Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Studies in Greek epigraphy and history in honor of Stefen V. Tracy

 | 
Gary Reger
, 
Francis X. Ryan
, 
Timothy Francis Winters

2. The Wider Greek Word

Chapter 19. Antigonid Cleruchs in Thessaly and Greece: Philip V and Larisa

Roland Oetjen

Texte intégral

  • 1 Plut., Mor., 328 E. For Alexander’s colonization program see Fraser 1996; cf. Tscherikower 1927, 1 (...)
  • 2 For the Seleucid colonization program see Cohen 1978; cf. Billows 1995, 146-182 and Cohen 1995, 23 (...)

1In 334 BC Alexander the Great crossed the Hellespont from Europe to Asia. By his death he had overrun the Persian Empire and brought under his control most of the Middle East and parts of central Asia and northern India. To establish a strong and visible presence and exert control, Alexander set up colonies at strategic points and settled retired Greco-Macedonian soldiers in them. The soldiers were in the area, and they were of proven loyalty. Plutarch tells us that Alexander founded over 70 cities1. As the heirs of the Asian heart of his empire the Seleucids continued his example and in hundreds of newly organized colonies settled Greco-Macedonians on the land. The purpose of the settlements was manifold: they were sources of recruits who reinforced the standing armies of the kings, if called, and they ensured them a loyal presence at a particular place. Furthermore, the settlements answered economic, political, and administrative needs. Since the Seleucids lacked a historical, political center for their empire, the Greco-Macedonian settlements were means by which they maintained control over it2.

  • 3 For the similarities and the differences between the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic programs of coloni (...)
  • 4 For the overseas possessions of the Ptolemies see Bagnall 1976; cf. the relevant entries in Cohen (...)
  • 5 For the Ptolemaic foundations in Egypt and the Red Sea basin see Cohen 2006, 305-352 (with further (...)
  • 6 For the Ptolemaic cleruchs in Egypt see, for example, Lesquier 1911, 30-66 and 162-254; Préaux 193 (...)
  • 7 Cf. Préaux 1939, 387 and 1978, 2, 407-408; see also Tcherikover 1959, 25-26.
  • 8 For a thorough discussion of the Fayum towns see Cohen 2006, 50-68 (with the earlier bibliography)

2The Ptolemies were also vigorous colonizers. In considering the Ptolemaic method one must differentiate, as the kings did, between Egypt proper and the overseas possessions3. Outside Egypt, in the coastal regions of Asia Minor as well as in Palestine, they were active as founders of colonies. As befitted a naval power, most of them were ports. Inland colonies were hardly needed as Egypt provided the Ptolemies with a home-base which the Seleucids were missing4. Except for Ptolemais and Euergetis in Thebais, two unlocated cities, and a number of harbor towns on the Red Sea serving the needs of their fleet and securing coastal communications5, they did not establish new foundations in Egypt proper, but scattered tens of thousands of Greco-Macedonians and other settlers all over the country, usually in already existing villages of the native population6. The Ptolemaic settlers were organized in military divisions and received land lots, the size of which depended on their position in the army. One reason was the scarceness of habitable space in Egypt (beyond the reach of the yearly inundation), another the centralized royal economy of the country which left no room for Greek cities and free polis land7. The extent to which the Ptolemaic program of colonization followed pharaonic traditions can be seen from the mid thirdcentury settlements in the Fayum depression in the Arsinoite nome, of which the raison d’être was the cultivation of (newly reclaimed) land8.

  • 9 Cf. Cohen 1995, 15-16. For population transfers in Greece and Macedonia in the archaic and classic (...)
  • 10 For Philip II as a colonizer see, for example, Ellis 1969 and 1976, 68-69 and 167; Cawkwell 1978, (...)

3Colonization and population transfer were not invented by Alexander the Great and his successors. The antecedents can be found in the Middle East as well as in Europe. From the time of Amyntas I and Alexander I onward, the Macedonian kings used the relocation of peoples, and occasionally of cities, to organize and hold newly won possessions and provide protection in war9. To consolidate his recently expanded kingdom, Philip II founded cities and moved populations from the interior to the border regions of Macedonia on a massive scale10. Justin provides the clearest statement of his policy:

  • 11 Just., Ep., 8,5,7-6, 2.

Returning to his kingdom, as shepherds move their flocks now to winter, now to summer pastures, so he (Philip) transported peoples and cities, according to his whim, as places appeared to him to need to be restored or abandoned. (...) Some people he installed on the frontiers against his enemies, others he placed in the most remote parts of his kingdom; some whom he had taken prisoner he distributed to supplement the populations of the cities. And thus from many tribes and nations he established one kingdom and people11.

  • 12 Cf. Cohen 1995, 109-120.
  • 13 Cf. Errington 1986, 63-64 and 161 (with further bibliography).
  • 14 Cf. Cohen 1995, 126-128.
  • 15 For Macedonian garrisons in Greek cities see, for example, Le Bohec 1993, 307-310 and Hatzopoulos (...)
  • 16 Launey 1987, I 56-57. For the texts see Hatzopoulos 2001, 151-167.
  • 17 Cohen 1995, 31.
  • 18 Die Garnisonsinschriften und die Geschichte Athens im dritten Jahrhundert v. Chr. will appear in 2 (...)

4The question is whether the Macedonian kings brought the policy of colonization and population transfer to Greece once they had gained control in 338. In Thessaly, they founded a number of cities such as Demetrias, Olympias, Philippopolis (former Gomphoi), and Philippopolis (former Phthiotian Thebes)12. Thessaly was under Macedonian control since Philip II had usurped the federal archonship in 352 and was supposed to serve as a buffer vis-à-vis the Greek city-states13. South of Thessaly settlement building was limited. The only recorded case is Demetrias, the refoundation of Sikyon by Demetrios Poliorketes14. Scholars claimed that Macedonian rule over Greece was not based on settlements, but on garrisons placed at strategic points such as the Piraeus, Akrokorinthos, Chalkis, and Eretria, as well as on allied or subject cities15. In support of this view, they referred to the Macedonian military regulations from the time of Philip V which do not mention military settlers16. As recently as 1995, Getzel Cohen argued: “Not surprisingly, there is no firm evidence in Macedonia or Greece for military colonies of the type found in central Anatolia. They would hardly have been needed in Macedonia or tolerated in Greece”17. It is clear that the Macedonian kings did not, and did not need to, carry out a colonization program in Greece. Greece was inhabited by Greeks and Macedonia gave the Macedonian empire a core lacked by the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires: a national kingdom. In Die Garnisonsinschriften und die Geschichte Athens im dritten Jahrhundert v. Chr., I have however shown that the mysterious paroikoi attested at the Attic fortress of Rhamnous were Antigonid cleruchs18.

  • 19 The results have been published in Petrakos 1999b (the second volume includes 400 inscriptions). S (...)
  • 20 Petrakos 1999a, 22-23 no. 26 (= SEG, 51, 130) (253/252 or 251/250); 2001, 557-558 no. 1 (= SEG, 52 (...)
  • 21 Petrakos 1999b, 2, no. 40-42 (later than 228), 50 (207/206), no. 151 (late second or early first c (...)
  • 22 Pouilloux 1956, 71-73 and Choix 20 pp. 79-80; Moretti, ISE, I, 32, pp. 73-74; Gauthier 1988, 36-7; (...)
  • 23 The identity of paroikoi and incolae is confirmed by a bilingual inscription from Dion (Pandermali (...)
  • 24 For the condition of the paroikoi in Asia Minor see Gauthier 1988; cf. Bertrand 2005. For the test (...)

