Hellenism definition. Hellenistic period

A new period in Greek history was the campaign to the East of the famous ruler Alexander the Great. As a result of numerous wars, a huge power emerged, the borders of which extended from Egypt to modern Central Asia. It was at this time that the Hellenistic era began. By it we should mean the spread of Greek culture throughout all the territories conquered

What can be said about Hellenism?

Due to the fact that there was a fusion of Greek and local cultures, Hellenism appeared. This mutual enrichment influenced the preservation of a single culture in several states even after the collapse of the empire.

What does Hellenism mean? It is worth immediately noting that it is violent, since the formation of this culture occurred as a result of numerous wars. Hellenism contributed to the unification of the ancient Greek world with the ancient Eastern one; previously they had developed in different directions. As a result, a powerful state emerged with a unified socio-economic structure, political structure and culture.

As already mentioned, Hellenism is a kind of synthesis of different elements of culture. It can be viewed from several perspectives. On the one hand, the emergence of Hellenism was influenced by the development of ancient Greek society, as well as the crisis of the Greek polis. On the other hand, ancient Eastern societies played a role in its formation, namely their conservative and sedentary social structure.

Reasons that influenced the emergence of Hellenism

The need for the fusion of several cultures arose due to the fact that the Greek polis began to gradually slow down historical progress, having exhausted all its possibilities. That is why discord began to arise between different classes, a social struggle between oligarchy and democracy. Fragmentation caused wars between individual cities. And in order for the history of the state not to end, it was necessary to unite the warring parties.

However, this is not the only reason for the emergence of a new culture. The Hellenistic era arose in connection with the crisis of ancient Eastern socio-political systems. In the 4th century BC. The ancient eastern world, which had already become part of the Persian Empire, was not going through the best period. Due to the stagnant economy, it was impossible to develop the vast empty lands. In addition, the kings of Persia did not give permission for the construction of new cities, did not support trade, and did not put into circulation the large reserves of currency metal lying in their basements. And if Greece in the 4th century BC. suffered due to the excessive activity of the political system, overpopulation and limited resources, the opposite situation was observed in the Persian monarchy.

In this regard, the task arose of a kind of unification, synthesis of different systems that can complement each other. In other words, there was a need for a culture such as Hellenism. This happened after the collapse of the power built by Alexander the Great.

Merging different elements

What areas of life were covered by the synthesis of components inherent in the Greek and Eastern states? There are several different points of view. Some scientists understood Hellenism as the unification of several elements characteristic of culture and religion. Domestic historians described this merger from the perspective of the combination and interaction of the economic, class-social, political, and cultural spheres. In their opinion, Hellenism is a progressive step that greatly influenced the fate of ancient Greek and ancient Eastern societies.

The synthesis of elements progressed differently in different regions. In some states it was more intense, in others less. In some cities, an important role was assigned to elements inherent in Greek culture, while in others, ancient Eastern principles dominated. Such differences arose in connection with the specific historical characteristics of societies and cities.

Development of Hellenistic society

The Hellenistic period affected state formations of different sizes, from Sicily and southern Italy to northwestern India (from the southern borders to the first rapids of the Nile River). In other words, classical Greece and the East were part of Hellenistic society. Only India and China were not included in this territory.

Several regions can be distinguished that were characterized by common features:

Egypt and the Middle East.
Balkan Greece, western territory of Asia Minor, Macedonia.
Magna Graecia with the Black Sea region.

The most characteristic elements inherent in Hellenism manifested themselves in full in Egypt and the Middle East. In this regard, these regions can be considered an area in which classical Hellenism dominated.

Greece, like other regions, had differences mainly in the socio-economic, political and cultural spheres. We can say that in Ancient Greece there was no synthesis as such at all. However, for some reasons it is argued that these territories also became part of the system of Hellenistic countries.

Development of culture and science

The culture of Hellenism influenced the disappearance of the gap between technology and science, practice and theory, characteristic of the classical period. This can be seen in the work of Archimedes, who discovered the hydraulic law. It was he who made a huge contribution to the development of technology, designing combat throwing machines along with defensive weapons.

The creation of new cities and advances in areas such as navigation and military technology contributed to the rise of certain sciences. Among them we can highlight mathematics, mechanics, astronomy, and geography. Euclid also played a significant role in this. He became the founder of elementary geometry. Eratosthenes determined the true dimensions of the globe, proved that our planet rotates around its axis and moves around the sun. Successful development occurred in both natural science and medicine.

The rapid development of science and culture has entailed the need to store information. In this regard, libraries were built in some cities.

Speaking about what features of Hellenism can be identified, it should be said about the development of a new branch - philology. Much attention began to be paid to grammar, criticism, and so on. Schools played a huge role. Literature became more diverse, but it still continued to succumb to classical elements. Epic and tragedy became more judicious, as erudition and virtuosity of style, as well as sophistication, came to the fore.

What happened in philosophy?

The philosophy of Hellenism also acquired some differences. Faith in gods decreased. New cults began to appear. Civic ideals gradually faded into the background, giving way to individualism. Instead of community, indifference arose, indifference to those issues that were related to a person’s nationality. It was social status that became the determining factor in people's lives. The philosophy of the Hellenistic era was developed through the formation of several schools: Cynics, Skeptics, Stoics, Epicureans and Peripatetics.

Philosophers began to gradually abandon the idea of space. More attention was paid to the person from the position of a certain self-sufficient unit. Social and civic ideals have faded into the background.

It is necessary to abandon all the benefits of civilization

The Cynic school played a huge role in the development of Hellenism. He did not write books, but simply lived. The philosopher tried to show by his example how important it is to follow what he believed were true ideals. He argued that civilizations and all human inventions do not contribute to happiness, they are harmful. Wealth, power, fame - all these are just empty words. He lived in a barrel and wore rags.

Happiness must exist without vanity

The philosophy of Hellenism gained a lot thanks to Epicurus, who was the founder of the Garden school. To study, he chose the problem of human happiness. Epicurus believed that the highest pleasure can be obtained only by renouncing the aspirations of vanity. According to him, it is necessary to live unnoticed, as far as possible from passions, in serene detachment.

Sayings of the Stoics

The philosophy of the Hellenistic era reached its peak. The school of Stoicism played a huge role in the formation of the social worldview. She also dealt with the problem of human happiness. The following was stated: due to the fact that various troubles cannot be avoided anyway, one must get used to them. This is what salvation was, according to the Stoics. You need to properly organize your inner world. Only in this case will no external problems be able to throw you out of balance. It is necessary to be above external stimuli.

Conclusion

Hellenism played a very important role in the development. All the achievements of this period became the basis of aesthetic ideas that appeared along with other eras. Greek philosophy became fundamental in the development of medieval theology. Mythology and literature continue to be popular today.

The conquests of Alexander the Great completely reshaped the image of the ancient world. The Greek city-states fell into decay, and the young Roman Republic began to rise. However, against the backdrop of general political and social degradation, a paradoxical rise in spiritual life begins - Hellenism. What this concept is, it’s worth finding out in more detail.

Brief description of the era

Historians call the Hellenistic period a period in the history of the Mediterranean that began after the collapse of the empire of Alexander the Great and lasted almost three hundred years, until the rise of the influence of Ancient Rome.

Among the characteristic features of the era:

Greek cultural influence in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East is at its peak. The term “Hellenism” refers to the self-name of Ancient Greece - “Hellas”;
The second era of great scientific discoveries is beginning - for the first time since the classical era (V-IV centuries BC). Thanks to Euclid, a revolution took place in mathematics, Archimedes revealed the secrets of physical science;
The collapse of the empire of Alexander the Great led to the formation of Hellenistic kingdoms across the vast expanses of South-West and South Asia. In parallel, there is a new wave of Greek colonization in Asia and Africa;
The wide spread of ancient influence was accompanied by the partial adoption of the customs of local (African, Asian) peoples. The result of this intercultural interaction was the birth of a new language, Koine, which acted as a means of communication for the entire Mediterranean.

Hellenism in Ancient Greece

IV-I centuries BC e. for Hellas itself had a special meaning:

The ancient city-states of the Peloponnese Peninsula ceased to play any significant role in the Greek-speaking world;
Constantly suffering from internecine wars, they became easy prey for the army of Alexander the Great. However, the Macedonian conquests not only did not weaken the culture of the Hellenes, but spread it over vast territories;
The cessation of senseless conflicts between the policies contributed to the stable emigration of the most active and ambitious residents of the Balkans to new colonies in the east. During this period, the development of Alexandria and Antioch began;
Despite the decline in political weight and autonomy of the poleis, these city-states continue to remain the only form of social organization in the Peloponnese. Moreover, Athens and Ephesus are experiencing a real revival;
Among the characteristic features of the time is the formation of confederate political unions to respond to a potential threat from foreigners. This is how the League of Free Lacedaemonians appeared, governed by a collegial body, an assembly, consisting of representatives of each member of the league.

Arts and culture

A number of researchers consider Hellenistic art to be a period of decadence, contrasting it with the “golden age” of the 5th century BC. e. The Greeks began to pay more attention to preserving their cultural heritage rather than creating a new one.

However, even then there was room for new discoveries:

Architecture was going through a real revolution. For the first time, the practice of urban planning appears, instead of the previous chaotic and disorderly development;
The buildings were erected in the style of gigantism. Thus, the Temple of Apollo in Didim is one of the most significant ancient buildings (22 by 53 meters) with 108 Ionic columns almost 20 meters high;
The sculpture became more naturalistic and more expressive, especially in reflecting extreme emotional manifestations. Among the popular themes of sculptors: suffering, fear, sleep. The stone began to reflect a real human figure, and not ideal-fantastic proportions;
According to the testimony of contemporaries, mosaics were valued most of all in these years - but not a single outstanding work has reached ours. The only known Roman copy of the portrait of Alexander the Great from the House of Faun in Pompeii (100 BC)

Philosophy of the Hellenistic era: briefly

During this era, as before, Athens remained the center of spiritual life throughout the Mediterranean. However, the loss of political freedom by this polis led to the formation of a specific philosophical thought:

The quest of the ancient Greek thinkers led them to formulate the concept of ataraxia, or literally “equanimity.” This special state can be achieved by a wise husband who listens only to the voice of reason, and not the cry of momentary feelings and emotions;
Stoics and skeptics put forward a similar concept of “apathy,” which meant a conscious rejection of all the fleeting trends of the mortal world. The Stoics understood this as perhaps the highest virtue of which a citizen of a polis is capable;
The failure of the Greek states in the fight against Rome led to the overthrow of the idea of the state as a way of coexistence among people. The Epicureans and Cynics rejected the very idea of public service. Concepts are born: autarky (political self-sufficiency), atomism (separation) and asceticism (detachment from material wealth and social conventions).

Scientific thought

The development of exact sciences was facilitated by the rapid exchange of knowledge between all Greek colonies and serious support from philanthropists. In the 3rd century BC. e. Alexandria in Egypt is added to the traditional centers of research in the Balkans.

The most important scientific achievements of this era:

Euclid summarized the entire centuries-old experience of the Pythagoreans and wrote the fundamental work “Elements,” which remained the main textbook on mathematics in Europe until the 19th century;
The outstanding geometer Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth with amazing accuracy. He was also the first to calculate the distance from our planet to the Sun and proposed adding a leap day every four years;
The astronomer Hipparchus systematized ancient knowledge about the celestial bodies and compiled a detailed star catalogue. His colleague, Aristarchus of Samos, developed the heliocentric system;
Medicine also did not stand still. Praxagoras made the revolutionary proposal that blood could flow through veins. Herophilus, based on a series of dissections, presented an accurate description of the nervous system and liver;
Among the significant engineering discoveries: gears, simple geodetic instruments, a piston pump, an Archimedes screw, etc.

If the Romans had no equal in the ancient world in terms of military strength and political organization, then the Greeks ruled the roost in culture. This Balkan civilization gave the world stunning examples in sculpture, architecture, philosophy and science, even during its decline (the so-called Hellenism). That this was one of the brightest periods in world history is only confirmed by further dark times.

FIRST QUESTION. CONTENT OF THE CONCEPT OF “HELLENISM”, PROBLEMS OF STUDYING HELLENISM

SECOND QUESTION. HELLENISTIC MONARCHY.

THIRD QUESTION. POLIS IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST.

Literature:

1) Levesque P.

Hellenistic world. M., 1989

2) Bengston G. Rulers of the Hellenistic Age M., 1982

3) Bickerman E. Seleucid State M., 1985

4) Pierre Levesque. Hellenistic world

5) Koshelenko G.A. Greek polis in the Hellenistic east M., 1979

6) Tarn V. Hellenistic civilization M., 1949

FIRST QUESTION. In universal history there are turning points of change. It is difficult to live in them, but it is interesting to study them later. Such eras are often fruitful for historical development; they bring to life a lot of vital forces. In the first question, you and I need to define Hellenism and study certain problems of Hellenistic history. We need to start from something. First we will give a working definition, and then we will look at its strengths and weaknesses and give a more or less scientific definition. As a working definition, let’s say that Hellenism is a period in the history of Greece, Macedonia, the states of the Classical East (Asia Minor, BV, Eastern Mediterranean), starting from the last third of the 4th century and ending 30 BC. That is, this is an era that includes about 300 years.

The Hellenistic world included the states that formed after the collapse of Alexander's state. As a result of the struggle between the diadochi, the following states appeared on the political map:

1) Seleucid Power. The capital is Antioch, on the Orontes (300-400 thousand people).

2) The Ptolemaic Empire with its capital in Alexandria of Egypt. Alexandria was home to 1,000,000 people, according to Strabo.

3) Macedonia (Antigonid power). The capital is the city of Pella.

4) Pergamon (Attalid State), former Lydia. The capital is the city of Pergamon.

5) Bithynia is a state in the Western corner of Asia Minor, along the straits.

6) Cappadocia - in the depths of Asia Minor. The capitals were different. In the second millennium, the historical core of the Hittite state was located on this territory.

7) Pontus, on the Black Sea coast. Since Foramak the first (183), Sinope became the capital.

8) Greco-Bactria;

9) Parthia - territory of Kapidak, southwest of Turkmenistan.

The first states were the largest in the Hellenistic world. The last two states fell away from the Seleucid Empire around 250.

In all these states there are Greco-Macedonian dynasties: Ptolemies, Seleucids, Antigonids, Artolids. The descendants of the Achaemenids ruled in Pontus. Bithynia, Cappadocia, Parthia are local dynasties. Balkan Greece was represented by more or less independent poleis, although independent associations also appeared (the Aetolian Union, for example).

