon, there were quarters that retained the ancient Egyptian name Rakotis, inhabited by artisans, small traders, sailors and other working people of various social and ethnic backgrounds (primarily Egyptians) with their workshops, shops, household buildings and dwellings made of mud brick. Researchers suggest that 3-4-story apartment buildings were also built in Alexandria for the low-income population, day laborers and visitors.

Less information has been preserved about the capital of the Seleucid kingdom - Antioch. The city was founded by Seleucus I around 300 BC. e. on the river Oronte is 120 stadia from the Mediterranean coast. The main street stretched along the river valley; it and the street parallel to it were crossed by alleys that descended from the foothills to the river, the banks of which were decorated with gardens. Later, Antiochus III built a new city on an island formed by the branches of the river, surrounded by walls and built in a ring, with a royal palace in the center and radial streets diverging from it, bordered by porticos.

If Alexandria and Antioch are known mainly from descriptions of ancient authors, then the excavations of Pergamum gave a clear picture of the structure of the third most historically important capital of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Pergamon, which existed as a fortress on a hard-to-reach hill overlooking the valley of the Kaik River, gradually expanded under the Attalids and turned into a major trade, craft and cultural center. In accordance with the terrain, the city descended in terraces along the slopes of the hill: at its top there was a citadel with an arsenal and food warehouses and an upper city, surrounded by ancient walls, with a royal palace, temples, a theater, a library, etc. Below, apparently, there was an old agora, residential and craft quarters, also surrounded by a wall, but later the city went beyond its boundaries, and even lower down the slope a new public center of the city arose, surrounded by a third wall with temples of Demeter, Hera, gymnasiums, a stadium and a new agora, along the perimeter which housed trade and craft rows.

The capitals of the Hellenistic kingdoms give an idea of ​​the scope of urban development, but more typical of this era were small cities - newly founded or rebuilt old Greek and eastern urban settlements. Examples of this kind of city are the excavated cities of the Hellenistic period: Priene, Nicaea, and Dura-Europos. Here the role of the agora as the center of public life of the city clearly emerges. This is usually a spacious square surrounded by porticos, around which and on the adjacent main street the main public buildings were erected: temples, bouleuterium, dicasterion, gymnasium with palaestra. Such a layout and the presence of these structures indicate the polis organization of the city’s population, i.e., they allow us to assume the existence of popular assemblies, boules, and a polis education system, which is also confirmed by narrative and epigraphic sources.

New forms of socio-political organizations

Destruction of policies

The policies of the Hellenistic time are already significantly different from the policies of the classical era. The Greek polis as a form of socio-economic and political organization of ancient society by the end of the 4th century. BC e. was in a state of crisis. The policy hampered economic development, since its inherent autarky and autonomy prevented the expansion and strengthening of economic ties. It did not meet the socio-political needs of society, since, on the one hand, it did not ensure the reproduction of the civil collective as a whole - the poorest part of it faced the threat of loss of civil rights, on the other hand, it did not guarantee the external security and stability of this collective, torn apart by internal contradictions.

Historical events of the late IV - early III centuries. BC e. led to the creation of a new form of socio-political organization - the Hellenistic monarchy, which combined elements of eastern despotism - a monarchical form of state power that had a standing army and a centralized administration - and elements of a polis system in the form of cities with rural territory assigned to them, which retained the internal organs self-government, but largely subordinate to the king. The size of the lands assigned to the policy and the provision of economic and political privileges depended on the king; the polis was limited in the rights of foreign policy relations; in most cases, the activities of polis self-government bodies were controlled by a tsarist official - an epistat. The loss of foreign policy independence of the policy was compensated by the security of existence, greater social stability and the provision of strong economic ties with other parts of the state. The tsarist government acquired an important social support in the urban population and the contingents it needed for the administration and army.

On the territory of the policies, land relations developed according to the usual pattern: private property of citizens and city property of undivided plots. But the difficulty was that land with local villages located on it could be assigned to the cities, the population of which did not become citizens of the city, but continued to own their plots, paying taxes to the city or to private individuals who received these lands from the king and then assigned them to the city. In the territory not assigned to cities, all land was considered royal.

