N. G. L.

Hammond
Monarchy is a red rag to a republican, and I suppose there are republicans among you today. Greeks too thought poorly of monarchy. Even Isocrates, who curried favor with Philip, made this clear: if a Greek wanted to become a king, he had to go to the backwoods as Philip s progenitor had done and impose himself on people of a different race !see figure "#. $ristotle, who outlived Philip and $le%ander and saw the Macedonian monarchy at work, condemned monarchy as a political institution and &udged it fit only for barbarians, who were incapable of organi'ing their own affairs and so became subservient to a king(whereas the Greeks, being both spirited and intelligent, conducted their own affairs in a sensible manner and re&ected any form of sub&ection. )et the hallmark of the *ellenistic world was monarchy. $lmost every successful general, whether Macedonian, Greek, +ithynian, ,appadocian, or of mi%ed race, set himself up as a king. -ne e%ception was .osthenes, who made his Macedonians in Macedonia take an oath of loyalty to himself not as king !as they were prepared to do# but as general.[1] /as he a republican, a forerunner of -liver ,romwell0 1he answer is probably no2 and his reason was surely that he was not a member of the royal house and saw no hope in 3456344 of establishing himself as king permanently. 1he fact is that monarchies ruled over as many parts of the *ellenistic world as remained uncon7uered for some three centuries !e%cluding Greece and most of .icily#.

8ig. ".Macedonia in the fourth century +.,. $fter Eugene 9. +or'a, In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon !Princeton: Princeton :niversity Press, "55;#, p. <;3.

=8ull .i'e>

/hat sort of monarchy was it0 Most scholars have believed that $le%ander became the successor of ?arius and therefore a king of a despotic type, and that his own successors ruled as absolute monarchs e%cept in Macedonia itself. 1hat is a mistaken view. Plutarch long ago observed[2] that $le%ander never called himself ! , this being the Greek e7uivalent of a Persian royal title. [3] *e had no desire to set himself up as the heir of ?arius, for he had come to liberate not only the Greek city@states but also Aydians, ,arians, Egyptians, +abylonians, and other $sian peoples from Persian rule. *is propaganda(and indeed his purpose(was different. *e was to be Bing of $sia from the moment he crossed the *ellespont, and as he cast his spear into $sian soil he cried out: CI accept $sia, spear@won, from the gods.D [4] *e prayed then that Cthose lands would welcome him not unwillingly.D [5] It was to be his kingdom, and the $sians were to be his people. $ccordingly he ordered his army not to pillage2 he gave a military funeral to Persian commanders who fell in battle against him2 he sent peasants back to cultivate their

own fields2 he told the Aydians to live by their own customs and to be free, put $da in control of ,aria and gained the cooperation of ,arian cities, and confirmed many Phoenician and ,yprian kings in their positions. /henever a claim was made for or by $le%ander, it was as Bing of $sia(in the prophecy at Gordium, in his belief that the claim was confirmed by thunder and lightning, in the letter to ?arius !C,ome to me as Aord of all $siaD and Csend to me as Bing of $siaD#, and in his own words on the spoils dedicated to $thena at Aindos Chaving become Aord of $sia.D -thers acclaimed him as Bing of $sia, from the army in <<" after the battle of Gaugamela down to the envoys from Aibya in <3<.[6] Moreover, $le%ander was demonstrably not the king of the Medes and the Persians2 for their lands were sub&ect to his satraps, and the pretender to their throne was sent for &udgment and e%ecution Cto the gathering of Medes and Persians,D [7] &ust as other offenders, such as Musicanus, [8] were sent to their home country for similar &udgment. $s Bing of $sia $le%ander set his own standards. 1hey were those not of Persia but of Macedonia: in short, tolerance of religions, respect for local customs, continuance of local government, and coe%istence, as in the Macedonian kingdom. *e believed that these standards(so alien to European imperialism(worked2 for he said that he would have little difficulty in winning $rabia, because he would allow the $rabs to administer their state in accordance with their customs, as he had done in India.[9] $t the same time he was Bing of the Macedonians. Even during his illness he acted in the traditional manner(ban7ueting with his friends, bathing in a pool such as has been found at Pella, sacrificing as custom demanded each day, issuing movement and operation orders to his officers, and discussing with them what promotions should be made to fill vacancies in command posts. -ne *ellenistic ruler aimed to win $le%ander s titles and $le%ander s kingdoms: $ntigonus set his one eye on both. In <"E he was treated as CAord of $sia,D [10] and he was said by .eleucus to be aiming at Cthe entire kingship of the Macedonians,D [11] that is, to be king of Macedones wherever they were. 1here is a significant contrast in terminology: king of a territory and king of persons. I turn now to the nature of the Macedonian monarchy, on which some new light has recently been shed. 1he monarch is described first by *erodotus and then by 1hucydides as Cking of Macedones.D [12] CBingD and CMacedonesD make up the official state. 1he king may address the Macedones in assembly2 the Macedones may honor the king.[13] 1hey both appear in the fragmentary inscription of the treaty between Perdiccas II and $thens2[14] for he and other royals and then leading commoners are the official representatives of CMakedonon.D -ne or other stands for both in some official documents, such as the treaty between $myntas III and the ,halcidians, [15] and in relations with the ?elphic $mphictyony, where in <FE votes were given to Philip or to CMacedones,D [16] contributions were recorded Cfrom Macedones,D and delegates were sent Cfrom $le%ander.D 1he terms were used together until the end of the free Macedonian .tate. Gome proclaimed at the Isthmian Games in "5; her victory over CBing Philip and MacedonesD2 and then at Gome and at ?elphi her victory over CMacedones and Bing Perseus.D [17] 1he two parts operated the .tate. /hat did the Macedones do0 1hey elected, and, when they wished, they deposed a king !e.g., $myntas III#.[18] 1he Macedones decided cases of treason, the king prosecuting. 1he Macedones in assembly were addressed by the king or by his guardian(for instance by Philip to take the offensive against +ardylis, and by $le%ander to win the Bingdom of all $sia(and in each case they decided what to do, whether meeting in Pella or on the bank of the *ydaspes. [19] In all meetings of Macedones of which we know the Macedones met under arms: certainly for the election of a king, for trying a case of treason, for deciding to attack +ardylis, and for deciding to win all $sia. 1he conclusion seems to be clear,

that the Macedones were serving soldiers2 and we may add e%@soldiers, because -lympias asked to be tried by all Macedones and because $ntigonus held an assembly of Macedones at 1yre which consisted of the soldiers with him and men resident in the area, that is, soldiers settled there.[20] It is e7ually clear that not all men capable of bearing arms in Macedonia in the geographical sense were CMacedonesD2 for that title was given only to the elite infantrymen !being the *ypaspists and the Phalangites# and to the ,ompanion ,avalry, the two groups making up the C,ompanions.D 1hey alone were Cthe citi'en troops.D ?iodorus, following a *ellenistic historian, probably ?iyllus, described the Macedonians whom $le%ander chose to send home in <3F as Cthe oldest of the citi'ensD !"! #$"!#2 [21] and then, following *ieronymus, a contemporary writer, in <3< described $ntipater as being short of Cciti'en soldiersD !"%"" #$"&$#.[22] Aet us turn now to the Macedones serving in the *ellenistic kingdoms. In our literary sources they are always distinguished from the $sian and Egyptian troops, even from those Carmed in the Macedonian mannerD !e.g., at Paraetacene, Gabiene, and Gaphia#,[23] and it is they who form the Goyal Infantry Guard. 1hey were in a category of their own. It was these troops who outlawed Eumenes and others in <3", and it was they and the e%@servicemen in .yria who outlawed ,assander provisionally, if he was unwilling to make a :@turn. 1hey acted as an assembly and passed decisions in the name of Cthe Macedones with $ntigonusD in <"H !" '('$)*! "$+ *(", !")!$- .&('#.[24] /hen it was known that $le%ander II was dead and that the 1emenid line was at an end, $ntigonus and his son ?emetrius were proclaimed kings in <;E by Cthe armyD,[25] and Plutarch[26] described the proclamation as being made at the palace of $ntigonus by Cthe assemblyD !" #/$+ being used here by *ieronymus, as it was of the assembly which abandoned the last plans of $le%ander2 it was used also of the assembly which elected Go%ane s baby to be king in <3<#. 1he proclamation of Ptolemy as king was made, according to $ppian, Cby his own household troopsD ! $&($+ "$ "%"+#, also in <;E. [27] $nother interesting proclamation was that of Ptolemy ,eraunus after his murder of .eleucus at Aysimachea, the capital city of the dead Aysimachus, in 3J". Ptolemy rode to the palace and was proclaimed king by the Goyal Guard, and he then presented himself, wearing the diadem and accompanied by the Goyal Guard, to the army of .eleucus, which accepted him.[28] -n this occasion he was given the cognomen ,eraunus Cby the army,D [29] &ust as Philip had been called $rrhidaeus by the infantrymen in <3<.[30] .imilarly $rsinoK received a diadem and was acclaimed 7ueen of Ptolemy ,eraunus by the assembled army.[31] 1he cases of proclamation which I have considered were all of leading persons. More difficult was the election of a minor or an incompetent as king and the appointing of guardians !ep0tropo0# or managers !ep0meleta0# to serve during his minority. In <3<, on $le%ander s death, the leading Macedonians, meeting under arms, set up four guardians for Go%ane s baby@to@be, and obtained an oath of loyalty from those present and later from the Macedonian cavalrymen2 they intended ne%t to obtain the agreement of the Macedonian infantrymen. +ut the infantrymen bucked2 they chose $rrhidaeus the half@wit. In the end $rrhidaeus and the baby@to@ be were elected by the whole company in the presence of the corpse of $le%ander, Cso that his ma&esty should be witness to their decisions.D [32] Iery much the same process was enacted in 3;J at the palace in $le%andria in Egypt, to which the two leading Macedonians summoned the *ypaspists, the household troops ! /(%#(#, and the officers of the infantry and the cavalry.[33] 1he two leaders then announced the deaths of the king and 7ueen, crowned their five@year@old son as king, and read out a will of the king in which they themselves were named as guardians. 1he ceremony was accompanied by the display of two urns which were said to contain

the ashes of the deceased king and 7ueen !we may compare the presence of $le%ander s corpse at the election of $rrhidaeus and the baby@to@be in <3<#. Aater the two leaders obtained the oath of loyalty to the king from the Macedonian soldiers ! '-!*(+#, Cthe oath which they had been accustomed to swear at the proclamations of the kings.D [34] It is clear that Polybius was referring here to the general custom of the Macedonian troops in Macedonia, as well as at the Macedonian court in Egypt. I hope that I have now cited enough instances to support the conclusion that the pattern of the Macedonian .tate in Macedonia was duplicated in the so@called *ellenistic kingdoms of Aysimachus in 1hrace, of $ntigonus and ?emetrius in $sia, of Ptolemy in Egypt, and(we may assume(of the .eleucids. 1hus the state in each case consisted of the king and the Macedones who had elected him and had taken an oath of loyalty to him. *e commanded them in war2 they served as elite troops and were in distinction to any others in the Bing s $rmy, & '-!*(+. /e do not know how often and on what issues the king consulted the assembly of his Macedones. +ut we do know that when he failed to keep in close touch, as ?emetrius II did in Macedonia, he was certain to fall from his position. 1hus the imprint of the Macedonian .tate was stamped indelibly on the states which we call Cthe *ellenistic kingdoms.D I turn ne%t to some consideration of the Macedones as a whole. /ithin what became Macedonia they went through three phases. 8irst, when the kingdom consisted only of Macedones by birth, in the period before <HJ, these racial Macedones were the .&('!(+ "$ of 1hucydides analysis, whereas the people of :pper Macedonia were nominally Csub&ect racesD !/!1 #&$# and in a different sense Macedones.[35] +y <H5 the Macedones numbered about ";,;;; !comparable to the $thenian hoplite army of F5;#, and it was an assembly !&&1# of this si'e which was persuaded by Philip to go forth and attack +ardylis Illyrians. [36] 1he king could well have addressed an electorate of that si'e. $fter <HJ, selected men of :pper Macedonia were taken fully into the Macedonian .tate as soldiers(both cavalrymen and phalangites(of the Bing s $rmy2 and by <<E the number of citi'en soldiers(Macedones(had risen to some <;,;;;, domiciled over a much wider area than in <H5. $t short notice the king could address only those of them who were relatively close at hand, and in particular the household troops. $ preliminary decision by them might be enough in itself for the king to act2 alternatively, their decision might be confirmed or re&ected by a larger assembly of Macedones !e%amples of a two@stage process include those of $le%ander in *yrcania and ?emetrius in 1hessaly#.[37] Philip added many Greeks and some persons of other races to the circle of his 8riends and ,ompanions2 but only some of them were made Macedones by him. 1he ne%t stage began gradually under $le%ander, and increased rapidly with the troubles after his death, namely the recruitment by the king or by his generals of more men from Aower and :pper Macedonia, who on entering the Bing s $rmy were made Macedones. 8or e%ample, in <<F the newlywed officers on leave were to recruit cavalrymen and infantrymen Cfrom the territoryD !& "+ 2%+#,[38](that is, not from $ntipater s troops(and in <<" recruiting officers were to enlist Csuitable young men,D [39] again, not from $ntipater s troops. ?uring the Aamian /ar .ippas, Aeonnatus, and ,raterus each individually recruited more and more men from within the Macedonian kingdom. 1here will have been others who went from Macedonia overseas, to serve in armies in $sia and Egypt in the thirty years up to the +attle of Ipsus in <;". 1hereafter the sons of Macedones established overseas were sufficient to maintain elite forces in the *ellenistic kingdoms !an early e%ample being the sons of $le%ander s *ypaspists#.

I turn ne%t to the other peoples in the Macedonian kingdom. 1hey lived on land which had been won by the spear of the king and which was thenceforth the king s possession. 1he earliest known e%ample of such possession is $nthemus, an area which $myntas offered to *ippias, the banished tyrant of $thens. .ome inscriptions, &ust published or about to be published, provide other e%amples. Lulia Iokotopoulou generously showed me one such inscription before publication. In it the frontiers of several small +ottiaean cities of southeast ,halcidice are laid down by the fiat of ?emetrius, c. 35;, and there is mention of an earlier royal grant of land to the Gamaioi, probably by Philip II in <FJ. $nother inscription, &ust published by her, contains these words: CBing $le%ander gave to Macedones Balindoia and the places around Balindoia(being the lands of 1hamiscus, ,amacae and 1ripoea.D [40] 1hese had been four cities of the +ottiaei of northern ,halcidice !three of them being named as city@states in an earlier inscription#. 1hey had been won by the spear of Philip II in <FJ. 9ow in <<HMF $le%ander gave the site of the largest !Balindoia# and the lands of three other cities !but not the sites# to CMacedones,D which I take to be the other half of the Macedonian .tate. 1he intention is clear: Balindoia is to be a Macedonian city, a pol0s Ma3edonon !like -esyme in .cymnus EHE6H4#. 1he people of Balindoia were no doubt planted elsewhere2 but the people of the three cities which lost their lands but not their towns presumably stayed on as villagers associated with the new Macedonian city. $ third inscription, published in "5JF,[41] shows $le%ander in <<HMF both confirming arrangements made by Philip and making new ones on the same principle: he gave land to Philippi to possess !2(!#, and on the other hand he granted Philippi the right to cultivate certain land, and the 1hracians the right to cultivate other land(each of them, it seems, paying rent to the king. 1hus land won by Philip from the 1hracians in <HE was Philip s and was inherited by his successor, $le%ander. 1he king was owner of the land, "+ 2%+. 1his relationship between the king and spear@won land !) '$%&"1"$+# and its peoples was taken overseas by $le%ander. $s he landed in the 1road he Caccepted $sia from the gods, won by the spearD [42](a proleptic claim, which he made good. *e thus became Bing of $sia, the land which henceforth belonged to him and his successors. *e made this clear at Priene in <<F. Aike Philippi, Priene was a free Greek city to the e%tent that it owned its land, conducted its own affairs, and did not pay annual ta% to the king2 but it was sub&ect to the king s overall rule and policy. In an ordinance of <<F $le%ander granted ownership of some land to citi'ens of Priene, and he made the non@Prienians live in villages and pay ta% to the king. In this ordinance at Priene, $le%ander said: CI know that the land is mineD !2%! )!& *! (!#.[43] 1hose words later were to apply to most of $sia2 for e%ample, in <3F the Epigonoi were brought from the newly founded cities and Cfrom the spear@won land.D [44] 1he .uccessors made the same claim. /hen the 1emenid line came to an end, each of the generals in power Cpossessed the land allocated to himself as if it was a kingdom won by the spear.D [45] Moreover, as with Philip and $le%ander, this land was hereditable. Even if actual possession was not achieved, the claim remained. 1hus $ntiochus the Great claimed possession of eastern 1hrace, because his ancestor .eleucus had defeated Aysimachus in war and taken his whole kingdom Cwon by the spear.D[46] 9e%t, what was the relationship between the king and the native peoples on the spear@won land0 /ithin the Macedonian kingdom Philip and $le%ander left these peoples(Illyrians, 1hracians, Paeonians, and Greeks(to run their internal affairs as before, whether in a tribal system, or under a monarchy, or as a pol0s. 1hey paid ta%es to the king, and they worked the land which he chose to give or to let to them.

1hey were no part of the Macedonian .tate. 1hey had to accept that .tate s foreign policy, and they had to obey the king s commands. +ut they en&oyed great advantages: security2 prosperity2 freedom of language, law, and religion2 no large e%penditure on armaments and mercenaries2 and the right of appeal to the king. $ very few served in the Bing s $rmy as light cavalry and light@armed troops. 1he main function of these native peoples was to promote the economy of the kingdom and thus to enable it to maintain its regular army of Macedones. $s need arose, the number of peoples on the land was increased by the transplantation of Illyrians, Gauls, 1hracians, and Getae to work the lands of Aower Macedonia especially. /e do not know of any risings by the native peoples or by the transplanted peoples. 1he relationship between the king and the native peoples of $sia and Egypt was very similar. $fter the battle of the Granicus Giver $le%ander told the peasants of Mysia Cto return to their own property,D that is, to cultivate it as theirs2 and he gave the same order to the Indian peasants of the Indus delta.[47] $t .ardis he granted the use of their own customs and laws to the Aydians and left them Cfree,D that is, free to manage their own affairs in their own way, but of course to be sub&ect to the overall kingship of $le%ander and to pay ta%es to him2 and he continued on the same principle, which he intended to apply also in $rabia.[48] $s he advanced, the proportion of Macedones to the peoples on spear@won lands decreased. *e therefore began early to train elite troops from the native peoples: Aydians, Aycians, ,arians, Egyptians !E,;;; according to the .uda s.v. &$ #'(+#2 and from <<; onward, mi%ed forces of Macedonian and $sian cavalry, parallel units of $sian troops !especially the <;,;;; Epigonoi#, and finally a phalan% mi%ed in each section. 1he Macedonian policy of coe%istence, cooperation, and &oint military service succeeded both in the Macedonian kingdom and overseas. CPhilip created one kingdom and people out of many tribes and nations.D [49] $le%ander created another kingdom, the Bingdom of $sia, by applying the same Macedonian principle but over a vastly greater area. )et even at his early death there was no rising by the native peoples. 1he e%tent to which the .uccessors imitated $le%ander cannot be e%aggerated. C1he kings imitated $le%ander with their purple robes, their bodyguards, the inclination of their necks, and their louder voices in conversation,D wrote Plutarch.[50] 1hey imitated him in policy also. Aet us take as an e%ample Eumenes, a Greek of ,ardia, who might have organi'ed his satrapy on some Greek model. +ut he was more Macedonian than the Macedonians: he relied on his 8riends, e%acted an oath of loyalty from the Macedones in his army, gave them purple hats and cloaks, formed for himself a ,avalry Guard of <;;, and an Infantry Guard of ",;;; men chosen by a dogma of his Macedones.[51] *e had his own system of Pages, of whom two s7uadrons of fifty each served close to him in battle !$le%ander too, according to ?iodorus, had had Pages to guard him in $sia#.[52] +ut Eumenes owed his successes e7ually to the native troops whom he recruited, especially in ,appadocia. 9e%t, the king and the city. In the seventh and si%th centuries the Macedones destroyed or e%pelled the previous inhabitants of the rich coastal plain west of the $%ius, and most Macedones then abandoned the pastoral way of life and settled in tight communities, based on the CcompaniesD !#%# of their pastoral life. 1hese communities called themselves pole0s, cities, self@managing centers of local loyalty. $egeae, $lorus, Pella, Ichnae, and *eracleum were certainly pole0s at the turn of the si%th century, and each had its own distinctive citi'enship and territory. 1he Macedonian .tate created new cities of Macedones within the e%panding kingdom, as we have seen at Balindoia. .uch a city was created not by attracting individuals !as a new town would do today# but by transplanting a community of Macedones2 for e%ample, the Macedones of +alla were transplanted to Pythium, a town of

Perrhaebia. Philip I carried out &ust such a policy: C*e uprooted the citi'en men with their women and children from the most distinguished coastal cities and planted them in the area now called Emathia.D [53] It was a two@way process, the displaced population of Emathia being transferred elsewhere. .uch transplants of populations were used by Philip II in order to mi% old and new populations together in both Macedonia proper and :pper Macedonia. 1he Macedonian cities within the kingdom, old and new, managed their own affairs(financial, religious, diplomatic, and military(and in the last war against Gome the cities sent envoys to the king, offering their own money and their own reserves of grain for the campaign.[54] In physical terms the kingdom consisted of two parts: #(+ & 2%, Cthe cities and the countrysideD !so divided by Pyrrhus and Aysimachus, according to Plutarch#.[55] +ut it was, rather, the cities which formed the basis of Macedonia s military and economic strength. .imilar developments were promoted in the Bingdom of $sia by $le%ander and then by his successors. 1he already established cities, both Greek and non@Greek, received favored treatment in terms of land and ta%ation. Populations were transferred !e.g., for refounding 1yre and Ga'a, and for many .eleucid foundations#2 and e%panding trade brought prosperity to these cities. 1hey managed their own affairs, like the cities in the Macedonian kingdom, but within the overall authority of the king. 9ew cities were founded with a modicum of Macedonians and Greeks, who were directed initially by $le%ander and then were welcomed by the .uccessors. 1hese cities included within their territory a large element of local indigenous people, like the villagers attached to Macedonian Balindoia. It is important to stress that these were not Greek cities in any political sense2 for the Greek city was a city@state, fiercely independent, riven by stas0s, racially e%clusive, and intolerant of royal rule. 1heir function, as in the Macedonian kingdom, was to produce the military and economic resources which the *ellenistic kingdoms re7uired for survival. 1he history of what $. *. M. Lones called the CGreek ,ityD of the *ellenistic and Goman periods in $sia[56] was rather the history of the Macedonian city(perhaps the greatest contribution which the Macedonian .tate made to human civili'ation.

