The major Hellenistic realms; the Ptolemaic kingdom (dark blue); the Seleucid empire (yellow); Macedon (green) and Epirus (pink). The orange areas were often in dispute after 281 BC. The kingdom of Pergamon occupied some of this area.

Hellenistic civilization represents the zenith of Greek influence in the ancient world. After the conquest of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great, Macedonian kingdoms were established throughout south-west Asia (the 'Near' and 'Middle East') and north-east Africa (mainly ancient Egypt). This resulted in the export of Greek culture and language to these new realms, and moreover Greek colonists themselves. Equally, however, these new kingdoms were influenced by the indigenous cultures, adopting local practices where beneficial, necessary or convenient. Hellenistic civilization thus represents a fusion of the Ancient Greek world with that of Asia, and a departure from the traditional Greek attitude to "barbarian" cultures. The extent to which a genuinely hybrid Greco-Asian cultures emerged is contentious; consensus tends to point towards pragmatic cultural adaptation by the elites of society; for the mass of the population, life would probably have continued much as before[1].

The Hellenistic period was characterized by a new wave of Greek colonization[2] (as distinguished from that occurring in the 8th-6th centuries BC) which established Greek cities and kingdoms in Asia and Africa.[3] Those new cities were composed of Greek colonists who came from different parts of the Greek world, and not, as before, from a specific "mother city".[3]. The main cultural centers expanded from mainland Greece, to Pergamon, Rhodes, and new Greek colonies such as Seleucia, Antioch and Alexandria. This mixture of Greek-speakers gave birth to a common Attic-based dialect, known as Hellenistic Greek, which became the lingua franca through the Hellenistic world.

The term Hellenistic itself is derived from Ἕλλην (Héllēn), the Greeks' traditional name for themselves. It was coined by the historian Johann Gustav Droysen to refer to the spreading of Greek culture and colonization over the non-Greek lands that were conquered by Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC. There has been much debate about the validity of Droysen's ideas; leading many to reject the label 'Hellenistic' (at least in the specific meaning of Droysen)[4]. However, the term Hellenistic can still be usefully applied to this period in history; and moreover, no better general term exists to do so.

History

The nominal start of the Hellenistic period is usually taken as the death of Alexander the Great, in Babylon, in 323 BC. During the previous decade of campaigning Alexander had conquered the whole Persian Empire, overthrowing the Persian King Darius III. The conquered lands included Asia Minor, Assyria, the Levant, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Media, Persia, and parts of modern Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the steppes of central Asia. Alexander had made no especial preparations for the succession to his new-found empire (dying, as he did, at a young age), and on his death-bed (apocryphally) willed his it to "the strongest"[5].

The result was a state of internecine warfare between his generals (the Diadochi, or 'Successors'), which lasted for forty years before a more-or-less stable settlement was established, resulting in four major domains:

• The Antigonid dynasty in Macedon and central Greece;
• The Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt based at Alexandria;
• The Seleucid dynasty in Syria and Mesopotamia based at Antioch;
• The Attalid dynasty in Anatolia based at Pergamum.

A further two kingdoms later emerged, the so called Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms.

Each of these kingdoms has, thereafter, a noticeably individual development and history. For the most part, those histories are of gradual decline, with most ending in absorption by the Roman Republic. However, it is clear that the rulers of these kingdoms still considered themselves Greek, and furthermore, recognized that the other Hellenistic realms were also Greek and not 'barbarian'. Thus we find constant cycles of alliances, marriages and wars between these states [6].

The end of the Hellenistic period is often considered to be 146 BC, when the Roman Republic conquered most of mainland Greece, and absorbed all of ancient Macedon. By this time the rise of Rome to absolute political prominence in the Mediterranean was complete, and this might therefore mark the start of the 'Roman period'. An alternative date is 30 BC, when the final Hellenistic kingdom of Ptolemaic Egypt was conquered by Rome (the last remnants of the Seleucid empire having been taken over thirty years earlier). This more obviously represents the absolute end of the power of the Hellenistic civilizations.

The Hellenistic World

In addition to the four main Successor kingdoms, there was a wider sphere of Greek influence during the Hellenistic period. Much of mainland Greece and the Greek islands remained at least nominally independent, although often dominated by Macedon. The kingdom of Epirus, bordering Macedon, was also heavily influence by the Greeks, and is often counted as a Hellenistic kingdom. Further west, the Greek cities of Sicily and southern Italy ('Magna Graecia') would remain independent for the early part of the period, until conquered by Rome; but they would in turn contribute to the growing Hellenization of the Roman Republic itself. In Asia Minor, the non-Greek kingdoms of Pontus and Cappadocia emerged, and though not directly hellenized, were heavily influence by the Greeks. At the eastern extremes of the Hellenistic world, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was established as a secession from the Seleucid empire. During the 2nd century BC, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have conquered north-west India, forming an Indo-Greek kingdom, and furthering the spread of Greek influence (into what would otherwise have been a neglected part of the Seleucid realm). Indeed, the Indo-Greek kingdom may technically have been the last Hellenistic state remaining (until c.10 AD), although almost nothing is known of it, such was its separation from European affairs; thus, by the end it may not have been particularly 'Hellenistic'.