Socio-economic structure of Egypt

In Egypt, about the socio-economic structure of which the most detailed information has been preserved, according to the Tax Charter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus and other Egyptian papyri, it was divided into two categories: the royal land itself and the “ceded” lands, which included lands that belonged to temples, lands, transferred by the king as a “donation” to his entourage, and lands provided in small plots (klers) to warrior-cleruches. All these categories of land could also contain local villages, whose residents continued to own their hereditary plots, paying taxes or taxes. Similar forms can be traced in documents from the Seleucid kingdom. This specificity of land relations determined the multi-layered social structure of the Hellenistic states. The royal house with its state courtiers, the highest military and civil administration, the most prosperous townspeople and the highest priesthood constituted the upper layer of the slave-owning nobility. The basis of their well-being was land (city and gift), profitable positions, trade, usury.

The middle strata were more numerous - city merchants and artisans, royal administrative personnel, tax farmers, clerics and kateks, local priesthood, people of intelligent professions (architects, doctors, philosophers, artists, sculptors). Both of these layers, with all the differences in wealth and interests, constituted the ruling class, which received the designation “Hellenes” in Egyptian papyri not so much by the ethnicity of the people included in it, but by their social status and education, which contrasted them with all “non-Hellenes” : to the poor local rural and urban population - laoi (mob).

Most of the laoi were dependent or semi-dependent farmers who cultivated the lands of the king, nobles and townspeople on the basis of lease relations or traditional holding. This also included hypoteleis - workers in the workshops of those branches of production that were the monopoly of the king. All of them were considered personally free, but were assigned to their place of residence, to one or another workshop or profession. Below them on the social ladder were only slaves.

Slavery

The Greco-Macedonian conquest, the wars of the Diadochi, the spread of the polis system gave impetus to the development of slave relations in their classical ancient form while preserving more primitive forms of slavery: debt, self-sale, etc. Obviously, the role of slave labor in Hellenistic cities (primarily in everyday life and, probably, in urban crafts) was no less than in Greek city policies. But in agriculture, slave labor could not push aside the labor of the local population (“royal farmers” in Egypt, “royal people” among the Seleucids), whose exploitation was no less profitable. In large farms of the nobility on gifted lands, slaves performed administrative functions and served as auxiliary labor. However, the increasing role of slavery in the general system of socio-economic relations led to increased non-economic coercion in relation to other categories of workers.

Rural population

If the form of social organization of the urban population was the polis, then the rural population was united in comas and cathoikias, preserving elements of the communal structure, which can be traced according to the data of Egyptian papyri and inscriptions from Asia Minor and Syria. In Egypt, each coma was assigned a traditionally established territory; a common “royal” current is mentioned, where all the inhabitants of the coma threshed bread. The names of rural officials preserved in papyri may have their origins in the communal organization, but under the Ptolemies they already meant mainly not elected officials, but representatives of the local royal administration. The forced liturgy for the repair and construction of irrigation structures, legalized by the state, also goes back to the community orders that once existed. There is no information in the papyri about meetings of the inhabitants of the coma, but in inscriptions from the Fayum and Asia Minor there is a traditional formula about the decisions of a collective of comets on a particular issue. According to papyri and inscriptions, the population of coms in the Hellenistic period was heterogeneous: priests, clergy or kateki (military colonists), officials, tax farmers, slaves, traders, artisans, and day laborers lived in them permanently or temporarily. The influx of immigrants and differences in property and legal status weakened community ties.

Brief conclusions

So, throughout the 3rd century. BC e. The socio-economic structure of Hellenistic society was formed, unique in each of the states (depending on local conditions), but also having some common features.

At the same time, in accordance with local traditions and characteristics of the social structure, a system of state (royal) economic management, a central and local military, administrative, financial and judicial apparatus, a system of taxation, tax farming and monopolies were formed in the Hellenistic monarchies; The relationship between cities and temples and the royal administration was determined. The social stratification of the population found expression in the legislative consolidation of the privileges of some and the duties of others. At the same time, social contradictions that were caused by this structure also emerged.

Intensification of internal struggle and the conquest of the Hellenistic states by Rome

The study of the social structure of the eastern Hellenistic states reveals a characteristic feature: the main burden of maintaining the state apparatus fell on the local rural population. Cities found themselves in a relatively favorable position, which was one of the reasons that contributed to their rapid growth and prosperity.

State of affairs in Greece

A different type of social development took place in Greece and Macedonia. Macedonia also developed as a Hellenistic state, combining elements of a monarchy and a polis system. But although the land holdings of the Macedonian kings were relatively extensive, there was no broad layer of dependent rural population (with the possible exception of the Thracians), through whose exploitation the state apparatus and a significant part of the ruling class could exist. The burden of expenses for maintaining the army and building the fleet fell equally on the urban and rural populations. The differences between Greeks and Macedonians, rural residents and city dwellers were determined by their property status; the line of class division ran between freemen and slaves. Economic development deepened the further introduction of slave relations.

For Greece, the Hellenistic era did not bring fundamental changes in the system of socio-economic relations. The most noticeable phenomenon was the outflow of the population (mostly young and middle-aged - warriors, artisans, traders) to Western Asia and Egypt. This was supposed to dull the severity of social contradictions within the policies. But the continuous wars of the Diadochi, the fall in the value of money as a result of the influx of gold and silver from Asia and the increase in prices for consumer goods ruined primarily the poor and middle classes of citizens. The problem of overcoming the polis economic isolation remained unresolved; attempts to resolve it within the framework of the federation did not lead to economic integration and consolidation of unions. In the policies that were dependent on Macedonia, an oligarchic or tyrannical form of government was established, freedom of international relations was limited, and Macedonian garrisons were introduced into strategically important points.

Reforms in Sparta

In all policies of Greece in the 3rd century. BC e. Indebtedness and landlessness among low-income citizens are growing, and at the same time, the concentration of land and wealth in the hands of the city aristocracy. By the middle of the century, these processes reached their greatest severity in Sparta, where most of the Spartiates actually lost their allotments. The need for social transformation forced the Spartan king Agis IV (245-241 BC) to come up with a proposal to cancel debts and redistribute land in order to increase the number of full citizens. These reforms, clothed in the form of a restoration of the laws of Lycurgus, aroused resistance from the ephorate and aristocracy. Agis died, but the social situation in Sparta remained tense. A few years later, King Cleomenes III came up with the same reforms.

Taking into account the experience of Agis, Cleomenes previously strengthened his position with successful actions in the war that began in 228 BC. e. war with the Achaean League. Enlisting the support of the army, he first destroyed the ephorate and expelled the richest citizens from Sparta, then carried out cassation of debts and redistribution of land, increasing the number of citizens by 4 thousand people. Events in Sparta caused unrest throughout Greece. Mantinea left the Achaean League and joined Cleomenes, and unrest began in other cities of the Peloponnese. In the war with the Achaean League, Cleomenes occupied a number of cities, and Corinth went over to his side. Frightened by this, the oligarchic leadership of the Achaean League turned to the king of Macedonia, Antigonus Doson, for help. The superiority of forces was on the side of Sparta's opponents. Then Cleomenes freed about 6 thousand helots for ransom and included 2 thousand of them in his army. But in the Battle of Selassia (222 BC), the combined forces of Macedonia and the Achaeans destroyed the Spartan army, a Macedonian garrison was introduced into Sparta, and Cleomenes’ reforms were annulled.

The defeat of Cleomenes could not stop the growth of social movements. Already in 219 BC. e. in Sparta, Chilon again tried to destroy the ephorate and redistribute property; in 215, the oligarchs were expelled from Messenia and the land was redistributed; in 210 the tyrant Mahanid seized power in Sparta. After his death in the war with the Achaean League, the Spartan state was headed by the tyrant Nabis, who carried out an even more radical redistribution of land and property of the nobility, the liberation of the helots and the allocation of land to the perieki. In 205, an attempt was made to cassate debts in Aetolia.

State of affairs in Egypt

By the end of the 3rd century. BC e. contradictions in the socio-economic structure begin to appear in the Eastern Hellenistic powers, and above all in Egypt. The Ptolemaic organization was aimed at extracting maximum income from lands, mines and workshops. The system of taxes and duties was elaborate and absorbed most of the harvest, depleting the economy of small farmers. The growing apparatus of the tsarist administration, tax farmers and traders further intensified the exploitation of the local population. One of the forms of protest against oppression was leaving the place of residence (anahorsis), which sometimes took on a massive scale, and the flight of slaves. More active protests by the masses are gradually increasing. The Fourth Syrian War and the hardships associated with it caused widespread unrest, which first engulfed Lower Egypt and soon spread throughout the country. If in the most Hellenized areas of Lower Egypt the government of Ptolemy IV managed to quickly achieve pacification, then unrest in southern Egypt by 206 BC. e. grew into a widespread popular movement, and Thebaid fell away from the Ptolemies for more than two decades. Although the movement in Thebaid had features of protest against the dominance of foreigners, its social orientation is clearly visible in the sources.

The arrival of Rome in Greece and Asia Minor

In Greece, the Second Macedonian War, which lasted more than two years, ended in the victory of Rome. The demagoguery of the Romans, who used the traditional slogan of “freedom” of the Greek city-states, attracted to their side the Aetolian and Achaean unions, and above all the propertied layers of citizens, who saw in the Romans a force capable of ensuring their interests without the monarchical form of government, which was odious for the demos. Macedonia lost all its possessions in Greece, the Aegean Sea and Asia Minor. Rome, having solemnly declared the “freedom” of the Greek city-states at the Isthmian Games (196 BC), began to rule in Greece, regardless of the interests of its former allies: it determined the boundaries of states, placed its garrisons in Corinth, Demetrias and Chalkis, interfered in the internal life of the policies. The "liberation" of Greece was the first step in the spread of Roman rule in the Eastern Mediterranean, the beginning of a new stage in the history of the Hellenistic world.

The next equally important event was the so-called Syrian War of Rome with Antiochus III. Having strengthened its borders with the Eastern Campaign of 212-204. BC e. and victory over Egypt, Antiochus began to expand his possessions in Asia Minor and Thrace at the expense of the poleis liberated by the Romans from Macedonian rule, which led to a clash with Rome and its Greek allies Pergamum and Rhodes. The war ended with the defeat of the troops of Antiochus and the loss of the territories of Asia Minor by the Seleucids.

The victory of the Romans and their allies over the largest of the Hellenistic powers - the kingdom of the Seleucids - radically changed the political situation: not a single Hellenistic state could lay claim to hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean. The subsequent political history of the Hellenistic world is the history of the gradual subjugation of one country after another to Roman rule. The prerequisites for this are, on the one hand, the trends in the economic development of ancient society, which required the establishment of closer and more stable ties between the Western and Eastern Mediterranean, and, on the other hand, contradictions in foreign policy relations and the internal socio-political instability of the Hellenistic states. The process of active penetration of the Romans into the East and adaptation of the eastern economic centers to the new situation began. The military and economic expansion of the Romans was accompanied by the massive enslavement of prisoners of war and the intensive development of slave relations in Italy and in the conquered areas.

These phenomena largely determined the internal life of the Hellenistic states. Contradictions at the top of Hellenistic society are intensifying - between layers of the urban nobility interested in expanding commodity production, trade and slavery, and the nobility associated with the royal administrative apparatus and temples and living off traditional forms of exploitation of the rural population. The clash of interests resulted in palace coups, dynastic wars, city uprisings, and demands for complete autonomy of cities from the tsarist government. The struggle at the top sometimes merged with the struggle of the masses against tax oppression, usury and enslavement, and then dynastic wars developed into a kind of civil war.

Roman diplomacy played a significant role in inciting the dynastic struggle within the Hellenistic states and in pitting them against each other. Thus, on the eve of the third Macedonian War (171-168 BC), the Romans managed to achieve almost complete isolation of Macedonia. Despite the attempts of the king of Macedonia Perseus to win over the Greek city-states through democratic reforms (he announced the cassation of public debts and the return of exiles), only Epirus and Illyria joined him. After the defeat of the Macedonian army at Pydna, the Romans divided Macedonia into four isolated districts, prohibited the development of mines, salt extraction, timber export (this became a Roman monopoly), as well as the purchase of real estate and marriages between residents of different districts. In Epirus, the Romans destroyed most of the cities and sold more than 150 thousand inhabitants into slavery; in Greece they revised the boundaries of the policies.

The reprisal against Macedonia and Epirus, interference in the internal affairs of the Greek city-states caused open protests against Roman rule: the uprising of Andriska in Macedonia (149-148 BC) and the uprising of the Achaean League (146 BC), brutally suppressed by the Romans. Macedonia was turned into a Roman province, the unions of the Greek city-states were dissolved, and an oligarchy was established. The mass of the population was taken out and sold into slavery, Hellas fell into a state of impoverishment and desolation.

