, , ,

<<


 >>  ()
Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 9 | 10 ||

.. ...

-- [ 11 ] --

As to Asia Minor, we should note that none of its poleis took part in the Lamian war. This circumstance has been undeservingly overlooked in literature. The fact can be explained by analyzing the deeper processes in the crisis of the polis. This crisis, of rather the crisis of the classical Greek polis, can by qualified as a process of loss and distortion of its main features. Political independence is one of them. Not the independence of a separate polis, but a system of independent poleis. As a result of the Peace of Antalkidas, the Greek cities of Asia Minor found themselves in a new system, as parts of the Persian Empire, i. e., they lost their independence. One may suppose that the stage of the polis crisis which, for the Greek cities in the Balkans, began after the defeat at Chaeronea and the formation of the League of Corinth, for the poleis of Asia Minor should be dated to the Peace of Antalkidas. If this supposition is correct, then we can determine the Asia Minor version of the polis crisis, a version linked to an earlier subordination of the polis to an external force which was alien to it in its social nature. This supposition proves once again that the crisis of a polis is the crisis of a system of poleis. The world of Greek cities was many times the object of the outside aggression, but during the period of rise and prosperity of the polis the Greeks found the force to stand up to that aggression and to defend their independence. During the Greek-Persian wars Hellas won in its struggle with Persian Empire which also was at the apex of its power, in the fourth century . C., when the state of the Achaemenids was approaching its decline, it still managed to subjugate the Greeks of Asia Minor. But have we a right to look at this subjugation as a result of the developing crisis of the poleis system?

For the Greeks of the Balkan peninsula the creation of the League of Corinth was an act which infringed on their political sovereignty and hence was a negative phenomenon, especially so for the large poleis, while for the Greeks of Asia Minor the conquest of Alexander presented a somewhat different phenomenon. In the series of relations the substitution of the Macedonian rule for the Persian one meant a change of the ruler, but this change was quite important in one respect: under Alexander, democratic regimes were being restored everywhere. The restoration of democracy, even under a Macedonian rule, met the interests of most citizens and finally caused the Greeks of Asia Minor to stay away from the Lamian war.

The specificity of the stage of the polis crisis under consideration in this work primarily lies in the fact that the previously internal crisis of particular poleis (of varying nature and degree) is transforming into a crisis of the poleis system. For the forst time in their history virtually all the poleis in Greece proper and in Asia Minor found themselves in a position of dependence on one foreign power. Despite the diversity of their destinies, the development of poleis in both regions headed the same direction, polis was stopping to be the subject of history, becoming its object. From a system of independent poleis whose history was primarily shaped by the interaction of poleis between themselves or with external forces, Hellas was turning into a battlefield for various forces that were external in relation to the poleis world.

The final stage of the polis crisis was the time of dying for the system of independent poleis, the time of transition from the poleis world to the Hellenistic epoch with its extensive state formations. But the polis crisis did not signify an end to the polis, its death. The polis continued to exist for many centuries to come, when new poleis emerged, but it was changed in its nature, which allows us to distinguish the classical polis from the hellenistic polis not only from the point of view of chronology.

Besides, the historical situation has radically changed, so that cities either* found themselves as parts of larger states, or, now preserving and now losing their independence, were subjected to an influence from the more powerful neighbours.

............................................................................................................... 1. ........................................................................ 2. ..................... 3. .................. 4. ............... 5. .......................................... ......................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................ .......................................................................................... .......................................................................................... ................................................................................................... ............................................................ . . .................................................................. Summary............................................................................................................... ( ) . . . .

. JL . . . 31 . .

. . . . . . . 12.10.92. 01.06.93. 6090*/1 .

. . . . . 18,0. .-*. 1&25. .-. . 20,4.

3700 . . N 7344. . 33&.* .

*

I0351, -51, , 2^- * 121099, , -99, .,

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 9 | 10 ||
 
 >>  ()





 
<<     |    
2013 www.libed.ru - -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .