Death to Tyrants!

by Teegarden, David

  280–246

  Two complementary points strongly suggest that Erythrai was a democracy from 280 until 246 (i.e., during the reigns of Antiochos I and Antiochos II). First, the public inscriptions that date to this period strongly suggest that the dēmos controlled the polis. There are several such inscriptions dated to the reign of Antiochos I: I. Erythrai 24,57 25, 27, 28, 29 (perhaps—see note 59), 30 (quite likely: 270–260), 31,58 32, and 503 (the Philites stele), IErythMc-Cabe 19. And there are a couple such inscriptions that might date to the reign of Antiochos II: I. Erythrai 30 (possible: 270–260), 29,59 31 (possible, see note 58).

  The second point is that it was (at least early) Seleukid policy to support democracies in Ionian cities.60 Several inscriptions support this point. The first is OGIS 222, a decree (dated 268–262) of the Ionian League informing Antiochos I that the league has instituted a Birthday Festival in his honor. In lines 16–17, the decree orders the ambassadors to urge the king to maintain the Ionian cities as “free and democratic”; by doing so, it says, he will be following the policy of his ancestors (this could include Antigonos and maybe even Alexander, who is, in fact, mentioned in the decree). The second inscription is OGIS 226, a list of priestesses of Apollo Didymeios. In lines 5–6 it refers to Antiochos II’s role (through the agent of Hippomachos, the son of Athenaios) in restoring (katagein) “freedom and democracy” to Miletos in 259/8; and that is after he drove out the tyrant Timarchos, a deed for which he was called “God” even in this inscription.61 A third inscription is OGIS 229. It contains three decrees relating to a reconciliation (dated to 242) between Magnesia-by-Sipylos and Smyrna. (They had fought each other while Seleukos II—during the Third Syrian War—was in an area known as Seleukis.) Lines 10–11 of the first decree state that Seleukos II “confirmed” (ebebaiōsen) Smyrna’s “autonomy and democracy.”62

  246–CIRCA 200

  The second half of the third century, which saw the collapse of Seleukid control in western Asia Minor, is a very complicated period. And the political history of Erythrai during this period is virtually unknown. The following list provides the names, presented chronologically, of the powers that might have laid claim to the Erythraian peninsula during the half century following the death of Antiochos II.

  Seleukos II (from 246 until setbacks in the Third Syrian War)

  • Seleukos II tried to secure the allegiance of Ionian cities before he marched against Ptolemy II in Syria (summer of 246), after having lost Ephesos and parts of Thrace. (He left his fourteen-year-old brother Antiochos Heirax in charge of Asia Minor.) We see evidence of this attempt, first, in his relation with Miletos: RC 22 records the king’s proposal to augment the city’s privileges, the substance of which is unfortunately lost. And we see it, too, in his relationship with Smyrna: (1) OGIS 228, a decree from Delphi, grants Seleukos II’s request that Smyrna and her temple to Aphrodite Stratonike should be “holy and inviolable” (ἱερὰ καὶ ἄσυλος) and notes (line 7) that the king decreed that Smyrna should be “free and pay no tribute”; (2) OGIS 229, a decree from Smyrna, both notes that Seleukos II confirmed that Smyrna shall have autonomy and democracy and even requests “the kings, dynasts, cities, and ethnē” to recognize the inviolability of the temple and the city (lines 10–12).63

  Ptolemy III (after Seleukid setbacks in the Third Syrian War [246–242])

  • In OGIS 54 (line 14), Ptolemy III boasts of taking Ionia. Polybios (5.34.7) suggests that Ptolmaic control extended up the costal islands up to the Hellespont. Cities near Erythrai known to have been taken by Ptolemy III: Miletos, Ephesos, Samos, Magnesia on Maeander, Priene, Kolophon, Lebedos (renamed Ptolemais), and maybe Teos.64 Magie (1950: 99), however, notes that there is no solid evidence for Ptolemaic control on the mainland north of Lebedos. (Erythrai is north of Lebedos.)

  Antiochos Heirax, the younger brother of Seleukos II (from the march of Seleukos II eastward in the Third Syrian War [246] until being driven out of Asia Minor by Attalos I circa 228)

  • Heirax held the Troad, where he minted coins in several cities (Magie [1950: 937n32]). And his coinage is found at Sardeis (Ma [2000: 45n67]). He appears to have held the territory north of Lebedos.65

  Attalos I. (after defeating Heirax circa 228 and until 222)66

  • Polybios notes (5.77–8) that Attalos I, in his later campaign against Achaios in 218, acquired several cities: Kyme, Myrina (Smyrna in the manuscripts), Phokaia, Aigai, Temnos, Teos, Kolophon, Smyrna, Lampsakos, Alexandria Troas, and Ilion. With respect to Teos and Kolophon (both Ionian cities), Polybios wrote (5.77.6) that he secured their adherence “on the same terms as before” (ἐπὶ ταῖς συνθήκαις αἷς καὶ τὸ πρότερον). With respect to Smyrna (an Ionian city), Lampsakos, Alexandria Troas, and Ilion, the historian wrote (5.78.6) that those cities “preserved their loyalty to him” (διὰ τὸ τετηρηκέναι τούτους τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν πίστιν). Thus Teos, Kolophon, Smyrna, Lampsakos, Alexandria Troas, and Ilion had already adhered to Attalos before 218, likely beginning circa 228. And it is possible that Kyme, Mryina, Phokaia (an Ionian city), Aigai, and Temnos did too.67

  Achaios, likely the cousin of Antiochos III (from 223/2 to 218)

  • He was appointed governor of cis-Tauric Asia Minor by Antiochos III. According to Polybios (4.48.10) he “recovered the whole of the country this side of the Taurus.” Based on the passage from Polybios mentioned above (5.77–8) it is clear that Kyme, Myrina (Smyrna in the manuscripts), Phokaia, Aigai, and Temnos, Teos, and Kolophon adhered to Achaios. He minted coins in Sardeis.68 A usurper from 220, he drove Attalos I back into Pergamum while still loyal to Antiochos III (Polyb. 4.48.2, 4.48.11). He was eventually besieged in Sardeis for two years by forces from both Attalos I and Antiochos III and executed (Polyb. 7.15–18; 8.15–21).

  Attalos I (from 218—the date of his successful campaign against Achaios)

  • Cities known—again from Polybios (5.77–78)—to have adhered to Attalos include Kyme, Phokaia, Aigai, Temnos, Teos, Kolophon, Smyrna, Lampsakos, Alexandreia Troas, Ilion. And we know that Erythrai was allied with Attalos I in 201, at the battle of Chios (Polyb. 16.6.5). It is thus likely that Erythrai became part of the symmachia formed by Attalos I in 218.69

  There are several reasons to suspect that the dēmos controlled Erythrai at least most of the time during the chaotic years 246–200. The first reason is that the Attalids, who perhaps were the dominant power in the Erythraian peninsula for eighteen of those years, were friendly to Ionian states. We have, for example, a letter from Eumenes II to the Ionian League dated to the winter of 167/6 (RC 52) wherein he states (line 16) that he maintains his father’s (Attalos I) policy in showing favor to the league. In addition, Polybios wrote a eulogy for Attalos I in which he stresses (18.41.9) that the king died fighting for the “freedom of the Greeks.” And finally, modern scholars have argued that Attalos I upheld the freedom of the Greeks in his alliance. Magie wrote (1950: 102), “There is every reason to suppose that Attalos’ allies maintained their position as free and independent states. McShane (1964: 67) wrote, “[T]he only consistent defender of the Greek cities from northern Ionia to Byzantium was the Attalid dynasty.” And the same scholar wrote (1964: 86) that there likely were no garrisons in the Greek coastal cities in the Attalid alliance.70

  A second reason is that the citizens of Ionian poleis could capitalize on the volatility of the times in order to maintain or obtain their freedom and thus govern themselves democratically. The aforementioned inscription from Smyrna (OGIS 229) provides a very interesting example of that dynamic. The citizens remained loyal to Seleukos II during the Third Syrian War.71 Thus the king strongly supported their democratic regime. The decree of Smyrna—quite interesting—states (line 7) that Seleukos II “knows how to return gratitude to his benefactors” (ἐπιστάμενος χάριτας ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς ἑαυτὸν εὐεργετοῦσιν). This is a reversal of what one might expect to find, given the apparent discrepancy i
n power between a king and a city. The king, that is, should be the benefactor. Note, for example, the aforementioned letter from Eumenes II to the Ionian league (RC 52). In lines 23–24 of that letter the king writes, “in order that you might show that you always return fitting thanks to your benefactors” (ὅπως ἀεὶ φαίνησθε τὰς καταξίας τιμὰς τοῖς εὐεργέταις ἀπονέμοντες).72

  The third and final reason to suspect that the dēmos controlled Erythrai is based on the city’s (unfortunately meager) epigraphic record. There are possibly nine third-century public inscriptions that do not definitively date to the reign of Antiochos I or earlier.73 One (IErythMcCabe 268 = I. Erythrai 192) is exceptionally fragmentary and, in any event, is dated roughly to either the fourth or third century; thus it quite possibly dates to the period before the reign of Antiochos II. The eight remaining inscriptions indicate that the dēmos controlled the polis. Three are datable only to the third century.74 Two are dated to the mid-third century.75 One (if Erythraian) is dated to the late third century: I. Erythrai 431—not in IErythMcCabe. One (IErythMcCabe 117 = I. Erythrai 87) is very roughly dated to the third or second century. And the date of the final inscription (IErythMcCabe 13 = I. Erythrai 114) is disputed: IErythMcCabe dates it to the second century; I. Erythrai dates it to the third century. There is no epigraphic evidence for oligarchy in Erythrai in the years circa 246–200.

  EARLY SECOND CENTURY

  Several points suggest that Erythrai was a democracy during the first couple decades of the second century. Erythrai’s epigraphic record is particularly suggestive. There are no extant inscriptions that suggest that Erythrai was not a democracy in those years. But there are at least five (and maybe seven) extant inscriptions that suggest that the dēmos controlled Erythrai during those years.76

  Second, Erythrai possibly did not fall to Antiochos III (at least not for any significant period of time); thus the king might not have had the opportunity to meddle in Erythraian domestic affairs. There is no direct evidence that the king took Erythrai during his campaigns of 197–196, although he did make significant gains in Ionia at that time.77 (Indeed, it was the result of that campaign that Antiochos took most of cis-Tauric Asia Minor.) It is possible that Antiochos III held Erythrai during (part of) the Roman-Syrian War (192–188): in 191, his fleet sailed into Kissos, a port of Erythrai (Livy 36.43.10). But Erythrai had at least three ports (Kissos, Korykos [Livy 36.43.13], and Phoinikos [Livy 36.45.7]). And even if Kissos was right next to the asty of Erythrai, one need not conclude that Antiochos controlled the city: his fleet soon left and the Romans subsequently came “into the city” (Livy 36.45.7); and Livy—importantly—did not write that the Romans liberated Erythrai.78 Also, Livy clearly indicates that Erythrai subsequently fought with the Romans in the naval action of 190.79

  Finally, Erythrai was deemed a “free city” by the Romans after the peace of Apameia (188).80 The Romans treated it very well, even signaling it out, for its loyalty during the war with Antiochos III (Polyb. 21.45.6).81 It subsequently would be left alone (for the time being) to prosper and conduct its own affairs as an official “friend” of Rome.82

  The evidence presented above indicates that two moments were particularly important in the history of Erythrai’s early Hellenistic democracy. The first moment was the foundation of democracy in circa 332. The importance there centers on origins: the long-ruling oligarchy was overthrown and the dēmos assumed power. The second important moment was the refoundation of the democracy in circa 280. The importance there is that the democracy “stuck,” persisting into the Roman period. Democracy, that is, became the normal regime type for Erythrai after the Erythaians repaired their statue of Philites the tyrant killer.

  Conclusion

  Although focusing on events in a single Ionian city, this chapter highlights a fundamental dynamic involved in regime preservation for Greek poleis in general: affecting the revolutionary thresholds of the majority of the citizens. For a regime with only minority support to survive, the majority of the population must have relatively high revolutionary thresholds; more specifically, the population must be defined by an “anti-mobilization” threshold sequence. If they were, they would be unable to mobilize against the ruling regime. For a regime with majority support to survive, however, the majority of the population must have relatively low revolutionary thresholds; they must be defined by a “pro-mobilization” threshold sequence. If they were, they would be able to take advantage of their numerical superiority and mobilize in support of their regime. In short, control of a polis came down to affecting thresholds of the majority of the population—a struggle over the population’s revolutionary threshold sequence.

  That basic insight potentially accounts for many of the different institutions and practices, particularly those involved with managing publicly known information, of various regime types. As noted above, all regimes rely on the generation of common knowledge to survive. Their survival, that is, depends on what people think others think. The question concerns the content of that common knowledge, and how it is generated and maintained. Nondemocratic regimes will have political institutions and practices that control common knowledge so that people raise their revolutionary thresholds and thus become atomized. Democratic regimes are the opposite.

