Alexander the Great and Greek polices.
This work can be divided into two parts: 1)
Understanding the meaning of the word police and its crisis; 2) Relations
between Alexander and Greek polices.
Before 400-300 BC Greece was a great empire with a
long history and culture. The first invention of a Greeks
was the deductive proof, which was extraordinary step. Any other civilization
has not reached idea of reception of the conclusions extremely on the basis of
the deductive reasoning which is starting with obviously formulated axioms. The
reason is a greek society of the classical period.
Mathematicians and philosophers (quite often it there were same persons)
belonged to the supreme layers of a society where any practical activities were
considered as unworthy employment. Mathematics preferred abstract reasoning on
numbers and spatial attitudes to the solving of practical problems. The
mathematics consisted of a arithmetic - theoretical aspect and logistic -
computing aspect. The lowest layers were engaged in logistic. In a greek society there were such a great names like Plato,
Eratosthenes, Pythagoras, Euclid and Aristotle. They were a ancestors of a
algebra and geometry. They’ve made a good work, they’ve deducted the rules and
axioms that we still use in our life. For example, Pythagoreans deducted a
theorem, which is now called “a Pythagoras’ theorem”. That is the one of the
hundreds rules, theorems and axioms that were deducted by greek
minds.
Also Greece had a good states (polices).
The most famous greek police were Athens. That was a democratic state, the
first commercial center. Some people call Athens
a slave society country. It’s not so: Athens
had slaves, but they were not a lot – around 18-20% of the population of the
state. Athens was
a prospering country.
But a Greek empire fell down. What were
the reasons we will try to understand now. At first let’s think about the
problem of the polices. In a book called «Греки и Александр Македонский» (Москва, Наука, 1993 p.5-13) it’s said that in a classical works of XIX and
of the beginnings of the XX century there is no problem about a polices. That
is because it was realized simply like a part of the system 4 society. This
system existed from about 2000-3000 BC and until the middle of the Middle age
and internal divisions of such a huge period seemed to be not very important.
For the other historians, modernizators, this topic also was not very important. They
preferred a method that made closer the ancient world to the modern one –
capitalistic.
In a Soviet Union
in the 20’s and 30’s years of a XX century the crisis of police was apprehended
like a decline of a slave society.
The opinion has changed in the 30’s of XX century.
It was changed by Heserbroek. He said that the police
is not only a political, it’s also a economic structure of the society. The
crisis of the police was realized from the social and economic side, and
ideological side was considered like a consequence.
The basis of the crisis is the Peloponnesus war. At this time economy in the Athens fell down. That is
because in the war the men were needed to fight, but there were no men in the
agricultural land. A peasantry became poor: peasants sold their land and became
a mercenary. Handicraft also was declined. In the time of war many of the
neighbors of the country (police) stopped trading. As a consequence in that
country many of the artisans didn’t know where to sell their products. As a
result of this crisis the social life of the police became different. The
standard of the life decreased. The crime increased. Finally it was difficult
to drive the police.
But there are some scientists who denied
the crisis concept. One of them is Shtaerman. She
thinks that changes in the IV century BC were not so important in a society’s
life.
Other topic is a cities of a Asia Minor and Alexander the Great. One of the
scientists, who worked on this topic, is Droesden. He
wrote about the generosity of the Alexander the Great, who returned to greeks the freedom. But Droesden
supposed that it was a benefit to Alexander to give some freedom to the greek cities. He thought that it’s better to have loyal
cities in Asia Minor, that to have not stable
polices in Greece,
which can make a rising, and they did; but Alexander pushed them back and greeks were punished.
But other historian doesn’t think so. He
thinks that for ancient states it was better to assault the cities and lands.
The cities, that were taken by force, had been robbed. But cities, that
complacently surrendered, were spared. Exactly this method were used by
Alexander the Great. Evidence of the giving freedom to cities Beckerman named
as some exceptions.
The conquest of Asia
was not only by the Macedonian forces, but also Greek – the members of a
Corinthian union. But neither Greece,
nor other states in Corinthian union hadn’t got any conquered cities or other
spoils. However, greeks didn’t worried about such
thing. Why? They wanted to take vengeance on Persians. Persians burnt greek cities and temples – Alexander the Great burnt Persepole, Persians came into Halide (Эллада) –
Alexander took his army to Ekbatan. (Moscow,
“Science”, 1993 p.155-158)
Thus Alexander conquered Persians, also
subordinated Greek cities, which some of them he gave freedom. But he gave them
not full freedom, he made that cities like an autonomy. According to greek concept of freedom, free police- it’s independent
country, that decides internal and xternal pilitics for itself. I.e. they had their own ruler, their
own rules; but they couldn’t make external politics. They couldn’t fight with
each other, but that was happened in Greece.
The politics of the Alexander to a Asian
cities were discovered by Ranovich (Ранович, «Эллинизм и его историческая роль». 1950 Институт Истории,Москва p.
49-58). He says that Alexander the Great needed the interior support because he
didn’t have enough money and military force. So he secured himself by a liking
of the greek cities. Repairing the democratic
structure he also made a military ally. In this situation Alexander’s thinking
was similar to thinking of his father – Philip. Philip sent an army in Asia to liberate Hellenic cities.
Ranovich spared a
lot of attention on a meaning of the word “freedom”. Ranovich
says that exactly the Alexander’s policy
might change the meaning of that word, that was unproper
to the monarchy. Meaning of the freedom was not a meaning like in a classical
police, it was new. The new meaning is a independence from the Persian empire. (Ранович, «Эллинизм и его историческая роль», Москва, 1950,
Институт Истории, p.53).
But I think Ranovich
overstated the role of the Macedonian ruler. He said that Alexander’s conquests
are so important and made a revolution in relationships between defeated
country and a defeater, that any other civilizations didn’t know. (Ранович, «Эллинизм и его
историческая роль», Москва, 1950, Институт Истории, p.51)
Another historian thinks that it’s no
reason to dispute about differences of a legal status of the police and of a
actual one. That is because it’s foolish to show the small differences in a
statement de jure and de facto, where the state is
ruled by one person, so Badian thinks that it’s
necessary to start discover with the Alexander’s father- Philip. Philip sent an
army to defeat the Persians to give freedom to the greek
polices. Thus it’s true that Philip planned the Asian conquest, he organized a
Corinthian union. It means that Alexander the Great inherited some Asian cities.
Philip just didn’t organized them well.
As a Ranovich Shoffman shows us political thoughts, which had been used
by Alexander. He spoke about Alexander’s policy:” Widely advertising
the demagogical slogan of clearing Asian Greeks from oppression and
humiliations which half-centuries ago they have undergone because of
dictatorship of the Persian government, Alexander used it in political ends for
a gain of sympathies at the population of cities of Asia Minor”. (Шофман А.С.,
«Восточная политика Александра Македонского», Москва, 1976, Издательство
Казанского университета, p.52). Alexander
believed that he must use antipersian type of war,
that he must show himself like a tyrant defeater. Alexander limited the Greek
power in Asia Minor. But sometimes he tried to
pay attention on the greek traditions, however he
didn’t manage to do this, that is because it’s difficult to combine absolute
monarchy and democratic state.
All this stuff means that most of historians agrees
that Alexander the Great gave some freedom to policies, that he’d conquered,
but this freedom meant that policies could decide their internal policy, also
Alexander influenced all of the external policy.
A CONCLUSION. In work three basic interconnected
problems have been put: specificity of the given stage of crisis of the policy;
specificity of display of crisis in policies of various type; features of
mutual relations of social and economic and political aspects of crisis of the
policy, specificity of display of social and economic bases of crisis in
political sphere.
Once again we shall define initial positions: we mean
not crisis of the policy in general, but crisis of the Greek classical policy.
And the second — in the work the area of political history was discovered. At
such approach, summing up, it is necessary to speak about crisis of the policy
in aspect of crisis of system of policies.
Specificity of a stage of crisis of the policy
considered in the given work, in my opinion, consists first of all that crisis,
former earlier internal crisis of separate policies (differently and in a
different degree touched them), becomes now crisis of a polices systems. For
the first time in the history practically all policies and actually Greece, and Asia Minor appeared depending on one foreign force. In an
Hellenistic epoch as a consequence of a
place of uniform power Alexander the Great there have come some the competing
states, at separate policies or their unions the opportunity has appeared,
maneuvering between these forces to carry out even partly an independent
policy. But this policy was always a policy, with caution on the powerful
neighbors. From the point of view of destinies of the policy Hellenistic world
was transitive. The Hellenistic states and could not find organic forms of
inclusion of the policy in the structure. Integrally they included only the
policies again based in the East, in the won territories, old Greek cities on
all an extent of a Hellenism remained an element appreciably alien to the
structure of a Hellenistic monarchy. The variety of forms of communications
between the policy and a monarchy is observed. Position besides was complicated
constant struggle of “great powers” as a result of which separate policies pass
from sphere of influence of one state in sphere of influence of another. Logic
end of this process became inclusion of the policy in structure of Roman empire.
So, despite of all originality of destinies,
development of policies of both regions goes in one direction. Its essence will
be that the policy ceases to be the subject of history and turns to its object.
Elide from system of politically independent policies which course of history
was defined, first of all, by interaction of separate policies with each other
or with external forces, turns to a field of struggle various external in
relation to the world of policies of forces. The world of policies tried to
defend the existence. All three most significant states of Greece IV century BC
- Thebes, Sparta and Athens, at this or that
support of other states, have acted against Macedonia. In these performances it
is possible to note three features. All of them were at war under slogans of
struggle for freedom of Greeks, however not all Greece has supported them. The
policy distinctly enough understood, that the macedonian
authority threatens freedom of all Elide, and not just its own independence. At
the same time hardly this struggle was perceived as struggle of a monarchy
against the policy as such. Further, all these policies have suffered defeat,
that distinctly enough shows final hopelessness of the polices’ world. At last,
all three policies have never acted in common.
The little strong and long association of Greeks was impossible, and
enmity of policies, within IV century BC Applying for hegemony, appeared more
strongly external threat. Specificity of crisis in policies of various type in
the best way comes to light at comparison of Athens and Sparta. I agree with those researchers who
see the final reason of crisis in economic development which character comes in
the contradiction with traditional structure of the policy. In a number of
researches some symptoms of crisis in political sphere have been revealed.
Studying of the Athenian material allows to speak about washing out earlier
very precise borders of civil collective and, on the other hand, about known
isolation of various groups of the citizenship having the economic and
political interests. In Athens
it were some political groups, which heads in the sights and social behavior
reflect interests of separate layers of citizens at this time of operate.
Interests of these groups come in the contradiction with each other, between
them there is a struggle accepting from time to time sharp character. All this
leads to decomposition of civil collective and easing of communications in it.
At the same time in speeches of political orators obviously almost general
aversion modern him democratic building in Athens. Though adherence of democracy is
constantly declared, in them the aspiration to this or that restriction of this
democracy distinctly enough appears. The analysis of political strike given in
work testifies to crisis of democracy which is considered as one of aspects of
crisis of the policy in Athens.
Crisis in Sparta
is differently shown. In my opinion, as an starting point of revealing of its
attributes fight at Leuctrah can serve. In what
essence of this event? All build Sparta,
all its life were based that belonged to it Massena, which grounds have been
divided on some structure, providing existence of citizens. Now appeared bases of it building are
undermined, that the point in development of crisis can be considered as some
kind of condition. How crisis of the policy appears in since this time? We know
about social performances during earlier time, for the subsequent Sparta gives time vivid
examples of sharp social struggle. But the considered period — time of relative
internal calmness, anyway, is not observed. On the other hand, Sparta at this particular time conducts
struggle for restoration of the hegemony in Peloponnesus,
she aspires to revive the authority above Messiness. The policy ventures direct
military collision with Macedonia,
i.e. aspires to carry out a traditional policy traditional methods in
completely others, radically changed conditions. Crisis found here expression
in full discrepancy of a policy of the policy to external conditions, that
arrangement of forces which has developed in Elide. Differently, we again
approach to a problem of crisis of the policy as crisis of system of policies.
As to Asia Minor it is necessary to note, that
any of Asian policies has not accepted participation in a Limy (ламийской) war. On
this circumstance in the literature it has not been inverted that attention
which it, certainly, deserves. It is represented, that this fact also should
search for an explanation in deep processes of crisis of the policy. In crisis
of the policy, more precisely, crisis of the Greek classical policy it is
necessary to see process of loss and deformation of its intrinsic
characteristics, i.e. those features and attributes which do by those. One of
them is a political independence. Speaking about it, I mean in this case not
independence of the separate policy, but system of independent policies. The
Greek cities of Asia Minor appeared in
structure of the Persian power, i.e. have lost the independence. It is possible to come out with the assumption,
that and creations of the Corinthian union, for policies of Asia Minor it is
necessary to date that stage of crisis of the policy which on Balkan peninsula
began from defeat of Greeks at Heroine time. If this assumption is fair, I have
the right to allocate Asian variant of crisis of the policy — a variant
connected to earlier submission of the policy external, alien it by the social
nature to force. The formulation of this assumption again puts us before the
person of a problem of crisis of the policy as crisis of system of policies.
The world of the Greek cities not once was exposed to an attack on the part of
forces alien to it, however during rise and blossoming of the policy Greeks
could resist to them. Comparison of an epoch of the Greco-Persian wars and IV
century BC is indicative. In Greco-Persian wars Elide could defend freedom in
struggle against the Persian power which too was at top of the power. In IV
century BC, when the Ahimenide state tended to
decline, it nevertheless managed to subordinate to itself Greeks of Asia Minor.
Whether we in this submission have no right to see result of development of
crisis of system of policies? For Greeks of Balkan peninsula creation of the
Corinthian union was the certificate restraining their political sovereignty
and by virtue of it by the phenomenon negative, especially for large policies;
for Greeks of Asia Minor Alexander's gain became the phenomenon some other
character. In a number of attitudes change of the Persian control macedonian meant change of mister, but in one attitude this
change was essential: at Alexander democracy everywhere is restored. Revival
democratic building though and in conditions of macedonian
authority, are equitable to interests of weight of citizenship and has served,
probably, finally as the reason of that Asian Greeks appeared away from Limian wars. The
final stage of crisis of the policy was time of destruction of system of
independent policies, time of transition from the world of the cities-states by
an Hellenistic epoch. But crisis of the policy did not mean the end of the
policy, its destruction. The policy continued to exist within many centuries,
new policies were based also, however in its character there were essential
changes.
Bibliography:
1. Ранович А.Б. «Эллинизм и его историческая
роль» Москва 1950, «Институт истории».
2. Маринович Л.П. «Греки и Александр Македонский» Москва
1993, «Наука».
3. Шофман А.С. «Восточная политика Александра
Македонского» Москва 1976, «Издательство Казанского университета».
Alexander the Great and Greek polices.
This work can be divided into two parts: 1)
Understanding the meaning of the word police and its crisis; 2) Relations
between Alexander and Greek polices.
Before 400-300 BC Greece was a great empire with a