Hellenistic civilization. Rise and decline. The era of Hellenism The concept of Hellenism in historical science

In the territories he conquered, and the interpenetration of the Greek and Eastern - primarily Persian - cultures, as well as the emergence of classical slavery.

The beginning of the Hellenistic era is characterized by the transition from the polis political organization to hereditary Hellenistic monarchies, the shift of the centers of cultural and economic activity from Greece to Asia Minor and Egypt.

Formation and political structure of the Hellenistic states

The sudden death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC e., served as a signal for the beginning of the collapse of his empire, which revealed all its ephemerality. The commanders of Alexander, called diadochs, began a series of bloody wars and strife for the throne of a single state, which lasted 22 years. Not one of the diadochi was able to win a decisive victory over all the others, and in 301 BC. NS. , after the Battle of Ipsus, they divided the empire into several independent parts.

The new states are organized according to a special principle, called the Hellenistic monarchy, based on a synthesis of local despotic and Greek polis political traditions. Polis, as an independent civil community, retains its independence as social and political even within the framework of the Hellenistic monarchy. Cities like Alexandria enjoy autonomy, and their citizens enjoy special rights and privileges. At the head of the Hellenistic state is usually a king, who has full state power. Its main support was the bureaucratic apparatus, which carried out the functions of governing the entire territory of the state, with the exception of cities that had the status of policies, which possessed a certain autonomy.

Compared to previous periods, the situation in the Greek world has changed dramatically: instead of many opposing policies, the Greek world now consisted of several relatively stable major powers. These states represented a common cultural and economic space, which is important for understanding the cultural and political aspect of that era. The Greek world was a very closely interconnected system, which is at least confirmed by the presence of a unified financial system and the scale of migration flows within the Hellenistic world (the Hellenistic era was a time of relatively large mobility of the Greek population. In particular, mainland Greece, at the end of the 4th century BC. suffering from overpopulation, by the end of the 3rd century BC it began to feel a population shortage).

Hellenistic culture

Hellenistic society is strikingly different from that of classical Greece in a number of ways. The actual departure of the polis system into the background, the development and spread of political and economic vertical (rather than horizontal) ties, the collapse of outdated ones, a general change in the cultural background caused serious changes in the Greek social structure. She was a mixture of Greek and Oriental elements. Syncretism manifested itself most vividly in religion and the official practice of deification of monarchs.

Hellenization of the East

During the III -I centuries BC. NS. throughout the eastern Mediterranean, there was a process of Hellenization, that is, the adoption by the local population of the Greek language, culture, customs and traditions. The mechanism and reasons for this process were mostly in the peculiarities of the political and social structure of the Hellenistic states. The elite of the Hellenistic society consisted mainly of representatives of the Greco-Macedonian aristocracy. They brought Greek customs to the East and actively planted them around them. The old local nobility, wanting to be closer to the ruler, to emphasize their aristocratic status, sought to imitate this elite, while the common people imitated the local nobility. As a result, Hellenization was the fruit of imitation of newcomers from the indigenous peoples of the country. This process affected, as a rule, cities, the rural population (which constituted the majority) was in no hurry to part with their pre-Greek habits. In addition, Hellenization affected mainly the upper strata of Eastern society, which, for the above reasons, had a desire to enter the Greek environment.

Hellenistic architecture. Urban planning

Urban planning, which was actively pursued by the Hellenistic rulers, was a powerful tool for the Hellenization of the East. The scale of urban development was enormous: the city was a powerful cultural tool, and also asserted state influence in those vast territories that needed development. In particular, in the Seleucid empire under Seleucus I, at least 75 new cities were founded in different parts of the country. Most of the cities were built not chaotically, but according to a pre-prepared plan - with straight wide streets, large squares, gardens, galleries and temples.

One of the basic features of the architecture itself was the change in the classical Greek canons. Buildings and monuments now began to fulfill not so much their original function as they became symbols of the wealth, domination and power of the Hellenistic rulers and aristocrats. The widespread construction gave a tremendous impetus to the development of new types of architecture. Bas-reliefs have become much more widely used.

Notes (edit)

Literature

• Zel'in K.K. Some basic problems of the history of Hellenism // Soviet archeology. 1955. Issue. 22;
• Kats A.L. Discussion about the problems of Hellenism // Soviet archeology. 1955. Issue. 22;
• Koshelenko G.A. Hellenistic era in modern science (some problems) // Antiquity and ancient traditions in the culture and art of the peoples of the Soviet East. M., 1978;
• Leveque P. Hellenistic world. Per. with fr. M., 1989;
• B. S. Lyapustin, I. E. Surikov Ancient Greece: textbook. manual for universities /., Moscow, Bustard, 2007:
• Pavlovskaya A.I. Hellenism // Soviet Historical Encyclopedia. M., 1976. T. 16. S. 458-476;
• Ranovich A.B. Hellenism and its historical role. M .; L., 1950;
• Rostovtsev M.I.Ptolemaic Egypt // Parthian shot. M., 2003.S. 322-354. (Russian version of the chapter for "");
• Rostovtsev M.I.Syria and the East // Parthian Shot. M., 2003.S. 360-387. (Russian version of the chapter for the "Cambridge History of the Ancient World");
• Sventsitskaya I.S.Social and economic features of the Hellenistic states. M., 1963;
• Tarn V. Hellenistic civilization. Per. from English M., 1949;
• Bengtson G. Rulers of the Hellenistic Era. Per. with him. M., 1982;
• Shtaerman E.M. Hellenism in Rome // VDI. 1994. No. 3;
• Hellenism: economics, politics, culture. M., 1990.
• Baumgarten F., Poland F., Wagner R. 1914: Hellenistic-Roman culture. SPb.

Links

see also

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

• Zhmakin
• Russian State Pedagogical University. A. I. Herzen

See what "Hellenism" is in other dictionaries:

HELLENISM- 1) a feature of the Greek language. 2) the influence of ancient Greek education in the East. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov AN, 1910. HELLINISM features in the language, literature and customs of the ancient Greeks. In the East ... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

Hellenism- Hellenism. Ruins of the palace in Pella. IV century BC NS. Hellenism. Ruins of the palace in Pella. IV century. BC NS. Hellenism is a period in the history of the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean between 323 and 30 years. BC. (). The struggle for power between the commanders of Alexander the Great ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary "World History"

Hellenism- a, m. hellénisme m. 1. The heyday of the mixed Greco-Eastern culture, which came after the conquests of Alexander the Great in the East. Late Hellenism. ALS 1. modified and softened by Hellenism, these wild rituals in European Greece gave rise to ... Historical Dictionary of Russian Gallicisms

Hellenism- originally Hellenism meant the correct use of the Greek language, especially by non-Greeks, then the spread of Greek culture. After the publication of the work of I. G. Droysen "History of Hellenism; (1836 1843) the concept of Hellenism entered into ... ... Encyclopedia of mythology

Hellenism- Hellenism. The so-called Farnese plate. Allegory of the Nile. Sardonyx. National Museum. Naples. HELLINISM, period between 323 and 30 BC in the history of the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean. The struggle for power between the successors of Alexander the Great ... ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

). The term originally denoted the correct use of the Greek language, especially not by the Greeks, but after the publication of Johann Gustav Droysen's "History of Hellenism" (- gg.) The concept entered the historical science.

The beginning of the Hellenistic era is characterized by the transition from the polis political organization to hereditary Hellenistic monarchies, the shift of the centers of cultural and economic activity from Greece to Africa and Egypt.

Collegiate YouTube

• 1 / 5

  The Hellenistic era spans three centuries. However, as noted, there is no consensus on the issue of periodization. So, at the suggestion of some, the report of its beginning can be kept from 334, that is, from the year of the beginning of the campaign of Alexander the Great.
  It is proposed to isolate three periods:

  The term pre-Hellenism is also sometimes used.

  Hellenistic states

  The conquests of Alexander the Great spread Greek culture to the East, but did not lead to the formation of a world empire. On the territory of the conquered Persian Empire, Hellenistic states are formed, headed by the Diadochi and their descendants:

  • The Seleucid state was centered first in Babylon and then in Antioch.
  • The Greco-Bactrian kingdom separated from the Seleucid state in the 3rd century. BC e., the center of which was in the territory of modern Afghanistan.
  • The Indo-Greek kingdom separated from the Greco-Bactrian kingdom in the II century. BC e., the center of which was located on the territory of modern Pakistan.
  • The Pontic kingdom was formed on the territory of modern northern Turkey.
  • The Pergamon kingdom also existed in the territory of modern western Turkey.
  • The Commagene kingdom separated from the Seleucid state and was located in the territory of modern eastern Turkey.
  • Hellenistic Egypt was formed on the territory of Egypt, headed by the Ptolemies.
  • The Achaean Union existed on the territory of modern Greece.
  • The Bosporan kingdom existed on the territory of the eastern Crimea and the eastern coast of the Sea of ​​Azov, at one time it was part of the Pontic kingdom.

  The new states are organized according to a special principle, called the Hellenistic monarchy, based on a synthesis of local despotic and Greek polis political traditions. Polis, as an independent civil community, retains its independence as social and political even within the framework of the Hellenistic monarchy. Cities like Alexandria enjoy autonomy, and their citizens enjoy special rights and privileges. At the head of the Hellenistic state is usually a king, who has full state power. Its main support was the bureaucratic apparatus, which carried out the functions of governing the entire territory of the state, with the exception of cities that had the status of policies, which possessed a certain autonomy.

  Compared to previous periods, the situation in the Greek world has changed dramatically: instead of many opposing policies, the Greek world now consisted of several relatively stable major powers. These states represented a common cultural and economic space, which is important for understanding the cultural and political aspect of that era. The Greek world was a very closely interconnected system, as evidenced by at least the presence of a single financial system, as well as the scale of migration flows within the Hellenistic world (the era of Hellenism was a time of relatively high mobility of the Greek population, in particular, mainland Greece, at the end of the 4th century BC. Suffering from overpopulation, by the end of the 3rd century BC it began to feel a shortage of population).

  Hellenistic culture

  Hellenistic society is strikingly different from that of classical Greece in a number of ways. The actual departure of the polis system into the background, the development and spread of political and economic vertical (rather than horizontal) ties, the collapse of outdated social institutions, and a general change in the cultural background caused serious changes in the Greek social structure. She was a mixture of Greek and Oriental elements. Syncretism manifested itself most vividly in religion and the official practice of deification of monarchs.

  The retreat is celebrated in the III-II centuries BC. NS. from the sublimely beautiful images of the Greek classics towards the individual and lyrical. In the era of Hellenism, there was a plurality of artistic directions, some of which turned out to be associated with the assertion of inner peace, others with a "harsh love of rock."

  Hellenization of the East

  During the III -I centuries BC. NS. throughout the eastern Mediterranean, there was a process of Hellenization, that is, the adoption by the local population of the Greek language, culture, customs and traditions. The mechanism and reasons for this process were mostly in the peculiarities of the political and social structure of the Hellenistic states. The elite of the Hellenistic society consisted mainly of representatives of the Greco-Macedonian aristocracy. They brought Greek customs to the East and actively planted them around them. The old local nobility, wanting to be closer to the ruler, to emphasize their aristocratic status, sought to imitate this elite, while the common people imitated the local nobility. As a result, Hellenization was the fruit of imitation of newcomers from the indigenous peoples of the country. This process affected, as a rule, cities, while the rural population (which constituted the majority) was in no hurry to part with their pre-Greek habits. In addition, Hellenization affected mainly the upper strata of Eastern society, which for the above reasons had a desire to enter the Greek environment.

  Hellenism - the meeting of East and West

  The concept of Hellenism and its time frame

  It is customary to call a Hellenistic civilization a new stage in the development of material and spiritual culture, forms of political organization and social relations of the peoples of the Mediterranean, Western Asia and adjacent regions.

  They began with the Eastern campaign of Alexander the Great and the massive colonization flow of the Hellenes (Greeks and Macedonians) to the newly conquered lands. The chronological and geographical boundaries of the Hellenistic civilization are determined by researchers in different ways, depending on the interpretation of the concept of "Hellenism", introduced into science in the first half of the 19th century. IG Droysen, but still controversial.

  The accumulation of new material as a result of archaeological and historical research has revived discussions about the criteria and specifics of Hellenism in different regions, about the geographical and temporal boundaries of the Hellenistic world. The concepts of pre-Hellenism and post-Hellenism are put forward, that is, the emergence of elements of Hellenistic civilization before the Greco-Macedonian conquests and their vitality (and sometimes regeneration) after the collapse of the Hellenistic states.

  For all the controversy of these problems, one can also point to established views. There is no doubt that the process of interaction between the Hellenic and non-Asian peoples took place in the previous period as well, but the Greco-Macedonian conquest gave it scope and intensity. The new forms of culture, political and socio-economic relations that arose during the Hellenistic period were the product of a synthesis in which local, mainly Eastern, and Greek elements played one role or another, depending on specific historical conditions. The greater or lesser importance of local elements left an imprint on the socio-economic and political structure, forms of social struggle, the nature of cultural development and largely determined the further historical fate of individual regions of the Hellenistic world.

  The history of Hellenism is clearly divided into three periods:

  • the emergence of the Hellenistic states (late IV - early III century BC),
  • the formation of the socio-economic and political structure and the flourishing of these states (III - early II century BC),
  • a period of economic recession, the growth of social contradictions, the subordination of the power of Rome (mid-II - end of the 1st century BC).

  Indeed, already from the end of the IV century. BC NS. you can trace the formation of the Hellenistic civilization, in the III century. and the first half of the 2nd century. BC NS. it is the period of its heyday. But the decline of the Hellenistic powers and the expansion of Roman domination in the Mediterranean, and the possessions of the emerging local states in Front and Central Asia, did not mean her death. As a constituent element, it participated in the formation of the Parthian and Greco-Bactrian civilizations, and after the subordination of the entire Eastern Mediterranean by Rome, a complex alloy of the Greco-Roman civilization arose on its basis.

  The emergence of the Hellenistic states and the formation of the Hellenistic civilization

  Diadochi Wars

  As a result of the campaigns of Alexander the Great, a power arose that covered the Balkan Peninsula, the islands of the Aegean Sea, Asia Minor, Egypt, the entire Front, southern regions of Central and part of Central Asia to the lower reaches of the Indus. For the first time in history, such a vast territory was within the framework of one political system. In the process of conquest, new cities were founded, new routes of communication and trade between distant regions were laid. However, the transition to peaceful land development did not occur immediately; for half a century after the death of Alexander the great, there was a fierce struggle between his generals - the diadochi (successors), as they are usually called - for the division of his legacy.

  In the first decade and a half, the fiction of the unity of the state remained under the nominal rule of Philip Arrideus (323-316 BC) and the young Alexander IV (323-310? BC), but in reality already by agreement 323 BC NS. power in its most important regions ended up in the hands of the most influential and talented commanders:

  • Antipater in Macedonia and Greece,
  • Lysimachos in Thrace,
  • Ptolemy in Egypt,
  • Antigone in the southwest of Asia Minor,
  • Perdiccas, who commanded the main military forces and the de facto regent, obeyed the rulers of the eastern satrapies.

  But Perdikke's attempt to consolidate his autocracy and extend it to the Western satrapy ended in his own death and initiated the wars of the Diadochi. In 321 BC. NS. in Triparadis, a redistribution of satrapies and posts took place: Antipater became regent, and the royal family was transported to him in Macedonia from Babylon, Antigonus was appointed the strategist-autocrat of Asia, commander of all the troops stationed there, and authorized to continue the war with Eumenes, a supporter of Perdiccas. In Babylonia, which had lost the significance of the royal residence, the commander of the Getaira Seleucus was appointed satrap.

  Death in 319 BC NS. Antipater, who handed over the regency to Polyperchon, the old commander devoted to the royal dynasty, against whom the son of Antipater, Cassander, supported by Antigonus, opposed, led to a new intensification of the wars of the Diadochus. Greece and Macedonia became an important bridgehead, where the royal house, the Macedonian nobility, and the Greek city-states were involved in the struggle; in the course of it, Philip Arrideus and other members of the royal family died, and Cassandru managed to consolidate his position in Macedonia. In Asia, Antigonus, having won a victory over Eumenes and his allies, became the most powerful of the Diadochi, and immediately a coalition of Seleucus, Ptolemy, Cassander and Lysimachus formed against him. A new series of battles began at sea and on land in Syria, Babylonia, Asia Minor, Greece. In imprisoned in 311 BC. NS. Although the name of the tsar appeared in the world, in fact, there was no longer any talk of the unity of the state, the diadochi acted as independent rulers of the lands belonging to them.

  

  A new phase of the war of the Diadochi began after the killing of young Alexander IV by the order of Cassander. In 306 BC. NS. Antigonus and his son Demetrius Poliorketus, and then other diadochi, appropriated royal titles to themselves, thereby recognizing the disintegration of Alexander's power and declaring a claim to the Macedonian throne. Antigonus was most actively pursuing it. Military operations are unfolding in Greece, Asia Minor and the Aegeis. In the battle with the combined forces of Seleucus, Lysimachus and Kassandra in 301 BC. NS. under Ipsus, Antigonus was defeated and killed. A new distribution of forces took place: along with the kingdom of Ptolemy I (305-282 BC), which included Egypt, Cyrenaica and Kelesiria, a large kingdom of Seleucus I (311-281 BC) appeared, which united Babylonia , the eastern satrapies and Antigonos' Asian possessions. Lysimachus expanded the boundaries of his kingdom in Asia Minor, Cassander received recognition of his rights to the Macedonian throne.

  However, after the death of Cassander in 298 BC. NS. the struggle for Macedonia flared up again, lasting more than 20 years. In turn, her throne was occupied by the sons of Cassander, Demetrius Poliorketus, Lysimachus, Ptolemy Keraunus, Pyrrhus of Epirus. In addition to dynastic wars in the early 270s. BC NS. Macedonia and Greece were invaded by the Galatian Celts. Only in 276, Antigonus Gonatus (276-239 BC), the son of Demetrius Poliorketus, who won a victory over the Galatians in 277, was established on the Macedonian throne, and under him the Macedonian kingdom gained political stability.

  Diadochi politics in their domain

  The half-century period of the struggle of the diadochi was the time of the formation of a new, Hellenistic society with a complex social structure and a new type of state. In the activities of the diadochi, guided by subjective interests, ultimately objective trends in the historical development of the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia were manifested - the need to establish close economic ties between the deep regions and the sea political and cultural unity of individual regions, the need for the development of cities as centers of trade and crafts, in the development of new lands in order to feed the increased population, and, finally, in cultural interaction, etc. There is no doubt that the individual characteristics of statesmen who competed in the struggle for power, their military and organizational talents or their mediocrity, political myopia, indomitable energy and illegibility in the means to achieve goals, cruelty and greed - all this complicated the course of events, gave it an acute drama, often about the imprint of chance. Nevertheless, one can trace the general features of the policy of diadochi.

  Each of them strove to unite the internal and coastal regions under their rule, to ensure dominance over important routes, trade centers and ports. Everyone faced the problem of maintaining a strong army as a real support of power. The main body of the army consisted of the Macedonians and Greeks, who were previously part of the royal army, and mercenaries recruited in Greece. The funds for their payment and maintenance were partly drawn from the treasures plundered by Alexander or by the Diadochi themselves, but the question of collecting tribute or taxes from the local population was also quite acute, and, consequently, about organizing the management of the occupied territories and establishing economic life.

  In all regions, except for Macedonia, there was a problem of relations with the local population. Two tendencies are noticeable in its solution:

  • rapprochement of the Greco-Macedonian and local nobility, the use of traditional forms of social and political organization and
  • a tougher policy in relation to the indigenous strata of the population as conquered and completely disenfranchised, as well as the introduction of a polis system.

  In relations with the far eastern satrapies, the diadochi adhered to the practice that had developed under Alexander (possibly dating back to the Persian time): power was given to the local nobility on the basis of recognition of dependence and payment of cash and in-kind supplies.

  One of the means of economic and political strengthening of power in the conquered territories was the founding of new cities. This policy, begun by Alexander, was actively continued by the Diadochi. Cities were founded both as strategic points and as administrative and economic centers that received the status of a policy. Some of them were erected on empty lands and were settled by immigrants from Greece, Macedonia and other places, others arose through the voluntary or compulsory connection into one policy of two or more impoverished cities or rural settlements, and still others through the reorganization of the eastern cities, replenished with the Greco-Macedonian population. It is characteristic that new policies appear in all areas of the Hellenistic world, but their number, location and method of origin reflect both the specifics of the time and the historical characteristics of individual areas.

  During the struggle of the Diadochi, simultaneously with the formation of new, Hellenistic states, there was a process of profound change in the material and spiritual culture of the peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia. Continuous wars, accompanied by major naval battles, sieges and storms of cities, and at the same time the founding of new cities and fortresses highlighted the development of military and construction equipment. Fortifications were also improved.

  

  New cities were built in accordance with the planning principles developed in the 5th century. BC NS. Hippodamus of Miletsky: with straight and intersecting streets at right angles, oriented, if the terrain allowed, along the cardinal points. The agora adjoined the main, widest street, surrounded on three sides by public buildings and commercial porticos, temples and gymnasiums were usually erected nearby; theaters and stadiums were built outside residential areas. The city was surrounded by defensive walls with towers; a citadel was built on an elevated and strategically important site. The construction of walls, towers, temples and other large structures required the development of technical knowledge and skills in the manufacture of mechanisms for lifting and transporting super-heavy loads, improving all kinds of blocks, gears (such as gears), levers. New achievements of technical thought were reflected in special works on architecture and construction, which appeared at the end of the 4th-3rd centuries. BC NS. and preserved to us the names of architects and mechanics of that time - Philo, Hegetor of Byzantine, Diad, Kharius, Epimachus.

  The political situation in the Eastern Mediterranean in the III century. BC.

  Struggle of the Seleucids, Ptolemies and Antigonids

  From the second half of the 70s. III century. BC e., after the borders of the Hellenistic states were stabilized, a new stage began in the political history of the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia. Between the powers of the Seleucids, Ptolemies and Antigonids, a struggle ensued for leadership, submission to their power or the influence of independent cities and states of Asia Minor, Greece, Kelesiria, the islands of the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas. The struggle proceeded not only through military clashes, but also through diplomatic intrigue, the use of internal political and social contradictions.

  The interests of Egypt and the Seleucid state collided primarily in southern Syria and, since in addition to the huge incomes that came from these countries as taxes, their possession provided a prevailing role in trade with Arab tribes and, in addition, these areas were of strategic importance in terms of geography. position and wealth the main building material for the military and merchant navy - cedar wood. The rivalry between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids resulted in the so-called Syrian wars, during which the borders of their possessions were changed not only in southern Syria, but also on the Asia Minor coast and in the Aegean Sea.

  The clashes in the Aegeid and Asia Minor were due to the same reasons - the desire to strengthen trade ties and secure strategic bases for the further expansion of their possessions. But here the aggressive interests of the large Hellenistic states ran into the desire of the local small Hellenistic states - Bithynia, Pergamum, Cappadocia, Pontus - to defend their independence. So, in 262 BC. NS. as a result of the war with Antiochus I, Pergamum achieved independence, and Eumenes I, proclaimed king, laid the foundation for the Attalid dynasty.

  The confrontation between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies went on with varying success. If the second Syrian War (260-253 BC) was successful for Antiochus II, and brought large territorial losses to Egypt in Asia Minor and the Aegeid, then as a result of the third Syrian War (246-241 BC. .) Ptolemy III not only returned the previously lost Miletus, Ephesus, the island of Samos and other territories, but also expanded his possessions in the Aegean Sea and Kelesiria. The success of Ptolemy III in this war was facilitated by the instability of the Seleucid state. Around 250 BC NS. the governors of Bactria and Sogdiana, Diodot and Euthydem, were deposited; a few years later, Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana formed an independent Greco-Bactrian kingdom. Almost at the same time, the governor of Parthia Andragor was postponed, but soon he and the Seleucid garrison were destroyed by the rebellious tribes of the Parny-Dais, led by Arshak, who founded a new, Parthian dynasty of Arshakids, the beginning of the rule of which tradition dates back to 247 BC. NS. Separatist tendencies, apparently, existed in the western region of the power, manifested in the dynastic struggle between Seleucus II (246-225 BC) and his brother Antiochus Gierax, who seized power in the Asia Minor satrapies. The balance of power between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids that developed after the third Syrian War lasted until 220 BC.

  The situation in Greece and Macedonia

  The focus of conflict between Egypt and Macedonia was mainly the islands of the Aegean Sea and Greece - areas that were consumers of agricultural products, manufacturers of handicrafts, a source of replenishment of the troops and suppliers of skilled labor. The political and social struggle within the Greek city-states and between them provided opportunities for the intervention of the Hellenistic powers in the internal affairs of Greece, and the kings of Macedonia relied mainly on oligarchic strata, and the Ptolemies used the anti-Macedonian sentiments of the demos. This policy of the Ptolemies played a large role in the emergence of the Chremonides War, named after one of the leaders of the Athenian democracy, Chremonides, who, apparently, was the initiator of the conclusion of a general alliance between Athens, the Lacedaemon coalition and Ptolemy II. The Chremonides War (267-262 BC) was the last attempt by the leaders of the Hellenic world of Athens and Sparta to unite forces hostile to Macedonia and, using the support of Egypt, to defend independence and restore their influence in Greece. But the preponderance of forces was on the side of Macedonia, the Egyptian fleet could not help the allies, Antigonus Gonatus defeated the Lacedaemonians near Corinth and after the siege subdued Athens. As a result of the defeat, Athens lost its freedom for a long time. Sparta lost influence in the Peloponnese, the positions of the Antigonids in Greece and the Aegeis were strengthened to the detriment of the Ptolemies.

  However, this did not mean reconciliation of the Greeks with Macedonian hegemony. The previous historical experience, confirmed by the events of the Chremonides War, showed that the independent existence of disparate poleis under the conditions of the system of Hellenistic monarchies was becoming practically impossible, moreover, the tendencies of the socio-economic development of the poleis themselves required the creation of wider state associations. In international life, the role of the political unions of the Greek city-states, built on a federal basis, is growing: while maintaining equality and autonomy within the union, they act in foreign policy relations as a single whole, defending their independence. It is characteristic that the initiative for the formation of federations comes not from the old economic and political centers of Greece, but from underdeveloped regions.

  At the beginning of the III century. BC NS. the Aetolian federation (which arose at the beginning of the 4th century BC from the union of the Aetolian tribes) acquires significance, after the Aetolians defended Delphi from the invasion of the Galatians and became the head of the Delphic amphictyony, an ancient cult association around the sanctuary of Apollo. During the Chremonides War, without entering into open conflict with Macedonia, Aetolia supported democratic groups hostile to the Antigonids in neighboring policies, thanks to which most of them joined the union. By 220 BC. NS. the federation included almost all of Central Greece, some policies in the Peloponnese and on the islands of the Aegean Sea; some of them joined voluntarily, others, such as the cities of Boeotia, were subdued by force.

  

  In 284 BC. NS. the union of the Achaean policies, which had disintegrated during the wars of the Diadochi, was restored; in the middle of the 3rd century. BC NS. it included Sikion and other cities of the northern Peloponnese on federal principles. Formed as a political organization defending the independence of the Greek city-states. The Achaean Union, headed by the Sikion Arat, played a large role in countering the Macedonian expansion in the Peloponnese. A particularly important act was the expulsion in 243 BC. NS. the Macedonian garrison from Corinth and the capture of Acrocorinth, a fortress located on a high hill and controlling the strategic route to the Peloponnese through the Isthmian isthmus. As a result of this, the authority of the Achaean Union increased greatly, and by 230 BC. NS. this union included about 60 policies, occupying most of the Peloponnese. However, the failures in the war with Sparta, which restored its political influence and military forces as a result of the social reforms of King Cleomenes, and the fear of the citizens' desire for similar reforms, forced the leadership of the Achaean Union to agree to an agreement with Macedonia and ask her for help at the cost of Acrocorinth's concession. After the defeat of Sparta in 222 BC. NS. The Achaean Federation joined the Hellenic Union formed under the hegemony of King Antigonus Doson, which also included other Greek cities, except for Athens and the Aetolian Union.

  The aggravation of the social struggle led to a change in the political orientation of the possessing strata in many Greek city-states and created favorable conditions for the expansion of the possessions and influence of Macedonia.

  However, Philip V's attempt to subdue the Aetolian federation by unleashing the so-called Allied War (220-217 BC), in which all the members of the Hellenic Union were involved, was not successful. Then, given the dangerous situation for Rome, which developed during the second Punic War, Philip entered in 215 BC. NS. into an alliance with Hannibal and began to oust the Romans from their seized possessions in Illyria. This was the beginning of the first war between Macedonia and Rome (215-205 BC), which was essentially a war between Philip and his old opponents who joined Rome - Aetolia and Pergamum - and ended well for Macedonia. Thus, the last years of the III century. BC NS. were the period of the greatest power of the Antigonids, which was facilitated by the general political situation in the Eastern Mediterranean.

  4th Syrian War

  

  In 219 BC. NS. the fourth Syrian war broke out between Egypt and the kingdom of the Seleucids: Antiochus III invaded Kelesiria, subjugating one city after another by bribery or siege, and approached the borders of Egypt. A decisive battle between the armies of Antiochus III and Ptolemy IV took place in 217 BC. NS. near the village of Rafia. The forces of the opponents were almost equal, and the victory, according to Polybius, was on the side of Ptolemy only thanks to the successful actions of the phalanxes formed from the Egyptians. But Ptolemy IV could not take advantage of the victory: after the Battle of Rafia, unrest began inside Egypt, and he was forced to agree to the peace conditions proposed by Antiochus III. The internal instability of Egypt, aggravated after the death of Ptolemy IV, allowed Philip V and Antiochus III to seize the external possessions of the Ptolemies: all Ptolemaic policies on the Hellespont, Asia Minor and the Aegean Sea belonged to Macedonia, and Antiochus III seized Phenicia and Kelesiria. The expansion of Macedonia infringed upon the interests of Rhodes and Pergamum. The resulting war (201 BC) was overwhelmingly on the side of Philip V. Rhodes and Pergamum turned to the Romans for help. So the conflict between the Hellenistic states grew into the second Roman-Macedonian war (200-197 BC).

  Brief conclusions

  End of the 3rd century BC NS. can be regarded as a certain milestone in the history of the Hellenistic world. If in the previous period economic and cultural ties prevailed in relations between the countries of the Eastern and Western Mediterranean, and political contacts were of an episodic nature and mainly in the form of diplomatic relations, then in the last decades of the 3rd century. BC NS. there is already a tendency towards open military confrontation, as evidenced by the alliance of Philip V with Hannibal and the first Macedonian war with Rome. The balance of forces within the Hellenistic world also changed. During the III century. BC NS. the role of small Hellenistic states - Pergamum, Bithynia, Pontus, the Aetolian and Achaean unions, as well as independent policies that played an important role in transit trade - Rhodes and Byzantium increased. Until the last decades of the III century. BC NS. Egypt retained its political and economic power, but by the end of the century Macedonia was strengthening, the kingdom of the Seleucids became the strongest power.

  Socio-economic and political structure of the Hellenistic states

  Trade and increased cultural exchange

  The most characteristic feature of the economic development of Hellenistic society in the III century. BC NS. there was an increase in trade and commodity production. Despite military clashes, regular maritime communications 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, and Egypt's trade relations with the Black Sea region, Carthage and Rome. New major trade and handicraft centers arose - Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch on Orontes, Seleucia on the Tigris, Pergamum, and others, whose handicraft production was largely calculated for the foreign market. The Seleucids founded a number of policies along the old caravan routes connecting the upper satrapies and Mesopotamia with the Mediterranean Sea - Antioch-Edessa, Antioch-Nisibis, Seleucia on the Euphrates, Dura-Evropos, Antioch in Margiana, etc.

  The Ptolemies founded several harbors on the Red Sea - Arsinoy, Philothera, Berenice, connecting them by caravan routes with ports on the Nile. The emergence of new trade centers in the Eastern Mediterranean led to the movement of trade routes in the Aegean Sea, the role of Rhodes and Corinth as ports of transit trade increased, and the importance of Athens fell. Monetary operations and money circulation expanded significantly, which was facilitated by the unification of the coin business, which began under Alexander the Great with the introduction of silver and gold coins into circulation, minted according to the Attic (Athenian) weight standard. This weight standard was held in most of the Hellenistic states, despite the variety of stamps.

  The economic potential of the Hellenistic states, the volume of handicraft production and its technical level have grown noticeably. Numerous policies that arose in the East attracted artisans, merchants and people of other professions. The Greeks and Macedonians brought with them their usual slave-owning way of life, and the number of slaves increased. The need to supply food for the trade and artisan population of cities gave rise to the need to increase the production of agricultural products intended for sale. Monetary relations began to penetrate even into the Egyptian “coma” (village), corrupting traditional relations and increasing the exploitation of the rural population. The increase in agricultural production was due to the expansion of the area of ​​cultivated land and through their more intensive use.

  The most important stimulus for economic and technological progress was the exchange of experience and production skills in agriculture and handicrafts of the local and alien, Greek and non-Greek population, the exchange of agricultural crops and scientific knowledge. Immigrants from Greece and Asia Minor brought the practice of olive growing and viticulture to Syria and Egypt and adopted the cultivation of date palms from the local population. Papyri reports that in Fayum they tried to acclimatize the Milesian breed of sheep. Probably, this kind of exchange of breeds of livestock and agricultural crops took place before the Hellenistic period, but now more favorable conditions have appeared for it. It is difficult to detect changes in agricultural implements, but there is no doubt that on the large scale of irrigation work in Egypt, carried out mainly by local residents under the guidance of Greek "architects", one can see the result of a combination of techniques and experience of both. The need for irrigation of new areas, apparently, contributed to the improvement and generalization of experience in the technique of constructing water-drawing mechanisms. The invention of the pumping machine, which was also used for pumping water in flooded mines, is associated with the name of Archimedes ("Archimedes screw" or the so-called "Egyptian snail").

  Craft

  In handicraft, the combination of techniques and skills of local and non-Greek artisans (Greeks and non-Greeks) and an increase in demand for their products led to a number of important inventions that gave rise to new types of handicraft production, a narrower specialization of artisans and the possibility of mass production of a number of products.

  As a result of the development by the Greeks of a more perfect loom, which was used in Egypt and Western Asia, workshops for the production of patterned fabrics appeared in Alexandria and gold-woven fabrics in Pergamum. The assortment of clothing and footwear has expanded, including those made according to foreign styles and patterns.

  New types of products have appeared in other branches of handicraft production designed for mass consumption. In Egypt, the production of various varieties of papyrus was established, and in Pergamum from the 2nd century. BC NS. - parchment. Embossed ceramics coated with a dark lacquer with a metallic tint, imitating in their shape and color more expensive metal dishes (the so-called Megar bowls), became widespread. Its production was of a serial nature due to the use of ready-made small stamps, the combination of which made it possible to diversify the ornament. In the manufacture of terracotta, as well as in the casting of bronze statues, they began to use detachable forms, which made it possible to make them more complex and at the same time to make numerous copies from the original.

  Thus, the works of individual masters and artists turned into mass-produced handicraft products, designed not only for the rich, but also for the middle strata of the population. Important discoveries have also been made in the manufacture of luxury goods. Jewelers mastered the technique of cloisonné enamel and amalgamation, that is, coating items with a thin layer of gold using its solution in mercury. In glass production, methods were found for making products from mosaic, carved two-color, engraved and gilded glass. but the manufacturing process was very complicated. Objects made using this technique were highly valued, and many were genuine works of art (the objects that have survived to us date mainly from the 1st century BC, for example, the so-called Portland vase from the British Museum and the gilded glass vase found in the Hermitage found in Olbia , and etc.).

  The development of maritime trade and constant military clashes at sea stimulated the improvement of shipbuilding technology. Multi-row rowing warships, armed with battering rams and throwing guns, continued to be built. At the shipyards of Alexandria, 20 and 30-row ships were built, but, apparently, they turned out to be less effective (the Ptolemaic fleet was twice defeated in battles with the Macedonian fleet, built at Greek shipyards, probably modeled on the high-speed 16-row ships of Demetrius Poliorketus). The famous tesseracontera (40-row ship) of Ptolemy IV, which amazed contemporaries in size and luxury, turned out to be unsuitable for sailing. Along with large warships, small vessels were built - reconnaissance, messengers, for the protection of merchant ships, as well as cargo.

  The construction of a merchant sailing fleet expanded, its speed increased due to the improvement of sailing equipment (two and three-masted ships appeared), the average carrying capacity reached 78 tons.

  Construction

  Simultaneously with the development of shipbuilding, the structure of shipyards and docks was improved. Harbors were improved, jetties and lighthouses were built. One of the seven wonders of the world was the Pharos lighthouse, created by the architect Sostratus from Cnidus. It was a colossal three-tiered tower topped with a statue of the god Poseidon; information about its height has not survived, but, according to Josephus, it was visible from the sea at a distance of 300 stadia (about 55 km), in its upper part a fire burned at night. Lighthouses began to be built according to the type of Pharos in other ports - in Laodicea, Ostia, etc.

  Urban planning was especially widespread in the 3rd century. BC NS. This period saw the construction of the largest number of cities founded by Hellenistic monarchs, as well as renamed and rebuilt local cities. Alexandria has become the largest city in the Mediterranean. Its plan was developed by the architect Deinocrates during the reign of Alexander the Great. The city was located on the isthmus between the Mediterranean Sea in the north and the lake. Mareotida in the south, from west to east - from the Necropolis to the Canopian Gate - it stretched for 30 stadia (5.5 km), while the distance from the sea to the lake was 7-8 stadia. According to Strabo's description, "the whole city is crossed by streets, convenient for riding on horseback, and two very wide avenues, more than pletra (30 m) wide, which divide each other in half at right angles."

  The small rocky island of Pharos, which lay 7 stages from the coast, where the lighthouse was built, already under Ptolemy I was connected to the mainland by Heptastadium, a dam that had passages for ships. This is how two adjacent ports were formed - the Great Trade Harbor and the Harbor of Evost (Happy Return), connected by a canal with a port on the lake, where Nile ships delivered goods. Shipyards adjoined the Heptastadium on both sides, on the embankment of the Big Harbor there were warehouses, a market square (Emporium), the Temple of Poseidon, a theater, and then up to Cape Lohiada, there were royal palaces and parks, including Museion (Temple of the Muses), a library and a sacred site with tombs of Alexander and the Ptolemies. The main intersecting streets were adjoined by the Gymnasium with a portico over a stage (185 m) long, Dicasterion (courthouse), Paneillon, Serapeion and other temples and public buildings. To the southwest of the central part of the city, which bore the name of Brucheyon, there were quarters that retained the ancient Egyptian name Rakotis, inhabited by artisans, small traders, sailors and other working people of various social and ethnic backgrounds (primarily Egyptians) with their workshops, shops, household buildings and dwellings made of adobe bricks. Researchers suggest that 3-4-storey apartment buildings were also built in Alexandria for the poor, day laborers and visitors.

  Less information has been preserved about the capital of the Seleucid kingdom - Antioch. The city was founded by Seleucus I around 300 BC. NS. on the river Oronte 120 stadia from the Mediterranean coast. The main street ran along the river valley, and the street parallel to it was crossed by lanes that descended from the foothills to the river, the banks of which were decorated with gardens. Later, Antiochus III, on an island formed by the branches of the river, erected a new city, surrounded by walls and built in a ring, with a royal palace in the center and radial streets radiating from it, bordered by porticoes.

  If Alexandria and Antioch are known mainly from the descriptions of ancient authors, then the excavations of Pergamum gave a vivid picture of the structure of the third in historical value of the capitals of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Pergamum, which existed as a fortress on an inaccessible hill overlooking the valley of the Kaik River, gradually expanded under the Attalids and turned into a major trade and cultural center. Consistent with the topography of the area, the city descended in terraces along the slopes of the hill: at its top there was a citadel with an arsenal and food warehouses and an upper city surrounded by ancient walls, with a royal palace, temples, a theater, a library, etc. Below, apparently, there was an old agora, residential and craft quarters, also surrounded by a wall, but later the city went beyond it, and even further down the slope a new public center of the city with the temples of Demeter, Hera, gymnasiums, a stadium and a new agora arose, surrounded by a third wall which housed trade and craft rows.

  The capitals of the Hellenistic kingdoms give an idea of ​​the scope of urban development, but small cities were more typical of this era - newly founded or rebuilt old Greek and eastern urban-type settlements. The excavated cities of the Hellenistic time Priene, Nicaea, Dura-Evropos can serve as an example of this kind of cities. The role of the agora as the center of the city's social life clearly stands out here. This is usually a spacious square surrounded by porticoes, around which and on the adjacent main street, the main public buildings were erected: temples, a bouleuterium, a dicasterion, a gymnasium with a palaestra. Such a layout and the presence of these structures testify to the polis organization of the city's population, that is, they allow us to assume the existence of popular assemblies, boule, polis education system, which is also confirmed by narrative and epigraphic sources.

  New forms of socio-political organizations

  Destruction of policies

  The policies of the Hellenistic time are already significantly different from the policies of the classical era. Greek polis as a form of socio-economic and political organization of ancient society by the end of the 4th century. BC NS. was in a state of crisis. The polis impeded economic development, since its inherent autarchy and autonomy prevented the expansion and strengthening of economic ties. It did not meet the socio-political needs of society, since, on the one hand, it did not ensure the reproduction of the civilian collective as a whole - the poorest part of it faced the threat of loss of civil rights, on the other hand, it did not guarantee the external security and stability of this collective, torn apart by internal contradictions.

  Historical events of the late 4th - early 3rd century BC NS. led to the creation of a new form of socio-political organization - the Hellenistic monarchy, combining elements of eastern despotism - a monarchical form of state power with a permanent army and a centralized administration - and elements of a polis structure in the form of cities with rural territories assigned to them, which retained internal organs. self-government, but largely subordinate to the king. The size of the lands assigned to the policy and the provision of economic and political privileges depended on the king; the policy was limited in the rights of foreign policy relations, in most cases, the activities of the police self-government bodies were controlled by the tsarist official - epistat. The loss of the foreign policy independence of the polis was compensated by the security of existence, greater social stability and the provision of strong economic ties with other parts of the state. The tsarist power acquired in the urban population an important social support and the necessary contingents for the administration and the army.

  On the territory of the policies, land relations developed according to the usual pattern: the private property of citizens and the property of the city on unshared plots. But the difficulty was that land could be attributed to the cities with local villages located on it, the population of which did not become citizens of the city, but continued to own their plots, paying taxes to the city or individuals who received these lands from the king, and then attributed them to the city. In the territory not attributed to the cities, the whole land was considered royal.

  Socio-economic structure of Egypt

  In Egypt, about the socio-economic structure of which the most detailed information has been preserved, according to the Tax Regulations of Ptolemy II Philadelphus and other Egyptian papyri, it was divided into two categories: the actual royal and "ceded" lands, which included the lands that belonged to temples, lands, given by the king as a "gift" to his entourage, and lands provided by small plots (clers) to the cleruch warriors. On all these categories of land, there could also be local villages, the inhabitants of which continued to own their hereditary allotments, paying taxes or taxes. Similar forms can be traced in documents from the kingdom of the Seleucids. This specificity of land relations determined the multilayer social structure of the Hellenistic states. The royal house with its courtier states, the highest military and civil administration, the most prosperous townspeople and the highest priesthood constituted the upper layer of the slave-owning nobility. The basis of their well-being was land (city and donation), lucrative positions, trade, usury.

  The middle strata were more numerous - urban traders and artisans, tsarist administrative personnel, tax farmers, klerukh and kateks, local priesthood, people of intelligent professions (architects, doctors, philosophers, painters, sculptors). Both of these strata, with all the differences in wealth and interests, constituted the ruling class, which received the designation "Hellenes" in the Egyptian papyri not so much for the ethnicity of the people included in it, but for their social status and education, which opposed them to all "non-Hellenes" : the poor local rural and urban population - laoi (mob).

  Most of the laoi were dependent or semi-dependent farmers who cultivated the lands of the king, nobility and townspeople on the basis of lease relations or traditional holding. This also included the hypotheles - workers in the workshops of those industries that were the monopoly of the tsar. All of them were considered personally free, but were assigned to their place of residence, to one or another workshop or profession. Below them on the social ladder were only slaves.

  Slavery

  

  The Greco-Macedonian conquest, the wars of the Diadochs, the spread of the polis system gave impetus to the development of slaveholding relations in their classical antique form, while preserving more primitive forms of slavery: debts, self-sale, etc. Obviously, the role of slave labor in Hellenistic cities (primarily in everyday life and, probably, in urban craft) was no less than in the Greek city-states. But in agriculture, slave labor could not crowd out the labor of the local population (the "tsarist farmers" in Egypt, the "tsarist people" among the Seleucids), the exploitation of which was no less profitable. In large farms of the nobility on donated lands, slaves performed administrative functions, served as auxiliary labor. However, the increased role of slavery in the general system of socio-economic relations led to an increase in non-economic coercion in relation to other categories of workers.

  Rural population

  If the form of social organization of the urban population was the polis, then the rural population was united in comas and katoikia with the preservation of elements of the communal structure, which can be traced according to the data of Egyptian papyri and inscriptions from Asia Minor and Syria. In Egypt, a traditionally established territory was assigned to each coma; the common "royal" current is mentioned, where all the inhabitants of the coma threshed bread. The names of rural officials preserved in the papyri may have originated from a communal organization, but under the Ptolemies they already meant mainly not elected officials, but representatives of the local tsarist administration. The compulsory liturgy for the repair and construction of irrigation facilities, legalized by the state, also goes back to the communal order that once existed. In the papyri there is no information about the meetings of the inhabitants of the coma, but in the inscriptions from Fayum and Asia Minor there is a traditional formula about the decisions of a collective of comets on a particular issue. According to papyri and inscriptions, the population of com in the Hellenistic period was heterogeneous: priests, klerukhs or kateks (military colonists), officials, tax farmers, slaves, traders, artisans, day laborers lived in them permanently or temporarily. The influx of immigrants, differences in property and legal status weakened communal ties.

  Brief conclusions

  So, during the III century. BC NS. the socio-economic structure of Hellenistic society was formed, which is peculiar in each of the states (depending on local conditions), but it also had some common features.

  At the same time, in accordance with local traditions and peculiarities of the social structure in the Hellenistic monarchies, a system of management of the state (tsarist) economy, a central and local military, administrative, financial and judicial apparatus, a system of taxation, leasing and monopolies were formed; the relationship of cities and temples with the tsarist administration was determined. Social stratification of the population found expression in the legislative consolidation of the privileges of some and the obligations of others. At the same time, social contradictions that were caused by this structure also emerged.

  Exacerbation of the internal struggle and the conquest of the Hellenistic states by Rome

  The study of the social structure of the Eastern Hellenistic states reveals a characteristic feature: the main burden of maintaining the state apparatus fell on the local rural population. The cities found themselves in a relatively favorable position, which was one of the reasons that contributed to their rapid growth and prosperity.

  State of affairs in Greece

  A different type of social development took place in Greece and Macedonia. Macedonia also developed as a Hellenistic state, combining elements of the monarchy and polis structure. But although the land holdings of the Macedonian kings were relatively extensive, there was not a wide layer of dependent rural population (with the exception, perhaps, of the Thracians), due to the exploitation of which the state apparatus and a significant part of the ruling class could exist. The burden of spending on the maintenance of the army and the construction of the fleet fell equally on the urban and rural population. Differences between Greeks and Macedonians, villagers and townspeople were determined by their property status, the line of estate-class division ran between free and slaves. The development of the economy deepened the further introduction of slave relations.

  For Greece, the Hellenistic era did not bring fundamental changes in the system of socio-economic relations. The most noticeable phenomenon was the outflow of the population (mainly young and middle age - warriors, artisans, traders) to Western Asia and Egypt. This was supposed to dull the acuteness of social contradictions within the policies. But the continuous wars of the Diadochi, the fall in the value of money as a result of the influx of gold and silver from Asia, and the rise in the prices of consumer goods ruined primarily the poor and middle strata of citizens. The problem of overcoming polis economic isolation remained unresolved; attempts to resolve it within the framework of the federation did not lead to economic integration and consolidation of unions. In the policies that fell into dependence on Macedonia, an oligarchic or tyrannical form of government was established, freedom of international relations was limited, and Macedonian garrisons were introduced to strategically important points.

  Reforms in Sparta

  In all policies of Greece in the III century. BC NS. debt and landlessness of poor citizens are growing, and at the same time the concentration of land and wealth in the hands of the polis aristocracy. By the middle of the century, these processes reached their greatest acuteness in Sparta, where most of the Spartiats actually lost their allotments. The need for social transformations forced the Spartan king Agis IV (245-241 BC) to come up with a proposal to cancel debts and redistribute land in order to increase the number of full citizens. These reforms, clothed in the form of restoring the laws of Lycurgus, provoked the resistance of the ehorat and the aristocracy. Agis died, but the social situation in Sparta remained tense. A few years later, King Cleomenes III came forward with the same reforms.

  Taking into account the experience of Agis, Cleomenes pre-consolidated his position with successful actions in the beginning in 228 BC. NS. war with the Achaean Union. Having enlisted the support of the army, he first destroyed the eforat and expelled the richest citizens from Sparta, then carried out a cassation of debts and redistribution of land, increasing the number of citizens by 4 thousand people. Events in Sparta caused ferment throughout Greece. Mantinea withdrew from the Achaean Union and joined Cleomenes, unrest began in other cities of the Peloponnese. In the war with the Achaean Union, Cleomenes occupied a number of cities, Corinth went over to his side. Frightened by this, the oligarchic leadership of the Achaean Union turned to the king of Macedonia Antigonus Doson for help. The preponderance of forces was on the side of the opponents of Sparta. Then Cleomenes freed about 6 thousand helots for ransom and included 2 thousand of them in his army. But in the battle of Selassia (222 BC) the combined forces of Macedonia and the Achaeans destroyed the Spartan army, a Macedonian garrison was introduced to Sparta, and Cleomenes' reforms were annulled.

  The defeat of Cleomenes could not halt the growth of social movements. Already in 219 BC. NS. in Sparta, Chilo again tried to destroy the eforat and redistribute property; in 215, the oligarchs were expelled in Messinia and the land was redistributed; in 210, the tyrant Mahanid seized power in Sparta. after his death in the war with the Achaean Union, the Spartan state was headed by the tyrant Nabis, who carried out an even more radical redistribution of the land and property of the nobility, the liberation of the helots and the allotment of land to the Perieks. In 205, an attempt was made to cassate debts in Aetolia.

  State of affairs in Egypt

  By the end of the III century. BC NS. the contradictions of the socio-economic structure begin to appear in the Eastern Hellenistic powers, and above all in Egypt. The organization of the Ptolemies was aimed at extracting maximum income from lands, mines and workshops. The system of taxes and duties was detailed and consumed most of the harvest, depleting the economy of small farmers. The growing apparatus of the tsarist administration, tax farmers and merchants further intensified the exploitation of the local population. One of the forms of protest against oppression was the departure from the place of residence (anachorsis), which sometimes took on a mass character, and the flight of slaves. More active actions of the masses are gradually increasing. The Fourth Syrian War and the associated hardships caused massive unrest, which first engulfed Lower Egypt and soon spread throughout the country. If in the most Hellenized regions of Lower Egypt, the government of Ptolemy IV managed to quickly achieve pacification, then the unrest in the south of Egypt by 206 BC. NS. grew into a wide popular movement, and Thebais fell away from the Ptolemies for more than two decades. Although the movement in Thebaid had features of a protest against the domination of foreigners, its social orientation is clearly traced in the sources.

  The arrival of Rome in Greece and Asia Minor

  In Greece, the second Macedonian war, which lasted for more than two years, ended with the victory of Rome. The demagoguery of the Romans, who used the traditional slogan of "freedom" of the Greek city-states, attracted the Aetolian and Achaean unions to their side, and above all the wealthy strata of citizens who saw the Romans as a force capable of securing their interests without the monarchical form of government odious for the demos. Macedonia lost all of its possessions in Greece, the Aegean Sea and Asia Minor. Rome, solemnly proclaiming at the Isthmian Games (196 BC) the "freedom" of Greek poleis, began to dispose of in Greece, regardless of the interests of its former allies: it determined the borders of states, placed its garrisons in Corinth, Demetrias and Chalcis, interfered in the inner life of the policies. The "liberation" of Greece was the first step in the spread of Roman rule in the Eastern Mediterranean, the beginning of a new stage in the history of the Hellenistic world.

  The next equally important event was the so-called Syrian war between Rome and Antiochus III. Having strengthened their borders with the Eastern campaign in 212-204. BC NS. and the victory over Egypt, Antiochus began to expand his possessions in Asia Minor and Thrace at the expense of the policies liberated by the Romans from the power of Macedonia, which led to a clash with Rome and its Greek allies Pergamum and Rhodes. The war ended with the defeat of the troops of Antiochus and the loss of the Asia Minor territories by the Seleucids.

  The victory of the Romans and their allies over the largest of the Hellenistic powers - the kingdom of the Seleucids - radically changed the political situation: no Hellenistic state could claim hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean. The subsequent political history of the Hellenistic world is the history of the gradual subordination of one country after another to Roman rule. The prerequisites for this are, on the one hand, the tendencies of the economic development of ancient society, which required the establishment of closer and more stable ties between the Western and Eastern Mediterranean, on the other, contradictions in foreign policy relations and the internal socio-political instability of the Hellenistic states. The process of active penetration of the Romans to the East began and the adaptation of the Eastern economic centers to the new situation. The military and economic expansion of the Romans was accompanied by the massive enslavement of prisoners of war and the intensive development of slave relations in Italy and in the conquered regions.

  These phenomena largely determined the internal life of the Hellenistic states. Contradictions are aggravated at the top of Hellenistic society - between the strata of the urban nobility, interested in expanding commodity production, trade and slavery, and the nobility associated with the tsarist administrative apparatus and temples and living at the expense of traditional forms of exploitation of the rural population. The clash of interests resulted in palace coups, dynastic wars, urban uprisings, and demands for complete autonomy of cities from the tsarist power. The struggle at the top sometimes merged with the struggle of the masses against tax oppression, usury and enslavement, and then dynastic wars developed into a kind of civil wars.

  Roman diplomacy played a significant role in inciting the dynastic struggle within the Hellenistic states and in pushing them against each other. Thus, on the eve of the third Macedonian war (171-168 BC), the Romans managed to achieve almost complete isolation of Macedonia. Despite the attempts of the king of Macedonia Perseus to win over the Greek city-states through democratic reforms (he announced the cashing of state debts and the return of the exiles), only Epirus and Illyria joined him. After the defeat of the Macedonian army under Pydna, the Romans divided Macedonia into four isolated districts, banned the development of mines, the extraction of salt, the export of timber (this became the monopoly of the Romans), as well as the purchase of real estate and the conclusion of marriages between residents of different 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 reprisals against Macedonia and Epirus, interference in the internal affairs of the Greek city-states provoked open protests against Roman rule: the revolt of Andrisk in Macedonia (149-148 BC) and the revolt of the Achaean Union (146 BC), brutally suppressed by the Romans. Macedonia was turned into a Roman province, the unions of the Greek city-states were dissolved, and an oligarchy was established. The mass of the population was taken out and sold into slavery, Hellas came to a state of impoverishment and desolation.

  War between Egypt and the Seleucid kingdom

  While Rome was busy subjugating Macedon, war broke out between Egypt and the Seleucid kingdom. In 170, and then in 168 BC. NS. Antiochus IV made campaigns in Egypt, captured and besieged Alexandria, but the intervention of Rome forced him to abandon his intentions. Meanwhile, a rebellion broke out in Judea, triggered by a tax hike. Antiochus, suppressing it, built a fortress of Acru in Jerusalem and left a garrison there, power in Judea was assigned to the "Hellenists", the Jewish religion was banned, the cult of Greek deities was introduced. This repression caused in 166 BC. NS. a new uprising, which grew into a popular war against the rule of the Seleucids. In 164 BC. NS. the rebels, led by Judas Maccabee, took Jerusalem and laid siege to Acre. Judas Maccabee appropriated the rank of high priest, distributed priestly positions regardless of nobility and confiscated the property of the Hellenists. In 160 BC. NS. Demetrius I defeated Judas Maccabeus and sent his garrisons into the Jewish cities. But the struggle of the Jews did not stop.

  After the invasion of Antiochus in Egypt, an uprising arose in the nomes of Middle Egypt, led by Dionysus Petosarapis (suppressed in 165), and an uprising in Panopolis. At the same time, dynastic wars began, which became especially fierce at the end of the 2nd century. BC NS. The economic situation in the country was very difficult. A significant part of the land was empty, the government, in order to ensure their cultivation, introduced a compulsory lease. The life of most of the Laoi, even from the point of view of the tsarist administration, was miserable. Official and private legal documents of that time testify to the anarchy and arbitrariness that reigned in Egypt: anachoresis, tax evasion, seizure of foreign lands, vineyards and property, appropriation of temple and state revenues by private individuals, enslavement of the free - all these phenomena have become widespread. The local administration, strictly organized and dependent on the central government under the first Ptolemies, turned into an uncontrollable force interested in personal enrichment. From her greed, the government was forced by special decrees - the so-called decrees of philanthropy - to protect the farmers and artisans associated with, in order to get their share of the income from them. But the decrees could only temporarily or partially stop the decline of the Ptolemaic state economic system.

  Further advancement of Rome into Asia and the collapse of the Hellenistic states

  

  Having pacified Greece and Macedonia, Rome launched an offensive against the states of Asia Minor. Roman merchants and usurers, penetrating into the economy of the states of Asia Minor, increasingly subordinated the domestic and foreign policy of these states to the interests of Rome. Pergamum found itself in the most difficult situation, where the situation was so tense that Attal III (139-123 BC), not hoping for the stability of the existing regime, bequeathed his kingdom to Rome. But neither this act, nor the reform that was tried to be known after his death, could not prevent a popular movement that swept the whole country and directed against the Romans and the local nobility. For more than three years (132-129 BC), the rebellious farmers, slaves and the unequal population of the cities under the leadership of Aristonikos resisted the Romans. After the suppression of the uprising, Pergamum was turned into the province of Asia.

  Instability is growing in the Seleucid state. Following Judea, separatist tendencies are also manifested in the eastern satrapies, who are beginning to orient themselves towards Parthia. The attempt of Antiochus VII Sidet (138-129 BC) to restore the unity of the state ended in defeat and his death. This led to the falling away of Babylonia, Persia and Media, which came under the rule of Parthia or local dynasts. At the beginning of the 1st century. BC NS. Commagene and Judea become independent.

  The sharpest dynastic struggle was a vivid expression of this crisis. For 35 years, 12 pretenders have changed on the throne, often two or three kings ruled at the same time. The territory of the Seleucid state was reduced to the limits of Syria proper, Phenicia, Kelesiria and part of Cilicia. Large cities sought to obtain full autonomy or even independence (tyranny in, Tire, Sidon, etc.). In 64 BC. NS. the kingdom of the Seleucids was annexed to Rome as a province of Syria.

  Kingdom of Pontus and Mithridates

  In the 1st century. BC NS. The focus of resistance to Roman aggression was the Pontic kingdom, which under Mithridates VI Eupator (120-63 BC) extended its power to almost the entire coast of the Black Sea. In 89 BC. NS. Mithridates Eupator began a war with Rome, his speech and democratic reforms found the support of the population of Asia Minor and Greece, ruined by the Roman usurers and publicans. By order of Mithridates, 80 thousand Romans were killed in Asia Minor in one day. By 88, he easily occupied almost all of Greece. However, the successes of Mithridates were short-lived. His arrival did not improve the life of the Greek city-states, the Romans managed to inflict a number of defeats on the Pontic army, and the subsequent social events of Mithridates - cassation of debts, division of lands, granting citizenship to the Methecs and slaves - deprived him of support among the wealthy strata of citizens. In 85, Mithridates was forced to admit that he was defeated. He twice more - in 83-81 and 73-63. BC NS. tried, relying on anti-Roman sentiments, to stop the penetration of the Romans into Asia Minor, but the alignment of social forces and trends in historical development predetermined the defeat of the Pontic king.

  Submission of Egypt

  When at the beginning of the 1st century. BC NS. the possessions of Rome came close to the borders of Egypt, the kingdom of the Ptolemies was still shaken by dynastic strife and popular movements. Around 88 BC NS. rebellion broke out again in Thebaid, only three years later it was suppressed by Ptolemy IX, who destroyed the center of the uprising -. In the next 15 years, riots took place in the nomes of Central Egypt - in Hermopolis and twice in. In Rome, the question of the subordination of Egypt was repeatedly discussed, but the Senate did not dare to start a war against this still strong state. In 48 BC. NS. Caesar, after an eight-month war with the Alexandrians, limited himself to the annexation of Egypt as an allied kingdom. Only after the victory of Augustus over Antony did Alexandria come to terms with the inevitability of submission to Roman rule, and in 30 BC. NS. the Romans entered Egypt almost without resistance. The last major state collapsed.

  Aftermath of the invasion of Rome and the collapse of the Hellenistic states

  The Hellenistic world as a political system was absorbed by the Roman Empire, but the elements of the socio-economic structure that took shape in the Hellenistic era had a huge impact on the development of the Eastern Mediterranean in subsequent centuries and determined its specificity. In the era of Hellenism, a new step was taken in the development of productive forces, a type of state arose - the Hellenistic kingdoms, which combined the features of Eastern despotism with the polis organization of cities; significant changes took place in the stratification of the population, and internal socio-political contradictions reached great tension. In the II-I centuries. BC e., probably for the first time in history, social struggle took on such diverse forms: the flight of slaves and the anachoresis of the inhabitants of the coma, tribal uprisings, unrest and revolts in cities, religious wars, palace coups and dynastic wars, short-term unrest in the nomes and long popular movements, in which was attended by different strata of the population, including slaves, and even slave uprisings, which, however, were of a local nature (about 130 BC. 103/102 BC).

  During the Hellenistic period, ethnic differences between Greeks and Macedonians lose their former significance, and the ethnic designation "Hellene" acquires a social content and extends to those strata of the population who, according to their social status, can receive an education according to the Greek model and lead an appropriate way of life, regardless of their origin. This socio-ethnic process was reflected in the development and dissemination of a single Greek language, the so-called Koine, which became the language of Hellenistic literature and the official language of the Hellenistic states.

  Changes in the economic, social and political spheres affected the change in the socio-psychological appearance of a person of the Hellenistic era. The instability of the external and internal political situation, the ruin, enslavement of some and the enrichment of others, the development of slavery and the slave trade, the movement of the population from one locality to another, from rural settlements to cities and from city to chorus - all this led to a weakening of ties within the civilian collective of the polis, communal ties in rural settlements, to the growth of individualism. The polis can no longer guarantee the freedom and material well-being of a citizen, personal ties with representatives of the tsarist administration and the patronage of those in power are beginning to acquire great importance. Gradually, from one generation to the next, there is a psychological restructuring, and a citizen of the polis turns into a subject of the king, not only by formal status, but also by political convictions. All these processes in one way or another influenced the formation of Hellenistic culture.

  Hellenism (Hellenistic civilization), a term originally referring to ancient. the peoples of the Mediterranean, who first adopted the Greek. language, and then the culture of Greece. Later it began to be used to refer to the historical. the era that began with the conquests of Alexander the Great. In pl. the cities founded by him and his successors, the customs of the Greeks and "barbarians" coexisted. Alexandria in Egypt has become the cultural center of the Mediterranean region. The spread of the new culture was facilitated by the development of a common dialect of Greek. lang. - "koine".

  Excellent definition

  Incomplete definition ↓

  HELLENISM

  period in the history of the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean between 323 and 30 years. BC NS. (submission of Egypt to Rome). The struggle for power between the diadochi led to the formation of several states on the site of the power of Alexander the Great: the Seleucids, Ptolemies, Pergamum, the Pontic kingdom, etc., whose political system combines elements of ancient Eastern monarchies with the features of the Greek polis. During the II-I centuries. these Hellenistic states gradually came under the rule of Rome. Ethiopia's culture was a synthesis of Greek and local oriental cultures.

  Excellent definition

  Incomplete definition ↓

  Hellenism

  period in the history of the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean between 323 and 30 years. BC. (the conquest of Egypt by Rome). The struggle for power between the generals of Alexander the Great - the diadochi - after his death led to the formation of several states on the site of his huge power: the Seleucids, Ptolemies, Pergamum, the Pontic kingdom, etc., whose political system combined elements of ancient Eastern monarchies with the features of the Greek polis; in the period of the 2nd - 1st centuries. BC. these Hellenistic states gradually came under the rule of Rome. The culture of Hellenism was a synthesis of Greek and local oriental cultures.

  Excellent definition

  Incomplete definition ↓

  HELLENISM

  culturecountries of the Eastern Mediterranean in the period that lasted from the time of the conquests of Alexander the Great (334-23 BC) to 30 BC. e., when Egypt was conquered by Rome. The term was introduced in the 19th century. by the German scientist I. Droysen. As a result of the fierce struggle between the successors of Alexander, several new states were formed: the Seleucids (stretching from the coast of the Aegean Sea to Bactria, which existed in the territory of modern Afghanistan), the Ptolemies (in Egypt), Pergamum (in Asia Minor), the Pontic kingdom, etc., the political system which combined elements of ancient Eastern monarchies with the features of the Greek polis. In Hellenism, the traditions of the Hellenic (Greek) and local oriental cultures were difficult to combine.

  At this time, many new cities were built, which were called, as a rule, in honor of the monarchs who founded them (Alexandria, Seleucia, Antioch). They were built on the basis of a regular plan, along the sides of the main streets were large colonnades, agoras (squares) were also framed by colonnades and porticoes. The new Hellenistic capitals became centers of cultural life in the 3rd and 1st centuries. BC NS. (Pergamum in Asia Minor, Alexandria in Egypt). The development of architecture was due to the improvement of construction technology. Hellenistic architecture is characterized by the desire to master huge open spaces, to grandiose scales, the desire to amaze a person with the grandeur of design, spectacular splendor, luxury of materials and decoration (temples of the god Serapis in Alexandria, Apollo in Didyma, Zeus in Athens and Artemis in Magnesia). The temples were built very slowly due to the large amount of work, sometimes due to lack of funds, they remained unfinished. Temples of local deities were also built and restored (temples of Horus in Edfu, Isis on Phile Island, Esagil in Babylon, etc.). Much attention was paid to civil engineering (theaters, palaces, hippodromes, bouleutheria - meetinghouses). New types of public buildings appeared - libraries (in Alexandria, Pergamum, Antioch), museions for scientific and literary studies (in Alexandria, Antioch), engineering structures (Pharos lighthouse off the coast of Alexandria, the Tower of the Winds in Athens).

  Monumental sculpture is characterized by grandiose scale, splendor, complexity of composition, striving for violent effects (the altar of Zeus in Pergamum with the famous relief frieze depicting scenes of the battle of the gods with giants, c. 180-60 BC). The symbols of the era were the statue of Nike of Samothrace (c. 190 BC), in which the master managed to convey the feeling of flight, the sculptural group "Laocoon" (1st century BC), the statue of Venus of Milos (Aphrodite of Melos, middle of the 2nd century BC), which became the standard of female beauty for centuries, and "Apollo Belvedere" by Leochares (second half of the 4th century BC).

  Interest in a specific person awakens, new types of images appear in sculpture and painting: portraits of Hellenistic kings, thinkers, poets. The portraits created in the era of Hellenism accurately convey the age of people (images of children and old people appear for the first time), their national, professional and social belonging. In mosaics, a free, picturesque manner of execution is distinguished (mosaics in Pella, the capital of Macedonia, at the end of the 4th century BC) and a more rigorous one, directed to the heritage of the classics. Vase painting is flourishing, craftsmen achieve high perfection in the manufacture of artistic vessels from glass and carved gems from precious and semi-precious stones (Gonzaga cameo with portraits of Tsar Ptolemy II and Queen Arsinoe, 3rd century BC).

  The legacy of Hellenism had a significant impact on the development of Roman culture and cultures of other peoples of antiquity and the Middle Ages.

  Excellent definition

  Incomplete definition ↓

  HELLENISM

  initial E. denoted the correct use of Greek. language, especially by non-Greeks, then - common. Greek culture. After the publication of the work of I. G. Droysen "History of Hellenism" (1836 - 1843), the concept of "E." entered the historic. science. In the German-language literature, this concept began to denote ist. an era that began with the accession of Alexander the Great and ended with the incorporation of Ptolemaic Egypt into Rome. state (336 - 330 BC). The reasons for the formation of the era of E. were as follows. In Greece, 4th century. BC. the importance of policies fell, and they experienced an acute social and political. a crisis. In these conditions, increased. Macedonia has made polit. domination over the Greek. policies. By that time, centralization was established in Macedonia. monarchy (Philip II) with the capital in Pella, although in the mountainous regions there was still a strong influence of the clan nobility. At the same time, in Pers. the Achaemenid empire, due to centrifugal tendencies in the satrapies (Egypt, Babylon, Phrygia, etc.), revealed distinct crisis phenomena. To overcome the crisis in Greece were undertaken under the leadership. Macedonian conquests. in the East (Persian kingdom). Hellenistic. the era covers thus: 1) The period of the campaigns of Alexander the Great up to the Indus (334 - 323 BC). 2) The collapse of this state. and education based on it "Hellenistic." and east. state in tech. Wars of the Diadochi (323 - 280 BC). 3) The history of these states. before their submission by Rome or Parthia (280 - 230 BC). Most creatures. a question for assessing this era, in relation to a swarm of opinions of scientists differ, this is a question about the volume and consequences, to-rye had the formation of the state. with Maked. dynasties in the East and in the Greek. region. This applies to both social, economic and cultural aspects. Ch. the problem is whether antiquity prevailed, i.e. polis, land ownership and classic. slavery in V. or not. The most important Hellenistic. state were Macedonia itself with the Antigonid dynasty (the founder of the cut was the commander Antigonus One-eyed, the strategist of Great Phrygia under Alexander the Great), the state. The Seleucids, founded by the chief of the cavalry Seleucus (which included primarily Syria, Mesopotamia, later Palestine and most of Anatolia, temporarily covering also the Iranian region), Egypt under the rule of the Ptolemies (Cyrenaica also belonged to the Krom) and, finally, Pergamum, in which- The Attalid dynasty reigned in rum. In addition, there were smaller, independent ones. education to the south. the coast of the Black m. (Bithynia, Cappadocia, Pontus) and in Armenia. First. subordinates to Alexander the Great Iran. region and small principalities for ind. border already in the 3rd century. BC. could not resist the Parthian state. and expanding. the Mauryan empire. T. n. Greco-Bactrian state under the leadership. leaders of the Greek. mercenaries lasted a certain time between these states. The polises of Balkan Greece received some autonomy, but nevertheless were dependent on the great powers, especially from Macedonia. Only the Aetolian and Achaean unions at times could conduct independently. politics. In the culture of the East. Hellenistic state there is clearly a strong Greek. influence (in architecture, official language, etc.). Greek. immigrants who formed new policies in the Hellenistic. kingdoms, spread. here is antique. a form of private property in handicrafts and in villages. x-ve (in the districts, directly adjacent to the cities). There was also a classic in them. slavery (Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, Seleucia on the Tigris). However, these cities were no longer independent. politician and social and economic. units, as in the classic. period of the Greek. stories. They are. part of the state. (for example, ancient Greek cities on the Asia Minor coast), at best - dependent allies. They had to pay taxes or tribute (if they were not exempt from this in some cases). In the Grecoegean region of Antich. social and economic the basis did not change, and in the future it was based on private ownership of the means of production and on the domination of slave owners. relationships. X-in is still concentrated. in the town. Because the number of slaves due to pl. wars increased, the standard of living of free citizens, dependent on earnings, fell. In the east. Hellenistic state villages remained the basis of agricultural production. community, typical form of ownership - royal (especially land). The personal dependence of the tsarist peasants formed the basis of production. relationships. Means. part of the land with the Hellenistic peasants living on it. kings, as well as other East. despots, transferred to dignitaries and temples, to-rye had to pay tax for its use. Hellenistic. cities cultural life was determined by the ruling class, which consisted mainly of. from the Greeks. The philosophy of that time reflected the crisis of the polis system, ch. directions were skepticism, stoicism and epicureanism. In the region. religion, more and more citizens turned to mystery cults that promised a better, afterlife. Drama, especially comedy, turned away from major politicians. events and delved into the private concerns and needs of individuals. With the emergence of the royal courts, the Greco-Macedonian. dynasties, art began to concentrate in the new capitals and their museums. Will depict. art was more and more order-oriented and therefore became far-fetched and mannered. Liter was enriched by the East. forms, incl. legends and apocalyptic. motives. Starting from the 2nd century. BC. Hellenistic state became victims of Rome. expansion: Macedonia and Greece - in 148 - 146 BC, Pergamum - in 129 BC, state. Seleucids (in 83 BC. Conquered by Tigran of Armenia) - in 64 BC, Egypt - in 30 BC. Hellenistic. era, the narrow framework of the polis was overcome and attributed. viable states, elements of which were adopted by the Romans and later led to the creation of a new feud. order.

  Excellent definition

  Incomplete definition ↓

  Hellenism

  (hellenismus). Originally E. denoted the correct use of Greek. language, especially by non-Greeks, then - the spread of Greek. culture. After the publication of the work of J. G. Droysen "History of Hellenism" (1836-1843), the concept of "E." entered the historic. science. In the German-language liter, this concept began to denote the historical. the era that began with the accession of Alexander the Great and ended with the incorporation of Ptolemaic Egypt into Rome. states (336-30 BC). The reasons for the formation of the era of E. were as follows. In Greece, 4th century. BC NS. the importance of policies fell, and they experienced an acute socio-political. a crisis. In these conditions, the strengthened Macedonia has achieved political. domination over the Greek. policies. By that time, a centralized monarchy (Philip II) with the capital in the city of Pella was established in Macedonia, although the influence of the clan nobility was still strong in the mountainous regions. At the same time, in the Persians, the Achaemenid empire, due to centrifugal tendencies in the satrapies (Egypt, Babylon, Phrygia, etc.), distinct crisis phenomena were revealed. To overcome the crisis in Greece, conquests in the East (Persian kingdom) were undertaken under the leadership of Macedonia. Hellenistic. the epoch covers, ie: 1) the period of the campaigns of Alexander the Great up to the Indus (334–323 BC); 2) the disintegration of this state and the formation on its basis of "Hellenistic." and east. states during the wars of the Diadochi (323–280 BC); 3) the history of these states before their submission by Rome or Parthia (280-30 BC). Most of the creatures, the question for assessing this era, regarding which the opinions of scholars differ, is the question of the volume and consequences that the formation of states with Macedonian dynasties in the East and in Greek had. region. This applies to both the socio-economic and cultural aspects. The main problem is whether the antique, i.e. polis, ownership of land and the classic prevailed. slavery in V. or not. The most important Hellenistic. states were Macedonia itself with the Angigonid dynasty (the founder of which was the commander Antigonus One-eyed, strategist of Great Phrygia under Alexander the Great), the Seleucid state founded by the chief of the cavalry Seleucus (which included primarily Syria, Mesopotamia, later Palestine and most of Anatolia, temporarily covering also Iran, region), Egypt under the rule of the Ptolemies (to which Cyrenaica also belonged) and, finally, Pergamum, in which the Attalid dynasty reigned. In addition, there were smaller independent formations to the south. Black coast m. (Bithynia, Cappadocia, Pontus) and in Armenia. Originally subordinate to Alexander the Great, Iran, regions and small principalities in the Indus. border already in the 3rd century. BC NS. did not resist the Parthian state and the expanding Mauryan empire. T. n. Greco-Bactrian state under the leadership of the leaders of the Greek. mercenaries held out for some time between these states. The polises of Balkan Greece received some autonomy, but nevertheless were dependent on the great powers, especially from Macedonia. Only the Aetolian and Achaean unions at times could pursue an independent policy. In the culture of the East. Hellenistic states clearly traced a strong Greek. influence (in architecture, official language, etc.). Grech, immigrants who formed new policies in the Hellenistic. kingdoms, spread here the ancient form of private property in handicrafts and agriculture (in the areas immediately adjacent to the cities). There was also a classic in them. slavery (Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, Seleucia on the Tigris). However, these cities were no longer independent politicians. and socio-economic. units, as in the classic. period of the Greek. stories. They were part of the state (for example, ancient Greek cities on the Asia Minor coast), at best, dependent allies. They had to pay taxes or tribute (if they were not exempt from this in some cases). In the Greco-Aegean region, the ancient socio-economic. the basis did not change, it continued to be based on private ownership of the means of production and on the domination of the slave owner. relationships. The economy was still concentrated in the city. Since the number of slaves due to the numerous. wars increased, the standard of living of free citizens, dependent on earnings, fell. In the east. Hellenistic In states, the basis of agricultural production remained the rural community, the typical form of ownership - the tsarist (especially land). The personal dependence of the tsarist peasants formed the basis of production and relations. A significant part of the land with the peasants living on it is Hellenistic. kings, as well as other East. despots, transferred to dignitaries and temples, who had to pay tax for its use. Hellenistic. cities cultural life was determined by the ruling class, which consisted mainly of. from the Greeks. The philosophy of that time reflected the crisis of the polis system, ch. directions became skepticism, stoicism and epicureanism. In the area of ​​religion, more and more citizens turned to mystery cults that promised a better afterlife. Drama, especially comedy, turned away from major politicians. events and delved into the private concerns and needs of individuals. With the rise of the royal courts of the Greco-Macedonian dynasts, art began to concentrate in the new capitals and their museums. The fine arts were more and more order-oriented and therefore became far-fetched and mannered. Literature was enriched by the East. forms, including legends and apocalypse. motives. Starting from the 2nd century. BC NS. Hellenistic states became victims of Rome. expansion: Macedonia and Greece - in 148-146 BC. e., Pergamum - in 129 BC. NS. Seleucid state (in 83 BC conquered by Tigranes of Armenia) - in 64 BC e., Egypt - 30 BC. NS. Hellenistic. epoch, the narrow framework of the polis was overcome and relatively viable states were created, elements of which were perceived by the Romans and later led to the creation of a new feudal order.

  rice. The states of Alexander the Great and the Diadochi.

  Excellent definition

  Incomplete definition ↓

  Hellenism

  a term that defines a period in the history of Greece and the countries of the East. Mediterranean from the campaigns of A. Macedonian (334 - 323 BC) to the final conquest of the East by Rome (30 BC). The term "e." introduced into scientific circulation in the 30s. last century, the German scientist J.G. Droysen. Unified point of view on e. in the world historiography of antiquity does not exist. 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 K.K. Zelin, who considered E. as a complex socio-economic, political and cultural phenomenon characterized by the synthesis Greek and east. began, and the period itself - as a qualitatively new stage in the development of slave relations in the ancient world.

  Zelin K.K. Some basic problems of the history of Hellenism // SA. 1955. Issue. 22; Kats A.L. Discussion about the problems of Hellenism // SA. 1955. Issue. 22; Koshelenko G.A. The Hellenistic era in modern science (some problems) // Antiquity and ancient traditions in the culture and art of the peoples of the Soviet East. M., 1978; Leveque P. Hellenistic world / Per. with fr. M., 1989; Pavlovskaya A.I. Hellenism // Soviet Historical Encyclopedia. T.16. M., 1976.S. 458-476; Ranovich A.B. Hellenism and its historical role. M .; L., 1950; Sventsitskaya I.S. Socio-economic characteristics of the Hellenistic states. M., 1963; Tarn V. Hellenistic civilization / Per. from English M., 1949; Shtaerman E.M. Hellenism in Rome // VDI. 1994. No. 3; Hellenism: economics, politics, culture. M., 1990.

  (IA Lisovy, KA Revyako. The Ancient World in Terms, Names and Titles: Dictionary-Reference Book on the History and Culture of Ancient Greece and Rome / Scientific Ed. AI Nemirovsky. - 3rd ed. - Minsk: Belarus, 2001)

  concept, to-eye in the 30s. XIX century. German the historian G. Droysen outlined a new type of society. and the cult, relations that have developed in Bl. East and Western Asia after the collapse of the empire of Alexander the Great. Unlike the classic. Greece, which consisted of several. hundreds of self. policies, the era of E. is characterized by the formation of bol. monarchies (Ptolemies in Egypt, Seleucids in Syria), in to-ryh state. power and cult, politics were concentrated in the hands of the Greek-speaking elite and its entourage. Although certain features that determined the essence of E. were ripening already in the 4th century. BC, and the distribution of c. culture in the once conquered territories continued in the first centuries AD. e., in a watered, chronological plan, the boundaries of e. are conveniently considered 323 - 30 BC. NS. (from the death of Alexander the Great to the conquest by Rome of the post. Hellenistic state - Egypt). The characteristic features of the era of E. yavl. the formation of new polit, and cult, centers (Alexandria, Pergamum, Antioch on Orontes) and the emergence of new litas in them. directions and scientific. interests. It retained its significance from the old centers. only Athens as the focus of philosophy. thoughts: along with the Academy and peripatetics, who developed the acc. traditions of Plato and Aristotle, in Athens in the very end of the IV century. the schools of Epicurus and Zeno (Stoics) are formed, to-rye receive vposl. widespread throughout the Hellene, the world. In an era of general instability generated by the wars of Alexander's successors and their descendants, as well as the collapse of the tradition. polis connections, the philosophy of Epicurus and the Stoics, proceeding from diff. ethical parcels, nevertheless, equally responded to the desire of all bol. the number of citizens of Hellenes, monarchies to close within the boundaries of their individual world, to provide an individual int. freedom and independence from circumstances. In the III century, among the lower classes of the city, the population spreads philosophy cynics... The desire of a person to distance himself from society. problems, the search for peace and well-being within the family and a narrow circle of friends is reflected in lit. era E. In the 1st half. III century. poets continue to use the heritage of the tradition. genres, but adapt it to new aesthetics, requests; the poetry of "small forms", addressed to the rather favored, becomes defining. an audience capable of evaluating the results of experimenting with the familiar form and phraseology of the classic. genres. At the same time, it deepens, by cf. with lit. classic period, interest in the inner world of a person, the image of love feelings, the psychology of women and children, everyday life. Naib, these tendencies are vividly expressed in the comedy of Menander and in Alexandrian poetry. In parallel with the development of lit. is the formation of philology, to-heaven turns into this BP. to collecting, classifying, assessing the reliability of texts that have come down from ancient authors. Mn. scientists yavl. simultaneously productively creative poets (Callimachus, Apollonius of Rhodes, Lycophron) - hence their desire to saturate the artist. manuf. mythological rarities, rare words and other attributes of "learned" poetry. As independent, the field of knowledge stands out in the era of E. linguistics and normative grammar ( Dionysius the Thrace). The character of the image. art-va era E. determine, with od. Art., the desire for monumentality (the colossal statue of Helios on the island of Rhodes, the Pharos lighthouse at the entrance to the harbor of Alexandria) and expressive pathos (the altar of Zeus in Pergamum, the Laocoon group), with others - softness and sophistication in fig. women and children, the search for individual traits in a sculptural portrait and increased attention to everyday details.

  The expansion of the boundaries of the known world, the involvement of new lands and peoples in the cultural life lead to the success of geography and astronomy (Eratosthenes, Aristarchus of Samos, Hipparchus). Mathematics and mechanics reach a high level (Euclid, Pappus, Apollonius of Perga, Archimedes). Beings, changes are taking place in religion. Along with the departure of the tradition. cults (gl. arr. in the old c. centers), the veneration of a new deity is developing - Tikhi, personifying the case, in whose power mortals increasingly feel themselves. Interaction gr. strata of the Hellenes, states with a local population of the eastern regions. leads to syncretism of old and new beliefs. The cult of the god Sarapis (Serapis), borrowed from the East, is becoming widespread. He is endowed with the functions of Zeus and Pluto, just like Egypt. Osiris is identified with gr. Dionysus, Phrygian Cybele - with c. Rhea, mother of Zeus and Hera. The significance of all kinds of sacraments and mysteries is growing - initiation in them is perceived as a guarantee of patronage, which a deity can provide to those who have joined his cult. Ethnic culture reached its peak in the third century. and began to decline in mid. II century, when the Romans came into close contact with it, who later used many. her achievements.

  Lit .: Blavatskaya T.V. From the history of the Greek intelligentsia of the Hellenistic time. M., 1983; Leveque P. Hellenistic world. M., 1989; Thorn V. Hellenistic civilization. M., 1949; Hellenism: Economy, Politics, Culture. M., 1990; Hellenism: East and West. M., 1992.

  (Ancient culture: literature, theater, art, philosophy, science. Dictionary-reference / Edited by V.N. Yarho. M., 1995.)

  Excellent definition

  Incomplete definition ↓

  HELLENISM

  a term introduced in the 30s. 19th century German historian I. G. Droysen to characterize the period in the history of the East. Mediterranean from the campaigns of Alexander the Great (334-323 BC) to the conquest of these countries by Rome, which ended in 30 BC. NS. subjugation of Egypt. The concept of "E." Droysen denoted the spread of political. domination of the Hellenes (Greeks and Macedonians) to the east. country and the formation of the Hellenistic, i.e., not purely Hellenic, but mixed with the East. elements of culture. Although the term itself quickly entered the scientific. use, in modern. historiography, despite the huge number of works on general and particular problems, there is no consensus on its content, chronological. and geographic. borders of the Hellenistic. the world. Researchers who understand E. preim. cultural phenomenon, tend to expand the territory. Hellenistic framework the world, including in it all epochs and regions, where the interaction of the local and other Greek. cultures. At the same time, while some note the mutual influence of cultures, others focus on the fact that E. is, first of all, the further development of Greek. culture (German scientists J. Kerst and V. Schubart). An even broader content is embedded in E. when this term is identified with the concept of Hellenistic. civilization. Historians who consider E. from this angle (starting with the work of the English scientist W. Tarn, published in 1927), in addition to the common cultural development, trace the characteristic, from their point of view, forms of political. organization and social relations: the spread of the polis structure in Western Asia, a change in political. the values ​​of the policy, the specifics of the Hellenistic. monarchies, Greco-Macedonian relations. and the local population, dep. features economical. life. Such an extension of the concept of "E." contributed to the concept of MI Rostovtsev, who considered Hellenistic. the world as a single political. and socio-economic. system, for a cut, according to Rostovtsev, are characterized by strong economical. and polit. connections between the states included in it; the basis of these states were the policies and the "class of the bourgeoisie" (merchants, artisans, klerukh, medium and large landowners), which provided political. and economical. stability and spread of Hellenistic. culture. Having emerged as a result of the conquest of the East, which opened up new markets and a wide field of activity, Hellenistic. the world has achieved prosperity, but relatively short-term, which was replaced by decline due to, as Rostovtsev writes, violations of the political. equilibrium and the rise of "Eastern reaction". Modernization of social and economic relations inherent in Rostovtsev is also characteristic of others. bourgeois. historians. Determining the place of E. in the world-historical. process, some researchers consider it as a transitional era from the Greek. civilization to the Roman (most clearly in the French scientist P. Petit), others, like Rostovtsev, see in E. an independent, complete cycle in the history of antiquity. civilization or a particular civilization. English. scientist A. Toynbee, for example, includes in the concept "E." history of the Greek. and rome. the world from the end. 2nd millennium BC NS. up to 7 c. n. NS. Most historians, noting the greatest flowering of the Hellenistic. state in 3 century. BC e., connects their decline not only with the expansion of Rome, but also with the "native reaction" to the spread of E. BC e., about the role of the East. and Greek. elements in its formation, on the inclusion in the framework of the Hellenistic. world Zap. Mediterranean; there is a clear tendency to seek parallels of modernity in E. (the German scientist (FRG) G. Bengtson, the French scientist A. Eimar, and others). Sov. historical. science from the first steps of its formation considered E. as a complex socio-economic., Political. and a cultural phenomenon. To a certain extent, this approach was prepared by the nature of the research in Rus. historians con. 19 - early. 20th century (P. P. Sokolov, V. G. Vasilievsky, F. G. Mishchenko, M. M. Khvostova, S. A. Zhebeleva). Already in 1936-37, in general courses on the history of Greece, S. I. Kovalev and V. S. Sergeev formulated the definition of E. as a stage (or stage) in the development of the East. Mediterranean, characterized by: a) the crisis of the slave economy and socio-political. structure of the Greek. policy; b) the development of commodity relations and slavery in the East. Hellenistic state-wakhs inherited from other-east. society monarchic. form of government, forms of exploitation of dependent villages. population and state-monopoly. trends; c) syncretism in various branches of culture. Historical Kovalev sees the significance of Hellenism in economic, political. and the cultural union of the Near Asian, African and Aegean worlds, which served as the basis for the emergence of Rome. world power. These provisions were further developed in special. research by A. B. Ranovich. According to his concept, E. is a natural stage in the history of antiquity. slave owner. society. It was generated by the Greek crisis. policies and pers. powers and, in turn, after a short heyday, gave way to a new, wider and more progressive stage in history - the slave society Rome. empire. E. is characterized by the intensive development of trade and money. relations, the tendency of displacement of the natural economy, the spread of classical forms in V. slavery, a certain swarm of economic. leveling, smoothing ethnic. disunity, exacerbation of social contradictions and class. struggle, interaction of the Greek. and east. cultures. But in all these areas, E.'s achievements were limited; they only paved the way for the development of these processes in Rome. era. The concepts of Kovalev and Ranovich were revised and concretized by K. K. Zelin. Considering E. concretely historical. a phenomenon that is not subject to transformation into a sociological. category of the stage of development of the slave society, Zelin indicates that in the Hellenistic. period of the country East. The Mediterranean experienced different stages in the development of slave relations: in the most developed Greek. state-wah there was a crisis of the polis structure and the slave-owning relations inherent in it, in Macedonia and the policies of the north-west. Greece - the growth of slavery and political. consolidation, in Egypt and Western Asia - the spread of the Antich. forms of slavery and polis structure, among the tribes inside and on the periphery of the Hellenistic. the world was in the process of becoming a class. society. According to Zelin, E. - "a combination and interaction of Hellenic and local (mainly oriental) principles in the economy, socio-political. System and culture, characteristic of a limited (geographically and chronologically) circle of countries"; E. Was prepared by the process of interaction between the Hellenic and the Near East peoples in the previous period, the Greco-Macedonian. the conquest gave it wide scope and intensity. New forms of culture, political. and socio-economic. relations that arose during the E., were a product of synthesis, in which the value of local and Greek. elements was determined specifically by historical. conditions. Dept. aspects of the problem of E. were also developed by V. V. Struve, A. I. Tyumenev, V. D. Blavatsky, A. G. Bokshchanin, I. S. Sventsitskaya, and others. ... state (or the struggle of diadochs, late 4th - early 3rd centuries BC); 2) the formation of the socio-economic and political structure and the flourishing of the Hellenistic states (3rd - early 2nd centuries BC) and 3) economic decline, the growth of social contradictions and submission to the rule of Rome (early 2 - late 1 centuries BC). The emergence of the Hellenistic. state (or the struggle of diadochs, late 4th - early 3rd centuries BC). By the time of the death of Alexander the Great (323), his power covered the Balkan Peninsula, the islands of the Aegean m., M. Asia, Egypt, all of Western Asia, south. areas Wed Asia and part of the Center. Asia to the bottom. course of the Indus (see map to the station Alexander the Great). For the first time in history, such a huge territory. turned out to be within the framework of one political. systems. In the process, the conquests were explored and established routes of communication and trade between distant regions; wells, bridges, harbors were built, sentry garrisons were placed, new cities were founded. Overpopulation Greek. poleis (possibly the cities of Phenicia and Mesopotamia) opened wide opportunities for the colonization and exploitation of the conquered territories. However, the transition to the peaceful development of new lands did not occur immediately, the first decades were filled with fierce clashes between Alexander's commanders - the diadochi (successors, as they are usually called), who fought to share his legacy. The most important political. strength and material support of the state. the power in Alexander's power was the army, and it determined the form of the state after his death: as a result of a short struggle between the infantry and the hetaira (elite cavalry), an agreement was reached, according to which the power remained as a whole, and the feeble-minded was proclaimed the heirs of Alexander Arrideus, the bastard son of Philip II (protege of the infantry), who received the name Philip III after his accession, and the child expected by Alexander's wife Roxanne, named after birth by Alexander IV. In fact, power was in the hands of a small group of noble Macedonians who occupied the highest military and court positions under Alexander; Perdiccas actually became regent, the control of Greece and Macedonia was left to Antipater and Craterus, Thrace was transferred to Lysimachus. In Asia, the most influential position was occupied by Antigonus (Antigonus I the One-Eyed), a satrap of Great Phrygia, who also received Lycia and Pamphylia; Leonnatus was appointed to Hellespont Phrygia; inherited by the Greek Eumenes of Cardia (who held the post of secretary under Alexander), the satrapy Paphlagonia and Cappadocia, only nominally part of the Macedonian state, still had to be conquered. Egypt was transferred to the control of Ptolemy Lagu (Ptolemy I Soter, see in art. Ptolemy), Syria - Laomedont, Media - Python, east. the regions remained under the rule of the satraps appointed by Alexander. Important command posts were occupied by Seleukos (Seleek I Nikator) and Kassander, the son of Antipater. Using the mood of the army, accustomed to living by plundering the conquered territories, Perdikkas tried to consolidate his autocracy. He managed to subjugate Cappadocia, on his instructions Python suppressed the Greco-Macedonian uprising. troops in Bactria, intending to leave the garrisons and return to their homeland. Perdiccas's actions against Antigonus and Ptolemy Lagus marked the beginning of a long period of struggle between the Diadochi. The information about this period, preserved in the sources, is fragmentary and extremely confused, it is possible to outline only the main. lines historic. process. Perdikkas' campaign to Egypt (321) was unsuccessful, displeased the army, as a result of which he was killed by his commanders (including Seleucus). At the same time in Asia Minor, in a clash with Eumenes, left by Perdiccas for the defense of the rear, Craterus died, to-ry, in alliance with Antipater and Antigonus, moved to the aid of Ptolemy Lagus. After these events in Triparadis (in Syria) there was a second distribution of posts and satrapies (321). Antipater became regent and the royal family was soon transported to him. Antigonus received the powers of the strategist-autocrat of Asia, and all the tsarist troops stationed there came under his jurisdiction. Thus, the center of the state was, as it were, transferred to the west, but since most of the army remained in the east, the importance of the position of regent naturally diminished. The authority of Ptolemy Lagus over the Greek recently conquered by him was recognized. cities of Cyrenaica. Seleucus received the satrapy Babylonia; some transfers were made among the minor satraps. The war with Eumenes and other supporters of Perdiccas was entrusted to Antigonus. The decisions taken in Triparadis indicate that the diadochi, while nominally preserving the unity of the state under the rule of the Maked. dynasties, in fact, have already begun to abandon the organizational unity of the empire. In the next two years, Antigonus almost completely ousted Eumenes from Asia Minor, but Antipater died in 319, transferring his powers to Polyperchon, one of the old and devoted Makeda. dynasties of generals, and political. the situation changed dramatically again. The son of Antipater, Cassander, who found support from Antigonus, spoke out against Polyperchon. Polyperchon began negotiations with Eumenes. The war of the Diadochi resumed with renewed vigor. The most important bridgeheads were Greece and Macedonia, where both the royal house and the Makedos were drawn into the struggle between Polyperchon and Kassander. know, and Greek. policies. As a result, its royal dynasty finally lost its significance. Philip III (Arrideus), his wife Eurydice and the mother of Alexander the Great, Olympias, died, Roxanne and her son ended up in the hands of Cassander, who managed to subdue Macedonia and most of Greece. "Freedom" proclaimed by Polyperchon, Greek. policies and democratic. the device was eliminated, the garrisons of Kassandra were introduced to the most important points. The struggle between Eumenes and Antigonus moved to V. - to Persis and Susiana. Eumenes united with the rulers of the East. satrapies, dissatisfied with Python's attempt to expand his domain. But this alliance was fragile, the interests of the allies did not coincide. Eumenes himself was entirely dependent on his army, only the skill of the commander allowed him for several. years of active action against Antigonus. At the first failure, he was handed over to the enemy by his comrades-in-arms in exchange for the captured baggage train, and his army went over to the service of Antigonus (late 317 - early 316). The satraps, Eumenes 'former allies, ceased resistance and recognized Antigonos' authority as the strategist of Asia. By 316, Antigonus had become the most powerful of the diadochi (in addition to the eastern satrapies, a significant part of Asia was under his rule), a threat arose that his power would spread to other satrapies. This forced Ptolemy, Seleucus and Cassander to conclude an alliance against Antigonus, and Lysimachus joined them. A series of fierce battles began at sea and on land within Syria, Phenicia, Babylonia, M. Asia, and especially in Greece. Greek. policies played an important role as a strategist. strongholds and, obviously, not to a lesser extent, as arsenals of weapons and sources of replenishment of the command and rank of the army. Using socio-political. the struggle within the policies and traditions. tendencies towards political. independence, diadochi proclaimed "freedom" Greek. policies, supported the demos, then the oligarchy, while seeking the right to place their garrisons on the territory. policy. Political. coups were accompanied by confiscations, expulsions and executions, clashes of diadochi over this or that polis entailed brutal repression and plunder. The war between Antigonus and the coalition went on with varying success, only in 312 Ptolemy managed to win an important victory in Syria near Gaza. In 311, peace was concluded between Antigonus, Ptolemy, Cassander and Lysimachus, indicating that none of them achieved their goal: Antigonus was forced to recognize Cassander as the strategist of Europe, Cassander - to agree with the granting of independence to the Greek. cities, Ptolemy - to renounce claims to Syria, and Lysimachus - to Hellespont Phrygia. Seleucus did not participate in the conclusion of the peace. In 311, Demetrius (son of Antigonus) undertook a campaign in Babylon and drove Seleucus to the north-east. satrapy. Although the name of Tsar Alexander IV still appeared in the peace agreement, in fact, the unity of the state was out of the question: the diadochi acted as independent, independent rulers of the territories they had conquered. A new phase of the Diadochi wars began in 307. By this time, the last formal connection between parts of the former power of Alexander had disappeared: Roxanne and Alexander IV were killed by order of Cassander. Obviously, with the aim of taking possession of Macedonia and Macedonian. throne Antigonus began training strategic. bases in Greece. His son Demetrius went with a strong fleet to Athens and proclaimed the "liberation" of the Greek. policies. He managed to expel the Maked. garrisons from Megara and Athens and to displace Demetrius of Phaler, a protege of Cassander, who ruled in Athens for more than 10 years. But success in Greece largely depended on domination at sea, where the most serious rival was Ptolemy, who had a powerful fleet and ports of dependent and allied Greek. policies. Therefore, the main battles took place in ch. arr. off the islands of the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas. In 306, near Salamis in Cyprus, Demetrius defeated Ptolemy's fleet. After this major victory, Antigonus appropriated royal titles for himself and Demetrius, openly declaring his claim to Makeda. throne. Following his example, Ptolemy and other diadochi also proclaimed themselves kings. The then undertaken campaign against Egypt was unsuccessful for Antigonus I, then he directed a blow against Rhodes - one of the most important in the strategic. and economical in relation to the allies of Ptolemy I. After a two-year (305-304) siege by Demetrius (who after that received the nickname Poliorketus - the besieging city), the Rhodians were forced to go over to the side of Antigonus. Only after this did Demetrius manage to achieve that. success in Greece: he expelled the Maked. garrisons from a number of cities of the Peloponnese, renewed the Corinthian Union, declared "free" all of Greece and moved to Thessaly. A real threat arose for Cassander and Lysimachus. By this time, Seleucus I made a trip to the east. satrapies up to India and returned to Babylon, possessing sufficiently large material resources and military. forces to enter into a struggle with Antigonus I. Again, against Antigonus I, all his opponents united. Military. actions began Lysimachus, who invaded the Hellespont Phrygia in 302. Seleucus I and Ptolemy I moved to his aid. Antigonus I recalled Demetrius and his army from Greece, which allowed Cassander to send part of his troops to M. Asia. In the decisive battle at Ipsus in 301, the combined efforts of 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, at his disposal was still a strong fleet and some cities of M. Asia, Greece and Phenicia. The possessions of Antigonus I were divided by ch. arr. between Seleucus I and Lysimachus; Ptolemy I, limited to the capture of the south. Syria, and who did not participate in the defeat of Antigonus I, retained only the areas actually occupied by him. The Battle of Ipsus, to a certain extent, can be considered the borderline that laid the foundation for the existence of one of the largest Hellenistic. kingdoms - the Seleucid state, which included all eastern. and the Near-Asiatic satrapies of Alexander's state and certain regions of Asia Minor (see map, to the Art. Seleucid state). Several there used to be DOS. the borders of the kingdom of the Ptolemies: Egypt, Cyrenaica and Kelesiria. In the same period, the Kingdom of Bithynia (297) (see in Art. Bithynia) and the Kingdom of Pontus (302 or 301) arose. Further vicissitudes of the struggle of the Diadochi developed mainly on the territory. Greece and Macedonia. After the death of Cassandra in 298, a struggle broke out for the Maked. the throne between Demetrius Poliorketes, Pyrrhus - the king of Epirus and the sons of Cassander. Demetrius emerged victorious, but already in 287-286 Lysimachus and Pyrrhus, using the discontent of the Macedonians, expelled him. Lysimachus pushed back Pyrrhus and in 285 united Thrace and Macedonia into a single kingdom, continuing to also keep under his rule the North-West. areas of M. Asia. The strengthening of Lysimachus led him to a clash with Seleucus I. In the battle of Kurupedia in 281 Lysimachus was defeated and killed, but Seleucus I failed to take advantage of the results of this victory: on the way to Macedonia he was treacherously killed in 280 by the son of Ptolemy I - Ptolemy Keraunus, who was acting obviously with the knowledge of the Maked. nobility hostile to Seleucus I. Ptolemy Keraunus was proclaimed king of Macedonia, but soon died in a clash with the Celts who invaded Thrace and Macedonia. The devastating Celtic invasion was halted by the Aetolians in 279, but it was only in 277 that Antigonus II Gonatus, the son of Demetrius Poliorketus, who continued to hold certain Greek under his rule, was finally able to cope with them. cities, captured by Demetrius, and had a meaning. military forces. In 277 he was proclaimed king of Macedonia and initiated a new dynasty that united Thrace and Macedonia under his rule. Thus, the third major Hellenistic. the state also acquired a relative territory. and polit. stability (see Ancient Macedonia and the map to it). The half-century period of the struggle of the Diadochi was essentially the period of the formation of the new Hellenistic. society with a complex social structure and a new type of state. Each of the diadochi strove to unite the internal and coastal regions under their rule, to ensure dominance over important routes, bargaining. centers and ports, to create and maintain a strong army as a prerequisite and a real support for their power. Main the backbone of the army, as a rule, consisted of Macedonians and Greeks, who were previously part of the tsarist army and the garrisons left in fortresses during Alexander's campaigns, as well as mercenaries recruited in Greece (at Cape Tenaron in the Peloponnese and other places of recruitment) ... The funds for their payment and maintenance were partly drawn from the treasures plundered by Alexander or by the Diadochi themselves, but the issue of collecting tribute or taxes from the local population was also quite acute, and, consequently, about organizing the management of the captured territories. and the establishment of economic. life. These moments, obviously, turned out to be decisive for the consolidation of the position of this or that diadochus. Each of the diadochi in all territories, except for Macedonia, faced the problem of relations with the local population. Two tendencies are noticeable in its solution: 1) the continuation of the policy of Alexander the Great, aimed at rapprochement between the Greco-Macedians. and local nobility and the use of local traditional forms of social and political. organizations; 2) the cruel exploitation of all strata of the conquered population. One of the means of economical. and polit. strengthening power in the conquered territories. was the foundation of new policies. They were also created as a strategist. points, and both administrative and economical. centers. It is characteristic that new policies appeared in all Hellenistic regions. world, but their number, location and method of origin reflected both the specifics of time and historical. features of dep. areas. In the inland densely populated and developed regions of Egypt and Western Asia, the diadochi founded only single policies in the most important strategically. regarding points (Ptolemais in Upper Egypt, Seleucia on the Tigris, etc.); all in. Greece and Macedonia, new port cities arose (Demetriada, Thessaloniki, Kassandria, Lysimachia). The largest number of policies was founded in the coastal regions of M. Asia and Syria (Antioch on Orontes, Seleucia in Pieria, Apameia, Ptolemais in Kelesiria, Smyrna, Nicaea, etc.), which is obviously connected not only with the strategic. and economical. the importance of these localities, but also with a decrease in population in them as a result of the extinction and flight of inhabitants, exhausted soldiers. actions and stand by the troops. In the activity of the diadochs, the objective tendencies of the historians were ultimately manifested. development East. Mediterranean and Western Asia, outlined in the 4th century: the need to establish close economies. connections of inland areas with the sea coast and connections between dep. areas of the Mediterranean and at the same time - in the preservation of the prevailing ethnicity. community and traditional political. and cultural unity dep. districts; the need for security and regularity of bargaining. relations, development of cities as centers of trade and crafts; the need for cultural interaction as a necessary condition for the further development of culture. Formation of socio-economic. and polit. structure and flourishing of the Hellenistic. state-in (3rd - early 2nd centuries BC). The tendencies that emerged during the period of the struggle of the diadochi received more definite expression in the second period of the history of Egypt (in the third century BC). The most important Hellenistic. states have stabilized, and although the military. the clashes did not stop, they were more local in nature. The successors of Ptolemy I and Seleucus I continued to compete in Kelesiria, Phenicia, and Asia. This resulted in a series of so-called. Syrian Wars (at 274-271, then at approx. 258-253, at 247-246 and at 219-217). The Ptolemies, who owned the most powerful fleet, contested Macedonian domination in the Aegean Sea and in Greece. Attempts by Macedonia to expand their possessions in Greece met with stubborn resistance from the Greek. policies (Khremonidov war 267-261, war with the Achaean and Aetolian unions). Terr is shrinking. kingdom of the Seleucids: in 283 Pergamum fell away, and after an unsuccessful war (263-262) the Seleucids were forced to recognize its independence; in 260 Cappadocia became independent; about mid. 3 c. the north-east disappeared. satrapy and the independent Parthian kingdom and the Greco-Bactrian kingdom were formed. If the small states of M. Asia in their structure and development trends were in many respects similar to the large Hellenistic. powers, then the state-va that arose on the outskirts of the Hellenistic. of the world, had significant features, determined by the significantly greater role of local elements and the tribal system. This allows some historians to distinguish them into a special group of Hellenized or Hellenized countries. The most characteristic feature of economical. development of the Hellenistic. society was the growth of commodity production and trade. New major bargaining emerged. and craft centers - Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch on Orontes, Seleucia on the Tigris, Pergamum, etc., handicraft production to-ryh means. least it was designed for ext. market. Regular pestilences were established. links between Egypt, Syria, M. Asia, Greece and Macedonia; bargaining was established. paths along the Red metro station, Persian hall. and further to India. Bargaining appeared. connections of Egypt with the Black Sea region, Carthage and Rome. Continuing the policy of Seleucus I, Antiochus I founded a number of policies along the old caravan routes connecting the upper satrapies and Mesopotamia with the Mediterranean Sea. ; Ptolemy II Philadelphus founded several. harbors on the Red m. The emergence of new bargaining. centers in Vost. The Mediterranean led to a shift in bargaining. routes in the Aegean Sea, the role of Rhodes and Corinth as ports of transit trade increased, the importance of Athens fell. The den has expanded. circulation and den. operations, which was facilitated by the coinage of precious metals stored in the treasuries of the Persians. kings and temples. Numerous. the policies that arose in east attracted artisans, merchants, and people of other professions. The Greeks and Macedonians brought with them their usual slaveholding way of life, which meant. an increase in the population of the policy at the expense of slaves. The need to supply new policies with food led to an increase in agricultural production. products for sale. Den. relationships began to creep into even Egypt. kumu (village), decomposing traditional relations and contributing to the intensification of the exploitation of villages. population. The very fact of the development of trade testified that economic. potential Hellenistic. state-in has grown significantly. Undoubtedly, the scale of agricultural activity has increased. production both by expanding the area of ​​cultivated land, and due to their more intensive use, exchange of experience in processing, agricultural. crops and breeds of livestock. The volume of handicraft production and the level of technology increased. This is evidenced, first of all, by the creation of large and high-speed military. and bargaining. ships, complex siege machines and fortifications, large-scale urban planning, irrigation, and, consequently, the expansion of industries that extract building materials and metals; development and specialization of crafts that produce luxury goods, and dep. improvements in traditional crafts, allowing for the mass production of figured ceramics, terracotta, fancy fabrics, papyrus. In the same period, the main features of the Hellenistic culture developed. Against the backdrop of the lush flourishing of new economics. centers in Syria, Egypt and M. Asia, the state of the economy of Greece and Macedonia is presented as stagnation and decline. However, here, too, one can trace the development of trade-crafts. centers (Thessaloniki, Kassandria, Philippopolis). In Greek. ports, including in Corinth and Athens, high-speed ships and siege equipment were first created for Demetrius Poliorket. Obviously, shipbuilding and military production. equipment continued to develop in Greece and Macedonia, since the kings of Macedonia in the 2nd half. 3 c. had a fleet that could rival the Ptolemaic fleet. Slower pace econom. development of Greece and Macedonia is explained not only by the depletion of these areas by the wars of the Diadochi, the struggle of the Greek. policies against maked. domination and ebb of the most active and enterprising strata of the population in the east. country, but also by the fact that the Greek. policy as a form of socio-economic. and polit. organization of antich. society to the end. 4 c. BC NS. was in a state of deep crisis. It no longer corresponded to the economic one. tendencies, since its inherent autarchy and autonomy hindered the expansion and strengthening of economic. connections. He did not meet the needs of the socio-political. development, because, on the one hand, did not ensure the reproduction of citizens. the collective as a whole (the poorest part of it inevitably faced the threat of loss of civil rights), on the other hand, it did not provide externally. the security and strength of the power of this collective, torn apart by internal. contradictions, over slaves and non-citizens. Historical practice con. 4 - early. 3rd c. created a new form of socio-political. organizations - Hellenistic. monarchy. This monarchy combined elements of the East. despotism - monarchical. form of state. power, which had a standing army and a centralized administration, and elements of the polis structure in the form of cities with villages assigned to them. territories that have retained internal organs. self-government, but that means. the least dependent on the king and subordinates to him. Loss of Political independence of the policy was compensated by the security of existence, greater social stability and the provision of durable economics. ties with other parts of the state. In turn, the royal power acquired in the mountains. the population that necessary social support, edges supplied the necessary contingents for the administration and the army and ensured dominance over the conquered territories. According to the model of the relations that developed between the kings and the newly founded policies, the relations of the monarchy with the old Hellenic and Eastern were also rebuilt. cities. This is indicated by numerous. cases of "founding" of new cities on the site of the existing eastern ones (Rabbat-Ammon - Philadelphia, Susa - Seleucia, etc.), the emergence of cities by voluntary or forced merger (see. Synoikism) and renaming the Greek. cities in Asia Minor (Thralls to Antioch, Patara to Arsinoe, etc.). On the territory. land policies relations developed according to the usual pattern: the private property of citizens and the property of the city on the lonely plots. They were complicated by the fact that the cities (as evidenced by the inscriptions from M. Asia) could be attributed to the land with the local villages located on it, the population of which did not become citizens of the city, but continued to own their plots, paying taxes to the city or individuals who received these lands from the king, and then attributed them to the city ... On the territory, not attributed to the cities, the whole land was considered royal. According to egypt. papyri, it was divided into two categories: the actual royal and "ceded" lands, which included the lands that belonged to temples, the lands given by the king as a "gift" to his entourage, and the lands provided by small plots (clers) to the cleruch warriors ( see Kleruchii) or katekam. All categories of these lands could also contain local villages, the inhabitants of which continued to own their inheritances. allotments, paying taxes or taxes. Complexity of land relations determined the multilayer social structure of the Hellenistic. state-in. The royal house with its court staff, the highest military. and citizen the administration, the most prosperous townspeople and the high priesthood constituted the upper layer of the landowning and slaveholding nobility. The basis of their well-being was land (city and donation), lucrative positions, trade, ransom and usurer. operations. It can hardly be assumed that the local hereditary landowning nobility was completely destroyed; obviously, part of it was Hellenized and merged into the tsarist administration (this merger began under Alexander), and some concentrated around the temples of local deities. The middle stratum was more numerous - merchants and artisans, personnel of the tsarist administration, tax farmers, klerukh and kateks, local priesthood, people of intelligent professions (architects, doctors, philosophers, artists, etc.). The upper and middle strata, with all the differences in wealth and mismatch of interests, constituted the ruling class that they received in Egypt. papyri designation "Hellenes", not so much ethnic. the belonging of the people included in it, how many according to their social position in society, which opposed them to all "non-Hellenes" - the indigent local population (laoi). The majority of the laoi were dependent or semi-dependent farmers who cultivated the lands of the king, nobility, cities on the basis of lease relations or traditional holdings and lived in comas that retained certain features of the villages. communities. Hypoteleis - workers of the tsarist monopolies (that is, the craft workshops of those industries that were the state monopoly) also belonged to the laoi. Laoi were considered personally free, but were attached to their place of residence, to one or another workshop or profession. Below them on the social ladder were only slaves. Greco-Maked. conquest, wars of diadochs, the spread of the polis system - all this gave a strong impetus for the development of slave relations in their classic. antique form while maintaining and more primitive forms of slavery - debts, self-sale, etc. Obviously, the role of slave labor in the Hellenistic. cities (primarily in everyday life and, probably, in the city. Crafts) was no less than in the Greek. policies. But in the village. x-ve, and especially on the tsarist lands, slave labor could not push back the labor of the local population on any noticeable scale ("tsarist farmers" in Egypt, "tsarist people" among the Seleucids), the exploitation of which was no less profitable. According to egypt. papyri, in large x-wah of the nobility on donated lands, slaves performed or adm. functions or served as ancillary labor. However, the increasing role of slavery in the general system of socio-economic. relations led to the strengthening of non-economic. forms of coercion and in relation to laoi (attachment to the place of residence, liturgy, that is, compulsory execution of social obligations, compulsory rent, etc.). Analysis of the social structure of the East. Hellenistic state-in allows you to identify one characteristic feature: DOS. the severity of the content of the state. apparatus fell on a local village. population, thanks to which the cities were in a relatively favorable position, which was, apparently, one of the main reasons for their rapid growth and prosperity. A different type of social development took place in Greece and Macedonia. Macedonia also developed as Hellenistic. state, which combined the elements of the monarchy and polis structure. Although the land. possession of Maked. kings were relatively extensive, there was not that wide layer of dependent villages. population (with the exception, perhaps, of the Thracians), due to the exploitation of which the state could exist. apparatus means. part of the reigns. class. The burden of spending on the maintenance of the army and the construction of the fleet equally fell on the mountains. and sat down. population. Differences between Greeks and Macedonians, villages. residents and townspeople were determined by their property. position, the line of estate-class division passed between free and slaves. The development of the economy went in the direction of the further introduction of slave relations. Accession to Macedonia did not provide significant economic benefits to the policies. advantages. At the same time, the age-old traditions of independence and autarchy in Greek. the policies were especially strong. Therefore, the expansion of Macedonia met with stubborn resistance, primarily among the democrats. layers, because the introduction of Maked. garrisons were usually accompanied by the establishment of oligarchs. modes. Since the existence of small independent policies in the Hellenistic system. monarchy became impossible (moreover, the tendencies of socio-economic development of the policies themselves required the creation of wider state. associations), a way out was found in the creation of federations of policies. It is characteristic that the initiative to form a federation did not come from the old politicians. centers of Greece, and from areas that have only recently embarked on the path of development of slave relations. In the beginning. 3 c. BC NS. acquired the significance of the Aetolian Union, in which already at the end. 3 c. almost the entire center was included. Greece, Elis and Messinia, as well as some ost

  In the territories he conquered, and the interpenetration of the Greek and Eastern - primarily Persian - cultures, as well as the emergence of classical slavery.

  The beginning of the Hellenistic era is characterized by the transition from the polis political organization to hereditary Hellenistic monarchies, the shift of the centers of cultural and economic activity from Greece to Asia Minor and Egypt.

  Formation and political structure of the Hellenistic states

  The sudden death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC e., served as a signal for the beginning of the collapse of his empire, which revealed all its ephemerality. The commanders of Alexander, called diadochs, began a series of bloody wars and strife for the throne of a single state, which lasted 22 years. Not one of the diadochi was able to win a decisive victory over all the others, and in 301 BC. NS. , after the Battle of Ipsus, they divided the empire into several independent parts.

  The new states are organized according to a special principle, called the Hellenistic monarchy, based on a synthesis of local despotic and Greek polis political traditions. Polis, as an independent civil community, retains its independence as social and political even within the framework of the Hellenistic monarchy. Cities like Alexandria enjoy autonomy, and their citizens enjoy special rights and privileges. At the head of the Hellenistic state is usually a king, who has full state power. Its main support was the bureaucratic apparatus, which carried out the functions of governing the entire territory of the state, with the exception of cities that had the status of policies, which possessed a certain autonomy.

  Compared to previous periods, the situation in the Greek world has changed dramatically: instead of many opposing policies, the Greek world now consisted of several relatively stable major powers. These states represented a common cultural and economic space, which is important for understanding the cultural and political aspect of that era. The Greek world was a very closely interconnected system, which is at least confirmed by the presence of a unified financial system and the scale of migration flows within the Hellenistic world (the Hellenistic era was a time of relatively large mobility of the Greek population. In particular, mainland Greece, at the end of the 4th century BC. suffering from overpopulation, by the end of the 3rd century BC it began to feel a population shortage).

  Hellenistic culture

  Hellenistic society is strikingly different from that of classical Greece in a number of ways. The actual departure of the polis system into the background, the development and spread of political and economic vertical (rather than horizontal) ties, the collapse of outdated ones, a general change in the cultural background caused serious changes in the Greek social structure. She was a mixture of Greek and Oriental elements. Syncretism manifested itself most vividly in religion and the official practice of deification of monarchs.

  Hellenization of the East

  During the III -I centuries BC. NS. throughout the eastern Mediterranean, there was a process of Hellenization, that is, the adoption by the local population of the Greek language, culture, customs and traditions. The mechanism and reasons for this process were mostly in the peculiarities of the political and social structure of the Hellenistic states. The elite of the Hellenistic society consisted mainly of representatives of the Greco-Macedonian aristocracy. They brought Greek customs to the East and actively planted them around them. The old local nobility, wanting to be closer to the ruler, to emphasize their aristocratic status, sought to imitate this elite, while the common people imitated the local nobility. As a result, Hellenization was the fruit of imitation of newcomers from the indigenous peoples of the country. This process affected, as a rule, cities, the rural population (which constituted the majority) was in no hurry to part with their pre-Greek habits. In addition, Hellenization affected mainly the upper strata of Eastern society, which, for the above reasons, had a desire to enter the Greek environment.

  Hellenistic architecture. Urban planning

  Urban planning, which was actively pursued by the Hellenistic rulers, was a powerful tool for the Hellenization of the East. The scale of urban development was enormous: the city was a powerful cultural tool, and also asserted state influence in those vast territories that needed development. In particular, in the Seleucid empire under Seleucus I, at least 75 new cities were founded in different parts of the country. Most of the cities were built not chaotically, but according to a pre-prepared plan - with straight wide streets, large squares, gardens, galleries and temples.

  One of the basic features of the architecture itself was the change in the classical Greek canons. Buildings and monuments now began to fulfill not so much their original function as they became symbols of the wealth, domination and power of the Hellenistic rulers and aristocrats. The widespread construction gave a tremendous impetus to the development of new types of architecture. Bas-reliefs have become much more widely used.

  Notes (edit)

  Literature

  • Zel'in K.K. Some basic problems of the history of Hellenism // Soviet archeology. 1955. Issue. 22;
  • Kats A.L. Discussion about the problems of Hellenism // Soviet archeology. 1955. Issue. 22;
  • Koshelenko G.A. Hellenistic era in modern science (some problems) // Antiquity and ancient traditions in the culture and art of the peoples of the Soviet East. M., 1978;
  • Leveque P. Hellenistic world. Per. with fr. M., 1989;
  • B. S. Lyapustin, I. E. Surikov Ancient Greece: textbook. manual for universities /., Moscow, Bustard, 2007:
  • Pavlovskaya A.I. Hellenism // Soviet Historical Encyclopedia. M., 1976. T. 16. S. 458-476;
  • Ranovich A.B. Hellenism and its historical role. M .; L., 1950;
  • Rostovtsev M.I.Ptolemaic Egypt // Parthian shot. M., 2003.S. 322-354. (Russian version of the chapter for "");
  • Rostovtsev M.I.Syria and the East // Parthian Shot. M., 2003.S. 360-387. (Russian version of the chapter for the "Cambridge History of the Ancient World");
  • Sventsitskaya I.S.Social and economic features of the Hellenistic states. M., 1963;
  • Tarn V. Hellenistic civilization. Per. from English M., 1949;
  • Bengtson G. Rulers of the Hellenistic Era. Per. with him. M., 1982;
  • Shtaerman E.M. Hellenism in Rome // VDI. 1994. No. 3;
  • Hellenism: economics, politics, culture. M., 1990.
  • Baumgarten F., Poland F., Wagner R. 1914: Hellenistic-Roman culture. SPb.

  Links

  see also

  History of Europe
  Prehistoric
  Antiquity
  Middle Ages
  New time
  Modern
  see also

  
  

  Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

  Synonyms:

  See what "Hellenism" is in other dictionaries:

  1) a feature of the Greek language. 2) the influence of ancient Greek education in the East. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov AN, 1910. HELLINISM features in the language, literature and customs of the ancient Greeks. In the East ... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

  Hellenism- Hellenism. Ruins of the palace in Pella. IV century BC NS. Hellenism. Ruins of the palace in Pella. IV century. BC NS. Hellenism is a period in the history of the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean between 323 and 30 years. BC. (). The struggle for power between the commanders of Alexander the Great ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary "World History"

  Hellenism- a, m. hellénisme m. 1. The heyday of the mixed Greco-Eastern culture, which came after the conquests of Alexander the Great in the East. Late Hellenism. ALS 1. modified and softened by Hellenism, these wild rituals in European Greece gave rise to ... Historical Dictionary of Russian Gallicisms

  Initially, Hellenism meant the correct use of the Greek language, especially by non-Greeks, then the spread of Greek culture. After the publication of the work of I. G. Droysen "History of Hellenism; (1836 1843) the concept of Hellenism entered into ... ... Encyclopedia of mythology

  Hellenism- Hellenism. The so-called Farnese plate. Allegory of the Nile. Sardonyx. National Museum. Naples. HELLINISM, period between 323 and 30 BC in the history of the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean. The struggle for power between the successors of Alexander the Great ... ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary