M. is the successor to the author who first wrote the volume on Hellenism in this series. H.-J. Gehrke's work has been reprinted and renewed several times. Nonetheless, the change of author naturally marks a turning point. M. is renowned for his work on the history of Hellenism. This applies in particular to the history of the Seleucids, more precisely to the second half, from Antiochus IV onwards, and he is an expert in numismatics. He also specialises in research into the history of the territories that belonged to the Seleucid Empire at the time of its greatest expansion, and he has investigated the history of the Seleucids’ greatest rivals, the Ptolemies.
The Oldenbourg series has accompanied entire generations of German students since the 1970s. The editors at the time were and are among the outstanding German historians. Organised according to the main epochs, the era of Hellenism was initially not even considered as a separate epoch for its own volume. The consistent concept that made the series famous will continue to apply to the new edition, which will be complemented by volumes on themes and topics. The proven original concept starts with an introductory section, followed by a second section taking up the research discussion. A third section contains the current literature, organised according to the subject areas of presentation and research. The new editors want to offer a history of historical scholarship. However, it is questionable whether today's students, the primary target audience, do not need more fundamental assistance. The gap between the presentation and the research section was and is high. The paths from the source statement to the research position are generally no longer comprehensible to today's students. The second target group, research colleagues, do not need the first part.
M.'s account and the research discussion begins with Alexander the Great, followed by the Hellenistic world after his death, the Diadochi period and then that of the Epigones (Chapters 1 and 2). The treatment covers the Greek poleis world, the west of the Mediterranean, and then moves on to the ‘outer rims’ of the Hellenistic world, which includes the entire area from the Levant to the Indus. The following pages deal with the rule and the society of the Hellenistic world, including its aftermath (Chapters 3 and 4). The sources and literature section concludes the book. There are also a list of the most important dynasties, two maps and various indexes (people, places, things, authors).
M. sets himself the challenging the task of renewing the volume. In fact, he also adopts other fundamental research positions (cf. p. 208). The broadening of the perspective that M. has undertaken, for example by referring to Bactria and Sicily, is particularly exciting. In doing so, he captures – to some extent, more is not possible in 200 pages of text, and without any ‘claim to completeness’ (the more the reviewer's applause and critique) – the enormous achievements of research in this field over the last 20 years. This is done somewhat at the cost of ‘atomizing’ the presentation (e.g. pp. 34–43). There would have been numerous opportunities to achieve consistency both externally and in terms of content; some items will be addressed here:
M. does not make a decision between the cultural and the political connotation of the term ‘Hellenism’ as he starts with Alexander (not Philip, for example), with just as much justification as he extends the after-effects of Hellenism regionally at the end. Further, the chance is missed to categorise the Alexander tradition with respect to historical reliability (p. 123) – the ‘reconciliation’ with the ruler Alexander under Trajan enabled a history of Arrian, based on the historical accounts of Ptolemy and Aristobulos about the Macedon king. The difference between the father's and the son's concept of the Persian War remains obscure. Unfortunately, Alexander's compromise formula in the proskynesis for his court (see Plutarch, Alexander 54), the relationship with the Greeks (ruler cult: see e.g. Arrian, An. 7.23.2), Alexander's army reform (pointing to an alternative direction than that taken by the successors) are not addressed. The question of dynastic cults can already be considerably expanded, and answered, by an inner necessity of the cults in the case of multi-ethnic empires. Also, a reference to the last measures of Alexander would be possible, as his final plans in the tradition of Diodorus (source: Hieronymos of Kardia) remain by no means as unspecific and speculative as M. says (p. 135). It is precisely the negation of Alexander's intention of integrative rule by his successors that blocks the view of his intentions, but does not make them completely invisible.
References within the text should be indicated with cross-referenced page numbers: for example, asylia is mentioned (p. 111), but readers do not even realize that there is a solid discussion of it again at the end (p. 204). The discussion of the treatment of asylum privileges in Roman times and the conflicts addressed in Tacitus (Ann. 3.60.1–2: looking back to old Hellenistic traditions) is missing here: see M. Dreher, in: M. Gagarin and R.W. Wallace (edd.), Symposion 2001. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (2005), pp. 263–82.
The content could have been more structured by naming long-term lines of development: Sicilian history, for example, anticipated central elements that characterised Hellenistic kingship precisely with regard to the particular form of tyranny concerning its charismatic character. But how do we then answer the apparent foundations of Hellenistic kingship in Macedonian kingship: not by making Philip ‘the Great’, but by recognising Philip's concept of conquest, which in many ways prepared Alexander's approach, in its peculiarities and then not having to diminish Alexander's achievement: the latter conducted the Panhellenic campaign in a way completely different from what Philip had planned (but pp. 127–8).
It is Polybios’ account that enables research at a level that would not be possible without it (despite the unfortunately poor state of preservation). From a methodological point of view, the burden of proof is therefore on the side of those who take a stand against what has been handed down from his hand. This applies to the so-called ‘Raubvertrag’, which Polybios could not have known the wording of, which he describes in terms of its effect and refers to the entire Ptolemaic Empire (explicitly 3.2.8: T. Büttner-Wobst's Teubner contains the text emended by B.G. Niebuhr; see Gehrke, Geschichte des Hellenismus [20033], p. 226).
Thus, the rape action initiated by the two kings against their underage Ptolemaic colleague does not refer to ‘individual problems’, but concerns the entire eastern Mediterranean and, therefore, among other things, prompted Rome to intervene in the Second Macedonian War: in this sense, the standard studies represent opposing research positions (pp. 144–5). However, this opens up the entire tableau of interactions and would have counteracted the ‘atomization’ of the account (p. 29; cf. pp. 31–33 on the Day of Eleusis). It should be added that Polybios’ view of the Aitolians is neither one-sided (thus p. 44; see his assessment of the Aitolians’ defence against the Celts: 2.35.7; 9.35.1–4) nor isolated for the time of his account, even if negative against the Aitolians (unanimous declaration of war against the Aitolians in 220 bce, of all Greeks under the leadership of Philip V: B. Dreyer, Polybios [2024], p. 126). The historian's speeches are not fictitious (but p. 109): see Dreyer, ZPE 140 (2002), 33–9.
Not all topics in the account are mirrored, especially not in terms of genesis: thus elite research (account p. 46; research pp. 187–8; with the connection to the court p. 69) and the question of the democratic constitution (account p. 45; pp. 93–4) are linked: democracy, for example, has never managed without a political elite (here one cannot get by with reference to formally democratic constitutions and institutions, but should rather – this is of course necessarily subjective – define democratic conditions); the question is when a regime of notables is no longer compatible with democratic principles. The question is difficult to answer, even for the classical period, where this discussion based on, for example, J. Bleicken has taken place (Dreyer, AncSoc 31 [2001], 27–65) and was part of the research of the last 20 years, in which M. (Lokale Eliten und hellenistische Könige. Zwischen Kooperation und Konfrontation [2011]) has participated. In the context of the economy, craftsmanship, which is well documented (labour contracts, e.g. A. Jordans), is not mentioned.
Once again, a challenge that this book presents, also because it wants to be both a teaching aid and research analysis, something that can never be met satisfactorily in every respect. We therefore pay tribute to the author.