5A particularly valuable source for the history of post-Chremonidean War Athens are the inscriptions from the garrison deme of Rhamnous in northeastern Attica brought to light by the Greek Archaeological Society’s excavations since 197519. The most instructive are 60 honorary decrees, mainly from the period of 268-200. They were enacted by the demesmen, the soldiers, or both, and in addition by special forces or religious associations. The soldiers themselves were drawn from Athenian citizens and foreign mercenaries. Ten decrees were enacted by paroikoi20. Another seven inscriptions mention them21. Pouilloux and other scholars claimed that the paroikoi were former Macedonian occupation troops who after the liberation of 228 had entered Athenian service and been rewarded by the city with a privileged status for their loyalty22. Recent finds however show paroikoi serving at Rhamnous from the middle of the third through the end of the second or the beginning of the first century. In the rest of Greece, paroikoi were unknown before the Roman period when paroikos became the equivalent of Latin incola23. In the cities of Asia Minor and on those islands with a peraia on the Asian continent, they used to be the resident aliens, who are known from Athens under the designation metoikoi24.

  • 25 Petrakos 1999b, 2, no. 43, lines 11-4, no. 47 lines 6-8, no. 50 lines 18-20.
  • 26 Petrakos 1999b, 2, no. 38, lines 3-6, no. 43 lines 5-7.
  • 27 Petrakos 1999b, 2, no. 43 lines 10-4, no. 47, lines 6-27 8.

6The decrees give a clue to who the paroikoi were. The strategoi were praised for taking care that the paroikoi were called up to serve in the fortress “equally” (ομοίως), “each the same” (τό ἴσον ἓκαστος), or "well-ordered" (εὐτάκτως) 25. They were liable for military service but not professional soldiers. In the decrees of the citizens who were not militiamen, but professional soldiers, such expressions are not found. Furthermore, while the citizens praised the strategoi for defending the fortress and providing the garrison with sufficient grain and regular pay, the decrees enacted by paroikoi highlight their effort to protect the chora and the farmers working in it26. Would mercenaries have felt such a deep solidarity with farmers? The paroikoi were farmers themselves. They were cleruchs who did not receive either grain or payment, but made their livelihood from farming. According to the decrees the paroikoi only helped to defend the fortress27. They had been supplied with land lots which they cultivated and which carried an obligation to serve in the fortress. The fertile plain of Rhamnous offered perfect conditions for agriculture. If the land lots were hereditary, paroikoi can easily appear in the records for approximately 150 years. Settling in the Rhamnousian plain, the paroikoi resided as a group “near” the citizens just as their designation says, whereas the metoikoi were traders and artisans who resided in Athens and the Piraeus as individuals “with” the citizens.

  • 28 For the status of the Attic fortresses after the Chremonidean War see Die Garnisonsinschriften und (...)
  • 29 Petrakos 1999b, 2, no. 8.
  • 30 Lines 9-13.

7Although the decrees show the paroikoi serving the city, it is clear that they had originally been Macedonian soldiers. They were first mentioned after the Chremonidean War, and they originated either in Macedonia or in regions under Macedonian control (Thessaly, Central Greece, Peloponnesos, and Euboea). To bring Rhamnous under his control after the city had surrendered in 261, Antigonos Gonatas replaced the Athenian strategoi by phrourarchoi whom he had appointed; in addition to the citizen soldiers, he manned the fort ress with royal troops. When restoring ‘freedom’ to the Athenians in 256/255, he replaced the royal phrourarchoi by Athenian strategoi again28. The decree of the isoteleis for Apollodoros of Otryne establishes that the reigning phrourarchos (that is to say, Apollodoros of Otryne) was elected coastal strategos by the popular assembly29. He was praised for taking care that the dokimasia required for the award of isoteleia was not delayed and the isoteleis were awarded the privilege according to the “wish” (προαίρεσις) of the king as quickly as possible. He was also praised for seeing to it that the isoteleis were called up to serve in the fortress “most justly and each the same” (ὡς δικαιότατα καὶ ἲσον ἓκαστος)30.

  • 31 Launey 1987, 253 with note 3.
  • 32 IG, II2, 287, 505, 551, 554, 768 + 802. For these inscriptions see the relevant sections in Pečirk (...)

8The isoteleis must have been the royal soldiers, if they were awarded isoteleia on demand of the king. When Antigonos Gonatas returned Rhamnous to Athenian jurisdiction in 256/255 he transformed the royal soldiers into cleruchs and put them under the command of the Athenian strategoi. Not surprisingly, paroikoi first appear in the records in the second half of the 250’s. The (later) designation paroikoi describes the situation of the cleruchs more clearly than isoteleis. The award of isoteleia to the royal soldiers was not a “titre honorifique vide”, but allowed them to hold land on the territory of the city31. A number of Athenian decrees show ges enktesis being connected with isoteleia32. As long as the king kept control of the city through the garrisons stationed in the Piraeus, in Sounion, and on the island of Salamis, the paroikoi would serve his purposes. Rhamnous was part of the chain of military bases the Macedonian kings had established along the coast of Attica. The liberation of 228 left the situation of the paroikoi unchanged.

  • 33 For individual and collective awards of citizenship to foreigners see Szanto 1892, 8 and Lonis 199 (...)
  • 34 Feyel 1942, 285-300. His view of the five collective awards of citizenship was followed by Launey (...)

9The soldiers settled by Antigonos Gonatas at Rhamnous were not typical of Hellenistic settlers. The paroikoi served as reinforcements of the Athenian troops, providing an associate city with military aid. The paroikoi were not even Antigonid settlers as they had been discharged from the royal army and served as Athenian soldiers. For this reason, explicit evidence of Antigonid settlers should not be expected in the records. Least of all would it be found in the military regulations which applied to the royal garrisons in the fortresses. Should the Antigonids have settled soldiers in the Greek cities under their control on a larger scale, the settlers would only be recognizable in documents such as the decree of the isoteleis while being transformed from soldiers into cleruchs. Attention needs to be paid to five inscriptions linked to each other by Michel Feyel and dealt with by many scholars since then. These date from the late third century and deal with the enfranchisement of foreigners by Greek and especially Thessalian cities. The award of citizenship to foreigners, to a group more than to an individual, meant that the prerogatives of the citizens were limited. A city made use of a collective award of citizenship to foreigners only in emergencies, when the number of its citizens had fallen under the minimum which was required for filling the magistracies of the city or maintaining its military strength33. We are however not only dealing with five collective awards of citizenship, as remarkable as these are. In one case the award of citizenship was requested by King Philip V, in two cases the recipients were soldiers, and in another two cases the award of citizenship was connected with a distribution of land. To Feyel, the enfranchised foreigners seemed to be the resident aliens and their admission into the citizen bodies part of a policy pursued by the Macedonian king to compensate for the loss of inhabitants suffered by the cities in the wars of the late third century34. In the following paper, I will challenge this view and argue that the enfranchised foreigners were royal soldiers in the process of being settled in the cities as cleruchs.

