Basileus eirenophylax – Culture(s) of Peace and Monarchical Representation in the Hellenistic World

当代关于古代君主制的研究的特点是假设存在君主制统治合法化的特定需要，这涉及到证明一个人的军事胜利的持续必要性。然而，不能谈论希腊化国王的强大军事自我代表权。例如，波利比乌斯宣称，和平是全人类所珍视的唯一无可争辩的善。这就是为什么需要将这一方面纳入君主制自我代表的框架并进行相应的评估。对战争或胜利的提及将在更广泛的历史背景下进行分析，其中特别考虑到它们与预期的战争结果的联系。在这方面，一个核心问题涉及战争主要是被概念化为实现和平的手段还是侵占物质资源的手段的问题。此外，时间上的区分是合理的：当涉及到亚历山大遗产的争议时，“胜利的国王”的模式具有很高的解释价值，但这并不自动适用于伟大王朝建立后的时间，因为“魅力的常规化”培养了不断新的展示形式。分析基于以下指导性问题：(1)在君主制的自我代表的背景下，提到和平、具体的和平协议或防御性政策有多大分量，特别是与军事胜利相比？(2)国王自己参与和平谈判的程度有多大？在这种情况下，使用了什么论证数字？(3)和平是如何被概念化的--作为没有战争，作为对既得权利的捍卫，作为殖民控制的实施或上帝赐予的主权的保证，作为规范假设的“正义”的保证？(4)在规范性文本中，哪些对统治者的要求是关于和平的(除了地理学家、历史学家和传记作者的描述中的哲学著作之外)？(5)物质繁荣的各个方面主要与军事成功或没有战争有关吗？获取战利品对君主的自我表现是否起着重要作用？(6)某些表现形式是否与特定的地方有关，它们是否针对特定的受众？除了文学来源，对金石学、纸质和钱币材料的分析是必要的，这使得关于这些方面的君主制自我表现的结论成为可能。因此，文本将接受基于分类主题的语义标记，这将为持续使用不完全与所涉主题绑定的文本数据库提供条件。在计划的项目期限过半时，将举办一次讲习班，与邻近学科的学者和特定来源类型的专家讨论所取得的成果。

Contemporary research on ancient monarchy is characterized by the assumption that a specific need for the legitimization of monarchic rule existed, which involved the constant necessity of proving one’s military victoriousness. There can be no talk of a strong military self-representation of the Hellenistic kings, however. For instance, Polybius declares peace to be the only undisputed good valued by all humans. That is why this aspect needs to be integrated into the framework of monarchical self-representation and to be evaluated accordingly.References to warfare or victoriousness will be analyzed in a wider historical context that particularly takes into account their connection to the desired results of war. In this context, one central issue concerns the question whether war was predominantly conceptualized as a means of attaining peace or as a means of appropriating material resources. Furthermore, chronological differentiation is in order: The model of the "victorious king" has high explanatory value when it comes to the disputes over Alexander’s legacy, but this does not automatically apply to the time after the establishment of the great dynasties, since the "routinization of Charisma" cultivated ever-new forms of display.The analysis is based on the following guiding questions:(1) What weight do references to peace, concrete peace agreements or a defensive policy have in the context of monarchical self-representation, especially in comparison to military victoriousness?(2) In how far are kings themselves involved in peace negotiations? What figures of argumentation are used in this context?(3) How is peace conceptualized – as an absence of war, as a defense of acquired rights, as an enforcement of colonial control or God-given sovereign rights, as a guarantee of normatively assumed "justice"?(4) Which claims to the ruler are formulated with regard to peace in normative texts (apart from philosophical writings also in passages in geographers’, historians’ and biographers’ accounts)?(5) Are aspects of material prosperity predominantly associated with military success or the absence of war? Does the acquisition of spoils play an important role for the self-representation of a monarch? (6) Are certain forms of representation connected to specific places and were they addressed to a specific audience? Apart from literary sources, an analysis of epigraphic, papyrological and numismatic material is necessary, which allows for conclusions about the monarchical self-representation regarding these aspects. Thereby, the texts will be subjected to semantic tagging based on categorical motifs that will provide for the sustained use of a text database not solely bound to the subjects in question. Half-way through the planned project duration, a workshop will take place to discuss the gained results with scholars from neighboring disciplines and with experts for the specific types of sources.