September 7: Classical and Hellenistic Macedonia

Herodotus 5.17-22 – Story of Alexander and his father Amyntis and how, when the Persians
came to sleep with their women, Alexander dressed soldiers as women to kill the lusfful
Persians. Herodotus ends with an excursus on how Alexander may have really been Greek
instead of Macedonian (since he was allowed to compete in the Olympics).

Hatzopoulos, M.B. “Makedonia.” In An inventory of archaic and classical poleis. Edited by

Nielsen, Thomas Heine., Hansen, Mogens Herman.  Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press, 2004.

Following the aims of the edited volume, Hatzopoulos sets out to describe the geographical
boundaries of archaic and classical Macedonia and list the various poleis of Macedonia, attested
both literarily and materially. Notably, Hatzopoulos is invested in pre-Hellenistic poleis, and,
thus, Hellenistic cities like Philippi (located in the classically Thracian Nestos valley) are left out
of consideration. He divided the list into two groups, pre-Hellensitic settlements (loosely
defined as kome) and pre-Hellenistic poleis. For each entry, Hatzopoulos included the size and
population of the settlements, the main temples excavated at the sites, the various mentions by
both literary and epigraphic sources, and relevant information regarding the founding and
history of each place. The largest entries are for Pella, Pydna, Edessa, Dion, and Beroia.

Eugene Borza, Before Alexander: constructing Early Macedonia (Claremont, CA: Regina Books,
1999).

Borza’s short book is separated into three sections, dealing with sources for early Macedonia
(Herodotus and Thucydides), origins and ethnicities (primarily dealing with the archaeological
record), and the complexity of the Philipp II. Borza is adamant that one cannot construct early
Macedonia from later sources since, according to him, Macedonia underwent such a
transformation during the reign of Alexander the Great. There is no epigraphy from this period
and archaeology is not much use either. Attempting to reconstruct the lives of early
Macedonian leaders (like Alexander I) is incredibly difficult since Herodotus writes all
Macedonian leaders as pro-Greek (i.e. participating in the Olympics or defending Greece from
Persia). Thus, Borza concludes that Macedonians did not have a unified state or a king until
Philip II.
Borza insists that early Macedonians had a unique identity and ethnicity. Though he largely
failed to define either terms, he pushed for an eclecticism of the Macedonians, demonstrating
that their geography and cultural interactions largely shaped their group. And, while they
certainly interacted and shared goods with Greeks, every ancient source that we have
demonstrates that Macedonians and Greeks were two different groups. With this said, Borza
stresses that early constructions of Macedonians must not be deployed for nationalistic
purposes today, insisting that no single group today equates to the ancient group.
The section on Philip II reviews recent work on the king, complicating our once unified picture
of him. Borza further complicates the writings of Demosthenes as a full fledge, pro-Athenian
source and, thus, not a faithful witness to the unfolding political events of the day. Rather than
Demosthenes caricature of Philip, Borza suggests that Philip inserted himself into Athenian
politics by way of “diplomacy, guile and force, and the threat of force.” For Borza, the real
change did not occur under Philip, but under Alexander.

Bouzek, Jan, and Iva Ondřejová. "Sindos—Trebenishte—Duvanli. Interrelations between

Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece in the 6th and 5th Centuries BC." Mediterranean Archaeology
1 (1988): 84-94.

The degree of sharing between each site-

Ivanov, Mario. 2008. “Social Status and Cultural Identity in Roman Thrace (Grave Stelai and
Altars).” Ancient West and East, 7: 135-150.

Nicolay Sharankov, “Language and society in Roman Thrace” in Early Roman Thrace: New
Evidence from Bulgaria. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series, 82.
Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2011.

Sharankov analyses the patterns of linguistic usage in the Roman province of Thracia, insofar as
they can be traced in the epigraphic record of the province (it should be noted that several of
the inscriptions cited here are recently published, or still unpublished). Not surprisingly, given
the position of Thrace in the Greek-speaking part of the Roman Empire, Greek dominated the
linguistic landscape of Thracia, even at the official level of provincial government. Despite the
predominance of Greek, substantial onomastic evidence also seems to suggest that Thracian
continued to be used by many natives as a spoken language at least through the sixth century
A.D., and is taken by the author as a sign that “a large section of the rural population was not
greatly affected by the process of Hellenisation/Romanisation” (136). On the other hand, the
usage of Latin appears to have been limited to three main groups: Roman soldiers stationed in
the province and veterans from the two Roman colonies of Thracia, and to Roman officials from
the provincial administration.

J. Stronk, “Thrace”, The Ten Thousand in Thrace (Amsterdam, 1995): 39-58

Stronk offers a brief overview of Thracian geography and history, as well as the literary sources
available for the study of Thrace. Documentary evidence on Thrace includes – 5 th and 6th
century BCE authors (such as Hecataeus, Herodotus, and Thucydides) and 4 th century BCE
authors (Xenophon, Theopompus, and Theophrastus). In 2nd century CE, Appian sailed along the
coast but never went ashore.

Peter S. Derow, “Rome, the fall of Macedon, and the sack of Corinth”, in CAH vol. 8, 2nd ed.

Peter Derow’s chapter on the fall of Macedon and Corinth attempts to untangle the
administrative quagmire evolving in the 2nd century BCE between Rome, Macedon, the Achaean
League, and the Seleucids. Derow stresses that the Romans rarely solved problems
simultaneously, opting instead for a syncopated and calculated method of problem solving
based on right timing. In fact, Rome had its eye on Macedon and feared war as early as ten
years before the actual war (168).

R. Kallet-Marx, Hegemony to Empire: The Development of the Roman Imperium in the East
From 148 to 62 B.C. (1995), only ch. 1.

Kallet-Marx – a student of Eric Gruen – doubles down on Gruen’s thesis of Roman expansion
between 148 to 62 BCE. His stated aims are “to depart from the old tradition which focuses
narrowly on the legal structures assumed (often without good evidence) to have been erected
by Roman conquerors after the various eastern wars, and to turn attention rather toward the
evolution of imperial structures both as an ongoing process of mutual adaptation on both the
Greek and Roman sides and as a reaction to specific historical events” (1). As for Macedonia (his
first chapter), Kallet-Marx demonstrates – through a critical reading of various sources – how,
after the defeat of Andriscus at the battle of Pydna in 148 BCE, Rome did not install a new
governing institution outside maintaining a military presence. The military outpost, according to
Kallet-Marx, was stationed only to guard the northern frontiers (as opposed to maintaining rule
over the Macedonians). Thus, while Macedonia was given the name provincia, this did not
entail widespread legal administration. The term “lex provinciae” are from late dates and, when
analyzed closely, do not refer to new legal administration over the populace, but certain initial
legal obligations given to the pacified territory. As such, scholarly assertions of the annexation,
organization, or conversion of Macedonia into a province not only obfuscates the degree to
which provincialization occurred, but also the evolutionary and dialectical processes of
negotiation (between Rome and Macedonia) that slowly created anything like a “province” (in
our sense of the term; 19).

Emma Dench, Empire and Political Cultures in the Roman World (2008), ch. 1.

Emma Dench’s Empire and Political Cultures in the Roman World analyzes what she calls
“the political cultures” of the Roman world (during both the Republic and Empire). Taking up
the fraught category of “Romanness” (or being Roman), Dench decries that scholars have
constructed “a political and militaristic Rome” over and against the “cultures” of their subjects.
This implies two things: first, that Romans do not have a culture and, two, that politics (or
various conglomerations of state power) only rest on the side of the Romans. Dench pushes
back on both assertions, pressing for various local articulations of what she calls “statehood,”
“peoplehood,” and “grouphood,” creating a complex network of power relations (much of
which, though risky, the Romans encouraged; 16-17). Thus, there is not one “belief system” of
Rome (a la Simon Price), but rather “plural languages and idioms within the Roman imperial
world, along with the presence of competing states and systems of authority and belief” (16).
“Romanness” in this sense, ought not be seen as a totalizing conversion (as though its 20 th
century Christainity), but as “‘ongoing processes of conceptualizing, enacting and claiming
modes of power” (17).
Dench’s first chapter explores how an assortment of modes sovereignty became
distringuished as “Roman” and, how, through spectacle and performance, Roman symbols of
sovereignty (Latin language, official documents, architecture, iconography, etc.) were mobilized
either to support or undermine Roman claims to authority (29ff). This conglomeration of
symbols coalesced into what she calls a “rulebook mentality” (demonstrated in juridical
gradations of power, multilingual tax documents, and the circumscribed placement of honorific
inscriptions).

V. Allamani-Souri, “The Province of Macedonia in the Roman Imperium”, in D.V. Grammenos

(ed.), Roman Thessaloniki (Thessalonike 2003) 67-79.

Allamani-Souri’s article gives an overview of Macedonia under the Roman imperium, with a
special focus on Roman Thessaloniki. Macedonia was important for Rome for several reasons.
First, it created vital East to West land access for trade and military. Second, it offered a military
platform to defend against northern frontiers. Initially, Roman Macedonia was split into four
administrative areas, with Amphipolis, Thesaloniki, Pela, and Pelagonia established as their
respective administrive centers. Philippi, Pella, Dion, Cassandreia and Stobi were founded as
specifically Roman cities for soldiers, veterans, and Augustus’s political enemies. Though it was
of great importance to the emperors, it is likely that they never visited Macedonia (apart from
Hadrian’s tour of the east). A dozen fragmentary imperial letters have been preserved between
cities and the Roman administration. These mostly recount financial relations, public services,
games, and provincial positions. Allamani-Souri also noted the competiton between
Thessaloniki and Beroea. Thessaloniki had access to land (the Via Egnatia) and sea; while
Beroea mostly had to rely on land exploitation for wealth. Unlike Philippi, Thessaloniki refused
to house the liberators of Rome (Cassius, Brutus, and the elite that murdered Julius Caesar),
instead, deciding to side with Antony. And, though they initially sided with Antony in his conflict
with Octavian, they switched sides before the battle of Actium. After Actium, Thessaloniki – like
most every other urban center of Macedonia – beautified their city with imperial portraits
featuring Augustus.

Brélaz, “Philippi: A Roman Colony within its Regional Context.”

Cedric Brélaz’s essay traces the regional impact and connectivity of Roman Philippi during the
first three centuries after its initial founding. His essay is divided into three sections: Philippi
and the reorganization of Eastern Macedonia; mobility to and from Philippi; and cultural
interaction in the in the Thraco-Macedonian Area. The founding of the colony in 42 BCE under
Mark Antony (and its reinforcement under Octavius after the battle of Actium in 30 BCE)
necessarily led to the dissolution of former political community. Philippi was granted Ius
Italicum, a sort of legal fiction that the community’s dealings took place on Italian soil, thus, in
principle, serving as barrier against local governor’s encroaching upon the local administration.
The expropriation and displacement of the incolae occurred in favor of the new Roman
settlement and, even if incolae were allowed to stay on provincial lands, they were moved to
new land plots. Brelaz argues that the founding of Philippi did not just effect the immediate
vicinity but the entire region (i.e. Neapolis, an old Greek city, came under the provincial
durisdiction, as well as various vicis in the Strymon valley). The massive influx of Italians did not
occur in one fell swoop, rather, Roman veterans kept coming and settling as late as the 2 nd
century CE (probably after being discharged from service on the Danubian border). Even with
this influx, the same families held the most prominent positions in the provincial administration
from its founding to the late 2nd century CE. Furthermore, with the help of prosopographic data,
Brelaz demonstrates the various regions from which the Italian settlers came. Conversely, those
that moved from Roman Philippi, mostly settled in places likeThessaloniki or Amphipolis, or
other towns along the via egnatia. Cultural interaction between Romans and Thracians are
mostly depicted through language and cult. Thracians took to Latin much more than Greek,
which suggests