When Alexander the Great decided to take revenge from the Persians after he had inherited a kingdom from his father, Philip II, he was also giving a new direction to Greek history. From several different aspects, this new period differed from the Classical period of Greek history and it continued some the basic institutions of Greeks, and in this same period, these institutions prospered and expanded through the most parts of the known world. This paper focuses on one of the core institutions, which is poleis, even though some scholars claimed that the polis institution was demolished. However, in fact, the Hellenistic world was ‘a world of cities’[1]and poleis maintained their vital role in Greek society. As Shipley argues that, “Greek cities, as physical and social entities, patiently remained in used and continued to be built throughout the Hellenistic period and beyond. More importantly, the social entity that was the classical polis did not lose all its defining features. Rather, it was transformed in practice.”[2]Strootman adds that “they were no longer city-state,”[3]and had no longer independent policies.[4]According to Billows, the idea that Hellenistic empires put Greek cities into an end is wrong, “the opposite of reality,” for he states that, “(…) the Hellenistic era in many respects the most important period in the history of the Greek cities.”[5]Before this particular time, these unique political entities had dominated the Greek world. However, centuries after they defeated Persians, this time they had to challenge with another external power from the north, the Macedonians. Beginning with the Philip II, the poleis entered a new period in which they felt an external pressure and authority which had not been seen before.

“(…) Hellenistic kingdoms were conquest states whose organization was based on two fundamental principles: first, that as spear-won land, the kingdom and its population belonged to the kind: and second, that the conduct of the king’s business and the performance of the king’s work took precedence over all other considerations.”[6]

The king, after defeated the alliance of the Greek cities, imposed them to establish a new league, which is called League of Corinth, and to acknowledge him as the hegemon of this alliance. Nevertheless, poleis were keen on their independence, and as soon as Philip II died, they revolted. The decisive beat came from his son, Alexander the Great, who himself also compelled poleis to stick to the alliance, to accept him as hegemon after he defeated insurgent Thebans and razed the city. From now on, he and his successors altered drastically the fate of Greek history. These circumstances come with the question that is about the relationship between the Greek poleis and the Macedonian kingdoms. This king-city relationship has undergone a serious scholarly debate previously. In 1937, Alfred Heuß wrote a book, called Stadt und Herrscher des Hellenismus, and he advocated that the kings could not exercise royal power on independent Greek cities at all. His critique comes from Wolfgang Orth, in his book Königlich Machtanspruch und städtische Freiheit in 1977. Orth suggested that against the military might of Macedonian kings, poleis could not cling on their independence. Later historians, such as John Ma, took the side of the reciprocal model that emphasized the continuous game of negotiation between the kings and the cities in which both sides developed a communication that allowed them to guard their own interests.[7]

First of all, this paper denies seeing the concept of Hellenistic city unilaterally. Hellenistic culture expanded through a wide area and the relationship between the king and the cities differed geographically:[8]“There were perhaps three or four different ‘world of the polis’, not one. The idea that there was such a thing as ‘the Hellenistic city’ is an oversimplification,” Shipley and Hansen said.[9]Ma also adds that “(…) the insistence on diversity in recent work on Hellenistic kingship requires a broadening of horizons to accommodate the plurality of the phenomenon.”[10]Kings’ deeds and the response of the cities altered significantly in the different parts of the Hellenistic World. Hence, this paper firstly proposes to look at the general condition between the kings and the cities to divide spheres of the Hellenistic period as the West and the East. Athens exemplifies the constant negotiation of the cities with the king in the West, claiming additionally king’s role was the decisive decision-maker, whereas, in Alexandria, which exemplifies the East, Hellenistic kings served as the sole authority and the benefactors of the city. Looking at the dissimilar developments in the different parts of the Hellenistic World, this work asserts that the Hellenistic period was dominated by the kings who left nothing to poleis to say about. They were internally not under the direct control of the kings as long as their interests did not clash. However, in every case of this relationship, those who had the last word were the kings, not cities.