  • 35 IG, IX, 2, 517 (= Syll.3, 543; Schwyzer, DGE, 590; Buck 1955, 220-223 no. 32). For the date of the (...)
  • 36 Lines 6-7: ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος κρίνω ψηφίσασθαι ὑμᾶς ὄπως τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν παρ' ὑμῖν Θεσσαλῶν ἢ τῶν ἂ (...)
  • 37 Lines 8-9: έτερα τε πολλᾶ τῶν χρησίμων ἔσεσθαι καὶ ἐμοὶ καὶ τῆι πόλει καὶ τὴν χώραν μᾶλλον ἐξεργασ (...)
  • 38 Line 30: τήν τε πόλιν ἰσχύειν καὶ τὴν χώραν μή ὥσπερ νῦν αἰσχρῶς χερσεύεσθαι.
  • 39 Lines 34-38: πλήν ἔτι γε καὶ νῦν παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς άφιλοτίμος προσελθεῖν [τυρός το] πράγμα καί τούς μὲ (...)

10The most instructive is the famous stele from Larisa with two letters of Philip V and two decrees of the city35. The latter of these is followed by a list which, although it is not completely preserved, gives the names of more than 200 new citizens with patronymic adjectives. The first letter dates from Hyperberetaios (= September) 217 and says that Larisean envoys had complained to Philip that “because of the wars” (διὰ τοὺς πολέμους) their city needed more inhabitants. The king decided (κρίνω) that Larisa should pass a decree to grant citizenship to the resident Thessalians and other Greeks as well as to their descendants36. He added that their admission into the citizen body would be favorable both for himself and the city and that the chora would be cultivated more intensively37. The following decree of Larisa repeats the letter of the king and, by admitting the Thessalians and other Greeks into the citizen body, complies with the request made. There was a decision to inscribe the decree together with the names of the new citizens on two stelai and place one of them in the sanctuary of Apollo Kerdoios and the other on the acropolis. Less than three years later, in Gorpiaios (= July/August) 214, the king sent another letter to the Lariseans since the civic authorities had ordered the erasure of the names of the new citizens from the stelai and the removal of them from the citizenship rolls. Philip appealed to the Lariseans to reverse this action, to approach the matter with impartiality, and not to act contrary either to their interests or his decisions. By admitting the Thessalians and other Greeks into the citizen body, so the king specified, the city would be strengthened and less land lie fallow38. He reminded the Lariseans that the new citizens had been selected by themselves, however he was not willing to leave the decision to the civic authorities another time, reserving the right to interfere in the examination process required for the award of citizenship to foreigners39. The following decree of Larisa repeats the royal letter and restores citizenship to the Thessalians and other Greeks. Previous research did not pay attention to the fact that the Lariseans were willing to admit foreigners, but refused to grant citizenship to the resident Thessalians and other Greek, although these had been available from the start. After less than three years, the Lariseans deleted them from the citizen lists again, and if the king in his second letter announced his intention to supervise the process of examination in person, he must have expected negative decisions from the city. On the other hand, Philip sent two letters to Larisa and was determined to interfere in the examination process and push through the award of citizenship to the Thessalians and other Greeks against the will of the Lariseans. Neither the efforts of the king nor the opposition of the city would be understandable if the Thessalians and other Greeks were ordinary metics. Philip aimed to increase the military potential of the city and improve its agriculture; would these goals however be achieved if the resident aliens were awarded citizenship and supplied with land? The resident aliens had always been liable for military service, and they were not experienced at farming. Soldiers settled as cleruchs would fit the conditions. Philip requested the award of citizenship to the Thessalians and other Greeks so he could transfrom soldiers into cleruchs who would remain in the city, but not be paid. The Lariseans, on the other hand, fought against the continued presence in their city of a large number of foreigners loyal to the Macedonian king.

  • 40 Lines 7-8: τούτο γάρ συντελεσθέντος καὶ συνμεινάντων πάντων δια τα φιλάνθρωπα.

11Another point made by the king would be senseless, if the enfranchised foreigners were the resident aliens. In his first letter, Philip argued that the award of citizenship and the distribution of land (which, although it is not explicitly mentioned in the inscription, can conclusively be gathered from the context) would ensure that the Thessalians and other Greeks remained in Larisa40. The metics would not leave the city, if they were not awarded citizenship and supplied with farm land. They were traders and artisans and had moved to another city voluntarily. If the Thessalians and other Greeks were not the resident aliens, by which means did they live before they were given land, if not by pay from the Macedonian king? If they were soldiers, the king feared that they would defect and return to their home cities.

  • 41 For the traditional view of a strict correlation between possession of a kleros and military servi (...)

12Philip V continued the pattern set by Antigonos Gonatas. The royal soldiers were awarded a legal status which included ges enktesis and allowed them to hold land on the territory of the city. The privilege was granted through a decree enacted by the city at the request of the king. Philip also respected the fact that the award of citizenship to foreigners required an examination before the civic authorities. The land lots given to the soldiers were hereditary because the award of citizenship should also apply to the descendants of the Thessalians and other Greeks. The allotments did not carry a military obligation as they did in Egypt and possibly also in Rhamnous. A military obligation could not have been placed upon land which was the property of the cleruchs. Nevertheless, like the citizens, the cleruchs were required to serve, if called41.

  • 42 For the historical context of the inscription see Habicht 1970, 273-279. For the Social War see, f (...)
  • 43 Polyb., 5, 99-100.

13The historical context supports this view. The war the Larisean envoys referred to was the Social War. In 220 Philip V and the Hellenic League had declared war on the Aetolians. It ended with the peace of Naupactos in August 21742. Polybius tells that Larisa, Demetrias, and Pharsalos were severely struck by Aetolian invasions from Phthiotian Thebes. Philip seized the enemy base in the summer of 217, bringing the attacks on his allies to an end43. When the Thessalians and other Greeks were awarded citizenship in Larisa, royal troops were in or near the city. According to the letter of the king (and the decree of the city) the Thessalians and other Greeks did not reside “with” (μετά), but “near” (παρά) the citizens as foreign soldiers encamped (and in the process of being settled) in the territory of the city would have done. At the same time, the Social War had shown the king that Larisa and its Thessalian neighbors were unable to defend themselves and serve as a buffer vis-à-vis the Greek city-states.

  • 44 For the repopulation of Macedonia after the Second Macedonian War see Hammond & Walbank 1988, 458- (...)
  • 45 That the Macedonian king could order the conscription of soldiers in the member states of the Hell (...)
  • 46 Lines 48-9, 52, 57, etc.
  • 47 Cf. Stählin 1924a, 92 and 112.

14Philip V moved populations in Greece as Philip II did in Macedonia. When he set out to rebuild Macedonia after his defeat by Titus Flamininus at Kynoskephalai, he proceeded in the same way. Since the population was severely depleted through deportations by Romans, Illyrians, and Dardanians, the defection of Orestis, and huge casualties in the military class, he withdrew his garrisons from abroad and settled the mercenaries on the land. He also settled in his kingdom displaced Greek populations and transplanted numerous Thracians to Macedonia. Since the peace with Rome removed the threat of invasion from the coastal areas, he moved Macedonians to the inland area of Emathia, who would form a military reserve against threats from the north and the northwest44. Philip V was the hegemon of the Hellenic league and could levy soldiers in the member states just as he liked45. Not surprisingly, except for only one Samothracian, the enfranchised foreigners were not Macedonians or Thracians, but Greeks and especially Thessalians. Even if whole families, brothers and fathers with their sons, are found among them, the Thessalians and other Greeks do not need to have been the resident aliens46. Furthermore, would hundreds of citizens from neighboring cities, 142 men from Krannon alone, voluntarily have left their homes and moved to Larisa47? In this case, the Lariseans could not possibly have complained about underpopulation.

