Hellenism: what is it, the meaning and definition of the word. Examples in culture and art. Hellenistic civilization. Emergence and decline What is Hellenism in ancient Greece

Hellenism - the meeting of East and West

The concept of Hellenism and its time frame

Hellenistic civilization is usually called 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 started 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 defined 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. I. G. Droyzen, but still controversial.

The accumulation of new material as a result of archaeological and historical research 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 the 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 point to established views. There is no doubt that the process of interaction between the Hellenic and non-Asiatic peoples also took place in the previous period, but the Greco-Macedonian conquest gave it scope and intensity. 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 or another role, depending on specific historical conditions. The greater or lesser significance of local elements left an imprint on the socio-economic and political structure, forms of social struggle, the nature of cultural development, and to a large extent 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 Hellenistic states (end of IV - beginning of III century BC),
• the formation of a socio-economic and political structure and the flourishing of these states (III - early II century BC),
• the period of economic decline, the growth of social contradictions, the subjugation of the power of Rome (the middle of the II - the end of the I century BC).

Indeed, from the end of the 4th c. BC e. one can trace the formation of the Hellenistic civilization, in the III century. and the first half of the 2nd c. BC e. is in its heyday. But the decline of the Hellenistic powers and the expansion of Roman domination in the Mediterranean, and in the Near East and Central Asia - the possessions of the emerging local states did not mean its death. As an integral element, it participated in the formation of the Parthian and Greco-Bactrian civilizations, and after the subjugation of the entire Eastern Mediterranean by Rome, a complex fusion of the Greco-Roman civilization arose on its basis.

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

Wars of the Diadochi

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 Asia and part of Central Asia to the lower reaches of the Indus. For the first time in history, such a vast territory found itself within the framework of one political system. In the process of conquest, new cities were founded, new routes of communication and trade were laid between remote areas. 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 commanders - the diadochi (successors), as they are usually called - for the division of his heritage.

In the first decade and a half, the fiction of the unity of the state under the nominal power of Philip Arrhidaeus (323-316 BC) and the infant Alexander IV (323-310? BC) was preserved, but in reality already by agreement 323 BC e. power in its most important regions was 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, was subject to the rulers of the eastern satrapies.

But Perdikke's attempt to consolidate his autocracy and extend it to the western satrapies ended in his own death and laid the foundation for the wars of the Diadochi. In 321 BC. e. in Triparadis, the satrapies and positions were redistributed: Antipater became regent, and the royal family was transferred to Macedonia from Babylon, Antigonus was appointed autocratic strategist of Asia, commander of all the troops stationed there, and authorized to continue the war with Eumenes, a supporter of Perdikkas. In Babylonia, which had lost its significance as a royal residence, the commander of the Getairs, Seleucus, was appointed satrap.

Death in 319 BC e. Antipater, who handed over the regency to Polyperchon, an old commander devoted to the royal dynasty, opposed by Antipater's son Cassander, supported by Antigonus, led to a new intensification of the wars of the Diadochi. Greece and Macedonia became an important springboard, where the royal house, the Macedonian nobility, and the Greek policies were drawn into the struggle; in the course of it, Philip Arrhidaeus and other members of the royal family were killed, and Cassander managed to strengthen his position in Macedonia. In Asia, Antigonus, having defeated 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, and Greece. In prison in 311 BC. e. world, although the name of the king appeared, but 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 the young Alexander IV on the orders of Cassander. In 306 BC. e. Antigonus and his son Demetrius Poliorket, and then other Diadochi, appropriated royal titles, thereby recognizing the collapse of Alexander's state and claiming the Macedonian throne. Antigonus was most actively striving for it. Military operations are being deployed in Greece, Asia Minor and the Aegean. In the battle with the combined forces of Seleucus, Lysimachus and Cassander in 301 BC. e. At Ipsus, Antigonus was defeated and died. A new distribution of power took place: along with the kingdom of Ptolemy I (305-282 BC), which included Egypt, Cyrenaica and Celesiria, a large kingdom of Seleucus I (311-281 BC) appeared, uniting Babylonia , eastern satrapies and Asiatic possessions of Antigonus. Lysimachus expanded the boundaries of his kingdom in Asia Minor, Cassander received recognition of the rights to the Macedonian throne.

However, after the death of Cassander in 298 BC. e. the struggle for Macedonia flared up again, which lasted more than 20 years. Alternately, her throne was occupied by the sons of Cassander, Demetrius Poliorket, Lysimachus, Ptolemy Keravn, Pyrrhus of Epirus. In addition to the dynastic wars in the early 270s. BC e. Macedonia and Greece were invaded by the Galatian Celts. Only in 276 did Antigonus Gonatas (276-239 BC), the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, who won a victory over the Galatians in 277, establish himself on the Macedonian throne, and under him the Macedonian kingdom gained political stability.

The policy of the Diadochi in their domains

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. The activities of the Diadochi, guided by subjective interests, ultimately manifested objective trends in the historical development of the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia - the need to establish close economic ties between the deep regions and the sea coast and ties between individual areas of the Mediterranean - and at the same time the tendency to preserve ethnic community and traditional political and cultural unity of individual regions, the need for the development of cities as centers of trade and crafts, for the development of new lands in order to feed the increased population, and, finally, for 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 indiscriminate means to achieve goals, cruelty and greed - all this complicated the course of events, gave it a sharp drama, often about the imprint of chance. Nevertheless, it is possible to trace the general features of the politics of the Diadochi.

Each of them strove to unite the interior and maritime 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 power base. The main backbone of the army consisted of Macedonians and Greeks, who had previously been 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 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 occupied territories and establishing economic life.

In all areas, except for Macedonia, there was a problem of relations with the local population. There are two trends in its solution:

• the rapprochement of the Greek-Macedonian and local nobility, the use of traditional forms of social and political organization and
• a tougher policy towards 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 established under Alexander (possibly dating back to Persian times): power was granted 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 foundation 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, which received the status of a policy. Some of them were erected on empty lands and settled by people from Greece, Macedonia and other places, others arose by voluntary or forced connection of two or more impoverished cities or rural settlements into one policy, and others by reorganization of eastern cities replenished with the Greek-Macedonian population. It is characteristic that new policies appear in all areas of the Hellenistic world, but their number, location and method of occurrence reflect both the specifics of the time and the historical features 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 foundation of new cities and fortresses, brought to the fore the development of military and construction equipment. Fortifications were also improved.

New cities were built in accordance with planning principles developed as early as the 5th century BC. BC e. Hippodamus of Miletus: with straight and intersecting streets at right angles, oriented, if the terrain allowed, to the cardinal points. The agora, surrounded on three sides by public buildings and commercial porticos, adjoined the main, widest street, temples and gymnasiums were usually erected near it; 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, the improvement of various types 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 e. and who preserved for us the names of architects and mechanics of that time - Philo, Hegetor of Byzantium, Diad, Charius, Epimachus.

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

The struggle of the Seleucids, Ptolemies and Antigonids

Since the second half of the 70s. 3rd century BC e., after the borders of the Hellenistic states 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, subjugation to their power or influence of independent cities and states of Asia Minor, Greece, Coele-Syria, the islands of the Mediterranean and Aegean seas. The struggle went not only through military clashes, but also through diplomatic intrigues, using internal political and social contradictions.

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

The clashes in the Aegean and Asia Minor were due to the same reasons - the desire to strengthen trade relations and secure strategic bases for further expansion of their possessions. But here the predatory 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. e. 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 degrees of success. If the second Syrian war (260-253 BC) was successful for Antiochus II, and brought great territorial losses to Egypt in Asia Minor and the Aegean, 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 Coele-Syria. The success of Ptolemy III in this war was facilitated by the instability of the Seleucid state. Around 250 BC e. the governors of Bactria and Sogdiana Diodotus and Euthydemus set aside, a few years later Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana formed an independent Greco-Bactrian kingdom. Almost simultaneously, the governor of Parthia, Andragoras, was set aside, but soon he and the Seleucid garrison were destroyed by the rebellious tribes of the Parn-Dai, led by Arshak, who founded the new, Parthian dynasty of the Arshakids, the beginning of which the tradition dates back to 247 BC. e. Separatist tendencies, apparently, also existed in the western region of the state, manifesting itself in the dynastic struggle between Seleucus II (246-225 BC) and his brother Antiochus Hierax, who seized power in the Asia Minor satrapies. The correlation of forces between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, which developed after the third Syrian war, lasted until 220.

The situation in Greece and Macedonia

The focus of contradictions between Egypt and Macedonia were mainly the islands of the Aegean Sea and Greece - areas that were consumers of agricultural products, manufacturers of handicrafts, a source of replenishment of troops and suppliers of skilled labor. The political and social struggle within the Greek policies 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 the oligarchic layers, 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 Chremonid War, named after one of the leaders of the Athenian democracy, Chremonides, who apparently initiated the conclusion of a general alliance between Athens, the Lacedaemonian coalition and Ptolemy II. The Chremonid War (267-262 BC) was the last attempt by the leaders of the Hellenic world of Athens and Sparta to unite the forces hostile to Macedonia and, using the support of Egypt, 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, subjugated 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 Aegean were strengthened to the detriment of the Ptolemies.

However, this did not mean the reconciliation of the Greeks with the Macedonian hegemony. Previous historical experience, confirmed by the events of the Chremonid War, showed that the independent existence of disparate policies under the system of Hellenistic monarchies became almost impossible, moreover, the trends in the socio-economic development of the policies themselves required the creation of broader state associations. In international life, the role of political unions of Greek policies, built on federal principles, is growing: while maintaining equality and autonomy within the union, they act as a single entity in foreign policy relations, defending their independence. Characteristically, the initiative to form federations comes not from the old economic and political centers of Greece, but from underdeveloped areas.

At the beginning of the III century. BC e. 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 Chremonid War, without entering into open conflict with Macedonia, Aetolia supported democratic groups hostile to the Antigonides in neighboring policies, due to which most of them joined the alliance. By 220 BC. e. 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. e. The union of the Achaean policies, which had collapsed during the wars of the Diadochi, was restored in the middle of the 3rd century. BC e. it included Sicyon and other cities of the northern Peloponnese on federal principles. Established as a political organization defending the independence of the Greek policies. The Achaean League, led by the Sicyonian Aratus, played a large role in countering the Macedonian expansion in the Peloponnese. A particularly important act was the expulsion in 243 BC. e. 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 greatly increased, and by 230 BC. e. this union included about 60 policies, occupying most of the Peloponnese. However, 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 desire of citizens for similar transformations, forced the leadership of the Achaean League to agree with Macedonia and ask her for help at the cost of concession to Acrocorinth. After the defeat of Sparta in 222 BC. e. The Achaean Federation joined the Hellenic Union formed under the hegemony of King Antigonus Doson, which included other Greek policies, except for Athens and the Aetolian Union.

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

However, the attempt of Philip V to subjugate the Aetolian federation, unleashing the so-called Allied War (220-217 BC), into which all participants in the Hellenic Union were drawn, was not successful. Then, given the dangerous situation for Rome that developed during the second Punic War, Philip entered in 215 BC. e. in alliance with Hannibal and began to oust the Romans from their possessions in Illyria. This was the beginning of the first war between Macedonia and Rome (215-205 BC), which was essentially Philip's war with his old opponents who had joined Rome - Aetolia and Pergamon - and ended successfully for Macedonia. Thus, the last years of the III century. BC e. 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. e. the fourth Syrian war broke out between Egypt and the Seleucid kingdom: Antiochus III invaded Coele-Syria, subjugating one city after another by bribery or siege, and approached the borders of Egypt. The decisive battle between the armies of Antiochus III and Ptolemy IV took place in 217 BC. e. near the village of Rafi. 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 Raphia, unrest began inside Egypt, and he was forced to agree to the terms of peace proposed by Antiochus III. The internal instability of Egypt, which escalated after the death of Ptolemy IV, allowed Philip V and Antiochus III to seize the external possessions of the Ptolemies: all the policies belonging to the Ptolemies on the Hellespont, in Asia Minor and in the Aegean Sea went to Macedonia, Antiochus III took possession of Phoenicia and Celesiria. The expansion of Macedonia infringed on the interests of Rhodes and Pergamon. The war that arose as a result of this (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 developed into the second Roman-Macedonian war (200-197 BC).