In the general sense, the former political structure of the Greek homeland, from now on, was mostly controlled by Macedonian generals that “exercise considerable influence over the future developments of a polis and restrict its freedom of action.”[11]Negotiation was the principal concept on which the relationship between the new kings and the old-poleis based on in the West. However, the old-poleis became subordinate and acted like ‘states within states.’ Yet still, they were semi-autonomous in regard to that they continued to elect their magistrates. Nevertheless, they no longer were allowed to organize or they themselves ceased to organize their own military forces.[12]Kings’ power limited in some sense because they had to gain cities’ support for their wars against other diadochi. However, they took even the right of the bestowment of freedom to the poleis. For example, Demetrius Poliorketes liberated Athens from Cassander and his governor Demetrius of Phaleron. In response, he and his father, Antigonus Monophthalmus, were acknowledged as ‘savior gods’ by Athenians.[13]Ma argues that “it is clear that (…) Hellenistic empires in general affected the poleis through direct control and legal-ideological structure (such as Antiochus’ determination that the cities’ liberty should exist exclusively through his grant.)”[14]He also emphasizes the dominance of the kings: “The kingdoms were the dominant forces in high political history of the period: they developed powerful concrete and ideological forms to express their dominance.”[15]The condition of the Western poleis were summarized clearly by Shipley and Hansen: “The third- and second-century polis, in general, was a dependent policy able than before to formulate independent military or diplomatic goals.”[16]In Eastern poleis, which are epitomized by Alexandria in this paper, tradition posed no similar struggle with the West. The Ptolemies acted as indisputable authorities and centered power in their own personality. However, in communicating with their subjects, they put on different identities. They were also the benefactors of their cities.

Talking about the poleis and the Hellenistic kings, the particular area of interest can be mainland Greece, the birthplace of Greek polis in essence and its primary example is Athens, which, as in many cases in Greek history too in the case of Hellenistic-Greek case, was a unique city. [17]Hellenistic kings struggled with many difficulties, and always tried to overcome the Athenian pride for their independence. Habicht says, “Even if Athens was not always a sovereign power, and often had to follow the dictates of Macedon, and later Rome, in foreign policy, the Athenians never relinquished control of their own internal affairs.”[18]

Hence, they developed a relationship with the kings differently from the other Hellenistic cities. They carefully used the struggles between the kingdoms for their own sakes. It is known that at the end of the 3rdcentury they constructed diplomatic relationships with the Ptolemaic kingdom, and they were given support from them for their own challenge against the Macedonian kings. [19]Athens also had managed to gain her independence in 287 and in 229. However, the ones that bestow independence to Athens were also the kings who constantly promoted Greek independence, but just nominally, they cared much about their own course, not the Greek independence itself. [20]For example, Polyperchon, a regent of the Macedonian kingdom, decreed that his kingdom supported the freedom of Greek poleis in 319. However, such claims were not sincere, rather implied, in one sense, a threat. [21]

Athens nevertheless, although they were under Macedonian domination, had always insisted on claiming political independence. As Habicht suggests: “Nothing justifies the occasional claim that political participation by Athenian citizens declined in the Hellenistic age. The history of Athens did not end with its military defeats by the armies of Macedon. Even after these defeats, the administration of justice and official cults, the provision of land supplies, the regulation of finances and all other areas of government administration remained exclusive responsibility of the citizens of Athens.” [22]However, it was so because that the kings who had the decisive power, overlooked civic affairs: what really important for them was obedience and loyalty. In certain times beginning with the reign of Philip II, they did not hesitate to show off their military might. Philip II in 388 had defeated the Greek alliance in the Battle of Chaeronea and assured Macedonian power in mainland Greece, forming Corinthian League.[23]However, the Greeks, as soon as Philip II had died, revolved. This time, his son Alexander the Great suppressed them. His use of symbolism was a good example of that who had the most military power, was the overlord of the Greek mainland. To show and to emphasize this, he sacked and destroyed Thebes in 335, except for the temples and Pindar’s, a famous poet, house. Yet he did not content himself by doing this. Alexander sent an ultimatum to Athenians, demanding that the Athenians, “were to hand over to him eight of their citizens most suspected of complicity in the uprising and all Thebans who had fled to Athens after the fall of their city.” [24]In response, Athens sent a delegation to negotiate the matter: Alexander accepted what they proposed. Athens had always sought for a negotiation in part not to eliminate herself from the political sphere. Ma states: “The poleis’ strategies aimed at converting straight domination into interaction.[25]Even so, not just only Athenians but also the most poleis seemed to acknowledge who the real master was. As Habicth argues, “All participants in the debate realized that they would have to live with Macedonian hegemony, at least for the time being.”[26]

It is obvious that both Philip II and Alexander did not want much to interfere with civic affairs[27], they focused on conquering the lands. Moreover, the civic identity in Athens continuously seems to be fostered by the polis. This phenomenon can easily be seen in the example of ephebe that the reforms concerning the training of young citizens, who after two years of education, “swore to defend their homeland, and its possessions, never to desert their rank or the men next to them, to obey their commanders and the laws, and to defend the government.” [28]Those measures were the indication that “the Athenian demos was not willing to accept these limits forever.”[29]However, although it seems that Athenian insistence on the city’s freedom formed a constant struggle, for the kings, who had the strongest army, it was not a big issue that they could not deal with. They similarly put limits on the city’s freedom. Alexander, for example, after the Battle of Granicus in 334, took some Athenian mercenaries as captive and in chains dispatched them to work in Macedonia. Athens appealed Alexander to free them. Until 331, Alexander refused this petition.[30]In the response, Athenians continued to play a political game against Alexander: they allowed the Persian fleet to reinforce themselves in Samos which had been ruled by Athenian strategos for several years. Alexander also, after the victory at Issus in 333, captured a delegation that had been sent to the Persians by Athenians.[31]Later incidents concrete that Alexander considered himself as the sole decision power. In 324, he declared that Samos should be given to Samians. At the same time, Athenians were arguing whether to give Alexander divine honors or not. Alexander further ordered ‘exiles decree’ which ordered all Greek cities to accept former exile into their cities. Furthermore, he instructed Athenians to give Samos up and to give Harpalus, who was his fugitive treasurer, to him. Yet, “in any event, the royal decree was not enforced immediately.”[32]Athens always looked for a negotiation with the king. This time seeking a concession from the king about Samos, the Athenians approved Alexander as a god.[33]

Further measures came from his successors to surpass Greek disobedience and to maintain the assertation of Macedonian superiority. Alexander’s death stimulated a new hope for Greek cities to regain their independence. Athens, spearheading, made the arrangements for preparing a new war. Athenians even punished those who pioneered to pass the law that had acknowledged Alexander as the god. Allied Greek cities formed a synedrion and chose Leosthenes as strategos.[34]However what Alexander had left behind, could manage to overcome Greek alliance: Antipater, the regent in Macedonia, kept Greek alliance under control and also Macedonian forces destroyed Athenian fleet in 322 at Abydos. After the war, Antipater was firm about negotiating each city separately aiming to break the alliance. The terms then imposed by Antipater which ordered Athenians to accept the Macedonian garrison in Munychia and sent Athenian politicians who were responsible for the war into exile.[35]Some Macedonian rulers, furthermore, preferred a direct rule in Athens: for instance, Cassander appointed Demetrius of Phaleron as the head of the Athenian government, keeping him related only with internal affairs.[36]Additionally, Antigonus Gonatas, for instance, first had ‘Macedonian troops’ and ‘Pro-Macedonian tyrants’ throughout Greece, but later he left this practice and established three great fortresses, called Three Fetters, at key points.[37]

As to the East, the second model is from Alexandria which was the capital of one of Alexander’s successors: Ptolemy. This Ptolemaic Kingdom, as Pomeroy argues, is the “best example of how as Hellenistic kingdom works” and is where an abundance of papyri sources survived. Ptolemies governed Egypt through dividing its territories into subcategories that were called nomos and were governed by a strategy and they made major economic activities carefully organized through an extensive administrative system which was led in Alexandria.[38]The historical background eased the issue for the Ptolemies because “Egypt was the classical land of despotism.”[39]Even though Alexandria consisted of everything that every Greek polis had, for instance ‘a self-governing boule’ and ‘elected magistrates’, in previous times and in the Hellenistic Egypt, the whole land belonged to the kings. Nevertheless, the Ptolemaic kings dressed two distinct identities in front of their subjects, they were either Macedonian to the Greeks or Pharaoh to the Egyptians.[40]This case indeed proves, what Ma argues: “(…) kings appeared in a diversity of local roles and under a diversity of local images, interacting with communities, elites, and traditions in the various areas they ruled.”[41]
Moreover, this situation forms a contrast with the West where the negotiation channels between the king and the subordinate people were open. However, in Egypt, the king and royal power were at the peak of the social system, in which kingship forms the supreme and the sole authority. The Ptolemies also supplied their authority with their promotion of ‘ruler cult.’[42]Nonetheless, in the Macedonia ruler cult was not a common phenomenon except for Philip II, Alexander the Great, Antigonus Monophthalmus, and Demetrius Poliorketes.[43]The kings in Alexandria also undertook duly a great building program to promote their role as the benefactor to their cities and to put their cities into a rivalry against the other Greek cities. They spent their wealth in Alexandria where they established a great trade harbor and the great Library.[44]They also erected Pharos.[45]Since the Ptolemaic kings were the sole authority and there was no check against their power except for the army, in Alexandria there was no constant and reciprocal negotiation. However, the relationship between the Ptolemaic kings and the subjects served for the joint advantage: “It is bad for civic autonomy. (…) (However,) Just as Hellenistic kingship, as John Ma once asserted, is good for your hair, so it can also be good for your city.”[46]

To sum up, Alexander’s conquests altered the course of Greek history and the social and political structure of his time. The Greek culture that based on the Greek poleis found a fertile base to expand yet the poleis’ themselves encountered a serious threat, which is the successor monarchical states. This circumstance poses a question about the new relationship between the poles and the kings. Two sides, the poleis, and the kings developed their own course for dealing with his matter. However, this relationship also differed geographically as the paper suggests. In the West, poleis looked for a negotiation constantly whereas kings emphasized their own might. However, in the East, this claim of royal might had already been established. Ptolemies acted as sole authorities, while they were asserting different lineages, and they also acted as benefactors.

[1] (Shipley and Hansen 2006, 52)
[2] Ibid., 52
[3] (Strootman 2011, 142)
[4] Ibid., 144
[5] (Billows 2005, 196)
[6] (Pomeroy, et al. 2008, 482)
[7] (Wallace 2011,2)
[8] (Strootman 2011, 143)
[9] (Shipley and Hansen 2006, 52)
[10] (Ma, Kings 2005, 179)
[11] (Shipley and Hansen 2006, 52)
[12] Ibid., 54-58
[13] (Adams 2006, 32)
[14] (Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor 2002, 10)
[15] (Ma, Kings 2005, 179)
[16] (Shipley and Hansen 2006, 68)
[17] (Pomeroy, et al. 2008, 478)
[18] (Habicht 1999, 2)
[19] (Habicht 1999, 4)
[20] Ibid., 4
[21] (Shipley and Hansen 2006, 59)
[22] (Habicht 1999, 4)
[23] (Pomeroy, et al. 2008, 422-423)
[24] (Habicht 1999, 15)
[25] (Ma 2002, 11)
[26] (Habicht 1999, 15)
[27] Ibid., 13
[28] Ibid., 16
[29]Ibid.,17
[30] Ibid, 18
[31] Ibid., 19
[32] Ibid., 32
[33] Ibid., 32-33
[34] Ibid., 37-38
[35] Ibid., 39-40
[36] Ibid., 53-54; (Pomeroy, et al. 2008, 478)
[37] (Adams 2006, 32)
[38] (Pomeroy, et al. 2008, 482-3) (Adams 2006, 39)
[39] (Adams 2006, 39)
[40] Ibid., 38-42
[41] (Ma, Kings 2005, 179)
[42] (Pomeroy, et al. 2008, 483-4)
[43] (Adams 2006, 36)
[44] (Adams 2006, 41)
[45] (Shipley and Hansen 2006, 65)
[46] (Strootman 2011, 144)

Bibliography
Adams, Winthrop Lindsay. 2006. “The Hellenistic Kingdom.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World, edited by Glenn R. Bugh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Billows, Richard. 2005. “Cities.” In A Companion to the Hellenistic World, edited by Andrew Erskine. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Habicht, Christian. 1999. Athens from Alexander to Antony. Translated by Deborah Lucas Schneider. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: Harvard University Press.
Ma, John. 2002. Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor.New York: Oxford University Press.
Ma, John. 2005. “Kings.” In A Companion to the Hellenistic World, edited by Andrew Erskine. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Pomeroy, Sarah B., Stanly M. Burstein, Walter Donlan, ve Jennifer Tolbert Roberts. 2008. Ancient Greece: A Political, Social, and Cultural History.New York: Oxford University Press.
Shipley, D. Graham J., and Mogens H. Hansen. 2006. “The Polis and Federalism.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World, edited by Glenn R. Bugh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strootman, Rolf. 2011. “Kings and Cities in the Hellenistic Age.” In Political Culture in the Greek City after the Classical Age, by Onno M. van Nijf, Richard Alston and C.G. Williamson. Leuven, Paris, Walpole MA: Peeters.