Panhellenism

[Theodosius the Great]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see. But with the accession of Macedon under Phillip II such marriages may have led to something new, IMO. Pyrrhus' final years led me to this idea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~Theo