The term Hellenism was coined by Johann Gustav Droysen in the 1830s. in the then German classical studies. And, having introduced this term into scientific use, Droysen did not imagine that he had posed one of the eternal questions in history. He wrote the work “History of Hellenism”. Before Droysen, it was believed that the time that we now call the Hellenistic era was a simple continuation of Greek history, which did not have its own specificity. Droysen realized that this was not so. The sources that were available at the time of Drolzen’s life were scarce, so he resorted to risky constructions. Johann Gustav Droysen paid special attention to the military-political history of Hellenism. The fact is that it was important for him to find historical analogies to the process of formation of the new German Empire. And he was attracted by the unification of families, a successful military campaign, and strong personalities. He almost did not touch upon socio-economic and socio-cultural history. But, giving a description of the Hellenistic era, Droysen concluded that “the essence of the Hellenistic era boils down to the spread of Greek culture and economy to the east.” At the same time, saying that the advanced Greek culture stood in the distant eastern territories, Droysen did not consider the culture of the peoples of the east to be backward. He believed that by that time she was already obsolete. And Droysen saw the essence of the era in the interaction of Greek and Eastern principles in culture, primarily in religion. For a long time after Droysen, the concept of “Hellenism” was limited only to the cultural sphere.

In the 19th century, priority in the study of Hellenism belonged to German historiography. These are Julius Kerst and Julius Beloch. They continued Droysen's traditions. Beloch considered Hellenism a military phenomenon. Kerst wrote that as a result of cultural interactions between Hellas and the East, the culture of Hellas turned into a world culture.

For American historiography, interest in the Hellenistic era was associated with the name and work of Mikhail Ivanovich Rostovtsev. This is a Man whose parents are from Rostov the Great, his parents were the creators of American classical studies. He emigrated from Russia in 1918. First he tried to settle in Europe, and then he moved overseas. He died in 1952, he was over seventy. He wrote a three-volume work: “The Socio-Economic History of the Hellenistic World,” which was published in the 1940s. It has been translated into all European languages except Russian. He was the first to note the penetration of Greek socio-political and economic structures into the east. If the Germans considered the military-political and cultural side, Rostovtsev noted that the economic traits of the Greeks penetrated to the east. He was the first to view the Greek world as a unity of politics and economics.

In French historiography, successes in the study of Hellenism are associated with the Bazançon school, and the rector of the university in Besançon was Pierre Levesque. The Bazançon school also studied social and economic relations in the Hellenistic era, in particular slave ownership and social relations.

In Russian historiography, interest in Hellenism can be traced back to the 1880s. In particular, the prominent scientist Fedor Gerasimovich Mishchenko, Sergei Aleksandrovich Zhebelev. Zhebelev believed that Hellenism is characterized by the mutual penetration of Greek and Eastern cultures, their fusion. Zhebelev wrote that this cultural unity should be called Hellenism,

Before the war, our historiography dealt with Hellenism in general terms. Here we should name the work of Abram Borisovich Ranovich “Hellenism and its historical role.” Ranovich, based on the OEF theory, defined Hellenism as a stage in the development of ancient slave society, which was a necessary result of the entire previous development of Greece. Hellenism is a repetition of the ancient slave society at a higher level. Vasily Ivanovich Kovalev stood in the same positions. Very soon, literally in the first years after the publication of Ranovich’s work, the fact that a specific phenomenon was elevated to the rank of a sociological pattern caused rejection.

1953 – discussion on the work of Ranovich. And historians did not agree to consider Hellenism a pattern. In 1953, Konstantin Konstantinovich Zelin suggested that Hellenism is a specifically historical concept and does not reflect any stage in the history of the OEF: “Hellenism is a specific historical phenomenon born as a result of Alexander’s campaigns, and its essence is the combination and interaction of Hellenic and eastern elements economic system, social and political relations, institutions, customs, ideas and beliefs. Zelin believed that not any combination of Greek and Eastern features, but only one that occurred in a specific historical situation, which was created in the middle of the 4th century and in a specific historical area. Zelin's concept was agreed upon for a long time, but criticism began only in the 1980s. First, Frolov criticized. He wrote that such a policy meant a refusal to define Hellenism on its merits. At the same time, Frolov did not propose any other definition of Hellenism; he believed that the time for this had not yet come. And after Frolov’s speech, criticism began to be conducted in two directions:

1) If we follow Zelin’s concept, then Greece and Macedonia cannot be Hellenistic states, because There is nothing oriental in their cultures. And in the cultural sphere of Greece and Macedonia, eastern features are not visible.

2) Thanks to the research of foreign historians (Schlumberger, Bickerman), it was recognized in the scientific literature that in the culture of the Hellenistic East, the interaction of Greek and Eastern origins was minimal. Interaction was observed in the east in the social and political spheres, and in culture, any nation fenced itself off from any mergers and defended its identity. In culture, the process of interaction began when the Hellenistic era ended. This view prevailed. And, if earlier it was believed that the population of the east was drawn to ancient culture, then, thanks to a series of studies, it became clear that the process of mutual repulsion prevailed. There was not even a merging of the images of deities. And thus we see that the definition of the essence of Hellenism began with a statement of cultures. Droysen's concept was abandoned in the 1980s. But in science, as you know, the most important thing is to pose a problem, not to solve it.

And Droysen’s merit is that he raised the question of the essence of Hellenism and saw that this era was different from the Far East era.

So, one of the most important problems is the problem of the essence of Hellenism.

1) Firstly, for many decades Hellenism was understood as the cultural interaction between Greece and the Far East. Let us add to the names mentioned earlier that at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. John Maggafi, a British classical scholar, took this view. Nikolai Ivanovich Kareev also understood the essence of Hellenism. At the same time, researchers most often emphasized the influence of Greek culture on Far Eastern culture.

2) Secondly, the famous German researcher Herman Benktson saw the essence of Hellenism not simply in the spread of Greek culture in the Far East, but in the revelation of the Greek spirit in a new sphere, which he called administrative-technological.

3) Then in the 1950s-5s it was believed that Hellenism was a sociological phenomenon;

4) Pierre Briand believed that the Hellenistic era did not change anything from the essence of the Far Eastern states; in fact, they remained Far Eastern states. But they adhered to the TSA theory and believed that the TSA remained in the Far East after the creation of the Hellenistic states.

The philosopher Socrates said that an accurate logical definition of concepts is the most important condition for true knowledge. And we understand that achieving such an accurate definition is not always possible. But still, we need to give some kind of definition that will not cause rejection at least by the majority of specialists. It can only be given descriptively, and, perhaps, it will contain a set of several characteristics. Hellenism is the unification (forcible) of the ancient Greek and Far Eastern worlds into a single system of states. For the East, this is a fusion, a synthesis of elements of ancient and eastern civilizations in the socio-economic structure and in political organization. For Greece and Macedonia, the term Hellenism is not understood as a synthesis of Greek and Far East elements, but is understood mainly in a chronological sense.

After the mutual influence of the socio-economic and political spheres is completed, cultural interactions begin, but this is already outside the framework of Hellenism.

Now let us discuss the problem of the chronological framework of Hellenism. Now we need to find out that everything is not so simple. As soon as we turn to scientific study, many difficulties arise. Two factors led to the creation of the Hellenistic state system:

1) The crisis of the Greek polis;

2) Crisis of Far Eastern socio-political structures.

By the 4th century, the Far Eastern world (classical east, BV) was united within the framework of the Persian state, and it was characterized by stagnation in all spheres of public life. If in Greece the crisis proceeded violently, then in the Far East it proceeded in stagnant forms. And when the problem of chronological framework arises as a result of the interaction of two societies, historians first of all try to answer the question: is it true to say that the Hellenistic world was created by Alexander. Historians say that Alexander's campaigns radically changed the world. But was this world the way Alexander the Great wanted it to be? Did the results of Alexander's campaign coincide with his original plans? Historians say that there is a huge distance between Alexander's plans and the results his campaigns led to. Alexander dreamed of a huge universal monarchy. In its place, a system of huge states arose that were at war with each other. Alexander pursued a policy of merging peoples, but significant partitions arose in the Hellenistic world, primarily between the victors and the vanquished. Alexander tried to develop the east, first of all, by creating colonies, but real Greek city-states arose in the place of these cities. And, having answered the question posed in this way, historians ask themselves a new question: is it necessary to begin the countdown of Hellenism with Alexander’s eastern campaigns? And if not, then from what point?