Response: E. N. Bor a

Professor *ammond has given us a rich paper, full of intriguing suggestions about connections between the traditional Macedonian monarchy and the kingships of the *ellenistic period. *e sees in the Macedonian state the antecedents for what followed in the *ellenistic era. 1he implications of what he has suggested are far@reaching and should be important to all of us interested in political and cultural continuity in the ancient world. In order to acknowledge the validity of Professor *ammond s thesis, we must be prepared to accept two things: first, that his reconstruction of the institutions of the Macedonian state is valid2 and second, that his interpretation of the *ellenistic legacy of these institutions is correct. I leave the *ellenistic aspect to others better 7ualified to comment, and shall limit myself to the first 7uestion: are Professor *ammond s views a fair representation of Macedonian institutions0 I cannot deal in detail with all of the matters raised by Professor *ammond, and offer the following in the way of commentary. 8irst, I should like(though with a brevity that neither scholar nor sub&ect deserves(to raise a few critical points that may, I hope, suffice to reveal the nature of what I perceive as a ma&or problem in

treating these matters. .econd, I wish to address the larger conte%t of describing the $rgead dynasty of Macedon,[1] and to suggest why it is so difficult to develop analogues or parallels between what *ellenistic kings did and the activities of their Macedonian predecessors. 1he heart of Professor *ammond s argument lies in his reconstruction of the relationship between the Macedonian king and his people, the Macedones, in the $rgead period. *is attempt here and elsewhere to define the Macedones as the Macedonians@at@arms has met with general approval. Professor *ammond correctly demonstrates that the epigraphical evidence(on this point, the best kind of evidence (from the late fifth and early fourth centuries shows that the king is (+ .&('! !. 1he same evidence also reveals that all treaties are made with the king personally2 the only other persons mentioned are the king s descendants or living members of his immediate family, the $rgeadae. 1his would remain true through the reign of $le%ander the Great, where CBing $le%anderD alone marks all of the surviving treaties. 1he numbers of the Macedones are still largely guesswork. Professor *ammond gives ";,;;; Macedones in <HJ and <;,;;; in <<E. 1his is in fact the number of infantry in the Macedonian army during Philip s campaign against the Illyrian +ardylis !?. "E.F.<# and the number at the commencement of $le%ander s reign.[2] +ut there is nothing in the evidence cited to connect these numbers with the total citi'en population beyond the unproved assumption that the whole citi'en levy was enrolled in these campaigns. Perhaps the citi'en rolls were actually larger, as $le%ander was able to draw on e%tensive human resources in e%changing veterans for fresh troops during his $sian venture.[3]1his could have been accomplished had large numbers of new men been made Macedones under $le%ander, but Professor *ammond argues that this process began only Cgradually under $le%ander and increased rapidlyNafter his death.D /e are thus left somewhat confused not only by the problem of numbers, but also by the definition of what a Macedonian was at any given moment. Professor *ammond cites some new inscriptions from ,halcidice showing the disposition of king s land to Macedones and perhaps others. I wonder if such an act of settlement conferred with it citi'enship !one thinks of similar circumstances during the Goman Gepublic#, or whether these land grants may not have been a reward to veterans who already were Macedones0 Griffith has maintained that the latter situation may have prevailed in ,halcidice in Philip II s time, but that so few Macedones were settled as to leave the basic Greek character of the population not much altered.[4] In the end, the award of royal land grants might account for an increase in the numbers of Macedones. It appears that Professor *ammond is on the right track in his attempt to frame the problem as one that necessitates understanding the relationship between the troops !Professor *ammond s Cciti'en troops,D the elite infantry and ,ompanion ,avalry# and the king, and the Macedonians and the king, and whether these two( troops and Macedonians(are synonymous. +ut I am not entirely persuaded that our sources, many of which are late and imprecise, use these terms with the precision that both Professor *ammond and I would wish. In short, I am less certain about the definition and numbers than is Professor *ammond. Moreover, I am unable to share Professor *ammond s fine distinction between $le%ander as Bing of the Macedones and as Bing of $sia. 1he late .tewart -ost pointed out that the sources do not discriminate between kingship or lordship over $sia.[5] 1he title is not official in any sense, but general, at least as far as we can tell from the ancient writers, who are mainly centuries removed from these events. $s -ost pointed out, it would be as if 9apoleon s troops had proclaimed him CEmperor of

Europe.D I thus cannot accept that our sources comments about $le%ander s titles in $sia have any significance for describing his formal relationship with his own peoples. 1o continue, Professor *ammond suggests that these citi'en@soldiers both elected and deposed their kings. 9ow we have surviving the names of si%teen historical $rgead kings, beginning with $myntas I in the late si%th and early fifth century and ending with $le%ander II, son of the con7ueror, who was murdered in <""M";. !1hose who accept that $rgaeus and $myntas II were kings would have eighteen names on their list.# )et we have only a single dubious reference, in a late writer, for the Macedonians deposing a king in accordance with due process. [6] -f my list of si%teen, e%actly half were murdered. -f the remainder, half appear to have died of natural causes or were killed in battle, and we have no information about the others.[7] 1he only possible instance of a king being deposed would be that of young $myntas II, for whom Philip might have served as regent for a year or two2 but I am among those who believe that Philip was king from the start.[8] $s for the selection process(and this is central to Professor *ammond s theme of continuity between the $rgead and *ellenistic periods(we have, in fact, information about only three successions, those of Philip II, $le%ander the Great, and $rrhidaeus. Insofar as limited evidence permits us to say, the procedures used in all three successions differ from one another. .ome sort of assembly may have participated in the choice of Philip2 at least Philip was addressing an assembly as part of the process !?. "E.<."#, but we lack evidence that Philip was elected by the army as the sole method of succession.[9] 8urther, Philip s rule was 7uickly challenged by $rgaeus, who marched immediately to secure the support of the local population, a move forestalled by Philip !?. "E.3.E6<.<#. 9o assembly is mentioned in the case of $le%ander s succession,[10]even though he is portrayed as courting and winning support through tactful statements !?. "4.".32 Lust. "".".J#. $s for $rrhidaeus, it was an e%traordinary scene in +abylon in the early summer of <3<, and, while not all of the details have been accepted as historically accurate, the general sense of what went on is undeniable.[11] It all boils down to this: for the whole history of the $rgeadae there is preserved a detailed account of only this one scene of succession, characteri'ed by chaos, ambition, fear, and political maneuvering. If there were constitutional procedures for selecting a king, they were not in evidence. If the Carmy assemblyD was constituted to elect a king, why did it not function in Lune <3<0 $nd why !if one accepts the story of the king s last words# did a small group of generals ask the dying $le%ander about h0s choice of successor0 /ho would enforce such a decision0 In the course of the confusion, Perdiccas held the ring !whatever that signified#, Ptolemy proposed rule by a &unta, and a throng of soldiers pushed for $rrhidaeus. 1he evidence for later fourth@century successions(the only $rgead successions for which we have information(permits the following conclusion: groups of persons participated in the selection of the king, as the king ruled, in some sense, with the consent of the governed !here I concur completely with Professor *ammond s underlying assumption#. 1his is a component of kingship resting on generalship, an ancient tradition in several societies in which commanders led with the consent of their troops. 1hose who shared in the king s selection probably !but not always# included members of the royal family, important barons and military chiefs, parts of the army, and, perhaps, of the civilian population(although I should not like to press the last point. 1he e%tant evidence suggests that the selection was not fi%ed according to established, constitutional procedures, but depended upon the political and military circumstances at hand. Even an autocratic king needed the support of the army, some troops of which might be consulted or e%horted if the situation re7uired that, as in the cases of Philip II and $rrhidaeus. +ut acclamation by the

army, which may have been a normal, ritual part of the process, is not the same as election, a procedure marked by political agreements and compromises made on another level. 1here is in fact no evidence proving that the sovereign power to elect a king rested with any particular group of persons. .uccession appears rather to be the result of a series of political and military decisions made by those in a position to do so, and the manner in which they conducted themselves was a response to the circumstances of the moment.[12] 1hus, while I can accept much of what Professor *ammond says about the nature of the Macedonian citi'enship through the age of $le%ander, I am somewhat skeptical about the power of that citi'en body to effect momentous decisions, such as the election and deposition of their kings. +ut there is also a logical inconsistency in Professor *ammond s position. Even if we accept that some kind of assembly of troops selected and deposed kings !and I do not accept this#, they did so because they were Macedones, citi'ens of a Macedonian monarchical state. 1o claim the perpetuation of the process into *ellenistic times would re7uire defining the citi'en body of the Ptolemaic and .eleucid kingdoms in the same way for the same reason. Professor *ammond has not done this, and I am not certain that the analogy is possible. +ut I leave that matter to those well versed in matters of *ellenistic ruling and ruled classes.[13] $s for $ntigonid Macedonia, I suspect that things were much as they had been before the age of Philip and $le%ander, although this is an impressionistic view. 1here are several other points in Professor *ammond s paper that re7uire a similar response, that is, that I do not see in one or two isolated instances, cited by late sources, a sample of evidence statistically sufficient to lay down a general rule, especially when much of that evidence concerns the reign of $le%ander, whose career may be uni7ue because of its geographical setting and multiethnic comple%ity. 1he most that can be said is that there appear to be some features of the reigns of Philip and $le%ander that may have established precedents for the *ellenistic kingships that followed. +ut, if Bienast and 8redricksmeyer are correct,[14] Philip s kingship was tending toward an $sian absolutist model, and most of $le%ander s kingship was e%ercised for eleven years amid almost constant campaigning thousands of miles from home. It is difficult to believe that either of these royal administrations was Cnormal,D although I confess that the dearth of information about political and social institutions before Philip makes it as dangerous for me to claim that Philip and $le%ander were unusual as it does for Professor *ammond to claim that they were part of a continuing tradition. $s for the king and the city, Professor *ammond raises the possibility that the Macedonian city in the *ellenistic and Goman world was Cperhaps the greatest contribution which the Macedonian .tate made to human civili'ation.D 9ow we cannot deny that the Macedonians were city founders and refounders from the time of $rchelaus to the age of Philip and $le%ander. +ut I cannot attach much significance to this Macedonian custom, or regard it as very different from what Greeks had traditionally been doing for centuries. 1here were, roughly speaking, only two kinds of inhabited communities in the +alkans for people who had settled into an agricultural or commercial pattern: towns and pole0s. 1he custom of European settlement, until 7uite recently, has been to live in defensible towns that lay near trade routes and had access to fresh water and farmland. 1he Macedonians lived this way both as the result of their natural evolution and because their kings forcibly moved people into such settlements from time to time, as Professor *ammond points out. 1hat the towns managed many of their own affairs should not surprise us, especially as the $rgead monarchy seems not to have been highly bureaucrati'ed. +ut it would appear that a ma&or difference between Macedonian towns and Greek

towns is that the Greeks selected their own magistrates and legislated on their own behalf in pole0s that were politically autonomous. $s this is a ma&or difference, I am not clear about Professor *ammond s phrase pol0s Ma3edonon, and what the distinction is between it and a Greek pol0s. I think a better analogy would have been between Macedonian towns and the larger towns that were part of the $thenian pol0s, e%cluding the town of $thens. $ll central Macedonian towns whose sites are known were located on prime farmland, and, as Professor *ammond has shown by his use of the new ,halcidic inscriptions recently recovered by our Greek colleagues, good farmland in ,halcidice was used to settle persons in towns. $nd when Philip II took $mphipolis, he may have settled some Macedonians therein, but the infrastructure that had managed this city for nearly a century continued as before.[15] 1hat is, $mphipolis continued to maintain all of the characteristics of its former status as a pol0s, save one essential one: it was no longer politically independent. ,an any of these settlements, new or old, properly be called a pol0s, when political authority resided in the monarchy0 9ow Professor *ammond apparently understands this. 1his is the $rgead model he sees establishing the pattern for the eastern cities of the *ellenistic and Goman periods, and certainly no one would wish to deny Professor *ammond s claim concerning the historical importance of those centers. +ut I fail to see that this is a peculiar Macedonian institution. 1he characteristic Macedonian institution was the monarchy itself, replanted throughout the $sian and $frican rim of the eastern Mediterranean as an attempt to legitimi'e the con7uests of $le%ander s successor generals, but even so hardly a uni7ue form of government in that part of the world. 8urthermore, as the general pattern of settlement in the Greek as well as Macedonian world was through towns, the development of cities in the eastern Mediterranean seems to me to be a perfectly natural, indeed, the only possible, means of social organi'ation. Perhaps my 7uarrel with Professor *ammond on this point is only one of emphasis. /e agree that the cities of the East were important. *e sees this as an outgrowth of a Macedonian custom2 I see it as a more common and natural means of establishing settlements or of perpetuating e%isting urban centers. 1he relationship of these cities to their ruling monarchs was, as Professor *ammond points out, similar to what may have e%isted in old Macedon, but I do not view this as something especially characteristic of the Macedonian heritage so much as the only situation possible if one is to have cities within a far@flung monarchy. Professor *ammond is correct when he points out that these self@governing *ellenistic cities were not city@states, since, like Macedonian cities, they were ruled by the king. )et he calls the Macedonian cities pole0s. I agree that the Macedonian and *ellenistic cities were alike2 but I see neither as a proper city@state in the Greek sense, if by that we mean they were autonomous. .till, it may in the end be a moot point: who would be willing to argue that Mytilene or 9a%os or ,arystos were not pole0s &ust because they were ruled by $thens in the fifth century +.,.0 I think that Professor *ammond is on the right track in attempting to define the relationship between kings and cities in Macedonia, but I am unpersuaded that this is significant for an understanding of the cities of the early *ellenistic world. .elf@managing cities e%isting within larger monarchies in the East had rarely been independent, and one wonders whether their *ellenistic status is not as much due to traditional city@ monarchy relationships in the East as to the fact that Macedonian kings now ruled there. 9evertheless, it is not certain that Professor *ammond is wrong in the end. -ne of the more remarkable aspects of his career is the unusual prescience or intuition he

has shown about some things, most notably his identification of the modern village of Iergina as the site of ancient $egeae. $s ancient historians, we are most of us, on occasion, intuitive and impressionistic when confronted with scanty evidence. Professor *ammond s argument about the cities remains, in my view, &ust that( impressionistic(but I am intrigued by the implications of it, and await the recovery of more epigraphical and archaeological evidence from Macedon itself to test the hypothesis more accurately.[16] 9ow, let us e%amine a methodological conte%t for what Professor *ammond and others of us attempt to do when tracing the long course of Macedonian institutions. [17] $t the core of his argument lies a conviction that the Macedonian monarchy operated according to a set of procedures that had been established through custom over a long time. 1here are two basic schools of thought about the Macedonian Cconstitution,D if by that term we mean the customs and institutions by which a society was regulated. -ne school holds that the Macedonian kingdom was run according to a generally accepted set of traditions within which various groups held and e%ercised customary rights which the king oversaw and guaranteed. 1his is what I shall call the CconstitutionalistD position. 1he other school believes that the kingdom was centered on the autocracy of the monarch himself, who did precisely what he wanted, or(more e%actly(what he could get away with. +ut what is the evidence for these institutions0 :nfortunately for those of us who are historians attempting to seek order !and even reason# out of the chaos of events, the Macedonians are a people who are mainly silent about themselves, and there is no Polybius for the $rgead period. 9early all our information about political and social institutions in early Macedon comes from the age of Philip and $le%ander2 and any attempt to retro&ect such evidence into earlier Macedonian history re7uires large assumptions about the continuity of institutions from the classical period into the later fourth century and the *ellenistic era. If the advocates of constitutionalism use this continuity as an operating methodological assumption, they should also be able to trace the continuation of these institutions into the *ellenistic period, or, if not, to posit when and why there was a break. 1he constitutionalist position was laid out forcefully more than half a century ago by 8riedrich Granier,[18] and much of the discussion since then has evolved in support, modification, or re&ection of his views. :sing evidence mainly from the *ellenistic period, Granier concluded that the Macedonian kingship evolved from a primitive chieftainship, in which the king was a first among e7uals, chosen by his fellow warriors. $s Macedonian institutions became more formal, an organi'ation of Macedonian men@at@arms came into e%istence, marking a transition to something akin to a sovereign military assembly. $s the population became more settled and the Macedonians were transformed from a warrior society into a landed aristocracy, the nobility usurped popular sovereignty. In the fourth century, however, the assembly was revived to provide the monarchy with support against the nobility. 1he army assembly ac7uired some &udicial functions and even selected the king or regent. $ll parties were aware of their rights, although in practice the king ruled as an autocrat. 9onetheless, the relationship between king and people was regulated by two constituent functions of the army assembly: the right to elect the king, and the right to sit as &udge and &ury. Granier s book proved influential, and, although some details in it were found unacceptable, its basic thesis(that the Macedonians lived according to traditional customs(long remained unchallenged. -ver the years it has been e%tended and modified by others, including $ndrO $ymard, Pierre +riant, and Professor *ammond himself2 and while some small differences e%ist, these are all variations on the constitutionalist theme.[19]

1his constitutionalist view remains an attractive hypothesis, despite the fact that there is no evidence from anti7uity to support the kind of political evolution that Granier described. Moreover, the fragments that have been used to prove the e%istence of an assembly at any period have been drawn from late authors far removed from the scene, or have referred to events in the *ellenistic era. 1he ma&or challenge to the constitutionalist position has been led by Malcolm Errington, who has received some support from Gobert Aock and Edward $nson.[20] 1he critics position may be summari'ed thus: !a# Granier and others have constructed a theoretical model based upon an unacceptable assumption, namely that peoples rights were recogni'ed by Macedonian kings but not reali'ed in practice2 !b# the evidence used to support the model comes mainly from the *ellenistic period, and the assumption that there was an institutional continuity from early Macedon to the *ellenistic period is unproven2 !c# the evidence from the reign of $le%ander the Great that shows occasional meetings of the army for some &udicial or forensic purpose describes a special situation(an e%ception to the rule, not the rule itself2 and !d# there is no supporting evidence from reliable contemporary writers, such as $ristotle. 1he sources centuries removed are for the most part ignorant about early Macedonian institutions and anachronistic in describing institutional terms and procedures. In my view the modern critics have struck a telling, though perhaps not fatal, blow at the constitutionalist position, which must remain what it has always been: a theoretical construction largely unsupported by evidence from anti7uity. 9ow it could be argued that it is not methodologically incorrect to develop a theoretical model by e%tending a body of information from a relatively well@documented period into an era lacking sources. 1hat is, if one could show that there was a constitutional structure in the *ellenistic period like that in the age of Philip and $le%ander, it would not be unreasonable to suspect that its origin lay back in the earlier period of Macedonian history for which there is no evidence. +ut the critics have shown that these institutions did not e%ist under the autocratic rule of the $ntigonid dynasty of *ellenistic Macedon. $ssuming that they had been in place earlier, what made them vanish0 1he only possible answer lies in the reigns of Philip and $le%ander: the autocracy of the latter in particular was legendary, and he may well be said to have killed prior constitutional arrangements. +ut this is the very monarch whose reign appears to have provided us with much of our information about the rights of the Macedonians. /e are thus driven to the improbable conclusion that the constitutional arrangements of the Macedonian monarchy collapsed under the absolutism of that very king whose reign provides evidence of their e%istence. 1his simply will not do. 1he more probable alternative is that the interaction between $le%ander, his commanders, and his troops in assembly was a uni7ue situation, resulting from the e%traordinary circumstances of a Macedonian army operating far from home and lacking the normal forms of support and references. 1o present such a minimalist picture of Macedonian institutions without offering an alternative may not be satisfactory. Perhaps one can offer(lacking evidence(a theoretical model. +ut what model0 1he C*omericD model is attractive, but it, too, is fraught with problems of evidence and method that are part of the ongoing struggle to understand ?ark $ge Greece. Moreover, we lack information about the social and economic support en&oyed by Macedonian kings to match what we know about the relationship of *omeric chieftains with other members of their community. +esides, the Macedonian king was clearly more autocratic. 1here is no contemporary Greek model, certainly not the constitutionally constrained monarchy of the .partans. Illyrian and 1hracian models come to mind, but these appear to be too tribal and are, in any case, imperfectly understood. 8ifth@ and fourth@century Macedon may

have been influenced by the Persians, but no serious analysis can be offered until there is a clearer notion of Persian@Macedonian relations in the fourth century before the age of Philip and $le%ander.[21] In sum, I hold that we do not know enough about early Macedonian institutions to describe the e%tent to which they were preserved in the *ellenistic period. ,ertainly, some aspects of the reigns of Philip and $le%ander do appear to have continued at least into the early *ellenistic era. +ut I regard as unproven this attempt to show that such features were a part of traditional Macedonian monarchy (what Professor *ammond calls the CpatternD of the Macedonian state. I agree that the Macedonians had a vital impact on the history of western $sia and the eastern Mediterranean world2 but that had little to do with the migration of Macedonian institutions to distant places. In fact, the true CMacedonian imprintD was due to the con7uest carried out by $le%ander s armies, thus removing from western $sia the political power that had for centuries blocked the penetration of Greek culture. 1heir con7uest replaced $sian rule with Macedonian rule. 1o the e%tent that a cultural transformation followed, it was, in my view, due rather to a continuation of local traditions and the influence of pockets of *ellenism than to the establishment of anything distinctly Macedonian.

!"s#$ss"on
E. S. Gruen:

Plutarch is surely right that $le%ander shunned the title CBing of Bings.D I have no 7uarrel with the facts presented by Professor *ammond. +ut the interpretation I find a little more difficult. Professor *ammond s parado%ical version is that $le%ander avoided the designation because it was too restrictive: CBing of $siaD was meant to be a more sweeping title. 1hen he goes on to say that $le%ander did not want to succeed ?arius but wanted ?arius to remain as the Bing of the Medes and Persians, as would his successors. I have three problems with this. 8irst, if $le%ander was willing to have ?arius retain his throne, what was the symbolic significance of $le%ander s0tt0ng on that throne0 .econdly, if he e%pected ?arius heir to be king to the Medes and Persians, why did he send him to Macedonia to learn Greek0 $nd third, if ?arius was to be Bing of the Medes and Persians, would he also retain the title CBing of BingsD0 /hich kings would he then be king of0 Perhaps $le%ander avoided the title CBing of BingsD for a simpler reason(that is, the negative connotations that this phrase had in the Greek world, at least since the time of Per%es and $eschylus 4ersae. N. G. L. Hammond: If you look at the letter, which, I think, gives the actual sense of what $le%ander wrote to ?arius, he says that ?arius can be king over other kings, and this must mean that ?arius could retain the hereditary title CBing of Medes and Persians,D 5as0leus 5as0leon. It is kings within the Medic and Persian state that he is king of, not all the kings of the world. I think the point of confusion is that Persian kings could claim the title CBing of $sia.D +ut so could the kings of, say, Phrygia and Macedonia. 1o be Bing of $sia does not mean to be king of the Medes and Persians. $le%ander claimed to be king of all of $sia. *e thought of India as being the end of $sia. $sia to him was a geographical concept. *e didn t know the limits of it, but it was a clear concept. P. Green: $le%ander is in fact e7uating $sia with the entire Persian domain. .o in fact whether he was called Bing of Bings or not was a moot point. N. G. L. Hammond: 9o, $sia was more than the area controlled by ?arius at his death. $le%ander went beyond that. ?arius, for e%ample, didn t control the Indus valley. A. E. Samuel: I am dubious as to whether we can use the evidence for $le%ander to describe Macedonian kingship as an institution. 1hat is, although I would be inclined to say that we can describe $le%ander as a king, and can talk about his kingship, in terms of patterns of behavior, overall we get the impression from the sources that $le%ander became increasingly suspicious of his generals and was worried about their reaction to what he was doing. I am concerned about whether or not we can really use the evidence about $le%ander on items. $s an $le%ander historian I know some of those stories are true, but I m not sure which ones. $nd I m not sure which

stories come out of the tradition to amplify it, or which ones establish the tradition. 1o depend on any single piece of evidence to describe the situation which pertained at the time of $le%ander seems to me to be depending on evidence that is really shifty. .o I incline to a minimalist position simply because I don t have any evidence. N. G. L. Hammond: It s obviously important to decide which of the original sources of information were used by the later writers. $nd that I ve endeavored to do for three $le%ander historians and I hope to go on to the sources of Plutarch s 6le7ander and of $rrian. 1hat seems to me to be a vital foundation which hasn t been properly laid. It will always be controversial, but some points one can probably establish. If you accept the word of $rrian that he was following $ristobulus and Ptolemy, then you have a fairly solid basis to go on. 1hings which he says are legomena are &ust stories he knows are not trustworthy, and so we know it too. S. M. Burstein: Professor +or'a s minimalist position on the 7uestion of the constitution of Macedonia I accept as a statement of the evidence. +ut he also slipped in a redefinition that might actually be very promising. Errington, as I see it, has been fundamentally attacking a straw man. /hat Granier, +riant, and the others have done is to devise for Macedon something akin to Mommsen sStaatsrecht, a precise model with rigid rules and formulas. 1hat is easy to knock down. It has been done convincingly. *owever, Errington has come perilously close to positing something unparalleled: an autocracy in which the murder of ,litus is normal. 1he king can do anything. $ Merovingian warlord might get away with a murder(many murders(but not even the Merovingian system ever assumed that this was normal behavior. Professor +or'a appears to be suggesting that there was a set of Macedonian constitutional traditions, but that we &ust don t know what they are. Is that correct0 E. N. Borza: I think so, yes. Aeon Mooren has written on these matters recently and has taken a plausible moderate position, somewhere between *ammond and Errington, though a bit closer to the latter. 1he heart of the 7uestion remains: /hat is the relationship of the king of the Macedonians to the Macedonians0 If my position is accepted (and I hope Professor *ammond will agree with what follows(the king of the Macedonians had a working relationship with his army, as did any good general in anti7uity. $nd this relationship is not the law of the &ungle. I would never claim that, even though Errington may appear to do so2 in fact, I know personally that he believes that even the &ungle has laws. /hatever the nature of the Macedonian Cconstitution,D it arises from a mutual understanding of the nature of that relationship. /e have the most evidence for it from the e%pedition of $le%ander, although his reign may be an unusual situation. Even though the CrulesD are difficult for us to recover, they seem(some notable e%ceptions aside(to have worked tolerably well. I do not believe that the evidence supports the notion that Macedonian kings were elected and deposed through some popular procedure, although I accept, on the basis of three later@fourth@century successions for which we have evidence, that troops played some part in the process. It is a political process, but not necessarily a constitutional process following some rigid theoretical model. N. G. L. Hammond: -ne comment on Greek and Macedonian cities: 1he Macedonians called their cities pole0s and other Greek writers called them pole0s. 1hey were in that sense cities. +ut the Greek city was not able to coe%ist with local peoples peacefully. 1he Greek cities in $sia soon ceased to grow, for they tried to sub&ect the native peoples to serfdom. $ristotle said: /hen you con7uer $siatics, reduce them to serfdom, make them sub&ect to the Greek city@states. .o the Greek pol0s was racially e%clusive, not capable of e%tension to whole areas in the East. +ut the Macedonian pol0s, as we see it being created, was a mi%ture of Macedonians and other peoples. 1his is what happens in $sia. It s a Macedonian pol0s, not a Greek type.

No%es %o &e'%
". Lust. 3F.H."F, in ducis nomen. 3. Plut. 8emetr. 3H.<. =+$,B> <. .ee Meiggs@Aewis, 9:I no. "3, pp. 3;633. =+$,B> F. ?. "4."4.3. =+$,B> H. Lust. "".H."". =+$,B> E. $rr. 4."H.F. =+$,B> 4. $rr. F.4.<. =+$,B> J. $rr. E."4.3. =+$,B> 5. $rr. 4.3;.". =+$,B> ";. ?. "5.FJ.". =+$,B> "". ?. "5.HE.<. =+$,B> "3. *dt. 5.FF."2 1huc. ".H4.3. =+$,B> "<. E.g., Philip I in SI9< H4H !vol. 3, p. 4"#. =+$,B>
=+$,B>

"F. I9< no. J5 !pp. ";H6J#2 cf. 6T; <:<"<6"F n. E", 9. G. A. *ammond and G. 1. Griffith, 6 :0story of Macedon0a, vol. 3, <<=>??@ ABC. !-%ford, "545#, "<F6<H. =+$,B> "H. SI9< no. "<H !pp. "4465#2 cf. 1od, 9:I 3 no. """ !pp. <;6<F#. =+$,B> "E. Paus. ";.J.3. =+$,B> "4. SI9< EH3a !p. 3"<#, CI; I %%vii !p. FJ#. =+$,B> "J. Porphyr. frag. " in D:9 <:E5". =+$,B> "5. ,urt. 5."."6<. =+$,B> 3;. ?. "5.E".". =+$,B> 3". ?. "4.";5.". =+$,B> 33. ?. "J."3.3. =+$,B> 3<. Polyb. H.J3.3. =+$,B> 3F. ?. "5.E"6E3.". =+$,B> 3H. $pp. Syr. HF. =+$,B> 3E. Plut. 8emetr. "J.". =+$,B> 34. $pp. Syr. HF. =+$,B> 3J. Memnon, D9r: F<F 8J. =+$,B> 35. 1rogus, 4rologue "4: cognomine ,eraunus creatus ab e%ercitu. <;. Lust. "<.<.". =+$,B> <". Lust. 3F.<.3: ad contionem 7uo7ue vocato e%ercitu. <<. Polyb. "H.3H.". =+$,B> <F. Polyb. "H.3H."". =+$,B> <H. 1huc. 3.55. =+$,B> <E. ?. "E.F.<. =+$,B> <4. Plut. 6le7. F4."6F, 8emetr. <4. =+$,B> <J. $rr. ".3<.4. =+$,B> <5. ?. "4.F5.". =+$,B> F;. ,f. *ammond, 6nc0ent Macedon0a, vol. F !1hessaloniki, "5JE#, J4ff.
=+$,B> =+$,B> =+$,B> =+$,B>

<3. Lust. "<.F.F: ut maiestas eius testis decretorum esset.

F". ,. Iatin, 4rocB Eth Ep0grB Conf. !$thens, "5JF#, 3H564;2 cf. A. Missit'is, 6nc0ent Forld "3 !"5JH#: <6"F, *ammond, CG <J !"5JJ#: <J365". =+$,B> F3. ?. "4."4.32 Lust. "".H.";. FF. $rr. 4.E.". =+$,B> FH. ?. "5.";H.F. =+$,B> FE. Polyb. "J.H".F: '$%&"1"$!. =+$,B> F4. $rr. "."4.", E."4.E. =+$,B> FJ. $rr. 4.3;.". =+$,B> F5. Lust. J.E.3. =+$,B> H;. Plut. 4yrrh. J.". =+$,B> H". Plut. Eum. 4.3, J.E. =+$,B> H3. ?. "4.EH.3. =+$,B> H<. Polyb. 3<.";.F. =+$,B> HF. Aivy F3.H<.<. =+$,B> HH. Plut. 4yrrh. "3.". =+$,B> HE. $. *. M. Lones, The 9ree3 C0ty from 6le7ander to Hust0n0an !-%ford, "5F;#. =+$,B>
=+$,B>

F<. 1od, 9:I 3 no. "JH."" !p. 3F<#, and *ammond, The Macedon0an State !-%ford, "5J5#, 3"E n. 3H. =+$,B>

No%es %o Response
". 1hroughout I prefer C$rgeadD to *ammond s C1emenid,D as I hold that the tradition of a 1emenid !$rgive Greek# origin for the Macedonian royal family is a story probably derived from the propaganda of $le%ander I2 see my C$thenians, Macedonians and the -rigins of the Macedonian Goyal *ouse,D :esper0a, suppl. "5 !"5J3#: 46"<. =+$,B>

3. 8or detailed discussion of the numbers in $le%ander s army see 9. G. A. *ammond and 8. /. /albank, 6 :0story of Macedon0a, vol. <, ??@>I@J ABC. !-%ford, "5JJ#, JE6J4. =+$,B> <. -n $le%ander s manpower reserves see $. +. +osworth, CMacedonian Manpower under $le%ander the Great,D 6nc0ent Macedon0a F !"5JE#: ""H633, and C$le%ander the Great and the ?ecline of Macedon,D H:S";E !"5JE#: "6"3. =+$,B> F. In 9. G. A. *ammond and G. 1. Griffith, 6 :0story of Macedon0a, vol. 3, <<=>??@ ABC. !-%ford, "545#, <EH6 45. =+$,B> H. .. I. -ost, C1he $le%ander *istorians and $sia,D in *arry L. ?ell, ed., Macedon0an Stud0es 0n :onor of Charles DB Edson !1hessaloniki, "5J"#, 3EH6J3. =+$,B> E. Porphyr. frag. " !Q .yncell. 3E"?# in D:9 III, p. E5", part of a garbled and largely untrustworthy account of Macedonian rulers of the early fourth century. =+$,B> 4. $rchelaus was killed by a lover, $myntas II by ?erdas, Pausanias !probably# by $myntas III, $le%ander II by Ptolemy, Ptolemy by Perdiccas III, Philip II by Pausanias, Philip III by -lympias, and $le%ander II by ,assander. Moreover, there were additional conspiracies against at least $myntas III and $le%ander III, and a number of potential rivals were dispatched in the struggles for succession of $rchelaus, Philip II, and $le%ander the Great. ?eath from natural causes: $le%ander I, Perdiccas II, $myntas III, and $le%ander the Great. =+$,B> J. 1he matter of Philip s regency is not settled. 1he strongest argument favoring a regency is offered by $drian 1ronson, C.atyrus the Peripatetic and the Marriages of Philip II,D H:S ";F !"5JF#: "3;63". I am, however, inclined to accept the view of Griffith, :0story of Macedon0a 3:3;J65, 4;36F, who is persuasive in arguing that $myntas never ruled. =+$,B> 5. ?. "4.3.3. Lustin !"".".J# mentions a cont0o, the same word used by ,urtius !";.4."<# to describe the crowd assembled at the time of $rrhidaeus selection, but this is not to be taken as meaning a formal electoral assembly !pace Griffith, :0story of Macedon0a 3:<5"# any more than is *ammond s plethos !see below, note "<#. =+$,B> ";. ,ontra *ammond, :0story of Macedon0a <:<;, who cites $rr. ".3H.3 as evidence for $le%ander s CelectionD to the throne of Macedon. $rrian says nothing of the kind in this passage, and in the brief mention of $le%ander s accession in the appropriate place !"."."#, $rrian wrote #%*! , the same verb used by Plutarch !6le7. ""."#, which, among its various meanings in this conte%t !e.g., Creceive,D Csucceed to,D etc.#, does not mean Celect.D =+$,B> "". ?. "4.""4.<6""J.3, "J.".<63.F2 $rr. 4.3E.<2 ,urt. ";.H.F6";.3;2 Lust. "3."H.J.
=+$,B>

"3. /hen Polybius !"H.3H.""# refers to troops at the Ptolemaic court swearing loyalty as they were accustomed to doing at the proclamation of kings, it is not as clear to me as to *ammond that our source is referring to some old Macedonian custom rather than to a feature of the court of the Ptolemies. 1he passage is evidence only of the swearing of loyalty2 loyalty may be crucial to the success of a would@be monarch, but Polybius does not e7uate the acclamation of loyalty with the formal procedure of choosing a monarch. =+$,B> "<. *ammond cites several situations from the *ellenistic period suggesting that there was a functioning army assembly that made important decisions, especially regarding the appointment and deposition of rulers. +ut the evidence does not always support *ammond s view. 8or e%ample, *ammond argues that the plethos mentioned by Plutarch !8emetr. "J."# in his descriptions of the crowning of $ntigonus and ?emetrius is an assembly. +ut this misinterprets Plutarch. K #/$+ is a throng of soldiers salut0ng ?emetrius and $ntigonus2 but $ntigonus is crowned by his friends !$ L$#, and ?emetrius receives the diadem from his father. Moreover, Plutarch s account of the crowning of $ntigonus and ?emetrius is part of a longer passage which goes on to describe the assumption of royal status by all the first@generation .uccessors, and there is a complete silence on the procedures of accession used by Ptolemy, Aysimachus, .eleucus, and ,assander. 1here is little more here and in other evidence cited by *ammond !e.g., note 5 above# than small contingents of soldiers, normally household troops, proclaiming a new king. 1hese are ad hoc incidents, more akin to the proclamation of ,laudius as emperor by the Praetorians rather than manifestations of an institutional procedure. =+$,B> "F. ?ietmar Bienast, 4h0l0pp IIB Mon Ma3edon0en und das Ne0ch der 6cha0men0den, $bhandlungen der Marburger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, "54", no. E !Munich, "54<#, and E. $. 8redricksmeyer, C?ivine *onors for Philip II,D T646 ";5 !"545#: <56E", C-n the +ackground of the Guler ,ult,D in Macedon0an Stud0es, "FH6HE, and C-n the 8inal $ims of Philip II,D in /. A. $dams and E. 9. +or'a, eds., 4h0l0p IIO 6le7ander the 9reat and the Macedon0an :er0tage !/ashington, "5J3#, JH65J. =+$,B> "H. Griffith, :0story of Macedon0a 3:3<;6F3. =+$,B> "E. Pella is only now emerging from the ground. It is *ippodamian in plan, and appears similar to the grand cities of $sia Minor and the Aevant in the *ellenistic period. +ut the dating of much of Pella is still imprecise2 we have virtually no archaeological chronology for the city from its refounding by $rchelaus about the year F;; +.,. down to the later fourth century. $s for $egeae, we have only scattered buildings2 but perhaps further e%cavation based on the new magnetometer readings will reveal something of its fourth@century plan. ?ion, which holds so much promise in theory, is still being dug mainly at Goman levels. 1he very site of 1herme is in dispute, and the early history of 1hessaloniki lies beneath its Goman, medieval, and modern overlay. /e know, in fact, very little about these towns. 1o &udge by what slight evidence has been recovered through e%cavation, their physical appearance would seem to differ somewhat from that of their *ellenistic counterparts. 1o the best of my knowledge no ma&or religious monument !and here I include the small Eucleia monument at $egeae#, such as a temple, has yet been recovered inside a Macedonian town. Pella has an agora, but it may be middle or late *ellenistic. /hether $egeae had one or not will be known only from further e%cavation. 1he agora, so typical for Greek pole0s, as the center of the kind of self@management that *ammond

attributes to Macedonian towns, thus far is missing. 1here are other differences, having to do with the distribution of burial sites and small shrines, but I have no time to e%plore them beyond this brief reference. $ trickle of inscriptions describing city procedures and officials continues to appear, but, as yet, of insufficient 7uantity and 7uality to &udge the e%tent to which the institutions that governed these towns are indicative of self@ government or royal rule. =+$,B>

In brief, there is not enough literary or archaeological evidence to make a strong case for the self@governing pol0s@type urban center having e%isted in Macedonia itself. 8urther, since the *ellenistic urban center in the eastern Mediterranean may, as I believe, have resulted from a natural organic evolution coupled with Greek influences in new city planning, a link between Macedonian cities and those of the *ellenistic East has yet to be established.
"4. .ome of what follows reflects an argument presented in detail in my recent work, In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon !Princeton, "55;#. =+$,B> "J. 80e ma3edon0sche :eeresMersammlung: E0n Ae0trag Pum ant03en Staatsrecht !Munich, "5<"#. =+$,B> "5. $ymard, C.ur l assemblOe macOdonienne,D NE6 H3 !"5H;#: ""H6<4, and C+asileus Makedonon,D NI86 F !"5H;#: E"654, both reprinted in $ymard s Qtudes d,h0sto0re anc0enne !Paris, "5E4#2 +riant, 6nt0gone le Aorgne !Paris, "54<#2 and *ammond, :0story of Macedon0a 3:"H;6EH, <J<6F;F. =+$,B> 3;. Errington, CMacedonian RGoyal .tyleS and its *istorical .ignificance,D H:S 5F !"54F#: 3;6<4, C1he *istoriographical -rigins of Macedonian C.taatsrecht,S D 6nc0ent Macedon0a < !"5J<#: J56";", and C1he 9ature of the Macedonian .tate under the Monarchy,D Ch0ron J !"54J#: 446"<<2 Aock, C1he Macedonian $rmy $ssembly in the 1ime of $le%ander the Great,D C4 43 !"544#: 5"6";42 $nson, CMacedonia s $lleged ,onstitutionalism,D CH J; !"5JH#: <;<6"E, and C1he Evolution of the Macedonian $rmy $ssembly,D :0stor0a F; !"55"#: 3<;6F4. =+$,B> 3". .hortly after the conclusion of the present symposium an article appeared by $lan E. .amuel, CPhilip and $le%ander as Bings: Macedonian Monarchy and Merovingian Parallels,D 6:N 5< !"5JJ#: "34;6JE, in which a CwarlordD model was offered. .amuel attempted to show that the tie that bound king and people was the winning of land2 and surely there is considerable evidence(as *ammond has pointed out in his paper(of the importance to Macedonians of Cspear@won landD !) '$%&"1"$+#. 1his may be an idea deserving greater emphasis in *ammond s arguments. =+$,B>