  • 48 IG, IX, 2, 234 (= Schwyzer, DGE, 567; Buck 1955, 226-227 no. 36; Moretti, ISE, II, 96 [with a thor (...)
  • 49 Lines 12-13, 15-16, 43-45, etc.

15Not surprisingly, another collective award of citizenship is recorded from Pharsalos, a city which is also reported to have been attacked by the Aetolians in the Social War and relieved by the Macedonian army. This is an abbreviated decree which can be dated on palaeographical grounds to the second half of the third century48. The text runs as follows: ἁ πόλις Φαρσαλίων τοῖς καὶ οὑς ἐξ ἀρχᾶς συμπολιιευομένοις καὶ συμπολ[εμεισάντε]σσι πάνσα προθυμία ἔδουκε τὰν πολιτείαν καττάπερ Φαρσαλίοις τοῖς ἐ[ξ ἀρχᾶς πολ]ιτευομένοις· ἐδούκαεν μὰ ἐμ Μακουνίαις τᾶς ἐχομένας τοῦ Λουέρου [χώ]ρα[ς ψιλᾶς πλέ]θρα ἐξεικοντα ἑκάστου τοῦ εἰβάτα ἒχειν πατρουέαν τòμ πάντα χρόνον (lines 1-4). In the following text the inscription gives the names of 176 new citizens with patronymic adjectives, but without ethnics. Here, too, brothers and fathers with their sons are found among the new citizens49. We learn from the inscription that the Pharsalians granted citizenship to foreigners, who had given them their support in a war. Each adult was supplied with 60 plethra of fertile land as a hereditary property in an area located by the Louerchos river and called Makouniai.

  • 50 Cf. the translations of various commentators, such as Feyel 1942, 291: “à ceux qui ont la sympolit (...)
  • 51 Lonis 1992, 258-259.
  • 52 Szanto 1892, 154.
  • 53 Moretti, ISE, II, 96, p. 63. Moretti referred to a passage in the Hellenika Oxyrhynchika saying th (...)
  • 54 Ducat 1994, 107-113.
  • 55 Cf. Kühner and Gerth 1963-1965, II, 2, 90: “Das mit dem Partizipe verbundene Vergleichungsadverb (...)
  • 56 A correct translation is provided in Dareste, Haussoullier, and Reinach 1904, 136: “à ceux qui se (...)

16Feyel and other scholars agreed that the new citizens as they are described as ἐξ ἀρχᾶς πολιτευόμενοι enjoyed sympoliteia with the Pharsalians “from the beginning”50. Opinion differed as to the legal status of the sympoliteuomenoi. For Feyel, they were the resident aliens. Lonis, following his view, pointed to the use of sympoliteuein by Polybius and gathered that the sympoliteuomenoi were citizens of other member states of the Thessalian League resident in Pharsalos51. Szanto had assumed that Pharsalos formed a federal state with another, though unknown city52. Moretti objected and argued that the new citizens were the inhabitants of a dependent community who were not politai, but only sympoliteuomenoi and for their effort in the war were rewarded with Pharsalian citizenship53. Finally, Ducat held that the sympoliteuomenoi were penestai in the process of settling down54. Before ἐξ ἀρχᾶς πολιτευόμενοι, however, the adverb οὑς, (not οὕς) introduces a limited comparison55. The relevant passage should be translated as follows: “The city of the Pharsalians awarded those who behaved as if they had been fellow citizens from the beginning and fought courageously citizenship like the Pharsalians who had been citizens from the beginning”56. Here, sympoliteuein is not a technical term, describing a legal status, but means “to be a fellow citizen”. Before the sympoliteuomenoi were awarded citizenship they were not sympolitai of the Pharsalians. If they were ordinary foreigners, there is no reason why they cannot have been soldiers in the process of being settled in Pharsalos as cleruchs.

  • 57 For the area of Makouniai and its location see Stählin 1924a, 143-144; 1927; 1928, 57.
  • 58 Cf. Helly 1995, 302-311.

17This interpretation can be confirmed. Firstly, the inscription was found on the plateau of Rizi which is located four kilometers south of Pharsalos and seems to be identical with the area of Makouniai distributed to the new citizens57. If the sympoliteuomenoi were awarded citizenship to replenish the citizen body after the war, the distance to the city and its citizens would not be understandable. If the Macedonian king after the Social War intended to settle soldiers at strategic places in his Greek empire, Rizi was a suitable site as the plateau commanded a wide view over the Thessalian plain and the valley of the Enipeus. Secondly, if the award of citizenship was connected with a distribution of land, by which means had the sympoliteuomenoi lived theretofore, if they had not been soldiers in the pay of the king? The metics would not have benefited from land on a plateau four kilometers away from the city. If the sympoliteuomenoi were royal soldiers, they can easily have received land lots which were 60 plethra large; the Thessalians usually held only 50 plethra58.

  • 59 IG, IX, 2, 1228 (= Schwyzer, DGE, 612; Moretti, ISE, II, 108 [with a thorough commentary]). For th (...)
  • 60 Lines 22-23, 66-68, etc.

18The third piece of evidence also originates in Thessaly. This is an abbreviated decree of Phalanna in Perrhaibia59. The lettering suggests a date in the second half of the third century. After the prescript the text runs as follows: Φαλανναίουν ἁ πόλις ἔδουκε Περραιβοῖς καὶ Δολόπεσσι καὶ Αἰνιάνεσσι καὶ Ἀχαῖος καὶ Μαγνείτεσσι καὶ τοῖς ἐς τᾶν Φαλανναιᾶν πολιτείαν τοῖς ποκγγραψαμένοις καὶ δοκιμασθέντεσσι κὰτ [τ]òν νόμον (lines 13-20). The following list names more than 50 persons. Here, too, there are several brothers among them60. The inscription says that the city of Phalanna granted a group of Perrhaiboi, Dolopes, Ainianes, (Phthiotian) Achaeans, Magnetes and the descendants of Phalannean women (ἐς τᾶν Φαλανναιᾶν) citizenship once they had registered and undergone an examination according to the law.

  • 61 Moretti, ISE, II, 108, pp. 91-92.
  • 62 For the origin of Thessalian federal strategoi in the second and first centuries see the list in K (...)
  • 63 Gauthier 1985, 201-202.