War between Egypt and the Seleucid Kingdom

While Rome was busy subjugating Macedonia, war broke out between Egypt and the Seleucid kingdom. In 170, and then in 168 BC. e. Antiochus IV made campaigns in Egypt, captured and besieged Alexandria, but the intervention of Rome forced him to abandon his intentions. Meanwhile, a revolt broke out in Judea due to increased taxes. Antiochus, having suppressed it, built the Acre fortress in Jerusalem and left a garrison there, power in Judea was assigned to the “Hellenists,” the Jewish religion was prohibited, and the cult of Greek deities was introduced. These repressions caused in 166 BC. e. a new uprising that developed into a people's war against Seleucid rule. In 164 BC. e. rebels led by Judas Maccabee took Jerusalem and besieged Acre. Judas Maccabee assumed the rank of high priest, distributed priestly positions regardless of nobility and confiscated the property of the Hellenists. In 160 BC. e. Demetrius I defeated Judas Maccabee and brought his garrisons into the Jewish cities. But the Jewish struggle did not stop.

After the invasion of Antiochus in Egypt, a revolt arose in the nomes of Middle Egypt, led by Dionysus Petosarapis (suppressed in 165), and an uprising in Panopolis. At the same time, dynastic wars began, which became especially fierce at the end of the 2nd century. BC e. The economic situation in the country was very difficult. A significant part of the land was empty; the government, in order to ensure their cultivation, introduced compulsory leasing. The life of most laoi, even from the point of view of the royal administration, was miserable. Official and private legal documents of that time testify to the anarchy and arbitrariness that reigned in Egypt: anachoresis, non-payment of taxes, the seizure of foreign lands, vineyards and property, the appropriation of temple and state revenues by private individuals, the enslavement of the free - all these phenomena became widespread. The local administration, strictly organized and under the first Ptolemies dependent on the central government, turned into an uncontrollable force interested in personal enrichment. Because of her greed, the government was forced by special decrees - the so-called decrees of philanthropy - to protect farmers and artisans associated with it in order to receive its share of the income from them. But the decrees could only temporarily or partially stop the decline of the Ptolemaic state economic system.

Further advance of Rome into Asia and the collapse of the Hellenistic states

Having pacified Greece and Macedonia, Rome began an offensive against the states of Asia Minor. Roman merchants and moneylenders, penetrating the economies of the states of Asia Minor, increasingly subordinated the domestic and foreign policies of these states to the interests of Rome. Pergamum found itself in the most difficult situation, where the situation was so tense that Attalus III (139-123 BC), not hoping for the stability of the existing regime, bequeathed his kingdom to Rome. But neither this act, nor the reform that the nobility tried to carry out after his death, could prevent the popular movement that swept the entire country and was directed against the Romans and the local nobility. For more than three years (132-129 BC), the rebel farmers, slaves and disadvantaged population of the cities under the leadership of Aristonicus resisted the Romans. After the suppression of the uprising, Pergamum was turned into the province of Asia.

Instability is growing in the Seleucid state. Following Judea, separatist tendencies also appear in the eastern satrapies, which begin to focus on Parthia. The attempt of Antiochus VII Sidetes (138-129 BC) to restore the unity of the state ended in defeat and his death. This led to the fall of Babylonia, Persia and Media, which came under the rule of Parthia or local dynasts. At the beginning of the 1st century. BC e. Commagene and Judea become independent.

A clear expression of this crisis was the most acute dynastic struggle. Over the course of 35 years, there were 12 pretenders to the throne, and often two or three kings ruled simultaneously. The territory of the Seleucid state was reduced to the limits of Syria proper, Phenicia, Coelesyria and part of Cilicia. Large cities sought to gain complete autonomy or even independence (tyranny in Tire, Sidon, etc.). In 64 BC. e. The Seleucid kingdom was annexed to Rome as the province of Syria.

