Panhellenism

[Macedon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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