WAR IN THE HELLENISTIC WORLD

WAR AND THE IDEOLOGY OF HELLENISTIC MONARCHY
– in Alexandria (275/4 BC?). It is described in great detail by Kallixenos of
Rhodes (apud Athen. V 196 a–203 b). Highlighting the royal family’s
affinity to the gods, this procession demonstrated the king’s political and
military supremacy as it progressed through the streets of Alexandria. The
population witnessed a lavishly-staged spectacle, and this celebration was a
very complex propagandistic enterprise conveying more than one message:
legitimacy of rule, divine protection, affluence, and power. It would be
misleading to stress too much the military aspects, since the sacred elements
(a focus on Dionysos, Zeus, and other gods) prevailed. Kallixenos’ description
also makes it clear that the procession propagated legitimacy of rule
through subtle, multiple allusions – for example, to the king’s parents (197
d), to the association of the Ptolemies with Alexander the Great (202 a–f),
to the divine protection of Dionysos (197 a–202 a), to the freedom of
the Greeks, and to military strength. An essential and extremely impressive
part of the celebrations was the military parade of 57,600 infantry and
23,200 cavalry, accompanied by the presentation of military equipment
(202 f–203 a). Besides this evidently warlike element, military aspects can
be recognized in a number of details. For example, in the procession of
Dionysos, an army of satyrs marched in silver, gold, and bronze panoplies;
Silenoi, boys and girls, represented Dionysos’ triumphal return from India
(200 d–f ), accompanied by women prisoners (201 a); women represented
the cities liberated by Alexander in his war against the Persians (201 e);
Alexander’s golden statue, carried on a chariot, was flanked by statues of
Athena and Nike (Victory), and further statues of victory were carried in
the Dionysiac section (202 a). The procession of Alexander also included
vast quantities of gold and silver weapons (breastplates, shields, and panoplies;
202 d–f). A plausible date for this procession is the winter of 275/4
BC; if we accept this date, then it was not just a celebration of a triumph, but
also a response to the dangers that had just been overcome – an invasion by
Magas of Kyrene, a revolt of mercenaries in Egypt – and an acknowledgment
of the challenges that still lay ahead: the First Syrian War that started
in 274 and the question of succession (Stewart 1993: 255–6).
A common theme of this chapter has been the interaction between the
king and other people or groups. War, or the threat of war, are central to
this interaction. In all its aspects one can recognize the principle of reciprocity:
the authority of the king was primarily based on whether he could fulfill
the expectations of others – cities, leagues, friends, officers, soldiers – and
not on a legally defined position. Conversely, the king offered privileges,
material gains, protection, and peace to those who supported his rule.
Reciprocity is clear also in the assimilation of kings with gods. The principle
of do ut des underlies the relationship between mortals and gods (Grotanelli
1991) and the same mentality is revealed by the relevant correspondence
between cities and kings. A decree of the League of Islanders explains: “the
Islanders were the first to have honored Ptolemy Soter with godlike honors
74