Brief conclusions

End of the 3rd century BC e. 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 episodic and mainly in the form of diplomatic relations, then in the last decades of the 3rd century. BC e. there is already a trend towards open military confrontation, as evidenced by the alliance of Philip V with Hannibal and the first Macedonian war with Rome. The balance of power within the Hellenistic world also changed. During the III century. BC e. the role of small Hellenistic states - Pergamum, Bithynia, Pontus, 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 3rd c. BC e. Egypt retained its political and economic power, but by the end of the century, Macedonia was growing stronger, the kingdom of the Seleucids became the strongest power.

Socio-economic and political structure of the Hellenistic states

Trade and increase cultural exchange

The most characteristic feature of the economic development of the Hellenistic society in the III century. BC e. 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, Carthage and Rome. New major trading and craft centers arose - Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch on the Orontes, Seleucia on the Tigris, Pergamum, etc., the handicraft production of which was largely designed for the external 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-Europos, Antioch in Margiana, etc.

The Ptolemies founded several harbors on the Red Sea - Arsinoe, Philoter, 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 grew, and the importance of Athens fell. Cash transactions and money circulation expanded significantly, which was facilitated by the unification of the monetary business, which began under Alexander the Great with the introduction of silver and gold coins minted according to the Attic (Athenian) weight standard. This weight standard was retained in most Hellenistic states, despite the variety of stamps.

The economic potential of the Hellenistic states, the volume of handicraft production and its technical level increased 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 to the trade and craft 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 “komu” (village), disintegrating traditional relations and intensifying the exploitation of the rural population. The increase in agricultural production occurred 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 crafts of the local and alien, Greek and non-Greek population, the exchange of agricultural crops and scientific knowledge. Settlers 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 report that in the 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 there are more favorable conditions for it. It is difficult to detect changes in agricultural implements, but it is certain that in the large scale irrigation work in Egypt, carried out mainly by local residents under the direction of Greek "architects", one can see the result of a combination of technology 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 to pump out water in flooded mines, is associated with the name of Archimedes ("Archimedes screw" or the so-called "Egyptian snail").

Craft

In the craft, the combination of techniques and skills of local and alien 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 advanced loom, which was used in Egypt and Western Asia, workshops for the production of patterned fabrics appeared in Alexandria and gold-woven ones in Pergamum. The range of clothing and footwear has expanded, including those made according to foreign styles and patterns.

New types of products also appeared in other branches of handicraft production designed for mass consumption. In Egypt, the manufacture of different varieties of papyrus was established, and in Pergamum from the 2nd century. BC e. - parchment. Relief ceramics covered with a dark varnish with a metallic tint, which imitated the more expensive metal utensils (the so-called Megar bowls) in their shape and color, 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 in the casting of bronze statues, detachable molds began to be used, which made it possible to make them more complex and at the same time make numerous copies from the original.

Thus, the works of individual craftsmen and artists turned into handicraft products of mass production, designed not only for the rich, but also for the middle strata of the population. Important discoveries were also made in the production of luxury goods. Jewelers have mastered the technique of cloisonné enamel and amalgamation, i.e. coating items with a thin layer of gold using its solution in mercury. In the glass industry, methods were found for making products from mosaic, carved two-color, engraved and gilded glass. but the process of their manufacture was very complicated. Objects made in this technique were highly valued, and many were genuine works of art (objects that have come down 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 Olbia kept in the Hermitage , and etc.).

The development of maritime trade and constant military clashes at sea stimulated the improvement of shipbuilding technology. Multi-row propeller warships armed with rams and throwing guns continued to be built. 20 and 30 row ships were built in the shipyards of Alexandria, but, apparently, they turned out to be less effective (the Ptolemaic fleet was twice defeated in battles with the fleet of Macedonia, built in Greek shipyards, probably on the model of the fast 16-row ships of Demetrius Poliorcetes). The famous tesseraconter (40-row ship) of Ptolemy IV, which struck contemporaries with its size and luxury, turned out to be unsuitable for navigation. Along with large warships, small vessels were also built - reconnaissance, messengers, for the protection of merchant ships, as well as cargo.

The construction of a sailing merchant 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 arrangement of shipyards and docks was improved. Harbors were improved, piers and lighthouses were built. One of the seven wonders of the world was the Pharos lighthouse, created by the architect Sostratus of Cnidus. It was a colossal three-tiered tower crowned with a statue of the god Poseidon; information about its height has not been preserved, but, according to Josephus Flavius, it was visible from the sea at a distance of 300 stadia (about 55 km), in its upper part a fire burned at night. By the type of Pharos, lighthouses began to be built in other ports - in Laodicea, Ostia, etc.

Urban planning developed especially widely in the 3rd century. BC e. During this time, the construction of the largest number of cities founded by the Hellenistic monarchs, as well as renamed and rebuilt local cities, falls. Alexandria became 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 Lake. Mareotis in the south, from west to east - from the Necropolis to the Canopic 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 and riding, and two very wide avenues, more than a pletra (30 m) wide, which divide each other in half at right angles."

Lying 7 stages from the coast, a small rocky island of Pharos, where a lighthouse was built, was already connected to the mainland by Heptastadium under Ptolemy I - a dam that had passages for ships. Thus, two adjacent ports were formed - the Great Trading Harbor and the harbor of Evnost (Happy Return), connected by a canal to the port on the lake, where Nile ships delivered cargo. Shipyards adjoined Heptastadium on both sides, on the embankment of the Grand Harbor there were warehouses, a market square (Emporium), a temple of Poseidon, a theater, then royal palaces and parks stretched up to Cape Lochiad, including Museion (Temple of the Muses), a library and a sacred site with the tombs of Alexander and the Ptolemies. Adjacent to the main intersecting streets were the Gymnasium with a portico more than a stage (185 m) long, Dikasterion (courthouse), Paneion, Serapeion and other temples and public buildings. To the south-west of the central part of the city, which was called Bruheion, 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 brick buildings and dwellings. Researchers suggest that 3-4-story 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. e. on the river The Oronte is 120 stadia from the coast of the Mediterranean. The main street ran along the river valley, and it and the street parallel to it were crossed by alleys descending 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 an annular shape, with the royal palace in the center and radial streets radiating from it, bordered by porticos.

If Alexandria and Antioch are known mainly from the descriptions of ancient authors, then the excavations of Pergamum gave a clear picture of the structure of the third capital of the Hellenistic kingdoms in terms of historical significance. Pergamum, which existed as a fortress on a hard-to-reach hill overlooking the valley of the Caik River, gradually expanded under the Attalids and turned into a major trade, craft and cultural center. Consistent with the terrain, 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 lower down the slope a new public center of the city surrounded by a third wall with temples of Demeter, Hera, gymnasiums, a stadium and a new agora, along the perimeter which housed trade and craft rows.

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

New forms of socio-political organizations

Destruction of policies

Polises of the Hellenistic time are already significantly different from the policies of the classical era. The Greek polis as a form of socio-economic and political organization of ancient society by the end of the 4th century. BC e. was in a state of crisis. The policy hampered 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 civil collective as a whole - the poorest part of it faced the threat of losing 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 end of the 4th - beginning of the 3rd century. BC e. led to the creation of a new form of socio-political organization - the Hellenistic monarchy, which combined elements of eastern despotism - a monarchical form of state power that had a permanent army and a centralized administration - and elements of a polis structure in the form of cities with a rural territory assigned to them, retaining 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 polis was limited in the rights of foreign policy relations, in most cases the activities of polis self-government bodies were controlled by the tsarist official - the epistat. The loss of foreign policy independence of the policy 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 government acquired an important social support in the urban population and the contingents it needed 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 for undivided plots. But the difficulty was that land with local villages located on it could be assigned to cities, the population of which did not become citizens of the city, but continued to own their plots, paying taxes to the city or private individuals who received these lands from the king, and then attributed them to the city. On the territory not assigned to the cities, all the 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 Charter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus and other Egyptian papyri, it was divided into two categories: the royal lands proper and “ceded” lands, which included lands belonging to temples, lands, transferred by the king as a “gift” to his close associates, and lands provided by small plots (clerks) to cleruch warriors. All these categories of land could also contain local villages, whose inhabitants continued to own their hereditary allotments by paying taxes or taxes. Similar forms can also be traced in documents from the Seleucid kingdom. This specificity of land relations determined the multi-layered social structure of the Hellenistic states. The royal house with its court staff, the highest military and civil administration, the most prosperous townspeople and the highest priesthood constituted the upper stratum of the slave-owning nobility. The basis of their well-being was land (city and gift), profitable positions, trade, usury.

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

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

Slavery

The Greek-Macedonian conquest, the wars of the Diadochi, the spread of the polis system gave impetus to the development of slave-owning relations in their classical ancient form, while maintaining more primitive forms of slavery: debt, 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 policies. But in agriculture, slave labor could not push back the labor of the local population (“royal farmers” in Egypt, “royal people” among the Seleucids), whose exploitation was no less profitable. In the large farms of the nobility on gift lands, slaves performed administrative functions and served as auxiliary labor. However, the increase in the 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 as well.

Rural population

If the form of social organization of the urban population was the policy, then the rural population united in koma and katoikii with the preservation of elements of the communal structure, which can be traced from the data of Egyptian papyri and inscriptions from Asia Minor and Syria. In Egypt, each koma was assigned a traditional territory; a 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 royal administration. Compulsory liturgy for the repair and construction of irrigation facilities, legalized by the state, also goes back to the communal orders that once existed. There is no information in the papyri 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 the team of comets on a particular issue. According to papyri and inscriptions, the population of Kom in the Hellenistic period was heterogeneous: priests, cleruchs or kateks (military colonists), officials, tax-farmers, slaves, merchants, artisans, and day laborers permanently or temporarily lived in them. The influx of immigrants, differences in property and legal status weakened community ties.

Brief conclusions

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

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

Aggravation 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. Cities, on the other hand, 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 a monarchy and a polis structure. But although the land holdings of the Macedonian kings were relatively extensive, there was not a wide stratum of dependent rural population (with the possible exception 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 equally fell on the urban and rural population. The differences between Greeks and Macedonians, rural residents and townspeople were determined by their property status, the line of estate-class division passed between free and slaves. The development of the economy deepened the further introduction of slaveholding 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 (mostly young and middle-aged - warriors, artisans, merchants) to Western Asia and Egypt. This was supposed to dull the sharpness 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 prices for consumer goods ruined primarily the poor and middle strata of citizens. The problem of overcoming the economic isolation of the polis 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, Macedonian garrisons were introduced at strategically important points.

Reforms in Sparta

In all the policies of Greece in the III century. BC e. indebtedness and dispossession 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 peak in Sparta, where most of the Spartans actually lost their allotments. The need for social transformation 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 the restoration of the laws of Lycurgus, aroused the resistance of the ephorate and the aristocracy. Agis died, but the social situation in Sparta remained tense. A few years later, King Cleomenes III came up with the same reforms.

Taking into account the experience of Agis, Cleomenes previously strengthened his position by successful actions in the battle that began in 228 BC. e. war with the Achaean League. Enlisting the support of the army, he first destroyed the ephorate and expelled the richest citizens from Sparta, then carried out a cassation of debts and a redistribution of land, increasing the number of citizens by 4 thousand people. Events in Sparta caused unrest throughout Greece. Mantinea left 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, the Macedonian garrison was brought into Sparta, and Cleomenes' reforms were canceled.

The defeat of Cleomenes could not stop the growth of social movements. Already in 219 BC. e. in Sparta, Chilo again tried to destroy the ephorate and redistribute property; in 215, the oligarchs were expelled in Messenia 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 land and property of the nobility, the release of the helots and the allocation 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 e. 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 the lands, mines and workshops. The system of taxes and duties was distinguished by detailed elaboration and absorbed 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 leaving the place of residence (anachorsis), which sometimes took on a mass character, and the flight of slaves. Gradually, more active actions of the masses are also growing. The Fourth Syrian War and the hardships associated with it caused mass unrest, first engulfing Lower Egypt and soon spreading to the whole country. If in the most Hellenized regions of Lower Egypt the government of Ptolemy IV managed to quickly achieve appeasement, then unrest in southern Egypt by 206 BC. e. developed into a broad popular movement, and the Thebaid fell away from the Ptolemies for more than two decades. Although the movement in Thebaid had features of protest against the dominance of foreigners, its social orientation is clearly seen in the sources.

The arrival of Rome in Greece and Asia Minor

In Greece, the Second Macedonian War, which lasted more than two years, ended in victory for Rome. The demagogy 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 propertied layers of citizens, who saw in the Romans a force capable of ensuring their interests without the monarchical form of government odious for the demos. Macedonia lost all its possessions in Greece, the Aegean Sea and Asia Minor. Rome, solemnly declaring at the Isthmian Games (196 BC) the "freedom" of the Greek policies, began to dispose of in Greece, regardless of the interests of the former allies: it determined the borders of states, placed its garrisons in Corinth, Demetrias and Chalkis, intervened in the internal life of the policies. The "liberation" of Greece was the first step in the spread of Roman domination in the Eastern Mediterranean, the beginning of a new stage in the history of the Hellenistic world.

The next no less important event was the so-called Syrian war between Rome and Antiochus III. Having strengthened its borders with the Eastern campaign of 212-204. BC e. and the victory over Egypt, Antiochus began to expand his possessions in Asia Minor and Thrace at the expense of 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 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: not one of the Hellenistic states could claim hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean. The subsequent political history of the Hellenistic world is the history of the gradual subjugation of one country after another to Roman domination. 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, and, on the other hand, contradictions in foreign policy relations and the internal socio-political instability of the Hellenistic states. The process of active penetration of the Romans into the East and the adaptation of the eastern economic centers to the new situation began. The military and economic expansion of the Romans was accompanied by the massive enslavement of prisoners of war and the intensive development of slaveholding 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 the Hellenistic society - between the layers of the urban nobility, interested in expanding commodity production, trade and slavery, and the nobility associated with the royal 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 royal power. The struggle at the top sometimes merged with the struggle of the popular masses against tax oppression, usury and enslavement, and then dynastic wars developed into a kind of civil war.

Roman diplomacy played a significant role in inciting the dynastic struggle within the Hellenistic states and in pushing them against each other. So, 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 policies through democratic reforms (he announced the cassation of public debts and the return of the exiles), only Epirus and Illyria joined him. After the defeat of the Macedonian army at Pydna, the Romans divided Macedonia into four isolated districts, prohibited the development of mines, the extraction of salt, the export of timber (this became a Roman monopoly), as well as the purchase of real estate and 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 policies.

The massacre with Macedonia and Epirus, interference in the internal affairs of the Greek policies caused open protests against Roman rule: the uprising of Andris in Macedonia (149-148 BC) and the uprising of the Achaean Union (146 BC), brutally suppressed by the Romans. Macedonia was turned into a Roman province, the unions of the Greek policies were dissolved, and an oligarchy was established. The mass of the population was taken out and sold into slavery, Hellas fell into a state of impoverishment and desolation.

War between Egypt and the Seleucid Kingdom

While Rome was busy subjugating Macedonia, a war broke out between Egypt and the Seleucid kingdom. In 170, and then in 168 BC. e. Antiochus IV made campaigns in Egypt, captured and besieged Alexandria, but the intervention of Rome forced him to abandon his intentions. Meanwhile, an uprising broke out in Judea, caused by an increase in taxes. Antiochus, having suppressed him, built the fortress of Acre in Jerusalem and left a garrison there, power in Judea was assigned to the "Hellenists", the Jewish religion was prohibited, and the cult of Greek deities was introduced. These repressions caused in 166 BC. e. a new uprising that developed into a popular war against the rule of the Seleucids. In 164 BC. e. The rebels, led by Judas Maccabee, took Jerusalem and laid siege to Acre. Judas Maccabeus appropriated the rank of high priest, assigned priestly positions regardless of nobility, and confiscated the property of the Hellenists. In 160 BC. e. Demetrius I defeated Judas Maccabee and brought his garrisons into the Jewish cities. But the struggle of the Jews did not stop.

After the invasion of Antiochus in Egypt, there was an uprising in the nomes of Central 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 e. 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 forced lease. The life of most of the Laoi, even from the point of view of the royal administration, was a beggarly one. 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, under the first Ptolemies, dependent on the central government, 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 farmers and artisans associated with them in order to get their share of the income from them. But decrees could only temporarily or partially stop the decline of the Ptolemaic state economy.

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 the economy of the states of Asia Minor, more and more 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 Attalus 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 the nobility tried to carry out after his death, could prevent a popular movement that swept the whole country and was directed against the Romans and the local nobility. For more than three years (132-129 BC), the rebellious farmers, slaves and the underprivileged population of cities under the leadership of Aristonicus resisted the Romans. After the suppression of the uprising, Pergamon was turned into the province of Asia.

Instability is growing in the state of the Seleucids. Following Judea, separatist tendencies are also manifested in the eastern satrapies, which begin to orient themselves towards Parthia. An attempt by 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 e. Commagene and Judea become independent.

A vivid expression of this crisis was the sharpest dynastic struggle. For 35 years, 12 applicants have changed on the throne, often two or three kings ruled simultaneously. The territory of the Seleucid state was reduced to the limits of Syria proper, Phenicia, Coele-Syria and part of Cilicia. Large cities sought to obtain complete autonomy or even independence (tyranny in Tire, Sidon, etc.). In 64 BC. e. The Seleucid kingdom was annexed to Rome as the province of Syria.

Kingdom of Pontus and Mithridates

In the 1st century BC e. the center of resistance to Roman aggression was the Pontic kingdom, which, under Mithridates VI Evpator (120-63 BC), extended its power to almost the entire Black Sea coast. In 89 BC. e. Mithridates Evpator started a war with Rome, his speech and democratic reforms found the support of the population of Asia Minor and Greece, ruined by Roman usurers and publicans. By order of Mithridates, 80 thousand Romans were killed in Asia Minor in one day. By 88, he occupied almost all of Greece without much difficulty. However, Mithridates' success was short-lived. His arrival did not improve the life of the Greek policies, the Romans managed to inflict a number of defeats on the Pontic army, and the subsequent social measures of Mithridates - cassation of debts, division of land, granting citizenship to metecs and slaves - deprived him of support among the wealthy sections of citizens. In 85, Mithridates was forced to admit defeat. He twice more - in 83-81 and 73-63. BC e. he tried, relying on anti-Roman sentiments, to stop the penetration of the Romans into Asia Minor, but the alignment of social forces and the trends of historical development predetermined the defeat of the Pontic king.

Subjugation of Egypt

When at the beginning of the 1st c. BC e. the possessions of Rome came close to the borders of Egypt, the Ptolemaic kingdom was still shaken by dynastic strife and popular movements. About 88 BC e. an uprising broke out again in Thebaid, only three years later it was crushed by Ptolemy IX, who destroyed the center of the uprising -. In the next 15 years, unrest took place in the nomes of Central Egypt - in Hermopol and twice in. In Rome, the question of the subjugation of Egypt was repeatedly discussed, but the Senate did not dare to start a war against this still strong state. In 48 BC. e. Caesar, after an eight-month war with the Alexandrians, limited himself to annexing 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 domination, and in 30 BC. e. The Romans entered Egypt almost without resistance. The last major state collapsed.

Consequences 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 developed in the Hellenistic era had a huge impact on the development of the Eastern Mediterranean in subsequent centuries and determined its specifics. In the era of Hellenism, a new step was taken in the development of productive forces, a type of state arose - the Hellenistic kingdoms, combining the features of an eastern despotism with a polis organization of cities; there have been significant changes in the stratification of the population, internal socio-political contradictions have reached great tension. In II-I centuries. BC e., probably for the first time in history, the social struggle took on such diverse forms: the flight of slaves and the anachoresis of the inhabitants of the coma, uprisings of tribes, unrest and riots in cities, religious wars, palace coups and dynastic wars, short-term unrest in nomes and long-term popular movements, in which involved different segments of the population, including slaves, and even slave uprisings, which, however, were of a local nature (about 130 BC, an uprising in Delos of slaves brought for sale and uprisings in the Lavrian mines in Athens around 130 and in 103/102 BC).

During the Hellenistic period, ethnic differences between Greeks and Macedonians lose their former significance, and the ethnic designation "Hellenes" acquires social content and extends to those segments of the population who, according to their social status, can receive 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 image of a person of the Hellenistic era. The instability of the external and internal political situation, the ruin, the 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 the city and from the city to the chorus - all this led to a weakening of ties within the civil collective of the policy, community ties in rural settlements, to the growth of individualism. The policy can no longer guarantee the freedom and material well-being of a citizen; personal ties with representatives of the tsarist administration, the patronage of those in power, begin to acquire great importance. Gradually, from one generation to another, a psychological restructuring takes place, and a citizen of the policy turns into a subject of the king, not only by formal position, but also by political convictions. All these processes in one way or another influenced the formation of the Hellenistic culture.

Hellenism: assessment in historical science

The term "Hellenism" was introduced into scientific circulation in the 30s. 20th century J.G. Droyzen There is no single point of view on the interpretation of the term.

1. J.G. Droysen understood Hellenism as the process of spreading Greek (Hellenic) culture among countries and

peoples of the Mediterranean.

2 M Hadas, J. Starton understood Hellenism as a purely cultural phenomenon, that is, they considered the concepts of Hellenism and Hellenistic culture to be equivalent.

3 M Rostovtsev considered the period of the conquest of the East by the Greek-Macedonians as Hellenism.

4 M Hammond sees in Hellenism a new stage in the political organization of Greek and Roman society, the so-called federal democracy (Achaean and Aetolian leagues).

5 C.A. Robinson, considering through the theory of “consensus”, popular in the USA, considered Hellenism as a special type of society, the so-called “brotherhood of peoples”.

6 A.B Ranovich proposed to consider Hellenism as a stage in the history of slaveholding relations of the ancient world, a period in the history of Greece and the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean from the campaigns of A. Macedon (334-323 BC) to the final conquest of the East by Rome (30 . BC.).

7 KK Zelyin considered Hellenism as a complex socio-economic, political and cultural phenomenon, characterized by a synthesis of Greek and Eastern principles, and as a qualitatively new concrete historical period in the history of the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean.

8 V. I. Kuzishin gave the following definition: Hellenism is the forcible unification of the ancient Greek and ancient Eastern worlds, which previously developed separately, into a single system of states that have similarities in economic, social, political structure and culture.

The concept of "elchinism"», geographical, chronological framework, periodization, types of synthesis

Hellenism, according to the most common point of view now, is the forcible unification of the ancient Greek and ancient Eastern worlds, which previously developed separately, into a single system of states. As a result, a peculiar society and culture was created, which differed both from the Greek proper and from the ancient Eastern social structure and culture proper. It was a synthesis of ancient Greek and ancient Eastern

I civilizations, which gave a qualitatively new socio-economic structure, political superstructure and culture.

Chronological framework Hellenism depend on what point of view on the essence of this phenomenon to share. The classical point of view is the allocation of Hellenism from the campaigns of A. Macedon in 334 BC. until the conquest of the last Hellenistic state (Egypt) by the Romans in 30 BC. That is, Hellenism lasted about 300 years.

Within the framework of the Hellenistic stage, three periods are distinguished:

1) 334-281 BC - the formation of the empire of A. Macedon and its collapse as a result of the wars of the Diadochi; 2) 280 BC - the middle of the 2nd century BC - the period of maturity of Hellenism, the creation of a socio-economic structure, statehood and culture of Hellenism; 3) the middle of the II century. BC. - 30 BC - late Hellenism, the decomposition of the Hellenistic states, their conquest by Rome in the West and Parthia in the East.

Geographical districts Hellenism also depend on the point of view on its essence. In a broad sense, these are all territories from Sicily and Southern Italy in the west to Northwestern India in the east, from the southern shores of the Aral Sea in the north to the first rapids of the Nile in the south. In a narrow sense, these are the territories of the Eastern Mediterranean. The Hellenistic world included small and large state formations: the territory of classical Greece (including Great Greece and the Black Sea region) and the so-called classical East (Egypt, Western and Central Asia (without India and China)) . Within this zone, four regions can be distinguished, similar in terms of both geographical and historical characteristics, with a certain commonality of social and cultural development:

The synthesis of ancient Greek and ancient Eastern principles in each region of the Hellenistic world was not the same in terms of its intensity and the role of the elements involved in it. A different degree of combination of Greek and Eastern principles depended on the specific historical features of the existence of certain Hellenistic societies and states. In some societies, Greek principles prevailed, in others - Eastern ones, in others their ratio was more or less uniform. In some countries, the synthesis embraced to a greater extent public structures, in others - political institutions, in others - the sphere of culture and religion. The most characteristic features of Hellenism as a synthesis of Greek and Eastern principles in all areas of life, production, and culture appeared in Egypt and the Middle East. This region is regarded as an area of ​​classical Hellenism. In Balkan Greece and Macedonia, Magna Graecia and the Black Sea region, that is, on the territory of Ancient Greece itself, on the contrary, synthesis did not exist. The historical development in these areas took place on the basis of ancient Greek civilization. Nevertheless, these regions are attributed to the Hellenistic world for a number of reasons: they were part of the general system of the Hellenistic states as a certain socio-economic, political and cultural entity; Hellenes and Macedonians who emigrated from these regions as warriors, administrators, citizens of Greek cities founded in different parts of the Hellenistic world played an important role in the life of new societies and states.

Hellenism (Hellenistic civilization), a term originally referring to the 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. era that began with the conquests of Alexander the Great. In many In the cities founded by him and his successors, the customs of the Greeks and the "barbarians" coexisted. Alexandria in Egypt became the cultural center of the Mediterranean region. The spread of a new culture was facilitated by the development of a common dialect of Greek. lang. - "koine".

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

HELLENISM

period in the history of the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean between 323 and 30 years. BC e. (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., the political system of which combine elements of ancient Eastern monarchies with the features of the Greek policy. During the II-I centuries. these Hellenistic states gradually came under the rule of Rome. The culture of E. was a synthesis of Greek and local Oriental cultures.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Hellenism

period in the history of the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean between 323 and 30 years. BC. (Conquest of Egypt by Rome). The struggle for power between the commanders 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., the political system of which combined elements of ancient Eastern monarchies with the features of the Greek policy; in the period of 2-1 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.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

HELLENISM

culture of the countries 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. when Egypt was conquered by Rome. The term was introduced in the 19th century. German scientist I. Droysen. As a result of a fierce struggle between the successors of Alexander, several new states were formed: the Seleucids (stretched from the Aegean coast to Bactria, which existed on the territory of modern Afghanistan), the Ptolemies (in Egypt), Pergamum (in Asia Minor), the Pontic kingdom, etc., political system which combined elements of the ancient Eastern monarchies with the features of the Greek policy. In Hellenism, the traditions of the Hellenic (Greek) and local Eastern cultures were complexly combined.

At this time, many new cities were built, which were named, as a rule, in honor of the monarchs who founded them (Alexandria, Seleucia, Antioch). They were built on the basis of a regular plan, large colonnades ran along the sides of the main streets, agora (squares) were also framed by colonnades and porticos. The new Hellenistic capitals became centers of cultural life in the 3rd–1st centuries. BC e. (Pergamon in Asia Minor, Alexandria in Egypt). The development of architecture was due to the improvement of construction equipment. Hellenistic architecture is characterized by the desire to master vast open spaces, to a grandiose scale, the desire to impress a person with the grandeur of design, spectacular splendor, luxury of materials and finishes (the temples of the god Serapis in Alexandria, Apollo in Didyma, Zeus in Athens and Artemis in Magnesia). Temples were built very slowly due to the large amount of work, sometimes due to lack of funds remained unfinished. Temples of local deities were also built and restored (the temples of Horus in Edfu, Isis on the island of Philae, Esagil in Babylon, etc.). Much attention was paid to civil construction (theaters, palaces, hippodromes, bouleuteria - houses for meetings). New types of public buildings appeared - libraries (in Alexandria, Pergamon, Antioch), museums for scientific and literary studies (in Alexandria, Antioch), engineering structures (Pharos lighthouse off the coast of Alexandria, Tower of the Winds in Athens).

Monumental sculpture is characterized by grandiose scale, pomp, complexity of composition, striving for violent effects (the altar of Zeus in Pergamon with the famous relief frieze with scenes of the battle of 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 Laocoön sculptural group (1st century BC), the statue of Venus de Milo (Aphrodite of Melos, middle of the 2nd century BC), which became the standard of female beauty for centuries, and the “Apollo Belvedere” by Leohara (second half of the 4th century BC).

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

The Hellenistic heritage had a significant influence on the development of Roman culture and the cultures of other peoples of antiquity and the Middle Ages.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

HELLENISM

initial E. denoted the correct use of Greek. language, especially non-Greeks, then spread. Greek culture. After the publication of the work of I. G. Droyzen "History of Hellenism" (1836 - 1843), the concept of "E." entered the historical science. In German-language literature, this concept began to denote ist. an era that began with the accession of Alexander the Great and ended with the inclusion of Ptolemaic Egypt in Rome. state (336 - 330 BC). The reasons for the formation of the E. era were as follows. In Greece, 4th c. BC. the value of policies fell, and they experienced an acute socio-political. the crisis. Under these conditions, amplifying Macedonia achieved political dominance over the Greek policies. In Macedonia, by that time, centralization had established itself. monarchy (Philip II) with its capital in the city of Pella, although in the mountainous regions the influence of the clan nobility was still strong. At the same time, in Persian The power of the Achaemenids, as a result of 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 era covers thus: 1) The period of 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 subjugation by Rome or Parthia (280 - 230 BC). The most beings. a question for evaluating this era, in relation to which the opinions of scientists differ, is the question of the volume and consequences that the formation of the state had. with mocked. dynasties in the East and in Greek. region. This applies to both socio-economic and cultural aspects. Ch. the problem is whether antiquity prevailed, i.e. policy, ownership of land and classic. slavery in V. or not. The most important Hellenistic state were Macedonia itself with the Antigonid dynasty (the founder of which was the commander Antigonus One-eyed, strategist of Great Phrygia under Alexander the Great), state. The Seleucids, founded by the head of the cavalry Seleucus (which included primarily Syria, Mesopotamia, later Palestine and most of Anatolia, temporarily also covering the Iranian region), Egypt under the rule of the Ptolemies (Cyrenaica also belonged to the chrome) and, finally, Pergamum, in which rum was ruled by the Attalid dynasty. In addition, there were smaller independent. education in the south. coast of the Black Sea (Bithynia, Cappadocia, Pontus) and in Armenia. Initial subordinates of Alexander the Great Iran. region and small principalities in the Indus. border already in the 3rd c. BC. did not resist the Parthian state. and expanding. Mauryan empire. T. n. Greco-Bactrian state. under the guidance leaders of the Greek mercenaries held out for some time between these states. The policies of the Balkan Greece received some autonomy, but nevertheless were dependent on the great powers, especially Macedonia. Only the Aetolian and Achaean unions could sometimes hold their own. politics. In the culture of the East Hellenistic state a strong Greek is clearly traced. influence (in architecture, official language, etc.). Greek settlers who formed new policies in the Hellenistic. kingdoms, distribution here antique. form of private property in the craft and villages. x-ve (in districts immediately adjacent to cities). They also had a classic slavery (Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, Seleucia on the Tigris). However, these cities were no longer independent. political and social-economic. units, as in the classical Greek period. stories. They are yavl. part of the state (for example, other Greek cities on the coast of Asia Minor), at best - dependent allies. They had to pay taxes or tribute (if they were not exempted from this in individual cases). In the Greco-Aegean region of Antich. social-economic the basis has not changed, it was further based on private ownership of the means of production and on the dominance of slave owners. relations. X-in is still concentrated. in the city. Because the number of slaves due to pl. wars increased, the standard of living of free citizens who depended on earnings fell. In east. Hellenistic state villages remained the basis of agricultural production. community, typical form of ownership - royal (especially on land). The personal dependence of the tsarist peasants formed the basis of production. relations. Means. part of the land with Hellenistic peasants living on it. kings, as well as other east. despots, handed over to dignitaries and temples, to-rye had to pay a tax for its use. In the Hellenistic cities, cultural life was determined by the ruling class, which consisted of preim. 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 religions, more and more citizens turned to mystery cults that promised a better, afterlife. Dramaturgy, especially comedy, has turned its back on major political events and delved into the private concerns and needs of individuals. With the emergence of the royal courts of the Greco-Maked. dynasts in the new capitals and their museums art began to concentrate. Display. the lawsuit was more and more commission-oriented and therefore became far-fetched and pretentious. Lit-ra enriched east. forms, incl. legends and apocalypse. motives. Starting from the 2nd c. BC. Hellenistic state became victims of Rome. expansions: 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. In the Hellenistic epoch, the narrow framework of the policy was overcome and relatives were created. viable states, elements of which were adopted by the Romans and later led to the creation of a new feud. order.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Hellenism

(hellenismus). Initially, E. meant the correct use of Greek. language, especially non-Greeks, then - the spread of Greek. culture. After the publication of the work of I. G. Droyzen "History of Hellenism" (1836-1843), the concept of "E." entered the historical science. In the German-speaking litre, this concept began to denote historical. an era that began with the accession of Alexander the Great and ended with the inclusion of Ptolemaic Egypt in Rome. states (336–30 BC). The reasons for the formation of the E. era were as follows. In Greece, 4th c. BC e. the value of policies fell, and they experienced an acute socio-political. the crisis. Under these conditions, the intensified Macedonia achieved political. dominance over the Greek policies. By that time, a centralized monarchy (Philip II) had established itself in Macedonia, with its capital in the city of Pella, although the influence of the clan nobility was still strong in the mountainous regions. At the same time, in the Persian state of the Achaemenids, as a result of centrifugal tendencies in the satrapies (Egypt, Babylon, Phrygia, etc.), distinct crisis phenomena were revealed. To overcome the crisis in Greece, conquests were undertaken under the leadership of Macedonia in the East (Persian kingdom). Hellenistic the era covers, thus: 1) the period of campaigns of Alexander the Great up to the Indus (334–323 BC); 2) the collapse of this state and the formation on its basis of the "Hellenistic." and east. states during the Wars of the Diadochi (323–280 BC); 3) the history of these states before their subjugation by Rome or Parthia (280-30 BC). The most important issue for assessing this era, regarding which the opinions of scientists differ, is the question of the volume and consequences that the formation of states with the Macedonian dynasties had in the East and in Greek. region. This applies to both socio-economic and cultural aspects. The main problem is whether the ancient, i.e. polis, ownership of land and the classic prevailed. slavery in V. or not. The most important Hellenistic the states were Macedonia itself with the Angigonid dynasty (whose founder was the commander Antigonus One-Eyed, the strategist of Great Phrygia under Alexander the Great), the Seleucid state, founded by the head of the cavalry Seleucus (which included primarily Syria, Mesopotamia, later Palestine and most of Anatolia, temporarily also covering Iran, area), Egypt under the rule of the Ptolemies (which also included Cyrenaica) and, finally, Pergamum, which was ruled by the Attalid dynasty. In addition, there were smaller independent formations to the south. Black Sea coast (Bithynia, Cappadocia, Pontus) and in Armenia. Initially subordinate to Alexander the Great, Iran, regions and small principalities in the Indus. border already in the 3rd c. BC e. could 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. Policies of the Balkan Greece received some autonomy, but nevertheless were dependent on the great powers, especially from Macedonia. Only the Aetolian and Achaean unions could at times pursue an independent policy. In the culture of the East Hellenistic states, a strong Greek is clearly visible. influence (in architecture, official language, etc.). Greek, settlers who formed new policies in the Hellenistic. kingdoms, spread here the ancient form of private property in crafts and agriculture (in areas immediately adjacent to cities). They also had a classic slavery (Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, Seleucia on the Tigris). However, these cities were no longer independent political. and socio-economic. units, as in the classical Greek period. stories. They were part of the state (for example, ancient Greek cities on the coast of Asia Minor), at best, dependent allies. They had to pay taxes or tribute (if they were not exempted from this in individual cases). In the Greco-Aegean region, the ancient socio-economic. the basis has not changed, and in the future it was based on private ownership of the means of production and on the domination of slave owners. relations. The economy was still concentrated in the city. Since the number of slaves due to numerous. wars increased, the standard of living of free citizens who depended on earnings fell. In east. Hellenistic states, the basis of agricultural production remained the rural community, a typical form of ownership - royal (especially on land). The personal dependence of the tsarist peasants formed the basis of production and relations. A significant part of the land with the Hellenistic peasants living on it. kings, as well as other east. despots, handed over to dignitaries and temples, who had to pay a tax for its use. In the Hellenistic cities, cultural life was determined by the ruling class, which consisted of preim. from the Greeks. The philosophy of that time reflected the crisis of the polis system, ch. directions were skepticism, stoicism and epicureanism. In the realm of religion, more and more citizens turned to mystery cults that promised a better afterlife. Dramaturgy, especially comedy, has turned its back on major political events and delved into the private concerns and needs of individuals. With the emergence of the royal courts of the Greek-Macedonian dynasts, art began to concentrate in the new capitals and their museums. Visual arts became more and more commission-oriented and therefore became far-fetched and mannered. Literature was enriched east. forms, including legends and apocalypse. motives. Starting from the 2nd c. BC e. Hellenistic States fell victim to Rome. expansions: Macedonia and Greece - in 148–146 BC. e., Pergamum - in 129 BC. e. the state of the Seleucids (in 83 BC conquered by Tigran the Armenian) - in 64 BC. e., Egypt - in 30 BC. e. In the Hellenistic era, the narrow framework of the policy was overcome and relatively viable states were created, the elements of which were adopted by the Romans and later led to the creation of a new feudal order.

rice. States of Alexander the Great and the Diadochi.

Great 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. Macedon (334 - 323 BC) to the final conquest of the East by Rome (30 BC). The term "e." Introduced into scientific circulation in the 30s. of the last century, the German scientist J.G. Droyzen. A unified point of view on e. antiquity does not exist in world historiography. Droizen understood. as the spread of Greek (Hellenic) culture among the countries and peoples of the Mediterranean. It was also suggested to consider e. as a stage in the history of the ancient world (A.B. Ranovich). But most historians follow the concept of K.K. Zelyin, 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-owning relations in the ancient world.

Zelyin K.K. Some main problems of the history of Hellenism // SA. 1955. Issue. 22; Katz A.L. Discussion about the problems of Hellenism // SA. 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; Levek P. Hellenistic world / Per. from 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 features 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.

(I.A. Lisovy, K.A. Revyako. The ancient world in terms, names and titles: Dictionary-reference book on the history and culture of Ancient Greece and Rome / Scientific ed. A.I. Nemirovsky. - 3rd ed. - Minsk: Belarus, 2001)

concept, to-Crimea in the 30s. 19th century German the historian G. Droyzen outlined a new type of society.-watered. and cult, relations that have developed on 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 independent policies, the E. era is characterized by the formation of large. monarchies (Ptolemies in Egypt, Seleucids in Syria), in which the state. power and cult, politics were concentrated in the hands of the Greek-speaking elite and its entourage. Although some features that determined the essence of E. matured already in the 4th century. BC, and the distribution of c. culture in the once conquered territories continued into the first centuries AD. e., in a watered, chronological plan, it is convenient to consider the boundaries of E. 323 - 30 BC. e. (from the death of Alexander the Great to the conquest by Rome of the ambassador of the Hellenistic state - Egypt). Characteristic features of the era of E. yavl. the formation of new polit and cult centers (Alexandria, Pergamum, Antioch on the Orontes) and the emergence of new litas in them. directions and scientific. interests. Of the old centers, its value is preserved. only Athens as the center of philosophy. thoughts: along with the Academy and the peripatetics, who developed acc. traditions of Plato and Aristotle, in Athens in the very end of the 4th century. the schools of Epicurus and Zeno (Stoics) are formed, to-rye receive aftermath. widespread throughout the Hellenes, 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 traditions. polis relations, the philosophy of Epicurus and the Stoics, who proceeded from dec. ethical parcels, nevertheless equally responded to the desire of all Bol. the number of citizens of the Hellenes, monarchies to close within the boundaries of their individual world, to ensure the identity of the ext. freedom and independence from circumstances. In the III century, among the lower classes of the city, the population is spreading philosophy cynics. The desire of a person to distance himself from society.-watered. 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 floor. 3rd century poets continue to use the legacy of tradition. genres, but adapt it to new aesthetes, requests; the defining becomes the poetry of "small forms", addressed to enough favourites. an audience capable of evaluating the results of experimentation with the usual form and phraseology of the classical. genres. At the same time, it deepens, according to cf. from lit. classical period, interest in the inner world of a person, the image of a love feeling, 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. there is a formation of philology, which turns into this time. to collecting, classifying, evaluating the reliability of texts that have come down from ancient authors. Mn. scientists yavl. simultaneous productively creative poets (Callimachus, Apollonius of Rhodes, Lycophron) - hence their desire to saturate the artistic. prod. 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 Thracian). The nature of the image. claims of the era of E. determine, from od. Art., the desire for monumentality (a colossal statue of Helios on the island of Rhodes, a Pharos lighthouse at the entrance to the harbor of Alexandria) and expressive pathos (the altar of Zeus in Pergamum, the Laocoön group), with others - softness and sophistication in the image. women and children, the search for individual features in the sculptural portrait and increased attention to everyday details.

The expansion of the boundaries of the known world, the involvement in the cultural life of new lands and peoples lead to significant successes in geography and astronomy (Eratosthenes, Aristarchus of Samos, Hipparchus). Mathematics and mechanics reach a high level (Euclid, Pappus, Apollonius from Perga, Archimedes). Beings, changes are taking place in religion. Along with the departure of the traditional cults (mainly in the old gr. centers) develops the veneration of a new deity - Tikha, personifying the case, in the power of which mortals increasingly feel themselves. Interaction gr. layers of 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 in the East, is becoming widespread. He is endowed with the functions of Zeus and Pluto, like Egypt. Osiris is identified with gr. Dionysus, Phrygian Cybele - from gr. Rhea, mother of Zeus and Hera. The importance of all kinds of sacraments and mysteries is growing - initiation into them is perceived as a guarantee of patronage, which a deity can provide to those who have joined his cult. E. culture reached its peak in the 3rd century. and began to decline in the middle. II century, when the Romans came into close contact with it, and many later used it. her achievements.

Lit.: Blavatsky T. V. From the history of the Greek intelligentsia of the Hellenistic time. M., 1983; LevequeP. Hellenistic world. M., 1989; Thorne 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 book / Edited by V.N. Yarkho. M., 1995.)

