During the Mycenaean period, officials known as wanaktes or “kings” ruled over large states (see chap. 2). Beneath the wanax stood a large number of other functionaries, one of whom bore the title gwasileus. This official, while clearly not the king himself, often functioned as the leader of a group (Jn 431, 601, and 845). He was commonly wealthy (Jo 438), and his office may have been hereditary (Jn 431). The later Greek form of this word was basileus. This was the generic word for “king” in classical Greek; and one can easily imagine a situation in which, when the Mycenaean kingdoms crumbled under the onslaught of sea-borne invaders, local leaders became responsible for rallying the survivors in the aftermath of the catastrophe. These local leaders may often enough have been the gwasilewes.
According to the Greeks’ own traditions, in the preclassical period their communities had stood under the rule of “kings.” The Greeks were correct in this view. First, in some regions of the Greek world kings continued to rule well into the classical period: Sparta, Argos, and Thessaly. The same applies to outlying regions of the Greek world such as Cyprus and the seventh-century colony of Cyrene in North Africa. In fact, the presence of a king in Cyrene attests to the presence of a king in Cyrene’s mother-city in Greece, Thera, at the time of Cyrene’s foundation (for the methodological basis of this argument see chap. 5). Second, many cities in Greece in which no king ruled during the classical period still had a minor official with the title “king” - without, however, having any of the political functions which one naturally associates with kings. One of the functions of this minor official was to carry out specific sacrifices on behalf of the community ([Aristotle], Ath. Pol. 57 - with regard to the Athenian archon basileus or King Archon). Conventionally, this is explained as follows: Custom or unwritten law prescribed that the “king” should make such sacrifices on behalf of the community. Even after the “king” had lost his political role, these sacrifices were still required. The community compromised: it arranged for a minor official to bear the title “king,” let him carry out the sacrifices, and thus preserved the letter of the law if not its spirit. One can see the process of the replacement of a genuine king by an annually selected “king in name only” in Argos. As late as 480 Argos stood under the rule of a genuine king (Hdt. VII 149). But by the mid-fifth century the “king” in Argos is an annual functionary who merely bears the title (GHI 42, B 43-44 - the dating formula).
Moreover, many stories (granted with varying degrees of credibility) about the downfall of individual kings circulated in later times.1 These stories in remarkably uniform fashion speak of kings slain and deposed by angry subjects. Next, there are many scenes from Greek epic - depicting life, in general, during the poets’ own day, roughly the eighth century BC - in which aristocrats challenge the power of the king. The most spectacular of such scenes comes at the beginning of the Iliad when Achilles angrily confronts Agamemnon. Finally, it seems credible a priori that the kings should have fought to retain their power rather than meekly giving it up.
To provide a brief methodological summing up at this juncture: The basic method used here is that of attempting to work forwards from what is known of the Mycenaean world (there exist local officials called gwasilewes) and then to work backwards from what is known of Greece during the archaic and classical periods (basileis are ruling or have ruled in many states). The point of linkage is when local Mycenaean officials such as the gwasilewes become the leaders of communities after the catastrophe which destroyed the Mycenaean kingdoms. These gwasilewes - or in the later form of the word: basileis - continued to rule in a few classical states, but in most of them eventually lost genuine political power, with their title only surviving as that of a minor functionary. In most cases the basileis yielded political power after a violent struggle with aristocrats. To underscore, then, the historical conclusion: During the period under discussion, most Greek communities stood under the rule of “kings” whose powers and position within the community, as time wore on, met with increasing challenges.
World History
