Greek Monarchy: Wanax, Basileus, and the Rise of Polis

The original Greek tribes were ruled by chieftains who were probably initially chosen for their military prowess, similar to the barbarian tribes north of the Greeks along the Danube and east into the Russian Steppes. These kings may have been drawn from the chief tribal families and may not have originally been hereditary. These kings probably did not have absolute power since most tribes placed a strong emphasis on the individual rights and prowesses of its members. Instead, the king’s power was more from persuasion and his previous successes. This type of leadership was then replaced by the more traditional hereditary monarch.

During the pre-Mycenaean period, the monarchs probably began to centralize their power, as evidenced by the Minoan kingdoms. Here, the monarchs on the island of Crete may have been divergent local leaders, as shown by the several palaces spread throughout the island. The largest palace was at Cnossos, and it was there that the legendary king Minos ruled. From the legends, it appears that Minos had near absolute power. Given, however, that there are no contemporary records other than baked tablets of clay from a later period, it is difficult to know if the king actually had such absolute power or if he delegated it at all.

In the Mycenaean period, there were several terms for kings. The main ones recorded on the Linear B tablets were wanax and basileus. These two terms were not used interchangeably. Rather, wanax appears to have held a higher position, as when Homer refers to Zeus as wanax as an overlord to the other gods. Wanax was the earlier Mycenaean form of the Homeric anax. In Homer’s Iliad, both wanax and basileus are found. Wanax is reserved to refer to Agamemnon and Priam, placing them at the top of Homeric society. Both are seen as the leading rulers of the opposing sides, a type of overlord or high king. Agamemnon was the ruler of Mycenae and the brother of Menelaus of Sparta, whose wife, Helen, had been kidnapped by Paris, the son of Priam, king of Troy. Agamemnon is not depicted as an absolute ruler, but rather as one who rules through a consulted approach. Although he tried to give orders to his fellow kings, he was not able to force them to do as he wished.

The best example is when Agamemnon attempted to order Achilles to fight after Agamemnon dishonored Achilles by taking his captive slave girl. Agamemnon could not make Achilles fight—he could only urge or browbeat him. In other passages, Agamemnon holds council with his other kings. Here, they freely debate ideas and plans. The term wanax disappeared from use after the Mycenaean period except for anachronistic references to Zeus and in the Homeric poems.

The other term for king was basileus, which also occurs in Linear B tablets from the late Mycenaean period and appears in one text as the leader of the palace’s skilled workers. The term means “chief” and such a person may have had a status below the wanax. During the Homeric period, basileus was used to refer to the lesser kings in the Iliad, such as Achilles, Odysseus, and Hector. After the fall of the Mycenaean kingdoms, the basileus now became the standard term meaning “king.” This may point to a change from one society, where wanax was the supreme leader, to another that used basileus. It may also point to the end of an overlord system or feudal system, where the wanax had a superior role and was replaced by separate and independent kingdoms where the basileus ruled without any kind of supervision. The basileus form of monarchy continued through the Dark Ages, when the polis came into existence and the population revived. The basileus probably helped bring about this development.

The traditional functions of the basileus were threefold: administrative, religious, and judicial. The administrative role was divided between the bureaucracy and how it functioned and the military defending the polis. The bureaucracy entailed collecting taxes, overseeing the smooth running of the city through its officials, and institutionalizing offices to ensure a fair distribution of honor and work. The collection of taxes was the most important function, as it allowed the polis to have the necessary funds to run the offices and the military system. The city officials or bureaucrats allowed the separation of duties and specialization. Officials were needed to ensure that the markets were overseen, so the customers and merchants knew their roles (i.e., both had a responsibility to be fair), as well as to collect the state’s rents, allowing markets to occur. Some officials existed that made sure that roads were kept in good shape, while others supervised the importation and exportation of supplies.

The basileus also institutionalized the distribution of offices, which was needed so that leading families were included in the running of the city in order to appease their political ambitions. A further function of the administration was creating and outfitting the military. While the hoplite phalanx system only developed later, the king needed to make sure that he had sufficient personnel to protect the city. Usually during this period, war would involve independent battles by the elites. The king was expected to not only lead the warriors, but take part in the fighting. The king’s ability to lead troops into battle became very important.

The basileus was also responsible for the religious services performed by the polis. As part of the religious function of the state, the king ensured that the gods were appeased by appropriate sacrifices. He also would be responsible for supplying animals and farm produce to be offered for the sacrifices. He may also have been associated with the selection of the priests and priestesses to serve the gods in their temples. Further, the king would oversee the construction and upkeep of the city’s temples and shrines. The basileus, through tax receipts, would assemble the necessary supplies and labor to build or maintain the temples and shrines.

The king would also take part in the sacrifices, along with the priests and priestesses. While the king may not have had the power to interpret the signs from the gods, he would have had a direct interest in the predictions. Since the king, as head of state, received his power from the gods, it was crucial to know if they viewed his rule favorably. The king would often ask the gods, through oracles such as Delphi, advice on a certain policy. If for some reason the gods became upset with the king and his rule, the gods would decree that he be replaced without any societal retribution or penalty. The basileus would then desire to keep the gods appeased and rule for the benefit of his people.

The final aspect of the king’s function was judicial. This included the determination of the laws (which usually were not recorded), their implementation, and the maintenance of peace among the various families and all of society. The determination of laws included which ones needed to be enforced for public safety and the protection of the king’s position. Since the laws were not written, they could be changed at will by the king, which often produced social disruption or civil war.

The king’s role was to ensure that the interpretation of the laws favored not only his position, but those of his supporters, usually members of the upper class. Since keeping peace in society was crucial, the king’s judicial role often pitted the rich and powerful against the masses. If the king backed only one side, he could be seen as capricious or arbitrary, especially if he supported only the powerful; on the other hand, if the king supported everyone equally, he risked losing the support of the powerful, who supplied him with his power and funds.

The rise of the polis began to chip away at the power of the monarchy. With the increase in population and the complexity of the society, monarchs saw their hold on power reduced and ultimately eliminated since cities needed more officials to run the bureaucracy. This in turn increased competition among the elites to advance their role in society. With the increase in the number of participants in the government, and with power shifting away from the king, his importance was reduced. Thus, the king was no longer needed. However, the institution did survive in various forms. In Athens, there was an archon basileus who was responsible for the religious leadership in Athens. Sparta retained the institution of the kings—in this case two royal families who were responsible for military leadership. In Epirus in northwestern Greece and Macedon in northern Greece, the institution remained in force. In these societies, the king retained his control of power, and even increased it sometimes.

The evolution of the monarchy in Greece allowed the development of the polis. The traditional roles of the king were developed in the Mycenaean period and continued through the Dark Ages. The end of the monarchy coincided with the polis and the rise of aristocracies, which replaced the monarchs and the idea that their power was derived from the gods.