User:Morrisai/Hellenic League of 302BC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is said that when Alexander The Great died his last words were that the empire should go to “the strongest”. Leaving the succession so ambiguous he invited the years of struggle and war between the various would be successors and after his death in 323 B.C. his surviving generals and other officers fell into a bitter dispute over who would gain control over his empire. Eventually it was split up among the various successors know as the Diadochs. The Hellenic league of 302 B.C. was a creation of two Macedonians to be used as a source of troops, supplies and other resources in order to defeat Cassander and gain control of Greece and Macedon. Antigonus I Monophthalmus, or Antigonus the one eyed, was the first of these kings and he lived from approximately 382 B.C. down to 301 B.C.. His Son, Demetrius I Poliorcetes, or Demetrius the Besieger, was the other king and his life lasted from 338 B.C. until 283 B.C. The league included a number of Greek city-states and although there is no surviving source that lists all the member city-states of the league it is thought to have included Elis and the Achaean league so that the league numbered at least six city states. The league was not lasting and was consigned to obscurity with the death of Antigonus at Ipsos at 301 B.C.

At the time of the formation of the league it had been about 25 years since Alexander’s death. The various successors were all fighting for more control of the assorted regions of Alexander’s empire. With Ptolemy firmly entrenched in Egypt by this time and Seleukos having control of most of the former Persian Empire Antigonus and Demetrius fought for what was often thought of as the most important part of Alexander’s empire, Macedon. Ptolemy had ruled in Egypt almost continuously from the death of Alexander and did in fact establish a dynasty there. He declared himself king of Egypt in 305/4. Seleukos had taken control quickly and after being expelled at on point he took control again in 312, this time it was permanent and he declared himself king in the same year as Ptolemy. At the time of the league’s foundation, Macedon it was in control of Cassander and Antigonus and Demetrius lacked control of any tangible region. Cassander had taken control of Macedon after a bitter dispute him and the man named by Cassander’s father, Polyperchon. Eventually Cassander defeated Polyperchon and took control of Macedon in 317. With Cassander entrenched in Macedon and Antigonus and Demetrius without a real region of their own they needed the league to give them supplies to fight the war with Cassander.

The main surviving source of information on the league is a fragmentary inscription found at Epidaurus. First published in 1918, the inscription is in a few distinct fragments and explains the constitution of the league. It is most likely in the form of a treaty signed by the members as they joined the league. It was inscribed (or engraved) on a stele. A stele is a stone slab, in this case limestone, generally taller than wide. The inscription is on both sides of the stele, inscribed front and back in the upper the part of the pieces. The lettering as would be expected with the date of the league is in a style normally dated to the end of the fourth century which is consistent with the date of the league. Due to the fact that the inscription is dated to the same time as the league it is clear that the contents of the inscription are not affected by time. It was inscribed at the same time of the league so it is probably an accurate reproduction of the leagues constitution. The lettering is also non-stoichedon which means that it is not inscribed in the grid like pattern that many Greek inscriptions abided by. While a significant amount of the inscription survived it is far from complete and was heavily damaged. Historians are clear that the inscription and subsequent fragments make up one document and that they are part of a treaty. There a few literary mentions of the league in Plutarch and Diodorus but these are mere passing references to the league and do little to shed light on its make up. The authors seem more interested in the context of the league rather than its actual constitution.

The Hellenic League itself appears to be a revival of Phillip II of Macedon’s league of 338. Also, known as the Corinthian league, this league was created and used by Phillip to exert control over the Greeks and to use the resources provided by the Greeks to help defeat his enemy’s abroad. Phillip instituted the league after defeating the Athenians and Thebans in battle. Phillip created the league rather than outright annexing the Greek states because he knew that the Greeks valued independence a great deal. Preserving at least some semblance of independence was needed to make sure the Greeks did not resent Phillip and the Macedonians enough to have them refuse to contribute resources to Phillip’s war. Philip was in a strong position at the time of the formation of the league so he could afford to grant concessions to the Greeks. With the united Macedonian army Phillip was unworried about the Greeks and their forces. He was interested in the league because of it stabilizing effect on the region so he could then look outward with out worry.