1) Some scientists say that from the eastern campaigns - from 334;

2) Other scientists say that the countdown should begin with the death of Alexander.

3) The third group supports the concept of pre-Hellenism: the Hellenistic era begins with the rise of Macedonia and the crisis of the Greek polis

Even more discussions on the end date of Hellenism.

1) Julius Beloch believed that the end of Hellenism should be correlated with the year 217 - the landing of the Romans in the Far East;

2) The date 146 was popular for a long time - the final subjugation of Greece to Rome.

3) Another popular date is the year 30 – the subjugation of Ptolemaic Egypt to the Romans. But there are objections here too. First, only part of the Hellenistic world was conquered by Rome. The Parthians and Kushans played no less a role in the death of the Hellenistic states. They conquered the eastern part of the Hellenistic world. And if we recognize the conquest of the Ptolemaic state by Rome as the end, then why this particular country? Bithynia was annexed in 74, Pergamon in 134, Pontus in 64, the Seleucid state in 63, and Cappadocia in 17 AD. And thus, although most researchers operate with the date of 30 AD, they came to it by gradually pushing back the lower limit. Now there is a tendency to shift this line and chronologically expand the Hellenistic period. After all, the Greek city-states remained independent in the creation of the Roman state. And they talk about antiquity and Roman Hellenism. And the traditional, established date for the framework of Hellenism is colloquially called “From Alexander to Augustus.”

So, the issue of identifying periods in the Hellenistic era itself is also debatable. What are the periods within it? Researchers call three periods:

1) Formation of Hellenistic states;

2) The heyday of Hellenism;

3) Late Hellenism.

The third problem is the problem of territorial boundaries, the geographical framework of Hellenism. Mikhail Ivanovich Rostovtsev believed that the territory of the Hellenistic world was the territory that was part of Alexander’s empire. But Rostovtsev himself began to interpret the geographical framework more broadly. He included the Bosporan state, a state in Sicily, into the Hellenistic world. Rostovtsev wrote that they were Greek in essence and differed little from the Greek world. In works after Rostovtsev, this trend expanded more and more, and researcher Paul Petit defined the boundaries “From Iran to Carthage - from Egypt to Italy.” And Benksen expanded the boundaries of the world the furthest. He believed that Hellenistic history is the entire world history of the 3rd-1st centuries. In the study of the territorial boundaries of the Hellenistic world, the trend is the same - expansion.

The concept of HELLENISM is a term that defines a period in the history of Greece and the countries of the East. The Mediterranean from the campaigns of A. Macedonian (334 - 323 BC) until the final conquest of the East by Rome (30 BC). The term "e." introduced into scientific circulation in the 30s. last century, German scientist Johann Gustav Droysen. A single point of view on e. Antiquity does not exist in world historiography. Droysen understood e. as the spread of Greek (Hellenic) culture among the countries and peoples of the Mediterranean. It was also proposed to consider e. as a stage in the history of the ancient world (A.B. Ranovich). But most historians follow the concept of Konstantin Konstantinovich Zelin, who considered e. as a complex socio-economic, political and cultural phenomenon, characterized by a synthesis of Greek. and east began, and the period itself - as a qualitatively new stage in the development of slave relations of the ancient world.

In the last quarter of the 4th century. BC e. The Greek world is entering a new stage in its history, different in many ways from the previous one. The name “Hellenism” has been assigned to this period in modern science. The terms “Hellenism”, “Hellenistic era” are usually contrasted with the terms “Hellenism”, “classical era”, which denote the previous period - the heyday of the polis system in the V-IV centuries. BC e. The beginning of the Hellenistic era is usually considered to be the conquest of the Middle East by Alexander the Great (334-324), the end is the establishment of Roman rule over the eastern Mediterranean (by the 30s BC).

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-early 2nd century BC)

The period of economic decline, growing social contradictions and 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 the possessions of the emerging local states in Western and Central Asia, 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.

Many elements of the emerging new, Hellenistic society were already evident when Alexander the Great appeared on the world stage, whose activities influenced all areas of political, economic and spiritual life of that time and from which it is usually considered the beginning of Hellenism

As you know, Alexander was the Macedonian king from 336 BC. e. from the Argead dynasty, commander, creator of a world power that collapsed after his death. In Western historiography, he is better known as Alexander the Great.

Having ascended the throne at the age of 20 after the death of his father, the Macedonian king Philip II, Alexander secured the northern borders of Macedonia and completed the subjugation of Greece with the defeat of the rebellious city of Thebes. In the spring of 334 BC. e. Alexander began a legendary campaign to the East and in seven years completely conquered the Persian Empire. Then he began the conquest of India, but at the insistence of the soldiers, tired of the long campaign, he retreated. The cities founded by Alexander, which are still the largest in several countries in our time, and the colonization of new territories in Asia by the Greeks contributed to the spread of Greek culture in the East. Almost reaching the age of 33, Alexander died in Babylon. Immediately his empire was divided among the Macedonian generals (Diadochi), and a series of Diadochi wars began for several decades.

As a result of the campaigns of Alexander the Great, a power arose that covered the Balkan Peninsula and the islands of the Aegean Sea. Asia Minor, Egypt, all of Western Asia, the southern regions of Central Asia 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.

Hellenistic monarchies

After the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC. his power disintegrated into more or less large, individually governed states, which were called Hellenistic monarchies.

Then the external appearance of the former Alexander monarchy was determined as follows:

1) the kingdom of Ptolemy, which included mainly Egypt, but also part of Syria (including Palestine) and the Greek islands;

2) the kingdom of Seleucus, the largest, which included Western Asia to the Indus, excluding, however, southern Syria and northern Asia Minor;

3) the kingdom of Lysimachus, which included Thrace and northern Asia Minor;

4) the later kingdom of the Antigonids (that is, the descendants of the diadochos Antigonus, who fell at Ipsus), which included Macedonia.

Twenty years later new unrest came. The kingdom of Lysimachus was defeated by Seleucus, but he failed to annex it: soon after his victory there was an invasion of the wild Gaul tribe into Thraco-Phrygian territory, which resulted in new chaos. When it became clearer, around 240 BC, the following new political organisms emerged:

1) the most important kingdom for cultural history is the kingdom of Attalus in Moesia and Phrygia with the main city of Pergamum (the so-called Kingdom of Pergamum);

2) Bithynia on the Propontis, which slowly and slowly succumbed to Hellenization;

3) Galatia, that is, the lands where the invading Gallic tribes were pushed back after their defeat by Attalus, with the main city of Ancyra (now Ankara);

4) Pontus with Cappadocia in the southern Black Sea region, weakly Hellenized and only in the 1st century thundered throughout the world thanks to the famous Mithridates (about the border Bosporan kingdom

5) the kingdom of the Parthians (approximately modern Persia), which around this time split off from the Seleucid kingdom and organized itself under its own dynasty as a revival of ancient Persia. As a result, the Seleucid kingdom was limited to Syria and Mesopotamia; and since its main city, Antioch, lay in the first of them, it is customary to call it the Syrian kingdom;

6) Thrace, a semi-wild country.

Among these Hellenistic monarchies, however, we should also include the following two, which played a major role in the history of the West:

1) Epirus, the semi-wild country of the Molossians, whose dynasty traced its origins to Achilles. He shone at the beginning of the 3rd century BC. thanks to his king, a brilliant adventurer

2) The kingdom of Syracuse in Sicily, already from the end of the 5th century BC. fell to the tyrants, of whom the last, the intelligent Hieron II (264-215 BC), called himself king and gave his state the last period of prosperity.

