1.Western Asia on the eve of Alexander's conquests. Persian Empire in the middle of the 4th century BC. Military-political preparation for the eastern campaigns in Greece and Macedonia.
Changes in Alexander's plans during the campaigns. History of campaigns, main battles. Founding of new cities by Alexander. Policy in relation to the conquered areas. Opposition to Alexander and the Macedonian army.
Formation of a huge power. Economic and socio-political measures of Alexander for its rallying. The personality and activity of Alexander the Great. The historical significance of his conquests.
The struggle of the successors (diadochs) of Alexander and the formation of new states (Hellenistic). The system of the Hellenistic states. The largest Hellenistic states: the Seleucid state, Hellenistic Egypt, Macedonia, the Kingdom of Pergamon. Other Hellenistic States. Hellenism in Balkan Greece, Sicily, the Black Sea region.
Types of Hellenistic states. Essence of Hellenism. Its Greek and Eastern roots.
2.a) Kingdom of the Seleucids
The Seleucid kingdom is a typical Hellenistic state. Territory and population. Development of the urban system. Dualism of the socio-economic structure. The main economic and geographic zones: Asia Minor, Syria and Mesopotamia, Iran and Central Asia.
Economic life. Polis-type cities and extra-polis territories. Social structure. Its complexity. Development of polis-type relations. Public administration and administrative structure. The fragility of the Seleucid state. The main directions of foreign policy. Separation of the eastern satrapies and the formation of the Parthian and Greco-Bactrian kingdoms. Their main features.
b) Hellenistic Egypt
Territory and population. Socio-economic structure. Agrarian relations. Poor development of cities of the polis type. Alexandria. Development of a centralized state economy. Royal monopolies. Organization of public administration. The position of the king. The role of local and Greco-Macedonian elements. Internal history of Hellenistic Egypt. Deteriorating economic situation. Aggravation of social contradictions. The uprising of Dionysius Petosarapis. Foreign policy of the Ptolemies. The confrontation between the Seleucid kingdom and Hellenistic Egypt in the eastern Mediterranean is the basis of international relations of the Hellenistic era. Role of other states: Macedonia, Pergamon. Intervention of Rome. Union of Rome and the Ptolemies.
c) Pergamon kingdom
Territory and population. Socio-economic structure. The intensive nature of the economy. Development of commodity production. Political organization and character royal power.
Pergamum in the system of states of Asia Minor. Pergamum and the Seleucids. Roman penetration into Pergamum.
3.a) Macedonian kingdom
Territory and population. Economic situation. Social structure. State administration and the nature of the royal power. Development of polis relations. Role of cities. The nature of social contradictions. Foreign policy. The relationship between Macedonia and Greece.
b) The position of the city-states of Balkan Greece in the III-II centuries. BC.
Athens and their struggle for independence. Tyranny of Demetrius of Phaler. Athens is the cultural center of Greece.
Achaean and Aetolian unions. Their internal organization... Differences from the unions of the policies of classical Greece. Social structure. Foreign policy.
Hellenistic Sparta. Deepening social crisis. Socio-political reforms of the kings Agis and Cleomenes. Their failure. Strengthening the social struggle. Tyranny of Nabis. Greek states and Macedonia. Philip V. Intervention of Rome. Wars of Rome with Macedonia. The defeat of the Macedonian kingdom by Rome and the subjugation of the Greek city-states.
Sicily at the end of the 4th - beginning of the 3rd century BC. Tyranny of Agathocles and the kingdom of Hieron II. Submission of Syracuse to Rome. Rhodes and Delos in the III-II centuries BC.
c) the Black Sea region and the Caucasus in the Hellenistic era
Greek cities of the Western Black Sea region and the Thracian kingdom. Greeks and Scythians of the Northern Black Sea region in the III-II centuries. BC. Scythian state in Crimea. Olbia. Chersonesos. The heyday of the Chersonesus state in the first half of the 3rd century. BC. Weakening of Olbia and Chersonesos in the second half of the III-II centuries. BC.
Bosporan Kingdom in III-II centuries BC. Economic difficulties. Aggravation of class contradictions. Savmak's uprising. The capture of the Bosporus kingdom and Chersonesus by the Pontic kingdom at the end of the 2nd century. BC.
d) Armenia in the III-I centuries. BC.
Its strengthening at the end of the 2nd - the beginning of the 1st century. BC. Tigran II.
Colchis and Iberia in the III-I centuries. BC.
Pontic kingdom in the III-I centuries. BC. Territory and population. Socio-economic structure. Public administration. Mithridates VI and his struggle with Rome. The defeat of the Pontic kingdom by Rome.
Hellenistic world by the middle of the 1st century BC. Roman and Parthian conquests, reasons for the fall of the Hellenistic states.
4. The main centers of Hellenistic culture. Development of technical knowledge. Interaction of Greek and Eastern traditions. Development of special knowledge: mathematics, mechanics, astronomy, grammar, geography, agronomy. The Alexandria Museum is the first academy of ancient sciences. Antioch, Pergamum, Athens - cultural centers of the Hellenistic time.
The main directions of Hellenistic philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Cynics. Changing the problematics of philosophical research.
Religious views of the Hellenistic era. Syncretic cults. Formation of monotheistic ideas.
New trends in literature and art. Architecture and urban planning. Sculpture. The historical significance of Hellenistic culture. The main concepts of Hellenistic culture in modern historiography.
Hellenism - the meeting of East and West
The concept of Hellenism and its time frame
Hellenistic civilization is usually called a new stage in the development of material and spiritual culture, forms of political organization and social relations peoples of the Mediterranean, Western Asia and adjacent regions.
They began with the Eastern campaign of Alexander the Great and the massive colonization flow of the Hellenes (Greeks and Macedonians) to the newly conquered lands. Chronological and geographical boundaries Hellenistic civilization researchers are defined in different ways depending on the interpretation of the concept of "Hellenism", introduced into science in the first half of the XIX century. IG Droysen, but still controversial.
The accumulation of new material as a result of archaeological and historical research has revived discussions about the criteria and specifics of Hellenism in different regions, about the geographical and temporal boundaries of the Hellenistic world. The concepts of pre-Hellenism and post-Hellenism are put forward, that is, the emergence of elements of Hellenistic civilization before the Greco-Macedonian conquests and their vitality (and sometimes regeneration) after the collapse of the Hellenistic states.
For all the controversy of these problems, one can also point to established views. There is no doubt that the process of interaction between the Hellenic and non-Asian peoples took place in the previous period as well, but the Greco-Macedonian conquest gave it scope and intensity. The new forms of culture, political and socio-economic relations that arose during the Hellenistic period were the product of a synthesis in which local, mainly Eastern, and Greek elements played one role or another, depending on specific historical conditions. The greater or lesser importance of local elements left an imprint on the socio-economic and political structure, forms of social struggle, the nature of cultural development and largely determined the further historical fate of individual regions of the Hellenistic world.
The history of Hellenism is clearly divided into three periods:
- the emergence of the Hellenistic states (late IV - early III century BC),
- the formation of the socio-economic and political structure and the flourishing of these states (III - early II century BC),
- a period of economic recession, the growth of social contradictions, the subordination of the power of Rome (mid-II - end of the 1st century BC).
Indeed, already from the end of the IV century. BC NS. you can trace the formation of the Hellenistic civilization, in the III century. and the first half of the 2nd century. BC NS. the period of its heyday falls. But the decline of the Hellenistic powers and the expansion of Roman rule in the Mediterranean, and in the Front and Central Asia- the possessions of the emerging local states did not mean her death. As an integral element, it participated in the formation of the Parthian and Greco-Bactrian civilizations, and after the subordination of the entire Eastern Mediterranean by Rome, a complex alloy of the Greco-Roman civilization arose on its basis.
The rise of the Hellenistic states and the formation of the Hellenistic civilization
Diadochi Wars
As a result of the campaigns of Alexander the Great, a power arose that covered the Balkan Peninsula, islands Aegean, Asia Minor, Egypt, the entire Front, southern regions of Central and part of Central Asia to the lower reaches of the Indus. For the first time in history, such a vast territory found itself within the framework of one political system. In the process of conquests, new cities were founded, new routes of communication and trade between distant regions were laid. However, the transition to peaceful land development did not occur immediately; for half a century after the death of Alexander the great, there was a fierce struggle between his generals - the diadochi (successors), as they are usually called - for the division of his legacy.
In the first decade and a half, the fiction of the unity of the state remained under the nominal rule of Philip Arrideus (323-316 BC) and the young Alexander IV (323-310? BC), but in reality already by agreement 323 BC NS. power in its most important regions ended up in the hands of the most influential and talented commanders:
- Antipater in Macedonia and Greece,
- Lysimachos in Thrace,
- Ptolemy in Egypt,
- Antigone in the southwest of Asia Minor,
- Perdikkas, who commanded the main military forces and the actual regent, obeyed the rulers of the eastern satrapies.
But Perdikke's attempt to consolidate his autocracy and extend it to the Western satrapy ended in his own death and initiated the wars of the Diadochi. In 321 BC. NS. in Triparadis, a redistribution of satrapies and posts took place: Antipater became regent, and the royal family was transported to him in Macedonia from Babylon, Antigonus was appointed the strategist-autocrat of Asia, commander of all the troops stationed there, and authorized to continue the war with Eumenes, a supporter of Perdiccas. In Babylonia, which had lost the importance of the royal residence, the commander of the Getaira Seleucus was appointed satrap.
Death in 319 BC NS. Antipater, who handed over the regency to Polyperchon, the old commander devoted to the royal dynasty, against whom the son of Antipater, Cassander, supported by Antigonus, opposed, led to a new intensification of the wars of the Diadochi. Greece and Macedonia became an important bridgehead, where the royal house, the Macedonian nobility, and the Greek city-states were involved in the struggle; in the course of it, Philip Arrideus and other members of the royal family died, and Cassandru managed to consolidate his position in Macedonia. In Asia, Antigonus, having won a victory over Eumenes and his allies, became the most powerful of the Diadochi, and immediately a coalition of Seleucus, Ptolemy, Cassander and Lysimachus formed against him. A new series of battles began at sea and on land in Syria, Babylonia, Asia Minor, Greece. In imprisoned in 311 BC. NS. Although the name of the tsar appeared in the world, in fact, there was no longer any talk of the unity of the state, the diadochi acted as independent rulers of the lands belonging to them.
A new phase of the war of the Diadochi began after the killing of young Alexander IV by the order of Cassander. In 306 BC. NS. Antigonus and his son Demetrius Poliorketus, and then other diadochi, appropriated royal titles to themselves, thereby recognizing the disintegration of Alexander's power and declaring a claim to the Macedonian throne. Antigonus was most actively pursuing it. Military operations are unfolding in Greece, Asia Minor and the Aegeis. In the battle with the combined forces of Seleucus, Lysimachus and Kassandra in 301 BC. NS. under Ipsus, Antigonus was defeated and killed. A new distribution of forces took place: along with the kingdom of Ptolemy I (305-282 BC), which included Egypt, Cyrenaica and Kelesiria, a large kingdom of Seleucus I (311-281 BC) appeared, which united Babylonia , eastern satrapies and Antigonos' Near Eastern possessions. Lysimachus expanded the boundaries of his kingdom in Asia Minor, Cassander received recognition of the rights to the Macedonian throne.
However, after the death of Cassander in 298 BC. NS. the struggle for Macedonia flared up again, lasting more than 20 years. In turn, her throne was occupied by the sons of Cassander, Demetrius Poliorketus, Lysimachus, Ptolemy Keraunus, Pyrrhus of Epirus. In addition to dynastic wars in the early 270s. BC NS. Macedonia and Greece were invaded by the Galatian Celts. Only in 276, Antigonus Gonatus (276-239 BC), the son of Demetrius Poliorketus, who won a victory over the Galatians in 277, was established on the Macedonian throne, and under him the Macedonian kingdom gained political stability.
Diadochi politics in their domain
The half-century period of the struggle of the diadochi was the time of the formation of a new, Hellenistic society with a complex social structure and a new type of state. The activities of the diadochi, guided by subjective interests, ultimately manifested objective trends in the historical development of the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia - the need to establish close economic ties between the inland regions and the sea political and cultural unity of individual regions, the need for the development of cities as centers of trade and crafts, in the development of new lands in order to feed the increased population, and, finally, in cultural interaction, etc. There is no doubt that the individual characteristics of statesmen who competed in the struggle for power, their military and organizational talents or their mediocrity, political myopia, indomitable energy and indiscriminate means to achieve goals, cruelty and greed - all this complicated the course of events, gave it an acute drama, often about the imprint of chance. Nevertheless, one can trace the general features of the policy of diadochi.
