Freedom of Greek Cities in Asia Minor in the Age of Alexander the Great1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291861317 Freedom of Greek Cities in Asia Minor in the Age of Alexander the Great Article in Klio · January 2003 DOI: 10.1524/klio.2003.85.1.15 CITATIONS READS 16 361 1 author: Krzysztof Nawotka University of Wroclaw 15 PUBLICATIONS 35 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Alexander the Great and the East View project All content following this page was uploaded by Krzysztof Nawotka on 11 October 2019. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. I KLIO I 85 I 2003 | 1 | 15-41 | KRZYSZTOF NAWOTKA (Wroclaw) Freedom of Greek Cities in Asia Minor in the Age of Alexander the Great1 In the summer of 334,2 shortly after his first victory over the Persians on the Granicus, Alexander marched through western Asia Minor, accepted the surrender of Sardes, and four days later arrived at Ephesus. There, as Arrian, our principal source to these events, testifies, Alexander dissolved an oligarchy, established a democracy and made the Ephe- sians pay to Artemis a tribute which used to be submitted to Persia: τήν όλιγαρχίαν καταλύσας δημοκρατίαν κατέστησε· τούς δέ φόρους, δσους τοις βαρβάροις άπέφερον, τη Άρτέμιδι ξυντελεΐν έκέλευσεν. Having done so he put an end to a massacre of the oli- garchs after their leader Syrphax, his son and nephews had been killed.3 Soon the ambas- sadors from Magnesia on the Maeander and Tralles showed up in Ephesus, surrendering their cities to Alexander. He furnished them with protective garrisons and thereafter detailed a certain Alkimachos with at least 2700 soldiers to the cities of Ionia and Aeolia still under Persian control, ordering him to overthrow oligarchies, establish democracies and restore their laws, and abolish the tribute: και τάς μεν ολιγαρχίας πανταχού καταλύειν έκέλευσεν, δημοκρατίας δέ [τε] έγκαθιστάναι και τούς νόμους τούς σφών έκάστοις άποδοΰ- ναι, και τούς φόρους άνεΐναι, δσους τοις βαρβάροις άπέφερον (Arr. an. 1.18.2). In another place (1.17.7) Arrian writes about Alexander's appointment of one Nikias as an officer in charge of collecting the tribute and contribution (σύνταξις). As we learn from Alexan- der's edict inscribed under Lysimachus,4 Priene was relieved from this syntaxis. Hence, there is a universal agreement that almost all poleis of Asia Minor had to submit the syntaxis, although a matter of dispute has been whether the word syntaxis indeed meant contribution or if it was a euphemistic name of tribute. This paper aims at assessing the importance of Alexander's gesture for the cities invol- ved and at investigating the reasons behind it. Its scope will be limited to the cities of Asia Minor as their legal and political standing was fundamentally different from that of poleis of continental Greece and the islands. From the King's Peace, at the very latest, the 1 The first version of this paper was presented to the conference of the Ancient History Section of the Polish Historical Association in Rzeszow in September 2000. I would like to express my gratitude to the partici- pants of the conference who commented on the paper (Professor Jozef Wolski, Professor Leslaw Morawiec- ki, Dr. Marek J. Olbrycht) and to other scholars with whom I had the opportunity to discuss it, in particular to Professor Fergus Millar, Mr. Robin Lane Fox and Mr. Nicholas Purcell. My thanks also go to St. John's College, Oxford, Batory Foundation and Lanckoronski Foundation for supporting my research in Oxford and Vienna. 2 All dates are B.C. 3 Arr. an. 1.17.10—12; the above quotation is 1.17.10. 4 IPriene 1; about the date and circumstances of the inscription see Sherwin-White, and Boterman, 184—6. Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM 16 Κ. NAWOTKA, Freedom of Greek Cities cities of Asia Minor belonged to Persia and hence, by Greek standards (on that vide infra), they were not free, and by definition from 336, together with the whole realm of the Great King, they were in war with Macedonia. Of course, some islands were from time to time subject of Persian satraps, too, especially of Mausolus.5 Their situation in the age of Alexander is, however, quite well known thanks to a number of rather unam- biguous sources:6 they obtained a democratic constitution and at least some of them (Tenedos, Chios, some poleis in Lesbos) became members of the League of Corinth.7 To that one may remember that in the fourth century B.C. the Greeks of Asia began to be recognised by political writers as a distinct section of the Hellenic world and that the issue of their freedom became a frequently used political slogan, especially after the King's Peace had been concluded.8 The passage from Arrian, quoted above, and a similar statement by Diodorus, pertai- ning to Caria,9 have sparked a prolonged discussion on Alexander's attitude to the Greek cities. Opinions voiced on this matter