Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:00:06.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rome and Macedon, 205–200 B.C.*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

J. P. V. D. Balsdon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article has no more ambitious purpose than to sow doubt. As an inquiry into the policy of Rome in declaring war on Philip V in 200 B.C., it cannot pretend to be anything but superficial.

In England at least, studies of the question are based nowadays on the brilliant writings of M. Holleaux and the scholarly work of F. W. Walbank and A. H. McDonald, which in the main derives from Holleaux. Within thirty years or so what started as paradox has become respectable orthodoxy—which De Sanctis has resisted, but few others.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 44 , Issue 1-2 , November 1954 , pp. 30 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © J. P. V. D. Balsdon 1954. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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.)

Footnotes

*

This is the précis of a very long article—‘ad instar voluminis’—which I wrote some years ago, for which no periodical could be expected to find room. I was much helped then, as I have been helped since, by the criticism of Mr. C. Hignett, which I value the more highly since he is unsympathetic with much of my argument, and I have gained much from discussion with undergraduates who have attended the class on Polybius and Livy which I have held from time to time in Oxford.

References

1 Holleaux, M., Rome, la Grece et les monarchies hellenistiques (Paris, 1920Google Scholar), referred to henceforth as ‘Holleaux, Rome’; CAH VIII, chapters 5 and 6 and, of his numerous articles, particularly ‘Le prétendu recours des Athéniens aux Romains en 201/200,’ RÉA 22 (1920), 77–96Google Scholar; Walbank, F. W., Philip V of Macedon (Cambridge, 1940Google Scholar), referred to henceforth as ‘Walbank, Philip’; McDonald, A. H. and Walbank, F. W., ‘The Origins of the second Macedonian War’, JRS 27 (1937), 180–207Google Scholar, referred to henceforth as ‘McDonald-Walbank’.

2 Petzold, K.-E., Die Eröffnung des zweiten römischmakedonischen Krieges (Berlin, 1940Google Scholar).

3 See Hoch, H., Die Darstellung der politischen Sendung Roms bei Livius (Frankfurt a.M., 1951Google Scholar).

4 ‘Die Benutzung des Polybios bei römischen Schriftstellern,’ Studi ital. de fil. class. 25 (1951), 243–65Google Scholar, especially 243, n. 1, 249, n. 1. I regret very greatly that Klotz, A., ‘Livius und seine Vorganger’, Neue Wege zur Antike, 2, 1940–1941, 9–11Google Scholar, is not accessible to me.

5 ‘On the Classification of Roman Allies,’ CQ 1 (1907), 182–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 ‘Die völkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der römischen Aussenpolitik in republikanischer Zeit,’ Klio Beiheft 31 (1933). See, especially, p. 57 fGoogle Scholar., in criticism of Holleaux. cf. chapter 4 of Accame, S., Il dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto, Rome, 1946Google Scholar.

7 ‘Rome's culpable delay in securing the help of Aetolia,’ Walbank, Philip, 104.

8 P(olybius) 5, 101, 6–102, 1; 105, 1; 108, 4–7; 109, 1–3.

9 P. 7, 3, 2; L(ivy) 24, 6, 4 f.; cf. Sallust, BJ 14, 5.

10 L. 26, 24, 2.

11 L. 26, 24, 15, ‘Nee tamen impedimento id rebus gerendis fuit.’

12 A suggestion which I owe to Miss M. E. Hubbard of Somerville College.

13 L. (P.) 29, 12, 1.

14 L. (out of P., by an annalist, it is alleged) 29, 12, 1 ff. Livy says the expedition was equipped and sailed before news arrived that Aetolia had made peace with Philip. There is no reason to deny this and to claim, as Holleaux does, that the expedition was sent because the news of Aetolia's secession had already arrived in Rome, and in the hope of forcing her back into war. cf. Larsen, J. A. O., CP 32 (1937), 31 and n. 48Google Scholar.

15 Sallust, , Hist. 4, 69, 5M.Google Scholar; L.(? P.) 31, 31, 19 f.; 32, 21, 18; Justin 29, 4, 11; Appian, Mac. 3. cf. K.-E. Petzold (n. 2), 25.

16 L. (A.) 31, 1, 8, ‘Cum Aetoli et belli et pacis fuissent causa,’ shows how little Truth matters to those who are really angry, cf. L. (? P.) 31, 29, 5; 31, 31, 18.

17 But see above p. 30 and n. 4.

18 Täubler, E., Imperium Romanum (Leipzig-Berlin, 1913) I, 215Google Scholar, alone rejects.

19 L. 26, 24, 9 (where I accept the view that ‘Messenii’ should be inserted in Livy's text); De Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani (1917), III, II, 436Google Scholar, n. 94.

20 Täubler (n. 17), 214 f.; Holleaux, Rome, 261–5. Heuss (n. 5), 40 f., excludes Messene (with Athens and Ilium). A strong case for including Messene, Sparta and Elis is made by Larsen, , CP 30 (1935), 210–212Google Scholar.

21 Holleaux, Rome, 53–6 and 265–71 and CAH 8, 135 f.; Täubler (n. 18), 1, 215–7; Niese, B., Geschichte der griech. und maked. Staaten, II, 502, n. 4Google Scholar; Larsen, , CP 32 (1937), 25Google Scholar; Petzold (n. 2), 26 ff. (though I do not understand his sudden qualification on p. 27 that, if Athens' name was inserted, it was ‘nur in negativem Sinn.’)

22 P. 2, 12, 8; cf. Zon. 8, 19.

23 See, on this subject, Börner, F., Rom und Troia (Baden-Baden, 1951Google Scholar). It is absurd to appeal to L. (A.) 29, 11, 1, as evidence against ‘amicitia’ of Rome and Ilium at this date.

24 Suet., Claud., 25, 3. (For Holleaux's criticism, see Rome, 48 ff., 259 f.)

25 SIG 3 591.

26 Anyhow, the inscription contains clear references to the kinship of Rome and Lampsacus through Ilium in ll. 18f., 21 f., 25, 31. The argument of Holleaux, Rome, 53–6, has no force.

27 P. 25, 2, 12; SIG 3 588, 58; 591, 65; Bickermann, E., Rev. de phil., 61 (1935), 66Google Scholar.

28 As Bickermann claimed (n. 27), 66 ff., stressing the strangeness of the Latin phrase ‘pax communis’ in L. (P.) 29, 12, 8.

29 For this argument, see Holleaux, Rome, 269–71.

30 P. 16, 25 f.

31 P. 16, 27, 2; 16, 34, 3. These are both fragments from the anthologist, the editor of the De legationibus. The name of Rhodes may, therefore, have fallen out in the former passage, and it is dangerous to draw such inferences from the omission as are drawn by McDonald-Walbank, 200.

32 P. 16, 27.

33 P. 16, 34, 5.

34 L. 31, 18, 2.

35 Following De Sanctis (n. 19), III, II, 436–9, and Riv. di fil., 64 (1936), 198Google Scholar, n. 1; Bickermann (n. 27), 68; Klotz (n. 4), 248 f. and, in the case of Ilium, David Magie, W. H. Buckler Studies, 161 f.

36 3, 3, 1 f.; cf. 3, 32, 7.

37 L. (A.) 30, 26, 1–4.

38 L. (A.) 30, 40, 6; 30, 42, 1–10; cf. 31, 5, 5 ff.

39 App., Mac., 4; L. (P.) 31, 29, 4; Walbank, Philip 310 f.

40 L. (A.) 31, 1, 10 f.; App., Mac., 4; cf. P. 16, 24, 3.

41 P. 15, II; L. 30, 33; App., Pun., 40.

42 The Macedonians also appear, derivatively, in Frontinus, Strat., 2, 3, 16 and in Silius Italicus, Pun., 17, 418 ff. In recent times Bickerman, E. J., CP 40 (1945), 143Google Scholar, n. 77, is unusual in thinking that there may be an element of truth in the story.

43 L. 30, 34, 5; 35, 9.

44 L. 30, 26, 3; 30, 42, 4 and 6.

45 ‘Some Questions about Historical Writing in the Second Century B.C.,’ CQ 47 (1953), 162Google Scholarf.

46 Holleaux, , Rome, 278, n. 1Google Scholar; cf. my article (n. 45), 163 f. and, anticipating me, Badian, E., PBSR 20 (1952), 91Google Scholar, n. 102. Mr. Hignett points out to me that Illyria is not Greece. True enough; but here is evidence of Philip not observing scrupulously the Phoenice settlement.

47 Rome, 278, n. 1.

48 Niese (n. 21) II, 503, n. 1; Flacelière, R., Les Aitoliens à Delphes (Paris, 1937), 307, n. 2Google Scholar; 316, n. 3; 323 and Klaffenbach, G., IG ix, i2Google Scholar, introd., p. xxxii f. and Klio, 32 (1939), 203Google Scholar. L. 32, 33, 16, would support this view, but not (unfortunately) P. 18, 3, 12, the passage which (very freely, it seems) Livy was here translating.

49 L. 31, 1, 10: App., Mac. 4.

50 L. 31, 5, 5 ff.

51 L. 31, 14, 3.

52 Pausanias 1, 36, 6.

53 RÉA 22 (1920), 77–96Google ScholarPubMed, esp. 84; CAH 8, 161, n. 2. The claim is that in 7, 7, 6 f. (a not altogether accurate account of events in 198 B.C.) Pausanias is trustworthy, but that in 1, 36, 6 (where he was copying an inscription), he was misled by a Roman annalist. See Petzold (n. 2), 81, for the same suggestion.

54 See Walbank, Philip, 311 ff. for this argument, and for full references to the views of other scholars.

55 cf. Holleaux, , REA 22 (1920), 84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Petzold (n. 2), 81.

56 Hesperia, 5 (1936), 419 ff.Google Scholar; ll. 18–23 of the inscription refer to his diplomatic successes.

57 So Passerini, A., Athenaeum 9 (1931), 285Google Scholar, followed by Larsen, J. A. O., CP 32 (1937), 23Google Scholar.

58 McDonald-Walbank, 203; Walbank, Philip, 312 f.

59 I am fully conscious of the objection that I do not take L. (P.) 31, 14, 9, ‘Id … gens Acarnanum ad Philippum detulit’ literally.

60 Ferguson, W. S., Hellenistic Athens (London, 1911), 268Google Scholar, n. 4, and Athenian Tribal Cycles (Harvard, 1932), 141Google Scholar, n. 1, dated the abolition of the Macedonian tribes to late 201 (after September). Now, however, it seems that a date early in 201 must be accepted: so Pritchett, W. K., The five Attic Tribes after Cleisthenes (Baltimore, 1943), 33Google Scholar, following Dinsmoor, W. B., The Athenian Archon Lists (Columbia, 1939), 172 f.Google Scholar, and Pritchett-Meritt, , The Chronology of Hellenistic Athens (Harvard, 1940), 109Google Scholar.

61 P. 3, 2, 8; 15, 20; cf. 16, 10, 1; 16, 24, 3. That there never was in fact any sort of pact has been argued, by no means unpersuasively, by Magie, D.. ‘The “agreement” between Philip V and Antiochus III for the partition of the Egyptian Empire,’ JRS 29 (1939), 32–44Google Scholar.

62 P. 15, 25, 1 3; cf. 16, 22, 3 ff.; Holleaux, , CAH 8, 150 fGoogle Scholar. Bickermann (n. 27), 162 f. suggests that Philip had not only a secret pact with Antiochus against Egypt, but another with Egypt against Antiochus!

63 P. 16, 1, 9; but cf. 16, 24, 6.

64 The ‘pact’ is generally dated to late 203 or early 202.

65 Mac., 4.

66 McDonald-Walbank, 187.

67 McDonald-Walbank, 191; Walbank, Philip, 124.

68 15 20, 5 ff.

69 31, 14, 5.

70 Mac, 4.

71 L. (? P.) 31, 31, 20.

72 L. (A.) 31, 6, 3.

73 L. (A.) 31, 8, 1.

74 RÉA 22 (1920), 84Google ScholarPubMed, n. 1. McDonald-Walbank agree generally.

75 McDonald-Walbank 190; 197; Walbank, Philip, 128 ff.

76 L. 31, 2, 3 f.

77 P. 16 27, 5; 16, 34, 2; cf. Justin 30, 3, 3 f.

78 P. 16, 27, 4; ‘un giro di propaganda per la Grecia,’ Passerini (n. 57), 272; ‘sa marche lente vers l'Orient,’ Bickermann (n. 27), 165.

79 P. 16, 34.

80 See above, n. 75. Walbank, Philip, 129, ‘At each place the commissioners intimated the nature of the ultimatum which they intended presenting to Philip, concealing, of course, the fact that technically they were unauthorized to present a formal indictio belli.’ One hopes their Greek was equal to the (fantastically improbable) task.

81 P. 16, 27, 2.

82 L. (A.) 31, 8, 5 f.

83 P. 16, 25 f.; L. (P.) 31, 14, 11 ff.

84 P. 16, 27.

85 P. 16, 34; L. (P.) 31, 18.

86 L. (P.) 31, 16, 2.

87 As De Sanctis suggested, IV, 1, 35, n. 67.

88 Die römische Orientgesandtschaft vom Jahre 201–200 (Diss. Giessen. 1922), esp. p. 19.

89 See n. 27 above. On this view Aemilius' ultimatum was the rerum repetitio or denuntiatio belli, not (as Walbank thinks) the indictio belli. ‘Bellum Philippicum’ CP 40 (1945), 137–148Google Scholar, by E. J. Bickerman, represents a considerable change of mind on the part of its author.

90 McDonald-Walbank, esp. pp. 192; 196 f.; 200; Walbank, , CP 44 (1949), 18Google Scholar, n. 22.

91 Mommsen, , RH (E.T.), II, 418Google Scholar; Th. Walek-Czernecki, , Eos 31 (1928), 379 ffGoogle Scholar.

92 A History of the Roman World from 753 to 146 B.C. 2 (London, 1951), 232, n. 3Google Scholar.

93 P. 16, 25 f.; L. (P.) 31, 14, 11 ff.

94 Holleaux, , CAH 8, 161, n. 2Google Scholar; 163; RÉA 22 (1920), 91 fGoogle ScholarPubMed.

95 P. 16, 25, 6.

96 P. 16, 25, 4.

97 P. 16, 27, 2 f.

98 P. 16, 34, 2.

99 P. 16, 34, 5–7; L. (P.) 31, 18, 1–4.

100 The radical suggestion that we are not has been made already by Bickerman, E. J., o.c. (n. 89), and Walbank has replied in CP 44 (1949), 15–19Google Scholar, in an article which, in my opinion, better exposes the weakness of his position—the fact that so much is hypothesis—than does Bickerman's not very forceful attack.

101 L. (A.) 31, 8, 3 f.; cf. 36, 3, 9.

102 See RÉA 22 (1920), 82Google ScholarPubMed, n. 1. The promised article was written, but not published. See Bickermann (n. 27), 162, n. 5. Professor Louis Robert has had the great kindness to inform me that, as left by Holleaux, the paper was not prepared for publication, and that its publication cannot be anticipated with any certainty.

103 A very full bibliography on the questions raised by this paper is to be found on pp. 226–256 of De Regibus, L., La repubblica romana e gli ultimi re di Macedonia (Genova, 1951Google Scholar). The review of this book by Petzold, K.-E. in Gnomon 25 (1953), 399–407Google Scholar, is useful for those to whom Petzold's important book (n. 2 above) is not available.