-
RhodesVINCENT GABRIELSEN
Rhodes is an island in the modern Dodecanese
in southeast Aegean, off the Carian coast of
Asia Minor. Pindar described this Dorian
island as three-city island (tripolis nasos),
referring to the fact that it was divided between
three city-states, IALYSOS, KAMEIROS, and LINDOS
(Pind. Ol. 7.18: 464). They are mentioned by
HOMER (Il. 2.6546), and continue to be
attested in the second century CE (I. Lindos
458). Until 408/7, they were separate
city-states (poleis). In addition to a number of
subsidiary settlements (e.g., Vroulia in sixth
century Lindos, the Makri Longini cemetery
in Kameiros), each POLIS had its own main
urban settlement and acropolis, for example,
the acropolis of Ialysos, the Achaia polis at
modern Philerimo (IG XII.1 677.14), and that
of Lindos in the town of Lindos (I. Lindos cols.
816). Also, each polis had its eponymous
official (e.g., the priest of Athana in Lindos
(I.Lindos 1), the damiourgos in Kameiros
(TitCam 1b.10)), and may also have had
its own calendar. All three poleis were members
of the Dorian hexapolis, later pentapolis
(Hdt. 1.144), and among the founders of
Hellenion at Naukratis (Hdt. 2.178). In the
sixth century BCE, they began issuing their
own coins (with the legends Ialysion, Lindion,
etc.), and in the fifth century they became
tribute-paying allies of Athens (IG I3 259.
III.8; IV.6, 261; IV.13; cf. Antiph. frs. 2533
Thalheim: peri tou Lindion phorou; see DELIAN
LEAGUE). The status of four communities, which
paid tribute on their own (Brikindarioi,
Diakrioi en Rhodoi, Lindion Oiiatai, and Pedieis
en Lindoi) is unknown. The federal state of
Rhodes, which was created in 408, possessed
territory beyond the island. By ca. 200, it
consisted of several islands (Alimnia, Chalke,
Karpathos, Kassos, Megiste, Nisyros, Saros,
Syme, and Telos), as well as part of western
CARIA (IK 38: I. Rhodischen Peraia), that is, the
Loryma peninsula including Kedreai (Sehir
Ada) and Physkos (Marmaris), in addition to
Stratonikeia, Kaunos, and Daidala. Modern
scholarship calls the latter Incorporated
Peraia (Bresson, Recueil), to distinguish it
from the Subject Peraia, that is, those parts
of Asia Minor that were under Rhodian influ-
ence, but outside the Rhodian state proper.
Some of the extra-island territories had been
acquired by each of the three cities before
their unification in 408 (Fraser and Bean
1954: 94).
Since Archaic times, Lindos was famed for
its naval strength, its sanctuary of Athena
(on the Lindian acropolis), and its connections
abroad, some of which were established by
the tyrant Kleoboulos. In the sixth century,
the Lindians carried out expeditions in
LYCIA (I. Lindos 2, XXII), founded colonies
(Gela in Sicily: Hdt. 7.153.1; possibly, Soloi in
Cilicia (Strabo 14.5.8)), enjoyed good relations
with the Pharaoh Amasis of Egypt (Hdt. 2.182;
I. Lindos 2, XXIX), while as late as 408 they
granted proxenia to an Aiginetan, who acted as
translator at Naukratis (I. Lindos 16. App.).
Ialysos owed much of its fame to
the achievements of the aristocratic family
of the Diagorids, especially the early fifth cen-
tury Olympic victories of Diagoras himself
(Pind. Ol. 7), whose son Dorieus, like
other members of the family, settled at
Thourioi after being exiled from Ialysos (Xen.
Hell. 1.5.19; Paus. 4.24.23). Compared to
Lindos and Ialysos, Kameiros, which still in
412/11 was unwalled (Thuc. 8.44.2), is less
noted for outward activities. However, it did
possess naval resources from early on (Hom. Il.
