Panhellenism

[Macedon]

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.

Yes, it is true that the Seleucids made such an attempt but its failure again showed the futility of such plans. It is though a good yet one of the very rare examples of leaders actively wanting to suppress local identities. Usually, the Seleucids just tried to give incentives to more Greeks to inhabit their dominion and segregated Greeks from other nationalities, only (usually) allowing Greeks to man their phalanx, having more rights, immunities etc. But still, this is an example of such a plan being effected.

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.

The Greeks were very open to foreign religions. They anyways from ancient years would honor foreign Gods, who they usually of course idneitfy with some Greek counterpart, but honored him with his foregn name. There are shrines to Issis, Attis etc in Greece also. The Ptolemies allowed the locals to keep their religious traditions but there was a problem. The Egyptians were, much like the Jews, not as open mided as the Greeks regarding religion. I think that Serapis was devised not to "unify" the two peoples but more like to make it easier for the locals to accept the Greeks by sharing a common God, more like make Greeks easier to tolerate. For a unification process, I expect to see some declarations of important people as to how people are "equal", how they should not be viewed as "barbarians", how they have become "hellenized" (it would be veeery difficult to write or speak of Greeks becoming egyptianized...). Such fusion processes are also clearly described by Herodot in his Greek ethnogenesis decription, where he clearly and unambiguously talks of barbarians being hellenized (among them the Athenians by the Macednoi!!!, who later became Dorians...)

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.

And why should that mean that the Greeks felt like Egyptians? We know that they were called Egyptians as the Seleucid Syrian Greeks were called Asians by other Greeks (and Latins), but there is no evidence to my knowledge that they themselves felt anything else than x (Alexandrian, Memphian etc) Greeks and were considered "elite" citizens.

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?

Yes, but we do not talk about courts here. The macedonizing of the Amphipolitans was full and that was direct assimilation - unification, I think to the standards you set. Eumenes was a Thracian Greek of course, not a Thracian, but what exactly do you mean by that statement? Brasidas the Lacedaemonian also fought for the Argeads of Perdiccas for example. Do you mean in the war of the Diadochi? Or did you mean to say an army of Macedonians?

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

Multi regional political entities surely were formed, although they never encompassed but a fraction of the Greek world and they never suppressed ethnic affiliations in favor of a "grander" 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.

Yes.. this doesn't seem to have happened in a planned way. Again, exception of course existed but very rare. They in contrast seemed to fragment more and more through the creation of new cities and colonies... Each time they created a city or colony, actually a new local ethnicity was created too!!!! So, even after some such amalgamations, the total number of Greek local and regional identities just kept rising... What were the Alexandrian Greeks if not an amalgamation of Greeks from all over the Greek world?

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.

Within a city state, there was assimilation. But usually, there were strict rules as to citizenship. I am not aware of a Greek being allowed to have a dual citizenship, although I guess that psychologically, a Greek could feel closer to his "second" nationality, if there was one. There were mixed marriages but there were also laws regrading the nationality of the child, laws that could differ from state to state. But a Syracusan living in Athens for years as a metoikos (resident-alien) would of course grow to feel more Athenian. But then, Greekway of thinking would make him strive to prove his love for Athens abover anything in order to some day be honrarily awarded citizenship. So, we often have texts talking about how these metoikoi were sometimes most valiant fighters for the glory of their adopted state. But putting citizenship in second place was not usual (or better not advertized as ethical). Greek honor demanded to live and die as honoring your own state. It was too deeply engraved in what was meant to be Greek to easily overcome.

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.

Oh yes, there were. Cities would make public announcements and Greeks from almost every other state would have the right to apply. Others would just en mass give citizenship to certain parts of their non-citizen population. The Athenians could make it easier for meroikoi and Lacedaemonians for non-Spartans to sign up.

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

What do you mean? New for whom? There were no mass cross marriages made or encouraged as Alexander did in Asia. Mixed marriages were not uncommon, but as I stated abovem they were governed by strict laws and generally did not lead to Greeks feeling more Greeks than their local identity. Yet, feeling Greek was something that kept all of them together. It did exits as a determinant and did play a major role undoubtedly.

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.

I wouldnt say neutralized. For Pyrrhus to not destroy him completely, there has to have been some reason. But what I meant was that he did not actually act as Macedonian king. He made this blunder with the Gauls and then, before consolidating his rule, his acceptance, anything, he just went south and died... What I mean is that in both his "reigns" as king of Macedon, he never did act as true king long enough for the common people to show if they indeed accepted him or if they did not make them feel that he was one of them.

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.

Well... Had he been truly accepted by the Macedonian people, we could make some assumptions, but Pyrrhus seemed to loathe staying long in one place... This, IMO, made him always a foreigner among locals. Had he made the effort, maybe he could have achieved something like that but there was no such effort to ctiticize or judge.

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.

.. a more Greek support... hehehe

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.

Yes, indeed, this was my point too, but still... there are very rare if any such examples in the recorded history of the region (after the 6th century BC - before that there are many such gven examples, especially in Herodot, but these were relized spanning an undefined length of time, could be centuries...).

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

Wouldn't that actually make it easier for them to unite? Not having rigid laws or such great egalitarian sentiments should IMO make them easier to accept unification under the strongest chieftain.

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.

Well, I guess that if you put such mechanisms in such long processes (I would say more than two generations, but even this is enough to make my point) then they would be possible. The problem would then be to found a political system that would keep this process going for so long. You would need someone to reign supreme for 50 years and in all those years keep and promote this policy. It would also demand at least adequate agreement among the locals to not actively sabotage such policies and a similar thinking in the next one or two governmets.

Yes, 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.

No, such terms were most often imposed immediately. But for hegemons, (actually the strong bullies...) to make such requests was common anyways.

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.

They were not. 10,000 mercenaries were not so many. Of course they were many, but Darius, for example, seemed to have many more Greek mercenaries, some of the Macedonians (!), to use against Alexander. And in Greece itself, we have many accounts of many thousands of Greek mercenaries hailing from many states, as did the 10,000. Mercenaries would of course form bonds with each other. Simple citizens would also form such bonds. Ethnic lines were not considered such a barrier. As for Persia, sure, but I meant to just justify their being employed in the region (a numbero of the 10,000). Wherever there was a general who would pay for their services they would go. They did not stay for any nationalistic reasons, to protect the Greeks etc. They just were serving the highest bidder as did when they were employed by the Persians. As for time of service, mercenary bands could indeed stay together for even decades... again I would not see the 10,000 here as sometjing so radically unique.

Anyways... It took the Pax Romana and maybe a thousand years to finally subdue local identities as much as necessary to bring the ethnic idientity to the foreground. Eventually it happened.