It has often been said that after Alexander, in a world dominated by territorial monarchies, the Greek city was now ‘dead’ as an institution, but this view has come under considerable critical scrutiny. While it is true that the old leading cities – Athens, Sparta, Syracuse in Sicily, and a few others – could no longer maintain their former predominance, the position of many smaller ones was no more precarious now than before, and the aspiration for independence remained alive. Rhodes actually became more powerful in this period than she had been before, though this was an exceptional case. Thanks to the foundations of Alexander but especially his Successors Greek cities multiplied and were to be found scattered over a much larger area which now extended deep inland into Asia in Asia; in Egypt). The life and activities of many Greek cities are more fully documented in this period than before thanks to the spread of the ‘epigraphic habit’ in the post-classical world. It will be seen that the majority of texts in this chapter are inscriptions and not literary sources.

This chapter concentrates on what could be described as the ‘old Greek world’, centred around the Aegean basin (the west is largely omitted, though the ‘new Greek world’ of the monarchies in Asia and Egypt is covered in subsequent chapters. The chapter is divided for convenience into four sections. The first comprises texts arranged geographically: Central Greece, the Peloponnese, the Aegean and the islands, the Black Sea area.

The Seleucid empire, created by Seleucus I through conquest, was territorially the largest and most diverse of all Hellenistic empires. Starting from Babylonia, Seleucus expanded eastwards as far as Bactria, added North Syria after the battle of Ipsus, and at the end of his career western Asia Minor as well as a foothold in Thrace. Later Antiochus III added Coele Syria which he captured from Ptolemy V. Though comprising a multiplicity of non-Greek peoples and cultures, the Seleucid empire is known predominantly from Greek or Graeco-Roman evidence. Non-Greek perspectives are only rarely available, except for those parts of the empire that had their own literary or documentary traditions, notably Babylonia and Judaea. The empire was a conglomerate of many peoples and entities. The kings promoted the settlement of Greek-type cities, imported manpower from the Greek world as well as their own cults, but did not attempt to impose any cultural or religious uniformity on their empire contrast. The unifying element was provided by the king himself and his dynasty, his close followers, most of them apparently of Greek/Macedonian origin or culture, and his military forces, more mixed in composition. The kings were primarily warriors in action who campaigned personally throughout their empire and handled relations with subject states and foreign powers, either in person, or through their officials. What is known of the imperial administration shows varying degrees of complexity as well as efficiency, depending on the context.

The Antigonids took longer to secure their position than their rivals the Ptolemies and Seleucids. For the Successors possession of the Macedonian kingdom was an irresistible temptation, and competition was intense, especially after the death of Cassander. Further instability in Macedon was caused by the Celtic invasion, but it also gave Antigonus Gonatas the opportunity to establish himself and his dynasty in the country. But Macedonian power remained contested and was never again as dominant as under Philip II and Alexander. Besides constant pressure from the northern hinterland, and the hostility of the Ptolemies who sought to counteract any resurgence of Antigonid power in the Aegean, the Greek world to the south presented problems of a kind that the monarchies in Asia, ruling over predominantly non-Greek populations, did not face. Though unable to challenge successfully Macedonian overlordship Athens could not be reconciled to it. Sparta under the leadership of ambitious kings obstinately tried to restore her power in the Peloponnese. though with disastrous results in the end. In regions of the Greek world that had not hitherto played a major role new political organisations emerged: the Aetolian League in north-west Greece and the Achaean League in the northern Peloponnese, which for a while successfully challenged Macedonian power, before being curtailed by Antigonus Doson. On the eve of Roman intervention the Greek mainland remained as disunited as before.

While sharing features common to all the monarchies of the age, the Ptolemaic dynasty was peculiar in several respects because of its location in Egypt and its position in the world of the time. The monarchy was doublefaced and thus ambiguous in character; the rulers were successors to the Pharaohs in Egypt, but at the same time Greek-style kings in a wider international context. The availability of a wealth of evidence from Egypt, especially papyri, which supplements Greek literary and epigraphic sources, means also that Ptolemaic history is more fully documented than that of its rivals.

Based in an ancient land with a strong identity, the Ptolemies could not avoid adapting to Egyptian traditions of monarchy and conciliating the powerful native priesthood. The occasional incidence of brother– sister marriage in the dynasty may have reflected Egyptian influence. The foundation of Ptolemaic prosperity was the agricultural wealth of the sheltered Nile valley and the labour of the large Egyptian population.

Yet in parallel with this the Ptolemies were seen as members of the international ‘royal club’, active in the wider Greek world, anxious to patronise Greek culture and promote themselves to Greek audiences, and involved in a protracted rivalry with the Antigonids in Macedon and the Seleucids in Asia (for the so-called ‘Syrian Wars’ cf. successively 163, 183, 266, 275, 193, 211). ‘The kings of Egypt liked to be called Macedonians, as in fact they were,’ notes Pausanias (X.7.8, cf. VI.3.1). The dynasty closely identified with Alexander, and intermarried not with Egyptians but with dynasties outside Egypt.

The Attalids differed in several ways from the Antigonids, Seleucids and Ptolemies. Like the rulers of Bithynia, Pontus and other monarchies (chapter 3, Introduction), they were not part of the Macedonian ‘royal club’ of the first generation after Alexander (chapter 2), but started under Philetaerus as local rulers in Pergamum with initially limited territory, and only achieved their royal status under Attalus I, the third ruler in the dynasty. The dynasty prided itself on its cohesiveness and freedom from internal challenges, in contrast to the Seleucids and Ptolemies. Unlike the Seleucids and Ptolemies, the Attalid rulers avoided deification of themselves in their lifetime. They sided with Rome in her intervention against Philip V then Antiochus III and as a result achieved their greatest power and prosperity when those monarchies had been curtailed by defeat at Roman hands. It was therefore appropriate that Rome should eventually inherit the kingdom she had helped to build up. Pergamum, the Attalids' capital city, maintained civic forms but was closely controlled by the rulers and lavishly beautified by them. From the beginning the Attalids cultivated their reputation in the Greek world, locally in Asia Minor, and further afield in the Aegean and on the mainland. Adapting the pose of classical Athens against the ‘barbarians of Asia’, they presented themselves as champions of the Greek world against the Celtic invaders in Anatolia. The reputation they enjoy in Greek sources is, not surprisingly, predominantly favourable.

Histories and surveys of the Hellenistic world commonly begin with the death of Alexander in 323. This may be justified if the subject is to be kept within manageable limits, yet the invasion of the Persian empire is arguably the natural starting point.

Alexander is by himself a large subject, and this chapter can only highlight major episodes and themes in his career, with emphasis on those of particular relevance for Alexander's ‘Successors’ and the world after him. The conquest of the Persian empire, the most profitable war of its kind in antiquity, was the precondition for the expansion of the Greek world and the influx of Greek settlers into western Asia. The result was not the literal ‘hellenisation’ of Asia, despite some optimistic generalisations, but it changed the face of the east, though Greeks remained numerically a minority amidst the indigenous populations. The movement of colonists during Alexander's time was apparently on a modest scale, and there is evidence of reluctance on their part to settle far away from the Aegean world. But the process gathered momentum after Alexander's death, as the consequences of the disappearance of the Persian empire became clear and the new rulers were anxious to attract Greek settlers to their emerging kingdoms. Alexander's own city foundations were seemingly few in number and not initially very successful, but they were important in starting a movement which his Successors pursued on a larger scale after his death.

This is the second and enlarged edition of a book first published in 1981 under the title The Hellenistic world from Alexander to the Roman conquest. A selection of ancient sources in translation. Since its original publication there has been a veritable explosion of scholarly work on this period, and the Hellenistic age has moved from a relatively marginal position in academic curricula to one where it is entitled to receive the same kind of attention as any other period in antiquity. I am very grateful to Cambridge University Press for giving me the opportunity to revisit the work after more than twenty years and take into account the development of scholarship that has taken place in the intervening period.

The new edition is similar in scope, purpose and design to the first one, and all the texts previously included have been retained. Nearly 50 texts have been added, some newly discovered or recently published, others already known but not included in the first edition. The book has been completely revised and updated. The structure and presentation of the original has been preserved, though for the sake of clarity chapter 5 (The Seleucids and Asia) is now organised in a single chronological section and chapter 7 (The Ptolemies and Egypt) has been divided into two not three sections, both organised chronologically. Each chapter has been provided with a short introduction to give a conspectus of the texts included.

The importance of the Sun as the most observable of all stars cannot be overstated. As shown in Figure 15.1, no other star can be studied with the degree of detail that we achieve in even the simplest observations of this source of all of our light and energy. As a result, what we have learned from the Sun we have applied in our study and analysis of the stars. Our knowledge of the sizes and distances of the stars is based upon our knowledge of the Sun. Also, we calibrate the luminosities of the stars in terms of our measurements of the output of energy from the Sun. In this chapter we shall first describe methods of observing the Sun in simple ways that can be used by anyone with a telescope. Then, we shall move on to more specialized methods and instruments that are used at observatories dedicated mainly to solar research.

Observing the Sun with a small telescope

The Sun is so bright that one should never try to make direct, naked-eye or telescopic observations of it. This is an absolute rule, for the observer can be blinded by even a brief attempt. There are, however, safe ways to view the Sun, and some of these require no complex equipment.

The most readily available method of seeing the Sun's apparent surface or photosphere is by means of eyepiece projection.