From the 3rd century BC. this Hellenistic world begins to gravitate towards Rome; The kingdom of Syracuse was the first to submit to him in 212 BC, which was one of the episodes of the second Punic War. In the 2nd century BC. Countries on the other side of the Adriatic Sea also become a subject of interest for Rome; the gradual annexation of the Hellenistic kingdoms to it begins in the following order: Macedonia in 146 BC, Pergamum in 133 BC, Bithynia in 74 BC, Pontus and Syria in 63 BC. X., Egypt in 30 BC. From this time on, the Parthian kingdom alone remained the unconquered and formidable neighbor of Rome until the very end of its history in ancient times.

Culture

The nature and significance of Hellenism, as a new stage in the history of ancient slave society, was especially clearly reflected in Hellenistic culture, which gave some historians reason to see in Hellenism only a cultural-historical phenomenon. If the political and economic unity that Alexander and his successors sought to create turned out to be fragile and shallow, but the culture that grew on the soil of Hellenism even went beyond the Hellenistic world; being inherited by the Roman Empire, Byzantium and the peoples of Western Asia, it had a significant influence on the culture of modern times.

Legal and state life. In the state law of the Hellenistic monarchies we distinguish the elements:

1) inherited from the previous Macedonian kings,

2) borrowed from Persia

3) developed independently.

The ancient Macedonian monarchy, as far as we know it, differed little from the Achaean one: the power of the king was limited, firstly, by the council of “hetaerae”, which were nobles, and, secondly, by the people’s assembly, which, with universal conscription, was at that time the same time and the assembly of the army. Now, transferred to eastern soil, the royal power becomes autocratic. The possibility of participation in the national assembly of all Egyptians or Persians, these centuries-old “slaves” of their kings, did not occur to anyone, least of all to themselves; on eastern soil The “national assembly” was reduced to a meeting of the Macedonian army, but it was convened only to recognize the new king and, according to the ancient custom - gradually, however, dying out - to confirm the death sentence of the Macedonian.

The council of heteros continued to exist, especially under the royal court; but his decision was not binding on the king.

Of the elements borrowed from the East, the most antipathetic for us is the royal apotheosis; This blasphemous institution, however, did not go further than the borders of the former Persian state; The Macedonian kings always recognized themselves as people, and the founder of the new dynasty, Antigonus I, had a wonderful word, often repeated later, that royal power is only “glorious service.”

Family life in Greece has not undergone any important changes; As for the Hellenistic states, at one time it might have seemed that the initiative of Alexander the Great would destroy the basis of the Greek family - monogamy. Wanting to connect his old Macedonian subjects with new, eastern ones, he himself submitted to the Persian custom of polygamy and demanded the same from the Macedonian nobility. But this innovation did not survive him: after his death, the Macedonians released the barbarian wives forced on them (polygamy did not affect the Hellenic women), and the principle of monogamy again became a distinctive feature of the Hellenic islands in the barbarian sea. But the Egyptian Ptolemaic dynasty could not resist another local infection: the Egyptian custom of brother marrying sister. The initiative was made by Ptolemy II, who, already having children from his first wife, married his sister Arsinoe II. True, this incestuous marriage was childless, and the throne was inherited by Ptolemy III Euergetes, the son of Philadelphus from his first wife. But the custom was established, and the logical consequence was the gradual degeneration of the Ptolemaic dynasty, which began already under Ptolemy IV Philopator and continued until the last representative, Cleopatra (died in 30 BC)

And the era introduced a lot of new things into the matter of education. For their “Macedonian” nobility, the kings established special page corps, in which the sons of nobles were brought up together with the princes in constant contact with the royal house; these were nurseries for future military leaders and administrators. For others, these institutions were inaccessible, but in each city there was, following the example of the previous era, a sufficient number of gymnasiums, which, however, now, in addition to gymnastics, also provided some scientific education in continuation of that received at the literacy school.

Finally, there was higher education; this was provided, on the one hand, in the sense of general education - ephebia, on the other, in the sense of special education - higher schools of philosophy in Athens, eloquence (that is, law) in Rhodes, Athens and Pergamon, medicine in Kos and Alexandria, philology in Alexandria and Pergamum, not counting others.

Mathematics, which originated in the school of Pythagoras and was developed in the 4th century BC. Eudoxus of Cnidus, received its first systematizer in Alexandria in the person of Euclid, a member of the Musaeus under Ptolemy I Soter; his “Principles” in the XIII books (I-VI - planimetry, VII-X - algebra on a geometric basis, XI-XIII - stereometry of rectangular bodies) became for all antiquity the guide to elementary mathematics, its “axioms” and “theorems”, its terminology and we still use methods of evidence today. To what extent he himself advanced science, we, in the absence of the works of his predecessors, cannot determine; in any case, he was the founder of the Alexandrian mathematical school, from which came Eratosthenes, the systematizer of number theory, and the greatest mathematician of antiquity - Archimedes of Syracuse. Archimedes invented a digital system that gave him the ability to express any number he wanted.

Physics in our sense also borders on mathematics, for which the student of Theophrastus, the last comprehensive peripatetic, Strato of Lampsacus, established the importance of experiment. We call the border region mechanics. The foundation was laid by Aristotle, who discovered the law of parallelogram of forces; but it reached its peak in the person of the brilliant Archimedes of Syracuse, who discovered the center of gravity and the system of levers (“Give me a fulcrum, and I will move the earth,” he used to say), the mechanical significance of the inclined plane (“Archimedes’ screw”), hydrostatics and specific gravity (the crown of Hiero and the famous, "Eureka"). These discoveries gave him the opportunity to amaze the Romans besieging Syracuse with more and more new “machines.” Hydrostatics, discovered by Archimedes, was developed a century later by Ctesibius, who invented a hydraulic organ (the prototype of our wind instrument), a water clock and a fire pump; his contemporary (Heron), also famous for his automata, discovered air and steam pressure, which gave him the opportunity to invent the siphon and steam turbine.

Architecture. For the first time since Achaean times, she devotes her artistic energies to the royal palace. Still, the ancient palace was not like either medieval castles or most of our palaces. It was a whole complex of buildings scattered among the greenery of the park and along the seashore (where there was one), partly even in the sea itself, on cliffs or artificial structures. Of these buildings, of course, one was the main one; but it was also built not so much upward as in breadth, composing it from a whole system of peristyles with surrounding residential and state rooms, and here too they tried to introduce nature into human habitation, turning the inner parts of the peristyles into flower beds or public gardens, often with ponds and fountains. For colonnades they preferred the luxurious Corinthian order. Sculpture (both statuary and relief) and painting were adapted to decorate the palace - the latter especially for the walls of peristyles and chambers, but also ceilings and even floors (the so-called mosaic). But not only palaces and private houses - also entire cities became subject of construction art. The preliminary planning of the city is now being carried out; The streets are laid straight and intersecting at right angles, and both main avenues, also intersecting at right angles, are distinguished by their special breadth and luxury. The initiative here belongs to the builder of Alexandria, Dinocrates, one of the luminaries of architecture of all times.

Next to this widely developing secular architecture, the sacred recedes into the background, but still it is not absent, if only due to the fact that new cities had to have their own temples. Particularly remarkable were the new temple of Artemis of Ephesus, built in place of the old one, burned by Herostratus on the night of the birth of Alexander the Great, as well as the new temple of Apollo at Didyma near Miletus. The ideal here, too, was splendor: enormous dimensions, inspired by the architectural giants of the East, entire forests of tall columns, etc. It is interesting that altars also become objects of architecture: they are erected on marble, richly decorated terraces.

Sculpture. Sculpture of the Hellenistic era is characterized by virtuoso freedom in technique: having mastered it from the very beginning, it no longer develops, but only applies its skill to more and more new tasks. There were no more first-class masters after Lysippos; nevertheless, those who created now would have passed for such if they had lived in the previous period. And thanks to great demand and supply that is not inferior to it, a lot is happening - more than in both previous periods combined.

The sacred sculpture again recedes into the background. The era created only one new, truly remarkable divine type - the type of Sarapis, the main god of Ptolemaic Egypt. The Greeks saw in him their Hades, that is, the “underground Zeus”; the artist Briaxius depicted him with features akin to Zeus, but at the same time with an imprint of affectionate sadness on his face, shadowed by hair flowing over his forehead. This was something new: a mourner could rather turn to this god than to the bright rulers of Olympus.

But, however, sculpture, even in the religious field, was secular in nature. Images of young deities predominate, into whose faces and images it was possible to pour all the secular, even sensual, beauty available to art. Many wonderful works arose then: Apollo Belvedere, Venus de Milo, Capitoline, Medici, Nike of Samothrace, Tyche of Antioch, etc.

Musical arts. The ancient trochee, the mother of all musical arts in Greece, continues to exist, but without much splendor; The works of individual, isolated art enjoy the greatest fame. They love purely instrumental music, isolated from both poetry and dance, for the sake of which every large city has its own “odeon” along with the theater; as well as dance, isolated, if not from music, then from poetry, thriving in playful and passionate “pantomimes”. We know little about these two arts; but there is a lot about the poetry of our era, isolated from both of its sisters, for which a special term was created - Alexandrinism.

Indeed, in the field of poetry, Alexandria was the main mental center of the universe; the mental center of Alexandria was its library. The book sets the tone; For the first time in the history of culture, poetry is written not so much for listeners as for readers. And the poem-book was incompatible with chorea. But it offered the convenience that it could also revive those types of poetry that had long since died when the environment for their live performance disappeared. A kind of romantic mood of the era contributed to their resurrection. But they were revived not in their previous form, but in a new one: times became demanding for grace and severity of forms; this time. As for the content, the religiosity of old poetry pulled it towards trochee; for the poem-book another bait was required, and love became it. Bookishness, romanticism, sophistication - these are the characteristic features of “Alexandrian” poetry.

Hellenistic religions

Religiously, our period seems to be partly a continuation of the previous one, since the old cults of the Greek states are still ruled in them with the splendor that they can afford according to the means available.

But along with the old religious forms, new ones are now emerging and developing, due to the contact of the Greek and local populations in the Hellenistic monarchies.

Conclusion.

Hellenistic culture outlived the Hellenistic states for a long time and gave historians the illusion that its true essence lies in the cultural values created by Hellenism. Hellenism meant major changes in the economic, political and social life of society. The changes served as the basis for the creation and spread of Hellenistic culture.

Hellenism was not a simple mechanical “mixing” of East and West. A new type of economic and political unification was created.

Hellenism, as a new stage in the history of slave-owning society, received clear expression in the field of culture - in literature and art, in philosophy and religion.

The historical significance of Hellenism and culture lies mainly in the fact that during this period the process of overcoming ethnic, religious, communal, and polis isolation took place and the class struggle emerged more and more clearly.

Hellenistic culture spread and survived even where its socio-economic and political base turned out to be weak and short-lived. It penetrated into Central Asia and India. In the distant Black Sea region, in Olbia, Chersonesos, and in the Bosporan kingdom, Hellenistic culture reached a high level of development. From here came the famous philosophers Bion and Spheres, historians Siriscus and Posidonius Olbiopolis, geographer Dionysius of Olbia, and poet Isimus. Of course, Hellenistic culture did not always and everywhere take firm roots; its spread and development were uneven.

Studying the history of Hellenism not only reveals the pattern of the historical process of development of the ancient slave society. It allows us to draw a more general conclusion: when a socio-economic formation is at the stage of decline and disintegration, attempts by the ruling class to strengthen its power by introducing new forms of economic and political domination are doomed to failure.

But no matter what is said, one thing is clear that the Hellenistic era left both historical and cultural heritage.

Nike of Samothrace, ca. 190 BC e.

Marble. Height: 3.28 m

Apollo Belvedere, c. 330-320 BC e.

Marble. Height: 2.24 m

Temple of Apollo in Didim

Temple of Artemis of Ephesus

HELLENISM, a stage in the history of the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean from the time of the campaigns of Alexander the Great (334-323 BC) until the conquest of these countries by Rome, which ended in 30 BC. e. subjugation of Egypt. Terms "E." introduced into historiography in the 30s. 19th century German historian I. G. Droysen. Historians of different directions interpret it differently. Some highlight the mutual influence of Greek and local, mainly eastern, cultures, sometimes expanding the chronological framework of the Estonian stage to the beginning of the Middle Ages. Others focus on the interaction of socio-political structures, emphasize the leading role of the Greek-Macedonians, and modernize economic relations. In Soviet historiography (S. I. Kovalev, A. B. Ranovich, K. K. Zelin, etc.) E. is interpreted as a specific historical stage in the history of the Eastern Mediterranean, characterized by the interaction of Greek and local elements in socio-economic relations, political organization and cultural development at the end of the 4th-1st centuries. BC e.

The emergence of Hellenistic states (the struggle of the Diadochi) (late 4th - early 3rd centuries BC). By 323 (the year of the death of Alexander the Great), his power covered the Balkan Peninsula, the islands of the Aegean Sea, Egypt, Western Asia, the southern regions of Central Asia, part of Central Asia, down to the lower reaches of the Indus (see map to the article Alexander the Great). The most important political force of Alexander's power was the army, which determined the form of government after his death. As a result of a short struggle between the infantry and the hetaira (selected cavalry), an agreement was reached under which the state was preserved as a single whole, and Arrhidaeus, the illegitimate son of Philip II and the child expected by Alexander’s wife Roxana, were proclaimed heirs. In fact, power ended up in the hands of a small group of noble Macedonians who occupied the highest military and court positions under Alexander; Perdiccas actually became regent under the feeble-minded Philip III (Arrhidaeus) and Alexander IV (son of Roxana), control of Greece and Macedonia was left to Antipater and Craterus, Thrace was transferred to Lysimachus. In Asia Minor, the most influential position was occupied by Antigonus (Antigonus I One-Eyed, see in Art. Antigonids) - satrap Phrygius, Lycia and Pamphylius. Egypt was transferred to the administration of Ptolemy Lagus (Ptolemy I Soter, see Art. Ptolemies). Important command posts were occupied by Seleucus (Seleucus I Nicator) and Cassander (son of Antipater). Perdiccas tried to strengthen his autocracy with the help of the army. His speeches against Antigonus and Ptolemy Lagus marked the beginning of a long period of struggle among the Diadochi. Perdiccas' campaign in Egypt (321) was unsuccessful and displeased the army; as a result, he was killed by his commanders. After the death of Craterus in a clash with the satrap of Paphlagonia and Cappadocia Eumenes, a new distribution of posts and satrapies took place in Triparadeis (Syria) (321). Antipater became regent, and the royal family was soon brought to him. Antigonus received the powers of the strategist-autocrat of Asia, and the royal troops stationed there came under his jurisdiction. Seleucus received the satrapy of Babylonia; the war with Eumenes was entrusted to Antigonus. Within two years, Antigonus had almost completely ousted Eumenes from Asia Minor. In 319, Antipater died, transferring his powers to Polyperchon, one of the old and loyal commanders of the Macedonian dynasty. Cassander, who had the support of Antigonus, opposed him. The war of the Diadochi resumed with renewed vigor. The most important theater of military operations was Greece and Macedonia, where the royal house, the Macedonian nobility, and the Greek city-states were drawn into the struggle between Polyperchon and Cassander. As a result, the royal dynasty finally lost its significance. Philip III, his wife Eurydice and Alexander the Great's mother Olympias died, Roxana and her son ended up in the hands of Cassander, who managed to subjugate Macedonia and most of Greece. The struggle between Eumenes and Antigonus moved to Pereida and Susiana; at the beginning of 316 Eumenes was defeated and Antigonus became the most powerful of the diadochi. This forced Ptolemy, Seleucus and Cassander to enter into an alliance against Antigonus, and Lysimachus also joined them. Fierce battles took place at sea and on land within Syria, Phenicia, Babylonia, Asia Minor and especially in Greece. The war went on with varying success and ended in 311 with the conclusion of peace, according to which the diadochi acted as independent, independent rulers. New wars of the Diadochi began in 307. By this time, the last formal connection between parts of Alexander's former power had disappeared: Roxana and Alexander IV were killed by order of Cassander. Antigonus began military operations in Greece, apparently with the goal of seizing Macedonia and the Macedonian throne. His son Demetrius managed to expel the Macedonian garrisons from Megara and Athens and displace Cassander's protege. In 306, Demetrius defeated Ptolemy's fleet near Salamis in Cyprus. After this victory, Antigonus (Antigonus I) appropriated royal titles to himself and Demetrius (Demetrius I Poliorcetes). Other diadochi also proclaimed themselves kings. In the decisive battle of Ipsus in 301, Lysimachus, Seleucus I and Cassander inflicted a complete defeat on the army of Antigonus I, who died in this battle. Demetrius with the remnants of the army retreated to Ephesus; he still had at his disposal a strong fleet and some cities of Asia Minor, Greece and Phenicia. The possessions of Antigonus I were divided mainly between Seleukos I and Lysimachus. By this time, the main boundaries of the Hellenistic states were determined: the Ptolemies, Seleucids, Bithynia and the Pontic kingdom.