Kingdom of Pontus and Mithridates

In the 1st century BC e. The center of resistance to Roman aggression was the Kingdom of Pontus, which under Mithridates VI Eupator (120-63 BC) extended its power to almost the entire Black Sea coast. In 89 BC. e. Mithridates Eupator started a war with Rome, his speech and democratic reforms found the support of the population of Asia Minor and Greece, ruined by Roman moneylenders and publicans. By order of Mithridates, 80 thousand Romans were killed in one day in Asia Minor. By 88, he occupied almost all of Greece without much difficulty. However, Mithridates' successes were short-lived. His arrival did not bring improvements to the life of the Greek city-states, the Romans managed to inflict a number of defeats on the Pontic army, and the subsequent social measures of Mithridates - cassation of debts, division of lands, granting citizenship to metics and slaves - deprived him of support among the wealthy strata of citizens. In 85 Mithridates was forced to admit defeat. He did it twice more - in 83-81 and 73-63. BC e. tried, relying on anti-Roman sentiments, to stop the penetration of the Romans into Asia Minor, but the balance of social forces and trends in historical development predetermined the defeat of the Pontic king.

Subjugation of Egypt

When at the beginning of the 1st century. BC e. The possessions of Rome came close to the borders of Egypt, the kingdom of the Ptolemies was still shaken by dynastic strife and popular movements. Around 88 BC e. An uprising broke out again in Thebaid, only three years later it was suppressed by Ptolemy IX, who destroyed the center of the uprising -. Over the next 15 years, there were unrest in the nomes of Middle Egypt - in Hermopolis and twice in . In Rome, the issue of subjugating Egypt was repeatedly discussed, but the Senate did not dare to start a war against this still strong state. In 48 BC. e. After an eight-month war with the Alexandrians, Caesar limited himself to annexing Egypt as an allied kingdom. Only after the victory of Augustus over Antony did Alexandria come to terms with the inevitability of submission to Roman rule, and in 30 BC. e. The Romans entered Egypt almost without resistance. The last major state collapsed.

Consequences of the invasion of Rome and the collapse of the Hellenistic states

The Hellenistic world as a political system was absorbed by the Roman Empire, but the elements of the socio-economic structure that emerged during the Hellenistic era had a huge impact on the development of the Eastern Mediterranean in subsequent centuries and determined its specificity. In the era of Hellenism, a new step was taken in the development of productive forces, a type of state arose - the Hellenistic kingdoms, which combined the features of eastern despotism with the polis organization of cities; Significant changes occurred in the stratification of the population, and internal socio-political contradictions reached great tension. In the II-I centuries. BC e., probably for the first time in history, social struggle acquired such diverse forms: the flight of slaves and anachoresis of the inhabitants of the coma, tribal uprisings, unrest and riots in cities, religious wars, palace coups and dynastic wars, short-term unrest in the nomes and long-term popular movements, in which involved different segments of the population, including slaves, and even slave uprisings, which, however, were of a local nature (around 130 BC, an uprising in Delos of slaves brought for sale and uprisings in the Laurian mines in Athens around 130 and in 103/102 BC).

During the Hellenistic period, ethnic differences between the Greeks and Macedonians lost their former meaning, and the ethnic designation “Hellenic” acquired social content and extended to those segments of the population who, due to their social status, could receive an education according to the Greek model and lead an appropriate lifestyle, regardless of their origin. This socio-ethnic process was reflected in the development and spread of a single Greek language, the so-called Koine, which became the language of Hellenistic literature and the official language of the Hellenistic states.

Changes in the economic, social and political spheres affected the change in the socio-psychological appearance of man in the Hellenistic era. The instability of the external and internal political situation, ruin, the enslavement of some and the enrichment of others, the development of slavery and the slave trade, the movement of the population from one area to another, from rural settlements to the city and from the city to the choir - all this led to a weakening of ties within the civil collective of the polis, community ties in rural settlements, to the growth of individualism. The policy can no longer guarantee the freedom and material well-being of a citizen; personal connections with representatives of the tsarist administration and the patronage of those in power begin to acquire great importance. Gradually, from one generation to the next, a psychological restructuring takes place, and a citizen of the polis turns into a subject of the king, not only by formal status, but also by political convictions. All these processes, to one degree or another, influenced the formation of Hellenistic culture.

) . The term originally denoted the correct use of the Greek language, especially by non-Greeks, but after the publication of Johann Gustav Droysen's History of Hellenism ( - gg.), the concept entered historical science.

