Rome and Rhodes in the Second Century B.C.: A Historiographical Inquiry

Erich S. Gruen

doi:10.1017/S0009838800032900

Rome and Rhodes in the Second Century B.C.: A Historiographical Inquiry

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

Erich S. Gruen

Show author details

Erich S. Gruen*: Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Ancient Rhodes reached a pinnacle of power in the early second century B.C. For twenty years—from Apamea to Pydna—her fleet was unrivalled in the Aegean and her mainland possessions encompassed most of Lycia and Caria. Ally and helpmate of Rome in the war on Antiochus III, Rhodes gained much profit from the association, in prestige and territorial acquisitions. But her heyday was brief, her fall swift and calamitous. After Pydna, Rhodes felt the heavy hand of Rome: she forfeited most of her mainland holdings; her economy suffered ruinous setback; the island republic was humbled and humiliated. So dramatic a reversal of fortune demands explanation.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , May 1975 , pp. 58 - 81

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800032900 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1975

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

^{page 58 note 1} Standard accounts differ in details but share the same general picture; cf. Gelder, H. Van, Geschichte der alten Rhodier (Haag, 1900), 140–57;Google Scholar Niese, B., Geschichte der Griechischen and Makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea (Gotha, 1900), iii. 79–83,Google Scholar 100, 117–18, 131, 155–7, 177, 191–7; Sanctis, G. De, Storia dei Romani (2nd edn., Florence, 1969), iv. I. 250, 343–7;Google Scholar Schmitt, H. H., Ram and Rhodos (Munich, 1957), 529–72;Google Scholar Will, E., Histoire Politique du Monde Hellenistique (323–30 ay. J.-C.) ii (Nancy, 1967),Google Scholar 247–53; Deininger, J., Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland, 217–86 v. Chr. (Berlin, 1971), 184–91, 204–8;CrossRef Google Scholar Errington, R. M., The Dawn of Empire: Rome's Rise to World Power (London, 1971), 192–4, 249–52.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 1} Livy, 42. 26. 8: ‘ceteras satis fidas; Rhodios fluctuantes et imbutos Persei consiliis invenisse.’

^{page 59 note 2} Polyb. 27.3. 1–5; Livy, 42.45. 1–7. The annalistic fabrication was exposed long ago by Nissen, H., Kritische Untersuchungen fiber die Quellen der vierten undfitriften Dekade des Livius (Berlin, 1863), 247–8.Google Scholar His arguments withstand the inadequate criticism by Klotz, A., Livius und seine Vorganger (Leipzig and Berlin, 1940), 91.Google Scholar The story is unfortunately still given credence by Meloni, P., Perseo e la fine della monarchia macedone (Rome, 1953), 171, 174–5, and by Deininger, Widerstand, 185; rightly rejected by Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 212–14. Notice, however, that Livy endeavours to maintain some consistency: Polybius' remark that the Roman envoys were pleased with Rhodian behaviour (27. 3. 5) is dropped in the Livian narrative, otherwise a close paraphrase of Polybius; 42. 45. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 3} Livy, 44. 14. 8–52.

^{page 59 note 4} Livy, 44. 14. 13: ‘ne nunc quidem haec sine indignatione legi audirive posse certum habeo.’.

^{page 59 note 5} Livy, 44. 15. 5–7.

^{page 59 note 6} Polyb. 28. 2. 5–5, 28. 16. 5–9.

^{page 60 note 1} Polyb. 29. 19. I–11; Livy, 45. 3. 3–8. Livy's embarrassment is obvious as he seeks to reconcile the two accounts: he has the Rhodian envoys of 169 held in Rome until the end of the war and then summoned in mockery of their foolish arrogance; 45. 3. 3. The annalistic account is rightly dismissed by Nissen, Untersuchungen, 261–2; cf. Klotz, Livius, 95; see also Schmitt, Rom and Rhodos, 214–15.

^{page 60 note 2} He cites two Rhodian historians, Antisthenes and Zeno, for events c. 200 B.C.; Polyb. 16. 14–20. And he was in correspondence with Zeno when composing his own history; Polyb. 16. 20. 5–7. Whether Zeno's work extended to the Third Macedonian War and beyond cannot be known. Ullrich, H., De Polybii Fontibus Rhodiis (Leipzig, 1898),Google Scholar passim, assumes it and ascribes numerous Polybian passages to Zeno—without evidence. It is wiser to suspend judgement; cf. Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius ii (Oxford, 1967), 517–18. Nor is it certain that Polybius visited Rhodes and consulted Rhodian archives—despite Polyb. 16. 55. 8: see Walbank, Commentary, i. 31–2, 520. Yet there can be little doubt that he transmitted attitudes prevalent in post-war Rhodes.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 3} Polyb. 27. 7. 11–12, 28. 2. 3, 29. II. 2.

^{page 60 note 4} Polyb. 27. 7. 4–10.

^{page 60 note 5} Polyb. 30. 7–9. See esp. Polyb. 30. 9. 1:

^{page 60 note 6} Polybius' internment at Rome from 167 to 150 afforded an ideal opportunity to obtain information from Greek embassies and representatives who visited Italy; cf. Walbank, , Polybius (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1972), 9–50, 74–x6. The missions from Rhodes in the years that followed Pydna consisted precisely of those men who would be most anxious to dissociate their policies from those of the fallen leadership; Polyb. 30. 4–5, 30. 21, 30. 23, 30. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 7} Polyb. 30. 31. 14: The Rhodians also managed to persuade a Roman delegation of the fact; Polyb. 30. 31. 20. Polybius may well be working from a published version of Astymedes' speech. The Rhodian had, in any case, published an earlier oration delivered in Rome and known to Polybius Polyb. 30. 4. 1. Ullrich's claim, Fontibus, 67 70–1, that it was to be found only in Zeno's history has no basis.

^{page 61 note 1} Polyb. 29. 19. 2: .

^{page 61 note 2} Livy, 45. 23. 7–10, 45. 24. 4–6. The speech itself is doubtless a free composition by Livy; cf. Nissen, Untersuchungen, 275. Bu its argumentation is consistent with the lin elsewhere propounded by the Rhodians.

^{page 61 note 3} Livy, 45. 10. 10–12–a passage surely drawn from Polybius; Nissen, Untersuchungen, 273.

^{page 61 note 4} See e.g. Polyb. 28. 2. 3, 29. 10. 2–3, 29 11. 1–2.

^{page 61 note 5} Polyb. 27. 4. 9 (on the pro-Romans) =Livy, 42. 46. 5: partimelioris; Polyb. 28. 17. 12: .

^{page 61 note 6} cf. Polyb. 25. 3. 1–4; Livy, 42. 63. 2. An even stronger formulation in Livy, 42. 30. 1: ‘plebs ubique omnis ferme, ut solet, deterioris erat, ad regem Macedonasque inclinata.’

^{page 61 note 7} Polyb. 28. 16. 2; Livy, 45. 10. 12.

^{page 62 note 1} Polyb. 30. 4. 10–17.

^{page 62 note 2} Polyb. 22. 18; Livy, 39. 23–4; Pith Aem. Paul. 8. 4–6; see the analysis of Pedech, P., La Mithode Historique de Polyb (Paris, 1964), 323–40; cf. Walbank, bills, 157–60. Polybius' general comments of the causes of wars are best formulated Polyb. 3. 6–7.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 3} Polyb. 3. 32. 6–9; cf. I. 3. 7–10. on these and other passages pointing in the same direction, see Walbank, , J.R.S. liii (1963), 1–13;Google Scholar Polybius, 160–6. This is not the place to assess the plausibility of Polybius' view on the origins of the Third Macedonian War; cf. e.g. Meloni, Perseo, 131–209, 441–57; Bikerman, E., R.E.G. lxvi (1953), 479–506;Google Scholar Giovannini, A., B.C.H. xciii (1969), 853–61.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 4} Polyb. 30. 6. 5–8.

^{page 63 note 1} Livy, 42. 30. 1–7, 45. 31. 4–5.

^{page 63 note 2} Polyb. 30. 7. 5–7, 30. 13. I–II; Livy, 45.31. 6–11.

^{page 63 note 3} So, most recently, Deininger, Wider-stand, 161–4.

^{page 63 note 4} Cf. Polyb. 3. 1–5.

^{page 63 note 5} Polyb. 30. 6. 1–4.

^{page 63 note 6} Polyb. 30. 7. 9–30. 9. 21.

^{page 64 note 1} For the warm reception see Polyb. 21. 18.2–3, 21.23. 13, 21. 24. 10–15; the speech, Polyb. 21. 22. 5–21. 23. 12; cf. Bikerman, , R.E.G. I (1937), 233–4;Google Scholar Gelzer, M., S. B. Heid. (1956), 22–5. Livy, 37. 54, somewhat reworks the talk in his version; cf. Nissen, Untersuchungen, 27.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 2} Polyb. 21. 24. 7, 21. 45. 8; Livy, 37. 55. 5, 37. 56. 5–6, 38. 39. 13.

^{page 64 note 3} Polyb. 22. 5. 1–10.

^{page 64 note 4} Ullrich, Fontibus, 57–8.

^{page 64 note 5} Polyb. 22. 5. 4, 22. 5. 7.

^{page 64 note 6} Polyb. 25. 4. 5.

^{page 64 note 7} See the lengthy and sensible examination by Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 81–128, with references to earlier literature.

^{page 64 note 8} Cf. e.g. Gelder, Van, Geschichte der alien Rhodier, 140–3;Google Scholar Niese, , Geschichte, iii. 81–2;Google Scholar Sanctis, De, Storia dei Romani, iv.Google Scholar 1.250; Fraser, P. M. and Bean, G. E., The Rhodian Peraea and the Islands (Oxford, 1954), 111–13. Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 121, expresses doubts-but hesitantly so.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 9} Polyb. 21. 24. 7.

^{page 65 note 1} Polyb. 22. 5. 4:

^{page 65 note 2} So, rightly, Fraser and Bean, Rhodiar Peraea, 112.

^{page 65 note 3} Polyb. 21. 42. 16–17; Livy, 38. 38. 11–12.

^{page 65 note 4} Polyb. 21.24. 10–15; Livy, 37. 56. 7–10

^{page 65 note 5} Polyb. 21. 31; Livy, 38. 10.

^{page 65 note 6} e.g. Alabanda: Holleaux, M., R.E.G. xi (1898), 258–66;Google Scholar Bikerman, , R.E.G. 1 (1937) 221;Google Scholar Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 87; Apollonia L. and Robert, J., La Carie (Paris, 1954), ii 303–12;Google Scholar Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 86–7 Araxa, : S.E.G. xviii. 570;Google Scholar Bean, , J.H.S lxviii (1948), 46–56;Google Scholar Schmitt, Rom tau Rhodos, 89–91. Evidence on the other free cities in Bikerman, , R.E.G. 1 (1937), 238–9.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 7} Sy11. ⁸ 633, lines 34–5: The inscription surely belongs in the years following Apamea; cf. Fraser and Bean, Rhodian Peraea, 108–9; Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 130.

^{page 65 note 8} On the mainland administration, see the discussion of Fraser and Bean, Rhodian Peraea, 79–94; the Nesiotic League: Fraser and Bean, Rhodian Peraea, 138–72.

^{page 65 note 9} Polyb. 30. 31. 12; see, in general, Rostovtzeff, M. I., The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford, 1941), 676–91.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 10} Polyb. 24. 15. 13.

^{page 65 note 11} A Rhodian delegation to Rome in 182 came to complain of the misfortunes suffered by Sinope, which had evidently been captured by Pharnaces of Pontus; Polyb. 23. 9. 2–3; Livy, 40. 2. 6–8. Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 134, takes the Roman failure to act on this complaint as a sign of the senate's distrust for Rhodes. But the senate did act: an embassy was dispatched to Asia and returned with sharp criticism of Pharnaces; Polyb. 23. 9. 3, 24. 1. 2. That Rome refrained from following up her diplomacy with armed force was standard procedure. It certainly does not imply disfavour for Rhodes. Nepos makes reference to an account of Roman campaigns in Asia under Cn. Manlius–an account written by Hannibal and sent off to Rhodes; Nepos, Hann. 13. 2. But it is fanciful to take this as evidence for Rhodian alienation from Rome—as Schmitt, Rom and Rhodos, 133. Even if the report is accurate, it suggests no more than Hannibal's desire to spread anti-Roman propaganda. No inference can be drawn about the attitude of Rhodes.

^{page 66 note 1} Polyb. 3. 3. 6–8.

^{page 66 note 2} Cf. Polyb. 30. 31. 4; Fontibus 81–2. Not that there was conflict without a break, as is inferred by Fraser and Bean, Rhodian Peraea, 114–15. Polybius reports that in 178 the Lycians were about to begin war anew; Polyb. 25. 4. 3: .

^{page 66 note 3} Polyb. 25.4. 1–3.

^{page 66 note 4} Polyb. 25. 4. 4; Livy, 41. 6. 8–10. Livy is not here dependent on Polybius; Nissen, Untersudumgen, 239–40.

^{page 66 note 5} Polyb. 25. 4. 5. Livy's formulation is somewhat different, with a Roman flavour and a Roman analogy—but no significant difference in substance; Livy, 41. 6. 11–12.

^{page 66 note 6} Polyb. 25. 4. 7–10; cf. Appian, Mac. 11. 2.

^{page 66 note 7} See Van Gelder, Geschichte der Rhodier, 143–5; Niese, Geschichk, 82–3, too; Meloni, Perseo, 122–5; Fraser and Bean, Rhodian Peraea, 115–16; Schmitt, Rom mid Rhodos, 134–7; Briscoe, J., J.R.S. liv (1964), 69; Errington, Dawn of Empire, 193–4.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 1} Polyb. 25. 3. 1; Livy, 40. 58. 8, 41. 24. 6, 45. 9. 3; Diod. 29. 30.

^{page 67 note 2} On restrictions upon the Macedonian and Syrian fleets, see Polyb. 18. 44. 6, 21. 42. 13–14. The point is acutely noted by Giovannini, , B.G.H. xciii (1969), 855—summarily dismissed, without argument, by Deininger, Widerstand, 185.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 3} Polyb. 25. 4. 6' sources here are dearly Rhodian; cf. Ullrich, Fontibus, 58.

^{page 67 note 5} Polyb. 25. 4. 2

^{page 67 note 6} Polyb. 25. 5. 3–5.

^{page 67 note 7} Polyb. 25. 6. 1.

^{page 67 note 8} Livy, 41. 25. 8: ‘externorum inter se bells, quo quaeque modo gesta sint, persequi non operae est satissuperque oneris sustinenti res a populo Romano gestas perscribere.’

^{page 68 note 1} Polyb. 24. 8. 2–3.

^{page 68 note 2} Polyb. 24. 10. II-I2. The passage is rightly noted in this connection by Frank, T., Roman Imperialism (New York, 1914), 216.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 3} Livy, 42. 12. 3–4; Appian, Mac. II. 2.

