Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf

Home > Fantasy > Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf > Page 25
Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf Page 25

by Amanda


  felt it important to have unwritten laws that were only fully known to the

  initiated ruling elite. Conversely, democracies in many cases even forbade

  the use of laws that had not been published in writing and therefore indeed

  followed principles that also apply to modern states today. It is fortunate

  that at least some inscriptions in stone of the resolutions passed by ancient

  Greek democracies have survived to this day. However, this is only a

  small fraction of evidence giving us merely a tiny glimpse into the

  histories of numerous poleis; such local histories were of only minor and

  sporadic interest to the ancient authors. Although most of the ancient

  inscriptions are gone, the numbers that have survived from particular

  poleis may be assumed to be statistically proportionate to the original

  numbers. The association of the number of inscriptions a polis produced

  with the type of government it had is very well illustrated in the states of

  continental Greece. That is why we have approximately 1,400 decrees

  from democratic Athens and only a few similar documents from very large

  but oligarchic poleis such as Sparta, Thebes or Corinth. More significantly,

  in the history of Athens alone we can trace that many more inscriptions

  were produced in periods of democratic rule than in its periods of

  oligarchic rule.

  The same principle of associating the number of public inscriptions –

  decrees of the council and people – with the type of government may be

  applied to the poleis of 4th-century Asia Minor. The inscriptions of about

  half of the 60 or so ancient poleis of Ionia, Aeolis and Caria have survived

  to this day. Although taking into account the problems with the exact

  dating of Greek inscriptions, one can say that in the years 334-301 three

  times more public documents were produced in this region than in years

  400-335 preceding Alexander’s expedition. Thus the average annual

  number of decrees passed rose six fold after Alexander’s arrival in relation

  132

  Chapter IV

  to the average year before his arrival. The trend is most noticeable in large

  cities producing a proportionately large number of inscriptions. The most

  striking example is Ephesus, where from the entire 4th century up to

  Alexander the city’s popular assembly left behind just one extant

  inscription, whereas for the last third of the century as many as 44. Both

  their large number as well as the evidence of working of the legislative

  process at the time show that this was a vibrant and active democracy.

  This indeed also confirms the image of Ephesus presented by the ancient

  authors, especially Arrian, of a city whose population predominantly

  opposed its oligarchic government, which had to basically rely on the

  support of the Persian garrison.

  There are other examples that can be shown but it is more important to

  see the general picture of political changes within the Greek poleis of Asia

  Minor in 334 as transpires from extant epigraphic sources. In Ionia, Aeolis

  and the Greek cities of the Carian coast the arrival of the Macedonian

  army was followed by a legislative explosion, which is a typical sign of

  democratic government. Not all the poleis under Persian rule were ruled

  by oligarchies, but even those that did manage to preserve their democratic

  systems became much more active and radical after Alexander’s arrival.

  An example of such democratic revitalisation and a greater opening up of

  public initiative is Iasus in Caria, which in 334 was liberated from the

  restrictions imposed upon it by its Hecatomnid rulers. In Alexander’s time

  we have not only an active assembly but even evidence of assembly pay

  ( ekklesiastikon) being paid to enable participation of even the poorest

  citizens without their having to suffer financial loses. In Greek political

  theory assembly pay was an aspect of the most radical type of democracy

  and its appearance in Asia Minor at that time is a measure of how deep the

  political changes were after Alexander’s arrival. The decision to topple

  oligarchies and establish democracies in Ionia, Aeolis and Caria had

  fundamental and far-reaching consequences. Whereas up to Alexander’s

  reign oligarchies and democracies had been considered equally legitimate

  forms of government, the Hellenistic era saw the decided predominance of

  democratic systems of government in the Greek world. Though

  Alexander’s decisions were not the only reason for this change, they did

  contribute to the triumph of democracy.

  Fortunately, to this day we have an extensive fragment of inscribed

  text from Alexander’s address to the Ionian city of Priene which sheds

  light on another two important issues concerning the status of poleis in

  Ionia, Aeolis and Caria: the control of rural territories and state finances.

  After his victory at Granicus Alexander considered himself the rightful

  successor of the Achaemenids and therefore he felt authorised, as is

  From Abydus to Alexandria

  133

  recorded in this inscription, to carefully delimitate royal territories from

  those belonging to Priene. Only the inhabitants of the former were obliged

  to pay tributes ( phoros), whereas the inhabitants of the rural areas

  belonging to Priene as well as the inhabitants of the city itself were not.

  This confirms the abovementioned passage from Arrian stating that

  Alexander freed the Greek poleis from the paying of tributes. Unlike other

  Greek states in the region, Priene was also relieved from having to pay

  contributions ( syntaxis) for the war against Persia, most probably on

  account of it taking on other military obligations. To many historians the

  difference between tribute ( phoros) and contribution ( syntaxis) seems to

  be no more than in the way they sound. To them the latter was simply the

  same tax with a nicer name but nonetheless going to a ruler who decided

  everything. However, 4th-century Greeks had a very different opinion on

  the subject and in all known documents from the period the two forms of

  taxation were carefully distinguished. We know that the poleis of Asia

  Minor made individual alliances with Alexander through treaties and

  although we do not know their content, we can assume that they formed

  the basis for collecting syntaxis. One needs to remember that to most of

  these cities the war against Persia was one of liberation. Insofar as we are

  able to discern, only the oligarchies, which relied on Persian support to

  remain in power, thought differently. Therefore the collecting of

  contributions, like in other military alliances, was something quite obvious.

  Priene, some of the island poleis as well as some of the Asian mainland

  Greek states provided soldiers and ships for the war effort and therefore

  did not have to pay contributions. It is probable that Alexander collected

  syntaxis up until 330, that is, while he was still fighting the war with the

  Corinthian League’s mandate. Although the level of contributions was

  probably similar to that of the tributes, at least some of the poleis soon

  began to feel the financial benefits of the political change for now their

&nb
sp; territories were integrated with the landed properties of Iranian aristocrats

  and that meant a broader tax base for the city’s treasury.

  These facts should not, however, be used to paint an idealised picture

  of Alexander in 334 being the altruistic liberator of Asia Minor willingly

  supported by the region’s poleis. The examples of Miletus and Aspendus

  as well as of Tyre beyond the Greek zone (see Chapter IV.5) show that in

  the war between Alexander and Darius III there was no option of

  remaining neutral. In those days neutrality was a privilege of only very

  powerful states or ones of such marginal importance that the belligerent

  powers saw no need to have them on their side. Some of the poleis in Asia

  Minor joined Alexander’s side of their own free will. The Macedonian

  king offered alliances with all states in Ionia, Aeolis and Caria that

  134

  Chapter IV

  guaranteed independent rule and even the running of independent foreign

  policies, though of course not as far as the war against the Great King was

  concerned. Inscriptions show that after 334 the poleis of Asia Minor were

  sending out ambassadors and signing treaties with other states, even those

  beyond Alexander’s sphere of influence. They also acquired the support of

  influential foreigners by granting them citizenship and official rewards for

  services rendered. In other words, they had their own foreign policies like

  normal Greek states.

  As usual we can only make assumptions as to what Alexander’s true

  intentions were. Purely military considerations were without doubt of

  considerable importance. Despite his victory at Granicus, Alexander was

  still in a much weaker position than the powerful Persian Empire and he

  needed allies. The poleis of Asia Minor, which ten years earlier had

  supplied Artaxerxes III with 6,000 hoplites for his Egypt expedition,

  possessed considerable military potential. The experiences of Ephesus,

  Miletus and the island states show that Macedonian or Persian garrisons,

  generally composed of small Greek mercenary units, could only function

  with the support of the citizens. The hostile stance of the Ephesians made

  the city’s mercenary garrison flee, whereas the public support for the

  oligarchy at Miletus allowed it to fight the Macedonians. Moreover many

  poleis in Asia Minor were surrounded by defensive walls and were

  therefore mighty fortresses. Alexander did indeed have siege engines that

  made it possible to capture any of these cities individually, but he lacked

  the time and means to make laying siege to all of them feasible. By

  winning the cities over to his side Alexander avoided the necessity of

  expensive and time consuming sieges. One must also not forget the

  ideological aspect. The war against Persia was started under the slogan of

  liberating the Greeks of Asia Minor. Therefore at the very start of his

  campaign Alexander had to convincingly liberate some of these cities to

  remain credible in the Greek world. With the perspective of time we can

  clearly see that this positive image was indeed the one Greeks of Asia

  Minor saw in him. For centuries later Alexander was still recognised in

  their collective memories as a benefactor and liberator. Some cities even

  worshipped him as a god.

  Alexander also gained the support of adjacent islands. Some had taken

  Philip’s side during Parmenion’s offensive and even joined the League of

  Corinth. However, once Memnon’s counteroffensive started proving to be

  successful, most switched back to the Persian side. After Granicus the

  situation changed yet again and the supporters of Macedonia returned to

  power. The best illustration of this an inscription from Chios which

  contains an edict issued by Alexander in 334 to settle affairs after yet

  From Abydus to Alexandria

  135

  another political change. In this document Alexander appears as the

  hegemon of the League of Corinth. As such he orders the return to Chios

  of the pro-Macedonian exiles and for their political opponents to be

  brought before the League’s court to be tried for treasonable collaboration

  with the Persians. Moreover, he calls together a college of legislators to

  write a democratic constitution for the polis. This may have been a

  violation of the Corinth resolutions, which forbade the imposition of

  constitutional changes, but it certainly suited Alexander’s Asia Minor

  policy of relying on democracies in Greek states. Finally Chios, along with

  other island poleis, was obliged to contribute to the war effort. In its case it

  provided 20 triremes, that is, as many as the mighty Athens.36

  Alexander most certainly did not rest his further military plans solely

  on political declarations, even if they were as far-reaching as the restoring

  of liberty to the Greek cities of Ionia and Caria. Having fulfilled his

  religious obligations at Ephesus, he set off with the rest of his army to

  Miletus. It was to this city that some of those defeated at Granicus had fled,

  including for a time Memnon, before he moved on to Halicarnassus.

  Hegesistratus, the commander of the Greek mercenary garrison serving the

  Persians at Miletus, sent letters to Alexander expressing his willingness to

  capitulate. No doubt he was under the impression of Macedonian

  successes in other parts of western Asia Minor. Yet in the meantime the

  Persian side had started preparing its revenge for these early defeats. The

  Great King had appointed the tried, tested and trusted Greek military

  leader Memnon commander-in-chief of his land army and navy in that part

  of Asia Minor. Now a huge Persian armada comprising 400 ships provided

  by Phoenician, Cypriot and Greek cities still under Persian rule sailed

  towards Miletus. Expecting this relief to arrive in time, Hegesistratus

  changed his mind and decided to defend the city after all. However, a

  much smaller fleet of 160 ships commanded by Alexander’s admiral

  Nicanor managed to precede the Persian fleet by three days. Despite its

  numerical inferiority, this fleet was able to take up an advantageous

  position in the Miletus roadstead by the island of Lade, which could now

  be defended by a formidable crew of Thracians and 4,000 other

  mercenaries. When the Persian fleet eventually arrived it was forced to

  moor near the Mycale peninsula, some 15 km from Miletus. All it could

  now do was to try and entice the enemy into battle out in the open sea.

  According to Arrian’s here somewhat implausible account, the usually

  cautious Parmenion was also supposed to advise Alexander to do so, but

  Alexander sensibly rejected this idea on account of the quantitative and

  36 Syll. 3 283. Heisserer 1980, pp. 79-95.

  136

  Chapter IV

  qualitative superiority of the enemy’s fleet, being as it was manned by

  more experienced crews. Alexander forbade his men to respond to the

  Persian fleet’s daily provocations. Instead he had his troops guard the

  mouth of the river Maeander, from where the Persian sailors had been

  taking drinking water. Henceforth the Persians had to sail to their base at

  Samos for their daily supplies of food and
water, which further hindered

  their freedom to manoeuvre around Miletus.37

  Miletus was situated on the tip of a peninsula, 2 km long and 1 km

  wide, jutting out northwards into the sea. The city, even if smaller than in

  Hellenistic and Roman times, was surrounded by strong walls. Outside

  there was a weakly fortified settlement (so-called external town) situated

  most probably on Kalabak-Tepe hill, where the centre of old Miletus had

  been in Archaic times. It was taken over by Alexander’s troops without

  resistance. For two days the Macedonians tried, unsuccessfully, to breach

  the main city’s walls and finally Alexander ordered siege engines to be

  brought up. This development, together with the effective see blockade,

  changed the mood within the city. Now Glaucippus, the leader or one of

  the leaders of the local oligarchy speaking on behalf of the citizens and the

  Greek mercenaries, put forward an offer to Alexander: the city would

  remain neutral and the port would be open to both sides of the conflict.

  Alexander responded by instructing Glaucippus to tell the Milesians to

  prepare for battle because the city was to be stormed at sunrise. The siege

  engines destroyed a large section of the wall and Macedonian soldiers

  entered the city. The defenders, deprived of the support of their fleet,

  which was forced to look on helplessly, now only thought of saving their

  own lives. On account of the Macedonian fleet being in the port, the 300

  Greek mercenaries were unable to get to the Persian ships, so instead they

  waded over most probably to what was one of two islets c. 250 m to the

  north east of the Miletus peninsula. After what had happened to their

  comrades at Granicus, they were ready to fight to the end; meanwhile the

  Macedonians had already lowered the ladders from their ships and were

  poised to attack. This time, however, Alexander was merciful to the brave

  Greek soldiers and spared them their lives on condition that they served

  him. The inhabitants of Miletus were also more fortunate than those of

  most cities that were taken by force at the time when the victor’s law

 

‹ Prev