The beginning of the Hellenistic era is characterized by a transition from polis political organization to hereditary Hellenistic monarchies, a shift in the centers of cultural and economic activity from Greece to Africa and Egypt.

Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

  The Hellenistic era spans three centuries. However, as noted, there is no consensus on the issue of periodization. So, according to some, the record of its beginning can be traced back to 334, that is, from the year the campaign of Alexander the Great began.
  It is proposed to distinguish three periods:

  The term pre-Hellenism is also sometimes used.

  Hellenistic states

  The conquests of Alexander the Great spread Greek culture to the East, but did not lead to the formation of a world empire. On the territory of the conquered Persian Empire, Hellenistic states were formed, led by the Diadochi and their descendants:

  • The Seleucid state was centered first in Babylon and then in Antioch.
  • The Greco-Bactrian kingdom separated from the Seleucid state in the 3rd century. BC e., the center of which was located in the territory of modern Afghanistan.
  • The Indo-Greek kingdom separated from the Greco-Bactrian kingdom in the 2nd century. BC e., the center of which was located on the territory of modern Pakistan.
  • The Pontic kingdom was formed on the territory of modern northern Turkey.
  • The Kingdom of Pergamon also existed in what is now western Turkey.
  • The Commagene kingdom separated from the Seleucid state and was located on the territory of modern eastern Turkey.
  • Hellenistic Egypt was formed on the territory of Egypt, led by the Ptolemies.
  • The Achaean League existed on the territory of modern Greece.
  • The Bosporan kingdom existed on the territory of eastern Crimea and the eastern coast of the Sea of ​​Azov, at one time it was part of the Pontic kingdom.

  The new states are organized according to a special principle, called the Hellenistic monarchy, based on the synthesis of local despotic and Greek polis political traditions. The polis, as an independent civil community, retained its independence as a social and political entity even within the framework of the Hellenistic monarchy. Cities such as Alexandria enjoy autonomy, and their citizens enjoy special rights and privileges. The Hellenistic state is usually headed by a king, who has full state power. Its main support was the bureaucratic apparatus, which carried out the functions of managing the entire territory of the state, with the exception of cities that had the status of policies, which had a certain autonomy.

  Compared to previous periods, the situation in the Greek world has changed significantly: instead of many poleis warring with each other, the Greek world now consisted of several relatively stable major powers. These states represented a common cultural and economic space, which is important for understanding the cultural and political aspect of that era. The Greek world was a very closely interconnected system, which is confirmed at least by the presence of a single financial system, as well as by the scale of migration flows within the Hellenistic world (the Hellenistic era was a time of relatively high mobility of the Greek population, in particular continental Greece, at the end of the 4th century BC). suffered from overpopulation, already by the end of the 3rd century BC began to feel a shortage of population).

  Culture of Hellenistic society

  Hellenistic society differs strikingly from that of classical Greece in a number of ways. The actual withdrawal of the polis system into the background, the development and spread of political and economic vertical (rather than horizontal) connections, the collapse of outdated social institutions, and a general change in the cultural background caused serious changes in the Greek social structure. It was a mixture of Greek and oriental elements. Syncretism manifested itself most clearly in religion and the official practice of deifying monarchs.

  The departure is noted in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC. e. from the sublimely beautiful images of the Greek classics towards the individual and lyrical. In the Hellenistic era, there was a multiplicity of artistic movements, some of which were associated with the affirmation of inner peace, others with “severe love of rock.”

  Hellenization of the East

  Throughout the 3rd -1st centuries BC. e. throughout the eastern Mediterranean there was a process of Hellenization, that is, the adoption by the local population of the Greek language, culture, customs and traditions. The mechanism and reasons for this process lay largely in the peculiarities of the political and social structure of the Hellenistic states. The elite of Hellenistic society consisted mainly of representatives of the Greco-Macedonian aristocracy. They brought Greek customs to the East and actively planted them around them. The old local nobility, wanting to be closer to the ruler and to emphasize their aristocratic status, sought to imitate this elite, while the common people imitated the local nobility. As a result, Hellenization was the fruit of imitation of newcomers by the indigenous inhabitants of the country. This process affected, as a rule, cities, while the rural population (which made up the majority) was in no hurry to part with its pre-Greek habits. In addition, Hellenization affected mainly the upper strata of Eastern society, which, for the above reasons, had a desire to enter the Greek environment.