Greece

Cyprus

Italy

Asia Minor

Asia Major

Africa

Hellenization

The concept of Hellenization, meaning the spread of Greek culture, has long been controversial. Undoubtedly Greek influence did spread through the Hellenistic realms, but to what extent, and whether this was a deliberate policy or mere cultural diffusion, have been hotly debated.

Alexander

It seems likely that Alexander himself pursued deliberate 'Hellenization' policies, but the exact motives behind that policies are unclear. Whilst it may have been a deliberate attempt to spread Greek culture, it is more likely that it was a series of pragmatic measures designed to aid in the rule of his enormous empire[7]. These policies can also be interpreted as the result of Alexander's probable megalomania[8] during his later years.

The first tenet of Alexander's policies was the founding (or re-founding) of cities across the empire. This has, in the past, been interpreted as part of Alexander's desire to spread Greek culture throughout the empire. These cities were presumably intended to be administrative headquarters in the regions, and to have been settled by Greeks; many were settled by veterans of Alexander's campaigns. Undoubtedly, this would have resulted in the spread of Greek influence across the empire; however, the primary purpose could have been to control the population, rather than specifically to spread Greek culture. Arrian explicitly says that a city founded in Bactria was "meant to civilise the natives"; however, this comment could be interpreted in either way (with civilise as a euphemism for 'control'). Certainly, the cities would have been garrison points, and thus allowed control of the surrounding areas.

Secondly, Alexander attempted to create a unified ruling class of Persians and Greeks, bound by marriage ties. He used both Greeks and Persians in positions of power, although he depended more on Greeks in unstable positions, and also replaced many Persian satraps in a purge after his return from India. He also tried to mix the two cultures, adopting elements of the Persian court (such as a version of the royal robes and some of the court ceremony and attendants) and also attempting to insist on the practice of proskynesis for his Greek subjects. This is probably an attempt to equalise the two races in their behavior towards Alexander as 'Great King', but it was bitterly resented by the Macedonians, as the Greek custom was reserved solely for the gods. This policy can be interpreted as an attempt to spread Greek culture, or to create a hybrid culture. However, again, it is probably better seen as an attempt to help control the unwieldly empire[9]; Alexander needed loyalty from Persian nobles as much as from his Macedonian officers. A hybrid court culture may have been created so as not to exclude the Persians. Furthermore, Alexander's marriage to, and child with the Bactrian princess Roxana can be interpreted as an attempt to create a royal dynasty which would be acceptable to both Asians and Greeks.

Alexander also unified the army, placing Persian soldiers (some trained in the Macedonian way of fighting and some in their original styles) in the Macedonian ranks. However, again, this can simply be seen as a pragmatic solution to chronic manpower problems. Alexander's increasing megalomania can be seen in his plan to completely homogenise the populations of Europe and Asia by mass re-settlement[10]. Whilst this thoroughly impractical plan could be interpreted as an attempt to create a new hybrid culture, the sheer ambitiousness of the plan suggests some other process at work.

In short, Alexander's policies did undoubtedly result in the spread of Greek culture, but whether this was their primary aim must remain doubtful. They probably represent, instead, pragmatic attempts by Alexander to control his extensive new territories, in part by presenting himself as the heir to both Greek and Asian legacies, rather than an outsider.

Hellenization under the Successors

Bust of Ptolemy I Soter portrayed as a pharaoh

After Alexander's death in 323, the Empire was split into satrapies under his generals. Most of Alexander's cultural changes were rejected by the Diadochi, including the cross-cultural marriages they had entered into[11]. However, the influx of Greek colonists into the new realms continued to spread Greek culture into Asia. The founding of new cities continued to be a major part of the Successors' struggle for control of any particular region, and these continued to be centres of cultural diffusion. The spread of Greek culture under the Successors seems mostly to have occurred with the spreading of Greeks themselves, rather than as an active policy.

Despite their initial reluctance, the Successors seem to have later deliberately naturalised themselves to their different regions, presumably in order to help maintain control of the population[12]. Thus, for instance, we find the Ptolemies, as early as Ptolemy I Soter, the first Hellenistic king of Egypt, portrayed as pharaohs (see image). Similarly, in the Indo-Greek kingdom, we find kings who were converts to Buddhism (e.g. Menander). The Greeks in the regions therefore gradually become 'localised', adopting local customs as appropriate. In this way, hybrid 'Hellenistic' cultures naturally emerged, at least amongst the upper echelons of society.

In summary, Alexander's conquests and the Successor kingdoms allowed widespread Greek colonisation and cultural diffusion, but it is unlikely this was ever a deliberate policy. Furthermore, such Hellenization was accompanied by the opposite spread of Asian culture to Europe. Nevertheless, the upheavals which occurred during this period do seem to have resulted in the development of hybrid 'Hellenistic' cultures. As a final point, it should be noted that the degree of influence that Greek culture had throughout the Hellenistic regions is often exaggerated because of the great influence on later generations of a small number of extensively Hellenized cities, particularly Alexandria.

Hellenistic Culture

Many 19th century scholars contended that the Hellenistic period represented a cultural decline from the brilliance of classical Greece. Though this comparison is now seen as unfair and meaningless, it has been noted that even commentators of the time thought saw the end of a cultural era which could not be matched again[13]. This may be inextricably be linked with the nature of government. It has been noted that after the establishment of the Athenian democracy: