The Greeks themselves were well aware of the actual military and political developments in the fifth and fourth centuries as sketched above (for a further excellent discussion, Schulz 2003). Historical memories of the Archaic Period as collected and recounted by Herodotos in the first part of his Histories featured individual poleis such as Sparta, Athens, Korinth, Kyrene or Samos, and certain prominent nobles and tyrants. It was not until the great military conflicts of the Classical Period, the Persian wars and the Peloponnesian War, that all, or virtually all, Greeks became involved in a single event. Moreover, poleis no longer joined in these wars singly, but for the most part as members of an alliance (symmachia). Of these, only the Peloponnesian League under Spartan leadership had already come about in the Archaic Period. In contrast, the Hellenic Alliance of 481 and especially the Delian League of 478 were new creations (succinct overview: Beck 2000: 1055-7). The conflict with Persia, the Hellenic Alliance and the subsequent division of a large part of the Greek world into allies of Sparta and allies of Athens created the awareness that there was a history of all Greeks, and that such a history had also to be written. Accordingly, Herodotos recounted ‘the great and marvellous deeds, some displayed by the Hellenes, some by the Barbarians’ (Hdt. 1.1). The Western Greeks, who for the most part marched to a different beat from those of the motherland, were at a notable juncture drawn into the united struggle. While the Hellenic Alliance triumphed over the Persians at Salamis in the summer of 480, the Western Greeks under the command of Gelon ostensibly at the same time defeated Carthage (Hdt. 7.166).
Thucydides regarded the Peloponnesian War as the greatest armed conflict ever - for:
He could see the rest of the Hellenic world taking sides in the quarrel; those who delayed doing so at once having it in contemplation. Indeed this was the greatest movement (kinesis) yet known in history, not only of the Hellenes, but of a large part of the barbarian world - I had almost said of mankind. (Thuc. 1.1.1-2; trans. R. Crawley)
Authors like Xenophon and Theopompos, who began their accounts where Thucydides’ narrative breaks off in the middle of 411, and followed events down into the fourth century, simply called their accounts Hellenika (‘ Greek Affairs’). At the end of the Classical Period this focus disappeared again - initially from titles, and then also from subject matter. The later Histories concentrated on either the new rulers (thus the Philippika of Theopompos and the works of the various Alexander historians), or broadened their perspective into that of‘universal histories’ (‘Universalgeschichte’ in scholarly parlance). Thus even in terms of historiographical productions (for a brief overview, Hornblower OCD3 714-15, entry ‘Historiography, Greek’) we witness the end of that period during which the Greek poleis themselves were the movers and shakers in grand political schemes, in alliance with or - more often than not - in opposition to each other.
Ta Hellenika, ‘Greek Affairs’, were also the object of a political utopia in the minds of some intellectuals in the fourth century. This utopia was called panhellenism.
The idea of panhellenism in this period rested on a specific perspective. Great importance was to be placed on that which united the Greeks as Greeks rather than on what divided them and brought them into conflict. Panhellenism therefore began from the premise of a fundamental antithesis between Greeks and Barbarians. At the same time, it contained a Classical idea at the historical-political level: one ought to begin with the (alleged) unity of the Greeks in the great Persian wars. Isokrates in particular in his political pamphlets cast in the form of speeches (Rhodes, below, Chapter 2, Section 3) vigorously championed this notion, which also promised to alleviate the economic and social ills of the severely battered Hellenes. Thus in his Panegyrikos, published in 380, he claims:
One may best comprehend how great is the reversal in our circumstances if he will read side by side the treaties which were made during our [viz. Athens’] leadership and those which have been published recently [viz. especially the so-called King’s Peace of 387/6], for he will find that in those days we were constantly setting limits to the empire of the King, levying tribute on some of his subjects, and barring him from the sea; now, however, it is he who controls the destinies of the Hellenes, who dictates what they must each do, and who all but sets up his viceroys in their cities. For with this one exception, what else is lacking? Was it not he who decided the issue of the war, was it not he who directed the terms of peace, and is it not he who now presides over our affairs?
Do we not sail off to him as to a master, when we have complaints against each other? Do we not address him as ‘The Great King’ as though we were the captives of his spear? Do we not in our wars against each other rest our hopes of salvation on him, who would gladly destroy both Athens and Lacedaemon? Reflecting on these things, we may well be indignant at the present state of affairs, and yearn for our lost supremacy... So whenever we transport thither a force stronger than his, which we can easily do if we so will, we shall enjoy in security the resources of all Asia. Moreover, it is much more glorious to fight against the King for his empire than to contend against each other for the hegemony. It were well to make the expedition in the present generation, in order that those who have shared in our misfortunes may also benefit by our advantages and not continue all their days in wretchedness. (Isokrates 4.120-2; 166-7; trans. G. Norlin)
For the Athenian patriot Isokrates, it was self-evident that, thanks to her earlier services on behalf of the Greeks, Athens should play a leading role in the panhellenic expedition against the Persian king. Here the propaganda and ideological character of the slogan became very clear (Vatai 1984: 99-111). Consequently, panhellenism could not but remain a mere formula and a utopia, because it would have meant a radical change on the part of the Greek poleis - i. e., in their habits and objectives (Baynes 1955: 144-67; Perlman 1976).
Another slogan was also employed to recall the past - which was seen as a model, and therefore worthy of resurrecting. The ‘ancestral constitution’ (patrios politeia) played a central role in the polemics of the oligarchs against the abuses and alleged failure of the ‘radical’ democracy in Athens since the beginning of the Peloponnesian War (e. g., Aristotle Ath. Pol. 29.3; 34.3; Xenophon Hellenika 2.4.20-21; Finley 1971). The revolutionary attempt to overthrow the democracy gave promise of a better state of affairs. It was only in the time of Drakon (c. 620) or Solon (traditionally, 594/3, but more likely c. 580/70) or Kleisthenes (c. 510), at any rate before Perikles, that Athens allegedly had had a good constitution, because then the ‘have-not’ masses did not make all the decisions. The bloody excesses of the Thirty Tyrants (404/3), however, put paid to the propaganda - but it was revived during oligarchic rule after 322, and played a certain role in the Early Hellenistic Period. Demetrios of Phaleron, the ‘strong man’ in Athens under Macedonian supremacy between 317 and 307, even characterized himself as the third great lawgiver of the polis - after Theseus and Solon (Lehmann 1997: 72)!
World History
