A comparable phenomenon is the competition between the major kingdoms in building ever more elaborate and impressive ships of war. Down to the time of Alexander the standard Greek warship was the trireme, a ship whose
design is much disputed (it either had three banks of oars or three men to an oar). From the end of the fourth century onwards the standard warship was the quinquireme, rowed with five men to an oar. There were also prestige
ships which reached fantastic sizes in the third century: we hear of a 'seven', 'eleven', 'thirteen', 'sixteen', 'twenty', 'thirty', and even a 'forty'. It is not clear how these ships actually worked, and their limited usefulness is indicated
by the fact that the Romans never found it necessary to employ such showy vessels. But this ancient naval arms race, along with the trouble taken to maintain a supply of elephants, are vivid tokens of the dependence of the kings
on military prestige.
Changes in siege techniques were of greater importance militarily. In the classical period good walls had been impregnable; the Spartans never even threatened the Long Walls which connected Athens to the sea. However, the
development of the torsion catapult, probably by Philip, tilted the balance decisively away from the besieged in favour of the besieger. Alexander's use of the catapult and of siege towers enabled him to capture every city he
assaulted. In response walls were made more sturdy, but further improvements were made in catapults. The patronage of Ptolemy II resulted in the discovery of formulas which enabled a precise calibration of the weight of
missile against desired range. Some cities did still make successful resistance, but by now no individual city could feel secure when faced with an assault by a king. This crucial fact underlies the dominance of kings over cities.
The Kings and the Cities
Reconciling the power of the kings with the traditions of the cities was a recurrent problem of the Hellenistic period. The kings had overwhelming superiority over almost all individual cities, while the cities possessed the ideal of
political independence. In the face of this contradiction, how could the kings wield their power and the cities maintain their dignity?
The problem was eased because the kings did not set out to impose positive policies on the cities. Like the early Roman Emperors, they were an essentially passive force, interested primarily in hegemony. They did not on the
whole issue direct instructions to their subject cities. There were, however, ways of ensuring that the royal will was followed. For example, Alexander wanted to have exiles restored to their cities, but he had no need to issue
orders directly to the cities. He had a letter read out at the Olympic games informing the assembled exiles that he would ensure their return. The operative legislation was carried out by the cities themselves. A decree of Mytilene
which was probably passed after this announcement happens to survive in part; it makes detailed arrangements for the restoration of exiles, but merely refers to 'the settlements which the king [Alexander] has determined' and
establishes a celebration of the king's birthday.
Without making crude interventions in cities, the kings infringed the freedom of cities both externally and internally. Externally they constrained the scope of a city's foreign policy, without having to direct it explicitly. Thus
Antioch on the Persian Gulf agreed to participate in the new games of Magnesia on the Maeander (a non-political act), but carefully avoided a direct response to Magnesia's request for special diplomatic status ('holy and
inviolate'). Despite its gratitude to Magnesia for having provided colonists, Antioch knew that this was a matter for the Seleucid king to decide.
Internally, the kings infringed civic freedom by raising large amounts of money from the cities. In principle all cities subject to particular kings were liable to pay them tribute, though the picture is obscure and we cannot quantify
total royal revenues. But the imposition of tribute on individual cities might be a heavy burden. Miletus, for example, once had to borrow money from another city in order to pay its annual tribute of 25 talents. The scale of the
tribute is clear not only from Miletus' difficulties but also from a comparison with the fifth century when the maximum Miletus is known to have paid Athens was only 10 talents. The kings also made special levies in case of war
and controlled certain local taxes.
Some cities were able to gain exemptions from these royal controls. Politically the king could permit a city 'freedom and autonomy', that is, the ability to determine its policies both internally and externally. 'Freedom and
autonomy' was a privilege, which the king could always rescind, but it should not therefore be seen as meaningless. The slogan, proclaimed by the immediate successors of Alexander, remained a potent political ideal and cities
treated it very seriously. Indeed one city (Colophon), when given its freedom at the end of the fourth century, decided to build itself fortifications, a vivid token of independence within the framework laid down by the kings.
Exemptions from financial obligations were also made. Tribute was the most resented royal imposition on the cities, as it had been in the fifth-century Athenian Empire, and some cities were fortunate enough to gain remission.
Miletus, when it passed into the Ptolemaic sphere of influence, was able to gain the remission of 'harsh and oppressive taxes and tolls which certain of the kings had imposed'. While some remissions were made by the kings as a
matter of principle, often they occurred in order to alleviate particular distress. Thus when the Seleucid king Antiochus III took over Teos in Ionia from the Attalid kingdom (in the words of a Tean decree), 'he saw that we were
exhausted both in our public and in our private affairs because of the continual wars and the great burden of contributions we were bearing ... He therefore granted to our city and territory to be holy, inviolate and free from
tribute, and undertook to free us himself from the other contributions we were paying to King Attalus [I].'
Subtle forms of indirect control over the cities also existed which helped to ensure peace and public order. First, in regulating the relations between two cities the kings adopted the traditional practice of appointing a third city as
an arbitrator. For example, when Antigonus wanted to ensure peaceful relations between two cities (Teos and Lebedus) which he wished to unite into one city, he appointed a third city (Mytilene) to settle any disputed lawsuits
between the members of the two cities.
Secondly, the kings or their officials used indirect means of ensuring harmony within cities. The judicial apparatus of individual cities often broke down because of internal political tensions; the problem was not new, but there
developed in the early Hellenistic age the practice of requesting another city to provide an impartial panel of judges. Such requests, particularly in the early part of the period, often originated with the king or one of his agents; for
example, a Ptolemaic official 'wishing the city [of Samos] to be in a state of concord, wrote a letter requesting the people of Myndus to send a panel of judges to settle the contracts in suspense.' The growth of this practice is
probably due to the concern of the kings that their cities be docile. Both practices, that of arbitration and that of foreign judges, were convenient devices enabling the kings to secure harmony between and within cities without
involving invidious direct interventions.
Civic Life Transformed
Royal control, even if mediated indirectly, had important implications for the internal politics of the subject cities. It underlies the paradox that, while democracy was accepted by all as the ideal civic constitution, in practice real
popular participation in government declined in the Hellenistic age and dominance by the wealthy increased.
Democracy was espoused by the kings from Alexander onwards. Alexander himself established democracies in place of tyrannies and oligarchies in the Greek cities of Asia Minor which he freed from Persian rule; this gross
interference with their internal affairs was presumably a popular move. His successors on the whole pursued the same policy. Thus the new cities established by Hellenistic kings were all, it seems, based upon democratic
principles; all had magistrates, a council, and a popular assembly. The old cities also continually asserted the desirability of democracy against oligarchy or tyranny. Citizens newly incorporated into the city of Cos had to swear