19Once more, Moretti disputed Feyel’s view. The core of his reasoning was that the Perrhaiboi, Dolopes, etc., were not the resident aliens, but immigrants from neighboring regions whose resettlement to Phalanna worsened the underpopulation of their home cities and could not possibly have been part of a policy pursued by the Macedonian king to resolve the demographic problems facing the Greek cities in the late third century. For Moretti, the five collective awards of citizenship were measures taken by the individual cities to increase the number of their inhabitants61. The example of Pharsalos has however shown that Philip did not intend to remedy the underpopulation of the city, but to increase its military strength. It was at the request of the king that the Lariseans granted citizenship to the (neighboring) Thessalians and other Greeks. It was not of concern to Philip whether his policy added to the problems of the country. After Krannon had lost 142 men to Larisa in 217, the city ceased to provide federal strat! goi for the Thessalian League for more than one century62. Gauthier, on the other hand, agreed that the enfranchisement of the Perrhaiboi, Dolopes, etc., was a measure taken by Phalanna itself to increase the number of its inhabitants, however he argued that the new citizens were not immigrants, but the resident aliens; in his opinion a small country town like Phalanna would not have attracted large scale immigration. To substantiate this claim, Gauthier pointed to the es tan Phalannaian who are mentioned together with the Perrhaiboi, Dolopes, etc., and must have been resident in the city63. Gauthier’s point nevertheless is invalid since more than 50 persons would not have moved voluntarily to Phalanna at an earlier time either.

  • 64 Cf. Vatin 1970, 121-123. For intermarriage between foreign soldiers and native women see Chaniotis (...)

20The es tan Phalannaian give a clue to who the new citizens were. Since only the descendants of Phalannean women and foreign men, but not those of Phalannean men and foreign women were awarded citizenship, the measure cannot have been intended to admit the nothoi into the citizen body and increase the number of citizens. Furthermore, the appearance in the inscription of the es tan Phalannaian means that a considerable number of single men without citizenship stayed in Phalanna. Foreign soldiers in garrison in the city would meet this condition. The inscription attests to the unusual situation; it deals with the only recorded case of descendants of female citizens and foreign men awarded citizenship in a Greek city64. The es tan Phalannaian were the sons of the royal soldiers in the process of being settled as cleruchs in Phalanna (that is to say, of the Perrhaiboi, Dolopes, etc.) who one day would inherit the land lots and, since they could be expected to perform military service, assure the continued vitality of the army.

  • 65 Syll.3, 529 (= Schwyzer, DGE, 426; Rizakis 1990, 123-129 [with a thorough commentary]). For Dyme s (...)
  • 66 Lines 14-5, 20-21, 22-23, 40-41, 67-70, 17-18, 29-30, 19, 53.

21The fourth piece of evidence takes us beyond the borders of Thessaly. This is an abbreviated decree of the Achaean city of Dyme which can be dated on palaeographical grounds to the second half of the third century65. After the prescript the text runs: τούσδε ἁ πόλις πολίας ἐποιήσατο συμπολεμήσαντες τòμ πόλεμον καὶ τὰμ πόλιν συνδιασώισαντες, κρίνασα καθ' να ἓκαστον (lines 6-11). In the following text, the inscription gives the names of 52 new citizens with patronymics, but without ethnics. This inscription also records several brothers, fathers with sons, and cousins66. We are told that the city of Dyme granted citizenship to a number of foreigners who had helped to defend the city after they had been examined individually.

  • 67 Dittenberger, Syll.3, 529, p. 776, note 8. His view was followed by Walbank 1957, 536; Launey 1987 (...)
  • 68 Polyb. 4,59.
  • 69 Polyb. 4,83.
  • 70 Polyb. 5,3,2.

22Since Hiller von Gaertringen scholars have connected the inscription with the Social War67. Polybius reports that in 219 the Eleans under the Aetolian commander Euripidas invaded the territories of Dyme and its neighbor cities of Pharai and Tritaia and captured the fortress of Teichos which was located by the Araxos river and controlled access to the territory of Dyme68. In the spring of 218, however, King Philip arrived with his whole army at Dyme and encamped at Teichos. The Elean garrison withdrew, and the fortress was rendered to the Dymeans. Philip raided Elis and returned to Dyme69. Before he left the city for Kephallenia, he formed from the mercenaries in Achaean service, Cretan mercenaries and Celtic horsemen in his pay, and approximately 2,000 Achaean infantrymen a unit which would remain in Dyme and afford protection from future attacks of the Eleans who with Aetolian assistance had started to gather their troops again70.

  • 71 Feyel 1942, 295. His view was followed by Lonis 1992, 262.
  • 72 Gauthier 1985, 199-200.
  • 73 Polyb. 5,17,3 and 30,1-3.
  • 74 Polyb. 4,83,4: σπεύδων δὴ τούτο κατὰ πάντα τρόπον ἀνακομΐσασθαι τοὺς Δυμαίους.

23Feyel claimed that the enfranchised foreigners were the resident aliens whose admission into the citizen body was requested by the Macedonian king and as a tribute to services performed in the war readily executed by the Dymeans71. Other scholars identified the new citizens with the royal garrison or a part of it. Here, too, Gauthier voiced objections. Following Feyel, he maintained that the new citizens were the resident aliens rewarded with citizenship for the loyalty shown in the war and disputed the claim that the enfranchisement of foreigners was connected with the arrival of royal troops in the city, but also challenged the involvement of the king72. Gauthier’s point was that according to Polybius Dyme was still attacked by the Aetolians, after the royal soldiers had been stationed in the city, and remained in a critical condition through the following year73. The expression συμπολεμήσαντες τόμ πόλεμον καὶ ταμ πόλιν συνδιασώισαντες, however suggests that the city had been successfully defended. My solution would be to link the collective award of citizenship in Dyme to those in Larisa and the Thessalian cities and not to date it to the spring of 218, but to the summer of 217. The royal soldiers were not granted citizenship in Dyme when they were stationed in the city, but when the war had ended. Once the most severe danger had been averted, the king transformed the mercenaries into cleruchs who would no longer be paid, but remained in the city, increasing its military strength. Polybius reports that Philip intended to restore the fortress to the Dymeans “at all hazards”, making evident the strategic importance the king attached to the region between Elis and Aetolia74.

  • 75 For Crete as a source of mercenaries in the Hellenistic period see Petropoulou 1985, 15-31.
  • 76 Lines 59, 42-43, 19 and 53, 25, 26, 36, 46-47; cf. the list of Macedonian names in Tataki 1988, 31 (...)
  • 77 Cf. Szanto 1892, 33.

24Polybius tells us that the garrison Philip left in Dyme to protect the city was formed for the most part from soldiers levied by the king in Achaea. His statement supports my view of the five collective grants of citizenship insofar as the historian substantiates my claim that the recipients of citizenship were soldiers serving the Macedonian king, although they were not Macedonians, but Greeks. Another objection raised by Gauthier against the new citizens being identified with the royal garrison is thereby invalidated. Gauthier argued that the new citizens bore names neutral as to their origin and could not have been soldiers; in his opinion soldiers would be identifiable by their names as Cretans or the inhabitants of other regions which used to provide the Hellenistic armies with mercenaries75. Gauthier did not pay attention to the fact that, judging by their names or the names of their fathers, Drakas and Nikadas, son of Nikanor, and possibly also Nikarchos, Lykios, Satyros, son of Ariston, Xenodokos, son of Neumenios, and Damonidas, son of Neikolaos, were Macedonians who could have been the officers in charge of the garrison76. And yet another point made by Gauthier is invalid. Gauthier claimed that the award of citizenship to soldiers would not have required an individual examination as it was conducted in Dyme77. The example of Athens has however proven that the soldiers of the Macedonian king had to undergo an individual examination in front of the civic authorities before they were awarded isoteleia.