2.6546; Diod. Sic. 13.70.2, regarding 408)
and, in spite of its smaller territory
(ca. 265 km2, as opposed to ca. 790 and
345 km2 of Lindos and Ialysos, respectively),
its last recorded tribute payment to Athens
(416/15) is ten talents (IG I3 289.I.34), whereas
that of Ialysos (421/20) is only five talents
(ibid. 285.I.100).
Even before 408, there was a move toward
unity amongst the three city-states. Early
sources sometimes use the ethnic Rhodioi
The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine,
and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 58375843.
2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09211
1
-
(Hom. Il. 2.6536; Hekataios (FGrH 1: F246)
apud Steph. Byz. 376.15; Thuc. 6.43.1; IG I3
1032.934) or Rhodios (Dorieus Rhodios: Xen.
Hell. 1.2.2; Diod. Sic. 1.5.19); a fifth century
Athenian inscription mentions the ethnics
Rhodios and Lindios almost side by side (IG I3
1454). In Homer, Ialysos, Kameiros, and
Lindos constitute the three Dorian phylai
among which the inhabitants of the island
are distributed (kataphyladon: Il. 2.668). In
the fifth century, the three poleis shared
a common foundation myth, according to
which the brothers Kameiros, Ialysos, and
Lindos, the eponymous heroes of the
three Dorian phylai, were the grandsons of
Helios (Pind. Ol. 7.735; FGrH 523: Zenon
F1), a divinity worshiped by all Rhodians in
the fifth century (SEG 27.481). Before 408, the
sanctuary of Athena Lindia also had pan-
Rhodian significance: the Kamirans deposited
important documents there (TitCam 105.16),
and a golden-lettered copy of Pindars ode
that celebrates the Olympic victories by
Diagoras of Ialysos (Ol. 7) was also deposited
there (FGrH 515: Gorgon of Rhodes F18).
In 411, the citizens of the three poleis held
a common assembly, at which they decided
to defect from Athens and join Sparta
(Thuc. 8.44.2).
In 408, the three poleis carried out a political
merger (synoikismos), thus creating a federal
state (Diod. Sic. 13.75.1; Strabo 14.2.19;
Gabrielsen 2000). This merger had a physical
aspect: the creation of a new capital, Rhodos,
an amphitheater-shaped town (megala polis or
asty) which, built in the Hippodamian (i.e.,
orthogonal) grid-plan at the northernmost
tip of Ialysos, was inhabited by citizens from
the three poleis, as well as a great number
of foreigners (Diod. Sic. 20.84.3, referring to
305 BCE). Soon to become enclosed by formi-
dable fortified walls (Filimonos-Tsopotou
2004), Rhodos was girded by an extensive,
splendidly decorated necropolis (on the land-
ward side), and five spacious harbors, whose
naval section (some of it still visible at
Mandraki) contained shipsheds for one hun-
dred warships (Blackman, Knoblauch, and
Yiannikouri 1996). The new capital accommo-
dated the organs of the new federal govern-
ment (Arist. fr. 569 Rose: Rhodion politeia):
the assembly, which met in the theater (Polyb.
15.23.2); the council, whose members served
only for six months (IG XII.1 53) and which
was presided over by the prytaneis, another
half-yearly appointed board of usually five
members (Polyb.15.23.4; 22.5.10); the law
courts ((Dem.) 56.47) and a number of pub-
licly salaried offices (Hell.Oxy. 18.2; Arist. Pol.
1304b278). The latter feature, alongside Hel-
lenistic decrees passed in the name of
the People (damos) or the People and the
Council (Clara Rhodos 2 (1932) 16970, nos.
12), attests to the fact that Classical and Hel-
lenistic Rhodes, for most of the time, had
a democratic constitution (but see Strabo
14.2.5), even though an aristocracy of wealth
played a dominant part in politics and society
(Gabrielsen 1997). All this represents the con-
stitutional aspect of the merger, which might
have begun before 408 (I.Lindos 16; Gabrielsen
2000: 17980), and seemingly had not been
completed by ca. 394, when citizens of
Ialysos were appointed proxenoi by Athens
(SEG 27.48). The priest of Helios now became
the eponymous official of the federal polis of
Rhodes (SEG 12.360). Coins carrying a rose, or
the head of the nymph Rhodos, and the legend
Rhodion (reverse) and the head of Helios
(obverse) replaced those of the three cities as
the currency of the federal state, and
in Hellenistic times, attained an international
status (IG XII.5 815.39).
Even though Ialysos, Kameiros, and Lindos
became the phylai of the polis of Rhodes, and
were each divided into a number of demes (on
the island and in the incorporated territories
(Papachristodoulou 1989: 689), they contin-
ued to call themselves poleis, also in the polit-
ical sense, until the Roman period (IG XII.1
677.136; 58.21: Ialysos; I.Lindos 247.28, cf.
TitCam 89.9: Lindos); Kameiros (with
Karpathos and Syme) had territorial subdivi-
sions of the demes that were called ktoinai
(TitCam 110.12). Each polis, in addition to
sending representatives to the federal bodies
2
-
of government, retained its own assembly,
council (mastroi), and officials (epistatai), and
its assembled citizenry (ho damos, to plethos: IG
XII.1 677) passed resolutions in their own and
the councils name (edoxe mastrois kai Lindiois:
IG XII.1 761); however, their resolutions
regarded only certain local matters, as foreign
policy and other matters were the responsibility
of the federal assembly, which was called ho
sympas (or ho pas) damos in order to distin-
guish it from the assemblies of the three poleis.
Post-408, Ialysos, Kameiros, and Lindos thus
exemplify what has been labeled the dependent
polis.
From ca. mid-fourth century on, but
especially in Hellenistic times, Rhodes obtained
considerable fame as a naval power and a center
of learning (e.g., in rhetoric), science (e.g.,
astronomy), and arts (e.g., sculpture). But it
was her renown as a central and rich in
credit-institutions (Dem. 56.17; Polyb.
31.31.12; NSill. 19) trading port, which
more than anything else attracted a great num-
ber of foreigners to the island (Lycurg. 1.15;
Dem. 56.68) where, together with citizens,
they enriched Rhodian social and religious life
with a plethora of cult associations (IG XII.1
155), and took care of Rhodes commercial
relations with, among other places, island
Greece (Syll.3 493: Histiaia), the northern
Black Sea (Kontorini, Archaiognosia 2 (1981)
22431: Olbia), Syria, Pamphylia, Cilicia
(Polyaen. Strat. 4.6.16), Phoenicia, and Egypt
(P.Ryl. 554). Until 167, Rhodes income from
harbor dues was one million drachmas a year
(Polyb. 30.31.12). A prime type of evidence for
the volume and extent of the Rhodian trade in
wine and other products consists of the
Rhodian amphorae that have been unearthed
across the Mediterranean world (Lund 1999),
particularly at Rhodes main commercial part-
ner, Egypt, where Alexandria alone stands for
well over one hundred and forty thousand spec-
imens (Empereur, BCH 106 (1982) 21923). In
return, Rhodes took shipments of grain,
for her own use and for distribution abroad
(Arist. Oec. 2.33a, 1352a1617, 1352b1519;
Dem. 56.68; Syll.3 354).
From 408 on, it is the unified polis of Rhodes
that features prominently in international pol-
itics, particularly during her ascent to the posi-
tion of a significant power in Hellenistic times
(Berthold 1984; Wiemer 2002). Rhodes mem-
bership of the Peloponnesian alliance in 411
entailed financial obligations (payment of 32
talents: Thuc. 8.44.1) and was short-lived.
Resumption of good relations with Athens by
396 was soon followed (395) by a Diagorid-
backed democratic revolt (Hell.Oxy. 18.13
Chambers). In 378/7, Rhodes joined the Sec-
ond Athenian League (IG II2 43.82). But in
357355 she revolted together with other allies,
only to come under the rule of Mausolos of
Caria, who also instigated an oligarchic coup
(Dem. 15.3, 5, 1415; FGrH 115: Theopompos
F121; Polyaen. Strat. 7.23.1; the coup in Arist.
Pol. 1302b215, 1304b2731 is an earlier event,
of 391: Diod. Sic. 14.97.14, 99.5). Then,
in 332, following demonstration of loyalty to
Persia the Rhodian brothers Memnon and
Mentor helped the Great King re-conquer
Egypt and fight Philip II Rhodes came
under the rule of Alexander (Arr. Anab.
2.20.2; Diod. Sic. 18.8.1), who after Gaugamela
(331) sent lavish dedications to Athana Lindia
(I.Lindos 2, XXXVIII). Even though Rhodes
tried to maintain good relations with all sides
during the wars of the Successors, she never-
theless inclined towards a particular ruler.
Strong economic links with Egypt had
already been established under KLEOMENES OF
NAUKRATIS (Dem. 56 esp. 78; Arist. Oec. 2.33a,
1352a1617, 1352b1519). However, under
the Ptolemies, these links became so
strong and entangled with common political
interests (Diod. Sic. 20.81; Strabo 14.2.5) that
the resulting three-centuries-long and special
relationship of complementarity between
them interrupted only once ca. 250 (Polyaen.
Strat. 5.18; I.Lindos 2 XXXVII) influenced
greatly the trajectory followed by Rhodian his-
tory and society. In 305304, Rhodes paid the
price of loyalty towards PTOLEMY I SOTER by
enduring the fearsome siege launched by his
archrivals, ANTIGONOS I MONOPHTHALMOS and his
son DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES, whose nickname
3
-
Poliorketes, meaning Besieger, was a conse-
quence of his tactical inventiveness (Diod. Sic.
20.19100.4). A late-Hellenistic historical
account, perhaps authored by a Rhodian,
credits the Rhodians with crucial diplomatic
support to Ptolemy on his assumption (306)
of the title of king (P.Koln VI 247). However,
more factual is Diodorus report (20.99.3,
100.34) that in the post-siege alliance with
Antigonos the Rhodians added a non-
aggression clause against Egypt, honored Ptol-
emy with the construction of the Ptolemaion
(Filimonos-Tsopotou 1989), and established
a cult bearing the rulers name. To commemo-
rate their survival of the siege in 404, the
Rhodians from the sale of Demetrios siege
train constructed a colossal bronze statue of
Helios, known as the Colossus of Rhodes,
one of the seven wonders of the ancient world
(Phil. Byz. Mirab. 4.6; see WONDERS OF THE
WORLD).
The Colossus, large parts of the city-walls,
the dockyards, and much else collapsed during
the earthquake of 227/6, a disastrous event
which the Rhodians exploited with diplomatic
dexterity in order to obtain lavish gifts from
the major Hellenistic monarchies (PTOLEMY III
EUERGETES outclassing all others) and
a number of dynasts (Polyb. 5.8890.4). The
nature of the gifts vast amounts of grain,
cash, and naval material reflects the expecta-
tions of the givers from a consummate sea
power; and also Rhodes success in convincing
them of her ability to act as caretaker of their
interest: naval, commercial, or both. Voluntary
tribute (hekousioi phoroi) is what Diodorus
(31.36) calls such gifts from the kings, thus
hinting at the existence of a reciprocal relation-
ship characteristic of royal benefaction
(euergesia), but with reverse power implications.
In 220, championing the cause of several mari-
time states, Rhodes declared war against
Byzantium, because that city, to the detriment
of the commerce between the Black Sea and the
Mediterranean, began imposing a toll on the
shipping sailing through the Straits (Polyb.
4.46.547.6). Rhodes took seriously her duty, as
an acknowledged naval power, to offer
protection (phylake) at sea, and advertised its
expertise in this area by calling a special class of
choice warships in her fleet protection ships
(phylakides nees: Diod. Sic. 20.93.5; Rivista
di Filologia 60 (1932) 452, II). In as much as
protection also meant keeping commercial
shipping safe from piracy (Diod. Sic. 20.81;
I.Lindos 88; Syll.3 581.508, 803; see PIRACY),
political and military objectives converged
with economic ones. Rhodes, writes Strabo
(14.2.5):
. . .is also remarkable for its good order (eunomia)and for the care it devotes to the rest of its admin-
istration and especially to naval matters; as
a result it controlled the seas for a long time and
destroyed piracy, and became a friend to the
Romans and to those of the kings who were
well-disposed both to the Romans and to Greeks.
Consequently it has preserved its independence
and been adorned with numerous votive offerings.
Archaeological and written sources confirm
that Strabos description is especially valid for
the period ca. 220167. During that period,
Rhodes extended substantially its political
influence in three areas. First, in the Aegean,
by creating a protectorate of several islands
(Ios: IG XII.5, 8 and 1009; Delos: Syll.3 455;
IG XI.4 596) and by assuming a leading role in
the League of the (Cycladic) Islanders (Livy
31.15.8; Gabrielsen 1997: 569; see LEAGUE OF
ISLANDERS (NESIOTIC LEAGUE)). Second, in eastern
Crete, by bringing Hierapytna and other cities
under a formal obligation to serve as naval
bases and manpower suppliers for Rhodian
(esp. anti-pirate) campaigns (Syll.3 581, of ca.
200; Chaniotis, Chiron 21 (1991) 24164). And
third, in Asia Minor, where Rhodes enlarged its
Subject Peraia through military force, pur-
chase (Kaunos: Polyb. 30.316), penetration of
a local federal organization (the Chrysaoric
Federation: SEG 53.1229; Strabo 14.2.25), the
receipt, as gifts, of Stratonikeia (given by the
Seleucids, possibly before 225: Polyb. 30.31.6)
and of Caria south of the River Maeander
together with Lycia (given by the Romans in
188: Polyb. 30.31.4, cf. 22.5.2), or, finally,
4
-
through the empire-by-invitation method,
according to which a community voluntarily
placed itself under Rhodian command (Kalynda
in 164: Polyb. 31.45). Irrespective of the mode
into which a community entered the Rhodian
sphere of influence, its position vis-a`-vis Rhodes
seems, in most cases, to have been regulated by
a formal alliance. Hardly a practitioner of soft
imperialism, Rhodes preferred nonetheless to
be seen as a magnanimous leader of allies, not
as an oppressive ruler of subjects (Gabrielsen
1997: 50). Again, political objectives in Asia
Minor went in tandem with economic interests:
in the peace of Apamea between ANTIOCHOS III
MEGAS and the Romans (188) (see APAMEA, PEACE
OF), special clauses guaranteed the ownership of
such private property, in the territory subject to
Antiochos, as belonged to the Rhodians and
their allies, and ordained the restitution of pos-
sessions that the latter had forfeited during the
war (Polyb. 21.43.1617).
During Romes major conflicts with the
Hellenistic monarchies, Rhodes consistently
placed her loyalty with Rome (see MACEDONIAN
WARS). A main motive for choosing the Roman
side in the SecondMacedonianWar (200196)
was the real threat to Rhodian interests posed
by Philip V in Asia Minor (I.Lindos 151.15;
Livy 33.18.12), the Aegean, and Crete (Polyb.
18.54.810; Diod. Sic. 28.1.11). But when
Rhodes joined Rome against Antiochos III,
that war was almost a year old (191: Livy
36.42.8, 43.1213), and the predominantmotive
may have been foresight about whowas going to
win andhowwell thiswinner intended to reward
Rhodes rival, PERGAMON, for its assistance; con-
siderable weight would also have been attached
to the near impossibility, since 197, of challeng-
ing or disregarding the Romans reputation as
champions of the freedom of the Greeks and
as saviors (soteres) (see Flamininus proclama-
tion at Corinth: Polyb. 18.446). Likewise, when
Mithradates VI of Pontos, another self-
proclaimed savior, later challenged Roman
rule (8864), the Rhodians stayed firmly at
Romes side: the price they paid for their loyalty
was Mithradates siege of their city (88) with
sophisticated war engines, for example, the
sambuca, a siege machine carried by two ships
(App. Mithr. 267); their reward was donation
of territories by SULLA after the wars (64) (see
MITHRADATES IVI; MITHRADATIC WARS).
Apparently, the only departure from the pro-
Roman stance was the Third Macedonian War
(171167; see MACEDONIAN WARS), when the
Rhodians were accused by the Romans of
supporting their enemy, king PERSEUS. To punish
the Rhodians for this alleged disloyalty, the
Senate rescinded its donation of 188 (Caria and
Lycia), and sought to harm the Rhodian harbor
revenues by making DELOS a tax-free port
(Polyb. 30.31.116). How true the accusations
were cannot be determined, and surviving bits
of M. Porcius Catos speech on the issue imply
that the Senate, seeing how rapidly a Greek
polis was ascending, found it pertinent to
clip its wings (Gell. 6.3.50Malcovati ORF3frs. 16371; see CATO, MARCUS PORCIUS (CATO THE
ELDER)). Yet ca. 164, the Rhodians, at their own
request, obtained a formal foedus with Rome
(Polyb. 30.31.1920; Livy Per. 46), whom
ca. 100 they assisted in anti-pirate campaigns
(Hassall et al., JRS 64 (1974) 195220). During
the Roman Civil Wars, the Rhodians supported
POMPEY (App. B Civ. 2.83), then JULIUS CAESAR
(ibid 2.89), then they resisted the wrong
belligerent, Cassius, who in 43 sacked their
city (App. B Civ. 4.724), while soon after
(42) Cassius Parmensis burned part of the
Rhodian fleet and took the rest. To thank the
Rhodians for their resistance to Cassius, Antony
(in 40) gave them Andros, Naxos, Tenos, and
Myndos (App. B Civ. 5.7; see ANTONIUS,MARCUS),
but Octavian (AUGUSTUS) rescinded these
gifts after Actium (31). The definite end
of autonomy came in 44, when CLAUDIUS incor-
porated Rhodes into the province of Asia
(Cass. Dio 60.24.4; see ASIA, ROMAN PROVINCE
OF). The glorious days were, however, long
gone. What the Lindians did in 99 hark
back to a glorious past by compiling their
Lindian Temple Chronicle (I.Lindos 2)
reflects accurately a concern common to the
whole Rhodian state at the time: to carve for
itself a reasonably decent place within a wider
Roman political space.
5
-
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS
Berthold, R. M. (1984) Rhodes in the Hellenistic age.
London.
Blinkenberg, C. (1941) Lindos II: inscriptions.
Copenhagen (I. Lindos).Blackman, D. J., Knoblauch, P., and Yiannikouri, A.
(1996) Die Schiffshauser am
Mandrakihafen in Rhodos. Archaologischer
Anzeiger: 371426.
Filimonos-Tsopotou, M. (1989) na ngumnsi stZ d kai Z maRtuRa tuDidRu, XX, 100, 34.R pRt: gumnsi. Lantiquite classique 58:12856.
Filimonos-Tsopotou, M. (2004) llZnistikwrosZ tZ du. d . Athens.
Fraser, P. M. and Bean, G. E. (1954) The Rhodian
Peraia and islands. Oxford.
Gabrielsen, V. (1997) The naval aristocracy of
Hellenistic Rhodes. Aarhus.
Gabrielsen, V. (2000) The synoikized state of
Rhodes. In P. Flensted-Jensen, T. H. Nielsen, and
L. Rubinstein, eds., Polis and politics. Studies in
ancient Greek history presented to Mogens Herman
Hansen on his 60th birthday, August 20, 2000:
177205. Copenhagen.
Lund, J. (1999) Rhodian amphorae in Rhodes
and Alexandria as indicators of trade. In
V. Gabrielsen, ed., Hellenistic Rhodes: politics,
culture and society: 187204. Aarhus.
Maiuri, A. 1925. Nuova silloge epigrafica di Rodi e
Cos. Florence (NSill).Papachristodoulou, I. (1989) i rwai diakdmi. strik episkpisZ alusa.Athens.
Segre, M., and Pugliese Carratelli, G. (1952) Tituli
Camirenses. Rome (originally published in
Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene
1113 (194951): 141318, with supplement
in vols. 1416 (19524): 21146
(TitCam)).Wiemer, H.-U. (2002) Krieg, Handel und Piraterie.
Untersuchugen zur Geschichte des hellenistischen
Rhodos. Berlin.
6