Brittany Amerson11260096History 101.1Discussion Leader Chapter 4 Paper

The Hellenistic Era was characterized not by an end in Greek culture, but the birth of a

new age, bursting with breakthroughs in science, literature, the arts, changes in political systems

and philosophy. This era started with King Phillip II and the Macedonians defeating the Athens

at the Battle of Chaerona in 338 B.C.E., and Alexander the Great continuing the Macedonian

conquest of surrounding areas. After his father’s death, Alexander invaded the Persian Empire,

and eventually controlled a major chunk of Asia Minor, ancient Mesopotamia lands, the area of

modern Pakistan, and almost succeeded in taking control over northwestern India had it not been

for his death. After his death, the Greek polis did not emerge again, but rather bustling cities, in

which monarchs had control over. These cities are from what the new Greek culture emerged

from, as monarchs encouraged Greeks to migrate and spread out through the conquered areas.

This chapter has a few overarching themes, one of which being the importance and

emphasis on war in Greek society. Just like in Classical Greece, war was heavily prevalent in the

Hellenistic Era. It was war that brought the Hellenistic Era into existence, because without

Phillip II and later Alexander the Great, the Macedonians would not have taken over Greece and

a major part of the Persian Empire. If it wasn’t for Alexander invading the Persian Empire the

Greeks may not have spread throughout Western Asia and Eastern Europe, which may have

prevented the flourishing culture and innovative ideas that came about during this time.

Having an enriched and fulfilling culture was also a noticeable theme in the chapter. This

time period involved the development of the arts, the sciences, literature and philosophy just like

in Classical Greece. Literature in the Hellenistic Era was made memorable due to Meander, an

Athenian playwright, whose writings were some of the most representative of New Comedy, and

the historian Polybius who approached chronicling events using first hand accounts and looking

at sources critically, rather than just one-sided. Art was memorable as artists began to shift from

idealism and classicism to a more realistic way of depicting people and subjects as they appear in

everyday life. Science began to separate itself from philosophy more, contrary to Classical

Greece. Archimedes’ findings contributed greatly to subject of geometry, as he studied spheres

and cylinders, along with discovering pi. Philosophy in the Hellenistic Ear also blossomed, with

the creation of two schools of thought Epicureanism and Stoicism.

One of the more interesting aspects of this chapter were the developing opportunities

available to women. In Classical Greece women really had no power unless they were from

Sparta, whereas during this time records have shown that women, particularly those in the upper

class began to have more power. Women were known to be more involved in selling and buying

property, the management of slaves and creating loans. Though women could create and sign

their own legal documents, their male guardians such as their husband or relatives had to be

present, to satisfy legal requirements, even though they were not directly involved. Some

philosophers supported and encouraged female involvement in traditional men affairs. Though

women rights did progress, most men still believed women should keep their traditional roles

and not do much outside of the house.

The concept of mystery cults and religions were also very interesting. Classical Greeks

traditionally believed in a Pantheon of Gods, who would bring good fortune in the specific areas

they represented if you worshipped and practiced right. Mystery religions however promised

individual salvation, usually meaning eternal life, like in the case of the Egyptian cult of Isis.

These mystery religions are thought to have paved the way for the beginnings of Christianity.

The purpose of this chapter I believe was to not only discuss the conquests of the

Macedonians and the effect it had on the world, but also to show that conquest is not necessarily

always a bad thing. Without the conquest of Phillip II and Alexander the Great, the new ideas

and beliefs that were formed during this period might not have happened so soon, let alone at all.

The conquest of the Macedonians also led to the mixing of different peoples of different ethic

groups, which also might not have happened so rapidly if not for conquest.

There are a few questions I would like to pose to the class with the first being: what are

the differences between Stoicism and Epicureanism? The answer to this lies in just looking in the

text and differentiating the two. Eupicureanism came from Epicurus who believed that though

the gods existed, they did not play an active role in controlling a person’s life or in the world;

they were just there. This meant that people could be free to pursue pleasure, with happiness

being the main goal in life. Pleasure was not physical; it was having a restful mind that was free

of worry. Friendship was also valued very highly, as a life could only be complete when it was

centered on maintaining good friendships. Stoicism though alike Eupicureanism in the way that

individuals were supposed to seek happiness, differed in the fact that happiness could only be

found through living in harmony with the divine will, essentially the laws of nature. This

philosophy led to people pretty much just going with the flow and accepting whatever came to

them, as to challenge what was happening to them was to challenge the laws of nature. Stoics

also thought that each person had a divine spark within them, leading to the belief that the world

was made up of a society of equal human beings. Equal did not mean equal in body (like slaves)

both rather equal in spirit. This oneness came from the belief that a divine principle is present

throughout the universe. Another question I would like to ask is what would happen if if

Alexander the Great succeeded in his conquest of India? This is a more open-ended question that

is open to interpretation. However, I believe that if he had succeeded there would definitely be

more of a Greek influence in the majority of Asia, as I think Alexander would have continued his

conquest until he had control of all of Asia. This conquest would be so vast that the effects of his

invasion could possibly be seen today in those areas had he succeeded. My last question that I

hope to pose to the class is why did Hellenistic cities play such a major role in the spread of

Greek culture? I believe that because of the cities, people had a place to gather and spread ideas

and beliefs, as many cities contained more than just people of Greek descent, but also peoples

who had been conquered. Also, kings encouraged Greek people and Macedonians to migrate to

newer cities because not they did not only bring manpower in the sense of recruits for armies, but

they brought along their talents, trades and skills to make cities more interesting, diverse and

powerful. These cities are one of the main reasons why culture in the Hellenistic culture

flourished.