Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T06:58:20.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Freedom of the Greeks of Asia: From Alexander to Antiochus*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Robin Seager
Robin Seager
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an earlier paper Christopher Tuplin and I attempted to establish the date and circumstances of the emergence of the concept of ‘the Greeks of Asia’ and the consequent appearance of ‘the freedom of the Greeks of Asia’ as a political slogan. It was there suggested that concept and slogan first crystallized shortly before the Peace of Antalcidas, and that the freedom of the Greeks of Asia first acquired its full force as a catchword when that freedom had been signed away, apparently for ever. The present paper traces the further history of the slogan, first under Alexander and the Diadochi, then at the time of the Roman conquest of the eastern Mediterranean. No attempt is, however, made to deal with every unanswered question raised by either Macedonian or Roman dealings with Greece.

The Greeks of Asia languished under Persia till the time of the Macedonian invasion. Yet when that invasion came, the freedom of the Greeks of Asia was to play little part in Macedonian propaganda, still less in Macedonian practice. The expedition was conceived by Philip as an act of revenge for the Persian invasions of Greece. This theme of revenge was taken up by Alexander at the time of his appointment to command, and recurs in his letter to Darius and his words to Parmenio after the taking of Persepolis. The even broader theme of a crusade of Greeks against Persians to achieve the conquest of Asia is still more frequent. It dictates the sedulous manufacture of parallels with the Trojan war and the inscription on the spoils sent to Athens after the battle of the Granicus; it was also used to justify Alexander's hatred of Greeks who fought on the Persian side.

By comparison with these motifs the freedom of the Greeks of Asia receives little attention. When Philip sent out his advance expedition under Parmenio and Attalus, his instructions to them were to free the Greek cities. But just how flexibly that order could be interpreted is shown by Parmenio's treatment of Grynium. Alexander too showed himself ruthlessly pragmatic in his attitude to Greek cities, until the appointment of Alcimachus to liberate the Aeolian and Ionian cities. Yet this development receives little attention in the sources, and the only trace of it in subsequent propaganda is the claim ascribed to Alexander when he was on his way from Miletus to Caria that he had undertaken the war for the sake of the freedom of the Greeks, the only occasion in the surviving evidence on which Alexander makes this assertion.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , May 1981 , pp. 106 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 JHS 100 (1980), pp. 141–54Google Scholar.

2 For the Greek cities of Asia in the satraps' revolt, cf. Diod. 15. 90. 3. On Artaxerxes' Egyptian expedition of 351/0, contrast Diod. 16. 46. 4 (the Greek cities of Asia) with the greater precision of 16. 44. 4 (the Greeks who inhabited the coast of Asia).

3 Diod. 16. 89. 2.

4 Diod. 17. 4. 9, Arr. 2. 14. 4, 3. 18. 2.

5 Arr. 3. 22. 2, 4. 11. 7 f.

6 Arr. 1. 11, 1. 16. 7, 1. 29. 6, Diod. 17. 17. 1 ff., Plut. Alex. 15 ff.; Arr. 2. 7. 4, 3. 23. 8.

7 Diod. 16. 91. 2; cf. 16. 1. 5: Philip cut off in the act of liberating the Greek cities of Asia. Cf. the encouragement of Isocrates (5. 123).

8 Diod. 17. 7. 9. Cf. Badian, E., Ancient Society and Institutions (Oxford, 1966), pp. 39 fGoogle Scholar.

9 Arr. 1. 17–19; Alcimachus' mission: 1. 18. 1 f. Cf. Badian, op. cit. pp. 43 ff.

10 Diod. 17. 24. 1.

11 Arr. 1. 7. 2, Diod. 17. 9. 5, Plut. Alex. 11.

12 Thus Polyperchon in 319 (Diod. 18. 55 f., cf. 69); Antigonus and Ptolemy in 315 (Diod. 19. 61 f., cf. 64, 66); Antigonus in 313 (Diod. 19. 74 f., 77 f.); the peace of 311 (Diod. 19. 105) with Antigonus' subsequent letter to the Greeks (Staatsverträge iii. 428); Ptolemy in 310 (Diod. 20. 19) and 308 (Diod. 20. 37); Demetrius Poliorcetes in 308 (Suda s.v. Δημήτριος), 307 (Diod. 20. 45 f.) and 304 (Diod. 20. 100, 102). On Antigonus and Ptolemy, cf. Simpson, R. H. (JHS 14 (1954), 28 ff.)Google Scholar; on the peace of 311, cf. Beaumont, H. (Historia 13 (1964), 86 ff.)Google Scholar.

