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