The emergence of the concept of Hellenism is associated with. Hellenistic civilization. Rise and fall. Periodization of the Hellenistic era

Hellenism is a whole era in the history of antiquity. Many characterize it as a special stage in the development of ancient Greek culture. Hellenism existed for three centuries and covered almost the entire civilized world.

Historical outline

What does such a complex term mean at first glance? Hellenism is a certain period of time in the history of the Mediterranean, which lasted from the moment of the death of Alexander the Great to the conquest of these countries by Rome. (4th century BC - 30 AD.)

Also means ubiquitous Greek and culture in general to other parts of the eastern Mediterranean. Hellenistic society was strikingly different from the society of classical Greece.

There are a number of reasons for this:

The transition from the polis system of power to the monarchy.
Improvement of individualism.
Expansion of vertical political as well as economic ties.
Departure from the sublime and beautiful images classical Greece in favor of the unique, lyrical and poetic.

The era of Hellenism is a kind of combination of Eastern and ancient Greek elements, which entailed the unification of not only the political system, but also some elements of culture and religion.

Hellenistic Art

The art of the Hellenistic era was directly related to the development of science and technology. At this time, urban development was rapidly developing. The religion and culture of that time also greatly influenced the art and architecture of the Mediterranean countries.

During this period, unsurpassed attention was paid to park architecture. The parks of Alexandria were famous for their special splendor and grace. In the architecture of this era, the size of structures began to increase significantly. Rich and luxurious interior decoration came into fashion. The reason for this was the interest in the private life of slave owners.

As in the classical era, sculpture retained its leading position among other art forms. After the change of the former system, the power acquired the despotic nature of the monarchy. Constant wars and uprisings have destroyed the close connection between the individual and the collective.

Subsequently, a specific worldview arose, which, in turn, brought into the artistic images the details of dissonance and the tragic breakdown of both the individual and society.

Another difference from the classical era is the endowment of the gods with features of hypertrophied majesty and grandiosity. The image of an ordinary person is strongly suppressed.

Greek society created a unique ideal, which they praised in their artistic creations. He was the image of a brave, strong and valiant hero, endowed with incredible beauty. A hero who will save society from any troubles.

Of particular popularity are the statues of Zeus, the Ear of Rhodes and Aphrodite. The Temple of Olympian Zeus was the largest building of the Hellenistic era. The second most important place in architecture was the portrait.

There was no such developed portrait in the Mediterranean classics. If in the "classics" the sculptor tried to express the features of the community, the people, then in Hellenism, on the contrary, the characteristic features of the individual, his individual characteristics and experiences were distinguished.

Summing up, it is worth noting the huge contribution of Hellenism to the era not only of that time, but also of the present. Hellenism was an integral part in the development of realism, and its works of art have been and remain an invaluable treasure for the history of all mankind.

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.

Formation and political structure of the Hellenistic states

The sudden death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC. e ., served as a signal for the beginning of the collapse of his empire, which revealed all its ephemerality. The commanders of Alexander, called 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, retains 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 were for the most part in the peculiarities of the political and social structure 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.

Chronology

The Hellenistic era spans three centuries. However, as noted, there is no consensus on the issue of periodization. So, with the filing of some, a report of its beginning can be kept from 334, that is, from the year the campaign of Alexander the Great began.
Three periods are proposed:

The term pre-Hellenism is also sometimes used.

Hellenistic states

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

The Seleucid state centered first in Babylon, and then in Antioch.
The Greco-Bactrian kingdom separated from the Seleucid state in the 3rd century BC. BC e., whose center was in the territory of modern Afghanistan.
The Indo-Greek kingdom separated from the Greco-Bactrian kingdom in the 2nd century BC. BC e., whose center was located on the territory of modern Pakistan.
The Pontic kingdom was formed on the territory of modern northern Turkey.
The Kingdom of Pergamon also existed in what is now western Turkey.
The Kingdom of Commagene separated from the state of the Seleucids and was located on the territory of modern eastern Turkey.
Hellenistic Egypt was formed on the territory of Egypt, headed by the Ptolemies.
The Achaean Union existed on the territory of modern Greece.
The Bosporan kingdom existed on the territory of the eastern Crimea and the eastern coast Sea of Azov, at one time it was part of the Pontic kingdom.

