Hellenism - Cultural Separation or Cultural Mixing?

Alexander the Great was a conqueror, son of Philip II, King of Macedon, who created a vast empire which extended from India to Greece and even to Egypt. In his travels, Alexander spread Greek culture but also adopted the best elements of the cultures which he came across. He mixed populations, creating a diverse and multicultural group of people. Hellenism refers to the gradual spreading of Greek ideas throughout the empire which had been forged by Alexander, but also partly to Greeks adopting ideas of non-Greeks. After the early death of Alexander, his empire broke into the Ptolemaic, Seleucid and Antigonid empires. The Ptolemaic empire contained Egypt whereas the Seleucid empire covered much of Persia, Judea and India. The Antigonid empire spanned mostly Greece. Before the rise of Hellenism, with the reign of Alexander the Great, there was much cultural mixing – the best of each culture was adopted. However, as Alexander’s empire split, different areas in the Hellenistic world interpreted Hellenism in different ways: while the Ptolemaic kingdom in Egypt was arguably one of large cultural separation and mistreatment of non-Greeks, the Seleucid kingdom was at first an empire of tolerance, but later began to become a major epicentre of cultural mixing – the Seleucid Empire slowly changed to be more like the Neo-Assyrians, as they began to force cultural assimilation, according to many sources. This paper will look at the cultural mixing during the reign of Alexander the Great, cultural separation in Ptolemaic Egypt and then will look at how the Seleucids changed to become an empire of cultural mixing.

Alexander helped spread Greek culture, but also mixed in different cultures, taking the best of each. However, as he developed in life, he arguably began to favour the Greeks slightly for higher governmental positions. While some sources show that Alexander spread Greek culture while being open to other cultures, different documents portray the viewpoint that he only spread Greek culture.

In “The Susa Wedding[1],” the author explains how, during the Susa Wedding, Alexander forced many Greek soldiers to marry Persian and Asian women. This was a massive move towards mixing cultures, as this allowed for many children to be half-Greek and half-Persian/Asian. Later in the source, we also see how Alexander, as well as some of his top commanders, began to become more Persian, adopting many elements of Persian culture. Although Alexander’s attempts at the Susa wedding may have been meant as benign actions, forced mixing led to many problems in the future. By forcing the marriage of many Greeks, this shows how Alexander is almost taking away their freedom. Many of the soldiers he married already had Greek wives and children in Macedonia, so it is unlikely that, once the soldiers returned, they would be able to take their new wives. Although the forced marriages may smelt cultures together in the short term, in the long term, this could result in many children losing their parents, and in the non-Greek wives being single mothers. The source goes on to explain how Greek people had around 30,000 children with non-Greek wives. Although this resulted in more mixing of cultures, with children being brought up by parents from different cultures, all of these children were later deserted by their fathers, who returned to Greece. The source also brings up that, although the “Epigoni” or successors were the children of both Greeks and non-Greeks, they were “dressed in Macedonian dress and trained to warfare in the Macedonian style,” enforcing the idea that, even though they had been born into two different cultures, their Macedonian heritage remained dominant. However, the cultural mixing brought about by Alexander wasn’t only one-sided assimilation – Greeks also became more Persian, by choosing to “adopt” “Persian apparel and language.”

The idea of people being forced to mix brings up important questions: Can forced mixing be called cultural mixing? Does cultural mixing have to be voluntary from both sides? There are many viewpoints to this question. Although cultural mixing may be accomplished on a superficial level through force, once the forced mixing is released, many people will go back to their old culture. Therefore, the mixing would only be temporary. If people maintained elements of their new culture, on the other hand, true cultural mixing could be attained. True cultural mixing, therefore, requires both sides wanting to adopt elements of the other culture. If people are offered the option of staying with their old culture or moving to a new one, those who want to adopt the new culture are more likely to maintain it for much longer, as they would have made the choice, rather than being forced to assimilate.

In “Alexander the bringer of Civilization to Asia[2]?” Plutarch describes in detail only the one-way assimilation of Persians and Asians to Greek culture. This text portrays many other Asian civilizations as primitive before Alexander’s arrival. For examples, Alexander is said to have told “Sogdians to support their parents, not kill them.” As they might have done as savages before his arrival. This text also supports the overarching idea that Hellenism was very much open to both Greeks and non-Greeks to participate in. The text shows that many people became more educated thanks to Hellenization (“Homer became widely read, and the children of the Persians … sang the tragedies of Euripedes and Sophocles”). However, Alexander’s and the Hellenization movement’s portrayal in such a positive light, makes us question the objectivity of this account. This source is clearly strongly supporting Alexander, with quotes such as “few of us read Plato’s Laws, but the laws of Alexander have been and are still used by millions of men.” It also tells that the countries which were conquered by Alexander were lucky because, from this, they could become civilized.

In “Administering the Empire[3]” from “Alexander of Macedon,” we see a change in Alexander’s behaviour. He dismissed many Persians from the government and replaced them with Macedonians. Also, he began to become more Persian himself and started wearing “the white-striped purple tunic of the Persian kings with the Persian diadem.” Therefore, his intentions appear ambivalent. On the one hand he promoted cultural mixing and believed that one should choose the best from each, on the other hand, he started favouring Macedonians over Persians. Also, he “seemed to believe in an inherent Macedonian racial superiority which could be imposed through the mixing of Macedonian and Persian blood.” Therefore, although he wanted equality superficially, he still held an underlying belief that Greek culture was superior to other cultures. Alexander’s ‘equality’ is not a true equality after all.

Ptolemaic Egypt seemed to be a culture of cultural separation of non-Greeks from Greeks according to most sources. Ptolemaic Egypt seems to be an exception during the Hellenistic Era, as it didn’t encourage mixing of cultures, rather cultural separation. Some sources even state much inequality and mistreatment of non-Greeks in Egypt, and that Egypt was simply exploited for its gold and other precious metals. One possible reason why the Greeks didn’t force assimilation in Ptolemaic Egypt could be that the existing Egyptian culture in no way hindered (possibly even facilitated) their exploitation. Forced assimilation could have led to resistance and an end to the “Eldorado on the Nile.”

Napthalie Lewis strongly supports that Hellenism wasn’t a culture open to non-Greeks. In “The Backdrop: Eldorado on the Nile[4],” Lewis compares Egypt to Eldorado, implying that the Greeks only came to Egypt for the money. According to this source, in Egypt the non-Greeks were simply exploited. An example mentioned in the text is that non-Greeks are simply expected to make space for soldiers in their homes, who don’t pay and are often quite unruly. As well as this, Greeks took up many professions in Egypt which often allowed them to become rich by exploiting non-Greeks. This included moneylending and tax farming. In moneylending “there was money, often big money to be made” because Greeks would charge excessive interest on loans, thereby making them very rich, and creating an ever-expanding gap between the poor non-Greeks in Egypt and the rich Greeks. In addition, many Greeks became tax collectors, as Greeks (suggested by the text) were greatly favoured for these jobs by the government. Greek tax collectors would take a share of the money, and sometimes even more than required, leading to corruption and an increasing gap between Greeks and non-Greeks. A wide financial gap between the two groups hindered the spread of ideas.

In “Letter of Complaint to Zenon from a non-Greek[5],” we have a clear indication that non-Greeks are not treated properly in Ptolemaic Egypt and that Greeks often cheated them with their money. Even though the people at the top of the chain, who were Greeks, may order for all of the workers to be paid, sometimes that money was pocketed by other people in the chain of command. An example of this can be seen from the quote “And when you gave orders / to pay me my salary (Crotus) gave me nothing of what you had ordered,” which shows how Crotus is cheating and mistreating the non-Greeks. The non-Greek says that “they have treated me with contempt because I am a barbarian.” This emphasizes how non-Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt perceived their treatment and the underlying reasons for it.

At first, the Seleucids, much like Cyrus the Great of Persia, forged an empire of tolerance, in which there was a great acceptance and respect for different cultures, possibly because of the historical successes of the Persian Empire and because the Jewish people welcomed the Seleucids and assisted them in warfare against Egypt.. However, this also encouraged separation of the cultures, as the Seleucids made sure that each culture would be treated with respect. Later in the times of the Seleucid Empire, they switched almost to forced assimilation of the people under their rule. No clear reason is given for this in the sources. One hypothesis is that the initial tolerance allowed the Jewish culture to flourish to such a level that it became a challenging force. With the rise of Jews becoming independent within the Seleucid Empire, there is a fear of revolt. This could be a reason why the Seleucids forced assimilation, however, due to the lateness of this action, the Jewish would later revolt.