One of the main differences between the two leagues is that of their very nature. The two leagues are referred to as leagues of similar yet distinct types in their charters. Phillip’s league in 338 was referred to as a “common peace” where as the later league of 302 was said to have been a symmachy. The word symmachy refers to a strict alliance of states to one another. In a symmachy the states are allied in a both offensive and defensive manner and it is a very tight relationship. Phillip did not need to call on the combined might of the Greek cities because he had the armies of Macedon so he did not need them to be in a strict alliance. By instituting a common peace instead of a full symmachy he removed the threat of them rebelling or causing trouble by attacking each other and saved himself from being drawn into their disputes as a full ally. This also let them keep more of their independence. Antigonus and Demetrius needed to have the full support of their league so they made sure it was a symmachy. They would need all the support they could get from the Greeks to wage their war against Cassander.

The two leagues, the Hellenic league of 302 and the Corinthian league of 338, share many similarities but also a number of differences as well. Although they were all considered Hegemon of the league Antigonus and Demetrius had slightly different power than Phillip had wielded when he was in control of the league. Both were the supreme commanders of the league’s armies but because his league was only a “common peace” Phillip only had the power to put into effect the decisions made by the leagues council. Demetrius and Antigonus, by virtue of their symmachy relationship, could call the forces of the leagues to their control at any time and discretion solely rested with them, not the council of the league. Another important difference was how the two leagues were founded. Phillip imposed his league after a battle where he defeated two of the most powerful Greek poleis at the time, Athens and Thebes. For Phillip one of the leagues main purposes was the domination of the Greeks. His army was already very powerful and was able to tackle his enemies with out the added token support of the Greeks. Antigonus and Demetrius, conversely, saw their league as a means to an end. They lacked control of the united Macedonian army that Phillip had needed the troops that the Greeks could supply. That is using the league to gather resources to fight their enemies. The use of the league is more of a function of the ambitions and situations of the Hegemons themselves rather than the actually construction of the league. These differences are important to the character of the league and in distinguishing it from its predecessor.

The leagues had some important similarities that lend backing to the idea that it is a revival of the previous league. Antigonus and Demetrius were proclaimed Hegemon of the Greeks as had Philip and Alexander. This is recounted by Plutarch in one of the only literary references to the Hellenic League. “And at the Isthmus of Corinth, where a general assembly was held and throngs of people came together, he [Demetrius] was proclaimed Commander-in-chief of the Greeks, as Philip and Alexander had been proclaimed before him.” Plutarch links these two leagues together as having ties, perhaps more for the fact that are both controlled by Macedonians than the 302 league being an actual revival of the league. Plutarch, writing some centuries later around 100AD, would not have known if the members of league saw it as a revival or as a completely new league but his writing still sheds important insight on this topic. It has become clear that the main text of the inscription bares many similarities to Phillip’s league as well. It could be assumed that Demetrius and Antigonus would naturally have simply copied the text from the earlier league in order to give it a sense of continuity and legitimacy but there is actual evidence that the two charters share similarities. While Demetrius probably instituted many changes, because there was so much time between the leagues, they did share enough similarities for the latter to be considered a revival.

The first fragment of the league’s constitution deals with the alliance between the various states and tells the status of Antigonus and Demetrius in the league. It very clearly says that Antigonus and Demetrius are the Hegemons of the league. This is important for verifying that this inscription refers to the Hellenic league of 302 B.C. and not a different one. It is apparent that it refers to the 302 league because of the fact that it refers to Antigonus and Demetrius by name and says that they are kings. They did not take the title of king until late in the 4th century B.C and since Antigonus died in 301 the league must have been created during the intervening period. Also, in that same line it states that the league has an indefinite time period and is not supposed to be temporary. “There is to be friendship and [alliance for all time] between [those…sharing in the] synhedrion…and Antigonus and Demetrius…” This is important because it reveals that Antigonus and Demetrius were not necessarily using the league for only their fight against Cassandra but that they might have really believed in uniting the Greeks and creating a real “United States of Greece”. The next line states the various members of the league will all share the same friends and enemies. This line really serves to reinforce the symmachy of the league and that in theory the member states should be in a close alliance sharing international policies. The next line is the first mention in the text of its governmental organization. The inscription says “[if any] of the allies or those sharing in the synhedrion…” From this, historians can tell that the league was governed by a synhedrion (council) in which the member states were a part of. The few lines are badly damaged but it seems to speak of things made illegal in the league such as transgressions against the kings and their descendants or against cities in the league in general. The fragment does not detail of actual punishments for these crimes so it assumed that it was up to the synhedrion to decide on an appropriate punishment. The first fragment of the inscription is important because it establishes the general structure of the league and the nature of the alliances.

Little in the inscription actually talks about how the synhedrion is to be formed for the league. The synhedrion was to be the highest authority in the league aside from the kings and their representative and it was in control of every branch of the government including the judicial branch. Synhedrions were common in many leagues of the time so the members may have known intuitively how it was to be formed. It is equally possible that the section of the charter dealing with the synhedrion is simply lost and was not preserved as the surviving fragments had been. The council is to have been proportionally representative of the member states or groups with each state or group sending a certain number of representatives. The evidence for a proportional synhedrion is taken from the make up of Phillip’s league. Also, although not explicitly stated in the inscription there are references to states with more than representative which it can be inferred from that how many was based on the size of the state or group. How many representatives each state would have sent would not have been based on population per se but on size and strength of the states military. The size of the military compared to the general population of the cities would be dependant on the individual cities constitution and the number of non-citizens residing in it. The distribution of seats in the synhedrion was not always polis based but often based on ethnicity, leagues or groups of smaller cities arbitrarily combined.

The inscription does not have, unfortunately, provisions dictating how each state was to pick their representatives to send to the synhedrion. The cities themselves must have been given the ability to pick their representatives anyway that they thought was appropriate. It is likely that they did not pick them by lot. This was an important post that the people who occupied it had a great deal of power and responsibility. It is likely that the states would have elected their representative like they would an ambassador or through another way associated with a position of this magnitude.

The second fragment outlines punishments for states that do something not covered in the constitution of the league. It says “[--- it is not to be allowed for the cities] to do anything other [than what has been written.” This is to make sure that the various cities abide by the treaty faithfully. This fragment also gives the framework for accusations. It says “let [anyone who wishes] bring a charge [about them to the prohedroi”. This sentence appears to let individual people bring charges against cities for offenses that contradict the league charter. It also provides a mechanism for dealing with charges and states that the member of the synhedrion will be given power to judge and sentence offenders. “let the syn]hedroi pass judgment [and, if they are convicted, let them pay as a penalty whatever they seem to deserve to suffer] or to pay” This line shows that there was no set punishment but that it was up to the judgments of the synhedroi (members of the Synhedrion) to create a logical amount of payment for offenders that fit the punishment. The next few lines are very fragmentary but they appear to be discussing some responsibilities of the cities to keep the water ways free of pirates and to continue to use ancestral constitutions of the cities in their own local affairs. It is clear that Antigonus and Demetrius, as well as Phillip before them, would not want revolutions to overcome the various member states as this could upset the league and cause the state to withdraw from the league. It is thought that the revolutions referred to are revolutions directed towards the cities and not the league itself. The fragment says that “[if someone proposes or votes that---for the proposer and the] one who put the vote” should be judged by the synhedrion and if they do not act then someone should bring a charge to them. This is significant because it shows that while the individual cities would be semi-autonomous the synhedrion would still have power to interfere and put down revolutions in the cities. This section of the inscription is important for explain the causes and effects of some possible transgressions against the league.

The third fragment is the best well preserved, largely extant, and arguably the most important. The fragment deals with the government structure of the league and gives a clue to not only how this league was constructed but how other leagues might have been as well. The first part of the fragment affords protections for Greek ambassadors to the synhedroi or those sent out by the synhedroi. While Bagnall and Derow translate it as simply “it shall not be permitted to [interfere with either the] the ambassadors [from the Greeks.” M. Austin, however, makes a distinction that it is not only not permitted to simply interfere but it is not permitted to “seize goods in reprisal” from those on embassy to the synhedrion. The charter then goes on to lay out the various other ways in which a person could interfere and that these things are prohibited. It says that it is not allowed for someone to interfere with a person as they are going to out to an assignment of the synhedroi or returning to their homes. The fragment says very clearly that it is not allowed for an individual or group to kidnap someone on business for the synhedrion or for someone to “seize them [on any] charge”.

The charter also provides an explanation of punishment for these acts. It asks that the magistrates of the city in question do all they can to prevent the interference and if that does not work then the synhedroi can pronounce judgment. These provisions in the charter look like they give almost complete freedom from arrest of the synhedrion representatives. This is to limit the chance personal retribution taken by private individuals which, while reduced by this time in Greece, was still common enough that these protections were needed. It was important to protect the officers of they synhedrion and it was not uncommon to grant them these freedoms. This part of the inscription is important to understanding the protections afforded to members of any synhedrion because it is assumed that these are not unique to the Hellenic league. This is however one of the first examples that modern historians have of how these protections would have been formulated in league charters.

The next part of the fragment deals with meeting of the synhedrion. The fragment discuses when and where the synhedrion was supposed to meet to conduct its business. In times of peace the charter says that the synhedrion shall meet at the “sacred games”. This means that the meetings would only take place six times in four years. This was not unusual for leagues of this kind. There simply was not enough business to be conducted by the league to warrant more frequent meetings. This is also taken from the league of 338 B.C. This would make sense as it provided a logical time for the meeting since most, if not all, the city-states would be participating. It has a different provision for wartime however. During times of war the charter says that the synhedrion should meet “as often as seems beneficial to the synhedrion and to the [strateg]os left behind by the kings”. This sentence reinforces the power that the kings, Antigonus and Demetrius, had over the league during war times. Basically the kings could call the synhedrion at any time they desired and it would be forced to meet. It also shows that the kings’ representative, the strategos, was able to do the same on behalf of them and must have held great power in the league during wars. The length of the meetings was to be decided by the prohedroi (presidents of the synhedrion). During war times the meetings of the synhedrion would take place “wherever the prohedroi and the king or the strategos appointed by the kings announce” during peace times “wherever the crowned games are held”. The games referred to here are the Olympic, Pythian, isthmian and Nemean games. This meant that the spot where the meetings would change and would limit the jealousy that might arise if a permanent capital was chosen. It is thought however that the irregularly scheduled meetings would be held at Corinth as Phillip had done before. Although the kings had a lot of power during wartime to dictate the location and times of meetings it is interesting that the league synhedrion was given, at least in the charter, a partnership in determining these things.

The fragment now turns to more important matters, the make up and workings of the synhedrion. The resolutions of the synhedrion were binding to the members of the league and there is no provision for the ratification of decrees by the member states. The charter clearly says “The resolutions of the synhedroi shall be [binding].” This is consistent with the earlier mentioning of the synhedrion’s power for judging and sentencing offenders. Their power would be severely limited if the decree was only optional and had to be ratified by the city. It also reinforces the idea of a “united states of Greece”. Since decrees passed by the league synhedrion were binding the league takes on a seemingly more permanent and more federalist character than most leagues in ancient Greece. With a federalist government that can be strong and has the power it is much more likely that these cities were ready to come together and form a new union never before seen in ancient Greece. Under this configuration the various cities would still be independent and able to enact their own local laws but would be subject to the decrees passed by synhedrion. Synhedrions having these powers was becoming increasingly common in this era for leagues but Antigonus and Demetrius’ league is significant because of the size of the league and the fact that it was presumed to be very large. Additionally, because of the increasing appearance of leagues like this it is an indicator of the falling faith in the individual polis.

Another way that the charter reinforces the power of the synhedrion is through one of the rights granted to members of the synhedrion. The inscription says “Concerning resolutions passed in the synhedrion, it shall not be possible for [the] cities to demand an account from the synhedroi who are sent.” This meant that they could act independently from the city they represented, and although they would be expected to represent the city it was important they were able to act for the good of the league as a whole. It was important that the synhedroi did not become merely spokesmen of their local governments if they were to act for the greater good. Another danger of having a league whose synhedrion is binding to the members states, other than powerless synhedroi, is if the council is dominated by certain groups for their own selfish goals. Sometimes this problem was fixed by simply having a large number of members, around 500, so that one small group cannot dictate the direction of the entire league. In the case of the Hellenic league, Demetrius and Antigonus instituted a quorum of one half. “Let them conduct business when more than half their number is present, but if less than half is present they are not conduct business.” This meant that if only a few of the members of the synhedrion appeared at the meeting they could not conduct any business. If they could do business with a small number there is a good chance that what was passed by the synhedrion would only reflect the desires of a minority. The idea of a quorum was common in many Greek federal leagues.

The synhedrion had, like many of the time, a board of presidents. These were called the prohedroi, a name that Demetrius took from Athens. The inscription says that there were to “be five [prone]droi chosen by lot from among the synhedroi.” It was not unusual for the president’s board to be chosen by lot as this was quite common in the government structures of many Greek poliseis. Some however did elect their presidents. The league’s charter did provided a provision for keeping the power of the prohedroi distributed among different states or leagues. The inscription says “no more than one may be selected by lot from any league or city.” This, like the quorum, made sure that the board could not be dominated by any one state’s interests.

The charter stipulates that the prohedroi would be chosen when the war ended. Since it is known that the league never lasted past the end of the war there never were any prohedroi that were appointed by lot. However, since other provisions specifically mention the duties of the prohedroi in the war the kings or their representative would have appointed the prohedroi for this war. The charter says “until the common war is ended, the prohedroi shall [always be those] (sent) from the kings.” This meant that the prohedroi would be dominated by men that were sympathetic to the kings. This would effectively give the kings complete control of the synhedrion and subsequently the league. Some may argue that the earlier passages of the charter that speak of peace time were only to assuage the fears of skeptics of Demetrius true intent but the nature of the charter as a whole makes it seem as though he really did intend for the league to be permanent and to continue to exist in peace time.

The next part of the fragment details the many powers and responsibilities of the prohedroi. Two of the main responsibilities of the prohedroi were to keep records and to punish people who have disturbed the proceedings. On the matter of maintaining order during meetings either the synhedrion must take it upon itself to police trouble makers or it must have its presidents do it. This is what the league chose. The prohedroi were able to impose fines upon those that acted in a disorderly manner. The prohedroi were also responsible for keeping records. They were required to give a copy of the decree to the secretaries employed by the league, while retaining a sealed copy of the decree for themselves. Through this it can be assumed that the secretaries were not important magistrates but merely employees of the league that worked for the prohedroi. They probably worked out of Corinth as that was a fairly central place in the league. The copies of the decree were sealed for the prohedroi because they traveled about and thus exposed themselves to risks. It was common for documents of the time to be sealed if they were to travel.

The prohedroi had other responsibilities as well. They were responsible for summoning the members of the synhedrion, the secretaries and any other functionaries needed for the league to conduct business. The inscription says that the prohedroi “shall bring together the synhedroi and [the] common secretaries [and the] assistants.” The prohedroi was also expected to pick a chairman from their group. While there is nothing in the inscription that tells how the prohedroi were to pick a chairman for the actual meeting it is likely that it was done by lot. However, since there is no direct evidence for this it is possible that this was left up to the board to decide amongst themselves how it would be done since they are afforded a lot of power in the charter.

Once the meeting began it was the job of the prohedroi to moderate it. The prohedroi was responsible for bring matters before the synhedrion. “They shall put forward the matters about which [it is necessary] to deliberate”. In this way the board acted as a probouleutic committee. They determined what would be brought before the synhedrion as the boule would do in many Greek poliseis. If someone wanted to bring a matter before the synhedrion they were required to submit it to the prohedroi in writing. They in turn would then present the matter to the synhedrion. Presenting matters to the prohedroi was not limited solely limited to members of the synhedrion but applied to non-members as well. Any one could petition the prohedroi to be granted permission to appear to the synhedrion and the prohedroi would then introduce them. Things that could be brought to the prohedroi to be heard by the synhedrion varied from “[any matter] of advantage to the kings [and the Greeks,] or to report anyone acting contrary to the interests of the allies [or] disobeying the resolutions”. The charter does not say matters to be brought to the board were limited to only these things either. The individual could also bring complaints to the prohedroi to be heard. The charter states that the prohedroi “[are to be] required to render account for [everything] which they do.” This means that the prohedroi are accountable for their actions. However, since the inscription expressively stipulates that this only applies to those prohedroi chosen by lot it means that during wartime the appointed prohedroi were apparently not accountable for their actions. The charter does have a provision for bringing a charge against a prohedroi. It says that whoever has a charge can bring to the “prohedroi next chosen by lot” and they can then bring the matter to the synhedrion. It was then up to the synhedrion to pass judgment. It is significant that while the individual members of the synhedrion were not responsible to their constituents the higher governmental officials were accountable. Since the power of the prohedroi was so great, with out this accountability they would be able to dominate the synhedrion. There is nothing in the inscription to suggest punishments in this matter so it assumed that it entirely up the discretion of the synhedroi.

The next part of the inscription deals with the responsibilities and punishments for the various member states. One of the requirements was for each state to sends its representatives to the synhedrion. If the city did not adhere to the rules and provide its synhedroi they were to be fined for each of the absent ones. The amount of fine numbered two drachmas or minas for each synhedroi missing from the synhedrion until the meeting adjourns. The rate of the fine seems very low when compared to the rate commanded by the absence of a soldier from the army but it is consistent with other leagues’ fines for missing officials. The only way a city could get away with not sending its representative was if the “synhedroi declares on oath] that he was ill.” The charter also talks about fines for a city that does not provide its share of the military. It states a daily penalty of fifty drachmas for each cavalryman not present, twenty for each hoplite and for light armed soldiers, ten. Also, ten drachmas for each sailor missing was to be paid. The fines would be daily until “the time of the campaign [has expired for all] the other Greeks.” The execution of punishments would have fallen upon the magistrates of the cities involved as the league appeared to have no other employees other than the secretaries. Although the league does not have provisions that explicitly state this, it is assumed that those that failed to pay the fine on time would have faced a federal execution. This part of the inscription is not only important for understanding this league but for understanding how other leagues of the time could have been formed.

The fourth and fifth fragments are badly fragmented. The fourth seems to deal with the formation of the army. It was not allowed for a city to substitute one type of soldier for anther. They had to provide what was asked by them. For example the inscription says that it is not permitted to send cavalrymen instead of infantrymen. The fragment also reiterates that if city or individual transgresses the laws of the league then the synhedrion can fine them. The fragment also appears to say that the money gained through fines can be used in any way that they see fit. The fifth fragments deals with the inscription itself. It says that the members of the league are to have the oaths inscribed in stone set up in the towns. This fragment also appears to have list of some, not all, of the members of the league. It is quite damaged and only references to the Achaeans and the Eleians survive. There is space for more but the inscription is too badly damaged to determine who it refers to. The fragment then says that that the stele should be set in the “most famous sanctuaries] among them.” The rest of the fragment until the end of the surviving portion of the inscription is an oath. It involves the swearing upon various Greek gods and says that the oath taker will abide by the laws of the league and be in alliance with Antigonus and Demetrius. It reiterates that the members shall share the same allies and enemies and that they will not attack any other member of the synhedrion. It also speaks of an oath not to oppose the kingdom of Antigonus and Demetrius or their descendants. It says that if anyone shall do these things that the oath taker should go to war against that person to punish them.

The league was used to advance the interests of Antigonus and Demetrius and it met the same fate as Antigonus did. Antigonus and Demetrius took 25,000 troops from the league into war against Cassander, Lysimachus and Seleukos at Ipsos in Phrygia. They were defeated as they could not overcome the elephants their opponents had. Antigonus died during the battle and he was in his eighties. With Antigonus gone the league seemed to have been forgotten. There is no evidence that the league survived this defeat and there does not seem to have been any regrets on behalf of the members. It is possible that the league could have continued had Antigonus survived and the league had not suffered the defeat but this is merely speculation. It could be argued that having lost the war its usefulness was finished but the wording of the charter suggests that it was intended to be permanent not just for the war of the successors. Since the league was never able to exist in peace time it is unknown how well the league would have operated.

The Hellenic league of 302 B.C. was an important league in Greece. Created by successors of Alexander the Great’s it was designed to provide troops and supplies to them so that they could take control of what was left of Alexander’s empire. Antigonus and Demetrius established the league as a revival of Phillip II league that was established in 338 B.C. The leagues were similar but exactly the same. Since Phillip was in control of Macedon and had its enormous strength to back him up he did not need the same amount of troops and supplies taken from the league that Antigonus and Demetrius needed. Also, since the later kings needed to have more direct control over the league than Phillip the constitution of league affords them powers that Phillip did not have. The constitution survives as a very fragmentary inscription that was found at Epidaurus. The charter of the league outlines structure of the league. It had a synhedrion which was governed by a group of five prohedroi. The prohedroi were chosen by lot from the synhedroi. The synhedrion was granted a lot of power over the member states and its decrees were legally binding. They did not have to be ratified. This is the first real attempt to create a real federal league of Greek states. Although, the league did not survive the death of Antigonus it was a real attempt at creating a “United States of Greece”.

Bibliography

Austin, M. M. The Hellenistic world from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981)

Bagnall, Roger s. and Peter Derow. Greek Historical Documents: the Hellenistic Period, (Chico, Scholars Press, 1981)

Cary, M. “A constitution of the United States of Greece” Classical Quarterly, XVII (1923): 137-48

Ferguson, W. S. “Demetrius Poliorcetes and the Hellenic League”, Hesperia, 17, No. 2, (Apr. - Jun., 1948): 112 – 363

Larsen, J. A.O. “Representative Government in the Panhellenic Leagues”, Classical Philology 20, No. 4. (Oct., 1925): 313 – 29

Plutarch, Plutarch’s Lives IX, The Loeb Classical Library, trans. Bernadotte Perrin (1920; reprint, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959)

Shipley, Graham. The Greek World After Alexander. (London and New York: Routledge, 2000)

Simpson, R.H. “Antigonus the One-eyed and the Greeks”, Historia 8 (1959): 385-409