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 such as 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 large 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 social institutions, a 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.

They mark the departure in the III-II centuries BC. e. from the sublimely beautiful images of the Greek classics towards the individual and lyrical. In the era of Hellenism, there was a plurality of artistic movements, some of which turned out to be associated with the assertion of inner peace, others with a “severe love of rock”.

Hellenization of the East

Historiography

The tradition of focusing researchers' attention on the classical period of antiquity was finally interrupted by the prominent German classical philologist Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, expanding the scope of the material studied by antiquity studies to include the Hellenistic era.

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., political system 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. E. culture represented 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 coast of the Aegean Sea to Bactria, which existed on the territory modern Afghanistan), the Ptolemies (in Egypt), Pergamum (in Asia Minor), the Pontic kingdom, etc., whose political system 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 grand scale, splendor, 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 (images of children and old people appear for the first time), 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. a 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. the question for assessing 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 town. 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. a 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 qualitatively new stage in the development of slaveholding 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 history and culture Ancient Greece and Rome / Scientific. ed. A.I. Nemirovsky. - 3rd ed. - Minsk: Belarus, 2001)

concept, to-Crimea in the 30s. 19th century German historian G. Droysen designated new type social-polit. 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 gr. 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, and 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 Pergamon, the Laocoon 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.

Expanding the boundaries known world, involvement in the cultural life of new lands and peoples leads to the success of 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 (main arr. 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 in 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 the Near East 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 of her royal dynasty completely lost its meaning. Philip III (Arrhidaeus), his wife Eurydice and 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. device were eliminated, in the most important points the garrisons of Kassandra were introduced. The struggle between Eumenes and Antigonus moved to the east - 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 over to 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 domination of the sea, where the most serious rival was Ptolemy, who had powerful fleet and ports of dependent and allied Greek. 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 with 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 authority, to ensure dominance over important routes, and bargaining. centers and ports, create and maintain a strong army as a precondition and a real support of his 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 further development 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. Most feature economical 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 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 in. 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 cities (as inscriptions from M. Asia testify) 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, to -rye 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

Hellenism

HELLENISM-a; m.

1. The heyday of Greek-Oriental culture, which came after the conquests of Alexander the Great in the East (from the end of the 4th to the end of the 1st century BC).

2. A word or figure of speech borrowed from ancient Greek.

◁ Hellenistic, -th, -th (1 sign). E-th culture.

Hellenism

period in the history of the countries of the Eastern 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 II-I 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

HELLENISM, a period in the history of the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean since the campaigns of Alexander the Great (cm. Alexander the Great)(334-323 BC) before the conquest of these countries by Rome (cm. ROME), which ended in 30 BC. e. subjugation of Egypt (cm. EGYPT).
The term "Hellenism" was introduced into historiography in the 30s. 19th century German historian I. G. Droysen (cm. DROISEN Johann Gustav). Hellenism is perceived by different directions in history in different ways. Often, Hellenism is considered not only as a period of existence of the Hellenistic states, formed as a result of the collapse of the power of Alexander the Great (cm. Alexander the Great), but also as a period of cultural mutual influence of Greek and local, mainly Eastern, cultures, while chronological framework Hellenism can be extended to the fall of Rome, as geographical boundaries may also include North Africa, Italy, Spain and other states conquered by Rome. Cultural interaction led to the formation of a single, despite well-distinguishable local differences, Hellenistic culture, in which the Greek language, Greek mythological subjects and Greek aesthetic values were common to all.
In 323 BC. e. Alexander the Great, who conquered most of the ecumene known to the Greeks, dies, by that time 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. The most important political force of the power of Alexander was the army, which determined the form state structure after his death. In fact, power was in the hands of a small group of noble Macedonians who occupied the highest military and court positions under Alexander: Perdiccas (cm. PERDICCA) became regent under the feeble-minded Arrhidaeus (throne name Philip III, son of Philip II) and Alexander IV (son of Roxana, born after the death of Alexander the Great); Antipater (cm. ANTIPATHER) and Crater began to rule in Greece and Macedonia; Thrace was given to Lysimachus (cm. LYSIMACH). In Asia Minor, the most influential position was occupied by Antigonus, the satrap of Phrygia, Lycia and Pamphylia. Egypt was handed over to Ptolemy Lagus (cm. PTOLEMY)(Ptolemy I Soter). The most important command posts were occupied by Seleucus and Cassander (son of Antipater). Perdiccas, as regent, claimed to be full, his speeches against Antigonus and Ptolemy Lag marked the beginning of a long period of struggle of the Diadochi. Campaign of Perdiccas in Egypt 321 BC e. proved to be of little success and displeased the army, as a result he was killed by his commanders. At the same time, Crater died in a clash with the satrap of Paphlagonia and Cappadocia, Eumenes.
In 321 BC. e. in Triparadeis (Syria) a new redistribution of posts and satrapies took place between the Diadochi. Antipater became the regent of the royal family, to whom she was soon transferred. 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 BC. e. Antipater died, transferring his powers to Polyperchon, one of the old and loyal commanders of the Macedonian dynasty. Cassander and Antigonus, who supported him, opposed him. In the new stage of the war, Greece and Macedonia became the most important theater of operations, where the royal house, the Macedonian nobility, and the Greek policies were involved in the struggle between Polyperchon and Cassander. As a result, the royal dynasty finally lost its significance. Arrhidaeus (Philip III), his wife Eurydice and the mother of Alexander the Great Olympias died, Roxana and her son managed to capture Cassandra, who by that time had subjugated Macedonia and most of mainland Greece. After that, hostilities between Eumenes and Antigonus took place mainly in Pereida and Susiana. At the beginning of 316 BC. e. Eumenes was defeated by Antigonus, who thus becomes the most powerful of the Diadochi.
Worried about the strengthening of Antigonus, Ptolemy, Seleucus and Cassander made an alliance against Antigonus, then Lysimachus joined them. The main battles took place at sea and on land, mainly in Syria, Phenicia, Babylonia, Asia Minor and, mainly, in Greece. This time the war went on with varying success and ended in 311 BC. e. the conclusion of peace, according to which the diadochi acted as independent, independent rulers of the Hellenistic states that arose in this way.
In 307 BC. e. a new stage in the struggle of the Diadochi began, by the beginning of this stage, by order of Cassander, Roxana and her son Alexander IV were killed, thus the last formal opportunity for the unification of the former power of Alexander the Great disappeared. Military operations in Greece with the aim of taking possession of Macedonia and the Macedonian throne began Antigonus; his son Demetrius managed to expel the Macedonian garrisons from Megara and Athens and depose the protégé Cassander. In 306 BC. e. in naval battle near Cyprus, Demetrius defeated the fleet of Ptolemy. After this victory, Antigonus (Antigon I) also appropriated Demetrius (Demetrius I Poliorket (cm. DEMETRIUS I Poliorket)) royal titles. Other Diadochi, Ptolemy and Seleucus, also proclaimed themselves kings.
In the decisive battle at Ipsus in 301 BC. e. Lysimachus, Seleucus I and Cassander inflicted a complete defeat on the army of Antigonus I, who died in this battle. 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 (cm. PIRR (king)- the king of Epirus, the sons of Cassander and Lysimachus. The king of Macedonia from 283 was the son of Demetrius - Antigonus II Gonat, who laid the foundation for a new dynasty that united Thrace and Macedonia under its rule.
The heyday of Hellenism is considered 3 - early. 2nd century BC e. Military clashes throughout the 3rd century. BC e. did not stop, but were more local in nature. The heirs of Ptolemy I and Seleucus I continued to compete in Syria, Phoenicia 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. Independent from the Seleucids in 283 BC e. became Pergamon, and in 260 BC. e. - Cappadocia. Around ser. 3 in. BC e. the northeastern satrapies of the Seleucid state formed the independent Parthian kingdom and the Greco-Bactrian kingdom.
The most characteristic feature economic development Hellenistic society was the growth of commodity production and trade. New large trade and craft centers appeared - Alexandria (cm. ALEXANDRIA (Egypt)) in Egypt, Antioch on the Orontes (cm. ANTIOCHIA), Seleucia on the Tigris; handicraft production of which 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. In the era of Hellenism, Greek colonies flourished as in the Northern Black Sea region (cm. NORTHERN BLACK SEA REGION) as well as in Spain and Italy. 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. Cash circulation and cash transactions expanded, which was facilitated by the coinage of precious metals stored in treasuries Persian kings and temples. The policies that arose in the East united artisans, merchants and people of other professions, each of whom could have their own gods, belong to any nationality and to various social groups.
Common to all Hellenistic countries and policies was the colloquial dialect of the Greek language ("Koine (cm. KOINE)"). According to the papyri preserved in Egypt, it can be judged that a significant part of the urban population could read and write in Greek, both the works of the classics and contemporaries, as well as personal correspondence and business records were found. There was no single cultural center, as such, during the Hellenistic period. The most developed Hellenistic center was Alexandria founded by Alexander the Great in the Nile Delta, which became the capital of the Egyptian power of the Ptolemies, who made a lot of efforts for its prosperity. The famous Library of Alexandria was created (cm. ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY), in which a lot of both artistic and scientific and historical books were collected, for which the most prominent poets and scientists of that time were convened. In addition, the largest centers of Hellenistic culture were Pergamum (cm. Pergamum (ancient city)), Athens (cm. ATHENS Ancient), Seleucia, the islands of the Aegean and the Sicilian colonies. Greek (and, mainly, Athenian) theatrical art became widespread in the Hellenistic world, in almost every city there was an amphitheater where tragedies and comedies were regularly staged.
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 policies - the private property of citizens and the property of the city - were complicated by the fact that rural territories with local villages were attributed 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. The kings, who formally owned all the land outside the city, provided small plots of land (klers) to warriors, who were called klerukhs 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.
A different type of social development took place in Greece and Macedonia. Greek policies tried to maintain their largely more democratic traditions, and since it was difficult for small policies to assert their independence individually, the process of combining policies into federations took place, the most famous were: Aetolian Union (cm. AETOLIAN UNION)(at the end of the 3rd century BC, it included almost all of central Greece, Elis and Messenia, as well as some islands of the Aegean Sea) and the Achaean Union (cm. Achaean Union)(it arose in 284 BC, by 230 BC 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 BC), the combined forces of the Macedonians and Achaeans destroyed the army of Cleomenes III, and the Macedonian garrison was brought into Sparta. Last years 3 in. BC e. 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 Antiochus III the Great of the Seleucid dynasty, divided the Ptolemaic possessions outside of Egypt proper. 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 in 200 BC e. conquered Phoenicia and Syria.
Using the slogan of the freedom of the Greek policies, Rome, which subjugated by 200 BC. e. Almost all Western Mediterranean, attracted to his side the Aetolian (in 199 BC) and Achaean (in 198 BC) alliances, which saw in the Romans a force capable of ensuring their interests. Second Macedonian War (cm. MACEDONIAN WARS)(200-197 BC) ended with the conclusion of peace in 197 BC. e., according to which Macedonia lost all possessions in Asia Minor, the Aegean Sea and Greece.
Internal complications in Egypt (unrest of troops in 216 BC, uprising of local dynasts in 206 BC in Thebaid, court unrest) and the defeat of Macedonia in the war with Rome created favorable conditions for the growth of the political power of the kingdom Seleucid (cm. seleucids). Approximately in 212-205. BC e. Antiochus III made an eastern campaign, repeating the route of Alexander, and forced Parthia (cm. PARTHIA) and Bactria (cm. Bactria) recognize dependence on the Seleucids. Started in 192 BC. e. in Greece, the war with the Romans ended with the defeat of the troops of Antiochus III (cm. ANTIOCH III the Great) at Magnesia on Sipyla in 190 BC. e., as a result of which he was forced to abandon all his possessions in Europe and Asia Minor. Immediately after this, Parthia and Bactria fell away from the Seleucids, and Greater Armenia, which was dependent on the Seleucids, separated.
The victory of the Romans over the Seleucids radically changed the political situation: none of the remaining 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.
In the 2nd century BC e. - the end of the 1st c. BC e. there is a decline and subordination of the Hellenistic states to Rome. Confrontation between the urban nobility (interested in closer ties with the Roman world) and the nobility associated with the royal administrative apparatus and temples and living mainly through traditional forms of exploitation Agriculture, contributed to the emergence of numerous palace coups, dynastic strife, urban uprisings. Roman diplomacy played a significant role, in every possible way encouraging the aggravation of contradictions between the Hellenistic states and the dynastic struggle.
In the third Macedonian war to the Macedonian king Perseus (cm. PERSEUS (King of Macedonia), despite his attempts to win over the Greek policies to fight against Rome, only Epirus and Illyria joined. As a result, the Macedonian army was defeated by the Romans at Pydna. (cm. PIDNA) in 168 BC BC, after which Macedonia was divided into four 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, and broke out in Macedonia in 149-148. BC e. and in the Achaean League in 146 BC. e. The uprisings were brutally suppressed by the Romans. After that, Macedonia was turned into a Roman province of the same name. The unions of the Greek policies were dissolved, and oligarchic regimes were established in the policies.
Having subjugated Greece and Macedonia, Rome launched an offensive against the states of Asia Minor. In 133 BC. e. Pergamon (cm. PERGAM (state))(in accordance with the will of Attalus III (cm. ATTAL III Philometor)) came under the rule of Rome, but only after the suppression of a mass uprising led by Aristonicus (132-129 BC) did the Romans manage to turn it into a Roman province. The Kingdom of Pontus became the center of resistance to Roman aggression in Asia Minor. (cm. PONT (ancient state)), which at the beginning of the 1st c. under Mithridates VI Eupator (cm. Mithridates VI Evpator) became a major state, subjugating almost the entire Black Sea coast. The wars of Mithridates VI with Rome ended in 64 with the defeat of the Pontic kingdom. While Rome was busy conquering Macedonia, the Seleucid kingdom 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 caused uprisings in Judea (171 and 167-160), which escalated into a war against Seleucid domination. Separatist tendencies also manifested themselves in the eastern satrapies, which were oriented towards Parthia. Attempts by Antiochus VII Sidet (139/138-129) to restore the unity of the state (again 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, Phoenicia, 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. In 96, Cyrenaica was annexed to Rome, in 58 - Cyprus. The Romans came close to the borders of Egypt, only Civil War in Rome itself delayed his submission. In 30 BC e. the Egyptian power of the Ptolemies, the last Hellenistic state, headed by Cleopatra (cm. CLEOPATRA (Queen), was conquered by Octavian Augustus. The Hellenistic world as a political system was absorbed by the Roman Empire, but the Hellenistic cultural traditions and established socio-economic life turned out to be stronger than the conquerors, spreading all their achievements throughout the territory of the Roman Empire.

encyclopedic Dictionary. 2009 .

Synonyms:

See what "Hellenism" is in other dictionaries:

Hellenism is a period in the history of the Mediterranean, primarily the eastern one, which lasted from the death of Alexander the Great (323 BC) until the final establishment of Roman domination in these territories, which usually dates from ... ... Wikipedia

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

History of Europe
prehistoric
Antiquity
Middle Ages
new time
Modern
see also

Historical outline

Hellenistic Art

Formation and political structure of the Hellenistic states

Culture of the Hellenistic Society

Hellenization of the East

Hellenistic architecture. urban planning

Notes

Literature

Links

see also

See what "Hellenism" is in other dictionaries:

Chronology

Hellenistic states

Culture of the Hellenistic Society

Hellenization of the East

Historiography

HELLENISM

Hellenism

HELLENISM

HELLENISM

Hellenism

Hellenism

HELLENISM

See what "Hellenism" is in other dictionaries:

Read also