^{page 68 note 4} Polyb. 27. 7. 5–6; Livy, 42. 14. 8. Rhodian judges, it appears, cancelled the honours voted to Eumenes in Achaea; Polyb. 28. 7. 8–10; cf. Holleaux, , Etudes d'Epigraphie et d'Histoire Grecques i (Paris, 1938), 441–3.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 5} Livy, 42. 14. 6–9: ‘oration habuit, ceterum invisam senatui inutilemque sibi et civitati suae’; Appian, Mac. II. 3.

^{page 68 note 6} Ullrich, Fontibus, 61; Schmitt, Rom and Rhodos, 138.

^{page 68 note 7} Appian, Mac. II. 3: [the Rhodians] ‘legatio Rhodiorum... cuius ferox erat... princeps... libertate intemperanti invectus in regem’.

^{page 68 note 8} Appian, Mac. 11. 3; cf. Meloni, , 11 valore storico del libro Macedonico di Appiano (Rome, 1955), 134–42.Google Scholar One of these senators evidently was Cato the Elder; Plut. Cato Major, 8. 7–8—if that anecdote does not belong in 189.

^{page 69 note 1} Polyb. 27. 3. 1–5: ; Livy, 42. 45. 1–7. The annalistic version retailed elsewhere by livy, 42.26. 7–9, is fabricated and valueless; see above, P. 59 n. 2.

^{page 69 note 2} Polyb. 27. 4. 3–10; Livy, 42.46. 1–6.

^{page 69 note 3} Polyb. 27. 4. 7.

^{page 69 note 4} Polyb. 27. 4. 9: ; Livy, 42. 46. 5.

^{page 69 note 5} Polyb. 27. 4. 8–9; ; livy, 42. 46. 5.

^{page 69 note 6} Polyb. 27. 7. 1–14.

^{page 69 note 7} Polyb. 27. 7. 10–12.

^{page 70 note 1} Polyb. 27. 7. 3, 27. 14. 2. On their post-war activities, see Polyb. 30. 4–5, 30. 21,30. 30–1.

^{page 70 note 2} Polyb. 27. 7. 4, 27. 7. II; see above, p. 61 n. 7.

^{page 70 note 3} Polyb. 27. 7. 5–8:

^{page 70 note 4} Polyb. 27. 7. 14; LivY, 42. 56. 6.

^{page 70 note 5} Polyb. 27. 7. 16; Livy, 42. 56. 7; cf. Meloni, Perseo, 243–4. A contingent of Rhodian ships was stationed at Tenedos in 168. But they engaged in no hostilities against the Macedonian fleet and were evidently posted to safeguard Rhodian commerce; Livy, 44. 28. 3–3; so Meloni, Perseo, 350.

^{page 70 note 6} Polyb. 27. 7. 15, 27. 14. 1–3.

^{page 70 note 7} Polyb. 27. 14. 1–3.

^{page 71 note 1} Cf. Polyb. 29. 19. 3; Livy, 44. 14.10–11 45. 3. 5–6.

^{page 71 note 2} Polyb. 28. 2. 2–4; cf. 28. 16. 1, 28. 16.5

^{page 71 note 3} Polyb. 28. 2. 2, 28. 16. 8.

^{page 71 note 4} Livy, 43. 6. 4's hostility to Rhodes is demonstrated by her revolt in 167; Polyb 20. 5. 15; Livy, 45. 25. 13.

^{page 71 note 5} Polyb. 28. 2. 2: the same in Polyb. 28. 16. 7–8. Cf. also Livy, 42. 26. 9-chronologically misplaced, but evidence for a Rhodian embassy commissioned to dispel rumours of the island's misbehaviour.

^{page 71 note 6} Polyb. 28. 2. 5–6, 28. 16. g. The annalistic version in Livy, 44. 14.8–44,. 15.8, attributing an insolent speech to the Rhodians and a harsh response to the Romans is anachronistic and altogether unreliable; see above, p. 59.

^{page 72 note 1} Polyb. 28. 16. 3–9.

^{page 72 note 2} For references, see Meloni, Perseo, 317–18; more recently, Schmitt, Rom and Rhodos, 145–6; Ooteghem, J. Van, Lucius Mencius Philippus e sa familk (Brussels, 1961), 90–4;Google Scholar Briscoe, , J.R.S. liv (1964), 69–70; Errington, Dawn of Empire, 249–50, 294; Deininger, Widerstand, 189.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 3} Livy, 42. 29. 5–7; cf. 42. 26. 7.

^{page 72 note 4} Polyb. 27. 19. 1–2, 28. I. 1–9; Diod. 30. 2.

^{page 72 note 5} Polyb. 29. 25. 2–4.

^{page 72 note 6} Polyb. 28. 17. 4:

^{page 72 note 7} Livy, 41. 20. 7; Syll.⁸ 644/3.

^{page 72 note 8} Polyb. 27. 8; Livy, 42. 62; Appian, Mac. 12.

^{page 72 note 9} The view of Frank, C.P. v (1910), 358–61, that Philippus despaired of military success and hoped that Rhodian intervention might take him off the hook is without foundation.

^{page 73 note 1} Polyb. 28. 17. 15, 28. 23. 1–5.

^{page 73 note 2} Polyb. 28. 17. 4:

^{page 73 note 3} Polyb. 28. 17. 6:

^{page 73 note 4} Polyb. 28. 17. 13–15: Rom and Rhodos, 145 n. 2.

^{page 73 note 5} Polyb. 28. 17. 9: if

^{page 73 note 6} Polyb. 29. 19. 5–1I; Livy, 45. 3. 6' text in this way. It does not follow, however, that Polybius is right, as is assumed by Schmitt, Rom and Rhodos, 145 n. 2.

^{page 73 note 8} So De Sanctis, Storia dei Romani, iv. 1. 306; Meloni, Perseo, 318; Schmitt, Rom and Rhodos, 146.

^{page 73 note 9} Cf. Polyb. 28. 13. 8; Livy, 42. 43. 1–3; 42. 47. 1–9; Diod. 30. 7. I; Frank, , C.P. v (1910), 358–61.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 10} Briscoe, , J.R.S. liv (1964), 68–73, seeks to establish it.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 11} Polyb. 28. 17. 4.

^{page 74 note 1} Polyb. 28. 17. 8; so, rightly, Errington, Dawn of Empire, 294 n. 19.

^{page 74 note 2} An exact parallel comes in the discussion of Eumenes' negotiations with Perseus; Polyb. 29. 5. 2éthode, 402–4.

^{page 74 note 3} Polyb. 28. 17. 10.

^{page 74 note 4} Polyb. 28. 17. n.

^{page 74 note 5} Polyb. 28. 37. 12–14.

^{page 74 note 6} Cf. Meloni, Paseo, 344–5.

^{page 74 note 7} Polyb. 29. 3–4; Livy, 44. 23, 44. 29. 6.

^{page 74 note 8} Polyb. 29. 3. 7–9; Livy, 44. 23. 4–6.

^{page 74 note 9} Polyb. 29. 10. 3: .

^{page 74 note 10} Polyb. 29. 4. 7; Livy, 44. 23. 9–10. Polybius' assertion that Perseus may be an error on the part of the excerptor. Rhodes did not, in fact, engage in the war. Cf. Ulrich, Fontibus, 64‘adfirmabat Rhodios paratos ad helium esse'.

^{page 75 note 1} Polyb. 29. to. 1–7; see 29. to. 5:

^{page 75 note 2} Polyb. 29. II. 1–6; Livy, 44. 29. 6–8.

^{page 75 note 3} Cf. Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, ‘ein wahnsinniges Unterfangen’; Errington, Dawn of Empire, 250: ‘nothing less than crazy’.

^{page 75 note 4} Polyb. 29. t9. 2; see above, p. 61 n. 1.

^{page 75 note 5} Polyb. 27. 4. 3–30; Livy, 42. 46. 1–6.

^{page 75 note 6} Polyb. 29. 4. 8–10; Livy, 44. 24. 1–6; Appian, Mac. 18.

^{page 76 note 1} Polyb. 29. IO. 4, 29. 19. 3–4.

^{page 76 note 2} Polyb. 27. 3. 3–5; Livy, 42. 45. 3–7.

^{page 76 note 3} Polyb. 28. 2. 1–4, 28. 16. 1–8.

^{page 76 note 4} Polyb. 28. 16.6–7, 28. 17. I.

^{page 76 note 5} Polyb. 28. z6. 9, 28. 17. 2, 28. 17. 10–12.

^{page 76 note 6} Livy, 44. 35. 4–6; Zonaras, 9. 2. 3. Roman hostility to the envoys here is probably exaggerated. It is connected with resentment over Rhodes' earlier arrogant and unseemly mission to Rome—an annalistic fiction; Livy, 44. 14–15; Zon. 9. 22; cf. Gellius, 6. 3. 2–3; see above, p. 59.

^{page 76 note 7} Polyb. 29. 19. 1–4; cf. Livy, 45. 3. 3–6.

^{page 76 note 8} Polyb. 29. 19. 3; Livy, 45. 3. 4–5; Diod. 30. 24.

^{page 77 note 1} Livy, 44. 14. 9–11; cf. Nissen, Untersuchangen, 262.

^{page 77 note 2} Polyb. 29. 19. 5–1 t; Livy, 45. 3. 6–8.

^{page 77 note 3} Polyb. 30. 31. 14; Livy, 45. 10. 4–15, 45. 24. 6; Dio, 20. 68. On the fate of Deinon and Polyaratus, see Polyb. 30. 7. 9–30.9. 19.

^{page 77 note 4} Polyb. 30. 4; LivY, 45. 20–5; Diod. 31. 5; discussion in Schmitt, Rom and Rhodos, 151's speech against war, see Genius, 6. 3; Kienast, D., Cato der Zensor (Heidelberg, 1954), 119–24. The suggestion of Niese, Geschichte, 192, that the Romans did not seriously contemplate war, has been unjustly ignored.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 5} Polyb. 30. 5, 30. 19–21, 30. 23, 30. 31; Livy, 45. 25; Dio, 20. 68. 2–3; Zon. 9. 24; Schmitt, Rom and Rhodos, 156–67.

^{page 77 note 6} Polyb. 30. 31. 19–20; Livy, Per. 46.

^{page 77 note 7} Correspondence between Perseus and alleged Macedonian sympathizers was discovered and published, forming the basis for persecution of the Deinon group; Polyb. 30. 8. I, 30. 8. 7. But even if those documents were genuine, they show only—what is clear anyway—that Perseus urged certain Rhodians to press for peace, a proposal that found sympathetic ears.

^{page 78 note 1} Polyb. 30. 4–5, 30. 19. 16–17, 30. 21, 30.23.

^{page 78 note 2} Cato, fr. 164 = ORF², pp. 64–5: ‘at que ego quidem arbitror Rodienses noluiss nos ita depugnare, uti depugnatum est neque regem Persen vinci. sed non Rodien sea modo id noluere, sed multos populo atque multas nations idem noluisse arbitro... cairn id metuere, si nemo esset hom quem vereremur, quidquid luberet facere mus, ne sub solo imperio nostro in servitut nostra essent. libertatis suae causa in e sententia fuisse arbitror. atque Rodiense tamen Persen publice numquam adiuvere. Cf. also the words put by Livy into the moutl of Astymedes; Livy, 45. 22.4: ahodios, qunihil aliud quam quieverunt hoc bello’; 45. 23. 6: ‘neque fecimus igitur quicquam tamquam hostel, neque bonorum sociorum defuimus officio’; 45. 24. 1: ‘nee factual hostile ullum nostrum est.’

