the encyclopedia of ancient history || macedonia
Post on 09-Dec-2016
233 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
MacedoniaM. B. HATZOPOULOS
Macedonia (in Greek Makedonia) is the
country inhabited by the Macedonians
(Macedones), who not only gave their name
to the country, but also formed it by bringing
together regions, in which physical geography
did not promote unity. At the end of a process,
which lasted from the foundation of the
kingdom at the beginning of the seventh
century BCE until its abolition by the Romans
in 167 BCE, the term Macedonia, in a
geographical sense, designated all the lands
between the Pindus chain to the west and the
plain of Philippi to the east, and between
Mount Olympos to the south and a line close
to the border of present-day Greece to the
north. The cradle of Macedonian power was
the Old Kingdom, around the great alluvial
plain of Emathia, formed by the rivers
Haliakmon, Loudias, and Axios, and the
smaller plain of Pieria, with its surrounding
mountains: Olympos, the Pierian mountains,
Bermion, and Barnous. To the west, Upper
Macedonia was composed of high plateaux:
from the south to the north, Elimeia, Orestis,
Lynkos and, even further west, Tymphaia and
Parauaia, which had originally constituted
small independent kingdoms. For about two
centuries, the Axios River formed the eastern
border of the kingdom. The conquest and
absorption into Macedonia of the New Terri-
tories to the east of this river, which were
shared between colonies from the Greek
city-states along the coasts and the “indige-
nous” tribes of the interior, including the
Crestonians, Mygdonians, Bottiaeans, Odo-
mantes, Bisaltes, and Edonians, was a long
process that started at the beginning of the
fifth century BCE and had barely finished on
the eve of the Roman conquest.
For a Greek from the south, Macedonia was
an exotic land, alien in scale if not in its nature.
Eternal snows, vast plains watered by perennial
rivers, lakes, forests of oaks, beech, and even
birch, which were haunted by deer, wolves,
bears, and even lions and aurochs, combined
to create a landscape both fascinating and
disturbing, and which EURIPIDES evoked so
effectively in the Bacchae. Transhumance in
themountains and high plateaux were favorable
for rearing goats and sheep, the watered grass-
lands pastured cows and horses, while the rich
alluvial lands lent themselves to the cultivation
of cereals, vegetables, and all kinds of fruit trees.
The Macedonian lands also harbored mineral
treasures: copper, iron, and, in its eastern part,
gold and silver, which with the high quality
wood of its forests, suitable for naval construc-
tion, constituted the products that were most
sought after by the Greeks of the south.
While we had only contradictory accounts
from the ancient authors (sometimes distin-
guishing between Greeks and Macedonians,
sometimes affirming their common origin),
collections of rare words (glosses) of marginal
interest, and late epigraphic texts written at
a time when the adoption of the Attic KOINE
had replaced the older form of language, the
question of the Macedonian people’s origins
rested less on scientific debate than on passion-
ate arguments related to modern national
conflicts. Today, the collection and publication
of a large number of inscriptions make possible
the study of proper names and technical
terms that preserve the phonetic and morpho-
logical features of Macedonian speech. The
first dialectal texts have recently come to
hand, so for the first time it is possible
to gain a precise idea of Macedonian speech:
it is an intermediate Greek dialect between
Thessalian and the northwestern dialects. The
study of the Macedonian calendar, cults,
usages, and customs has also confirmed the
double origin of the Macedonians, from
THESSALY and from the primitive nucleus
to the northwest. Although the expanding
Macedonians annexed numerous non-native
populations, onomastics show that it was the
descendants of the Greek conquerors who
formed the warrior elite and, as a result, the
ruling social classes.
The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine,
and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 4200–4205.
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18074
1
The Old Kingdom of Lower Macedonia was
from its origin a land of city-states. Since the
country’s appearance on the historical scene,
the method of land settlement and territorial
organization was based on urban centers
surrounded by their territory. On the other
hand, until the Roman era, the political base
unit in Upper Macedonia remained the ethnos,
a word mistranslated as “tribe,” but which des-
ignated a community established on a territory
divided into villages.
Although modern historians often speak of
“barons,” feudalism was as foreign as tribalism
to the Macedonian social organization. The
mainspring was the king, the State’s religious,
military, and political head, chosen from the
family of the Temenids, who were reputedly
descended from HERAKLES (HERCULES). The
king’s companions (hetairoi) did not consti-
tute a hereditary feudal nobility, but an
aristocracy based on merit, and they were
rewarded by the king, not with fiefdoms, but
with freehold ownership of lands, for the
services that they rendered to him.
Macedonian history began when shepherds
under the direction of leaders from the terri-
tory of Orestis, moved from the high pastures
of Olympos to the Pierian coast and took pos-
session of the former Phrygian citadel of
Edessa, renaming it AIGAI (modern Vergina),
where they settled. The first two centuries
in the history of the Temenid kingdom are
practically reduced to the list of its first five
kings and to the legends associated with them.
It was the Persian expansion into Europe,
beginning with Darius’ expedition against the
Scythians in 512 BCE, which threw Macedonia
into the wider currents of history. The young
ALEXANDER I OF MACEDON, initially as crown
prince of Amyntas I and after 495 as king,
profited from the Persian presence to extend
his kingdom as far as the Axios and to have his
suzerainty recognized by the kingdoms of
Upper Macedonia. At the same time, he was
able to gain admission to the Hellenic commu-
nity, create a privileged relationship with
Athens, and maintain secret contacts with the
allied Greeks, while also participating, under
duress, in Xerxes’ expedition. After the Greek
victories at Salamis and Plataia, he participated
in the scramble against the retreating Persians
and profited from their withdrawal from
Europe to annex the lands between the Axios
and the STRYMON. Thus, he succeeded in dou-
bling the area of the Macedonian states, in
modernizing them by attracting settlers from
Southern Greece, and in endowing himself
with an abundance of quality currency.
Alexander died around 442. The quarrels
between his sons weakened the kingdom.
It was only after 435 that one of them,
PERDIKKAS II, was able to consolidate his position
as head of state. Meanwhile, the kings of Upper
Macedonia had profited from this weakness
to shake off Temenid suzerainty, and the
Athenians extended their empire to the
northern coasts of the Aegean Sea, as far as
the borders of Macedonia. The jewel was the
colony of AMPHIPOLIS, founded at the mouth of
the Strymon in 437/6. Perdikkas’ reaction to
this ended in the revolt of the cities of Chalcidice
against Athens, one of the causes that led to
the Peleponnesian War. Throughout this war,
Perdikkas, steering a delicate course between
Athenians and Spartans, was able to preserve
his kingdom’s independence and integrity.
Perdikkas, who died in 413, was succeeded
by his eldest son ARCHELAOS. The Athenian
disaster in Sicily offered him the necessary
respite on the sea front to quell the separatist
tendencies of the coastal city-states and to
re-establish his influence in Upper Macedonia,
and even extend it to Thessaly. But the post-
humous glory of Archelaos was above all due
to his reforming work. He undertook con-
struction work on fortresses and military
routes, improved the organization and equip-
ment of the army, and again endowed the
kingdom with abundant, high-quality cur-
rency. Archelaos was also a patron of the arts
and literature, and his court attracted the most
famous artists and writers of the Greek world,
including Zeuxis, Euripides, and Thucydides.
Archelaos’ death in 399 was followed by a
period of dynastic troubles, which saw no
less than four kings or regents in five years:
2
Aeropos, Amyntas II, Pausanias, and
Amyntas III. The last of these, after his acces-
sion in 394/3, had to face the ambitions of
other pretenders, as well as the aggressiveness
of the Illyrians, the territorial and commercial
claims of his supposed allies in the Chalcidian
League (see CHALCIDICE, CHALCIDIAN LEAGUE), and
the separatist movement of the kingdom’s
city-states, fomented by PELLA, its new capital.
It was the Spartans’ intervention against the
Chalcidian League in 382 that finally saved
Amyntas, enabling him to re-establish his
influence in Upper Macedonia and to obtain
recognition of his place in the concert of
Greek states.
Amyntas III, who died at a very old age in
370, was succeeded by the eldest son of his
second marriage with Eurydike of Lynkos,
Alexander II. The latter’s ill-advised involve-
ment in Thessalian affairs attracted the hostil-
ity of the Thebans, who favored the ambitions
of his brother-in-law, Ptolemy of Aloros.
Ptolemy had the young king assassinated and
seized power as the regent and tutor of his
younger brother PERDIKKAS III, who was still
a minor. Breaking with the politics of Ptolemy,
Perdikkas successively drew closer to the
Athenians and the Amphipolitans, then at
war with one another, until an invasion by
the Illyrians in 360 BCE brutally ended his pen-
dulum politics. Four thousand Macedonians,
including the king himself, lay dead on the
battlefield, leaving the country at the mercy
of the invaders.
Perdikkas left a very young son, Amyntas,
and a younger brother, Philip, just twenty-two
years old, who took the reins of power
(see PHILIP II OF MACEDON). The latter, with for-
midable speed and efficiency, was able to face
up to the attacks, not only of the Illyrians, but
also of the Paeonians, the Odrysian Thracians,
and the Athenians, as well as the claimants to
power that the last two supported. In 359, he
permanently annexed Upper Macedonia.
In 357, he seized Amphipolis, which was
coveted by Athens, and Pydna, which it already
possessed. Besides this, he was master of
the Krenides gold and silver mines, which
were re-founded under the name of PHILIPPI,
and brought in one thousand talents a year.
The elimination of the Athenians from the
Macedonian coasts ended with the capture of
Methone in 354. Other successes followed,
notably in Thrace and Thessaly, where in 352,
as champion of the Amphictyonic League
in the Third Sacred War (see AMPHICTYONY,
DELPHI; PHOKIS), he was elected leader for life
of the Thessalian Confederation. Only two
independent powers remained in northern
Greece, Macedonia and the Chalcidian League.
Their inevitable confrontation ended in 348,
with the destruction of Olynthos and
Stagiros and the reduction of the civic terri-
tories of the league’s members into royal lands.
Meanwhile, the pursuit of the Third Sacred
War opened the gates of southern Greece
to Philip. The very generous peace terms
that he negotiated with the Athenians in
346, and which allowed him to subdue the
people of Phokis and to take their place in
the Amphictyonic Council, were especially
designed to prepare the ground for an accord
between the principal Greek powers, bearing in
mind the conquest of Asia Minor, which Philip
was already planning. But his plans were
incompatible with the uncooperative individ-
uality of the Greek cities and in particular
Athens, then under the influence of Demos-
thenes. A new sacred war in 340 triggered
widespread conflict. The decisive battle
between the Macedonians and the Athenians,
and the Thebans and their allies took place
in Chaeronea in 338 (see CHAERONEA,
BATTLE OF). The Macedonian victory was total.
Philip convened a congress of all the Greek
States, which resulted in a general peace, as
well as an alliance, the Hellenic Alliance, and
laid the foundations of a federal organization,
led by himself, intended for war against the
Persians, in order to avenge Xerxes’ destruction
of the Greek sanctuaries and to liberate the
Greeks of Asia Minor (see LEAGUE OF CORINTH).
In the spring of 336, a vanguard landed on the
Asian coasts, while the bulk of the expedition-
ary force prepared to join them there the
following year, but in October of that same
3
year, Philip was assassinated in the theater
at Aigai.
Philip’s problem, from the moment he rose
to power, was that of unifying several disparate
kingdoms: the Old Kingdom of Lower
Macedonia with its often rebellious city-states,
the small rural kingdoms of Upper Macedonia,
the New Territories conquered by his ancestors
to the east of the Axios, and the region of
Chalcidice and the Valley of the Strymon,
which he himself had annexed with the Greek
colonies on the coasts and their indigenous
populations in the hinterland. Until the reign
of Philip II, the city-states, where they had
developed, co-existed with the central power
as administrative, if not political units, but
were entirely in the king’s shadow. Philip’s
great reforms radically transformed the insti-
tutional landscape of Macedonia. From now
on, the national territory was comprehensively
subdivided into civic territories. The ethne of
Upper Macedonia or the federations of towns
and villages to the east of the Axios acted as
substitutes where civic traditions were lacking.
These civic units were endowed with all the
organs of the polis (assembly, council,
magistrates), voted on decrees and laws, sent
out missions, and were represented at the great
festival gatherings of the ethnos. Furthermore,
they were grouped into four administrative
and military regions, each with a deliber-
ative assembly, under strategoi representing
the king. Philip also embellished the old capital
of Aigai, situated at the modern village of
VERGINA, by building one of the oldest Greek
stone theaters, which has recently come to
light, and a magnificent palace, which is only
now being properly excavated. It was also at
Vergina that the cemetery of the Temenid kings
was discovered in the late 1970s, containing the
sumptuously built and decorated tombs of
Philip II and of Alexander IV, the young son
of Alexander the Great.
The assassination of Philip, which was never
explained, gave the signal for widespread revolt
in southern Greece, as well as among the
Balkan peoples. The Macedonians raised
Alexander, the son of Philip and OLYMPIAS,
then barely twenty years old, to power. Within
two years, Alexander re-established his author-
ity in the Balkans and in southern Greece, at
the price of the destruction of THEBES, and
crossed the Hellespont in the spring of 334
at the head of the united Greek armies.
A series of victories over the Persians
(GRANIKOS, ISSOS, GAUGAMELA) made him master
of the entire Near East. PERSEPOLIS was pillaged
and destroyed by fire. The fleeing Darius was
assassinated by his lieutenants. The Greek gods
were avenged and everyone expected a rapid
return to Europe. But the continuation of
war by Darius’ lieutenants decided otherwise.
Alexander pursued them to the far limits of the
empire and invaded India, at the price of dissent
that became increasingly acute and was pro-
voked by his policy of inclusivity towards the
Asians and the adoption of Persian customs.
He died in 323 in BABYLON, while preparing
a campaign against Arabia, without having
the time to consolidate his empire (see
ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT).
Alexander had been simultaneously king of
the Macedonians, commander-in-chief of the
Hellenic Alliance and, increasingly, king of
Asia. Neither PHILIP III ARRHIDAIOS, his mentally
handicapped half-brother, nor his posthu-
mous son ALEXANDER IV, who were jointly
designated as his theoretical successors, was
in a position to ensure the unity of such an
empire. It is true that during the LAMIAN WAR
(323–322) his seasoned lieutenants repressed
the revolt by most members of the Hellenic
Alliance, but at the same time they destroyed
it. Worse still, their excessive and incompatible
ambitions did not allow them to maintain
a minimum of harmony between themselves,
or with Olympias, protector of the young
Alexander IV, and Eurydike, wife and cham-
pion of Philip Arrhidaios (see EURYDIKE, WIFE
OF PHILIP ARRHIDAIOS). The result was the exter-
mination of the Temenid Dynasty and the
break-up of the empire. Macedonia fell to
CASSANDER, who was officially proclaimed king
of the Macedonians in 305. He died in 297,
having founded THESSALONIKE, named after
Alexander’s sister, whom he had married,
4
and Kassandreia, the successor of POTEIDAIA and
OLYNTHOS, without being able to consolidate his
dynasty. The bloody rivalries between his sons
gave the opportunity to DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES,
the son of Antigonos Monopthalmos, who
had been a king without a kingdom since
301, to have himself proclaimed king by the
Macedonians in 294.
Demetrios, handsome, generous, superficial,
and despotic, founded the new capital of
Demetrias in Thessaly, but was less attached to
Macedonia and its people than to the dream of
restoring Alexander’s empire for his own bene-
fit. Disaffection among the Macedonians
hastened his expulsion in 287 and the sharing
of the country between the Epirote king Pyrrhos
and LYSIMACHOS, who was already master of
Thrace and Asia Minor (see PYRRHOS, KING).
This arrangement did not last. In 285,
Lysimachos seized all Macedonia, which he
kept until his death at Kouropedion in 281.
His conqueror, SELEUKOS I NIKATOR, had no
chance to occupy the country. He was assassi-
nated by Ptolemy Keraunos, who became the
country’s new master until the great
Gallic invasion, which cost him his life in
279 and plunged the country into chaos (see
CELTIC WARS).
ANTIGONOS II GONATAS, the son and heir of
Demetrios Poliorketes, but endowedwith a char-
acter forged by Stoic philosophy, re-established
order after 277 (see STOICISM). During a reign of
almost forty years, his recovery work enabled
Macedonia, despite some setbacks, to regain
Corinth and slowly rebuild its strength. His
son Demetrios, who reigned for the next ten
years (see DEMETRIOS II (MACEDONIAN KING)), was
somehow able to maintain the Macedonian
positions in the south of Greece in the face of
the Achaians and Aitolians, but it was an unex-
pected attack by the Dardanians that led to the
defeat and shortly afterwards the death of
the king, plunging the country into a new crisis.
Since Philip, the young son of the dead king
(see PHILIP V OF MACEDON), was a minor, power
was given to his cousin ANTIGONOS III DOSON,
who was not slow to rectify the situation. The
lengthy conflict between Sparta and the
ACHAIAN LEAGUE gave the Macedonians, who
were called upon by the latter, the opportunity
to recover Corinth and re-establish the Hel-
lenic League under their hegemony. Celebrated
as savior and benefactor after his victory over
the Spartans at Sellasia, Doson died exhausted
in 221 after a fresh victory over the Illyrians
(see SELLASIA, BATTLE OF).