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

HELLENISM

a term coined in the 1930s. 19th century German historian I. G. Droyzen to characterize the period in the history of the countries 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. e. subjugation of Egypt. The concept of "E." Droysen meant the spread of political. dominance of the Hellenes (Greeks and Macedonians) in the east. countries 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 Hellenistic borders. peace. Researchers who understand E. preim. cultural phenomenon, tend to expand the territory. Hellenistic framework. world, including in it all eras and areas where the interaction of the local and other Greek. cultures. At the same time, if some note the mutual influence of cultures, then others focus on the fact that E. is, first of all, the further development of precisely the Greek. culture (German scientists J. Kerst and W. Shubart). An even broader content is invested in e., when this term is identified with the concept of Hellenistic. civilization. Historians who view E. from this angle (beginning with the work of the English scholar W. Tarn, published in 1927), in addition to the commonality of cultural development, trace the forms of political development that are characteristic, from their point of view. organization and social relations: the spread of the polis device in Western Asia, the change in political. values ​​of the policy, the specificity of the Hellenistic. monarchies, relations between Greco-Maked. and the local population, economic features. life. Such an extension of the concept of "E." contributed to the concept of M. I. Rostovtsev, who considered the Hellenistic. the world as a unified political and socio-economic. system, for which, according to Rostovtsev, are characterized by strong economic. and political communications between the state-you included in it; the basis of these states were policies and the "bourgeoisie class" (merchants, artisans, clerks, medium and large landowners), which provided political. and economic stability and distribution of the Hellenistic. culture. Having arisen as a result of the conquest of the East, which opened up new markets and a wide field of activity, the Hellenistic. the world achieved prosperity, but a relatively short-term one, which was replaced by decline due, as Rostovtsev writes, to a violation of the political. balance and rise of the "Eastern reaction". Modernization of socio-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 one (most clearly among the French scientist P. Petit), others, like Rostovtsev, see E. as an independent, complete cycle in the history of antiquity. civilization or a particular civilization. English scientist A. Toynbee, for example, includes in the concept of "E." the history of the Greek and Rome. peace from con. 2nd millennium BC e. up to 7 c. n. e. Most historians, noting the greatest flowering of the Hellenistic. state-in in the 3rd 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 look for parallels of modernity in E. (German scientist (FRG) G. Bengtson, French - A. Eimar, etc.). Owls. historical science from the first steps of its formation considered E. as a complex socio-economic, political. and cultural phenomenon. To a certain extent, this approach was prepared by the nature of the research of Rus. historians con. 19 - beg. 20th century (P. P. Sokolov, V. G. Vasilevsky, 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 countries of the East. Mediterranean, characterized by: a) the crisis of the slave economy and socio-political. Greek structures. policy; b) the development of commodity relations and slavery in the East. Hellenistic state wah, who inherited from other east. monarchical societies. form of government, forms of exploitation of dependent villages. population and state-monopolistic. trends; c) syncretism in various branches of culture. Historical Kovalev sees the significance of Hellenism in the economic, political. and the cultural unification of the Near East, African and Aegean worlds, which served as the basis for the emergence of Rome. world power. These provisions were further developed in special. studies of A. B. Ranovich. According to his concept, E. is a natural stage in the history of antique. slave owner society. It was generated by the crisis of the Greek. policies and pers. powers and, in turn, after a short-term heyday, gave way to a new, wider and more progressive stage in history - the slave-owning society of Rome. empire. E. is characterized by the intensive development of trade and money. relations, the tendency to oust natural x-va, the spread of classical forms to V. slavery, some economic leveling, smoothing ethnic. disunity, exacerbation of social contradictions and class. struggle, interaction 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. Zelyin. Considering E. concrete-historical. phenomenon, not subject to transformation into a sociological. category of the stage of development of the slave-owning society, Zelyin indicates that in the Hellenistic. period of the country East. The Mediterranean experienced different stages in the development of slaveholding relations: in the most developed Greek. state-wah there was a crisis of the polis device and the slave-owning relations characteristic of 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 antique. forms of slavery and polis organization, among the tribes inside and on the periphery of the Hellenistic. the world was in the process of becoming a class. society. According to Zelyin's definition, E. - "the combination and interaction of the Hellenic and local (Ch. arr. 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 Near Asian peoples in the previous period, the Greco-Maked. the conquest gave it a wide scope and intensity. New forms of culture, political. and socio-economic. relations that arose during the E. period were the product of a synthesis, in which the meaning of local and Greek. elements was determined specifically-historical. conditions. Dep. 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. The history of E. is usually divided into periods: 1) the emergence of the Hellenistic . state-in (or the struggle of the Diadochi, late 4th - early 3rd centuries BC); 2) the formation of a 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 dominance of Rome (beginning 2nd - late 1st centuries BC). The rise of the Hellenistic state-in (or the struggle of the Diadochi, late 4th - early 3rd centuries BC). By the time of the death of Alexander the Great (323), his power covered the Balkan Peninsula, the Aegean Islands, M. Asia, Egypt, all of Western Asia, south. districts Wed. Asia and part of the Center. Asia to the bottom. currents of the Indus (see the map to the station Alexander the Great). For the first time in history, such a huge territory. found itself within the same political systems. In the process, the conquests were explored and established ways of communication and trade between remote areas; wells, bridges, harbors were built, sentry garrisons were placed, new cities were founded. The surplus population of the Greek. Policies (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 generals - the Diadochi (successors, as they are usually called), who fought for the division of his heritage. The most important political power and material support of the state. the army was the power in the state of Alexander, and it determined the form of the state after his death: as a result of a short struggle between the infantry and the hetairoi (selected cavalry), an agreement was reached, according to which the state was preserved as a single entity, and the weak-minded were proclaimed Alexander's heirs Arrhidaeus, the illegitimate son of Philip II (protege of the infantry), who received the name Philip III upon accession, and the child expected by Alexander's wife Roxana, named after birth Alexander IV. In fact, the power was in the hands of a small group of noble Macedonians, who under Alexander held the highest military and court positions; Perdikka actually became regent, control of Greece and Macedonia was left to Antipater and Crater, Thrace was transferred to Lysimachus. In M. Asia, the most influential position was occupied by Antigonus (Antigon I the One-Eyed) - the satrap of Great Phrygia, who also received Lycia and Pamphylia; Leonnatus was appointed to the Hellespontian Phrygia; the satrapies of Paphlagonia and Cappadocia, which were only nominally part of the Macedonian state, inherited by the Greek Eumenes from Cardia (who served as secretary under Alexander), still had to be conquered. Egypt was transferred to the control of Ptolemy Lag (Ptolemy I Soter, see Ptolemy in Art.), Syria - Laomedont, Media - Python, east. the regions remained under the rule of the satraps appointed by Alexander. Important command posts were occupied by Seleucus (Seleek I Nicator) and Cassander, son of Antipater. Using the mood of the army, accustomed to live by plundering the conquered territories, Perdikka tried to consolidate his autocracy. He managed to subjugate Cappadocia, on his behalf, Python suppressed the uprising of the Greco-Maked. troops in Bactria, intending to leave the garrisons and return to their homeland. The actions of Perdikkas against Antigonus and Ptolemy Lag marked the beginning of a long period of struggle between the Diadochi. Information about this period, preserved in the sources, is fragmentary and extremely confusing, one can only outline the main. historical lines. process. The campaign of Perdikkas in Egypt (321) turned out to be of little success, displeased the army, as a result of which he was killed by his commanders (including Seleucus). At the same time, in M. Asia, in a clash with Eumenes, left by Perdikka to defend the rear, Crater died, which, in alliance with Antipater and Antigonus, was moving to help Ptolemy Lag. 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 transferred to him. Antigonus received the powers of the strategist-autocrat of Asia, all the royal troops stationed there were transferred to his jurisdiction. Thus, the center of power 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 decreased. The power of Ptolemy Lag over the recently conquered Greek was recognized. cities of Cyrenaica. Seleucus received the satrapy of Babylonia; some movements were made among 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 maintaining nominally the unity of the state under the rule of the Maked. dynasties, in fact, had already begun to abandon the organizational unity of the empire. In the next two years, Antigonus almost completely ousted Eumenes from M. Asia, but in 319 Antipater died, transferring his powers to Polyperchon, one of the old and devoted Macedas. dynasties of generals, and political. the situation changed dramatically again. Antipater's son Cassander, who found support from Antigonus, spoke out against Polyperchon. Polyperchon began negotiations with Eumenes. The war of the Diadochi resumed with renewed vigor. Greece and Macedonia became the most important springboard, where both the royal house and Macedonian were drawn into the struggle between Polyperchon and Cassander. know, and Greek policies. As a result, her royal dynasty finally lost its significance. Philip III (Arrhidaeus), his wife Eurydice and the mother of Alexander the Great Olympias died, Roxana and her son ended up in the hands of Cassander, who managed to subjugate Macedonia and most of Greece to his power. Proclaimed by Polyperchon "freedom" in Greek. policies and democratic. the device was liquidated, the garrisons of Kassandra were introduced to the most important points. The struggle between Eumenes and Antigonus moved to E. - to Persis and Susiana. Evmen united with the rulers of the east. satrapies, dissatisfied with the attempt of Python to expand their possessions. But this alliance was unstable, the interests of the allies did not coincide. Evmen himself was entirely dependent on his troops, only the art of the commander allowed him for several. years to conduct active operations against Antigonus. At the first failure, he was handed over by his associates to the enemy in exchange for a captured convoy, and his army went into the service of Antigonus (late 317 - early 316). The satraps, former allies of Eumenes, ceased resistance and recognized the authority of Antigonus 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 M. Asia was under his rule), and there was a threat of extending his power to other satrapies. This forced Ptolemy, Seleucus and Cassander to make an alliance against Antigonus, and Lysimachus joined them. A series of fierce battles began at sea and on land within Syria, Phenicia, Babylonia, Mineral Asia, and especially in Greece. Greek policies played an important role as strategic. strongholds and, obviously, to no lesser extent, as arsenals of weapons and sources of replenishment of the command and rank and file of the army. Using socio-political. struggle within policies and traditions. political tendencies. independence, the Diadochi proclaimed "freedom" in Greek. policies, supported either the demos or 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 the Diadochi over one or another policy entailed severe 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 the Hellespontian Phrygia. Seleucus did not participate in the conclusion of the peace. In 311, Demetrius (the son of Antigonus) undertook a campaign in Babylon and ousted Seleucus to the northeast. satrapies. Although the name of Tsar Alexander IV still appeared in the peace agreement, in fact, there could no longer be any talk of the unity of the state: the Diadochi acted as independent, independent rulers of the territories they had conquered. A new phase of the wars of the Diadochi began in 307. By this time, the last formal connection between the parts of the former power of Alexander had disappeared: Roxana and Alexander IV were killed by order of Cassander. Obviously, with the aim of taking over Macedonia and Macedonia. Throne Antigonus began preparing strategic. bases in Greece. His son Demetrius went with a strong fleet to Athens and proclaimed the "liberation" of the Greek. policies. He succeeded in expelling the maked. garrisons from Megara and Athens and to remove Demetrius of Phalera, a protege of Cassander, who ruled in Athens for more than 10 years. But success in Greece largely depended on dominance at sea, where the most serious rival was Ptolemy, who had a powerful fleet and ports of dependent and allied Greeks. policies. Therefore, the main battles took place 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 the royal titles to himself and Demetrius, openly declaring his claim to maked. throne. Following his example, Ptolemy and the other Diadochi also proclaimed themselves kings. The subsequent campaign against Egypt was unsuccessful for Antigonus I, then he sent a blow against Rhodes - one of the most important in the strategic. and economic against the allies of Ptolemy I. After a two-year (305-304) siege by Demetrius (after that he received the nickname Poliorket - the besieging city), the Rhodians were forced to go over to the side of Antigonus. Only after that Demetrius managed to achieve the meaning. successes in Greece: he expelled Maceda. garrisons from a number of cities in the Peloponnese, resumed the Union of Corinth, declared "free" all of Greece and moved to Thessaly. There was a real threat to Cassander and Lysimachus. By this time, Seleucus I made a trip to the east. satrapies up to India and returned to Babylon, having quite large material resources and military. forces to fight Antigonus I. Again, all his opponents united against Antigonus I. Military actions began Lysimachus, who invaded the Hellespontian Phrygia in 302. Seleucus I and Ptolemy I moved to help him. 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, Lysimachus, Seleucus I and Cassander, by combined efforts, inflicted a complete defeat on the army of Antigonus I, who died in this battle. Demetrius with the remnants of the army retreated to Ephesus, he still had a strong fleet and some cities of M. Asia, Greece and Phoenicia at his disposal. The possessions of Antigonus I were divided into Ch. arr. between Seleucus I and Lysimachus; Ptolemy I, who limited himself to the capture of the south. Syria and did not participate in the defeat of Antigonus I, kept only the areas actually occupied by him. To a certain extent, the Battle of Ipsus can be considered a milestone that laid the foundation for the existence of one of the largest Hellenistic. kingdoms - the state of the Seleucids, which included all the east. and the Western Asian satrapies of the power of Alexander and certain regions of M. Asia (see map, to the station of the Seleucid state). Several previously formed the main the borders of the Ptolemaic kingdom: Egypt, Cyrenaica and Coele-Syria. In the same period, the Bithynian kingdom (297) (see Art. Bithynia) and the Pontic kingdom (302 or 301) arose. Further vicissitudes of the struggle of the Diadochi unfolded mainly on the territory. Greece and Macedonia. After the death of Cassander in 298, the struggle for maked broke out. the throne between Demetrius Poliorket, 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 aside Pyrrhus and in 285 united Thrace and Macedonia into a single kingdom, also continuing to keep the northwest under his rule. regions 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 Kerauns, who was acting , obviously with the knowledge of maced. nobility, hostile to Seleucus I. Ptolemy Keraunov was proclaimed king of Macedonia, but soon died in a clash with the Celts who invaded Thrace and Macedonia. The devastating invasion of the Celts was stopped by the Aetolians in 279, but it was only in 277 that Antigonus II Gonatas, the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, who continued to hold certain Greeks under his rule, managed to finally cope with them. cities, captured by Demetrius, and disposed means. military forces. In 277, he was proclaimed king of Macedonia and laid the foundation for a new dynasty that united Thrace and Macedonia under its rule. Thus, the third major Hellenistic. the state also acquired a relative territory. and political stability (see Ancient Macedonia and a map to it). The half-century period of the struggle of the Diadochi was essentially the period of the formation of a new Hellenistic. societies with a complex social structure and a new type of state-va. Each of the Diadochi sought to unite the internal and coastal regions under his rule, to ensure dominance over important routes, and 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 royal army and garrisons left in the fortresses during the campaigns of Alexander, as well as mercenaries recruited in Greece (at Cape Tenaron in the Peloponnese and other recruiting places) . The funds for their payment and maintenance were partly drawn from the treasures plundered by Alexander or 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 on the establishment of economic life. These moments, obviously, turned out to be decisive for strengthening the position of one or another Diadochi. Each of the Diadochi in all territories, except for Macedonia, faced the problem of relations with the local population. Two trends are noticeable in its solution: 1) the continuation of the policy of Alexander the Great, aimed at rapprochement of the Greco-Macedonians. and local nobility and the use of local traditional forms of social and political. organizations; 2) cruel exploitation of all sections of the subjugated population. One of the means of economic and political strengthening power in the conquered territories. was the foundation of new policies. They were also created as a strategic points, and both administrative and economic. centers. It is characteristic that new policies appeared in all areas of the Hellenistic. world, but their number, location and method of occurrence reflected the specifics of time and historical. special features areas. In the inner densely populated and developed regions of Egypt and Asia Minor, the Diadochi founded only single policies in the most important in the strategic. regarding points (Ptolemais in Upper Egypt, Seleucia on the Tigris, etc.); all in. Greece and Macedonia, new port cities arose (Demetrias, Thessaloniki, Kassandria, Lysimachia). The largest number of policies were founded in the coastal regions of M. Asia and Syria (Antioch on the Orontes, Seleucia in Pieria, Apamea, Ptolemaida in Coele-Syria, Smyrna, Nicaea, etc.), which is obviously connected not only with the strategic. and economic the importance of these areas, but also with a decrease in the population in them as a result of the extinction and flight of inhabitants, exhausted soldiers. actions and standing troops. In the activities of the Diadochi, objective historical trends were ultimately manifested. East development. Mediterranean and Western Asia, emerging as early as the 4th century: the need to establish close economic. communications of deep regions with the sea coast and communications between otd. areas of the Mediterranean and at the same time - in the preservation of the established ethnic. community and traditional political. and cultural unity districts; the need for security and regularity of bargaining. relations, the 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 political structures 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 a more definite expression in the second period of the history of E. (in the 3rd century BC). The most important Hellenistic state-va stabilized, and although the military. the clashes did not stop, they were more localized. The heirs of Ptolemy I and Seleucus I continued to compete in Coele-Syria, Phenicia and M. Asia. This resulted in a series of so-called. Syrian wars (in 274-271, then approx. in 258-253, in 247-246 and in 219-217). The Ptolemies, who owned the most powerful fleet, disputed the dominance of Macedonia in the Aegean and in Greece. Macedonian attempts to expand its possessions in Greece encountered stubborn resistance from the Greeks. policies (Chremonides war 267-261, war with the Achaean and Aetolian unions). Territory is shrinking. the Seleucid kingdoms: 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 ser. 3 in. disappeared north-east. satrapies 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 states that arose on the outskirts of the Hellenistic. world, had significant features, determined by a much greater role of local elements and the tribal system. This allows some historians to single them out as a special group of Hellenized or Hellenized countries. The most characteristic feature of economic Hellenistic development. society was the growth of commodity production and trade. New major trades have emerged. and craft centers - Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch on the Orontes, Seleucia on the Tigris, Pergamum, etc., handicraft production of which means. measure was designed for external. market. Regular seas have been established. links between Egypt, Syria, M. Asia, Greece and Macedonia; bargaining was established. way along the Red metro station, Persian Hall. and on 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 that connected the upper satrapies and Mesopotamia with the Mediterranean. ; Ptolemy II Philadelphus founded several. harbors on the Red m. The emergence of new bargaining. centers in Vost. The Mediterranean entailed the movement of bargaining. routes in the Aegean, the role of Rhodes and Corinth as ports of transit trade increased, the importance of Athens fell. Expanded den. appeal and den. operations, which was facilitated by the re-coining of precious metals stored in the treasuries of the Persians. kings and temples. Numerous policies that arose in the East attracted artisans, merchants, and people of other professions. The Greeks and Macedonians brought with them the slave-owning way of life that was familiar to them, which meant. increase in the population of the policy at the expense of slaves. The need for food supply of new policies led to an increase in the production of agricultural products. products for sale. Den. relations began to penetrate even into Egypt. kumu (village), disintegrating traditional relations and contributing to increased exploitation of villages. population. The very fact of the development of trade testified that the economic Hellenistic potential. state-in has grown markedly. Undoubtedly, scales of page - x. production both by expanding the area of ​​cultivated land, and through their more intensive use, exchange of experience in processing, agricultural - x. 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 units. and bargaining. ships, complex siege engines and fortifications, large-scale urban development, irrigation, and, consequently, the expansion of industries that extract building materials and metals; development and specialization of crafts producing luxury goods, and otd. improvements in traditional crafts, suggesting the mass production of figurative ceramics, terracotta, elegant fabrics, and papyrus. In the same period, the main features of the Hellenistic culture were formed. Against the background of the flourishing new economic centers in Syria, Egypt and M. Asia, the state of the economy of Greece and Macedonia is presented as stagnation and decline. However, even here one can trace the development of trade-crafts. centers (Thessalonica, Cassandria, Philippopolis). In Greek ports, including those in Corinth and Athens, for the first time created high-speed ships and siege equipment for Demetrius Poliorket. Obviously, shipbuilding and military production. equipment continued to develop in Greece and Macedonia, since the kings of Macedonia in the 2nd floor. 3 c. possessed a fleet capable of rivaling the Ptolemaic fleet. Slow economic pace The development of Greece and Macedonia is explained not only by the depletion of these regions by the wars of the Diadochi, the struggle of the Greek. policies against made. domination and ebb of the most active and enterprising segments of the population in the east. countries, but also by the fact that the Greek. policy as a form of socio-economic. and political organizations of antiquity society to con. 4th c. BC e. was in a deep crisis. It no longer matches the economy. tendencies, since its inherent autarky and autonomy prevented the expansion and strengthening of the economic. connections. It 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 (before the poorest part of it, the threat of loss of civil rights inevitably arose), on the other hand, it did not provide external. 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 century created a new form of socio-political. organizations - Hellenistic. monarchy. This monarchy combined elements of the East. despotism - monarchic. state form. authorities, which had a standing army and a centralized administration, and elements of a polis structure in the form of cities with villages assigned to them. territories that preserved internal organs. self but in mean. least dependent on the king and subordinate to him. The loss of politics the independence of the policy was compensated by the security of existence, greater social stability and the provision of strong economic. ties with other parts of the state-va. In turn, royal power acquired in the mountains. the population that necessary social support, which supplied the necessary contingents for the administration and the army and ensured dominance over the conquered territories. Following the model of relations that developed between the kings and the newly founded policies, the relations of the monarchy with the old Hellenic and eastern ones were also rebuilt. cities. Numerous people point to this. cases of "foundation" of new cities on the site of existing eastern ones (Rabbat-Ammon - Philadelphia, Susa - Seleucia, etc.), the emergence of cities by voluntary or forced merger (see Sinoikism) and the renaming of Greek. cities in Asia Minor (Tralls 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 undivided plots. They were complicated by the fact that to the cities (as the inscriptions from M. Asia) could be assigned land 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 private individuals who received these lands from the king, and then attributed them to the city . On the territory not assigned to the cities, all the land was considered royal. According to the Egyptian papyri, it was divided into two categories: the actual royal and "ceded" lands, which included lands belonging to temples, lands transferred by the king as a "donation" to his entourage, and lands provided by small plots (clairs) to cleruch warriors ( see Cleruchia) or katekam. On all categories of these lands, local villages could also be located, the inhabitants of which continued to own their inheritances. allotments, paying tribute or taxes. The complexity of the earth relations caused the multi-layered social structure of the Hellenistic. state-in. The royal house with its court staff, the highest military. and civil the administration, the most prosperous townspeople and the high priesthood made up the upper stratum of the landowning and slave-owning nobility. The basis of their well-being was land (city and gift), profitable positions, trade, farming and usury. 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 royal administration (this merger began under Alexander), and part was concentrated around the temples of local deities. The middle layer was more numerous - merchants and artisans, personnel of the tsarist administration, tax-farmers, clerukhs 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 divergent interests, constituted the ruling class, which they received in Egypt. papyri designation "Hellenes", not so much ethnic. the belongings of the people included in it, how much according to their social position in society, which contrasted them with all the "non-Hellenes" - the poor local population (laoi). Most of the Laoi were dependent or semi-dependent farmers who cultivated the lands of the king, the nobility, cities on the basis of lease relations or traditional holding and lived in koms that retained some features of the villages. communities. The laoi also included hypoteles - workers of the tsarist monopolies (i.e., craft workshops of those industries that were the monopoly of the state). 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-made. conquest, the wars of the Diadochi, the spread of the polis system - all this gave a strong impetus to the development of slaveholding relations in their classical form. antique form while maintaining more primitive forms of slavery - debt, self-sale, etc. Obviously, the role of slave labor in the Hellenistic. cities (primarily in everyday life and, probably, in the city. craft) was no less than in Greek. policies. But in s. x-ve and especially on the royal lands, slave labor could not, on any noticeable scale, push back the labor of the local population ("royal farmers" in Egypt, "royal people" among the Seleucids), the exploitation of which was no less profitable. According to the Egyptian papyri, in large x-wah nobility on donated lands, slaves performed or adm. functions or served as auxiliary labor. However, increasing the role of slavery in the overall system of socio-economic. relations led to the strengthening of non-economic. forms of coercion in relation to laoi (attachment to a place of residence, liturgy, i.e., forced performance of social duties, forced 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. The device fell on the local villages. 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 a Hellenistic. state-in, combining elements of the monarchy and the polis system. Although the earth dominion maked. The kings were relatively extensive, there was not that wide layer of dependent villages. population (with the possible exception of the Thracians), due to the exploitation of which the state could exist. device means. part of the dominions. 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, sat. residents and townspeople were determined by their property. position, the line of estate-class division passed between the free and the slaves. The development of the economy went in the direction of the further introduction of slaveholding relations. Accession to Macedonia did not give policies significant economic. benefits. At the same time, the age-old traditions of independence and autarky in Greek. policies were especially strong. Therefore, the expansion of Macedonia met with stubborn resistance, primarily among the democratic. layers, because the introduction of maked. garrisons was usually accompanied by the establishment of oligarchs. modes. Since the existence of small independent policies in the Hellenistic system. monarchy became impossible (besides, the trends in the socio-economic development of the policies themselves required the creation of broader state associations), a way out was found in the creation of federations of policies. Characteristically, the initiative to form a federation did not come from the old political. centers of Greece, but from areas that have only recently embarked on the path of development of slaveholding relations. In the beginning. 3 in. BC e. acquired the value of the Aetolian Union, in which already in con. 3 in. included almost the entire center. Greece, Elis and Messenia, as well as some

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

The beginning of the Hellenistic era is characterized by a transition from a polis political organization to hereditary Hellenistic monarchies, a shift in 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 military leaders of Alexander, called the Diadochi, began a series of bloody wars and strife for the throne of a single state, which lasted 22 years. None of the Diadochi was able to win a decisive victory over all the others, and in 301 BC. e. , after the battle of Ipsus, they divided the empire into several independent parts.

New states are organized according to a special principle, called the Hellenistic monarchy, based on the synthesis of local despotic and Greek polis political traditions. The polis, as an independent civil community, maintains its independence both socially and politically 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 all the full power of state power. Its main support was the bureaucratic apparatus, which carried out the functions of managing the entire territory of the state, with the exception of cities that had the status of policies that owned a certain autonomy.

Compared with previous periods, the situation in the Greek world has seriously changed: instead of many policies at war with each other, 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 aspects of that era. The Greek world was a very closely interconnected system, which is confirmed at least by the presence of a single financial system as well as the scale of migration flows within the Hellenistic world (the Hellenistic era was a time of relatively high mobility of the Greek population. In particular, continental Greece, at the end of the 4th century BC. . suffering from overpopulation, by the end of the 3rd century BC, began to feel a lack of population).

Culture of the Hellenistic Society

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 obsolete ones, the general change in the cultural background caused serious changes in the Greek social structure. It was a mixture of Greek and Oriental elements. Syncretism manifested itself most clearly in religion and the official practice of deifying monarchs.

Hellenization of the East

During the III-I centuries BC. e. 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 causes of such a process consisted for the most part in the peculiarities of the political and social structure of the Hellenistic states. The elite of the Hellenistic society was made up mainly of representatives of the Greek-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 by the indigenous inhabitants of the country. This process affected, as a rule, the cities, the rural population (which was 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

A powerful tool for the Hellenization of the East was urban planning, which was actively pursued by the Hellenistic rulers. The scale of urban development was enormous: the city was a powerful cultural tool, and also asserted state influence on those vast territories that needed to be developed. 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 not built randomly, 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 to the classical Greek canons. Buildings and monuments now began to fulfill not so much their original function as they became symbols of wealth, dominance and power of the Hellenistic rulers and aristocrats. The widespread construction gave a huge impetus to the development of new types of architecture. Bas-reliefs began to be used much more widely.

Notes

Literature

• Zelyin K.K. Some main problems of the history of Hellenism // Soviet archeology. 1955. Issue. 22;
• Katz 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;
• Levek P. Hellenistic world. Per. from fr. M., 1989;
• B. S. Lyapustin, I. E. Surikov Ancient Greece: textbook. allowance for universities /., Moscow, Drofa, 2007:
• Pavlovskaya AI 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. Ptolemeevsky 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 IS Socio-economic features of the Hellenistic states. M., 1963;
• Tarn V. Hellenistic civilization. Per. from English. M., 1949;
• Bengtson G. Rulers of the Hellenistic Epoch. 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 A.N., 1910. HELLENISM 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 at Pella. 4th century BC e. Hellenism. Ruins of the palace at Pella. 4th century BC e. Hellenism period in the history of the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean between 323 and 30 AD. BC. (). The struggle for power between the commanders of Alexander the Great ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary "World History"

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

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. Droyzen "History of Hellenism; (1836 1843) the concept of Hellenism entered ... ... Encyclopedia of mythology

Hellenism- Hellenism. The so-called Farnese plate. Allegory of the Nile. Sardonyx. National Museum. Naples. HELLENISM, 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

Word, borrowing, art Dictionary of Russian synonyms. Hellenism n., number of synonyms: 3 borrowing (49) ... Synonym dictionary

HELLENISM, 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, the Diadochi, led to the formation of several states in place of his power: the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, ... ... Modern Encyclopedia

period in the history of Eastern countries. Mediterranean between 323 and 30 BC. e. (submission of Egypt to Rome). The struggle for power between the Diadochi led to the formation of several states in place of the power of Alexander the Great: the Seleucids, Ptolemies, Pergamon, ... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Hellenism

Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. D.N. Ushakov

Hellenism

Hellenism, pl. No m.

The same as Greekism (advantages about borrowing from the Greek language and imitation of the Greek language in Latin; philol., lingu.).

Hellenic culture, in particular, the period of its distribution in the East after the conquests of Alexander the Great (histor.). the era of Hellenism.

New explanatory and derivational dictionary of the Russian language, T. F. Efremova.

Hellenism

m. The heyday of the Hellenic culture of the period of its spread in the East, which came after the conquests of Alexander the Great.

m. A word or figure of speech borrowed from the ancient Greek language; Greekism.

Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998

Hellenism

period in the history of Eastern countries. Mediterranean between 323 and 30 BC. e. (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., the political system of which combined elements of the ancient Eastern monarchies with the features of the Greek policy; during the 2nd-1st centuries. these Hellenistic states gradually came under the rule of Rome. The culture of Hellenism was a synthesis of Greek and local Oriental cultures.

Hellenism

a stage in the history of the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean from the time of the campaigns of Alexander the Great (334-323 BC) to the conquest of these countries by Rome, which ended in 30 BC. e. subjugation of Egypt. The terms "E." introduced into historiography in the 1930s. 19th century German historian I. G. Droysen. Historians of different directions interpret it in different ways. Some bring to the fore the mutual influence of Greek and local, predominantly Eastern, cultures, sometimes expanding the chronological framework of the E. period to the beginning of the Middle Ages. Others focus on the interaction of socio-political structures, emphasize the leading role of the Greek-Macedonians, and modernize economic relations. In Soviet historiography (S. I. Kovalev, A. B. Ranovich, K. K. Zelyin, and others), E. is interpreted as a specific historical stage in the history of the Eastern Mediterranean, characterized by the interaction of Greek and local elements in socio-economic relations, political organization and cultural development at the end of the 4th–1st centuries. BC e.

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

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

The heyday of Hellenism (3rd ≈ beginning of the 2nd century BC). Military clashes throughout the 3rd century. did not stop, but were more local in nature. The heirs of Ptolemy I and Seleucus I continued to compete in Syria, Phenicia and Asia Minor (the so-called Syrian Wars). The Ptolemies, who owned the most powerful fleet, contested Macedonian dominance in the Aegean and Greece. Macedonia's attempts to expand its possessions in Greece ran into stubborn resistance from the Greek policies. Pergamum fell away from the Seleucid kingdom in 283, and Cappadocia became independent in 260. Around the middle of the 3rd c. the northeastern satrapies fell away and the independent Parthian kingdom and the Greco-Bactrian kingdom were formed.

The most characteristic feature of the economic development of Hellenistic society was the growth of commodity production and trade. Large new trade and craft centers arose—Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch on the Orontes, Seleucia on the Tigris, and others, whose handicraft production was largely oriented to the foreign market. In the coastal regions of Asia Minor and Syria, new policies were created, which were both strategic points, and administrative, and economic centers. Regular maritime 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. Trade relations between Egypt and the Black Sea region, Carthage and Rome were established. Money circulation and money transactions expanded, which was facilitated by the coinage of precious metals stored in the treasuries of Persian kings and temples. Policies that arose in V. attracted artisans, merchants, and people of other professions.

The half-century period of struggle between the Diadochi was essentially the period of the formation of a new Hellenistic society with a complex social structure and a new type of state. The established Hellenistic monarchies combined elements of oriental despotism (a monarchical form of power, a standing army and a centralized administrative apparatus) with elements of a polis structure. The land relations characteristic of city-states—the private property of citizens and the city's ownership of undivided plots—were complicated by the fact that rural territories with local villages were assigned to cities. The population of these territories did not become citizens of the city, but continued to own their plots, paying taxes to the city or private individuals who received these lands from the king, and then attributed them to the city. On the territory not assigned to the cities, all the land was considered royal. According to the Egyptian papyri, it was divided into two categories: the actual royal and “ceded” lands, which included temple lands, transferred by the king as a “gift” to his entourage and provided by small plots (clairs) to soldiers - cleruchs (see Cleruchii) or kateks. On these lands there could also be local villages, whose inhabitants continued to own their hereditary allotments, paying tribute or taxes.

The complexity of land relations led to the multi-layered social structure of the Hellenistic states. The royal house with its court staff, the highest military and civil administration, the most prosperous townspeople and the highest priesthood made up the top. layer. The middle stratum was more numerous - merchants and artisans, personnel of the tsarist administration, tax-farmers, clerukhs and kateks, local priesthood, teachers, doctors, etc. , cities, workers in the royal workshops (in the handicraft industries monopolized by the king). They were considered personally free, but were attached to their place of residence, to a particular workshop or profession. Below them on the social ladder were the slaves.

The wars of the Diadochi, the spread of the polis system gave a strong impetus to the development of slave-owning relations in their classical ancient form, while maintaining more primitive forms of slavery (duty, self-sale, etc.). But in agriculture (especially on the tsarist lands), slave labor could not, on any noticeable scale, push back the labor of the local population, the exploitation of which was no less profitable.

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

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

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

Decline and submission to Rome (2 ≈ end of 1st century BC). The unification of the Western Mediterranean under Roman rule brought about significant changes in Greece's traditional trade ties with Sicily and other Greek colonies in the west and in those established in the third century. links between Egypt and Syria with North Africa and Italy. The process of moving trade routes and economic centers began. The military and economic expansion of the Romans was accompanied by the intensive development of slaveholding relations in Italy and the conquered regions: there was a mass enslavement of the population, the slave trade and the scope of slave labor expanded. These phenomena were reflected in the internal life of the Hellenistic states. The struggle at the top intensified: between layers of predominantly urban nobility (interested in closer ties with the Roman world and in the expansion of slavery) and the nobility associated with the royal administrative apparatus and temples and living mainly due to traditional forms of exploitation of agriculture. This struggle resulted in palace coups, dynastic feuds, and urban uprisings. The movement of the masses against tax oppression, abuses of the state apparatus, usury and enslavement intensified, sometimes developing into a kind of civil war, exhausting the economy and military forces of states, reducing their resistance to Roman aggression. A significant role was played by Roman diplomacy, which in every possible way encouraged the aggravation of contradictions between the Hellenistic states and the dynastic struggle.

Despite the attempts of the Macedonian king Perseus to win over the Greek policies for a joint struggle against Rome, only Epirus and Illyria joined him. As a result, the Macedonian army was defeated by the Romans at Pydna (168), after which Macedonia was divided into 4 isolated districts. In Epirus, the Romans destroyed most of the cities and sold more than 150 thousand inhabitants into slavery; in Greece, they revised the boundaries of policies. The uprisings that broke out in Macedonia in 149-148 and in the Achaean League in 146 were brutally suppressed by the Romans, after which Macedonia was turned into a Roman province, the unions of the Greek city-states were disbanded, and oligarchic regimes were established everywhere. Having subjugated Greece and Macedonia, Rome launched an offensive against the states of Asia Minor. Roman merchants and usurers, penetrating the economy of the states of Asia Minor, more and more subordinated their foreign and domestic policy to the interests of Rome. In 133, Pergamum (in accordance with the will of Attalus III) came under the rule of Rome, but only after the suppression of a mass uprising led by Aristonicus (132≈129) did the Romans manage to turn it into a Roman province. The center of resistance to Roman aggression in Asia Minor was the Pontic kingdom, which at the beginning of the 1st century. under Mithridates VI, Eupator became a large state, subjugating almost the entire coast of the Black Sea. The wars of Mithridates VI with Rome ended in 64 with the defeat of the Pontic kingdom. While Rome was busy conquering Macedonia, the Seleucid kingdom recovered from the damage caused by the war with Rome. Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 170, then in 168 made successful campaigns in Egypt and besieged Alexandria, but the intervention of Rome forced him to abandon his conquests. The Hellenization policy pursued by Antiochus IV provoked uprisings in Judea (171 and 167-160), which developed into a war against Seleucid domination. Separatist tendencies also manifested themselves in the eastern satrapies, which were oriented towards Parthia. The attempts of Antiochus VII Sidet (139/138≈129) to restore the unity of the state (re-subjugated Judea and undertook a campaign against Parthia) ended in complete defeat and his death. Babylonia, Persia and Media fell away from the Seleucids. At the beginning of the 1st c. the regions of Commagene (in Asia Minor) and Judea became independent. The territory of the Seleucid state was reduced to the limits of Syria proper, Phenicia, Coele-Syria and part of Cilicia. In 64 the Seleucid kingdom was annexed to Rome as the province of Syria. In 63 Judea was also annexed to Rome.

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

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

A. I. Pavlovskaya.

Wikipedia

Hellenism

Hellenism- a period in the history of the Mediterranean, primarily the eastern one, lasting from the time of the death of Alexander the Great (323 BC) until the final establishment of Roman domination in these territories, which usually dates from the fall of Hellenistic Egypt, headed by the Ptolemies (30 BC). e.). The term originally denoted the correct use of the Greek language, especially by non-Greeks, but after the publication of Johann Gustav Droysen's History of Hellenism (1836 - 1843), the concept entered the historical science.

A feature of the Hellenistic period was the widespread distribution of the Greek language and culture in the territories that became part of the states of the Diadochi, which were formed after the death of Alexander the Great in the territories he conquered, and the interpenetration of 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 centers of cultural and economic activity from Greece to Asia Minor and Egypt.

Examples of the use of the word Hellenism in the literature.

Not the colorful pictorial surface of antiquity, but its tragic depth captured Mandelstam, and the result of this influence was not Hellenization, but an internal Hellenism, adequate to the spirit of the Russian language.

There were also attempts to react against this decline: Hellenism sought to gain new strength with the help of elements borrowed from those Eastern doctrines with which he managed to come into contact.

JUDAIS AND HELLENISM CHAPTER FIFTEEN THE CHURCH OF THE LAW Judea, 332-175

It was for this irrelevant neutrality that he seized Hellenism, thereby moving away from global objectivism and being able to become the starting point both for objectivist philosophy and for any kind of subjectivist methodology without any hint of an actual departure from objectivism.

As we saw above, the average Hellenism Posidonius began to interpret the fiery pneuma of the former Stoics as the world of Platonic ideas, which is why he is called the founder of Stoic Platonism.

After all, it is well known that the entire early Hellenism, that is, all early Stoicism, not to mention Epicureanism or skepticism, was distinguished by obvious features of secularization, since the principle of universal corporeality was brought to the fore here, albeit with a certain allegorical content, since the human subject was recognized here as a huge and completely free will to arrange his own living independently, proudly and impregnably.

The Syrian ethos had no incentive for spiritual quest until new attacks Hellenism, begun by Alexander and continued by his followers, in order to forever deprive Carthage of a dominant position in the Western Mediterranean.

Unlike ancient Hellenism, Hellenism was not limited to the Balkans, Asia Minor and the Greek colonies.

But the zones of this metaphysical festivity play the same role as the mediating truths in Hellenism They seek to mitigate the absurdity of a one-on-one meeting between an insignificant man and an implacable god.

King Herod the Great pursued a dual policy: on the one hand, he strongly encouraged Hellenism On the other hand, with unheard-of splendor, he rebuilt the Jerusalem Temple and used all his influence to protect the Jews of the Diaspora.

In the future, we will see those news of the objective and subjective world that the classics did not know and on which the Hellenism.

Beginning of civilization Hellenism put the Eastern campaign of Alexander the Great and the massive colonization flow of the inhabitants of Ancient Hellas to the newly conquered lands.

In the era Hellenism this moralism was not a gift of nature, but the result of an active-subjective self-education.

However, there was also its own certainty, which depended on the fact that Posidonius was really a transitional link from the early Hellenism to late Hellenism, because without two or three centuries of Stoic Platonism, the very emergence of late Hellenistic Neoplatonism becomes incomprehensible.

Numerous Arameisms and Hellenisms irrefutably prove that the poem was written after the Babylonian captivity, that is, after 532 BC, when the influence of Greek culture was very strong in Palestine.