Discover the power of cities during Hellenistic times
Hellenistic periods were more influenced by cities than by the kings who ruled them.
Early on, it was favored by kings, but this changed over time.
It is known from the public inscriptions of the bazaar that some kind of transaction took place between the two parties.
These cities provided legitimacy and support to the king, and later in sponsorship provided troops and resources, in return for which the king would provide financial forgiveness and ownership of debts.
Hellenistic cities also exerted their power more prominently during the period of the kingdom's decline, as seen in Maccabees, in which the Seleucids, who could not retain their power over Judea, were expelled.
It seems that these cities were somehow capable of choosing between successors and Rome who best served their interests, if one was chosen, or if Rome was called to mediate.
The use of the cult of rulers by the successor states was also a tool for defining the Hellenistic period.
Likewise, as a source of legitimacy that the city may recognize or as a means of determining loyalty to different factions.
The city's relationship with the king appears to have operated on a similar basis in which the city received tax exemptions and debt payments from rival dynasties.
In return, the king gained the prestige of the ruler's worship and thus the recognition of their royal power.
These inscriptions seem to justify the short-term interests of the city, since they can immediately stop taxing.
However, in the long run, they will later be asked to provide resources for the king.
In this case, the city would passively advertise for the king, thus showing the city's influence in defining the territory of the Hellenistic era.
Again, it could be a display of the city's own prestige, and the king had to provide such a profit to be worthy of the city's recognition.
As a result, cities that were later assimilated by the ancient empire of Saikeng would weigh the benefits received by Tios and demand greater rewards to consider joining the kingdom.
Later, during the Hellenistic period, when the power of the successors was greatly weakened, it was easier for the city to seek independence.
It is worth noting that rebellions were common during the Hellenistic period, and some were more successful than others, as was the case in the Kingdom of Bactria.
As far as Jerusalem is concerned, the city is located between Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid dynasty.
The Seleucid army, despite its numerical superiority, suffered overwhelming losses and was forced to return religious control to the Jews in the first conflict.
The Seleucids, despite their numerical superiority in armies, were unable to quell the rebellion, so they first had to reduce their influence in the region and were later expelled from the city.
This may be seen as proof of the idea that cities had a greater influence on the process of Hellenism coming to an end.
Thus, over time, the king's influence gradually tilted towards the city.
Another factor in the king's favor of the city during the Hellenistic era was the presence of the Romans, patrons of the Mediterranean world but also the most supportive of self-government.
They accepted such conditions, so that the city remained a "friend and ally" of Rome. Even cities that were not affiliated with the Romans benefited from their presence.
If the king displeased them, the city-state had a way to contact the Romans, forcing the successor to a disadvantage.
Thus, since the presence of the Romans supported their interests, the Hellenistic cities had greater influence than the kings.
Often defined as the influence of successive kings on Hellenistic periods and cities, rulers worship and hymns may be subverted by poleis to advance their agenda.
The worship of rulers is a ephemeral aspect of a city's culture, and they will only continue to worship the king when it is beneficial.
This happened in Athens, and when Philip V acted in the interests of Athens, the cult of his rulers, as well as the worship of his ancestors, was abolished.
This revolved around the Macedonian War, where Athens eventually supported the Romans in fighting the Macedonians. When they remove the cult, they abolish their allegiance to Antigonus.
Thus, in this sense, the worship of rulers who worship kings is controlled by the cities that choose whether they are worthy of worship or not.
Likewise, hymns are used by citizens as a means of controlling their patrons, not the other way around.
A verse that honors the king as a god expresses the expectation of the king.
They are held according to the standards of the gods and are therefore expected to bring prosperity and security to the city. As Demetrius Poliorketes' hymn shows, the king is compared to a living god.
The Athenians said that they prayed for him to fulfill his duties because he had power.
It stands to reason that if he did not have the power he said or did not use it for the benefit of the Athenians, he was not worthy of praise or kingship.
Since the king's legitimacy depended on his prestige, the king had to meet his demands in order to continue his rule.
Thus, the hymn, although centered on the king, is not arranged for his benefit, but for his subjects.
Therefore, the city did have a greater influence than the king did during Hellenistic times.
So, all in all, the city-state was more influential during the Hellenistic period compared to Diadochi.
On the surface, the kings controlled their own affairs.
However, inscriptions like those in Teos indicate that the relationship was based on a systematic trade system, with the king providing financial aid and exemptions, and the city subsequently providing prestige and resources.
In addition to showing the benchmark of the favors that kings were able to provide, the advertisements advertised their patrons.
As the Hellenistic period progressed, the kingdom weakened and the power of the city-states became more assertive.
The king could not solve it, and a small city could successfully rebel.
The Romans also tilted the scales in favor of the cities, where they acted as executors of the interests of the city-state, even if they were not currently aligned.
Finally, hymns and ruler worship, although symbols of the king's power, were easily destroyed by cities.
