Introduction: The End of Hellenistic Kingship
“Hellenistic Kingship” is a modern concept. It has been developed to explain the nature of kingship after Alexander the Great, which is perceived by many to differ markedly from both earlier (e.g. Persian, ancient Macedonian) and later (e.g. Roman) forms of monarchy. Starting in the 19th century and taking several turns on the way (most importantly the turn from legalistic to sociological explanations), a vast body of literature has sought to define the specific characteristics of monarchy in the empires that emerged after 323 BCE. But many of the most frequently cited aspects of Hellenistic kingship – such as the importance of personal monarchy or the influence of the court – can hardly count as historically distinctive unless they are pushed to implausible extremes (e.g. scholarship that neglects institutionalized power structures in the name of a pure ideal type of “personal” or “charismatic” monarchy). And while modern categorization inevitably offers vantage points for historical analysis that were not available to historical agents, it may be disconcerting that few ancient sources see kingship between 323 and 31 BCE as categorically different from other forms of monarchy. In addition, the unifying label “Hellenistic” for both empires and kings has recently been under scrutiny, with comparative approaches trying to identify not only commonalities but also specific differences between the power blocks and their institutions. What, then, is the value of “Hellenistic kingship” as an analytical category?
This thematic dossier seeks to approach the problem by focusing not on beginnings (the way often chosen in previous scholarship), but on endings. How and when did “Hellenistic kingship” end? How was the process conceptualized by ancient observers, and what came in its stead? Nicholson’s article on Polybius shows a Greek intellectual reflecting on the end of kingship in Antigonid Macedonia (and its concomitant decline elsewhere). While Polybius has a lot to say about the character of the late kings, the article highlights his conceptual effort to be less focused on the personal elements of kingship than could be assumed. He rather reminds us that historical explanation cannot focus solely on kingship as a personal quality, but needs to embed it into specific institutional and political contexts. Hoffmann-Salz then shifts the focus to the Levant, where the end of Seleucid kingship was not coterminous with the Roman conquest but gave rise to a number of successor states that developed their own monarchic structures. The relationship of these new rulers to the tradition of Hellenistic kingship as identified by scholars is a matter of debate. The article demonstrates that elements of the model can helpfully be applied to the emergence of the Iturean principality after 129 BCE – but does this work because the Itureans were “a Hellenistic monarchy”, or because the model lacks the specificity to account for changing historical constellations? Fischer-Bovet fittingly deals with the person commonly regarded as the last Hellenistic monarch, Cleopatra VII. With Roman control over Egyptian affairs well established for decades, her options for pursuing an independent policy were limited, but the article shows that the tradition of Ptolemaic kingship was still a determining factor in her actions and self-presentation. Is this parochial, self-contained – or universally “Hellenistic” in scope and ambition? Finally, Eckhardt returns to the Levant and brings some of these threads together by revisiting traditional notions of what distinguishes “Hellenistic kingship” from others. Based on examples from the large Hellenistic empires and a contrast with some of the post-Seleucid successor states in the Southern Levant, the article argues for a recontextualization of the “Hellenistic” elements in Hellenistic monarchy, and for a more circumspect use of the term.
The title of this special section can thus be understood in more than one sense. The four articles offer in-depth studies on the end of Hellenistic kingship in different parts of the Mediterranean world, pointing to potential continuities and ruptures. But all articles implicitly or explicitly combine the factual question (how did Hellenistic Kingship end) with a conceptual one: is “Hellenistic kingship” a helpful concept to describe what is going on? Contributors offer a spectrum of answers, and we imagine that the issue should spark a debate about an entrenched category and its usefulness for future historical studies.
Benedikt Eckhardt*, Sylvie Honigman**
*School of History, Classics and Archaeology, Université d’Edinburgh,** Department of History, Université de Tel Aviv
REA, T. 128, 2026, n°1, p. 3 à 4