Were the Greek city-states conquered or unified?

[Kapitan-Vorias]

Giasas Ellhnes kai philellhnes!

Kapitan-Vorias at your service

Some time ago Gman and G.R.H from the greeksoccer forums invited me here to come and contribute. Now i have found the time to register and start to contribute here on this site. (Which by the way is absolutely great).

I am an Phd historian from Sweden and i will do my best here to try and keep it as scientiffically real as possible.

To start my contribution, which to my knowledge i allowed Gman and G.R.H to publish. One of my texts that i had written, i have not seen it so i'll post it anyhow

Was the greek citystates conquered or united?

If to the early greeks, Thessaly was half - barbarous, then Macedonia north of it and west of thrace was beyond the pale. nonetheless the macedonians spoke a dialect remotely connected with those in use in the poleis (City - States). The word Hellas did exist and was used as a word for all the greeks and citystates, because they were Hellenes. And we have the Pan - Hellenic league as an example. Anyway, Thessaly and Macedonia developed seperatley and, perhaps beacuse of the greater geographic unity of Macedonia the Poleis form did not arise there. Instead a series of cheftain locals ruled there until the state was united in the middle of the seventh century B.C by King Perdiccas I. By 450 B.C, under the rule of Alexander I, a veneer of Hellenic civilization appeared on the ruling class of Macedonians, and cities had begun to develop.

Of the three sons who suceeded king Amyntas II (reigned ca. 390 - 369 B.C., the unifier of the disparate parts of Macedonia) Phillip II (382-336 B.C.) ruled for the longest period. an explination of that may be that when he was young he had been held hostage at Thebes and there he had learned from Epaminondas the most advanced military techniques. On gaining the throne in 359 B.C., Phillip set out to modernize Macedonia and its army. His primary military objective was Chalkidikki for with it Macedonia would gain a much -needed Aegean coastline. Athens had been closely tied to the area, which secured the grain route from the black sea. A clash between the powers was close.

Phillip´s true character is hard to evaluate, for in history its only seen through the eyes of two opposing Greek factions. Those such as Isocrates, who favored his policies, believed that he was the savior of the hellenic world and would at last unite a prostate Hellas (with Macedonia in it) The Anti - Phillip faction, under the leadership of Demosthenes, was convinced, or wanted the other Greeks (Hellenes) to think, that Phillip was an arch - villain who desired to enslave the the greek poleis and democracy.

The Delphic Amphictyony had long been an important Panhellenic body, for it took charge of the oracle of Apollo and the Phytian games. In the fourth century B.C., Thebes gained control of Delphi, thereby incurring friction with Phocis and the consequent declaration of a sacred war (355 B.C.) Phocis in turn commited sacrilege by takin over the Delphic treasury to hire mercenary troops. Finally Thebes sent Macedonia for help.
Phocis was forced out of Thessaly, but it was not until the peace 346 B.C. with Athens that Phillip felt free to destroy the state. The Macedonians the took over the Phcocian votes on the Delphic Ampictyony and at last felt felt themselves as Hellenes.

Phillip had a great respect for Athens, as was shown by his later behavior, the peace party, led by Aeschines, not wanting to risk a retrogression into chaos, therefore tried to baide by the treaty of 346 B.C. however, Demosthenes did not permitt matters to rest and his will finally prevailed; Athens decided on war against the Macedonians.
Since Athens was now the great obstacle for a Macedonian takeover of the other greek poleis, phillip decided to attack the city in its most vulnerable spot: The grain route from the black seas area.
Macedonia attacked the cities of Perinthus and Byzantium, but with no sucess in the meantime Athens had formed an alliance which included the central states of the Hellenic world, and the Peloponessos.

Thebes joined forces with Athens. and the battle at Charionea Macedonia won and so Phillip ruled all of Hellas. Except Sparta (gotta love em Spartans) which did as they own pleased.
Set to organize a system of alliances in order to avoid further dispatchion of the Hellenic Polies. He made separate treaties with other various greek cities. Athens, despite its defeat was spared. Thebes fared badly.
In 338 B.C. a conference was held at Corinth to form a league of Greek cities (Excluding Sparta) All members of the league were forbidden to change their forms of government or to engage in acts of violence. All members were required to help one another military under the leadership of Phillip of Macedon.

Plans were now on for an invasion of Persia with a united force of Hellenes. The Hellenes were extremely anxious to colonize asia minor and retaliate that what the persians had done to them ca 100 years before. A greek revenge!
The plans had to wait. Phillip was assasinated in 336 B.C.
and was suceeded by his son Alexander.
The long form of Poleis governmenthad now come to an end. To be sure, Athens and other hellenic poleis retained its instititutions into the roman period, but the predominant forces of the world would be those of kingdoms and empires.

The poleis feared the macedonians. But ONLY for the way the macedonians ruled their state. The hellenes loved their democracy and fought for it. why should there come another to controll them now that they had freedom and an opinion. they did not want to be opressed. they had seen what kingdoms with one ruler had done to them (Persia) so of cousre they were scared it might happen again. But fourtunately Phillip only united Hellas and did not opress them. and i think that after the league of Corinth, the other city states were seeing Macedonia thru other eyes than the ones before.
Of course there was opposition. but tell me one state today that does not have opposition.



Sources:
Micahel Cheilik, 1991 2nd Edition. Ancient History
N.G.L Hammond, 1983. Macedonia
A.B Bosworth, 2002. The Legacy of Alexander

[akritas]

Kapitan-Vorias welcome in the Macedonia On The Web

Nice article. Before I start as about if the Greek city-states conquered or united must see the Macedonian monarchy in order to view the diffrencies between them. The history of the Macedonian monarchy is as much about the efforts of Macedonian kings to tame their turbulent nobility as it is about their efforts to expand their territory. The lifestyle of the Macedonian nobility had more in common with that of Homeric heroes than with that of Classical Greeks.
War and hunting were the only suitable activities for a Macedonian noble. Killing was a way of life. Before being recognized as an adult, a young man had to spear a boar without the aid of a net and kill an enemy. Heavy drinking, fierce competition for preference at the royal court, and struggles over the favors of young men and women all generated violent feuds. The monarchy was the central institution of Macedonian society. Macedonian kings were autocrats who could well say "I am the state."
There for in my opinion the Greek cities they thought that conquered.

[PhiliptheUniterchaeronea]

Hey Kapitan-Vorias, am I glad you joined. Welcome. This is gman, I might have to adjust my name here so as to not confuse people when they join. To all the other memers, the good Kapitan here has made many worthy post on gs. Looking forward to many more here. A worthy member, as are so many here who have joined. Kapitan, you will love to read how strong the guys here are.

As for the post you made. Excellent stuff.

[preston]

Kapetan Vorias...finaly we are not orphans, we have a baba!! Welcome.
Very interesting and educational contribution thank you. It explains of where the Fyrominians today are basing their lies. One question please...Did the Poleis ever sided with the Persians against Macedonia?

[Tsontos]

Originally Posted by preston

One question please...Did the Poleis ever sided with the Persians against Macedonia?

Id say not 'sided' because by the time Macedonia became powerful the Persians had already resigned themselves from their age old attempts to militarily occupy Greece. It mentioned several times however that the Persians financially aided the Polies; Sparta, Athens, Thebes; once it had became clear that the Macedonians were becoming very powerful.

Throughout that period of Greek history with the polies etc inter-Greek wars never ceased and the Persians were involved every step of the way


They got theirs once again in the end though

[akritas]

Before Persian appearance (500 BC) can be classified the poleis in different ways, according to the criteria selected. First critiria is the Environmental, so to speak, as between those poleis existing within a larger Greek environment and those created within an alien world.
A second is economic. Although agriculture remained throughout the activity that involved the majority of the population, an important distinction emerged when genuinely urban centres arose--such as Miletus, Athens, Corinth, or Syracuse--with substantial mercantile and manufacturing sectors, while other regions--Thessaly, for example, or Arcadia, or Elis--remained agricultural and pastoral.
The third is political. At the dawn of Greek history, the so-called 'dark age' and the early archaic period, there was a considerable uniformity in the administration of the embryonic poleis, by aristocratic families acting more or less in concert according to customary rules and monopolizing all the organs of decision-making, warfare, and judicial procedures. Several centuries of development at very uneven tempos, which we perceive only dimly, led to an elementary distinction between oligarchic and democratic states, first visible about 500 B.C. and then rapidly spreading throughout Hellas.
The Poleis in Greek poleis in Macedonia-Thrace are more closed in the third critiria or category from the Persian view. With the rise of the Alexander I we have seen a view more closed in the second.

[Tsontos]

Some other examples in history of the forceful unification, through 'blood and iron' of nations which often then leads to a significant external military exercise (as was the case with Philip and Alexander's Panhellenic campaigns):

• Genghis Khan through political manipulation and military might, united the nomadic, previously ever-rivaling Mongol-Turkic tribes under his rule by 1206. Shortly afterwards the Mongols would begin massive invasions of China and then would head West as well.
  
• Hideyoshi had secured alliances with three of the nine major daimyo coalitions and carried the war of unification to Shikoku and Kyūshū. In 1590, at the head of an army of 200,000, Hideyoshi defeated the Hōjō, his last formidable rival in eastern Honshū. The remaining daimyo soon capitulated, and the military reunification of Japan was complete. Shortly afterwards Hideyoshi would embark on an invasion of Korea and other imperial expansions.

[Andrew]

[url=http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=161&i=nigelguywilsonxa6.png][IMG]http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/153/nigelguywilsonxa6.5d338915f7

Let's see the most important stuff:

1) "The latest archaeological findings have confirmed that Macedonia took it's name from a tribe of tall , Greek-speaking people , the Makednoi ..."

2) "The Macedonian kingdom streched more or less as far north as the present northern border of Greece."

3) "The "vulgar" Macedonians were not unanimously accepted by "refined" southern Greeks , especialy the Atheneans , as brethren ; occasionaly they were classified as "barbarians"."

4) "Philip II of Macedon was anxius to pacify and unify Greeks at any cost."

Nigel Guy wilson , Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece (2006)