What did the EB factions call themselves/others

[alex33]

Hello,
What i always wanted to know what would the factions/people call themselves/other realms in real life? like people wouldn't say i'm from the seleucid empire. I guess this is a modern term. (Did they even have names for dynasties or is this also something modern? did they call it seleucid, antigonid dynasty back then?) Did those realms even have names? I think the victory stele of raphia referes to the seleucids as "the syrians" as far as i remember. So did the people call the seleucid empire syria? Roman citizens can always say they are romans but what about the greeks who lived in so many places or the carthaginians for that matter? This always kinda interessted me.

[tomySVK]

Good question. I think that Macedonians and Greeks from Syria didn´t called themselves Syrians. Most probebly they called themselves as citizens of cities or colonies established by Kings in which they lived.

The Raphia stele was a propaganda piece, Ptolemy IV was also egyptian pharaoh and it was expected from previous native pharaohs to campaign against the Syrians and plunder their cities. So he won the war and tried to established connection with tradition to be seen as true worthy pharaoh to the native Egyptian.

[alex33]

Hmmm true. they also call the seleucids assyrians on that stele so yeah haha. That is what i think too. It could also be that they told the person asking what king they serve. Or perhapse "i live in the kingdom of antiochus" or something like that. I wonder how much they thought themselves as nations back then. The romans sure did.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

Peoples living in the mediterranean region usually refered by their city name or perhaps a region. We know that Romans thought of themselves as Romans because they were a city-state, initially. Even centuries into the Roman Empire, roman citizens living in cities would refer to themselves as citizens of that city and then of Rome. For example, the Antiochenes, just like numerous other citizens of other cities used their city name as appellation. Since Rome was a city-state each of his citizens were Romans, however each Antiochene is also a citizen of Antiochia, a city like that like many others had its own senate that governed the city and countryside.

During the Seleucid and Ptolemaic period, if I am not mistaken, none of the peoples living in great cities such as Antioch and Alexandria would have thought of themselves as Seleucians/Syrians or Ptolemaics/Egyptians, but as Antiochenes and Alexandrines, citizens of smaller cities such as Tyre or Trapezous would do the same. For them the hellenistic king is more of a hegemon who rules over many cities and those cities mostly have their own mini-government.

The hellenistic king also rules over many tribal or semi-nomadic peoples and they also consider him as some kind of over-king. Tribal peoples were not particularly urbanized therefore they would use their tribe name as self designation. For example, the iranian Cadusii tribe living in northern Media would not call themselves Medians if they were ruled by the king of Media, but name themselves Cadusii - of course this is a latin name for them.

To reiterate, highly urbanised peoples living in cities would have two primary self designations, a political one and a ethnic one. For example, Greek living in Ephesos is Ephesian (political) and a Ionian Hellene (ethnic). If he gets a Roman citizenship or any other city that is a hegemon over Ephesos than he also becomes Roman, or whatever that other city is named, provided said city has similar citizenship system as Rome, in contrast, hypothetically, Ephesians under Carthage cannot recive Carthaginian citizenship, that is only for people living in the city of Carthage. The situation with hellenistic kings is similar, if Ephesos is under seleucid control, its citizens cannot be the citizens of Antiokhos II or whatever the king name is because, king is a hegemon over cities not a country/nation unto himself, in contrast Rome being hegemon does not exclude Ephesians from becoming citizens of Rome.

Tribal peoples also have two primary self designations, their tribal name and a wider ethnic group that they belong. Usage of regions as self identification is also more likely, especially if the region is filled with small cities, for example ancient Macedonia did not did not possess great cities and thus people were more likely to call themselves Macedonians when talking to foreigners rather than to use the name of Pella or other city, unless they were in talking to a fellow macedonian.

[alex33]

Yeah that does makes sense. saying from what city you are would make things really easy as the concept of nations wasn't really a thing back then i guess. But what about the faction leaders? What where they king or leading men of? Is guess the seleucids would still call themselves kings of asia? I actually wonder if the seleucid kings always called themselves great kings emulating the achaemenids or if this was just megas antiochus' thing. I guess the pharaonic title of the ptolemys speaks for themselves. How about carthage?

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

The pharaonic title used by the Ptolemies is a propaganda aimed primarily at egyptian priestly class, the same class that influences the loyalty of native egyptian population. Egyptians formed major part of Ptolemaic tax income. Ptolemaic king ruling outside Egypt over greek, phoenician cities and Judea is refered to as Basileus. As far as I know the Seleucids did not use the title of King of Asia. Hellenistic rulers in the east simply refered to themselves as kings, presiding over their own dynasty.
The dynasty had some sort of insignia, symbols and prefered, patron divinity, for example Apollo for the Seleucids. The seleucid coins use only Basileus as a title, the king probably used many different titles, depending on context and on to whom they were speaking-proclaiming orders/edicts to. To his iranian populace he might have been refered as Great King.

The eastern kings should be viewed as some form of a unified hegemonic institution that leads and holds together disparate:
1. single city, with or without smaller dependant towns - city-states, whom have their own councils - aristocratic, oligarchic or democratic, or are ruled by a single Tyrannos;
2. city-state leagues compromising out of multiple city-states that toghether elect their own leader - Strategos;
3. tribal peoples who are lead by their chieftain whose title may or may not be translatable as King in their own language;
4. religious leagues or theocracies, for example the Jewish priesthood, with the High Priest, the "Kohen Gadol" being something like a vassal king ruling over Jews of Jerusalem and the surrounding area.

All of the aforementioned, answer, provide troops and taxes, depending on the arrangement they have with the Basileus, to regional hellenistic governors. All of these entities view themselves primarily as citizens/people of their smaller political entities.

People residing in Carthage viewed themselves as Carthaginians politically and as Phoenicians ethnically. The phoenician cities under hegemony of Carthage viewed themselves as Phoenicians ethnically, but did not, most likely - since we do not have information about the government of these cities, viewed themselves as Carthaginians in a political sense, but as citizens of their own cities, for example of Gadir. Gadir most likely also had some sort of a council that ruled the city and surrounding countryside. The political situation might have been different for the colonies that were actually founded by Carthage, rather than those founded by old Phoenicia.

The historical problem for Carthage is the same one that hellenistic kingdoms faced, they did not fully integrate various political entities under their hegemony. Carthage actually being a city state, could have have granted carthaginian citizenship to other phoenician colonial city-states and give their people a stake in carthaginian government, but chose not to. That is why the citizens of some cities such as Gadir did not put a fight against the Romans and simply surrendered. Rome not only established hegemony over those polities but also offered the select few a stake in roman government.

[Roma_Victrix]

The pharaonic title used by the Ptolemies is a propaganda aimed primarily at egyptian priestly class, the same class that influences the loyalty of native egyptian population. Egyptians formed major part of Ptolemaic tax income. Ptolemaic king ruling outside Egypt over greek, phoenician cities and Judea is refered to as Basileus. As far as I know the Seleucids did not use the title of King of Asia. Hellenistic rulers in the east simply refered to themselves as kings, presiding over their own dynasty.
The dynasty had some sort of insignia, symbols and prefered, patron divinity, for example Apollo for the Seleucids. The seleucid coins use only Basileus as a title, the king probably used many different titles, depending on context and on to whom they were speaking-proclaiming orders/edicts to. To his iranian populace he might have been refered as Great King.

This makes tons of sense, seeing how the borders of the Seleucid Empire shifted numerous times throughout its almost three centuries of existence. The name of the Seleucid Empire obviously comes after its founder Seleucus I Nicator, the same with the Ptolemaic Empire of Egypt after its founder Ptolemy I Soter. Since both of these empires were not based on one specific region and incorporated regions with different historical ethnic groups, it makes sense that their royal titles would be different to some of their subjects as opposed to others. It was important for the Ptolemaic kings to present themselves as pharaohs to the native Egyptians they ruled over in Egypt (their claim to cosmological legitimacy over the region), yet this sort of propaganda wouldn't have been relevant to their Greek/Macedonian subjects in other parts of the Mediterranean. It's perhaps worthy to note that Cleopatra VII Philopator, the last of the Ptolemaic pharaohs, was the only Ptolemaic ruler who bothered to learn the Egyptian language in addition to her native Greek (hence the reason why such documents as the Rosetta Stone was necessary, given the various languages spoken in the societies ruled over by the Ptolemaic monarchs).

[Trarco]

People residing in Carthage viewed themselves as Carthaginians politically and as Phoenicians ethnically. The phoenician cities under hegemony of Carthage viewed themselves as Phoenicians ethnically, but did not, most likely - since we do not have information about the government of these cities, viewed themselves as Carthaginians in a political sense, but as citizens of their own cities, for example of Gadir. Gadir most likely also had some sort of a council that ruled the city and surrounding countryside. The political situation might have been different for the colonies that were actually founded by Carthage, rather than those founded by old Phoenicia.

The historical problem for Carthage is the same one that hellenistic kingdoms faced, they did not fully integrate various political entities under their hegemony. Carthage actually being a city state, could have have granted carthaginian citizenship to other phoenician colonial city-states and give their people a stake in carthaginian government, but chose not to. That is why the citizens of some cities such as Gadir did not put a fight against the Romans and simply surrendered. Rome not only established hegemony over those polities but also offered the select few a stake in roman government.

About Gadir, the citizens viewed themselves as b‘lt/’gdr (assembly of Gadir=political concept) and as tyrians (ethnic concept) and other Phoenician colonies from Iberia viewed themselves as Sidonians, but in general terms they viewed themselves as Canaanites. After the Second Punic War, several Phoenician colonies from Hispania Ulterior (that were in league with some Iberian peoples) fought against Rome, but this was the only form of Phoenician rebellion.

[alex33]

Wow. Its kinda weird that those kings back in the day didn't really associate themselves with any specific region. I wonder if there are books about this subject its actually quite interessting

[alex33]

i have another question. In "From Samarkhand to Sardis" there are some passages from letters various seleukid kings wrote to subjects. Are those real archeologicaly found letters/steles or are they stuff various historians like polybius recorded?

[Moros]

i have another question. In "From Samarkhand to Sardis" there are some passages from letters various seleukid kings wrote to subjects. Are those real archeologicaly found letters/steles or are they stuff various historians like polybius recorded?

Letters to a poleis were often copied and inscribed and publicly displayed at important places such as a temple for example.