The Hellenistic period as conventionally understood is framed by two military conquests: the first, the Macedonian invasion of the Persian Empire under Alexander, rapid and deliberate (334–323 bc), the second, the Roman takeover of much of the Hellenistic world, hardly deliberate but a long-drawn process, which started in the late third century bc but was not complete till 30 bc with the overthrow of the Ptolemaic dynasty after the battle of Actium. War in this period was a constant presence which shaped the history of the times in many ways. Conquest and empire are the leading themes: they have had a long and varied life from antiquity to the present day, and are unlikely to lose their relevance in the foreseeable future.

Hellenistic studies are at present in a thriving condition, as a glance at any bibliography will show. When the first edition of this book was written only one general survey of the Hellenistic age in English was available (Tarn and Griffith (1953)), but since then they have multiplied and there has been a profusion of specialist studies. What George Grote once wrote in the Preface to his great History of Greece (12 volumes, first published 1846–56) now seems an outdated curiosity: ‘After the generation of Alexander, the political action of Greece becomes cramped and degraded – no longer interesting to the reader, or operative on the destinies of the world […] As a whole, the period between 300 bc and the absorption of Greece by the Romans is of no interest in itself, and is only so far of value as it helps us to understand the preceding centuries.'

Alexander's legacy to the world was a mess. His sudden death in Babylon in June 323 left Macedon in an unprecedented situation: there was no designated successor capable of taking over, and Macedon did not have the constitutional machinery to handle the emergency. The result was an open-ended power struggle between his leading followers which never came to a final conclusion. Within a generation three major monarchies established themselves in a lasting way – the Ptolemies in Egypt (chapter 7), the Seleucids in Asia (chapter 5), the Antigonids in Macedon (chapter 3) – but there was always room for newcomers, such as the Attalids of Pergamum (chapter 6), the Greek rulers in Bactria, and non-Greek monarchies, such as the dynasties in Bithynia, Pontus, and further afield Parthia and India.

The surviving literary sources place the leading Macedonians at the centre of the story. They evoke conflicting assessments. ‘All those who were associated with Philip, and afterwards with Alexander, showed themselves to be truly royal in their magnanimity, their self-control and their daring … After Alexander's death, when they became rivals for the possession of an empire which covered much of the world, they filled many history books with the glory of their achievements’ (Polybius VIII.10). Contrast Plutarch (Pyrrhus 12): ‘They are perpetually at war, because for them plotting and being envious of each other is second nature, and they use the words war and peace just like current coin, to serve their present needs, but in defiance of justice. Indeed they are really better men when they go to war openly than when they conceal under the names of justice and friendship those periods when they are at leisure and abstrain from acts of wrongdoing.’

It has often been said that after Alexander, in a world dominated by territorial monarchies, the Greek city was now ‘dead’ as an institution, but this view has come under considerable critical scrutiny. While it is true that the old leading cities – Athens, Sparta, Syracuse in Sicily, and a few others – could no longer maintain their former predominance, the position of many smaller ones was no more precarious now than before, and the aspiration for independence remained alive. Rhodes actually became more powerful in this period than she had been before, though this was an exceptional case. Thanks to the foundations of Alexander but especially his Successors Greek cities multiplied and were to be found scattered over a much larger area which now extended deep inland into Asia in Asia; in Egypt). The life and activities of many Greek cities are more fully documented in this period than before thanks to the spread of the ‘epigraphic habit’ in the post-classical world. It will be seen that the majority of texts in this chapter are inscriptions and not literary sources.

This chapter concentrates on what could be described as the ‘old Greek world’, centred around the Aegean basin (the west is largely omitted, though the ‘new Greek world’ of the monarchies in Asia and Egypt is covered in subsequent chapters. The chapter is divided for convenience into four sections. The first comprises texts arranged geographically: Central Greece, the Peloponnese, the Aegean and the islands, the Black Sea area.

The Seleucid empire, created by Seleucus I through conquest, was territorially the largest and most diverse of all Hellenistic empires. Starting from Babylonia, Seleucus expanded eastwards as far as Bactria, added North Syria after the battle of Ipsus, and at the end of his career western Asia Minor as well as a foothold in Thrace. Later Antiochus III added Coele Syria which he captured from Ptolemy V. Though comprising a multiplicity of non-Greek peoples and cultures, the Seleucid empire is known predominantly from Greek or Graeco-Roman evidence. Non-Greek perspectives are only rarely available, except for those parts of the empire that had their own literary or documentary traditions, notably Babylonia and Judaea. The empire was a conglomerate of many peoples and entities. The kings promoted the settlement of Greek-type cities, imported manpower from the Greek world as well as their own cults, but did not attempt to impose any cultural or religious uniformity on their empire contrast. The unifying element was provided by the king himself and his dynasty, his close followers, most of them apparently of Greek/Macedonian origin or culture, and his military forces, more mixed in composition. The kings were primarily warriors in action who campaigned personally throughout their empire and handled relations with subject states and foreign powers, either in person, or through their officials. What is known of the imperial administration shows varying degrees of complexity as well as efficiency, depending on the context.

The Antigonids took longer to secure their position than their rivals the Ptolemies and Seleucids. For the Successors possession of the Macedonian kingdom was an irresistible temptation, and competition was intense, especially after the death of Cassander. Further instability in Macedon was caused by the Celtic invasion, but it also gave Antigonus Gonatas the opportunity to establish himself and his dynasty in the country. But Macedonian power remained contested and was never again as dominant as under Philip II and Alexander. Besides constant pressure from the northern hinterland, and the hostility of the Ptolemies who sought to counteract any resurgence of Antigonid power in the Aegean, the Greek world to the south presented problems of a kind that the monarchies in Asia, ruling over predominantly non-Greek populations, did not face. Though unable to challenge successfully Macedonian overlordship Athens could not be reconciled to it. Sparta under the leadership of ambitious kings obstinately tried to restore her power in the Peloponnese. though with disastrous results in the end. In regions of the Greek world that had not hitherto played a major role new political organisations emerged: the Aetolian League in north-west Greece and the Achaean League in the northern Peloponnese, which for a while successfully challenged Macedonian power, before being curtailed by Antigonus Doson. On the eve of Roman intervention the Greek mainland remained as disunited as before.

While sharing features common to all the monarchies of the age, the Ptolemaic dynasty was peculiar in several respects because of its location in Egypt and its position in the world of the time. The monarchy was doublefaced and thus ambiguous in character; the rulers were successors to the Pharaohs in Egypt, but at the same time Greek-style kings in a wider international context. The availability of a wealth of evidence from Egypt, especially papyri, which supplements Greek literary and epigraphic sources, means also that Ptolemaic history is more fully documented than that of its rivals.

Based in an ancient land with a strong identity, the Ptolemies could not avoid adapting to Egyptian traditions of monarchy and conciliating the powerful native priesthood. The occasional incidence of brother– sister marriage in the dynasty may have reflected Egyptian influence. The foundation of Ptolemaic prosperity was the agricultural wealth of the sheltered Nile valley and the labour of the large Egyptian population.

Yet in parallel with this the Ptolemies were seen as members of the international ‘royal club’, active in the wider Greek world, anxious to patronise Greek culture and promote themselves to Greek audiences, and involved in a protracted rivalry with the Antigonids in Macedon and the Seleucids in Asia (for the so-called ‘Syrian Wars’ cf. successively 163, 183, 266, 275, 193, 211). ‘The kings of Egypt liked to be called Macedonians, as in fact they were,’ notes Pausanias (X.7.8, cf. VI.3.1). The dynasty closely identified with Alexander, and intermarried not with Egyptians but with dynasties outside Egypt.

The Attalids differed in several ways from the Antigonids, Seleucids and Ptolemies. Like the rulers of Bithynia, Pontus and other monarchies (chapter 3, Introduction), they were not part of the Macedonian ‘royal club’ of the first generation after Alexander (chapter 2), but started under Philetaerus as local rulers in Pergamum with initially limited territory, and only achieved their royal status under Attalus I, the third ruler in the dynasty. The dynasty prided itself on its cohesiveness and freedom from internal challenges, in contrast to the Seleucids and Ptolemies. Unlike the Seleucids and Ptolemies, the Attalid rulers avoided deification of themselves in their lifetime. They sided with Rome in her intervention against Philip V then Antiochus III and as a result achieved their greatest power and prosperity when those monarchies had been curtailed by defeat at Roman hands. It was therefore appropriate that Rome should eventually inherit the kingdom she had helped to build up. Pergamum, the Attalids' capital city, maintained civic forms but was closely controlled by the rulers and lavishly beautified by them. From the beginning the Attalids cultivated their reputation in the Greek world, locally in Asia Minor, and further afield in the Aegean and on the mainland. Adapting the pose of classical Athens against the ‘barbarians of Asia’, they presented themselves as champions of the Greek world against the Celtic invaders in Anatolia. The reputation they enjoy in Greek sources is, not surprisingly, predominantly favourable.