{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022744503411675512, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.226415094339623, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Hegemonic Legitimacy (and its Absence) in Classical Greece

A recurring concern of Greek writers on hegemony and empire (and of modern commentators on those writers) is the problem of securing the willing – or at least, not actively hostile – consent of those led. But ancient approaches to this question are often fragmented in their focus and limited in their perspective; modern historical analyses have likewise tended to grapple more with specific instances or themes than the wider picture. The aim of this chapter, therefore, is to see if it is possible to develop a more systematic framework for assessing the legitimacy (or lack of legitimacy) of Greek hegemonic systems. In particular, it explores the theoretical models for interstate and hegemonic legitimacy developed in recent work in International Theory, especially in reaction to the (alleged) ‘crisis of legitimacy’ of the early years of this century, and assess their applicability (or lack of it) to a deliberately broadly‐ defined set of Classical Greek hegemonies. In doing so, it illuminates the various ways in which legitimacy was developed and defended by these hegemonies; the challenges to legitimacy each faced; and the extent to which the successful cultivation of hegemonic legitimacy correlates with the success of hegemony more broadly.