Ancient Macedonia — Political Institutions
Macedonia was a Greek kingdom situated in the northern periphery of the Greek world. Its territory largely corresponds with the modern Greek province of Macedonia. The Kingdom was founded by the Argead dynasty (700–310 BC). A peripheral power before the fourth century, Macedonia rose to prominence under the leadership of Philip II ( 359–336 BC) and came to dominate the Greek world. Alexander the Great (336–323 BC) led the Macedonian army to Asia and conquered the Persian Empire, stretching his kingdom as far east as India. After death of Alexander and the fall of the Argead dynasty in the aftermath of the Wars of the Successors, Macedonia came under the rule of the Antigonid dynasty. It clashed with Rome in a series of wars, the final of which took place in 150–148 BC and resulted in the dismantlement of the kingdom.
This post will not concern itself with the above mentioned political and military developments. It shall instead focus on the political institutions of the Macedonian kingdom.
Macedonia was a monarchy, one of the few Greek states to retain this archaic institution. It was headed by a Basileus (King). Basilikoi paides (royal pages), somatophylakes (bodyguards), hetairoi (companions) or philoi (friends) were all close to the King and could influence him. An example being Hephaestion who served in the Companion cavalry and was a bodyguard (somatophylakas). Before going on, it should be noted that we are not in a position to know in great detail the organization of the Macedonian state due to the nature of the sources.
There are two positions on the nature of Macedonian kingship. The one (‘constitutional’) holds that the King wasn’t an absolute ruler and that the state was run according to traditions and laws. Aside from that, groups within the state had been granted customary rights. The nobility was dominant and the King first among equals but there was a slow evolution (especially under Philip II) to a military state wherein the King was supported by a body of citizen soldiers against the rival class of nobles. The army had the right to choose King and act as a judge in cases of treason. The second position (‘autocratic’) holds that the King ruled as an autocrat and that other political bodies, such as the army, were consulted on the whim of the King.
The title of Basileus is a Greek one. It was also used to denote the Kings of Sparta and the Great King of Persia. It had tribal origins: this was a title given to the head of a prominent family that was believed to be worthy due to his wisdom and skills to lead the tribe to war. By archaic times, the position had become hereditary. The Macedonian tribes of Lyncestae and Elimiotae of Upper Macedonia had their own Basileus, however, despite their autonomy, they were considered subject to the Basileus of Lower Macedonia.
Most of the time sons succeeded their fathers but primogeniture wasn’t always the case. When the heir was an infant or child, an adult (in many cases a brother of the deceased King) acted as regent. Sometimes regents could use their position to usurp power: Archelaus’ son Orestes was murdered by his regent Aeropus II.
The King was personally involved in directing foreign policy. He was the one that had to entertain foreign envoys and who negotiated. Macedonian kings also used royal marriages to form alliances. The King owned the natural resources of Macedon such as timber, silver and gold as well as royal land. With those resources, he could finance the military. The Macedonian King was first and foremost a warrior.
Although southern Greek found objectionable this idea of monarchy, in the fourth century philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle were favorable to the idea of a Philosopher-King (Plato was much opposed to Athenian democracy). Aristotle used the Macedonian kingship as a positive example of a monarchy (distinguishing from tyranny). Philip II and Alexander presented themselves as warrior-kings and lead their armies in person: Alexander himself was wounded numerous times.
Both of them granted lands and gifts to prominent aristocratic families to ensure their support. Sons of leading Macedonian noblemen became basilikoi paides (royal pages). The somatophylakes (bodyguards) were mainly recruited from noble families, some of them having royal blood. Hetairoi (companions) or philoi (friends) were in essence what we would call a court.
Symposia (banquets) took place in the court, where there was great consumption of wine accompanied by music. Sometimes this could lead to violence (Alexander behaved violently in some symposiums when drunk). The purpose of those banquets were to offer enjoyment to the courtiers of the King and reward them for their troubles (especially after hard campaigns) while also providing a venue for an interaction between the King and the elites.
Royal hunting was another important royal activity: the King and his friends would hunt together wild animals. Like the symposia, royal hunted served the purpose of bonding the King with his companions, provided some enjoyment from campaigns and served as a venue for interaction between the nobles and the monarch. It also served as a rather egalitarian exercise where everyone had the chance to prove his worth and it was a chance for the King to show his individual virtues and display his skills.
The army was also assembled at times. The King would give speeches that would boost morale and the trust of the army into the monarch. Proponents of the ‘constitutional’ theory argue that those assemblies had rights, such as choosing the successor to the throne or acting as judges in cases of treason.
After Alexander’s death and the break-up of his Empire into three distinct Kingdoms (and dozens smaller states in the periphery), in Macedonia the Argead dynasty was extinguished and replaced by the Antigonid dynasty founded by Antigonos Gonatas.
The Hellenistic Macedonian King was protected in his court by guards and the rhabdouchoi, stafff wielding ushers. The court also had a retinue and courtiers (hoi peri ten aulen). Some of them were impressive individuals who caught the attention of the King, such as philosopher Persaios of Kition, whereas others were noblemen. The court was of great importance, it was the place where decisions and governmental actions were created. Elements of continuity with the previous period can be seen in the land grants to Macedonian nobles on behalf of the King. There was a weakening of the unitary power of the King though and at times the succession could be anarchic and violent.
Court politics were bloody, with conspiracies, accusations of treachery, blackmails, executions and damnation of memory. When court ‘parties’ battled for influence in the court and one won, the losing courtiers would be damned and labelled as traitors and evil. The court was the center of governmental power but it was not fixed in one place: the monarch could travel with his court (as Philip V did or, in the previous period, Alexander the Great).
On a local level, the Antigonid kings relied on a number of officials for ensuring the conduct of state affairs. Such officials included the strategos, a military office, and the politarch, archon (ruler) of a polis (city). The cities of Macedon, much like those of the other Hellenistic states and in accordance with Greek traditions, were afforded a certain level of regional autonomy and the right to hold local assemblies, although such popular assemblies seem to have had a rather ceremonial role in actual governance.