  * * *

  1 That oligarchs controlled Erythrai from 412 to 394 must be inferred from several sources: (1) Thuc. 8.5.4–8.6; 8.14.2 (the Erythraians revolted from Athens in 412); (2) Xen. Hell. 3.4.2 (after the Peloponnesian war [404], the Spartan Lysander established decarchies in the Greek cities of Asia Minor); (3) RO 8 (the dēmos of Erythrai honors Konon in 394 after he defeated the Spartans in a naval battle near Knidos—the dēmos, no doubt, subsequently assumed control of the polis); (4) Diod. Sic. 14.84.2–3 (the Erythraians, after the battle of Knidos, expelled their Spartan-supported garrison—cf. Xen. Hell. 4.8.1–2).

  That oligarchs controlled Erythrai from 386 to circa 334–332 also must be inferred from several sources: (1) RO 17 (a decree of the Athenian dēmos, dated to circa 386, wherein it is made clear [lines 11–14] that the dēmos of Erythrai does not want to be “handed over to the barbarians”—i.e., handed to the Persians pursuant to the King’s Peace); (2) Xen. Hell. 5.1.31 (according to the terms of the King’s Peace, the “poleis in Asia” belonged to the king of Persia); (3) RO 56 (an honorary decree dated to the mid-350s promulgated by the Erythraian boulē—not the dēmos—for Maussollos of Karia for being [lines 3–4] “a good man regarding the polis” [i.e., not the dēmos]); (4) HD 28 B (an honorary decree, dated 365–355, promulgated by the Erythraian boulē—again, not the dēmos—for Maussollos’s brother Idrieos for being [lines 5–6] “a good man regarding the polis”); (5) RO 68 (an alliance, dated circa 350–342, with Hermias of Atarneus, perhaps in preparation for war against the Persians; the customary oath was to be “taken care of” [lines 18–19] by the generals of Erythrai—perhaps a sign of oligarchy). Alexander subsequently (334–332) established democratic rule, as is noted generally by Arrian (Anab. 1.18.1–2) and is borne out in Erythrai’s epigraphic record: I. Erythrai 21. Note that the context of I. Erythrai 7, an Athenian decree concerning Erythrai dated 366/5, is unknown: it need not suggest that Erythrai was governed by a democracy.

  2 Text and translation: Heisserer (1979: 282–83). Note, however, that I have retained the Greek word dēmos in the translation; Heisserer translated dēmos as “the people.” Editio princeps: Kirchhoff (1863: 265–68). The provenance of this inscription has been debated, because its chain of custody is not known for certain: see Heisserer (1979: 289). Some of the earliest editors (e.g., Kirchhoff [1863] and Michel [1900–27: no. 364]) suggested that the decree was promulgated in Chios. Engelmann and Merkelbach, in their edition of the text (I. Erythrai 503), follow Wilhelm (1915) and suggest that the Philites stele was promulgated in Klazomenai. But Heisserer (1979) has given cogent arguments for Erythraian origin.

  3 Gauthier (1982: 216) notes that an ἀνδριάς (lines 4
, 15, 21 in the Philites stele) is a statue in the form of a man, while an εἰκών (lines 2–3 and 20 in the Philites stele) is a statue in the form of a particular man, a portrait.

  4 Most notably in the so-called tyrannicide skolia (Ath. 15.695a).

  5 For the coin from Kyzikos, see Brunnsåker: (1971: 99–100 with plate 23). For evidence of the popularity of the Athenian tyrannicides outside Athens in the post-Classical period, see the texts discussed in Trypanis (1960) and Lebedev (1996). And recall, from the conclusion to chapter 4, that Alexander heavily promoted anti-tyranny ideology during his conquest of western Asia Minor.

  6 Many scholars have suggested that the statue of Philites echoed the Athenian model: Dittenberger (Syll.3 284); Engelmann and Merkelbach (I. Erythrai 503); Ober (2005c: 229).

  7 A great example is RO 56. In that inscription (lines 11–14) it states that a statue of Maussollos will be made out of bronze, while a statue of his wife Artemesia will be made out of stone. The Philites stele likely does not refer to the material of the statue because it orders not the creation of a statue but the repairing of an already-existing statue.

  8 See Brunnsåker (1971: 143–64). It is to be noted that the Roman copies of the Kritias and Nesiotes statue group of Harmodios and Aristogeiton, because they are made out of heavier stone, might not replicate exactly the bronze originals.

  9 See, for example, I. Erythrai 15, which records a law on the sale of wool. It clearly demonstrates that the agoramomoi were in charge of transactions in the agora. Also, I. Erythrai 104 records the dedication by an agoranomos of his scales to Dēmos.