  • 78 IG, VII, 2433 (= Pilhofer 2000, no. 746b).
  • 79 Col. I, lines 1-2; col. II, lines 1-2 and 5-6.
  • 80 Feyel 1942, 288-294.
  • 81 Collart 1937, I 189-190.

25The fifth inscription was found in Boiotian Thebes78. Only two columns with names have survived. The right column gives the names of ten Philippians. The left column lists five men who must have come from one and the same city because their names are not followed by ethnics. In three cases the inscription records two or more brothers79. In Feyel’s opinion the erasure of numerous names from the stele shows, as it does in Larisa, the opposition of the city to foreigners awarded citizenship on demand of the Macedonian king80. The inscription confirms my view that the recipients of citizenship were not the resident aliens. We do not know whether the inscription originates in Thebes or whether it is a pierre errante from another city. At the end of the third century, however, once the gold mines of Philippi were exhausted, the once prosperous city went into decline81. Not surprisingly, the Philippians (or a part of them) tried their luck in the Macedonian army, whether voluntarily or not, and finally settled down on a parcel of land in Boeotia.

  • 82 That collective awards of citizenship primarily served a military purpose had already been emphasi (...)
  • 83 For the Macedonian king as the supreme commander of the armed forces of the Hellenic League see Po (...)

26The above interpretation has shown that, attempting to increase the military effectiveness of the Hellenic League, Philip V after the Social War methodically settled soldiers, whom he had levied during the war, at strategic places in Greece and especially Thessaly as cleruchs82. Large scale population transfers as carried out by the Antigonids in their Greek empire continued a policy which had been pursued by the Macedonian kings in Macedonia and their European possessions since the the late sixth century and which had been brought to Asia and Africa by Alexander the Great in the late fourth century. The Antigonid cleruchs in Greece were another variety of Hellenistic settlers. The Antigonid method was determined, as was that of the Ptolemies and Seleucids, by the geographic and political conditions prevailing in the Antigonid empire. In Greece the kings ruled over cities inhabited by Greeks. The Antigonid cleruchs were not occupation troops on non-Greek soil as were the Greco-Macedonian soldiers settled by the Ptolemies and Seleucids in Egypt, Asia Minor, and Syria, but provided allied, though independent Greek cities with military aid. Antigonos Gonatas, once he had restored ‘freedom’ to the Athenians, put the paroikoi under the command of Athenian strategoi. As long as he controlled the city, the paroikoi would serve his purposes. As the hegemon of the Hellenic League his grandson Philip V was in supreme command of the armed forces of the member states and was able to put the cleruchs, once they had received citizenship, without risk under the command of officers serving the cities83. At the same time, the new citizens formed a considerable part of the population of the cities, and it can be assumed that they promoted in the popular assemblies the interests of the Macedonian king to whom they owed their citizenship.

  • 84 For colonists introduced into a city see the case of the Seleucid katoikoi settled in Magnesia on (...)
  • 85 Kawerau and Rehm, Milet, I, 3, 33-38. For the Cretan mercenaries in Miletos see, for example, Laun (...)

27In another aspect the Antigonid method was determined by the fact that in Greece the kings ruled over Greek cities84. Since royal land was not available, the cleruchs had to be settled on polis land. The kings put the cities and their authorities in charge of the process. The soldiers were supplied with land through decrees enacted by the cities. The kings also respected the fact that the holding of land on the territory of a city required citizenship or isoteleia (that is to say, a legal status which included ges enktesis) and the award of citizenship or isoteleia to foreigners was decided by the popular assemblies of the cities and required an individual examination before the civic authorities. If the cities had voluntarily admitted the foreign soldiers, they would have proceeded in the same way. When in 234/233 and 229/228 the Milesians opened the city gates to more than 1,000 Cretan mercenaries with their families to increase the military strength of their city, they passed a series of decrees to award them citizenship and supply them with land and habitation on the newly acquired territory of Hybandis, which was contested by Magnesia on the Maeander85.

  • 86 Polyb. 4,76,2: Θετταλοὶ γὰρ ἐδόκουν κατὰ νόμους πολιτεύειν καὶ πολὺ διαφέρειν Μακεδων, διέφερειν δ (...)
  • 87 Polyb. 4,76,1: βουληθείς τò τῶν Ἀχαιῶν ἒθνος ἀγαγειν εἰς παραπλησίαν διάθεσιν τῆ Θετταλῶν ἐπεβάλετ (...)
  • 88 I will discuss the decree of Dyme on the sale of citizenship to epoikoi resident in the city (Syll (...)

28Nevertheless the cities were at the mercy of royal” wishes” and “decisions”. They passed the decrees requested by the kings, granted citizenship or isoteleia to the royal soldiers, and supplied them with land. The example of Athens shows that the Macedonian king interfered in the dokimasia process and the internal affairs of the city. The cities could remove the new citizens from the citizenship rolls or delay the award of isoteleia to the royal soldiers, their resistance was futile. Polybius describes the situation in an often cited passage: “The Thessalians, though supposed to be governed constitutionally and much more liberally than the Macedonians, were as a fact treated in just the same way and obeyed all the orders of the king’s ministers”86. With regard to the Social War the historian adds that Apelles, one of the Friends of the young king, “entered on the base project of reducing the Achaeans to a position similar to that of the Thessalians”87. Illustrating the relationship between the Macedonian king and his allies in the Hellenic League, his statement supports my view that the collective award of citizenship in Dyme was connected with those in the Thessalian cities88.

Notes

1 Plut., Mor., 328 E. For Alexander’s colonization program see Fraser 1996; cf. Tscherikower 1927, 138-154; Tarn 1948, 2, 232-259; Seibert 1972, 179-183.

2 For the Seleucid colonization program see Cohen 1978; cf. Billows 1995, 146-182 and Cohen 1995, 23-71. For the settlers and the army see Bar-Kochva 1976, 20-48. For the settlements see the relevant entries in Cohen 1995 and 2006.

3 For the similarities and the differences between the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic programs of colonization see Cohen 1983; cf. Tscherikower 1927, 182-189. For military settlers in the Hellenistic monarchies see also the overview in Launey 1987, 1, 42-57.

4 For the overseas possessions of the Ptolemies see Bagnall 1976; cf. the relevant entries in Cohen 1995 and 2006.

5 For the Ptolemaic foundations in Egypt and the Red Sea basin see Cohen 2006, 305-352 (with further bibliography).

6 For the Ptolemaic cleruchs in Egypt see, for example, Lesquier 1911, 30-66 and 162-254; Préaux 1939, 400-463 and 463-477; van t’Dack 1977.

7 Cf. Préaux 1939, 387 and 1978, 2, 407-408; see also Tcherikover 1959, 25-26.

8 For a thorough discussion of the Fayum towns see Cohen 2006, 50-68 (with the earlier bibliography).

9 Cf. Cohen 1995, 15-16. For population transfers in Greece and Macedonia in the archaic and classical periods see Demand 1990.

10 For Philip II as a colonizer see, for example, Ellis 1969 and 1976, 68-69 and 167; Cawkwell 1978, 39-45; Hammond 1989, 152-165.

