Twin Dynamics Of Greece

[Neos Dionysos]

To get a little kick in the pants here on some Hellenephile threads I propose this...

 

 

The Greek world had at it's core two dynamics to its history, Particularism and Pan-Hellenism and through these dynamics we can see how city-states, (depending on which side they took), furthered either the continued fractionism of the Greek world into competing city-states or those men or cities who at times, realized they must be joined together in brotherhood to withstand outside threat and influence.

 

Particularism embodied an identity with one's own immediate community and due to the terrain of Greece, helped isolate some city-states and so one would be attached to the city-state rather than as a 'Greek' and so could see his ethnic brothers as different. Lines would draw as, Athenians, Spartans, Cortinians, Thebans etc, just the same as one would say Persians, Romans, but to the Greeks they were city-states, and to the outside they were simply Greeks.

 

Pan-Hellenism is the identity of the individual city-state as being under the greater position of Greece as a united people, culture, society. There was no difference's in this mindset with those from Athens or Thebes, they simply hailed from those cities but they are 'Greeks'. This allowed for the potential for the Greek world to be joined together to oppose a great outside threat, and succeed.

 

I would like to ask everyone thier opinions on the matter, I personally think Pan-Hellenism was a very rare event and that Particularism was the major school of thought which took hold of most Greeks and the reason they were never able to truely become a dominate force in the Mediterranian or the world, for a more than a very short time.

[Furius Venator]

I'd completely agree. Each city state was just that with the emphasis on 'state'. Self-interest was the name of the game and alliances were formed only if they served the interests of each particular state (that would include becoming part of the Athenian League or similar through pressure).

 

Pan Hellenism was I think really a philosophical notion, used by unscrupulous politicians (tautology!) as a rallying cry or pretext perhaps but in reality it was probably only existed that the Greeks considered other Greeks 'better' than foreigners, though they might actually hate fellow Greeks more!

[Segestan]

I would agree with your analysis in general. However; the city-state was the main reason the Hellenic world survived as long as it did, that is maintain cultural identity. The city- state mentailty was To the conquering enemy, it was by far more difficult to besiege a host of independent peoples rather than remove the head of a single state and it's political tenticles. Easier to conquer the world when the world is under the power of one ideology.

The whole underlying ideology was Monarchy vs Democracy. Could on superior man lead with justice or would a collection of persons given the power of representation provide a better more stable way of life?

 

aka.....Platonic vs Aristolean.

 

The fall of Hellenism was in part due to the untimely death of Alexander the Great and his not naming a direct line of power. He had no choice but to let the players play it out. All of his generals had however no desires to become the King until his death , and then they only knew war as the answers to that end. It was the Diadochi who was entrusted but they did not yet have the right players in the rights places. The City-State was under Macedonian garrisons , that is the power of the Royal Monarchy , and this was a none goverable condition. to make matters worse , the easiest way to remain in power was conquest. There were alliances all over and they all rested on self-serving interest within the Alliance whatever that might be. The city-State was also the Home of pirates, Wealthy powerful pirtates.

Political fragmentaion was bad in the hellenic world but ouitside that the world was savage and barbaric. Very tough to put those many tribe-cities and cultures interest under one political -idealogical roof!

If - a Big if-- but the Hellenic world would have conquered the whole world , if only a single Leader would have arisen to forge a powerful moral minded Monarchy under the direction f the Aristolean ideology? This was the role of Alexander. The successors , the Diadochi, failed to that end.

 

But as I said; In the main your view is a correct historical one.

 

 

regards,

[Kosmo]

I'll say that panhellenism never played a political role other that of propaganda. Something like the christian empire dreamed by teologians in the Middle Ages. But, the particularity of the city-state was very often replaced by many larger voluntar asociations, the many leagues that existed in greek history.

Some were short lived and just for a purpose. Others have a long history and are remarcable thru their efficiency (like the Achean and Etolian leagues) Sometimes they shared their identity and create a "isopolytea" two cities in which the citizens have something like a double citizenship or a unique citizenship for two, or more, cities.

 

Other times the sovereignity of the city-state was overrun by a greater power. I always wondered how the insititutions of the polis worked when placed under the authority of another state. Sometimes several polis became part of a large greek state like The Bosporan kingdom or under the hegemony of another greek city like Athens or Siracusa. But, other times they became subjugated by "barbarians" like the ionic polis by Persia or the cities of Campania by romans. Many times more the greek colonies kept their freedom, but had to pay large tributes to the neighbouring barbarians like happened to Byzantium, Histria, Olbia, Tarent etc.