¹ Appian, Syr. 7. 37.

² The Treaty of Apamea is in Polybius 21. 43 (45); Livy 38. 38.

³ Will, E. in Histoire politique du monde hellénistique 2 (Nancy 1967),Google Scholar seems to take for granted that in general the Treaty remained in force after the death of Antiochos III (for its applicability to Antiochos IV, cf., for example, the discussion of his relations with Egypt, p. 260). Among the most recent studies, Mørkholm, O.Antiochus IV of Syria (Kopenhagen 1966), 32,Google Scholar discusses the observance of the Treaty by the heirs of Antiochos III. An author who correctly points out the Treaty’s loss of significance during the reign of Antiochos IV is Gruen, E.S. in ‘Rome and the Seleucids in the Aftermath of Pydna’, Chiron 6 (1976), 81 f.Google Scholar The present article complements Gruen’s brief reference.

⁴ A systematic description of the Treaty of Apamea is given by E. Will, op. cit. 185 ff. The reader will readily notice that the elements of the Treaty are classified here according to applicable content. The juridical form of the Treaty is analysed, inter alia, by Täubler, E.Imperium Romanum (Leipzig 1913), 101 ff.Google Scholar

⁵ Polyb. 21. 43 (45); Livy 38. 38; App. Syr. 7. 38 f. The gentes quae sub dicione populi Romani sunt certainly refers to the former Seleucid possessions in Asia Minor, cf. E. Will, loc. cit. However it is difficult to believe that Rome’s ‘allies’ in Greece and the Aegean were not included in this prohibition.

⁶ Polyb. 22. 7 (10). 4.

⁷ Sands, P.C.The Client Princes of the Roman Empire under the Republic (Cambridge 1908), 24 ff.Google Scholar

⁸ According to Appian’s version of Eumenes’ complaints (Mac. 11. 2), Laodice had been transported öλω τω ‘ΡοδΙων στάλω.

⁹ Cf. Sands, op. cit. 52 f. Sands believes that Seleukos IV, in renewing amicitia (for which, incidentally, we have no evidence), bound himself by the terms of the Treaty, but that the same did not apply to Antiochos IV. The offer of ships to the Achaeans by Seleukos IV seems to weaken this conjecture.

¹⁰ Livy 45. 11 f. Concerning the supposed treason and surrender of the island’s governor, cf. F.M. Abel on 2 Mace. 13. 8. Early in his reign (c. 172) Antiochos made a gift to the Rhodians SIG ³ 2. 644. 22 ff., cf. W. Dittenberger ad loc.

¹¹ The parade of Daphne is in Polyb. 30. 25 (31. 3).

¹² Griffith, G.T.The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World (Cambridge 1935 repr.ed.), 146 f.Google Scholar

¹³ On 1 Macc. 6.29.

¹⁴ Antiochos’ island mercenaries are in Jos. AJ 12. 7. 2 (293); cf.Marcus, R. ad loc. (Josephus Loeb ed., vol.7. 150 f.).Google ScholarCf. also 1 Mace. 6. 29 (under Lysias). Possibly, however, these islanders were from Cyprus, which was a Ptolemaic possession. Cypriots served in the Seleucid army under Antiochos IV and under Lysias, cf. 2 Macc. 4. 29 and 12. 2, and F.M. Abel ad loc.

¹⁵ Cf.Launey, M.Recherches sur les armées hellenistiques (paris 1950 1. 99 again at 384 and 442 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid. 393 f.

¹⁷ G.T. Griffith (cf. op. cit. 167 n.2; 250 f.) discusses the possibility that the ethnic names describe a type of soldier, and is inclined to reject it in most cases. It should be added that the Ptolemaic hipparchies, which are the recognized exception, could not have acquired their names by pure imitation. These cavalry units must have been originally composed of real Mysians, Persians, Thessalians, and Thracians. Later the personnel of the units gradually changed but not their names or specializations. The same could not have occurred in the Seleucid army, where the defeat of Magnesia and the Treaty of Apamea must have occasioned the abrupt and complete disbandment of whole units of mercenaries. The Mysians and Thracians of Antiochos IV were new detachments, recruited after the death of Antiochos III.

¹⁸ I Macc. 1. 29; 2 Macc. 5. 24.

¹⁹ Cf. Abel ad loc.

²⁰ Cf. l Macc. 1. 17.

²¹ Ibid. 3. 34; Jos. AJ 12. 7. 2 (295).

²² Polyb. 21. 44 (46). 3; Livy 38. 39. 2 f.