^{page 78 note 3} Schmitt's view, Rom and Rhodos, 148, that the Rhodians seriously contemplated imposing peace on Rome by force of arms is implausible in the extreme.

^{page 78 note 4} Polyb. 29. 19. 5–11.

^{page 78 note 5} Polyb. 28. 3. 3–6.

^{page 78 note 6} Polyb. 28. 3. 7–10

^{page 78 note 7} Polyb. 27. 7. 16; Livy, 42. 56. 7; see above p. 70 n. 5.

^{page 79 note 1} Polyb. 29. 19. 3; Livy, 45. 3. 4–5; Diod 30. 24.

^{page 79 note 2} Polyb. 30. 4. 2.

^{page 79 note 3} Polyb. 30. 4. 3–5; Livy, 45. 20. 4–10.

^{page 79 note 4} Livy, 42. 29. 3; Appian, Mithr. 2.

^{page 79 note 5} Livy, 44. 10. 12; Cf. 44. 14 6, 44. 24. 3.

^{page 79 note 6} Livy, 44. 14. 5' embassy is an invention; cf. Meloni, Penal; 347.

^{page 79 note 7} Polyb. 30. 18; Livy, 45. 44; Diod. 31.15.

^{page 79 note 8} Polyb. 28. 1. 7–9.

^{page 79 note 9} Polyb. 29. 27; Livy, 45. 12; Diod. 31.2; Zon. 9. 25.

^{page 79 note 10} Nor is there any suggestion in the sources that Rome was annoyed at Rhodian failure to fulfil the moral obligations of a client state—as Badian, E., Foreign Clientelae (Oxford, 1958), 101; Errington, Dawn of Empire, 250–2. No such phraseology appears, or is implied, in Polybius. Astymedes, in fact, stressed the that Rhodes had performed for the Romans; Polyb. 30. 4. 13. The Rhodians are castigated for not behaving as socii; et amici in the war; Livy, 45. 20. 8, 45. 23. 6. But the phrase is not equivalent to ‘client’. The Rhodians can also refer to Romans as socii; Livy, 45. 22. 1, 45. 22. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 11} The events are dealt with in moat standard works; see e.g. De Sanctis, Stories dei Romani, iv. I. 325–54.

^{page 80 note 1} Polyb. 29. 5, 29. 7. 1–2, 29. 9; 01 Eumenes' treatment after the war, see cap Polyb. 30. 19; Livy, Per. 46.

^{page 80 note 2} Polyb. 29. 6. 2' estrangement is more extreme still anc totally without basis; Livy, 44. 13. 12–14 The king was, in fact, never officially charge% with defection from the Roman cause Polyb. 30. 19. 1–6. According to Diodorus 31. 7. 2, documentary evidence late emerged attesting to an alliance betwee, Eumenes and Perseus; cf. Schleussner, B. Historia, xxii (1973), 119—or to the annalistic sources of Livy.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 4} Polyb. 30. 18, 30. 19. 12–13, 30. 28, 30. 30. 2–5, 31. 6.

^{page 80 note 5} Polyb. 29.19. 5:

^{page 80 note 6} Evidence for Italians on Delos in Hatzfeld, J., B.C.H. xxxvi (1912), 5–218;Google Scholar idem, Les Trafiguants italiens darts POrient hellinigue (Paris, 1919), 28–37; Wilson, A. J. N., Emigration from Italy in the Republican Age of Rome (Manchester, 1966), 99–119.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 7} Cato, fr. 169 = ORF², p. 66 ‘sint sane superbi quid id ad nos attinet? idne irascimini, si quis superbior est quam nos?’

^{page 81 note 1} Acknowledgement is due to the generous comments (expressing both assent and dissent) of Professors T. J. Luce and F. W. Walbank.

Article contents

Rome and Rhodes in the Second Century B.C.: A Historiographical Inquiry

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests