Table of ContentsIntroductionThe City-State in the Hellenistic EraThe Hellenistic Philosophical and Social LandscapeHellenistic Art and ReligionConclusion: A Complex LegacyIntroductionThe Transitional Period of the Classical Era The Hellenistic era was a period full of changes for Greek citizens. From being citizens of a relatively small community, in which they could actively participate and engage, to a cosmopolitan environment, following the conquest of Alexander the Great. How did the function of the city-state change during the Hellenistic period? To what extent have they lost their political autonomy? It is important to address all of these questions in order to understand the implications of Hellenistic imperialism and its influence. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayThe city-state in the Hellenistic eraWe must keep in mind that the monarchical empire was only a phenomenon new for mainland Greek cities. When the Macedonians became the leading political power in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, the Greek city-states of Asia Minor had been accustomed to Persian rule for years. The emergence of city-states in classical Greece was favored by the geographical characteristics of Greece. They were therefore not very large, which meant that they had social homogeneity and political autonomy. The image of the Greek city is sometimes distorted by Macedonian imperialism. For example the conception that civic autonomy is a Greek ideal. Autonomy is the natural state form of cities. Most cities are governed by national magistrates. Of course, democracy, as it existed in Athens, was exceptional in the Greek context of the 5th century. But it was preserved to some extent even in the Hellenistic era. A constant supply of resources and manpower, as well as control of strategic routes, was a crucial prerequisite of ancient imperialism. Such "hegemonic empires", such as the Hellenistic Empire, where local rulers recognize the establishment of the "great king", through whom the new empire takes control of ethnically different populations, providing them with the security they need to produce the surplus that the empire needs. to support his army. Such empires had neither the will nor the power to directly rule subject cities. Rather than trying to install foreigners as governors against the wishes of the city's rulers, kings supported local political factions or elite families against their rivals, attempting to manipulate the composition of the ruling oligarchy [footnoteRef:1]. In fact, kings were as dependent on cities as cities were on them. Cities administered infrastructure and the collection of surpluses, which was essential to the empire's exercise of power. Besieging cities was a costly and time-consuming decision. As Alexander learned at Tire and Antigonus Gonatas at Athens. Therefore, rather than forcing cities to submit at all costs, rulers preferred to seek peaceful cooperation with urban oligarchies whenever they could. The Hellenistic Philosophical and Social Landscape The golden age of Greek philosophy, which culminated with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, lasted only about hundreds of years. In the centuries that followed, changes in the political and cultural climate of the ancient world tended to discourage the philosophical thinking of the time. The general culture of the periodHellenistic architecture remained Greek in spirit, with political power entrusted to a highly centralized state. The Athenian democratic tradition of participatory government disappeared as individuals were excluded from meaningfully shaping the social structure of their lives. Consequently, Hellenistic philosophers of this era devoted less time to the issues addressed by Plato and Aristotle, such as the construction of the ideal. state that would facilitate a happy life. Instead, thinkers of this era focused on the life of the individual, describing in detail the types of character and action that could enable the person to live well despite the prevailing political realities of the time. We could say that philosophers have tried to show how we should live when circumstances beyond our control can influence what we want to accomplish. It is commonly said that Hellenistic philosophy derived much of its character from political and social crisis. Individuals, disrupted by turbulent changes, are thought to have found the traditional institutions and values ​​of the polis an inadequate context for defining their lives. Many Hellenistic philosophers proposed ways that ward off or eliminate fear and anxiety. The main obstacles to happiness, according to Epicurus, are fear of divine control of the world and fear of death. But to understand the particular orientation of Hellenistic ethics, we must recall Socrates' contribution to philosophy. It was he who gave rise to the notion of the “wise man,” whose life is an extraordinary challenge to conventional views of human needs and priorities and yet a paradigm of happiness. It is correct to view Hellenistic ethics as a development of Socratic tendencies, rather than as a direct response to supposedly new problems and situations. Socrates founded no school and it was too complex to be fully appropriated by any of his disciples, but Socrates' challenge persisted, transmitted to the Hellenistic world. So, what does Socrates think about Hellenistic ethics? Many argue that this is a particular vision of what ethics should be: the questioning of conventions, the elimination of fears and desires devoid of any rational basis, a radical ordering of priorities around the notion of health of the soul. The Stoics insist that pleasant and painful sensations make no difference in true happiness. The Pyrrhonists center happiness exclusively on skepticism. Although Hellenistic philosophers dealt with the same issues such as happiness, excellence, and self-control, and agreed on much that these required in the realm of practical reason and desire. The new political climate of the time forced Hellenistic ethics to become detached from politics, and this meant two things: first, the theories of Hellenistic ethics were more abstract than those of their classical predecessors. Teachers of Hellenistic ethics did not care much about whether their goals were practical, given the conditions in which people lived. Concrete social and political questions did not interest them. In particular, they did not ask whether better policy would make life easier. Second, Hellenistic ethics increasingly emphasized individual choice as opposed to public policy. What stands out most about Hellenistic ethics is perhaps not its Socratic influence, but rather the surprisingly academic nature of the different schools of thought. Hellenistic ethics may have been self-generated. It was perhaps born from a long debate.