by various modern scholars have been, to a large degree, a reflection of their general attitude to Alexander. Droysen, the first modern Alexander scholar of note, eulogised Alexander stating that the poleis of Asia Minor had become free in his times, recognising at the same time the absolute military leadership of the king of Macedonia. As members of the League of Corinth they provided a useful counterbalance to the more sceptically-minded cities of continental Greece.10 His phrase, used in reference to Asia Minor yet smacking of the Germany of his epoch (e.g. „Reichstädte in dem Reich ihres Befreiers"), became an easy prey for later generations of historians, rightfully ridiculing too much of Bismarck in Droysen's Alexander.11 Never- theless, this perception of Alexander dominated the scene well into the 1930s,12 a nota- ble exception being the doctoral dissertation by Baumbach who remarked that it had been Alexander who had given freedom to the Greeks of Asia and who had also been able to withdraw his gift. 3 This did not, however, leave any imprint on the scholarly discussion of his time. 4 Eulogising Alexander peaked in the book by Radet in which the king of Macedonia was the new Achilles, liberating the Greeks in his triumphal passage through Asia.15 In 1934 as a reaction to that E. Bickermann's enormously influential paper was publis- hed, proposing a legal rather than political approach to the problem of relations between Alexander and the Greeks of Asia Minor. Bickermann points out that Alexander's aim 5 Hornblower, 46, 134. 6 Besides Arrian, cf. inscriptions concerning Eresos, Mytilene (both on Lesbos), Chios, published with ample commentary by Heisserer. 7 Magie, 56 and n. 10 (on p. 822-4); Badian (1966) 50; Jehne, 21-5; Ruzicka (1997) 126; Debord, 472. On Eresos see now Lott; on Chios see Hauben. 8 Seager/Tuplin; Seager with additional remarks in Flower (1994) 89. 9 Diod. 17.24.1: μάλιστα δ' ευεργετεί τάς Ελληνίδας πόλεις, ποιών αύτάς αϋτονόμους και άφορολογήτους, προ- σεπιλέγων δτι της των Ελλήνων ελευθερώσεως ενεκα τόν προς Πέρσας πόλεμον έπανήρηται. 10 Droysen, 232-6. 11 Droysen, 236; see Badian (1966) 37; Stoneman, 28. 12 E.g. Kaerst, 343-52; Jouget, 82-8. 13 Baumbach, especially 87-90. 14 See Marinovic, 30. 15 See the apdy named chapter („Liberations et renaissance") on events in Asia Minor of 334—3 in his hagio- graphic biography of Alexander, in particular 53—4. Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM KLIO 85 (2003) 1 17 was the conquest of the Persian empire. In accordance with the legal theories of his time, Alexander regarded the conquered land as his property by virtue of having won it with a spear (δορίκτητος χώρα).16 Thus in legal terms Greek cities in Asia and the indi- genous population alike were Alexander's subjects. In Bickermann's (and Ehrenberg's) view these poleis enjoyed the status of privileged subjects by individual decisions of Alexander who gave them freedom without having concluded treaties with them but having only accepted their submission.17 In practice the scope of their liberty was broad, including the democratic form of government, freedom from tribute and from hosting a garrison; yet it was revocable on Alexander's volition. Hence the freedom of the Greeks of Asia was 'secondary', in contrast to the 'primary' freedom of the poleis of continental Greece.18 This in turn met with a fundamental criticism by Tarn, for whom freedom was an inborn and inalienable quality of the Greek cities, which only temporarily could not be realized because of restrictions caused by the Persian rule. Upon its removal by Alexan- der, the poleis of Asia Minor automatically became free again. Their freedom was simply restored to them, which is reflected by Arrian's usage of the word άποδοΰναι.19 In more recent years the scope of freedom of the Greeks of Asia has been assessed in rather sober terms, reflecting in main points Bickermann's position to which the imagination of some scholars supplied the supervision of the poleis of Asia Minor, allegedly exercised by Alkimachos.20 A crucial role in establishing this pessimistic outlook has been played by Badian who even compared the position of poleis of Asia Minor to that of the satellite states of the Soviet Union.21 Badian's position, without perhaps this last ahistorical exag- geration, almost became an orthodoxy,22 although opinions shaped by Tarn have never disappeared completely.23 The very difference between the tribute paid to Persia and the syntaxis submitted to Alexander has been questioned as well.24 Some scholars argue, with post-modern cynicism, that what Alexander actually did in the poleis of Asia Minor was in fact replacing the pro-Persian oligarchic elites with the pro-Macedonian regimes calling themselves democratic.25 Views expressed by Bosworth in his book on Alexander, the most influential of those written in recent decades, are much more nuanced.