11 Just., Ep., 8,5,7-6, 2.

12 Cf. Cohen 1995, 109-120.

13 Cf. Errington 1986, 63-64 and 161 (with further bibliography).

14 Cf. Cohen 1995, 126-128.

15 For Macedonian garrisons in Greek cities see, for example, Le Bohec 1993, 307-310 and Hatzopoulos 2001, 29-32.

16 Launey 1987, I 56-57. For the texts see Hatzopoulos 2001, 151-167.

17 Cohen 1995, 31.

18 Die Garnisonsinschriften und die Geschichte Athens im dritten Jahrhundert v. Chr. will appear in 2007 in the series HABES (with a detailed analysis of the paroikoi and their decrees).

19 The results have been published in Petrakos 1999b (the second volume includes 400 inscriptions). See also the annual reports in PAAH and EAH. For the political history of Athens after the Chremonidean War see Habicht 1982, 13-63 and 1997, 150-172; cf. Tracy 2003, 15-25.

20 Petrakos 1999a, 22-23 no. 26 (= SEG, 51, 130) (253/252 or 251/250); 2001, 557-558 no. 1 (= SEG, 52, 125) (248/247); Petrakos 1999b, 2, no. 38 (217/216), no. 23 (later than 217/216), no. 43 (214/213), no. 51 (208/207), no. 47 (200/199), no. 30 (later than 228). Two decrees of the paroikoi from the years 188/187 and 161/160 are still unpublished (inv. nos. 2110 and 2139; cf. Petrakos 1999b, 1, 434).

21 Petrakos 1999b, 2, no. 40-42 (later than 228), 50 (207/206), no. 151 (late second or early first century). Two inscriptions mentioning paroikoi are still unpublished: a decree from 248/247 (inv. no. 1233; cf. Petrakos 1997, 614 and 622-623 [= SEG, 47, 151] and Petrakos 1999b 1, 36-37 [= SEG, 51, 107]) and a dedication from the late second or early first century (inv. no. 1383; cf. Petrakos 1999b, 1, 435).

22 Pouilloux 1956, 71-73 and Choix 20 pp. 79-80; Moretti, ISE, I, 32, pp. 73-74; Gauthier 1988, 36-7; Papazoglou 1997, 149-150 (the testimonies from Rhamnous on pp. 190-193); Petrakos 1999b, 1, 172. Cf. Couvenhes 2007; Niku 2007, 153-171; Oliver 2007, 180-181 and 186-189.

23 The identity of paroikoi and incolae is confirmed by a bilingual inscription from Dion (Pandermalis 1984, 277 [= SEG 34, 631]); cf. Papazoglou 1997, 231-234. See also Dig., 50, 16, 239, 2: incola qui aliqua regione domicilium suum contulit, quem Graeci πάροικον appellant.

24 For the condition of the paroikoi in Asia Minor see Gauthier 1988; cf. Bertrand 2005. For the testimonies see Papazoglou 1997, 161-203. Papazoglou argued that the paroikoi in Asia Minor were former laoi (pp. 235-48); but cf. Gauthier, BE, 1998, 107.

25 Petrakos 1999b, 2, no. 43, lines 11-4, no. 47 lines 6-8, no. 50 lines 18-20.

26 Petrakos 1999b, 2, no. 38, lines 3-6, no. 43 lines 5-7.

27 Petrakos 1999b, 2, no. 43 lines 10-4, no. 47, lines 6-27 8.

28 For the status of the Attic fortresses after the Chremonidean War see Die Garnisonsinschriften und die Geschichte Athens im dritten Jahrhundert v. Chr.; cf. Habicht 2003a, 52-53.

29 Petrakos 1999b, 2, no. 8.

30 Lines 9-13.

31 Launey 1987, 253 with note 3.

32 IG, II2, 287, 505, 551, 554, 768 + 802. For these inscriptions see the relevant sections in Pečirka 1966. For ges enktesis as part of isoteleia see Whitehead 1977, 11-12.

33 For individual and collective awards of citizenship to foreigners see Szanto 1892, 8 and Lonis 1992, 269-270.

34 Feyel 1942, 285-300. His view of the five collective awards of citizenship was followed by Launey 1987, 34 II 657-659; Rizakis 1990, 125-129; Lonis 1992, 255-263. For new citizens in Hellenistic cities (award of citizenship, registration in the civic subdivisions, legal relationship with the citizens) see also Savalli 1985.

35 IG, IX, 2, 517 (= Syll.3, 543; Schwyzer, DGE, 590; Buck 1955, 220-223 no. 32). For the date of the inscription see Habicht 1970, 273-279. Habicht correctly read e’as the year of the first letter in line 9 (instead of β’as read by Lolling 1882) and dated it to 217. Earlier scholars, following Lolling’s reading, had assigned the first letter to 220 or 219 depending on whet her they placed Philip’s accession to the Macedonian throne before or after Dios 1 of the year 221. For the problems arising from this dating see, for example, Walbank 1940, 296-299 and Hannick 1968. For the history and topography of Larisa see Stählin 1924a, 94-112 and 1924b.

36 Lines 6-7: ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος κρίνω ψηφίσασθαι ὑμᾶς ὄπως τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν παρ' ὑμῖν Θεσσαλῶν ἢ τῶν ἂλλων Ἐλλήνων δοθῆι πολιτεία.

37 Lines 8-9: έτερα τε πολλᾶ τῶν χρησίμων ἔσεσθαι καὶ ἐμοὶ καὶ τῆι πόλει καὶ τὴν χώραν μᾶλλον ἐξεργασθήσεσθαι.

38 Line 30: τήν τε πόλιν ἰσχύειν καὶ τὴν χώραν μή ὥσπερ νῦν αἰσχρῶς χερσεύεσθαι.

39 Lines 34-38: πλήν ἔτι γε καὶ νῦν παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς άφιλοτίμος προσελθεῖν [τυρός το] πράγμα καί τούς μὲν κεκριμέν'ους υπό τῶν πολιτών άπακαταστῆσαι εἰς τὴν πολιτείαν, εἰ δέ [τινες ά]νήκεστόν τι πεπρᾶχασιν εἰες τὴν βασιλείαν ή τὴν πόλιν ή οι’ άλλην τινα αιτίάν μή αξιοί εισιν [μετέχ]ειν τής στήλης ταύτης, περί τούτον τὴν ύπέρθεσιν ποιήσασθαι. ἕως ἂν ἐγώ ἐπιστρέψας άπò τῆς [στρατ]είας διακούσω.

40 Lines 7-8: τούτο γάρ συντελεσθέντος καὶ συνμεινάντων πάντων δια τα φιλάνθρωπα.

41 For the traditional view of a strict correlation between possession of a kleros and military service see, for example, Griffith 1935, 157-159; Cumont 1931, 248; Tarn 1952, 146. This system prevailed in Ptolemaic Egypt; cf. Préaux 1939, 463 and Lesquier 1911, 230. That it did not exist in the Seleucid empire has been shown by Bikerman 1938, 74-87 and Cohen 1978, 51-52; cf. however Billows 1995, 172-178.

42 For the historical context of the inscription see Habicht 1970, 273-279. For the Social War see, for example, Walbank 1940, 24-68; Will 1982, 71-77; Hammond & Walbank 1988, 373-389.

43 Polyb., 5, 99-100.

44 For the repopulation of Macedonia after the Second Macedonian War see Hammond & Walbank 1988, 458-459.

45 That the Macedonian king could order the conscription of soldiers in the member states of the Hellenic League can be inferred from Polyb., 4, 67, 8; 5, 3, 3 and 4, 4; 5, 17, 9 and 20, 1; cf. Le Bohec 1993, 390-391. For the history and the constitution of the Hellenic League see also Scherberich forthcoming in Historia Einzellschrift.

46 Lines 48-9, 52, 57, etc.

47 Cf. Stählin 1924a, 92 and 112.

48 IG, IX, 2, 234 (= Schwyzer, DGE, 567; Buck 1955, 226-227 no. 36; Moretti, ISE, II, 96 [with a thorough commentary]; Decourt 1990 [with a primarily onomastic commentary] and I. ThessEnipeus, 50. For the history and topography of Pharsalos see Stählin 1924a, 135-144 and Bequignon 1970.

49 Lines 12-13, 15-16, 43-45, etc.

50 Cf. the translations of various commentators, such as Feyel 1942, 291: “à ceux qui ont la sympolitie depuis l’origine”; Moretti, ISE, II, 96, p. 63: “a coloro che già dalle origini le sono stretti in simpolitia”; Decourt 1990, 164 and I. ThessEnipeus, 50, p. 61: “à ceux qui déjà dès l’origine participent avec les Pharsaliens à l’exercise des droits politiques”. See also Gauthier 1985, 198: “à un groupe de personnes déjà liées par sympolitie” and Lonis 1992, 258: “ils étaient liés à Pharsale par des liens de sympolitie et cela depuis longtemps”.

51 Lonis 1992, 258-259.

52 Szanto 1892, 154.

53 Moretti, ISE, II, 96, p. 63. Moretti referred to a passage in the Hellenika Oxyrhynchika saying that two boiotarchs were elected in the fifth century: ὑπὲρ Πλαταιέων καὶ Σκώλου καὶ Ἐρυθρῶν καὶ τῶν ἂλλων χωρίων τῶν πρότερον μὲν ἐκεινοις συμπολιτευομένων (17, 1). In Moretti’s opinion the choria sympolieuomena were settlements the inhabitants of which were not politai, but sympoliteuomenoi of the Plataeans. Moretti’s view was followed by Gauthier 1985, 198-199.

54 Ducat 1994, 107-113.

55 Cf. Kühner and Gerth 1963-1965, II, 2, 90: “Das mit dem Partizipe verbundene Vergleichungsadverb & ὡς, wie, als, drückt wie auch sonst eine Vergleichung aus, indem die Art und Weise der durch das Prädikat des Satzes ausgedrückten Handlung durch die Ähnlichkeit mit einer durch ein Partizip bezeichneten Eigenschaft, also vergleichungsweise, dargestellt wird”. On Thessalian ους (= ὡς), see Buck 1955, 27.

56 A correct translation is provided in Dareste, Haussoullier, and Reinach 1904, 136: “à ceux qui se sont comportés comme s’ils étaient des citoyens d’origine et ont pris part à la guerre avec tout leur zèle”.

57 For the area of Makouniai and its location see Stählin 1924a, 143-144; 1927; 1928, 57.

58 Cf. Helly 1995, 302-311.

59 IG, IX, 2, 1228 (= Schwyzer, DGE, 612; Moretti, ISE, II, 108 [with a thorough commentary]). For the history and topography of Phalanna see Lenk 1938 and Stählin 1924a, 30-31.

60 Lines 22-23, 66-68, etc.

61 Moretti, ISE, II, 108, pp. 91-92.

62 For the origin of Thessalian federal strategoi in the second and first centuries see the list in Kramolisch 1978, 24.

63 Gauthier 1985, 201-202.

64 Cf. Vatin 1970, 121-123. For intermarriage between foreign soldiers and native women see Chaniotis 2002, 110-112.

65 Syll.3, 529 (= Schwyzer, DGE, 426; Rizakis 1990, 123-129 [with a thorough commentary]). For Dyme see the relevant sections in Rizakis 1995.

66 Lines 14-5, 20-21, 22-23, 40-41, 67-70, 17-18, 29-30, 19, 53.

67 Dittenberger, Syll.3, 529, p. 776, note 8. His view was followed by Walbank 1957, 536; Launey 1987, II 657-658; Rizakis 1990, 127-128.

68 Polyb. 4,59.

69 Polyb. 4,83.

70 Polyb. 5,3,2.

71 Feyel 1942, 295. His view was followed by Lonis 1992, 262.

72 Gauthier 1985, 199-200.

73 Polyb. 5,17,3 and 30,1-3.

74 Polyb. 4,83,4: σπεύδων δὴ τούτο κατὰ πάντα τρόπον ἀνακομΐσασθαι τοὺς Δυμαίους.

75 For Crete as a source of mercenaries in the Hellenistic period see Petropoulou 1985, 15-31.

76 Lines 59, 42-43, 19 and 53, 25, 26, 36, 46-47; cf. the list of Macedonian names in Tataki 1988, 312-331.

77 Cf. Szanto 1892, 33.

78 IG, VII, 2433 (= Pilhofer 2000, no. 746b).

79 Col. I, lines 1-2; col. II, lines 1-2 and 5-6.

80 Feyel 1942, 288-294.

81 Collart 1937, I 189-190.

82 That collective awards of citizenship primarily served a military purpose had already been emphasized by Lonis 1992, 269.

83 For the Macedonian king as the supreme commander of the armed forces of the Hellenic League see Polyb. 2,65,1-5 and 5,5,11; cf. Le Bohec 1993, 395.

84 For colonists introduced into a city see the case of the Seleucid katoikoi settled in Magnesia on the Sipylos (OGIS, 229 [= Staatsverträge, III, 492; IK, 8 Magnesia am Sipylos, 1; IK, 2,1-Smyrna, 573]). The inscription has often been the subject of detailed analysis; cf., for example, Griffith 1935, 154-156; Bickerman 1938, 100-105; Launey 1987, II 669-674; and more recently Bar-Kochva 1976, 57-58; Cohen 1978, 60-62 and 1995, 216-217 and 225-226. Another case was the Achaean colonists in Orchomenos in Arcadia (Syll.3, 490); cf. Cohen 1995, 128.

85 Kawerau and Rehm, Milet, I, 3, 33-38. For the Cretan mercenaries in Miletos see, for example, Launey 1987, I 660-664; Brulé 1990, 238-242; Lonis 1992, 264-266. See also Herrmann, Milet, VI, 1, pp. 160-164 (with further bibliography).

86 Polyb. 4,76,2: Θετταλοὶ γὰρ ἐδόκουν κατὰ νόμους πολιτεύειν καὶ πολὺ διαφέρειν Μακεδων, διέφερειν δ' οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ πᾶν ὁμοίως ἒπασχον Μακεδόσι καὶ πᾶν ἐποΐουν τò προσταττόμενον τοῖς βασιλικοῖς.

87 Polyb. 4,76,1: βουληθείς τò τῶν Ἀχαιῶν ἒθνος ἀγαγειν εἰς παραπλησίαν διάθεσιν τῆ Θετταλῶν ἐπεβάλετο πρᾶγμα ποιεῖν μοχθηρόν.

88 I will discuss the decree of Dyme on the sale of citizenship to epoikoi resident in the city (Syll.3, 531) in a forthcoming article.

Auteur

Kommission für alte Geschichte und Epigraphik des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Munich, Germanyen

© Ausonius Éditions, 2010

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540