²³ Cf. Polyb. 29. 27. 9 f.; Livy 45. 12. 7.

²⁴ Livy 38. 39. 5.

²⁵ Polyaenus, Stratag. 4. 21. Livy, in 45. 13. 3, implies that Antiochos had made no noticeable contribution to the Roman war effort, and Winkler, H. (Rom und Aegypten im 2. Jh. v. Chr. [Leipzig 1933], 30 n.54)Google Scholar concludes that Polyaenus’ note is in error (cf. also O. Mørkholm, op. cit. [n.3. above] 66 n.7). Perhaps Antiochos’ elephants — like the στέφανος of Polyb. 28. 22 — were only a token gift, which the Romans found useless in the difficult terrain where they operated. Most of their elephants, which had to be transported over Mt. Olympus, were apparently of the smaller Libyan breed, provided by Massinissa. (On the relative merits of Indian and African elephants cf. Polyb. 5. 84. Polybius’ data are compatible with the views of modern experts, cf. Scullard, H.H.The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World [London 1974], 60 ff.)Google Scholar

²⁶ Appian, Syr. 8. 46: ev Συρία στρατόν τ' έλβφάυτω» eívai και ναϋς πλειάνας των ώριαμένων Άντιόχω, which the translator (Η. White, Appian’s Roman History, Loeb ed., vol. 2. 193) renders ‘than had been allowed Antiochos in the treaty’ (my italics).

²⁷ Zonar. 9. 25.

²⁸ E.S. Gruen, loc. cit. (n.3. above), goes so far as to question Polybius’ story as regards Octavius’ mandate. This seems exaggerated, although Gruen is certainly right in rejecting the Treaty of Apamea as a legitimate excuse.

²⁹ Polyb. 31. 2 (12). 9 ff.Badian, E.Foreign Clientelae (Oxford 1958 108, remarks that the Treaty may have been invoked as a mere pretext.Google Scholar

³⁰ Cic. Phil. 9. 2. 4.

³¹ I Macc. 6. 29. Although the sources give dates for this campaign in Judaea, it remains impossible to establish whether it occurred before or after the Roman attempt to ‘disarm’ Syria, cf.Marcus, R.Josepftus Loeb ed., vol.7. 189 note d.Google Scholar

³² Polyb. 30. 25 (31. 3) ff.; 30. 30 (31. 6). 7 f.; Diod. 31. 17. Polybius addso&rwç αύτους oi βασιλείς έξετέμοντο rrj κατά την άπάντησιν φιλανθρωπία. The ambassadors were led by an experienced ex-censor. They could hardly cover up a flagrant violation of a valid treaty. Polybius does not bring up the Treaty of Apamea in this connexion.

³³ Diod. 29. 24.

³⁴ Cf.Bouché-Leclercq, A.Histoire des Séleucides (Paris 1913 1. 234;Google ScholarE. Will, op. cit. 243.

³⁵ Livy 47. 6.

³⁶ Cf. Polyb. 21. 3 (2). 3; Diod. 28. 15. 1; App. Mac. 9. 5.

³⁷ Polyb. 21. 17; Livy 37. 45.

³⁸ Cf.Cf.Bickerman, E. ‘Notes sur Poly be I: Le statut des villes d’Asie après la paix d’Apamée’ REG 50 (1937), 217 ff.Google Scholar

³⁹ Appian (Syr. 7. 38 f.) attributes to Scipio the demand for the surrender of elephants and the restrictions on naval forces. Polybius’ account is surely preferable. It seems especially unlikely that Scipio should demand ships öσας âv έπιτάξωμεν, without giving numbers. Appian also telescopes the events of two years and completely omits the senatorial Commission of Ten.

⁴⁰ Though it is possible to adduce support from some of the treaties discussed below.

⁴¹ Polybius (22. 9 (12). 7) does mention a series of alliances concluded between the Achaean League and the βασιλεία of the Ptolemies. The passage is cited by Klose, P.Die völkerrechtliche Ordnung der hellenistischen Staatenwelt in der Zeit von 280 bis 168 v. Chr. (Munich 1972 163 n. 714.Google ScholarHowever the fact that these alliances — apparently concluded with successive Ptolemies — contained dissimilar clauses argues against their hereditary character. Polybius’ reference to the βασιλεία of Alexandria is probably fortuitous, and was not part of the text of any treaty.

⁴² InSchmitt, H.H.Die Staatsverträge des Altertums 3 (Munich 1969, no.486. 5–6.Google Scholar

⁴³ P. Klose (cf. op. cit. 162 ff.) believes that ‘gegen Ende des 3. Jh.s die enge Bindung des hellenistischen Königsvertrags und die Person des Herrschers gelost war’, but some of the treaties containing this stipulation are ascribed by many to the reign of Antigonos Doson (cf. Schmitt, no.501, 502 and the bibliography p. 197 f.; Aymard, A. in Etudes d’histoire ancienne [Paris 1967] 109 f.,Google Scholarargues against attributing the style of these treaties exclusively to Antigonos Doson, but does not date it any earlier). The main basis of Klose’s remark is Polyb. 5. 67. 9 ff., where Antiochos HI is considered bound by a predecessor’s treaty regarding the cession of Coele-Syria. Klose is aware that, the treaty in question being lost, it may well have contained a succession stipulation. Actually in the negotiations reported by Polybius the arguments of both sides (including the alleged παρασπόνδημα) seem to invoke arrangements made by the original diadochi, not any later treaties. In Polyb. 15. 25. 13 (25a. 10), Agathocles, regent for the young Ptolemy V, urges Antiochos III μή παραβαίνεω; τάς προς τόν τού παιδός πατέρα σύνθηκας. This mysterious treaty is perhaps identical with the ένιαύσιοι σπονδαί concluded after the battle of Raphia (Polyb. 5. 87). It was concluded by Antiochos HI himself, and may have included a perpetual obligation to respect the borders of Coele-Syria. Be that as it may, it is necessary to remember the basic distinction made above. The tenure of Coele-Syria may have been hereditary in the same way as a hereditary land title. The same cannot be said about political and military obligations, which were personal with individual kings. The treaties cited by Klose which contain a succession stipulation are treaties of alliance or of mercenary service, cf. Schmitt, no.486, 501, 502 (no.506 and 507 do not seem relevant here). In no.556, the city of Mesembria grants the Thracian Sadalas various privileges but this is a family privilege, not a treaty clause.

⁴⁴ It seems simply impossible to take literally a sentence like φίλιαν υπάρχεω Άντιόχω και 'Ρωμαίοις εις άπαντα τον χρόνον. Both sides were probably aware that Antiochos III was mortal.

⁴⁵ Regnum Antiochi in Livy is not a party to the Treaty. Edson, C. ‘Imperium Macedonicum: The Seleucid Empire and the Literary Evidence’, CPh 53 (1958), 153 ff.,Google Scholar discusses the possible existence of other official designations for the Seleucid kingdom (cf. 166 η. 4). What is asserted here is only that the βασιλεία of the Seleucids could not be a party to any agreement. In the Roman order concerning piracy, inscribed in Delphi (SEG 3. 378), Hellenistic kings are denoted by τον βασιλέα τον έν ττ) νήσω Κύπρω βασιλεύοντα, του βασιλέα τον εν Αλεξάνδρεια και ΑΙγιίπτω, etc., and τους βασιλείς τους èv Συρία βασιλεύοντας. In a Roman lex there was no other way to define their positions.

⁴⁶ Admittedly renewal in itself is not sufficient evidence of expiry of the original treaty, cf. the discussion of P. Klose, loc. cit.

⁴⁷ Livy 42. 6. 10.

⁴⁸ Diod. 30. 2, says that the Syrian ambassadors came to renew φιλάνθρωπο, προς Ρωμαίους. In spite of the position of this fragment in Diodorus, it seems to deal with the same embassy as Livy in 42. 6.10.

⁴⁹ The word σύμμαχος (Livy: socius) is used for ‘ally’, i.e. a client of Rome, but not for Antiochos. The corresponding status on Antiochos’ side is denoted by (qui sub dicione eius erunt).

⁵⁰ Cf. Sands, op. cit. 24 ff.

⁵¹ Nor can the passage in Livy be used to demonstrate that he became rex socius in 173. To be sure he is called φίλος και σύμμαχος in a senatus consultum reproduced by Polybius, 33. 18. 12. f., however by the time when this text was formulated in Rome — almost a full decade after the death of Antiochos IV – the status of amici had undergone considerable modification. The ‘facts’ set out in this resolution (in support of Alexander Balas) were taken by Polybius to be transparently false.

⁵² Livy 34. 57 places in the mouth of Antiochos’ ambassadors a lecture on international law: tertium esse genus [foederum] cum qui numquam hostes fuerint ad amicitiam sociali foedere inter se iungendam coeant; eos neque dicere nec accipere leges. Livy may well sound as if amicitia were initiated by a foedus sociale, and as if there could exist a foedus without leges. In fact he shows negotiations between Rome and Antiochos III concerning spheres of influence, hardly a standard component of amicitia. Heuss, A.Die völkerrechtliche Grundlagen der romischen Aussenpolitik in republikanischer Zeit (Leipzig 1933) (Klio beih. 31), 36f.; 55 f.,Google Scholar is undoubtedly correct in insisting that the proposed foedus would have gone well beyond amicitia, but it could hardly mean a foedus sociale in the Roman sense. The negligent use of amicitia and societas by Livy (when he is not translating Polybius) is not surprising. What Livy stresses here is not the kinds of treaty but rather the relative status of the contracting parties (on this , cf. E. Täubler, op. cit. [n.4 above] 2 f.). Diodorus (28. 15. 2) and Appian (Syr. 2. 6) speak of συμμαχία but do not mention a foedus sociale (Diodorus has also φιλίαν συνθέσθαι).

⁵³ Of course, throughout the second century (and not only after the battle of Pydna) Rome was in a position to exert overwhelming diplomatic pressure upon all eastern states, including independent amici. This hardly justifies disregarding the formal distinction between amicitia and societas in the time of Antiochos IV. A contrary view is presented at length by Dahlheim, W.Struktur und Entwicklung des römischen Völkerrechts, 260 ff.Google Scholar Concerning inscriptions mentioned by Dahlheim (165 f.) in which Roman sodi appear to be characterized simply as φίλοι (SIG³ 2. 674, 679), cf. also Heuss, op. cit. 110 ff., and note that in all such cases the amicitia is part of a stock formula — quei ager intra fines quorumlibet erat quom in amicitiam populi Romani venerunt. The expression reflects the usage of a period when clients and subjects were termed amici. The list of Rome’s formal allies, which in Livy is invariably formula sociorum — cf. Livy 43. 6. 7 (Lampsacos); 44. 16. 4 ff. (Onesimus) — became formula amicorum by the time of the S.C. de Asclepiade, CIL 12. 588, p. 468; C. Pietrangeli, ‘Framenti del “Senatus consultum de Asclepiade”’, Bull, di la Comm. Arch, di Roma 69 (1941), 109 ff. (dated c. 78; the actual inscription may be a later copy but cf. ibid. 112 n.8); Sherk, R.K.Roman Documents from the Greek East (Baltimore 1969), no.22 (with commentary).Google Scholar On the identity of the two formulae cf. Badián, op. cit. 12 n.4. It has formerly been held that these were two separate documents, cf. Sands, op. cit. 40 ff. Concerning the S.C. de Asclepiade, T. Mommsen (CIL ad loc.) comments: ‘neque raro inveniuntur, quibus a Romanis beneficium contigerit, ’, and refers to a decree of Julius Caesar cited by Josephus (AI 14. 10. 2 [190 ff.]), where Hyrcanos II (termed a σύμμαχος) is to be counted Formula sociorum then includes only states and kings who, as permanent sodi, may be called upon to supply military contingents (formula sociorum being an outgrowth of formula togatorum). If so, Livy, who never mentions formula amicorum, and who inscribes the Macedonian defector Onesimus in formula sociorum (44. 16. 4 ff.) is guilty of a strange blunder. Livy may be careless with his usage of terms, but he should have known which particular formula he was discussing. As to the action of Julius Caesar, there is no compelling reason to identify the κατ' άνδρα φίλοι with any censorial formula (in the Greek version of the S.C. the formula amicorum is το των φίλων διάταγμα). They may have been friends of the dictator, somewhat like the φίλοι of a Hellenistic king.

⁵⁴ Heuss, op. cit. 12 ff., cf. particularly 31 f. In Livy 45. 25. 9 f. the Rhodians maintain no more than amicitia with Rome ut sociali foedere se cum Romanis non inligarent. In Polybius 30. 5. 8 this is expressed by saying that they did not wish to be tied όρκοις και συνθήκαις. The passages adduced by Heuss show that the Rhodian-Roman amicitia was not invented by Livy.

⁵⁵ In Polybius 22. 9. 13 the Achaeans ‘renewed’ φιλία with Seleukos IV, which could hardly imply revival of any possible agreements made by Antiochos III. This gesture is not relevant to the Treaty of Apamea, which prohibited alliances, but not shapeless φίλια.

⁵⁶ No paraphrase of the treaty is extant in the sources. For details cf.Walbank, F.W.Philip V of Macedon (Cambridge 1940, 159ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Polyb. 18. 48; Livy 33. 35. 2 ff.

⁵⁸ Bickerman, E. ‘Rom und Lampsakos’, Philologue 87 (1932), 290 f.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Contra Meloni, P.Perseo e la fine della monarchia macedone (Rome 1953, 69n.l.Google Scholar Of course, in this matter one must be satisfied with a guess, however if Meloni’s view is preferred the thesis of the present article stands unaltered. Perseus was not bound by the treaty until after he had renewed it.

⁶⁰ Polyb. 25. 3. 1; Livy 40. 58. 9; Zonar. 9. 22. Some scholars believe that Philip ‘obtained full societas’ (Walbank, op. cit. 183 n.l). If so, Perseus somehow failed to inherit it. However, the claim to ‘full societas’ seems disputable, cf. Badian, op. cit. (n.29 above) 92 n.2.

⁶¹ Cf. Livy 42. 25. 4 ff., cf. A.C. Schlesinger ad loc. (Loeb ed.); 40.4 ff. It is argued (e.g. by Sands, op. cit. 50 f.) that the clauses which Perseus allegedly violated probably never existed in the first place. Granted that most Roman allegations were specious, it remains likely that Perseus had renewed a treaty. A claim of violation occurs also in Eumenes' speech, Livy 42.13. 8.

⁶² App. Mac. 11. 5 f.

⁶³ The existence of a treaty is implied also in the Roman inscription from Delphi, SIG ³ 2. 643, however the mutilated condition of the text does not allow any conclusion as to renewal or its date

⁶⁴ Thus, e.g., E. Bickerman, loc. cit. Bickerman’s surmise is based on theoretical considerations, not on direct evidence.

⁶⁵ Polyb. 25. 3. 1; the φιλία was renewed prior to Perseus’ amnesty, which must have been very early in the reign.

⁶⁶ Livy 40.58. 8.

⁶⁷ Ibid. 45.4. 3.

⁶⁸ This is noted by Meloni, op. cit. 69 n.3, who adduces Appian, Mac. 11.6, where συνθήκαι are mentioned. But precisely in this speech of the Macedonian ambassadors Appian has no mention of any φιλία.

⁶⁹ Livy 41.19. 6.

⁷⁰ Diod. 29. 30. Meloni himself (cf. op. cit. 72 n.3) has good reason to think that Perseus’ first embassy received a prompt reply from the senate.

⁷¹ Contra Cf. Sage, E.T.Schlesinger, A.C.Livy (Loeb ed.), vol.12. 328n.l.Google Scholar

⁷² If Livy did mention this war, it could not have been in 179, as can be seen from the concluding sentence of 40. 58.

⁷³ Appian (Mac. 11. 5) in dealing with the negotiations preliminary to the Third Macedonian War says that the treaty had been renewed ίναγχος. This would argue against the date suggested here. However in the following paragraph Appian connects the treaty with the conclusion of the affair of Abrupolis.

⁷⁴ In reading Livy it should be kept in mind that according to Roman propaganda Perseus was of contested legitimacy. That he requested to be ‘called king’ is not credible. The formal Roman practice of appellatio (by the senate rather than by an individual general) seems to have entered into usage more than a decade after the events discussed here. Cf. Badian, op. cit. 106, who cites as the first case Ariarathes V. Actually, even there the formality is not yet clearly spelled out. The first case explicitly attested in the sources seems to be that of Timarchos c. 162 (Diod. 31. 27a).

⁷⁵ This is part of the argument that Livy puts into Perseus’ written message to the Roman envoys (Livy 42. 25. 10).

⁷⁶ Heuss, op. cit. (n.52 above) 50 f., ascribes this argument to the biased and distorted Roman annals, which imputed to Perseus complete disregard for international conventions. Whether or not Livy’s reports should be so interpreted seems in itself debatable, but clearly Appian in Mac. 11.6 implies the same argument as a legally cogent defence of Perseus.

⁷⁷ Livy 34. 31 f.

⁷⁸ The relations between Rome and Syracuse in the middle of the third century seem somewhat removed from the present topic. The treaty with Hiero is adduced in evidence by Heuss, op. cit. 49 f. However the ‘kingship’ of Syracuse was quite different from that of Syria.

⁷⁹ The treaty is treated by Badian, op. cit. 57 f.

⁸⁰ Polyb. 29. 23 ff.

⁸¹ The Achaeans seem to have been Roman allies, cf. Holleaux, M.Etudes d’èpi-graphie et d’histoire grecques 5 (Paris 1957), 121 ff.Google Scholar They were probably inscribed in formula sociorum, cf. App. Mac. 9. 4.