13 Note Athenian pressure on Polyperchon and Nicanor in 318 to honour Polyperchon's decree of the previous year (Diod. 18. 64 ff.) and that brought by Athens, ‘the other Greeks' and the Aetolians on Demetrius at Rhodes (Diod. 20. 98 f.). The terms of Demetrius’ agreement with the Rhodians, that they should be autonomous, receive no garrison and pay no tribute, make it highly likely that the envoys urged Antigonus' commitment to the freedom of the Greeks.

14 Diod. 19. 75.

15 Diod. 20. 111. 2: τ⋯ς Ἑλληνίδας πόλɛις ⋯λɛυθέρας ὑπάρΧɛιν, οὐ τ⋯ς кατ⋯ τ⋯ν Ἑλλάδα μ⋯νον, ⋯λλ⋯ кα⋯ τ⋯ς кατ⋯ τ⋯ν 'Ασίαν.

16 cf. Badian, , Foreign Clientelae (264–70 B.C.) (Oxford, 1958), pp. 67 ff.Google Scholar, against earlier exaggerated views.

17 Pol. 16. 27. 2, 34. 3.

18 Liv. 32. 10. 3 ff.

19 On the meaning of ⋯кχωρɛῖν, cf. Holleaux, M., Etudes d'épigraphie et d'histoire grecques (Paris, 1957), v. 213 ffGoogle Scholar.

20 Diod. 28. 11: μ⋯ μ⋯ρος τ⋯ς 'Ελλάδος ⋯λλ⋯ π⋯σαν αὐν⋯ν ⋯λɛυθɛρο⋯ν. Badian, , Foreign Clientelae, pp. 71 ff.Google Scholar, denies the appearance of the freedom of the Greeks at this stage, but does not deal with the evidence of Diodorus, which is accepted by Holleaux, , Etudes v. 36Google Scholar; cf. Walbank, F. W., Philip V of Macedon (Cambridge, 1940), p. 152Google Scholar.

21 Liv. 31. 15. 10.

22 Liv. 31. 29. 6 f.

23 Liv. 32. 21. 36: ‘sine uestro labore et periculo qui uos in libertatem uindicarent’.

24 Pol. 18. 1–11, Liv. 32. 33–7, Plut. Flam. 5, App. Mac. 8.

25 Pol. 18. 11. 4, a point which particularly impressed the senate (Liv. 32. 37. 3).

26 Pol. 18. 11. 11.

27 Pol. 18. 11. 13.

28 Pol. 18. 36–9, Liv. 33. 12 f.

29 Liv. 33. 12. 2.

30 Pol. 18. 42. 5, Liv. 33. 31. 4 ff.

31 Pol. 18. 44. 2 f., garbled or perhaps deliberately misrepresented by Liv. 33. 30. 2 (cf. J. Briscoe ad loc.). In general, cf. Walbank, , Philip V, p. 179Google Scholar, Badian, , Foreign Clientelae, pp. 72 fGoogle Scholar.

32 Pol. 18. 2. 3 f., Liv. 32. 33. 6 f.

33 Pol. 21. 13. 3, App. Syr. 2. 5, Diod. 29. 7, SIG3 591. Cf. Holleaux, , Etudes v. 365Google Scholar, Bickermann, E. (Philol. 87 (1932), 277 ff.)Google Scholar.

34 Pol. 21. 13. 3.

35 Pol. 18. 44. 5, Liv. 33. 30. 4.

36 cf. Holleaux, , Etudes v. 362Google Scholar, Badian, , Foreign Clientelae, pp. 72 fGoogle Scholar. The Rhodians had already warned Antiochus that they would not allow him to interfere with the Roman liberation of Greece from Philip (Liv. 33. 20. 3, 11 f.).

37 Liv. 33. 30. 4 ff.

38 Pol. 18. 45. 9 ff., Liv. 33. 31. 8 ff., Plut. Flam. 10. On Flamininus, cf. especially Badian, , Titus Quinctius Flamininus (Cincinnati, 1970)Google Scholar, with discussion of other views.

39 Pol. 18. 45. 3 ff., Liv. 33. 31. 2 f.

40 Pol. 18. 45. 12, Liv. 33. 31. 11.

41 Pol. 18. 46, Liv. 33. 32 f., Diod. 28. 13, Plut. Flam. 10 ff., App. Mac. 9. Cf. Badian, , Foreign Clientelae, pp. 73 fGoogle Scholar.

42 Pol. 18. 46. 15, Liv. 33. 33. 7.

43 Pol. 18. 47. 1 f., Liv. 33. 34. 3 f.

44 Liv. 33. 38. 5 ff.

45 Pol. 18. 50–2, Liv. 33. 39–41, App. Syr. 3, Diod. 28. 12. Cf. Badian, , Studies in Greek and Roman History (Oxford, 1964), pp. 119 ffGoogle Scholar.

46 Pol. 18. 51. 9: τ⋯ς δ' αὑτονόμους τ⋯ν кατ⋯ τ⋯ν 'Ασίαν πόλɛων οὐ δι⋯ τ⋯ς 'Pωμαίων ⋯πιταγ⋯ς δέον ɛῖναι τυγχάνɛιν τ⋯ς ⋯λɛυθɛρίας ⋯λλ⋯ δι⋯ τ⋯ς αὑτου χαρίτος.

47 Relevant items are: the liberation of Greece as a justification for the continuing presence of Roman troops (Liv. 33. 44. 9); Flamininus' case for liberating Sparta (Liv. 34. 22. 11, 32. 3 ff., 8, 13); Aetolian criticism of Flamininus’ hypocrisy and repetition of the demand for total evacuation (Liv. 34. 23. 8 ff.); Flamininus’ refusal to overthrow Nabis despite Greek pressure (Liv. 34. 33. 6, 9).

48 Liv. 34. 48. 5.

49 Liv. 34. 49. 4 ff., Diod. 28. 13.

50 Liv. 34. 58 f., Diod. 28. 15, App. Syr. 6. 24.

51 Liv. 34. 58. 2 f.

52 Liv. 34. 58. 9, 59. 1.

53 Liv. 34. 58. 11 f.

54 Liv. 34. 59. 5: ‘qua uirtute quaque fide libertatem eorum a Philippo uindicauerit, eadem ab Antiocho, nisi decedat Europa, uindicaturum’, Diod. 28. 15. 4.

55 App. Syr. 6. 24: ⋯⋯ν 'Αντίοχος αὑτονόμους τοὺς ῞Ελληνας ⋯ᾷ τοὺς ⋯ν 'Ασίᾳ кα⋯ τ⋯ς Εὺρώπης ⋯πέχηται. Cf. Badian, , Studies, pp. 126 fGoogle Scholar. with n. 70, who rightly insists that Appian's version must be the true one. The most likely explanation of the divergence between Appian and Livy/Diodorus is perhaps that of Balsdon, J. P. V. D. (JRS 55 (1965), 229)Google Scholar, regrettably abandoned by him in Phoen. 21 (1967), 188 f.Google Scholar, which allows ‘nisi decedat Europa’ to stand as Polybian while permitting Badian's arguments their full force.

56 Liv. 35. 16. 2 ff., App. Syr. 12. 45.

57 cf. Liv. 35. 31. 8 on the squabble at Demetrias. For the frequent occurrence of the slogan during the narrative of the war in Greece, cf. Pol. 20. 8. 1, Liv. 35. 44. 6, 46. 6, 48. 8, 36. 9. 4, 11. 2. Some Greeks claimed to have no need of liberation because they were free already (Liv. 35. 46. 9 f., Plut. Flam. 15). Flamininus’ assertion of his own claim remained consistent (Liv. 36. 34. 3 f.).

58 Pol. 3. 7. 3, Liv. 35. 33. 8, cf. during the war 35. 46. 6, 48. 8.

59 Pol. 21. 14. 8 f., 17, Liv. 37. 35. 9 f., App. Syr. 29. 143, 147.

60 Pol. 21. 14. 8 f., 17, 24. 7, 42, 45, (cf. 25. 4 f., 27. 4. 7), Liv. 37. 55. 5 f., 38. 39 (cf. 41. 6), Diod. 29. 11, App. Syr. 38 f., 44. 229 ff. This despite the letter of the Scipiones to Heraclea in Latmos (SIG3 618. 10 ff.). On the geographical problems, which are fortunately irrelevant here, cf. Holleaux, , Etudes v. 208 ff.Google Scholar, McDonald, A. H. (JRS 57 (1967), 1 ff.)Google Scholar. In general, cf. Holleaux, , Etudes v. 421 ff.Google Scholar, Bikerman, (REG 50 (1937), 217 ff.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Pol. 21. 19–23, Liv. 37. 53 f.