Each of them strove to unite the internal and coastal regions under their rule, to ensure dominance over important routes, trade centers and ports. Everyone faced the problem of maintaining a strong army as a real support of power. The main body of the army consisted of the Macedonians and Greeks, who were previously part of the royal army, and mercenaries recruited in Greece. The funds for their payment and maintenance were partly drawn from the treasures plundered by Alexander or by the Diadochi themselves, but the question of collecting tribute or taxes from the local population was also quite acute, and, consequently, about organizing the management of the occupied territories and establishing economic life.
In all regions, except for Macedonia, there was a problem of relations with the local population. Two tendencies are noticeable in its solution:
- rapprochement of the Greco-Macedonian and local nobility, the use of traditional forms of social and political organization and
- a tougher policy in relation to the indigenous strata of the population as conquered and completely disenfranchised, as well as the introduction of a polis system.
In relations with the far eastern satrapies, the diadochi adhered to the practice that had developed under Alexander (possibly dating back to the Persian time): power was given to the local nobility on the basis of recognition of dependence and payment of cash and in-kind supplies.
One of the means of economic and political strengthening of power in the conquered territories was the founding of new cities. This policy, begun by Alexander, was actively continued by the diadochi. Cities were founded both as strategic points and as administrative and economic centers that received the status of a policy. Some of them were erected on empty lands and settled by immigrants from Greece, Macedonia and other places, others arose through the voluntary or compulsory union of two or more impoverished cities or rural settlements into one policy, and still others through the reorganization of eastern cities, replenished with the Greco-Macedonian population. It is characteristic that new poleis appear in all areas of the Hellenistic world, but their number, location and method of origin reflect both the specifics of the time and the historical characteristics of individual areas.
During the struggle of the Diadochi, simultaneously with the formation of new, Hellenistic states, there was a process of profound change in the material and spiritual culture of the peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia. Continuous wars, accompanied by major naval battles, sieges and storms of cities, and at the same time the founding of new cities and fortresses highlighted the development of military and construction equipment. Fortifications were also improved.
New cities were built in accordance with the planning principles developed in the 5th century. BC NS. Hippodamus of Miletus: with straight streets and intersecting at right angles, oriented, if the terrain allowed, along the cardinal points. The agora adjoined the main, widest street, surrounded on three sides by public buildings and commercial porticoes, temples and gymnasiums were usually erected nearby; theaters and stadiums were built outside residential areas. The city was surrounded by defensive walls with towers, and a citadel was built on an elevated and strategically important site. The construction of walls, towers, temples and other large structures required the development of technical knowledge and skills in the manufacture of mechanisms for lifting and transporting super-heavy loads, improving all kinds of blocks, gears (such as gears), levers. New achievements of technical thought were reflected in special works on architecture and construction, which appeared at the end of the 4th-3rd centuries. BC NS. and preserved to us the names of architects and mechanics of that time - Philo, Hegetor of Byzantine, Dyad, Kharius, Epimachus.
The political situation in the Eastern Mediterranean in the III century. BC.
Struggle of the Seleucids, Ptolemies and Antigonids
From the second half of the 70s. III century. BC e., after the stabilization of the borders of the Hellenistic states, a new stage began in the political history of the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia. Between the powers of the Seleucids, Ptolemies and Antigonids, a struggle ensued for leadership, submission to their power or the influence of independent cities and states of Asia Minor, Greece, Kelesiria, the islands of the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas. The struggle proceeded not only through military clashes, but also through diplomatic intrigue, the use of internal political and social contradictions.
The interests of Egypt and the Seleucid state collided primarily in southern Syria and, since in addition to the huge incomes that came from these countries as taxes, their possession ensured a prevailing role in trade with Arab tribes and, in addition, these areas were of strategic geographic importance. position and wealth the main building material for the military and merchant navy - cedar wood. The rivalry between the Ptolemies and Seleucids resulted in the so-called Syrian wars, during which the borders of their possessions were changed not only in southern Syria, but also on the Asia Minor coast and in the Aegean Sea.
The clashes in the Aegeid and Asia Minor were due to the same reasons - the desire to strengthen trade ties and secure strategic bases for the further expansion of their possessions. But here the predatory interests of the large Hellenistic states ran into the desire of the local small Hellenistic states - Bithynia, Pergamum, Cappadocia, Pontus - to defend their independence. So, in 262 BC. NS. As a result of the war with Antiochus I, Pergamum achieved independence, and Eumenes I, proclaimed king, laid the foundation for the Attalid dynasty.
The confrontation between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies went on with varying success. If the second Syrian war (260-253 BC) was successful for Antiochus II, and brought large territorial losses to Egypt in Asia Minor and the Aegeid, then as a result of the third Syrian war (246-241 BC) .) Ptolemy III not only returned the previously lost Miletus, Ephesus, the island of Samos and other territories, but also expanded his possessions in the Aegean Sea and Kelesiria. The success of Ptolemy III in this war was facilitated by the instability of the Seleucid state. Around 250 BC NS. the governors of Bactria and Sogdiana, Diodot and Euthydem, were deposited; a few years later, Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana formed an independent Greco-Bactrian kingdom. Almost at the same time, the governor of Parthia Andragor was postponed, but soon he and the Seleucid garrison were destroyed by the rebellious tribes of the Parny-Dais, led by Arshak, who founded a new, Parthian dynasty of Arshakids, the beginning of the rule of which tradition dates back to 247 BC. NS. Separatist tendencies appear to have existed in western region powers, manifested in the dynastic struggle between Seleucus II (246-225 BC) and his brother Antiochus Gierax, who seized power in the Asia Minor satrapies. The balance of power between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids that developed after the third Syrian War lasted until 220 BC.
The situation in Greece and Macedonia
The focus of conflict between Egypt and Macedonia was mainly the islands of the Aegean Sea and Greece - areas that were consumers of agricultural products, manufacturers of handicrafts, a source of replenishment of the troops and suppliers of skilled labor. The political and social struggle within the Greek city-states and between them provided opportunities for the intervention of the Hellenistic powers in the internal affairs of Greece, and the kings of Macedonia relied mainly on oligarchic strata, and the Ptolemies used the anti-Macedonian sentiments of the demos. This policy of the Ptolemies played big role in the emergence of the Chremonides War, named after one of the leaders of the Athenian democracy, Chremonides, who was apparently the initiator of the conclusion of a general alliance between Athens, the Lacedaemon coalition and Ptolemy II. The Chremonides War (267-262 BC) was the last attempt by the leaders of the Hellenic world of Athens and Sparta to unite forces hostile to Macedonia and, using the support of Egypt, to defend independence and restore their influence in Greece. But the preponderance of forces was on the side of Macedonia, the Egyptian fleet could not help the allies, Antigonus Gonatus defeated the Lacedaemonians near Corinth and after the siege subdued Athens. As a result of the defeat, Athens lost its freedom for a long time. Sparta lost influence in the Peloponnese, the positions of the Antigonids in Greece and the Aegeis were strengthened to the detriment of the Ptolemies.
However, this did not mean reconciliation of the Greeks with Macedonian hegemony. The previous historical experience, confirmed by the events of the Chremonides War, showed that the independent existence of disparate poleis under the conditions of the system of Hellenistic monarchies became practically impossible, moreover, the tendencies of the socio-economic development of the poleis themselves required the creation of wider state associations. In international life, the role of the political unions of the Greek city-states, built on a federal basis, is growing: while maintaining equality and autonomy within the union, they act in foreign policy relations as a single whole, defending their independence. It is characteristic that the initiative for the formation of federations comes not from the old economic and political centers of Greece, but from underdeveloped regions.
At the beginning of the III century. BC NS. the Aetolian federation (which arose at the beginning of the 4th century BC from the union of the Aetolian tribes) acquires significance, after the Aetolians defended Delphi from the invasion of the Galatians and became the head of the Delphic amphiktyony, an ancient cult association around the sanctuary of Apollo. During the Chremonides War, without entering into open conflict with Macedonia, Aetolia supported democratic groups hostile to the Antigonids in neighboring poleis, thanks to which most of them joined the union. By 220 BC. NS. the federation included almost all of Central Greece, some city-states in the Peloponnese and on the islands of the Aegean Sea; some of them joined voluntarily, others, such as the cities of Boeotia, were subdued by force.
In 284 BC. NS. the union of Achaean policies, which had disintegrated during the wars of the Diadochi, was restored; in the middle of the 3rd century. BC NS. it included Sikion and other cities of the northern Peloponnese on federal principles. Formed as a political organization defending the independence of the Greek city-states. The Achaean Union, headed by the Sikion Arat, played a large role in countering the Macedonian expansion in the Peloponnese. A particularly important act was the expulsion in 243 BC. NS. the Macedonian garrison from Corinth and the capture of Acrocorinth, a fortress located on a high hill and controlling the strategic route to the Peloponnese through the Isthmian isthmus. As a result of this, the authority of the Achaean Union increased greatly, and by 230 BC. NS. this union included about 60 city-states, occupying most of the Peloponnese. However, the failures in the war with Sparta, which restored its political influence and military strength as a result of the social reforms of King Cleomenes, and the fear of the citizens' desire for similar reforms, forced the leadership of the Achaean Union to agree to an agreement with Macedonia and ask her for help at the cost of Acrocorinth's concession. After the defeat of Sparta in 222 BC. NS. The Achaean Federation joined the Hellenic Union formed under the hegemony of King Antigonus Doson, which also included other Greek cities, except for Athens and the Aetolian Union.
The aggravation of the social struggle led to a change in the political orientation of the possessing strata in many Greek city-states and created favorable conditions for the expansion of the possessions and influence of Macedonia.
However, Philip V's attempt to subdue the Aetolian federation by unleashing the so-called Allied War (220-217 BC), in which all the members of the Hellenic Union were involved, was not successful. Then, given the dangerous situation for Rome, which developed during the second Punic War, Philip entered in 215 BC. NS. into an alliance with Hannibal and began to oust the Romans from their seized possessions in Illyria. This was the beginning of the first war between Macedonia and Rome (215-205 BC), which was essentially a war between Philip and his old opponents who joined Rome - Aetolia and Pergamum - and ended well for Macedonia. Thus, the last years of the III century. BC NS. were the period of the greatest power of the Antigonids, which was facilitated by the general political situation in the Eastern Mediterranean.
4th Syrian War
In 219 BC. NS. the fourth Syrian war broke out between Egypt and the kingdom of the Seleucids: Antiochus III invaded Kelesiria, subjugating one city after another by bribery or siege, and approached the borders of Egypt. A decisive battle between the armies of Antiochus III and Ptolemy IV took place in 217 BC. NS. near the village of Rafia. The forces of the opponents were almost equal, and the victory, according to Polybius, was on the side of Ptolemy only thanks to the successful actions of the phalanxes formed from the Egyptians. But Ptolemy IV could not take advantage of the victory: after the Battle of Rafia, unrest began inside Egypt, and he was forced to agree to the peace conditions proposed by Antiochus III. The internal instability of Egypt, aggravated after the death of Ptolemy IV, allowed Philip V and Antiochus III to seize the external possessions of the Ptolemies: all the Ptolemaic policies on the Hellespont, in Asia Minor and in the Aegean Sea went to Macedonia. The expansion of Macedonia infringed upon the interests of Rhodes and Pergamum. The resulting war (201 BC) was overwhelmingly on the side of Philip V. Rhodes and Pergamum turned to the Romans for help. So the conflict between the Hellenistic states grew into the second Roman-Macedonian war (200-197 BC).
Brief conclusions
End of the 3rd century BC NS. can be regarded as a certain milestone in the history of the Hellenistic world. If in the previous period economic and cultural ties prevailed in relations between the countries of the Eastern and Western Mediterranean, and political contacts were of an episodic nature and mainly in the form of diplomatic relations, then in the last decades of the 3rd century. BC NS. there is already a tendency towards open military confrontation, as evidenced by the alliance of Philip V with Hannibal and the first Macedonian war with Rome. The balance of forces within the Hellenistic world also changed. During the III century. BC NS. the role of small Hellenistic states increased - Pergamon, Bithynia, Pontus, Aetolian and Achaean unions, as well as independent policies that played important role in transit trade - Rhodes and Byzantium. Until the last decades of the III century. BC NS. Egypt retained its political and economic power, but by the end of the century Macedonia was strengthening, the kingdom of the Seleucids became the strongest power.
Socio-economic and political structure of the Hellenistic states
Trade and increased cultural exchange
The most characteristic feature of the economic development of Hellenistic society in the III century. BC NS. there was an increase in trade and commodity production. Despite military clashes, regular maritime communications were established between Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece and Macedonia; trade routes were established along the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and further to India and trade relations between Egypt and the Black Sea region, Carthage and Rome. New major trade and handicraft centers arose - Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch on Orontes, Seleucia on the Tigris, Pergamum, and others, whose handicraft production was largely calculated for the foreign market. The Seleucids founded a number of policies along the old caravan routes connecting the upper satrapies and Mesopotamia with the Mediterranean Sea - Antioch-Edessa, Antioch-Nisibis, Seleucia on the Euphrates, Dura-Evropos, Antioch in Margiana, etc.
The Ptolemies founded several harbors on the Red Sea - Arsinoy, Philothera, Berenice, connecting them by caravan routes with ports on the Nile. The emergence of new trade centers in the Eastern Mediterranean led to the movement of trade routes in the Aegean Sea, the role of Rhodes and Corinth as ports of transit trade increased, and the importance of Athens fell. Monetary transactions and money circulation expanded significantly, which was facilitated by the unification of the coin business, which began under Alexander the Great with the introduction of silver and gold coins into circulation, minted according to the Attic (Athenian) weight standard. This weight standard was held in most of the Hellenistic states, despite the variety of stamps.
The economic potential of the Hellenistic states, the volume of handicraft production and its technical level have grown noticeably. Numerous policies that arose in the East attracted artisans, merchants and people of other professions. The Greeks and Macedonians brought with them their usual slave-owning way of life, and the number of slaves increased. The need to supply food for the trade and artisan population of cities gave rise to the need to increase the production of agricultural products intended for sale. Monetary relations began to penetrate even into the Egyptian “coma” (village), corrupting traditional relations and increasing the exploitation of the rural population. The increase in agricultural production occurred due to the expansion of the area of cultivated land and through their more intensive use.
The most important stimulus for economic and technical progress was the exchange of experience and production skills in agriculture and handicrafts of the local and alien, Greek and non-Greek population, the exchange of agricultural crops and scientific knowledge... Immigrants from Greece and Asia Minor brought the practice of olive growing and viticulture to Syria and Egypt and adopted the cultivation of date palms from the local population. Papyri reports that in Fayum they tried to acclimatize the Milesian breed of sheep. Probably, this kind of exchange of breeds of livestock and agricultural crops took place before the Hellenistic period, but now more favorable conditions have appeared for it. It is difficult to detect changes in agricultural implements, but there is no doubt that on the large scale of irrigation work in Egypt, carried out mainly by local residents under the guidance of Greek "architects", one can see the result of a combination of techniques and experience of both. The need for irrigation of new areas, apparently, contributed to the improvement and generalization of experience in the technique of constructing water-drawing mechanisms. The invention of the pumping machine, which was also used for pumping water in flooded mines, is associated with the name of Archimedes ("Archimedes' screw" or the so-called "Egyptian snail").
Craft
In handicraft, the combination of techniques and skills of local and newcomer artisans (Greeks and non-Greeks) and an increase in demand for their products led to a number of important inventions that gave rise to new types of handicraft production, a narrower specialization of artisans and the possibility of mass production of a number of products.
As a result of the development by the Greeks of a more perfect loom, which was used in Egypt and Western Asia, workshops for the production of patterned fabrics appeared in Alexandria and gold-woven fabrics in Pergamum. The assortment of clothing and footwear has expanded, including those made according to foreign styles and patterns.
New types of products have appeared in other branches of handicraft production designed for mass consumption. In Egypt, the production of various varieties of papyrus was established, and in Pergamum from the 2nd century. BC NS. - parchment. Embossed ceramics coated with a dark lacquer with a metallic tint, imitating in their shape and color more expensive metal dishes (the so-called Megar bowls), became widespread. Its production was of a serial nature due to the use of ready-made small stamps, the combination of which made it possible to diversify the ornament. In the manufacture of terracotta, as in the casting of bronze statues, they began to use split forms, which made it possible to make them more complex and at the same time to make numerous copies from the original.
Thus, the works of individual masters and artists turned into mass-produced handicraft products, designed not only for the rich, but also for the middle strata of the population. Important discoveries have also been made in the manufacture of luxury goods. Jewelers mastered the technique of cloisonné enamel and amalgamation, that is, the coating of items with a thin layer of gold, using its solution in mercury. In glass production, methods were found for making products from mosaic, carved two-color, engraved and gilded glass. but the manufacturing process was very complicated. Objects made using this technique were highly valued, and many were genuine works of art (the objects that have survived to us date mainly from the 1st century BC, for example, the so-called Portland vase from the British Museum and the gilded glass vase found in the Hermitage found in Olbia , and etc.).
The development of maritime trade and constant military clashes at sea stimulated the improvement of shipbuilding technology. Multi-row rowing warships, armed with rams and throwing guns, continued to be built. At the shipyards of Alexandria, 20 and 30-row ships were built, but, apparently, they turned out to be less effective (the Ptolemaic fleet was twice defeated in battles with the Macedonian fleet, built at Greek shipyards, probably modeled on the high-speed 16-row ships of Demetrius Poliorketus). The famous tesseracontera (40-row ship) of Ptolemy IV, which amazed contemporaries in size and luxury, turned out to be unsuitable for sailing. Along with large warships, small ships were also built - reconnaissance, messengers, for the protection of merchant ships, as well as cargo.
The construction of the merchant sailing fleet expanded, its speed increased due to the improvement of sailing equipment (two and three-masted ships appeared), average lifting capacity reached 78 tons.
Construction
Simultaneously with the development of shipbuilding, the structure of shipyards and docks was improved. Harbors were improved, jetties and lighthouses were built. One of the seven wonders of the world was the Pharos lighthouse, created by the architect Sostratus of Cnidus. It was a colossal three-tiered tower topped with a statue of the god Poseidon; information about its height has not been preserved, but, according to the testimony of Josephus, it was visible from the sea at a distance of 300 stadia (about 55 km), in its upper part a fire burned at night. Lighthouses began to be built according to the type of Pharosian in other ports - in Laodicea, Ostia, etc.
Urban planning was especially widespread in the 3rd century. BC NS. This period saw the construction of the largest number of cities founded by Hellenistic monarchs, as well as renamed and rebuilt local cities. Alexandria has become the largest city in the Mediterranean. Its plan was developed by the architect Deinocrates during the reign of Alexander the Great. The city was located on the isthmus between the Mediterranean Sea in the north and the lake. Mareotida in the south, from west to east - from the Necropolis to the Canopian Gate - it stretched for 30 stadia (5.5 km), while the distance from the sea to the lake was 7-8 stadia. According to Strabo's description, "the whole city is crossed by streets, convenient for riding on horseback, and two very wide avenues, more than pletra (30 m) wide, which divide each other in half at right angles."
The small rocky island of Pharos, which lay 7 stages from the coast, where the lighthouse was built, already under Ptolemy I was connected to the mainland by Heptastadium - a dam that had passages for ships. This is how two adjacent ports were formed - the Great Trade Harbor and the Harbor of Eunost (Happy Return), connected by a canal with a port on the lake, where Nile ships delivered goods. Shipyards adjoined the Heptastadium on both sides, there were warehouses on the embankment of the Big Harbor, a market square (Emporium), a temple of Poseidon, a theater, and then stretched all the way to Cape Lochiada. royal palaces and parks that included the Museion (Temple of the Muses), a library and a sacred site with the tombs of Alexander and the Ptolemies. The main intersecting streets were adjoined by the Gymnasium with a portico over a stage (185 m) long, Dicasterion (courthouse), Paneillon, Serapeion and other temples and public buildings. To the southwest of the central part of the city, which bore the name of Brucheyon, there were quarters that retained the ancient Egyptian name Rakotis, inhabited by artisans, small traders, sailors and other working people of various social and ethnic backgrounds (primarily Egyptians) with their workshops, shops, household buildings and dwellings made of adobe bricks. Researchers suggest that 3-4-storey apartment buildings were also built in Alexandria for the poor, day laborers and visitors.
Less information has been preserved about the capital of the Seleucid kingdom - Antioch. The city was founded by Seleucus I around 300 BC. NS. on the river Oronte 120 stadia from the Mediterranean coast. The main street ran along the river valley, and the street parallel to it was crossed by lanes that descended from the foothills to the river, the banks of which were decorated with gardens. Later, Antiochus III, on an island formed by the branches of the river, erected new town, surrounded by walls and built in a ring-like manner, with the royal palace in the center and radial streets radiating from it, bordered by porticoes.
If Alexandria and Antioch are known mainly from the descriptions of ancient authors, then the excavations of Pergamum gave a clear picture of the structure of the third historical significance from the capitals of the Hellenistic kingdoms. Pergamum, which existed as a fortress on an inaccessible hill overlooking the valley of the Kaik River, gradually expanded under the Attalids and turned into a major trade and cultural center. Consistent with the terrain, the city descended in terraces along the slopes of the hill: at its top there was a citadel with an arsenal and food warehouses and an upper city surrounded by ancient walls, with a royal palace, temples, a theater, a library, etc. Below, apparently, there was an old agora, residential and craft quarters, also surrounded by a wall, but later the city went beyond it, and even lower along the slope a new public center of the city, surrounded by a third wall, with the temples of Demeter, Hera, gymnasiums, a stadium and a new agora appeared, along the perimeter which housed trade and craft rows.
The capitals of the Hellenistic kingdoms give an idea of the scope of urban planning, but more typical for this era were small towns- newly founded or rebuilt old Greek and eastern urban-type settlements. The excavated cities of the Hellenistic time Priene, Nicaea, Dura-Evropos can serve as an example of this kind of cities. The role of the agora as the center of the city's social life is clearly seen here. This is usually a spacious square, surrounded by porticoes, around which and on the adjacent main street, the main public buildings were erected: temples, bouleuterium, dicasterion, gymnasium with a palaestra. Such a layout and the presence of these structures testify to the polis organization of the city's population, that is, they allow us to assume the existence of popular assemblies, boule, polis education system, which is also confirmed by narrative and epigraphic sources.
New forms of socio-political organizations
Destruction of policies
The policies of the Hellenistic time are already significantly different from the policies of the classical era. Greek polis as a form of socio-economic and political organization of ancient society by the end of the 4th century. BC NS. was in a state of crisis. The polis impeded economic development, since its inherent autarchy and autonomy prevented the expansion and strengthening of economic ties. It did not meet the socio-political needs of society, since, on the one hand, it did not ensure the reproduction of the civilian collective as a whole - the poorest part of it faced the threat of loss civil rights on the other hand, it did not guarantee the external security and stability of this collective, torn apart by internal contradictions.
Historical events of the late 4th - early 3rd century BC NS. led to the creation new form a socio-political organization - the Hellenistic monarchy, which combined elements of Eastern despotism - a monarchical form of state power that had a permanent army and a centralized administration - and elements of a polis structure in the form of cities with rural territories assigned to them, which retained internal self-government bodies, but to a large extent. the least subordinate to the king. The size of the lands assigned to the policy and the provision of economic and political privileges depended on the king; the policy was limited in the rights of foreign policy relations, in most cases the activities of the police self-government bodies were controlled by the tsarist official - epistat. The loss of the foreign policy independence of the polis was compensated by the security of existence, greater social stability and the provision of strong economic ties with other parts of the state. The tsarist power acquired in the urban population an important social support and the necessary contingents for the administration and the army.
On the territory of the policies, land relations developed according to the usual pattern: the private property of citizens and the property of the city on unshared plots. But the difficulty was that land could be attributed to the cities with local villages located on it, the population of which did not become citizens of the city, but continued to own their plots, paying taxes to the city or individuals who received these lands from the king, and then attributed them to the city. In the territory not attributed to cities, the whole land was considered royal.
Socio-economic structure of Egypt
In Egypt, about the socio-economic structure of which the most detailed information has been preserved, according to the Tax Regulations of Ptolemy II Philadelphus and other Egyptian papyri, it was divided into two categories: the actual royal and "ceded" lands, which included the lands that belonged to temples, lands, given by the king as a "gift" to his entourage, and lands provided by small plots (clers) to the cleruch warriors. On all these categories of land, there could also be local villages, the inhabitants of which continued to own their hereditary allotments, paying taxes or taxes. Similar forms can be traced in documents from the kingdom of the Seleucids. This specificity of land relations determined the multi-layered social structure of the Hellenistic states. The royal house with its courtier states, the highest military and civil administration, the most prosperous townspeople and the highest priests made up the upper layer of the slave-owning nobility. The basis of their well-being was land (city and donation), lucrative positions, trade, usury.
The middle strata were more numerous - urban traders and artisans, tsarist administrative personnel, tax farmers, klerukhs and kateks, local priesthood, people of intelligent professions (architects, doctors, philosophers, painters, sculptors). Both of these strata, with all the differences in wealth and interests, constituted the ruling class, which received the designation "Hellenes" in the Egyptian papyri not so much for the ethnicity of the people included in it, but for their social status and education, which opposed them to all "non-Hellenes" : the poor local rural and urban population - laoi (mob).
Most of the laoi were dependent or semi-dependent farmers who cultivated the lands of the king, nobility and townspeople on the basis of lease relations or traditional holding. This also included hypotheleis - workers in the workshops of those industries that were the monopoly of the king. All of them were considered personally free, but were assigned to their place of residence, to one or another workshop or profession. Below them on the social ladder were only slaves.
Slavery
The Greco-Macedonian conquest, the wars of the Diadochs, the spread of the polis system gave impetus to the development of slaveholding relations in their classical antique form, while preserving more primitive forms of slavery: debts, self-sale, etc. Obviously, the role of slave labor in Hellenistic cities (primarily in everyday life and, probably, in urban craft) was no less than in the Greek city-states. But in agriculture, slave labor could not crowd out the labor of the local population (the "tsarist farmers" in Egypt, the "tsarist people" in the Seleucids), the exploitation of which was no less profitable. In large farms of the nobility on donated lands, slaves performed administrative functions, served as auxiliary labor. However, the increased role of slavery in the general system of socio-economic relations led to an increase in non-economic coercion in relation to other categories of workers.
Rural population
If the form of social organization of the urban population was the polis, then the rural population was united in comas and katoikia with the preservation of elements of the communal structure, which can be traced from the data of Egyptian papyri and inscriptions from Asia Minor and Syria. In Egypt, a traditionally established territory was assigned to each coma; the common "royal" current is mentioned, where all the inhabitants of the coma threshed bread. The names of rural officials preserved in the papyri may have originated from a communal organization, but under the Ptolemies they already meant mainly not elected officials, but representatives of the local tsarist administration. The compulsory liturgy for the repair and construction of irrigation facilities, legalized by the state, also goes back to the communal order that once existed. In the papyri there is no information about the meetings of the inhabitants of the coma, but the inscriptions from Fayum and Asia Minor contain the traditional formula about the decisions of the collective of comets on a particular issue. According to papyri and inscriptions, the population of com in the Hellenistic period was heterogeneous: priests, klerukh or kateks (military colonists), officials, tax farmers, slaves, traders, artisans, day laborers lived in them permanently or temporarily. The influx of immigrants, differences in property and legal status weakened communal ties.
Brief conclusions
So, during the III century. BC NS. the socio-economic structure of Hellenistic society was formed, which was peculiar in each of the states (depending on local conditions), but had some common features.
At the same time, in accordance with local traditions and the peculiarities of the social structure in the Hellenistic monarchies, a system of state (tsarist) economy management, a central and local military, administrative, financial and judicial apparatus, a system of taxation, leasing and monopolies were formed; the relationship of cities and temples with the tsarist administration was determined. Social stratification of the population found expression in the legislative consolidation of the privileges of some and the obligations of others. At the same time, social contradictions that were caused by this structure also emerged.
Exacerbation of the internal struggle and the conquest of the Hellenistic states by Rome
The study of the social structure of the Eastern Hellenistic states reveals a characteristic feature: the main burden of maintaining the state apparatus fell on the local rural population. The cities found themselves in a relatively favorable position, which was one of the reasons that contributed to their rapid growth and prosperity.
State of affairs in Greece
Another type social development took place in Greece and Macedonia. Macedonia also developed as a Hellenistic state, combining elements of the monarchy and polis structure. But although the land holdings of the Macedonian kings were relatively extensive, there was not a wide layer of dependent rural population (with the exception, perhaps, of the Thracians), due to the exploitation of which the state apparatus and a significant part of the ruling class could exist. The burden of spending on the maintenance of the army and the construction of the fleet fell equally on the urban and rural population. Differences between Greeks and Macedonians, villagers and townspeople were determined by their property status, the line of estate-class division ran between free and slaves. The development of the economy deepened the further introduction of slave relations.
For Greece, the Hellenistic era did not bring fundamental changes in the system of socio-economic relations. The most noticeable phenomenon was the outflow of the population (mainly young and middle age - warriors, artisans, merchants) to Asia Minor and Egypt. This was supposed to dull the acuteness of social contradictions within the policies. But the continuous wars of the Diadochi, the fall in the value of money as a result of the influx of gold and silver from Asia, and the rise in the prices of consumer goods ruined primarily the poor and middle strata of citizens. Remained unsolved problem overcoming polis economic isolation; attempts to resolve it within the framework of the federation did not lead to economic integration and consolidation of unions. In the policies that fell into dependence on Macedonia, an oligarchic or tyrannical form of government was established, freedom of international relations was limited, and Macedonian garrisons were introduced to strategically important points.
Reforms in Sparta
In all policies of Greece in the III century. BC NS. debt and landlessness of poor citizens are growing, and at the same time the concentration of land and wealth in the hands of the polis aristocracy. By the middle of the century, these processes reached their greatest severity in Sparta, where most of the Spartiats actually lost their allotments. The need for social transformations forced the Spartan king Agis IV (245-241 BC) to come up with a proposal to cancel debts and redistribute land in order to increase the number of full citizens. These reforms, clothed in the form of restoring the laws of Lycurgus, provoked the resistance of the eporat and the aristocracy. Agis died, but the social situation in Sparta remained tense. A few years later, King Cleomenes III came forward with the same reforms.
Taking into account the experience of Agis, Cleomenes pre-consolidated his position with successful actions in the beginning in 228 BC. NS. war with the Achaean Union. Having enlisted the support of the army, he first destroyed the eforat and expelled the richest citizens from Sparta, then carried out a cassation of debts and redistribution of land, increasing the number of citizens by 4 thousand people. Events in Sparta caused ferment throughout Greece. Mantinea withdrew from the Achaean Union and joined Cleomenes, unrest began in other cities of the Peloponnese. In the war with the Achaean Union, Cleomenes occupied a number of cities, Corinth went over to his side. Frightened by this, the oligarchic leadership of the Achaean Union turned to the king of Macedonia Antigonus Doson for help. The preponderance of forces was on the side of the opponents of Sparta. Then Cleomenes freed about 6 thousand helots for ransom and included 2 thousand of them in his army. But in the battle of Selassia (222 BC) the combined forces of Macedonia and the Achaeans destroyed the Spartan army, a Macedonian garrison was introduced to Sparta, and Cleomenes' reforms were annulled.
The defeat of Cleomenes could not halt the growth of social movements. Already in 219 BC. NS. in Sparta, Chilo again tried to destroy the eforat and redistribute property; in 215, the oligarchs were expelled in Messinia and the land was redistributed; in 210, the tyrant Mahanid seized power in Sparta. after his death in the war with the Achaean Union, the Spartan state was headed by the tyrant Nabis, who carried out an even more radical redistribution of the land and property of the nobility, the liberation of the helots and the allotment of land to the Perieks. In 205, an attempt was made to cassate debts in Aetolia.
State of affairs in Egypt
By the end of the III century. BC NS. the contradictions of the socio-economic structure begin to appear in the Eastern Hellenistic powers, and above all in Egypt. The organization of the Ptolemies was aimed at extracting maximum income from lands, mines and workshops. The system of taxes and duties was highly detailed and consumed most of the harvest, depleting the economy of small farmers. The growing apparatus of the tsarist administration, tax farmers and merchants further intensified the exploitation of the local population. Some of the forms of protest against oppression were leaving the place of residence (anachorsis), which sometimes took on a mass character, and the flight of slaves. More active actions of the masses are gradually increasing. The Fourth Syrian War and the associated hardships caused massive unrest, which first engulfed Lower Egypt and soon spread throughout the country. If in the most Hellenized regions of Lower Egypt, the government of Ptolemy IV managed to quickly achieve pacification, then the unrest in the south of Egypt by 206 BC. NS. grew into a wide popular movement, and Thebais fell away from the Ptolemies for more than two decades. Although the movement in Thebaid had features of a protest against the domination of foreigners, its social orientation can be clearly traced in the sources.
The arrival of Rome in Greece and Asia Minor
In Greece, the second Macedonian War, which lasted for more than two years, ended with the victory of Rome. The demagogy of the Romans, who used the traditional slogan of "freedom" of the Greek city-states, attracted the Aetolian and Achaean unions to their side, and above all the possessing strata of citizens who saw the Romans as a force capable of ensuring their interests without the monarchical form of government odious for the demos. Macedonia lost all of its possessions in Greece, the Aegean Sea and Asia Minor. Rome, solemnly proclaiming at the Isthmian Games (196 BC) the "freedom" of Greek city-states, began to dispose of in Greece, disregarding the interests of the former allies: it determined the borders of states, placed its garrisons in Corinth, Demetrias and Chalcis, intervened in inner life policies. The "liberation" of Greece was the first step in the spread of Roman rule in the Eastern Mediterranean, the beginning of a new stage in the history of the Hellenistic world.
Next at least important event was the so-called Syrian war between Rome and Antiochus III. Having strengthened their borders with the Eastern campaign in 212-204. BC NS. and the victory over Egypt, Antiochus began to expand his possessions in Asia Minor and Thrace at the expense of the policies liberated by the Romans from the rule of Macedonia, which led to a clash with Rome and its Greek allies Pergamum and Rhodes. The war ended with the defeat of the troops of Antiochus and the loss of the Asia Minor territories by the Seleucids.
The victory of the Romans and their allies over the largest of the Hellenistic powers - the kingdom of the Seleucids - radically changed the political situation: no other Hellenistic state could claim hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean. The subsequent political history of the Hellenistic world is the history of the gradual subordination of one country after another to Roman rule. The prerequisites for this are, on the one hand, the tendencies of the economic development of ancient society, which required the establishment of closer and more stable ties between the Western and Eastern Mediterranean, on the other, contradictions in foreign policy relations and the internal socio-political instability of the Hellenistic states. The process of active penetration of the Romans to the East began and the adaptation of eastern economic centers to new situation... The military and economic expansion of the Romans was accompanied by the massive enslavement of prisoners of war and the intensive development of slave relations in Italy and in the conquered regions.
These phenomena largely determined the internal life of the Hellenistic states. Contradictions are aggravated at the top of Hellenistic society - between the layers of the urban nobility, interested in expanding commodity production, trade and slavery, and the nobility associated with the tsarist administrative apparatus and temples and living at the expense of traditional forms of exploitation of the rural population. The clash of interests resulted in palace coups, dynastic wars, urban uprisings, and demands for complete autonomy of cities from the tsarist power. The struggle at the top sometimes merged with the struggle of the masses against tax oppression, usury and enslavement, and then dynastic wars developed into a kind of civil wars.
Roman diplomacy played a significant role in inciting the dynastic struggle within the Hellenistic states and in pushing them against each other. Thus, on the eve of the third Macedonian war (171-168 BC), the Romans managed to achieve almost complete isolation of Macedonia. Despite the attempts of the king of Macedonia Perseus to win over the Greek city-states through democratic reforms (he announced the cashing of state debts and the return of the exiles), only Epirus and Illyria joined him. After the defeat of the Macedonian army under Pydna, the Romans divided Macedonia into four isolated districts, banned the development of mines, the extraction of salt, the export of timber (this became a monopoly of the Romans), as well as the purchase of real estate and the conclusion of marriages between residents of different districts. In Epirus, the Romans destroyed most of the cities and sold more than 150 thousand inhabitants into slavery, in Greece they revised the boundaries of the policies.
The reprisals against Macedonia and Epirus, interference in the internal affairs of the Greek city-states caused open protests against Roman rule: the revolt of Andrisk in Macedonia (149-148 BC) and the revolt of the Achaean Union (146 BC), brutally suppressed by the Romans. Macedonia was turned into a Roman province, the unions of the Greek city-states were dissolved, and an oligarchy was established. The mass of the population was taken out and sold into slavery, Hellas came to a state of impoverishment and desolation.
War between Egypt and the Seleucid kingdom
While Rome was busy subjugating Macedon, war broke out between Egypt and the Seleucid kingdom. In 170, and then in 168 BC. NS. Antiochus IV made campaigns in Egypt, captured and besieged Alexandria, but the intervention of Rome forced him to abandon his intentions. Meanwhile, a rebellion broke out in Judea, triggered by a tax hike. Antiochus, suppressing it, built a fortress of Akru in Jerusalem and left a garrison there, power in Judea was assigned to the "Hellenists", the Jewish religion was prohibited, the cult of Greek deities was introduced. This repression caused in 166 BC. NS. a new uprising, which grew into a popular war against the rule of the Seleucids. In 164 BC. NS. the rebels, led by Judas Maccabee, took Jerusalem and laid siege to Acre. Judas Maccabee appropriated to himself the rank of high priest, distributed priestly positions regardless of nobility and confiscated the property of the Hellenists. In 160 BC. NS. Demetrius I defeated Judas Maccabeus and sent his garrisons into the Jewish cities. But the struggle of the Jews did not stop.
After the invasion of Antiochus in Egypt, an uprising arose in the nomes of Central Egypt, led by Dionysus Petosarapis (suppressed in 165), and an uprising in Panopolis. At the same time, dynastic wars began, which became especially fierce at the end of the 2nd century. BC NS. The economic situation in the country was very difficult. A significant part of the land was empty, the government, in order to ensure their cultivation, introduced a compulsory lease. The life of most of the Laoi, even from the point of view of the tsarist administration, was miserable. Official and private legal documents of that time testify to the anarchy and arbitrariness that reigned in Egypt: anachoresis, tax evasion, seizure of foreign lands, vineyards and property, appropriation of temple and state revenues by private individuals, enslavement of the free - all these phenomena have become widespread. Local administration, strictly organized and dependent on the central government under the first Ptolemies, turned into an uncontrollable force interested in personal enrichment. From her greed, the government was forced by special decrees - the so-called decrees of philanthropy - to protect the farmers and artisans associated with, in order to get their share of the income from them. But the decrees could only temporarily or partially stop the decline of the Ptolemaic state economic system.
Further advancement of Rome into Asia and the collapse of the Hellenistic states
Having pacified Greece and Macedonia, Rome launched an offensive against the states of Asia Minor. Roman merchants and usurers, penetrating into the economies of the states of Asia Minor, increasingly subordinated the domestic and foreign policies of these states to the interests of Rome. Pergamum found itself in the most difficult situation, where the situation was so tense that Attal III (139-123 BC), not hoping for the stability of the existing regime, bequeathed his kingdom to Rome. But neither this act, nor the reform that was tried to be known after his death, could not prevent a popular movement that swept the whole country and directed against the Romans and the local nobility. For more than three years (132-129 BC), the rebellious farmers, slaves and the unequal population of the cities under the leadership of Aristonikos resisted the Romans. After the suppression of the uprising, Pergamum was turned into the province of Asia.
Instability is growing in the Seleucid state. Following Judea, separatist tendencies are also manifested in the eastern satrapies, who are beginning to orient themselves towards Parthia. The attempt of Antiochus VII Sidet (138-129 BC) to restore the unity of the state ended in defeat and his death. This led to the falling away of Babylonia, Persia and Media, which came under the rule of Parthia or local dynasts. At the beginning of the 1st century. BC NS. Commagene and Judea became independent.
The sharpest dynastic struggle was a vivid expression of this crisis. For 35 years, 12 pretenders have changed on the throne, often two or three kings ruled at the same time. The territory of the Seleucid state was reduced to the limits of Syria proper, Phenicia, Kelesiria and part of Cilicia. Large cities sought to obtain full autonomy or even independence (tyranny in, Tire, Sidon, etc.). In 64 BC. NS. the kingdom of the Seleucids was annexed to Rome as a province of Syria.
Kingdom of Pontus and Mithridates
In the 1st century. BC NS. The focus of resistance to Roman aggression was the Pontic kingdom, which under Mithridates VI Eupator (120-63 BC) extended its power to almost the entire Black Sea coast. In 89 BC. NS. Mithridates Eupator began a war with Rome, his speech and democratic reforms were supported by the population of Asia Minor and Greece, ruined by the Roman usurers and publicans. By order of Mithridates, 80 thousand Romans were killed in Asia Minor in one day. By 88, he easily occupied almost all of Greece. However, the successes of Mithridates were short-lived. His arrival did not improve the life of the Greek city-states, the Romans managed to inflict a number of defeats on the Pontic army, and the subsequent social events of Mithridates - cassation of debts, division of land, granting citizenship to the Methecs and slaves - deprived him of support among the wealthy strata of citizens. In 85, Mithridates was forced to admit that he was defeated. He twice more - in 83-81 and 73-63. BC NS. tried, relying on anti-Roman sentiments, to stop the penetration of the Romans into Asia Minor, but the alignment of social forces and trends in historical development predetermined the defeat of the Pontic king.
Submission of Egypt
When at the beginning of the 1st century. BC NS. the possessions of Rome came close to the borders of Egypt, the kingdom of the Ptolemies was still shaken by dynastic strife and popular movements. Around 88 BC NS. rebellion broke out again in Thebaid, only three years later it was suppressed by Ptolemy IX, who destroyed the center of the uprising -. In the next 15 years, riots took place in the nomes of Central Egypt - in Hermopolis and twice in. In Rome, the question of the subordination of Egypt was repeatedly discussed, but the Senate did not dare to start a war against this still strong state. In 48 BC. NS. Caesar, after an eight-month war with the Alexandrians, limited himself to the annexation of Egypt as an allied kingdom. Only after the victory of Augustus over Antony did Alexandria come to terms with the inevitability of submission to Roman rule, and in 30 BC. NS. the Romans entered Egypt almost without resistance. The last major state collapsed.
The aftermath of the invasion of Rome and the collapse of the Hellenistic states
Hellenistic world as politic system was absorbed by the Roman Empire, but the elements of the socio-economic structure that developed in the Hellenistic era had a huge impact on the development of the Eastern Mediterranean in subsequent centuries and determined its specificity. In the era of Hellenism, a new step was taken in the development of productive forces, a type of state arose - the Hellenistic kingdoms, which combined the features of Eastern despotism with the polis organization of cities; significant changes took place in the stratification of the population, and internal socio-political contradictions reached great tension. In the II-I centuries. BC e., probably for the first time in history, the social struggle took on such diverse forms: the flight of slaves and anachoresis of the inhabitants of the coma, tribal uprisings, unrest and rebellions in cities, religious wars, palace coups and dynastic wars, short-term unrest in the nomes and long popular movements, in which involved different strata of the population, including slaves, and even slave uprisings, which, however, were of a local nature (about 130 BC. 103/102 BC).
During the Hellenistic period, ethnic differences between Greeks and Macedonians lose their former significance, and the ethnic designation "Hellene" acquires a social content and extends to those strata of the population who, according to their social status, can receive an education according to the Greek model and lead an appropriate way of life, regardless of their origin. This socio-ethnic process was reflected in the development and dissemination of a single Greek language, the so-called Koine, which became the language of Hellenistic literature and official language Hellenistic states.
Changes in the economic, social and political spheres affected the change in the socio-psychological appearance of a person of the Hellenistic era. The instability of the external and internal political situation, the ruin, enslavement of some and the enrichment of others, the development of slavery and the slave trade, the movement of the population from one locality to another, from rural settlements to the city and from city to chorus - all this led to a weakening of ties within the civilian collective of the polis, community ties in rural settlements, to the growth of individualism. The polis can no longer guarantee the freedom and material well-being of a citizen, personal ties with representatives of the tsarist administration and the patronage of those in power are beginning to acquire great importance. Gradually, from one generation to the next, there is a psychological restructuring, and a citizen of the polis turns into a subject of the king, not only by formal status, but also by political convictions. All these processes in one way or another influenced the formation of Hellenistic culture.
By the beginning of the III century. BC on the territory of the former Persian state, new states emerged, the largest of which was the Seleucid state, founded by the commander Alexander Seleucus. Media, Persia, Mesopotamia, Northern Syria, part of Asia Minor were included in this kingdom; Seleucus lost his Indian possessions at the end of the 4th century. BC
The Seleucids waged continuous wars with one or another state. Seleucus I himself was killed during a military campaign undertaken by him to capture Thrace and Macedonia. Under his successors, long wars began with the Ptolemies for South Syria. In 262 BC. the ruler of the fortress of Pergamum (northwestern Asia Minor) declared himself king: the Pergamon kingdom arose, where another Macedonian dynasty, the Attalids, ruled. Small kingdoms were also formed, ruled by local dynasties, for example Bithynia and Cappadocia in Asia Minor. In the first half of the 3rd century. BC the tribes of the Galatians (Celts) invaded Asia Minor through the Balkan Peninsula, with whom the Hellenistic rulers had to wage a stubborn struggle. Antiochus I pushed the Galatians back to the interior of Asia Minor. Then the Pergamon king Attalus I (241-197 BC) won a major victory over them; the possessions of the Galatians were limited to the northern regions of Phrygia. Around the middle of the 3rd century. BC, during the reign of Antiochus II, the eastern regions - Bactria and Parthia - separated from the Seleucid state.
The Seleucid dominions expanded again under Antiochus III (223-187 BC), one of the most talented Hellenistic rulers. A feature of his policy was the reliance not only on the Greeks, but also on the ancient local self-governing centers, which ensured him the support of fairly wide layers of the population in different areas of his kingdom. In the army of Antiochus III, besides the Greeks and Macedonians, representatives of numerous tribes and peoples that were part of his power fought. He annexed new territories in Asia Minor, conquered part of Armenia, and defeated the king of Bactria Euthydemus. Antiochus III fought the next (fourth) war with Egypt for Syria. In this war, he was defeated in 217 BC. at the Battle of Raffia. But then, taking advantage of the internal unrest in Egypt and concluding an alliance with Macedonia, he occupied part of southern Syria, Phenicia and Palestine. At this time, Rome intervenes in the affairs of the Eastern Mediterranean: the Romans declared war on Antiochus III. After his defeat at the city of Magnesia (Asia Minor) in 190 BC. the Romans took from Antiochus III part of his possessions, which were divided among the allies of Rome. Among them, a number of Asia Minor regions received Pergamum. First half of the 2nd century BC was the time of the highest heyday of the Pergamon kingdom.
Most of the information on economic history Western Asia III-I centuries. BC, which we have, refers to the kingdom of the Seleucids and Pergamum, but a number of common features inherent in their economic and social system, allows us to characterize the social structure of other Hellenistic states.
Already during the campaigns of Alexander and the struggle of his commanders, there was a division into the royal land proper and the land of cities - self-governing civilian collectives. Alexander's successors continued this policy. In the kingdom of the Seleucids, there was a fund of the royal land, created primarily from the possessions taken from the Persians, and from the tribal territories; significant land holdings were under the control of policies, civil temple communities, local dynasties. Due to the heterogeneity of the regions that were part of their power, the Seleucids did not have the opportunity to create a single organization of economy and management, similar to the Ptolemaic. Although their kingdom was divided into satrapies (led by strategists), local organizations remained within the satrapies; the Seleucids officially addressed their orders to cities, dynasties, temples and tribes.
The entire population and all lands (with the exception of certain large possessions of the nobles, received by them from the king, and the lands of a number of cities) were taxed. The farmers who cultivated the royal land were called "royal people" (laoi); they lived in villages, and the kings taxed the village community as a whole. We do not know if the tax was the same throughout Western Asia; it probably changed depending on local conditions; An inscription from the Sard region (Asia Minor) mentions a monetary tax paid by villages to the royal treasury. The contributions of different villages varied greatly - in accordance with the amount of land and population (for example, three villages together paid 50 gold annually, and the fourth village one - 57 gold). In the Kingdom of Pergamon, there was a monetary capitation taxation of the villagers. The monetary form of the tax led to the fact that losses in the event of a crop failure fell only on farmers. They sold agricultural products in urban markets, which, due to fluctuations in prices, harvests, and the remoteness of the nearest market, led to stratification among farmers. "Tsar's people" were not attached to their own piece of land, but to the community - as taxpayers; due to the severity of taxes, they sometimes fled their villages. The kings did not return the farmers by force; in any case, there is no evidence of this. The resettled farmers remained members of their community: in relation to the central government they acted as "royal people", and in all other respects as comets, community members. In addition to the ancient communities in the Hellenistic states, new village-communities from immigrants arose. Among the inhabitants of one such new village - Pannu, located on the royal land in Asia Minor, there were people with both local and Greek names(the latter are probably former mercenaries or fugitives from Greek cities). Their unification into communities was dictated both by the peculiarities of small-scale farming and by fiscal considerations.
The villages have had communal self-government since pre-Hellenistic times. But in the III-I centuries. BC the village communities are beginning to adopt decrees and record them in the inscriptions on the stone. In this respect, the decree of two villages from the possessions of the Seleucids in Asia Minor in the 3rd century is interesting. BC The villages were on the land of a major tsarist official, the governor of the district; the villages honor him and his subordinates for ransoming the villagers from captivity. The resolution is formulated according to the model of policy decrees: in honor of the "benefactors" festivities should be arranged, sacrifices should be made; they and their descendants are granted the right to sit in the front rows during the village-wide celebrations. Thus, traditional communal organizations perceived Greek forms of self-expression, were constituted on the basis of not only customary law, but also written decrees. Similar decrees (although they will become widespread only in Roman times) appear in other regions of the Hellenistic states. The ability to issue joint decisions on behalf of the community, which assigned certain responsibilities to the entire collective in the present and the future, should have led to an increase in collective self-awareness, a sense of solidarity, and to intensify the activities of the community members.
The Seleucids handed over a significant part of the royal land to their employees, confidants, relatives. The lands received for the service were not the property of their owners and could be taken away by the king: for example, one inscription speaks of the Syrian village of Baitokayka, which the king transfers to the temple and which was previously possessed by a certain Demetrius. In a number of cases, the owner of a plot of the royal land collected money from the villages and paid it to the royal treasury; the farmers, in addition, were obliged to the owner of monetary taxes and labor duties. There were large noble possessions that were virtually independent from the tsarist administration, enjoying a certain immunity. In this respect, the correspondence between King Antiochus III and the strategist of Southern Syria Ptolemy (who went over to the Seleucid side) is characteristic; Antiochus left behind him all his former estates and added new ones. The king gives orders to his officials that all commercial transactions within the possessions of Ptolemy be carried out under the control of the agents of the nobleman, frees his villages from standing, prohibits imposing fines on the property of his people and taking them to work outside his possessions.
Among the royal entourage there were people who did not occupy certain positions, but bore the honorary title "friend of the king" or "friend and relative of the king." Sometimes they were citizens of cities and through them an additional informal connection between the king and the polis was carried out. The king also endowed such confidants with land, and they had the right to attribute their land to any polis, i.e. completely remove it from the control of the royal treasury. In the same way, Antiochus II rewarded his wife Laodice, with whom he separated in order to marry the daughter of Ptolemy II. He sold to Laodike in Asia Minor a village with all its farmland and a fortified house; people (laoi) who came from this village, but who had previously moved to other places, also passed under the rule of Laodice. At the same time, Laodike was exempted from tax to the royal treasury and received the right to assign land to any polis. In addition, Antiochus II gave Laodice and his sons from her the lands in Babylonia, which were attributed to the Babylonian cities. Nothing is known about the position of farmers on the lands assigned to the city. Term laoi not found in city documents. Probably, their position approached that of other non-citizen farmers, and their dependence on the owner of the land was expressed in the payment of taxes.
On the lands transferred to private individuals, in addition to communal farmers, slaves worked; they could live in the same villages as the community members, in separate houses. Using slaves in their farms, landowners adapted to the prevailing form of organization of labor on their lands. It made no sense for the landowner to create an expensive apparatus of control and coercion (to keep overseers, accountants, etc.): living in the village, the slaves were subject to the communal order and control.
Slaves were also used in the royal economy, in particular in the economy of the Pergamon kings of the Attalids. Possessing a compact territory, the Attalids were able to establish a more precise system of government than the Seleucids, although the Pergamon kings also relied on Greek city-states and local temple organizations. Continuous tracts of royal lands (in the Pergamon state there were fewer large cities than in the Seleucids, whose lands would wedge into the royal ones), the concentration of craft mainly in one center - the city of Pergamum - allowed the tsars to exercise constant control over the labor of slaves. Probably, for debts to the state, the commoners were turned into tsarist slaves, and not sold at auction to private individuals, as in Ptolemaic Egypt.
And in the kingdom of the Seleucids, and in Pergamum, a significant part of the royal land was used to organize military-agricultural settlements of the Katek warriors. The land was allocated to the settlement as a whole, and then it was already distributed among the settlers, depending on their position in the army. The katekas in the Seleucid kingdom were mainly Greeks and Macedonians. Over time, a number of military settlements received the status of a policy, while sometimes they were merged with local self-governing collectives. So, in the Hyrcanian valley in Lydia lived the Hyrcanians, resettled there by the Persians from the shores of the Caspian Sea; they formed a self-governing association around the Temple of Artemis. The Macedonian military settlement merged with this union: the united civil community became known as the "Macedonian-Hyrcanian policy".
From a military settlement, in all likelihood, a policy has grown on the banks of the Euphrates, known under the double (local and Greek) name of Dura-Europos. The Greco-Macedonian warriors, who originally constituted the main population of Dura-Europos, were endowed with land. They could sell their plots, although these plots were formally considered the property of the king: in the absence of heirs Claire(put on) returned to the royal treasury. Dura Europos was a fortress that controlled the trade routes along the Euphrates. In the fortress there were representatives of the central government: the strategist - the head of the garrison, epistatus(an official who "supervised" the inner life of the city), tsarist officials who monitored trade and collected duties in favor of the tsar's treasury. On the land assigned to Dura-Europos, as can be seen from later documents, there were also villages with a local population. In the II century. BC Dura-Europos came under the rule of Parthia.
The Pergamon kings, along with the Greeks and Macedonians, attracted people from local peoples (for example, the Mysians) as warriors. According to a letter from one of the Pergamon kings, military colonists (kateks) were given plots of uncultivated land and vineyards for their service. For this land, the kateks paid 1/20 of the grain and 1/10 of the rest of the fruits. Taking a part of the harvest, and not a firm payment, the tsar divided the losses with the kateks in case of natural disasters. In addition, in order to encourage the cultivation of the necessary crops, the king granted the colonists tax-free land for the cultivation of olive trees. In addition to clears received for military service, kateks could buy land from the royal treasury. Childless kateks had the right to bequeath their allotments. Subsequently, land in the Pergamon cathekia, as well as in the military settlements of the Seleucids, began to be bought and sold.
In general, during the III-II centuries. there is a gradual reduction in the actual tsarist land fund - not only due to the transfer of land to private hands, but also due to the transfer of the tsarist land to the cities.
The city, as an organization of free citizens who had certain economic and political privileges, played an important role in the social structure of the countries of Western Asia during the Hellenistic period.
Alexander's successors added many new ones to the old Greek and Eastern urban centers. There is evidence that Seleucus I founded 33 cities. Of course, most cities were not built together. Usually some local settlement was chosen, conveniently located in military and commercial terms, it was expanded, rebuilt, declared a policy and renamed in honor of the founding king or his relatives: this is how Seleucia, Antioch, Apameus, Stratonikey appeared (the last two are named after the queens ) etc. Macedonian veterans, Greek colonists settled in these cities, the local population became their citizens - either who lived here earlier, or resettled from the surrounding towns. The most developed civil-temple communities (for example, in Babylonia, Palestine) retained their structure, and their position in relation to the royal power was in many respects equated to the position of poleis.
Urban development was not only the result of government policy. This process began in the pre-Hellenistic period and continued for a number of subsequent centuries; kings often had to acknowledge the existing situation, granting one or another city that had grown up with the status of a polis. Names of policies such as "Horse Village", "Sacred Village" show that some cities arose from villages. Each self-governing civic collective had a certain territory under its control. The tsars levied taxes from the cities subordinate to them - in cash or in kind (the latter traditionally amounted to tithes).
The political relations between the tsar and the policies were peculiar. The Seleucid monarchy was not perceived by the Greeks as a territorial state in the modern sense. The inhabitants of a country subject to the tsarist government were considered subjects of Seleucus, Antiochus, etc. The royal power of the Seleucids was thus personal in relation to the policies; the official designation of the state in the inscriptions was the expression "such and such a king and his subjects."
In addition to the poleis and civil-temple communities within the Hellenistic monarchies, there were territories under the control of the hereditary priesthood; the kings recognized the internal isolation of such territories (for example, Pessinunta in Asia Minor), but collected taxes from them into the royal treasury and, to a certain extent, controlled their activities. The polis strove to include neighboring temple territories in their districts, and the kings assisted them in this. Thus, there is a long-term dispute between the city of Milas and the priest of the temple in the town of Labraunda: each of the parties claimed to rule this town. Finally, the Seleucids (and then the Macedonian king Philip V who invaded these areas) approved the annexation of Labraunda to Milas.
The kings - both the Seleucids and Attalids, and representatives of local dynasties - increased the land holdings of cities by donating and selling royal land, as well as by annexing smaller cities to larger ones. The creation of large urban centers facilitated the collection of taxes, since the tax was collected from urban areas by police officials, who then transferred part of it to the royal treasury. But the support of the kings of the cities is explained not only by financial considerations: the traditional urban civil community was the most convenient form of organizing a free population among dependent exploited farmers. These organizations during the period of strengthening of the Hellenistic monarchies (III century BC) served as a support for the king and a conductor of his will. The kings strove to put the inner life of the city under their control, the methods of which were different: the placement of military garrisons, direct supervision with the help of special officials-epistats located in the cities; letters of orders from the kings to the cities. There were also indirect methods of intervention: the cities granted (not always of their own free will) the rights of citizenship to the Macedonian military leaders, the tsar's entourage ("the king's friends"); these people influenced the political life of the cities, carrying out the royal will.
In the Seleucid state, the royal cult is spreading, although to a lesser extent than in Egypt. The kings sought to establish a dynastic cult, declaring the origin of the Seleucids from the god Apollo: they founded the sanctuaries of the king and queens, established special priestly offices. Such a cult was supposed to support the dynasty's rights to power; in addition, he united people from the Macedonian entourage of the king, who had lost contact with their "paternal gods." A different role was played by the royal cult in the policies: there he personified the connection of the city with the personality of the king; polis cults were not of a national character: the kings, Seleucids and Attalids, were worshiped only in the city where their cult was established by the decision of the popular assembly (as a rule, they were worshiped together with the patron deity of the city). Thus, the Polis worshiped the tsar-god, but the civic collective, which retained (at least nominally) the highest sovereignty, even in relation to the deity, recognized him as a god. In addition to political motives in the establishment of royal cults, gratitude for good deeds and belief in the supernatural abilities of the rulers (especially those who won victories over their opponents), the hope of finding patron gods in them instead of the former, who lost the trust of the city gods, played a role.
During the heyday of the Seleucid state, which lasted until the beginning of the II century. BC, a relatively strong alliance of the central government with cities, the use of katekiy for control over rural areas ensured the planned exploitation of the masses of the rural population. During this period, one can trace a certain increase in production on the royal and urban lands, the introduction of new agricultural crops. The Seleucids tried to cultivate Indian balm; in Babylonia and Susiana, according to Strabo, rice and new grape varieties were cultivated.
The Hellenistic polis controlled the rural area, part of which was owned by citizens, part was the public fund of the city (pastures that citizens could use for a fee; land leased); in addition, the territory where villages and various types of settlements were located, whose inhabitants did not enjoy civil rights, were subordinate to city officials and paid taxes to the city in money or in kind, was assigned to the policy. Sometimes a large polis took precedence over smaller ones, which retained internal autonomy, but paid taxes to the ruling city. In the dependent policies there were officials sent there from the policy of the dominant.
Rural communities in urban areas enjoyed some internal self-government (there was a village people's assembly), had a communal fund and public lands (usually land around sanctuaries), which were under the control of the communities; For example, in the inscription of one Asia Minor village located on the territory of the polis, it is said about the decision of the village to plant a sacred site: one of the community members who grows at least three trees and keeps them in good condition for five years will be honored for this for the next five years at the annual festival. In addition, the villagers made public contributions (up to 100 drachmas). Farmers were personally free and had freedom of movement.
A characteristic feature of the Hellenistic city was the existence in it different groups population - belonging to different nationalities with different legal status. The civilian collectives of the policies included both Greeks and Macedonians, as well as representatives of the local population: the latter were especially numerous in the newly founded policies and local cities that received the status of the policy. In Seleucia on the Tigris, there is a large number of Babylonians resettled there; in Antioch on Orontes, the Syrians lived along with the Greeks; Antioch-Edessa in Upper Mesopotamia was called semi-barbaric by contemporaries. Citizens of non-Greek origin often adopted Hellenic names, but this was not the rule: in the sources there are references to representatives of the top of the urban population (for example, ambassadors to the king) who bore non-Greek names and patronymics.
In the Hellenistic period, migrations from some regions and cities to others continued. Individual immigrants for special services to the city or the king received full rights of citizenship (among them there were also persons of non-Greek origin); others received only the right to own land without political rights (permission for persons who are not citizens of the city to acquire land on its territory is one of the characteristic differences between the Hellenistic polis and the classical one); sometimes such a right to acquire land was granted mutually to all citizens of the cities negotiating with each other. Settlers from rural areas or other cities, who did not receive any privileges, constituted a lower legal group - parekov, they had the right to live in the city and the district, but not to acquire ownership of land, took part in city festivities. Freedmen could become pareks; the farmers who moved to the city and were included in the lists of pareks lost contact with the rural community. Sometimes settlers of one ethnic group formed a special self-governing organization within the city - polythem. Such polytheumas were formed by the Jews, perhaps also by the Syrians in Antioch on Orontes.
A large number of slaves, both private and public, are concentrated in the Hellenistic city-states. Many slaves were servants in wealthy homes and worked in craft workshops. Public slaves were the lowest employees of the state apparatus, they were used in construction. In the latter case, they received a small daily wage, wages, and clothing. Judging by the materials of the Asia Minor temple in Didyma, slaves received fewer free workers (3 obols per day, while the lowest wage for a free worker was 4.5 obols). During the period of Hellenism, there were quite frequent cases of transferring slaves to "quitrent" - they ran an independent economy and paid certain contributions to their masters. Leave of slaves to freedom was widespread; the freedmen remained bound by certain obligations to their masters; sometimes until the end of their days, as indicated in the documents on the leave of freedom, they had to do "all the work that they did in slavery." Children born as a slave before the release of freedom remained slaves, unless their release was specifically agreed. According to the laws of some policies, it was necessary to specifically stipulate the right of a freedman to free exit from the city. Freedmen sometimes paid off their duties with money. From their freedmen and trusted slaves, the wealthy tended to recruit estate stewards, workshop overseers, and sales agents.
In addition to slaves and freedmen, free workers were used in public, primarily construction, work, who were supplied in abundance by rural districts, where the development of commodity-money relations led to the ruin of farmers. Free artisans could work in private workshops, and it is difficult to determine whose labor prevailed - slaves or free.
The internal self-government of the Hellenistic polis in form resembled the self-government of the Greek polis of the classical period: there was a popular assembly, bule(council), elected officials. However, such an important democratic body as a court elected from among all citizens in the III-I centuries. was dying away. It was widespread to invite judges from other cities to deal with internal disputes, which, given the stratification of the civilian collective, could not always be resolved on their own. Sometimes the tsarist officials acted as judges. Only a small number of cases were tried by elected judges.
In the Hellenistic policies, officials gradually begin to play an ever greater role, and a lesser role of the people's assembly. A number of positions, in particular some priestly positions, were sold. For the period of the III-I centuries. BC characterized by a sharp stratification among the population of the city. The existence of direct taxation in most policies based in Asia contributed to this stratification. Debtors of the city treasury in a number of policies were deprived of their civil rights. This process was somewhat softened by the availability of a public land fund that citizens could rent, and more significant distributions than in the previous period. Distributions were also made to the non-civilian population, sometimes to slaves, as a rule, during general city religious festivals. Thus, non-citizens, who accumulated in large numbers in the cities, to some extent were included in the life of the civil community.
The mixing of the population in the poleis, the decline in the political activity of citizens in the cities subordinated to the tsarist government, led to a weakening of ties within the civilian community. A natural reaction to this process was the desire to create private associations: various kinds of cult unions, partnerships not associated with a political organization - neither with the polis, the crisis of which was acutely felt at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, nor with the bureaucratic-monarchical, still alien to the Greek consciousness. In cities, associations are spreading, including people of different ethnic origins and different social status. So, for example, in one of the small towns of Asia Minor there was a union, which included people from four different cities, local residents and slaves. In another city there was a small religious community, which included the Greeks, Phrygian, Thracian, Phoenician, Pisidian (a people in Asia Minor), Libyan. As a rule, such unions consisted of a small number of people who knew each other well enough.
Union members made joint sacrifices, organized dinners and festivities. Private associations strengthened ties between city dwellers, including non-citizens, and certainly influenced social life policies.
In the Hellenistic period, civil temple communities continued to develop in various regions of Western Asia. The cities of Babylonia are examples of such communities. In these cities, there was a well-formed civic collective formed as a result of the gradual merger of the wealthy strata of the city's population with the temple staff. At the time indicated, most of the members of this collective were not actually temple ministers: among them, many artisans were noted; cuneiform contracts mention slave owners and land plots(both inside and outside the city limits). But all these people were associated with the temple, in particular, receiving allowance from it - a certain amount of food. The right to receive allowance was once associated with the performance of duties for the benefit of the temple. Already in more ancient times, this right was freely sold, and in parts (for example, one sixth or one twelfth of the right to allowance due on certain days of each month); during the period described, a woman could also buy the right to allowance associated with a male position. Thus, this right was no longer associated with the performance of office and remained a privilege of members of the civilian collective, which they could freely transfer to each other.
There were congregations in Babylonian cities, presided over by an economist (shatammu) temples; these meetings resolved property issues, imposed fines, and honored tsarist officials. Like the policies, such cities had a vast rural district, the land of which was partly owned by citizens, partly cultivated by the dependent rural population, who paid taxes to this city-temple. Private lands received from the king could be attributed to such cities as well as to policies. In Babylonian cities, as in a number of policies, there were royal officials - epistats (from local citizens).
Another type of civil temple community was Asia Minor associations around sanctuaries. We are well aware of one such city - Milas. Milasa is a famous religious center of the Carians; Herodotus wrote about her in the 5th century. BC The inhabitants of Milasa were divided into phylae, which were associations around the temples. The Philae, in turn, were divided into syngenia - small communities that had a common sanctuary. The land of the sanctuary was the land of the community, it was distributed among the citizens, who elected officials in charge of the "sacred" treasury. In the IV century. BC Milasa is called a polis, but retains a number of specific features, in particular, the comparative independence of phyla and syngenia. The temple lands were actually public land; the distribution of land here took the form of a lease. But the terms of the lease were comparatively lenient to give access to land and poor citizens; there was also a collective lease, when the land was rented by the entire Singenia community as a whole, and then it was already distributing the plots among the citizens. On the example of the Asia Minor civil-temple communities, it is especially clear that the public land fund was used to support poor citizens.
The Hellenistic period was characterized not only by the development of policies and civil-temple communities, but also by the desire of all these self-governing cities to form closer alliances with each other, often with mutual citizenship (citizens of one policy, moving to another, automatically received citizenship rights in it). The existence of alliances made it possible for cities to resist pressure from the Hellenistic rulers and to develop their economies more successfully. A typical example of such a union in the eastern regions of the Mediterranean was the union of the cities of Lycia. According to Strabo, this union included 23 cities. The representatives of the Lycian cities from time to time gathered in some city for a general council - Sanhedrin. The largest cities had three votes in this Sanhedrin, the middle ones had two, and the others had one vote each. The head of the union was elected at the Sanhedrin - lyciarch, chief of cavalry and treasurer. The cities of the Lycian Union had a public treasury, general courts. In fact, the most important affairs of the union were decided by large cities, which were called "the metropolises of the Lycian people", and the citizens of these cities held public positions. Citizens of the metropolises received the rights of citizenship in all other policies of the union and the right to own land in them. The official and written languages in the Lycian union, along with the Aramaic inherited from the Achaemenid chanceries, were also Lycian and Greek.
The exchange between the western and eastern regions, the emergence of cities as handicraft centers in previously economically backward areas led to the spread of technical achievements and production skills; this is especially true for mass production such as pottery. High-quality dishes were made in various places - in the cities of Greece, the Aegean archipelago, Asia Minor, southern Italy, Egypt. Moreover, if the unique gold and silver vessels that were used at the courts of the Hellenistic rulers were made by special craftsmen for special orders, then ceramics for more or less wealthy strata of citizens were made in different centers according to the same pattern.
The development of exchange in the Hellenistic states led to a change in coinage. Alexander has already issued a large number of gold coins in addition to small coins (staters) and silver tetradrachms. A significant part of the precious metals that lay in the treasuries of the Persian kings was put into circulation. The Hellenistic kings minted coins of the same denominations as Alexander; an image of the king was placed on the obverse of the coin. Coins of the royal minting were used for international exchange: archaeologists find them far beyond the territories of the Hellenistic states. Self-governing cities minted their own coins (often imitating the tsarist, especially Alexander's, coinage), but it, as a rule, was in circulation only in domestic markets.
However, the development of the economy was hampered by endless military clashes between the Hellenistic monarchies - the struggle between the Ptolemies and Seleucids, Seleucids and Parthia led to the ruin of cities and the disruption of trade relations. This was one of the reasons that, starting from the II century. BC the top of the population of a number of Hellenistic city-states are in support of the new great power - Rome. Another reason for the pro-Roman position of some of the wealthy strata was the aggravation in the Hellenistic states of the 2nd-1st centuries. BC socio-political struggle.
This struggle in Asia Minor and Asia Minor in the last centuries before the Christian era was complex and involved various segments of the population. Thus, the struggle in Judea against the power of the Seleucids, which will be discussed later, was directed not only against foreign rule, but also against the strengthening of the noble Jewish families that supported the policy of Hellenization. A number of large city-states opposed dependence on the central government; during the wars between the Hellenistic monarchs (Seleucids and Ptolemies, Philip V of Macedon and Pergamum), as well as during the military clashes with Rome, the cities passed from one side to the other.
In ancient times, Central Asia was a region with its own traditions of political development. Bactria was one of the centers of the Persian civilization and had a certain independence during the Achaemenid era. The arrival of the Macedonian invaders in the region included Central Asia in the sphere of influence of the new states. Bactria and Sogdiana became a region where local traditions intertwined with Greek ones, and the easternmost of the Hellenistic states was formed. Khorezm continued its state traditions rooted in the era before its submission to the rulers of the Achaemenid state.
Bactria, Sogdiana and Khorezm were part of the Achaemenid Empire. Presumably, these provinces had a certain degree of independence due to their remoteness from the center of the empire.
Alexander invaded Central Asia after the defeat of the Persian Empire. Local rulers and tribes, freed from the Persian power, decided to become independent. In the course of two years, the Macedonian army, in a series of small battles and seizures of mountain fortresses, established control over Sogdiana and Bactria during 329-327 BC. In the course of subjugating the regions, Alexander founded Macedonian military colonies there.
During the wars between the Diadochi, Bactria and Sogdiana, united into one satrapy, were part of the formally existing empire. Around 305 BC they were annexed to the state of Seleucus I and became part of the state of his successors.
Greco-Bactrian kingdom
Around 250 BC the satrap of Bactria Diodotus declared himself an independent king. After a while, Diodotus I and the Seleucids fought together against the Parthians who had invaded Central Asia. Probably for this the Seleucids recognized the royal title of the ruler of Bactria.
Under Diodotus II, Bactria became an ally of Parthia and broke the alliance with the Seleucids. Together they defeated the troops of Seleucus II. The rapprochement of Diodotus II with Parthia aroused the discontent of the nobility, and the king was killed by Euthydemus, who proclaimed himself the new king.
During the reign of Euthydemus, Antiochus III, king of the Seleucid state, invaded Bactria. The king of Syria defeated the Bactrians in battle and laid siege to the capital. After two years of siege, Antiochus and Euthydemus concluded a treaty in 206 BC. Euthydemus retained the royal title, but recognized dependence on the Seleucids.
Under Demetrius I, who ruled in the 190-170s. BC, Bactria expanded its borders to the east - Arachosia and a number of territories in the north-west of Hindustan were annexed.
Around 171 BC the commander Eucratides rebelled against Demetrius. He managed to subjugate the entire Greco-Bactrian kingdom, including the Indian possessions, to his power. But during his reign, the war with Parthia resumed and the western regions: Turivu and Aspiona were lost.
After the assassination of Eucratides around 145 BC. the weakening of Bactria began. The state was going through turmoil, some military leaders in satrapies proclaimed themselves kings. Greco-Bactria and Greco-India officially became different states. Around 129 BC Bactria was invaded by the Yuezhi nomads, who destroyed this Hellenistic kingdom.
Khorezm
Khorezm has been a state dependent on Achaemenid Persia since the era of Cyrus the Great. During the invasion of Persia by the Macedonians, the ruler of Khorezm, Farasman, made an alliance with Alexander. Later he supported Spitamen, a Persian nobleman who fought a partisan war against the Macedonians.
Little is known about Khorezm from ancient sources. But this state is identified with the Kangyui kingdom of the Chinese sources. Khorezm in the II century BC fought against the Hellenistic states. About 175 BC the Khorezmians occupied Sogdiana, which belonged to Greco-Bactria.
Around 100 BC Khorezm allows itself to challenge the China of the Han dynasty. Khorezm troops forced the Chinese to lift the siege of the state of Fergana. In the same era, the tribes of the Alans were subject to Khorezm, and the peoples of the forest Urals paid tribute.
In the 1st century A.D. the rise of the Massaget people of the Kushans begins. Their ruler Kadfiz refused to acknowledge his vassal dependence on Khorezm. He subdued Sogdiana with Bactria and defeated the Saks with the Parthians. In the middle or second half of the 1st century A.D. Khorezm became part of the Kushan state. He retained partial independence within this empire. Later, Khorezm was part of the Sassanid empire.
Result: Central Asia on the verge of a new era
The Greco-Bactrian kingdom became the most eastern of the states that appeared on the site of Alexander's empire. The influence of Hellenism in this region was relatively weak, and Bactria did not become the center of Hellenic culture like Egypt or Pergamum.
With the arrival of nomadic conquerors in the region, the Greco-Macedonian states and ancient Khorezm ceased to exist. In the first centuries of the new era, Central Asia became part of a new world - the eastern empires of the Parthians and Yuezhi. Hellenistic influence in the region was wiped out.
Hellenistic cities are scattered throughout the Mediterranean, but most of them were and survived in Asia Minor or, otherwise, in Anatolia, in the territory of modern Turkey. The cities, known for their large-scale architectural ensembles, lay in the valleys and on the slopes of the mountains. When the topography allowed, they made a rectangular layout of the agora Agora - the market square in the cities of Ancient Greece, the center of public and business life. and quarters. It was combined with the lines of other elements of the plan freely lying on the relief. Many, many cities, absorbed in new restructuring, have been lost forever. But some survived. In some places the quarters have sunk into the sea, in other cases the sea has receded. And such cities, long abandoned by residents, are now especially interesting. These are Priene and Miletus, who once stood on the opposite shores of a large bay, these are Ephesus, Halicarnassus, Pergamum, Aphrodisia, Xanthos, you can list the names of the ancient cities of Anatolia for a long time. Let's consider some of them, although the Greeks traditionally (and unfairly) consider the ancient cities of Asia Minor something secondary to the monuments of Athens, Olympia, Epidaurus.
The variety and uniqueness of compositions within the city correspond to the infinite variability of spatial compositions of cities. One of the best is the composition of Ephesus. It is based on a complex spatial axis leading from one architectural node to another. It began with a paved street with colonnades on both sides. Its perspective was closed by the open bowl of a huge theater lying on a hillside. The street was a trading street, lined with shops, and it led to the agoras that lay at the foot of the theater. At right angles to Torgovaya street, from the theater there was a second, Marble street, which continued the spatial axis. The corner between Torgovaya and Mramornaya streets was occupied by agoras. The second break in the axis is marked by the library building. Now its façade has been restored from ruins.
The last segment of the compositional axis freely lies in a hollow between two hills, bending slightly, goes up from the library and after half a kilometer leads to the second social and administrative center, where a gymnasium, an odeon (it has not yet been established whether it was a theater or a meeting hall), a stadium, temples. The street called Kuretes is especially interesting. On both sides, lanes ran down the hills toward her, lined with residential buildings. Along the street itself there were rich houses, interspersed with small sanctuaries, fountains, baths. There is a blank wall along part of the street near the second center. It served as a background for the installation of statues of prominent people of Ephesus. The custom to erect such statues sometimes existed in other Greek cities.
As a major trade, craft and administrative center, Ephesus existed for a long time, from the 2nd millennium BC. NS. and up to the Middle Ages. However, its compositional formation took place in the classical and Hellenistic periods of the development of Greek architecture. Roman times added only representative buildings, a stadium, gymnasiums, Therma baths - antique baths in classical Greece - at large houses and gymnasiums; during the Hellenistic period, they were used by the entire population of the city., erected around the public center. What was the population of Ephesus is not yet clear. They call figures from 30 to 300 thousand. Which is more correct, it will be possible to say only after large-scale excavations.
The yet unsolved phenomenon of Ephesus lies in the fact that some of its key points are located at a distance of 2-3 kilometers from each other. It is this distance that separates the community center with a harbor, theater and agoras from the famous temple of Artemis of Ephesus, standing at the foot of a steep hill, seemingly intended by nature to be the acropolis Acropolis - (Greek "high city"), in Athens, a large limestone rock , towering 70-80 meters above the surrounding city, with an almost flat platform at the top .. At the beginning of our era Ephesus was recognized as one of the most beautiful and largest cities Roman Empire along with Alexandria and Pergamum.
The difference between Pergamum and Miletus, Reception, Ephesus was that it was not a democratic polis, but the capital of tyranny. This difference significantly affected the composition of the city. If in the cities of ancient democracies, the center of the composition were groups of public buildings and structures, freely and conveniently embedded in natural environment, then in Pergamon the tyrant's palace, ascended to the top of a steep mountain, became the compositional center.
Pergamum was a unique example of Hellenistic urban planning art. Unlike most cities of this period, Pergamum did not have a regular street layout, but developed freely at the foot of the acropolis. Pergamum was a well-developed city. Streets 10 meters wide were paved with stones and equipped with gutters. The city was surrounded by walls with several gates, among which the southern gate was the main one. The city had two squares - the Upper and Lower Markets, as well as three gymnasiums and an excellent library, the second after Alexandria in terms of the number of books. The main street-road, starting at the southern gate, following the folds of the relief, led to the acropolis. After passing the market of the lower town and gymnasiums, located on three terraces, she climbed the upper agora, located at an altitude of 250 meters above sea level. Having overcome the rise of another 40 meters, the road approached the entrance to the acropolis, behind which it continued and ended at the royal gardens, later occupied by the arsenal. On the right side of the road were the royal palaces, famous for their interior decoration and magnificent mosaic floors. On the left side of the road was the Sanctuary of Athena with a monumental entrance in the form of propylae. From the north, the Pergamon Library adjoined the sanctuary of Athena, the floor level of which was at the level of the second floor of the gallery that surrounded the sanctuary. Descending from the sanctuary 25 meters lower, one could get to the terrace on which the Great Altar of Zeus was located, erected by the Pergamon king Attalus I in the first half of the II century. BC NS. The altar was built to commemorate the victory of the Pergamon troops over the Galatian tribes. It was decorated with a beautiful sculptural frieze 120 meters long and 2.5 meters high depicting the battle of the gods with giants.
Thus, the Pergamon Acropolis represented several ensembles completely isolated from each other, however, due to the excess of one over the other and the possibility of observation, the illusion of the spatial integrity of these ensembles was created. The Pergamon Acropolis was the final link in the development of the Greek acropolis, the pinnacle of monumental urban planning.
The ancient city of Halicarnassus is no less famous than Pergamum and Ephesus. This Greek city on the coast of Asia Minor, the birthplace of the "father of history" Herodotus, was the capital of the Carian kingdom. The city was famous for the huge temple of Ares, decorated with a statue by Leohard, and the temple of Aphrodite with a sacred spring, which was attributed to magical properties.
In this city in the first half of the 4th century BC. construction began on a structure that became one of the wonders of the world - the tomb of King Mavsol and Queen Artemisia. The tomb was created by the best architects - Pytheas and Satyr, and the best sculptors - Scopas, Leohard, Briaxides, Timofey. This structure, like most of the wonders of the world, has not survived to our time and is known only from ancient descriptions and the results of archaeological excavations. It was a grandiose structure - 46 meters high with a rectangular base, combining Greek and Oriental, more precisely Egyptian styles in architecture (stepped pyramids at the base and in the upper part and order style in the middle.) The mausoleum was richly decorated with sculptures and friezes. Inside the tomb were statues of Mavsol and Artemisia.
The tomb was built for several decades - it was completed by the grandson of Mavsol.
The beauty, proportionality, majesty of this structure, as well as its special, spiritual purpose, made the tomb one of the wonders of the world. Moreover, since then, all structures of this kind have come to be called mausoleums.
Until the 15th century, the tomb stood, having survived almost all other miracles, except for the pyramids. Rulers, religions, states changed, but the Mausoleum, although damaged by earthquakes, was surrounded by superstitious veneration. And only in the 15th century, after 1800 years, the ignorant crusaders destroyed the Mausoleum, building a fortress from its wreckage.
The synthesis of Eastern and Greek elements embraced all spheres of life of ancient Greek and ancient Eastern society and spread all the way to Northern India. In the area of the Near and Middle East, there are many vivid examples of this fusion of cultures.
Sogdiana (modern Samarkand) occupied the territory of modern Tajikistan, southern Uzbekistan and northern Afghanistan. Sogdian art personified the interconnection and mutual influence of the cultures of the countries Central Asia, India, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan. Sogdian masterpieces of ancient and medieval art are a synthesis of the creative genius of the Uzbeks, Tajiks, Iranians, Hindus, Azerbaijanis, Uighurs, Afghans, Turkmen and other peoples who, together, have made a significant contribution to the development of world culture.
Architectural monuments of Sogdiana, squares, streets are stone pages of history, leafing through which, we have the opportunity to delve into the glorious past of the city. And although the ruthless hand of time has touched most of the magnificent buildings, these creations are justly admired today.
We cannot but admire the ruins of the once majestic Bibi Khanym mosque, the turquoise dome of the Guri-Emir mausoleum. These and many other masterpieces occupy an outstanding place in the history of world architecture and, in terms of their artistic merit, are on a par with the famous architectural monuments of Egypt, India, Iran, ancient Greece and ancient Rome.
Historians and geographers of the past report that the streets and squares of modern Samarkand were paved with stones many centuries before pavements appeared in Paris and London. And this evidence is confirmed by the latest archaeological research at the Afrosiab settlement.
The finest, original genre wall painting, discovered during the last excavations in Samarkand, as well as ceramics and clay sculpture, testify that already in ancient times the city was rich in outstanding and even outstanding talents. In their creations, the artists achieved striking perfection of drawing, lightness and liveliness of colors, grace and thoughtfulness of ornamental patterns.
They painted their ceramics, walls of houses, panels of palaces of rulers, ceilings of temples surprisingly delicately with flowers, shoots, leaves, and often with stylized images of wild animals, birds, fish, often fantastic.
Until the time when Islam, together with the Arab conquerors, established itself in Samarkand, categorically forbidding the depiction of living beings, Samarkand sculptors created amazing sculptures of people and animals.
Already in the oldest historical documents and chronicles, Samarkand is glorified as the center of scientific thought and culture. The history of the city is associated with the names of prominent scientists and poets of the East - Rudaki, Alisher Navoi, Jami, Omar Khayyam, and, especially, who entered on a par with Ptolemy, Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Copernicus in the history of astronomy of the martyr of science, the outstanding scientist Ulugbek.
Over the centuries, the ancient city was constantly involved in a whirlpool of turbulent events. Periods of brilliant flourishing of science and culture, arts and crafts were followed by complete decline under the blows of half-savage, greedy conquerors. There were decades when Samarkand was deprived of almost the entire population, but powerful vital forces again made their way to the surface, and the city rose like a phoenix from the ashes and ruins.
Based on the synthesis of local and borrowed elements in the 4th and 3rd centuries. BC NS. the original artistic culture of Khorezm was formed. In the visual arts of the first centuries. n. NS. Hellenistic influences appeared, perceived through the Parthians and Kushans. Distinctive features of the architecture of ancient Khorezm - massive and laconic volumes, stinginess of outdoor decor - are due to the predominance of building materials made of loess clay (pakhsa, adobe brick). Along with the vaults, beam ceilings on columns were used. The traditional stone bases are in the shape of a pot on a 3-step square base. Cities, usually rectangular in plan, with regular quarterly buildings on the sides of the axial street, are fortified with walls with shooting galleries and towers (Kyuzeli-Gir). In separate blocks or palace complexes temples and sanctuaries were erected with a paved area for the sacred fire. The palaces included ceremonial courtyards, halls, and numerous rooms connected by corridors. Toprak-Kala Palace was raised on high plinths (about 15 and 25 meters). Burial structures are represented by tower-like structures with a cruciform layout at the settlement of Kyuzeli-Gyr (5th century BC) and a cylindrical temple-mausoleum of Koi-Krylgan-Kala (4th - 3rd centuries BC). Rural houses, usually pakhs, had living and utility rooms located along the sides of a corridor or courtyard.
The painting and sculpture of Khorezm developed in synthesis with architecture, were imbued with the ideas of glorifying the fruitful forces of nature and the deification of the royal power (Toprak-Kala, painted clay statues and bas-reliefs, multicolored paintings with mineral paints). Terracotta figurines are widespread: the goddess of fertility, depicted in the tradition of the Near Asian coroplasty Coroplastic - (from the Greek kore - a girl, a female figurine, a doll and plastike - sculpture), the production of female figurines from baked clay, wax, plaster, etc., widespread in Ancient Greece ... , figurines of horses, less often there are male characters in "Scythian" clothes. In the 4th and 3rd centuries. BC NS. made ceramic flasks with bas-reliefs of mythological content.
The Kushan kingdom, despite its important role in the history of the ancient world, has been poorly studied. The general contours of the political history of the Kushan kingdom are drawn from the reports of Chinese and Roman authors and from the analysis of the Kushan coins and a few inscriptions. The exact chronology of the history of the Kushan kingdom has not yet been established.
The Kushan kingdom arose approximately at the turn of the century. e., more than a hundred years after the defeat of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom by nomads, who formed a number of separate principalities. One of these principalities in Bactria, led by a tribe or clan of the Kushans, became the core of the Kushan kingdom.
A characteristic feature of the Kushan culture is its close relationship with cities and the spread of urbanized culture in the countryside.
In Kushan architecture, sculpture and painting, a certain reflection and refraction was found by three artistic traditions... First of all, these are very ancient traditions of the Bactrian culture with its great achievements in the field of monumental architecture. The second most important component was Greek art, whose deep roots in Bactria were determined both by a significant number of Greco-Macedonian colonists and by the penetration of Hellenistic traditions into the local environment. Finally, the third component was the art of India.
In Kushan architecture, as evidenced by excavations, the external monumental splendor of the palace and temple complexes was combined with the splendor of the interior decoration. Painterly and sculptural compositions consistently and with great detail deployed religious scenes and group portraits of members of the royal family surrounded by soldiers and servants on the walls of temples and palaces.
Considering the Parthian culture as an example of the synthesis of Eastern and Greek cultures, we can say that, very high development reached Parthian architecture: despite the clear predominance of Hellenistic techniques and traditions in it, the "face" of Parthian architecture determines their combination with ancient Eastern architectural heritage(domed vaults of a special design, a large development of premises open to the courtyard under the vault or on pillars).
In the visual arts of different regions of Parthia, local features often look like smoothed out - primarily because artists in distant regions of the Parthian state often followed the same Hellenistic patterns, filling them, however, with their own content (as was the case, for example, with images deities in Hatra). The wide distribution of a certain set of Hellenistic plots and images (the figure of Hercules was especially popular, for example), purely external attributes of often reinterpreted images is characteristic at this time for a vast territory - from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean. Some areas, such as Pars, were less affected by these trends of the era, others more.
The Hellenistic cities are one of the brightest impressions from that period, their intensive construction is an indicator of the development of the Hellenistic economy.