Philip V was not yet of age, but quickly
showed he was capable of acting alone.
He fought successfully against the Aitolians,
allied himself with the Carthaginians,
and entered into war against Rome. The
so-called First Macedonian War (215–205)
(see MACEDONIAN WARS), which also involved
the Aitolians and Pergamon siding with the
Romans, ended with a marginal victory for
Philip, which the Romans would neither forget
nor pardon. The Second Macedonian War,
declared in 200 by the Romans, ended in 197
with the crushing defeat of the Macedonian
phalanx at Kynoskephalai (see KYNOSKEPHALAI,
BATTLE OF). Peace was concluded on Roman
terms, the main requirement of which was that
Macedonia should abandon all its external pos-
sessions. The rapprochement that Philip
attempted with Rome in the war against
Anthiochos and the Aitolians, which broke out
shortly afterwards in 192, did not bring the
results expected. Macedonia, with only itself to
rely on, engaged in extensive reforms, which
restored the demographic balance and
increased, vis-a-vis the king, the autonomy of
the city-states, the regions and the koinon
(the community of Macedonians), which
from now on struck their own coinage.
Philip V, who had wanted to emulate his
great namesake and predecessor, died in 179,
distressed by the conflict between his heir
Perseus and his younger son, Demetrios, the
favorite of the Romans, a fact which cost
the latter his life (see PERSEUS, MACEDONIAN
KING). But this was the price paid for the policy
of restoring Macedonian power and achieving
rapprochement with the other Greek states,
which was crowned by Macedon’s return to
the Delphic Amphictyony. This was something
the Romans could not tolerate. In 171, on false
5
pretexts, they launched the Third Macedonian
War which, in spite of Perseus’ conciliatory
overtures, ended with the defeat and massacre
of the Macedonian army at Pydna in 168
(see PYDNA, BATTLE OF). Under the guise of free-
dom, the monarchy was abolished, economic
and social barriers were erected between the
four administrative regions, the army was
practically dissolved, the country was pillaged,
and its political and social elite exiled to Italy.
Twenty years later, a Macedonian revolt
resulted in the formal reduction of Macedonia
to a Roman province.
Macedonia lost its freedom but did not
achieve peace and security. The country was
again shaken by revolts, ruined by incompetent
or corrupt governors, and several times ravaged
by barbarian raids and the civil wars of the
Romans. The situation only improved with the
final victory of Octavian (soon to be AUGUSTUS)
in 31 BCE. However, the Macedonians still suf-
fered as a result of the confiscation of their lands
for the foundation or consolidation of Roman
colonies at Pella, DION, Kassandreia, and
Philippi (see COLONIES, ROMAN EMPIRE (EAST)).
The region, unified with southern Illyria (apart
from a short period from 15–44 CE), constituted
a senatorial province with Thessalonike as its
capital. But the capital of the Macedonian
koinon, which incorporated only the strictly
Macedonian part of the province, was trans-
ferred from Pella, which had become a Roman
colony, to BEROIA. The country retained its Greek
language, its civic institutions, its cults, and
traditional ways and customs. Veneration of
the great kings of the past kept alive the aware-
ness of belonging to a glorious people. But the
demise of civic institutions, as a result of the
barbarian invasions of later second century CE
onwards, the reforms of Diocletian and Con-
stantine, and the propagation of Christianity,
radically transformed the character, not only of
Macedonian society but also of the Roman
State.
SEE ALSO: Antigonids; Assiros, Macedonia;
Delphi; Greek language and dialects (Classical
times); Gymnasiarchal Law (Beroia); Kastanas
in Macedonia; Macedonian wars; Methone,
Macedonia; Phalanx (Macedonian).
REFERENCE AND SUGGESTED READINGS
Errington, R. M. (1990) A history of Macedonia.
Berkeley.
Ginouves, R., ed. (1994) Macedonia from Philip II
to the Roman conquest. Princeton.
Hammond, N. G. L., Griffith., G. T., and
Walbank, F. W. (1996) A history of Macedonia,
vols. I–III. Oxford.
Hatzopoulos, M. B. (1996) Macedonian
institutions under the kings, vols. I–II. Athens.
Hatzoupoulos, M. B. (2006) Macedonia:
historical geography, language, cults and beliefs,
institutions. Paris.
Papazoglou, F. (1988) The towns of Macedonia in
the Roman era. Athens.
Roisman, J. and Worthington, I., eds. (2010)
A companion to ancient Macedonia. Chichester.
6
top related