1

Administration,
Hellenistic
VOLKER GRIEB

Administration in the ancient world was

regarded as a means of ruling and therefore
has to be understood as a form of government.
In Hellenistic times, the variety of states
and communities with state-like structures
kingdoms, city-states (poleis), leagues (koina),
and sanctuaries led to diverse forms of
administration. Military, financial, religious,
and economic matters would all have been
included.
In contrast to Classical times, it was
kingdoms that dominated the Hellenistic era.
With the exception of MACEDONIA these
Greek kingdoms emerged out of Alexanders
conquest of the Persian Empire and so ruled
territory well beyond the traditional confines
of the Greek world. Within the kingdoms,
independent development and individual
adoption of regionally established administrative structures can be observed (see SELEUCIDS;
ANTIGONIDS; PERGAMON). However, sources for
royal administration are rare and leave many
details uncertain. Only for Hellenistic Egypt do
we have extensive knowledge due to the large
number of local sources (see ADMINISTRATION,
PTOLEMAIC EGYPT).
Within the Hellenistic monarchies, the king
(basileus) embodied the state and was identical
with it. In addition to a standing mercenary
army, his main source of power was a considerable and hierarchically structured administration of which he was the head (see Allen
1983; Hatzopoulos 1996). High officials were
mostly chosen directly or indirectly by the king
himself. The chief minister in the Seleucid
Empire, for example, was called ho epi ton
pragmaton, or the one in charge of affairs
(later also in Pergamon). Candidates usually
had close relation with the kings family or had
been friends of the king himself (see FRIENDS OF
THE KING). The central authorities (e.g., the
central archives, departments of finance and

military, and royal office) were located in the

centers of the kingdom (e.g., Pergamon for the
Attalids; and Antioch, Seleukeia, or Babylon
for the Seleucids). In the kingdoms provinces,
usually a strategos was head of administration
(a satrap in the Seleucid satrapies). He was
obliged to the king and had military as well as
civil duties. Instead of laws common in Greek
city-states in Hellenistic kingdoms, the royal
office issued instructions to express the will of
the king; these were called diagrammata
(regulations) (see DIAGRAMMA), prostagmata
(orders by the king and his officials), or
epistolai programmata (dispositions). In principle, the aim was to subjugate everything
within the royal territory to the will of the king
and thereby to consolidate his power. The Seleucids in particular founded many new cities and
military colonies that were directly controlled by
the king (see FOUNDATIONS (HELLENISTIC)).
In independent as well as dependent citystates, democracy (see DEMOCRACY, HELLENISTIC)
was the most common form of political organization in Hellenistic times. Therefore the
administration was also organized democratically and was in the hands of the citizen-body
but not in the hands of professional officials as
in monarchies. The citys duties (military, economic, or religious) were assigned to different
offices of which only a few required specific
skills (e.g., strategos) or financial qualifications
(for financial administration in Hellenistic cities, see Migeotte 2006; Rhodes 2007), while
most of the administration could be assigned
to all citizens. A large number of offices existed
in each city-state (e.g., astynomoi, agonothetai,
and choregoi; see POLIS; cf. Dmitriev 2005;
Frohlich 2004); a distinction between political
and administrative offices in the modern sense
was unknown. Several inscriptions with largescale inventories (e.g., for treasuries, subscriptions, or ship arsenals) show that extensive
record keeping can be assumed. Local administration in subdivisions of the polis (e.g., phylai
or demoi) could also be extensive and was
exercised by the citizens (see Jones 1987).
Territorial possessions that were not integrated

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 7779.
2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09006

2
into the community of the city-state usually
kept their former regional administrative structures, and the polis domination was secured by
local governors (strategoi) elected by and from
the citizens (cf. Rhodes and its supremacy in
Caria and Lycia). In this sense, city-states controlled their subject territory in the same way as
the kings did. Established city-states that were of
importance for and dominated by kings usually
retained their own administration. The kings
influence was ensured by officials, who were
obliged to him and could intervene in the citys
policies (e.g., Athens under Macedonian rule).
Within the Hellenistic leagues (see Larsen
1968), poleis maintained their local administration, while the KOINON was responsible
for the higher officials. The structure of the
administration was similar to that of city-states
and included the leagues assembly, its council,
and several officials with administrative duties
in the fields of foreign policy, military, finance,
or legislation (e.g., strategoi, hipparchoi, grammateus, tamiai, and nomographoi); their names
could vary from koinon to koinon (see ACHAIAN
LEAGUE; AITOLIAN LEAGUE). Every citizen had the
right to participate in the leagues assembly,
where officials were elected for one year.
Assemblies met only a few times per year
(e.g., four times in the Achaian League), so
that citizens had less political influence and
administrative participation in their league
than they had in their city-state this was
also due to the larger population and distances
that needed to be traveled. In general, administration was much more representative and
less direct in koina than it was in poleis.
Distinctive administrative structures can
also be noted in Hellenistic sanctuaries,
especially the larger ones. Beside their religious
importance, sanctuaries could also have political influence and function as an economic
center, all of which required appropriate administrative structures (see TEMPLE ECONOMY,
GREEK AND ROMAN; TEMPLE TREASURIES (TAMIEION,

TAMIAI)).

Delos, for instance, gives us one of

the most significant examples of extensive
administrative organization in the Hellenistic
Greek world. The sanctuarys organization was
similar to that of a polis, and written records
reveal numerous offices while there was only a
small number of citizens (Vial 1984; see DELOS).
However, the administration of sanctuaries varied from place to place and depended on the
community that was responsible for it; DIDYMA,
for instance, was administered by Miletos,
and DELPHI was controlled by the Delphic
AMPHICTYONY and later by the Aitolian League.
Under Roman rule in the Greek East,
administration remained without significant
changes during the late Hellenistic period
but was subsequently dominated by a small
group of Roman magistrates, who executed
the will of the Roman Senate (Dmitriev 2005;
see PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION, ROMAN REPUBLIC).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Allen, R. A. (1983) The Attalid Kingdom:
a constitutional history. Oxford.
Dignas, B. (2002) Economy of the sacred in
Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford.
Dmitriev, S. (2005) City government in Hellenistic
and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford.
Frohlich, P. (2004) Les cites grecques et le controle
des magistrates (IVe1er sie`cle av. J.-C.). Geneva.
Hatzopoulos, M. B. (1996) Macedonian
institutions under the kings III. Athens.
Jones, N. F. (1987) Public organization in ancient
Greece: a documentary study. Philadelphia.
Larsen, J. A. O. (1968) Greek federal states.
Oxford.
Migeotte, L. (2006) La haute administration des
finances publiques et sacrees dans les cites
hellenistiques. Chiron 36: 37994.
Rhodes, P. J. (2007) DikZsi. Chiron 37:
34962.
Vial, C. (1984) Delos independante (314167 avant
J.-C.). Etude dune communaute civique et de
ses institutions. Paris.