The world described by Homer reveals a very different picture of Greek cities and political power before the rise of Classical Greece.
While Homer’s epic poems are not placed in a specific historic context, they do offer a glimpse to late Bronze Age and pre-Archaic Period Greek cities, kingdoms and rulers in the narrative. The principal cities, kingdoms and political communities that appear in the Iliad and Odyssey were not states in the later Classical Period.
The poems refer to numerous cities and kingdoms, each associated with a ruler or group of rulers. In the Iliad, the most prominent is Troy (Ilios), ruled by Priam, whose kingdom included the city and the surrounding Trojan territory.
The Greek forces opposing Troy were not a single centralized kingdom but a coalition of separate communities.
Mycenae was associated with Agamemnon, who is presented as the most powerful of the Achaean rulers and as the commander of the expedition.
Sparta (Lacedaemon) was ruled by Menelaus, while Pylos was the kingdom of the elderly Nestor.
Ithaca, together with the nearby islands, constituted the kingdom of Odysseus. Other important communities Homer mentions are Argos, Tiryns, Orchomenos, Thebes, Athens, Corinth, Aegina, and Salamis.
In her paper “Greek states of the early historic period: systematizing the evidence contained in the Homeric poems”, Olga A. Zolotnikova examines what kind of political communities existed in the period reflected by the Iliad and the Odyssey.
Rather than treating Homer simply as literature or attempting to identify Homeric institutions with those of the later classical polis, Zolotnikova analyzes the political institutions described in the poems.
Her central argument is that early Greek states possessed a recognizable political structure consisting principally of the basileis (kings or rulers), the gerontes (elders), and the agora (assembly of the people). These communities were autonomous and self-governing, but they had not yet developed into the fully institutionalized city-states of the Archaic and Classical periods.
The Homeric period
The period conventionally called the “Homeric” or early historic period extends roughly from the late 11th century to the end of the 8th century BC. The Homeric poems themselves were composed through a long oral tradition and reached their surviving form during the 8th century. Consequently, they cannot be treated as straightforward historical documents.
Nevertheless, Zolotnikova argues that the poems preserve important evidence concerning the political organization of the societies contemporary with their composition. She therefore uses Homeric descriptions as an “epic reflection” of actual institutions, while recognizing the special character of the epic language and tradition.
Historians argue over the chronology of the Homeric period. Moses I. Finley argued that the social world represented by Homer should not simply be equated with the Mycenaean world or with the developed polis. In The World of Odysseus, Finley emphasized that “neither poem has any trace of a polis in its political sense”; for Homer, he argued, polis primarily meant a fortified site or town. Finley therefore regarded Homeric society as belonging to an earlier stage of Greek political development. His interpretation strongly influenced later scholarship, although it has also been challenged by historians who see more developed political institutions in Homer.
Anthony Snodgrass, for example, questioned whether it is possible to reconstruct a single historical society from the poems. He emphasized the contradictions within Homeric representations and the possibility that they reflect a long process of oral transmission rather than one particular historical period. His study An Historical Homeric Society? asks precisely when such a unified Homeric society could have existed. Zolotnikova’s contribution is not necessarily to resolve every chronological problem but to identify the recurring institutional structures that appear across Homeric descriptions.
The basileus and the gerontes
The most important of these institutions is the basileus. The Greek term is traditionally translated as “king,” but Zolotnikova’s analysis suggests that Homeric kingship should not be understood as absolute monarchy. The basileis (plural) possess authority, prestige, wealth, and military leadership, but their power operates within a broader political community. The Homeric king is expected to consult with other prominent men and to address the assembly.
Finley similarly observed that Homeric political institutions were characterized by “a large measure of informality, of fluidity and flexibility.” He noted that lines of power and responsibility existed, but that they could overlap and produce conflict. This observation is important for understanding Zolotnikova’s distinction between Homeric institutions and the later Greek polis. The early ruler did not govern through a developed bureaucratic state. Instead, authority depended heavily upon social status, tradition, military leadership, personal relationships, and customary rights.
Alongside the basileis stood the gerontes, the council of elders. These were influential members of the aristocratic community whose experience and social position gave them an important role in deliberation. They did not merely serve as advisers in a modern sense; they represented a recognized body within the political structure. Their presence demonstrates that royal authority was limited by aristocratic consultation.
The assembly of the people
The third major institution was the assembly of the people. Its existence is especially significant because it demonstrates that political activity was not restricted entirely to kings and aristocrats. The people could gather, hear arguments, express approval or disapproval, and participate in the political life of the community. Their participation, however, should not be confused with democratic citizenship in the classical Athenian sense. The assembly did not possess the fully developed legislative and constitutional authority of a later polis.
Modern scholars have increasingly emphasized the political significance of these assemblies. F. S. Naiden notes that earlier scholars such as Finley regarded Homeric councils and assemblies as relatively loose gatherings, whereas more recent scholarship has argued that they were sufficiently organized to deliberate and make decisions. Thus, the Homeric assembly represents an important transitional institution: it shows the existence of collective political participation without implying the existence of democracy as appeared later in Athens, much less in the modern sense.
Zolotnikova also draws attention to minor public officials. These included heralds, who played an important role in communication and public proceedings, as well as specialists associated with legal and customary practices. Such figures reveal that Homeric communities possessed more institutional differentiation than might initially appear. Nevertheless, these were not offices in the later constitutional sense. Zolotnikova stresses that Homeric states were based upon institutions and customs rather than formally defined offices and written laws.
The evidence is particularly clear in the Homeric descriptions of Ithaca, the Phaeacians, Troy, and the collective army of the Achaeans. These examples differ in their details, yet they repeatedly display the same basic political pattern: rulers, prominent elders, and an assembly of the community.
A geographical and political map of Homer’s Greece
The catalogue of the Achaean forces in the Iliad is particularly valuable because it provides an extensive geographical and political picture of Greece. It names communities from many parts of the Greek world and associates them with their respective leaders. The contingent of Agamemnon comes from Mycenae and neighboring settlements; Menelaus commands warriors from Lacedaemon; Nestor leads the forces of Pylos; Odysseus commands the men of Ithaca, Cephallenia, Zacynthus, and the neighboring islands; Ajax is associated with Salamis; while Diomedes leads the Argives of Argos and the surrounding territories. The catalogue therefore presents Greece as a collection of distinct political communities rather than a unified state.
The Odyssey provides an even clearer picture of the organization of individual kingdoms. Ithaca is the principal setting of the poem and the homeland of Odysseus. Its political life has the king, aristocratic leaders, and the assembly of the people. The Phaeacian community, centered on Scheria, provides another important example. Its ruler, Alcinous, governs in cooperation with a group of distinguished nobles, while the Phaeacian assembly is summoned to consider political matters. This illustrates the coexistence of royal authority, aristocratic counsel, and popular assembly.
Other Homeric kingdoms and cities reinforce this pattern. Pylos, ruled by Nestor, is characterized by an established royal household and a politically influential group of elders. Sparta, ruled by Menelaus and Helen, represents another royal center. Crete is described as containing numerous cities and different peoples, suggesting a politically fragmented rather than centralized island. Argos appears as both a geographical and political designation and is closely connected with the heroic tradition surrounding Diomedes and the Argive forces. Thebes in Boeotia, is also mentioned, although its political importance in the poems differs from that of Troy, Mycenae, or Ithaca.
No centralized Greek state
It is obvious from the several cities, kingdoms and communities particpating in the Achaean coalition that there was no unified Greek state. The named cities and kingdoms are thus not merely geographical references. They are essential evidence for reconstructing the political landscape of early historic Greece. Their rulers, councils, assemblies, and military contingents reveal a world composed of numerous autonomous or semi-autonomous communities. Troy, Mycenae, Sparta, Pylos, Ithaca, Argos, Salamis, and Scheria provide particularly clear examples of different political communities in which royal leadership existed alongside aristocratic participation and collective assemblies.
The same principle can be seen in the Trojan context. Priam is king of Troy, but the Trojan army contains forces from several different peoples and regions, each associated with its own leaders. The Trojan coalition therefore parallels the Achaean coalition. Homer repeatedly presents political authority as distributed among kings, nobles, military commanders, and communities. This supports Zolotnikova’s interpretation of the Homeric political system as an early and relatively flexible form of state organization.
Seen in this geographical context, Zolotnikova’s argument becomes more convincing. The Homeric poems do not describe one centralized Greek state; instead, they depict a plurality of kingdoms and communities, connected through warfare, alliances, trade, kinship, marriage, and shared cultural traditions. The political map of Homeric Greece is therefore best understood as a network of local states or chiefdom-like communities that were gradually developing toward the more formalized poleis of the Archaic period.
This conclusion can be placed alongside classicist Richard Seaford’s influential description of the Homeric evidence as presenting “an early stage of state-formation.” The phrase captures the significance of Zolotnikova’s argument. The Homeric world should neither be dismissed as politically primitive nor projected backward as if it were already the classical polis. It occupies a transitional position.
See all the latest news from Greece and the world at Greekreporter.com. Contact our newsroom to report an update or send your story, photos and videos. Follow GR on Google News and subscribe here to our daily email!