In “Antiochus III and the Jews[6],” Antiochus III describes how the Jews were very kind to the Seleucids, offering them many gifts. Antiochus reigns over the Seleucid Empire much like Cyrus over the Persian Empire. This can be seen from quotes such as “at once displayed their enthusiasm for us, and when we arrived at their city received us magnificently and came to meet us with their senate, and have provided abundant supplies to our soldiers and elephants, and assisted us in expelling the Egyptian garrison in the citadel.” In return, the Seleucids help the Jews in protecting their religion and in furthering it. This included giving them allowances for sacrificial animals, silver and other valuable materials. The Seleucids also help the Jews in the building of their temple and enforce rules for Jerusalem which protect it from people who don’t respect the Jewish tradition as well as other factors. This shows that the Seleucids are very respectful of the Jews. However, by not allowing people to come into the city with certain meats, for example, we see that a separation is beginning to form, as the Jews can’t easily be influenced by other cultures due to all of the restrictions in place.

In “II Maccabees: Seleucus IV and the Jews[7],” it seems like Seleucus IV also helps in the separation by paying for rituals. However, even though the Seleucids are not yet forcing the assimilation, many Jews are becoming Hellenised. From this source, we see that Simon, a Jew, quarrels with the High Priest and then tells on the Jews by informing the Seleucids about the fact that there is a lot of gold in the treasury. The fact that people who are Jews are more willing to confide in the Seleucids and go against their own people implies a certain level of Hellenization taking place. The source tells that “the impious Simon misrepresented the truth,” implying that, whether forced or not, Hellenism is beginning to spread, to the next level.

In “I Maccabees: Antiochus IV and the Jews[8]” we see how much the viewpoint varies between the ones who assimilate and the ones who are assimilating. It tells that, although some people were willing to become Hellenised, many were not. This source quotes that “they became uncircumcised, gave up the holy covenant to join the yoke of the nations and sold themselves to cause evil.” Although this viewpoint may be slightly exaggerated, from this source, it seems like the Seleucids are forcing assimilation – they are building gymnasiums in Jerusalem, something which is very Greek. It then goes on to tell of how Antiochus IV marched into the Jewish sanctuary and “seized the golden altar and the lamp for the light with all its fittings, and the table for the offering of the loaves …” This text is written by a traditional Jewish family. Although many traditional families are opposed to Hellenism, some aren’t and many normal Hebrews enjoy and embrace it. Also, several educated Hebrews become Hellenised, too.

In conclusion, before the rise of Hellenism, with the reign of Alexander the Great, there was much cultural mixing – the best of each culture was adopted. However, as Alexander’s empire split, different geographic areas exhibited their unique version of cultural mixing. It seems like, in Ptolemaic Egypt, it may have been easier to exploit the non-Greeks without assimilating them – as the assimilation to Greek culture may have made them more wary that they were simply being exploited. However, in the Seleucid Empire, the Seleucids were kind and tolerant, which may have been due to the fact that they needed help in waging war against the Egyptians, and Jewish warriors would be very helpful in accomplishing this goal. However, as more research is done in this field, we will continue to find out the reasons why there was such a large difference between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires.

[1] Author Unknown, "The Susa Wedding," in The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest, ed. by M.M. Austin (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 2. [2] Plutarch, “Alexander the Bringer of Greek Civilization to Asia?” in The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest, ed. by M.M. Austin (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 57. [3] Author Unknown, Alexander of Macedon (Source unknown), 327-329. [4] Naphtali Lewis, Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt (Oakville, Conn: American Society of Papyrologists, 2001), 25. [5] Author Unknown, "Letter of Complaint to Zenon by a non-Greek," in The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest, ed. by M.M. Austin (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 307. [6] Antiochus III, 380. [7] II Maccabees, “II Maccabees: Seleucus IV and the Jews,” in The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest, ed. by M.M. Austin (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 307. [8] I Maccabees, 385.