The Hellenistic period was influenced more by cities than by the kings who ruled said cities. At first this was in favor of the kings, but this changed over time. It appears from the public inscriptions present in the city agora that transactions of some kind took place between the two parties. Cities brought legitimacy and favor to the king, as well as troops and resources later in patronage. In exchange, the king would grant financial exemption and ownership of the debt. Hellenistic cities also exercised their power more visibly during the period of kingdoms' decline, as seen in the Maccabees, where Seleucids unable to retain power over Judea were expelled. Added to this factor was the ability for cities to dictate to whom they would be customers. It seems that the cities had, to some extent, the ability to choose which best served their interests between the Diadochi and Rome where one was chosen, or Rome was called upon to mediate. The use of ruler cults by successor states was also a tool that defined the Hellenistic period. Again, as a source of legitimacy that cities can endorse or as a way to determine allegiance to different factions. However, it was also used against rulers, as the Athenians demolished many cults of the Antigonids when their favor was not beneficial to the city. The cults also had the effect of writing the expectations of the king's duty to the city into their praise poems. Thus, it could be said that the cities of the Hellenistic period had a greater influence on how events in the Hellenistic period unfolded, especially when the successor states began to decline in power. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay The relationship between cities and kings appears to operate on a transaction-like basis, in which the city gets an exemption from tribute and the payment of the debt of rival dynasties. . In return, the king gains the prestige of the ruler's cult and, therefore, the approval of his kingship. These registrations seem to demonstrate a short-term benefit for the cities since they obtain the immediate cessation of taxes. However, they would later be required to provide resources to the king in the long term. Yet, as the Teos inscription regarding Antiochus shows (Austin, 2006, p. 344), there is a sense of triumph in these transactions through the translated lines "thus giving an example to all Greeks of how he treats those who are his benefactors…”. This line can be interpreted in two ways: that of persuading other cities to accept the patronage of their benefactors because they will benefit from these exemptions. In this case, the cities would passively advertise to the king and thus show the influence they had in defining the territories of the Hellenistic era. Likewise, it may have been a demonstration of the city's prestige in which the king had to provide such benefits to be worthy of the city's approval. Indeed, Tan (2019) believes that these inscriptions were used as a measure of the value of a city that a king had to pay for, as the poleis used these inscriptions to compare and negotiate with the king. Thus, cities that would later be assimilated into the Seleucid Empire would appreciate the benefits that Teos gained from it and demand greater reward for considering joining the kingdom. Thus, the inscriptions serve as evidence in favor of the fact that the cities have a moregreat power over kings. Therefore, from both perspectives, cities effectively exercised power over kings in defining the course of the Hellenistic era. The power of cities is also worth mentioning. Later, during the Hellenistic period, when the strength of the successors was significantly weakened, cities were more likely to seek independence. It is worth noting that rebellions were common during the Hellenistic period, with some being more successful than others, such as the case of the Kingdom of Bactria. In the case of Jerusalem, the border city between Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucids. One of the stories from the Maccabees speaks of Jerusalem gathering 6,000 soldiers to fight the various Seleucid armies with a force of over 20,000 men. The Seleucid army suffered crushing losses despite its numerical advantage and was forced to cede religious control to the Jews in the first conflict. Regardless of the veracity of the numbers, this demonstrates the power of cities in their ability to exert dominance over their surrounding region and negotiate with their protective kingdom. The Seleucids, despite their numerically superior armies, were unable to suppress this rebellion and therefore had to first reduce their influence in the region, then be expelled from the city. This can be seen as a demonstration of the idea that cities had a greater influence on the course of late Hellenistic progression. Thus, the influence of kings deteriorated in favor of cities over time. Another contributing factor to the empowerment of cities in the Hellenistic era in favor of kings was the presence of the Romans. The Romans were a patron of the Mediterranean world but one of the most favorable to autonomy. Their permitted presence in cities places greater demands on successor states in negotiations, such as the inscription of Teos. The Romans were not meant to be patrons, as relations between kings and cities were, but allies. This is seen in 1 Maccabees 8, in which the Jews offered the Romans a treaty of defense. They agreed to such conditions and thus the city was a “friend and ally” of Rome despite the power difference. Even cities not affiliated with the Romans benefited from their presence. If a king displeased them, the polis had the means of contacting the Romans to force the successors to place themselves in a disadvantageous position. This demonstrates that the polis had means of putting pressure on its supposed bosses via the presence of a third party, the Romans. Thus, the cities of the Hellenistic period had greater influence than the kings due to the presence of the Romans supporting their interests. Cults of rulers and praise poems that would generally be defined as a successor king's influence on the Hellenistic period and cities could be subverted by the poleis to advance their agenda. Cults of rulers were ephemeral aspects of a city's culture; they continued to revere the king only to the extent that it was beneficial. Such a case occurred in Athens with the abolition of the sovereign cult of Philip V as well as that of his ancestors when his actions were not in the interest of Athens. It was around the Macedonian Wars which saw Athens ultimately supporting the Romans in the fight against the Macedonians. Their suppression of the cult meant that they abolished their allegiance to the Antigonids. So, in this sense, the cults of rulers idolizing kings were controlled by the cities who chose whether they were worthy of worship or not. Therefore, the cities controlled the Hellenistic aspect of the rulers' cults, as opposed to the.