WAR IN THE HELLENISTIC WORLD

THE DISCOURSE OF WAR
[paraspasamenon spheterisasthai], and then Philip. As for himself, he was not
by taking advantage of Philip’s difficulties to take possession [ktasthai] of
these areas, but he was regaining possession [anaktasthai], making also use of
his right [dikaia].
In Antiochos’ view, the victory at Kouropedion (281 BC) had established
the righteous claim of his family on areas earlier occupied by the defeated
party (Lysimachos). We may be certain that this was not only Antiochos’
view. Part of the land acquired by Seleukos after this victory was sold by his
son and successor Antiochos I to the city of Pitane. Later documents (Ager
1996: no. 146, lines 130–50) show that this transaction was regarded as
lawful by Philetairos, Eumenes I, and the Pergamene arbitrators.
But if violence constitutes a legitimate form of acquisition of property,
then why did Antiochos deny this right to the Romans? The explanation is
that the exact circumstances of conquest affected the legitimacy of ownership
through victory in war (see, e.g., Aeschines 2.33; SEG XXXIX 1426,
lines 19–27). Whether the land was taken from its lawful owners in open
war, or “robbed” in a moment in which they had their attention deflected
elsewhere, and whether the war was just or unprovoked and unjust, affected
the right of conquest. Violent occupation of land or property was regarded
as a legitimate form of acquisition, no less legitimate than inheritence,
purchase or donation. When the parties to a conflict based their claims on
different arguments neither the arbitrators nor the adversaries gave priority
to a certain type of argument over another (e.g., inheritance over conquest),
but determined a terminus a quo for the possession. The exact conditions of
the act of violence were important factors. Two questions played an important
part: did the conquest take place in a direct confrontation between the
owner and the aggressor (e.g., Dem. 18.181), and was the war justified?
These distinctions in no way limited the validity of violence as a basis for
property claims in international law. The right of conquest was not questioned
or criticized. What was questioned were the circumstances, not the
principle.
This idea that a victory in war establishes proprietary rights was connected
with the belief that success – in violent activities such as war, piracy,
or raids – could not be achieved without the support of the gods (cf. I.Ilion
32, lines 10–11: kai to daimonion eunoun kai sunergon; Syll. 3 700: enikesen
. . . meta tes ton theon pronoias), who of course received their share of the
booty (e.g., SEG L 936, lines 8–9). Victory was viewed as the punishment
of the defeated party, as the expression “the verdict of victory” implies
(Polyb. 13.3.4; Ager 1996: no. 74 I, lines 105–6).
In the Hellenistic period, the idea that victory in war establishes rights
became one of the most important constituents of the ideology of Hellenistic
monarchy. The representation of trophies on the coins of the Antigonids
(Reinach 1913) or of military motifs (elephants, helmets) on those of the
183