The further struggle of the Diadochi unfolded mainly in Greece and Macedonia. After the death of Cassander in 298, a struggle for the Macedonian throne broke out between Demetrius I, Pyrrhus - the king of Epirus, the sons of Cassander and Lysimachus. Demetrius I emerged victorious, but already in 287-286 Lysimachus, in alliance with Pyrrhus, ousted him from Macedonia and subjugated it. In 283, Demetrius I died, taken prisoner by Seleucus I. In 281, Lysimachus died, defeated by Seleucus, his state collapsed. In 281 (or 280) Seleucus I was killed. The king of Macedonia from 283 was the son of Demetrius, Antigonus II Gonatas, who laid the foundation for a new dynasty that united Thrace and Macedonia under his rule.

The rise of Hellenism (3rd - early 2nd century BC). Military clashes throughout the 3rd century. did not stop, but were more local in nature. The heirs of Ptolemy I and Seleucus I continued to compete in Syria, Phenicia and Asia Minor (the so-called Syrian Wars). The Ptolemies, who owned the most powerful fleet, challenged Macedonian dominance in the Aegean Sea and Greece. Attempts by Macedonia to expand its possessions in Greece encountered stubborn resistance from the Greek city-states. Pergamum fell from the Seleucid kingdom in 283, and Cappadocia became independent in 260. Around the middle of the 3rd century. The northeastern satrapies fell away and the independent Parthian kingdom and the Greco-Bactrian kingdom were formed.

The most characteristic feature of the economic development of Hellenistic society was the growth of commodity production and trade. New large trade and craft centers arose - Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch on the Orontes, Seleucia on the Tigris, etc., whose craft production was largely oriented towards the external market. In the coastal regions of Asia Minor and Syria, new policies were created, which were both strategic points and administrative and economic centers. 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. Trade ties between Egypt and the Black Sea region, Carthage and Rome were established. Money circulation and monetary transactions expanded, which was facilitated by the recoining of precious metals stored in the treasuries of Persian kings and temples. The policies that arose in the East attracted artisans, traders and people of other professions.

The half-century period of struggle between the diadochi was essentially the period of formation of a new Hellenistic society with a complex social structure and a new type of state. The established Hellenistic monarchies combined elements of eastern despotism (monarchical form of government, standing army and centralized administrative apparatus) with elements of the polis system. Land relations characteristic of policies - private property of citizens and city ownership of undivided plots - were complicated by the fact that rural territories with local villages were assigned to cities. The population of these territories 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. According to the Egyptian papyri, it was divided into two categories: the royal land itself and the “ceded” lands, which included temple lands, transferred by the king as a “donation” to his entourage and provided in small plots (claires) to warriors - cleruches (see Cleruchia) or kateks. On these lands there could also be local villages, whose inhabitants continued to own their hereditary plots, paying taxes or taxes.

The complexity of land relations determined the multi-layered social structure of the Hellenistic states. The royal house with its court staff, the highest military and civil administration, the most prosperous townspeople and the highest priesthood constituted the top. layer. The middle layer was more numerous - merchants and artisans, personnel of the royal administration, tax farmers, clergy and kateki, local priesthood, teachers, doctors, etc. The lower layers included the poor local population (laoi): dependent or semi-dependent farmers who cultivated the lands of the king, the nobility , cities, workers of the tsar's workshops (in the handicraft industries monopolized by the tsar). They were considered personally free, but were assigned to their place of residence, to a particular workshop or profession. Below them on the social ladder were slaves.

The wars of the Diadochi and the spread of the polis system gave a strong impetus to the development of slave relations in their classical ancient form, while preserving more primitive forms of slavery (debt, self-sale, etc.). But in agriculture (especially on the royal lands), slave labor was not able to push aside the labor of the local population, whose exploitation was no less profitable, on any noticeable scale.

A different type of social development took place in Greece and Macedonia. Annexation to Macedonia did not give the Greek city-states significant economic advantages. At the same time, the centuries-old traditions of independence in the Greek city-states were especially strong. Therefore, the expansion of Macedonia met with stubborn resistance, primarily from democratic strata, since the introduction of Macedonian garrisons was usually accompanied by the establishment of oligarchic regimes and a deterioration in the position of the demos. Since it was difficult for small poleis individually to defend their independence, a process of unification of poleis into federations took place (the Aetolian Union, which by the end of the 3rd century included almost all of central Greece, Elis and Messenia, as well as some islands of the Aegean Sea; the Achaean Union, arose in 284, by 230 the union consisted of about 60 poleis and covered a significant part of the Peloponnese). The oligarchic leadership of the Achaean League, frightened by the growth of the social movement in Sparta (the reforms of Agis IV and Cleomenes III), turned to the king of Macedon Antigonus III Doson for help. At the Battle of Sellasia (222/221), the combined forces of the Macedonians and Achaeans destroyed the army of Cleomenes III, and a Macedonian garrison was introduced into Sparta. The aggravation of social struggle forced the nobility of the Greek city-states to seek help from Macedonia. Last years of the 3rd century. were the period of greatest political and economic strengthening of Macedonia. Taking advantage of internal complications in Egypt, the Macedonian king Philip V, in alliance with the Seleucid king Antiochus III, divided the Ptolemaic possessions outside Egypt: all the policies belonging to the Ptolemies on the coast of the Hellespont, in Asia Minor and along the coast of the Aegean Sea went to Macedonia; Antiochus III, after the victory at Panion (200), captured Phenicia and Syria. Using the slogan of freedom of the Greek city-states, Rome, which by 200 had subjugated the entire Western Mediterranean, attracted to its side the Aetolian (199) and Achaean (198) alliances and, above all, the propertied layers, who saw in the Romans a force capable of ensuring their interests. The wars of Macedonia with Rome ended with the conclusion of peace (197), according to which Macedonia lost all possessions in Asia Minor, the Aegean Sea and Greece.

Internal complications in Egypt (troop unrest in 216, uprising of local dynasts in 206 in Thebaid, court unrest) and the defeat of Macedonia in the war with Rome created favorable conditions for the growth of the political power of the Seleucid kingdom. Around 212-205, Antiochus III made an eastern campaign, repeating the route of Alexander, and forced Parthia and Bactria to admit dependence on the Seleucids. The war with the Romans, which began in 192 in Greece, ended with the defeat of the troops of Antiochus III at Magnesia on Sipylus (190), as a result of which he was forced to renounce all his possessions in Europe and Asia Minor (north of the Taurus). After this, Parthia and Bactria fell away from the Seleucids, and Greater Armenia and Sophene, which were dependent on the Seleucids, separated.

The victory of the Romans radically changed the political situation: none of the Hellenistic states could no longer lay claim to hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean; the importance of small states increased: Bithynia, Cappadocia, Pontus and especially Pergamon, which relied on the support of Rome.

Decline and subordination to Rome (2nd - end of 1st centuries BC). The unification of the Western Mediterranean under the rule of Rome introduced significant changes in the traditional trade relations of Greece with Sicily and other Greek colonies in the west and in those strengthened in the 3rd century. connections between Egypt and Syria with North Africa and Italy. The process of moving trade routes and economic centers began. The military and economic expansion of the Romans was accompanied by the intensive development of slave relations in Italy and the conquered regions: mass enslavement of the population took place, the trade in slaves and the scope of use of slave labor expanded. These phenomena were reflected in the internal life of the Hellenistic states. The struggle at the top intensified: between layers of the predominantly urban nobility (interested in closer ties with the Roman world and in expanding slavery) and the nobility associated with the royal administrative apparatus and temples and living mainly through traditional forms of agricultural exploitation. This struggle resulted in palace coups, dynastic feuds, and city uprisings. The movement of the popular masses against tax oppression, abuses of the state apparatus, usury and enslavement intensified, sometimes developing into a kind of civil wars that depleted the economy and military forces of states, reducing their resistance to Roman aggression. Roman diplomacy played a significant role, in every possible way encouraging the aggravation of contradictions between the Hellenistic states and the dynastic struggle.

Despite the attempts of the Macedonian king Perseus to win over the Greek city-states for a joint fight against Rome, only Epirus and Illyria joined him. As a result, the Macedonian army was defeated by the Romans at Pydna (168), after which Macedonia was divided into 4 isolated 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 uprisings that broke out in Macedonia in 149-148 and in the Achaean League in 146 were brutally suppressed by the Romans, after which Macedonia was turned into a Roman province, the unions of Greek city-states were dissolved, and oligarchic regimes were established everywhere. Having subjugated 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 their foreign and domestic policies to the interests of Rome. In 133 Pergamon (in accordance with the will of Attalus III) came under the rule of Rome, but only after the suppression of a mass uprising led by Aristonicus (132-129) did the Romans manage to turn it into a Roman province. The center of resistance to Roman aggression in Asia Minor was the Kingdom of Pontus, which at the beginning of the 1st century. under Mithridates VI Eupator it became a large state, subjugating almost the entire Black Sea coast. The wars of Mithridates VI with Rome ended in 64 with the defeat of the Pontic kingdom. While Rome was busy conquering Macedonia, the Seleucid kingdom was recovering from the damage caused by the war with Rome. Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 170, then in 168, made successful campaigns in Egypt and besieged Alexandria, but the intervention of Rome forced him to abandon his conquests. Antiochus IV's Hellenization policy sparked revolts in Judea (171 and 167-160) that developed into a war against Seleucid rule. Separatist tendencies also appeared in the eastern satrapies, which were oriented towards Parthia. The attempts of Antiochus VII Sidetes (139/138-129) to restore the unity of the state (he again subjugated Judea and launched a campaign against Parthia) ended in complete defeat and his death. Babylonia, Persia and Media fell away from the Seleucids. At the beginning of the 1st century. The regions of Commagene (in Asia Minor) and Judea became independent. The territory of the Seleucid state was reduced to the limits of Syria proper, Phenicia, Coelesyria and part of Cilicia. In 64, the Seleucid kingdom was annexed to Rome as the province of Syria. In 63 Judea was also annexed to Rome.

In Egypt, after the campaigns of Antiochus IV, popular movements began again and at the same time an acute dynastic struggle, which turned into a real internal war that devastated the country. Meanwhile, the Romans contributed in every possible way to the foreign policy weakening of Egypt. In 96 Cyrenaica was annexed to Rome, and in 58 Cyprus. The Romans came close to the borders of Egypt, only a civil war in Rome itself delayed its subjugation. At 30 BC e. This last Hellenistic state was conquered. The Hellenistic world as a political system was absorbed by the Roman Empire, but the elements of the socio-economic structure and cultural traditions that developed during the Hellenistic era had a huge impact on the further development of the Eastern Mediterranean and largely determined its specificity (see Hellenistic culture).

A. I. Pavlovskaya.

Great Soviet Encyclopedia. In 30 t. Ch. ed. A.M. Prokhorov. Ed. 3rd. T. 30. Bookplate – Yaya (+ additions). – M., Soviet Encyclopedia. – 1978. – 632 p.

Literature:

Blavatskaya T.V., Golubtsova E.S., Pavlovskaya A.I., Slavery in the Hellenistic states in the III - I centuries. BC e., M., 1969; Zhebelev S. A., From the history of Athens, 229-31 BC, St. Petersburg, 1898; Zelin K.K., Research on the history of land relations in Hellenistic Egypt II - I centuries. BC e., M., 1960; Zelin K.K., Trofimova M.K., Forms of dependence in the Eastern Mediterranean of the Hellenistic period, M., 1969; Kovalev S.I., History of ancient society. Hellenism. Rome, L., 1936; Ranovich A. B., Hellenism and its historical role, M. - L., 1950; Pikus N.N., Royal farmers (direct producers) and artisans in Egypt of the 3rd century. BC e., M., 1972; Sventsitskaya I. S., Socio-economic features of the Hellenistic states, M., 1963; Khvostov M.M., History of eastern trade of Greco-Roman Egypt, Kazan, 1907; his, Textile industry in Greco-Roman Egypt, Kazan, 1914; Shofman A.S., History of ancient Macedonia, part 2, Kazan, 1963; Droyzen I. G., History of Hellenism, trans. from German, vol. 1-3, M., 1890-93; Tarn V., Hellenistic civilization, trans. from English, M., 1949; Bevan E., A history of Egypt under the Ptolemaic dynasty, L., 1927; Bikerman E., Institutions des Seleucides, P, 1938; Gary M., A history of the Greek world from 323 to 146 V.S., L. - N.Y., 1965; Cohen R., La Grece et l "hellenisation du monde antique, nouv. ed., P., 1948; Dasealakis Ap., The hellenism of the ancient Macedonians, Thessalonike, 1965; Kaerst J., Geschichte des Hellenismus, Bd 1- 2, Lpz., 1926-27; Petit P., La civilization hellenistique, P., 1965; Rostovtzeff M., The social and economic history of the Hellenistic world, t. 1-3, Oxf., 1941; Toynbee A. , Hellenism. The history of a civilization, N.Y. - L., 1959; Will E., Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 av. J.C.), v. 1-2, Nancy, 1966-67.