Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:12:37.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Origins of the Second Macedonian War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

A. H. McDonald  and
F. W. Walbank
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is little need now to emphasise the importance of the declaration of war against Philip V of Macedon in the history of Roman imperialism, or to formulate the problem of the causes of the Roman decision to intervene in the East. The work of M. Holleaux has defined the problem and indicated its historical implications, and subsequent research has kept the issue clear. We have rather to justify a paper upon this subject which returns to details of reconstruction already fully treated. Yet the reconstruction of events has not received its final exposition, and a better understanding of the details is essential for the historical interpretation of the political situation in 200 B.C.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , 1937 , pp. 180 - 207
Copyright
Copyright ©A. H. McDonald and F. W. Walbank 1937. 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.)

References

2 Rome[la Grèce et les monarchies hellénistiques] (Paris, 1921)Google Scholar; C[ambridge] A[ncient] H[istory] viii, ch. 6 (with bibliography).

3 Cambridge Historical Journal v, 1 (1935), 1 ffGoogle Scholar.

4 Livy (A[nnalist]) xxix, 12, 14; xxxi, 1–9. Holleaux, Rome, 265–271.

5 Storia dei Romani iv, 1, 32, n. 65; cf. iii, 2, 438. Riv. fil. (NS) xiv (1936), 196 ffGoogle Scholar.

6 Rev. phil. xlix (1925) 28 ff.Google Scholar: Eos xxxi (1928), 369 ffGoogle Scholar.

7 Rev. phil. 1 (1926), 194 ffGoogle Scholar.

8 Rev. phil. lxi (1935), 59 ff., 161 ffGoogle Scholar.

9 Athenaeum ix (1931), 260 ff.Google Scholar, 542 ff.

10 Class. Phil. xxxii, 1 (1937), 15 ff.Google Scholar, in reply to Bickermann's paper.

11 Rome, 258–71; CAH viii, 135–6; cf. Täubler, , Imperium Romanum 1, 214–8Google Scholar. Against De Sanctis, op. cit., iii, 2, 436 ff.: cf. Larsen, , Class. Phil. xxx (1935), 210–12Google Scholar; xxxii, 1 (1937), 15 ff.

12 Published with commentary by Meritt, B. D. in Hesperia v, 3 (1936), 419–28Google Scholar. Mr. McDonald has had the privilege of reading the decree with Prof. Meritt, who refers to this paper for the discussion of the historical implications of the decree.

13 On the earlier relations of Rome with the East, see Holleaux, Rome, chs. 1–6.

14 Polyb. xiii, 4–5, xviii, 54, 8; Diod. xxviii, 1; Polyaenus v, 17, 2. Cf. Holleaux, , Klio xiii (1913), 137 ff.Google Scholar, Rev. EG xxx (1917), 88 ff.Google Scholar, xxxiii (1920), 223 ff.; De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 3Google Scholar and nots 7, 8, 9; Segre, M., Riv. fil. (NS) xi (1933), 365 ff.Google Scholar; Griffith, op. cit., 7–8.

15 Holleaux, Rome, 281–3.

16 For a full reconsideration of the demotic and Greek evidence for the problem of the date of Philopator's death and the accession of Epiphanes, see F. Walbank, W., J[ournal of] E[gyptian] A[rchælogy] xxii (1936), 1, 20–34Google Scholar.

17 polyb. xv 25, 13. Holleaux, Rome, 77–80.

18 Polyb. iii, 2, 8; xv, 20.

19 Polyb. xvi, 1, 8–9.

20 Polyb. xv, 20, 2.

21 Polyb. xvi, 10.

22 De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 10–11Google Scholar.

23 Appian (Maced. 4, 1), preserving the Polybian tradition through an annalist (Schwartz, P-W s.v. ‘Appianus’ col. 219), states that, according to report, Philip was to help Antiochus against Egypt and Cyprus, and Antiochus to help Philip agauist Cyrene, the Cyclades and Ionia.

24 polyb. xv, 20, 3.

25 Holleaux, , Klio xiii (1913), 148 ffGoogle Scholar.

26 Polyb. xvi, 1, 9; 24, 6. Holleaux, Rome, 290 n. 1; CAH viii, 155.

27 For this interpretation of the Polybian account, compare the similar lines of the brief exposition of Holleaux, , CAH viii, 150Google Scholar.

28 Polyb. xvi, 22, 3–5. Holleaux, Rome, 290 n. 1, 317–8; CAH viii, 150–1, 153, 155.

29 Polyb. xv, 25, 14. Holleaux, , Rome, 80, 82Google Scholar. On the earlier relations of Rome with Egypt, see Holleaux, ibid., 60–83, 93–4.

30 Polyb. xv, 22–4; cf. xviii, 3, 11–12; 4, 5–7; 5, 4; Livy (P[olybius]) xxxi, 31, 4. Holleaux, Rome, 291, notes 1, 2; CAH viii, 151; De Sanctis, op. cit., iv, 1, 6–8.

31 Polyb. xviii, 51, 4–6. Holleaux, Rome, 290, n. 1.

32 Meritt, op. cit., 426; Heichelheim, , Aegyptus xvii (1937), 61 ffGoogle Scholar.

33 We may note Philip's severe rule in his own kingdom: Holleaux, , CAH viii, 144–5Google Scholar.

34 Polyb. xvi, 9, 3–4.

35 Appian, , Maced. 4, 2Google Scholar; Livy (P) xxxi, 29, 4.

36 Livy (P) xxxi 29, 4, in a close adaptation of Polybius, cf. Polyb. xviii, 38, 8. Nissen, Krit. Unters. über die Quellen der 4 und 5 Dekade des Livius, 126.

37 Polyb. xvi, 27, 4 (200). Livy (P) xxxi, 28, 3; 29, 1; 31, 20 (200–199).

38 Livy (P) xxxi, 46 4 (201); 15, 9 (200); 28, 3 (200–199); 32, 2–5 (199).

39 See Holleaux, Rome, 293–7, and Griffith, op. cit., 3–5. It will appear even more clearly from the present reconstruction of events that the embassy would never have been rebuffed after the Pergamene and Rhodian appeal in 201, where Appian places it. Bickermann (op. cit., 162 n. 4) surprisingly accepts Appian's dating on the grounds that “rien ne prouve que le Sénat voulut la guerre déjà en l'hiver 201–0.' Yet the appeal in 201 was the cause of the war: the Senate must have grasped its implications immediately. The election of Sulpicius Galba as consul for 200 shows the anti Macedonian policy in Rome at the beginning of the winter 201–0 (cf. De Sanctis, Riv. fil. (NS) xiv (1936), 200 against Bickermann) op. cit., 167 n. 2). The date of Zama, it may be noted, does not affect the implications of the rebuff to the Aetolians, for we may not assume that the Punic War made the Senate blind to the situation in Greece.

40 Polyb. xvi, 22a; 39. Holleaux, , Klio viii (1908), 267 ffGoogle Scholar.

41 Appian, , Maced. 4, 1Google Scholar; Polyb. xvi, 2, 4, 9; 7, 6 (reading Αἰγυπτίων for MS. ὑπεναντίων); Livy (P) xxxi, 31, 4. Klaffenbach, G., Ath. Mitt. li (1926), 28–33Google Scholar. Holleaux, , Klio ix (1909), 454–8Google Scholar; Rev. EA xxii (1920), 237 ff.Google Scholar, xxiii (1921), 181 ff.; Rome, 290 n. 1, 318 n.2; CAH viii, 153; De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 8Google Scholar n. 22. Samos does not appear in the negotiations of 198 (Polyb. xviii, 2) or in the settlement of 196 (Polyb. xviii. 44), and is definitely among the civitates sociae Ptolomaei in 197 (Livy (P) xxxiii, 20, 11–12): the explanation must be that Samos had remained juridically Egyptian in 201. On occupying the city Philip will have made clear his friendship with Ptolemy, the strategic necessity for his action, and the fact that it was not intended to injure Egyptian sovereignty.

42 Polyb. xvi, 14–15. The priority of the battle of Lade is established by the comment of Polybius (xvi, 10, 1): μετὰ τὸ συντελεσθῆναι τὴν περὶ τὴν Λάδην ναυμαχίαν καὶ τοὺς μὲν Ῥοδίους ἐκποδὼν γενέσθαι, τὸν δ᾿ Ἄτταλον μηδέπω συμμεμιχέναι, δῆλον ὡς ὲξῆν γε τελεῖν τῷ Φιλίππμ τὸν εἰς τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν πλοῦν. Polybius will have recognised the move against Alexandria as a major campaign to be undertaken only with unchallenged mastery in the Aegean. It could not be carried out after the alliance between Attalus and the Rhodians, in any interval in the summer in which the allies might happen to be temporarily separated: in the reference to Attalus Polybius must have meant that the king had not yet joined in the war. Thus Lade will come before the combined action at Chios. In any event, after the Macedonian losses at Chios, with Attalus operating in the Aegean, no victory over the Rhodians would have made Polybius criticise Philip for not sailing to Alexandria: we may conclude that he recorded the battle of Lade as the first engagement, with Philip at the height of his power and before Attalus entered the war (cf. De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 10Google Scholar n. 27; Griffith, op. cit., 8; against Holleaux, , Rev. EA xxii (1920), 244 ff.;Google ScholarCAH viii, 153–4).

43 Cf. Polybius (Polyb. xvi, 10 and supra, n. 42), and Alcaeus of Messene (Anth. Pal. ix, 518). De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 9Google Scholar n. 26.

44 Polyb. xvi, 9, 4; Livy (P) xxxi, 46, 4.

45 Holleaux, , Klio xiii (1913), 144Google Scholar; CAH viii, 153 n. 2.

46 Polyb. xvi, 1; xviii, 2, 2; 6, 4; Diod. xxviii, 5; Appian, , Maced. 4, 1Google Scholar. Holleaux, , Rev. EA xxiii (1921), 196 ffGoogle Scholar.

47 Holleaux, , Rome, 35, 87Google Scholar n. 2, 91, against Beloch, , Gr. Gesch. iv, 2, 345Google Scholar, followed by De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 12Google Scholar n. 32, who hold it to be nominally Ptolemaic.

48 Polyb. xvi, 2–9. Holleaux, , Klio ix (1909), 450 ff.Google Scholar; De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 12–14Google Scholar.

49 Polyb. xvi, 11–12; xviii, 2, 3; 6, 3; 8, 9. Holleaux, , Rev. EA xxii (1920), 237 ff.Google Scholar, xxiii (1921), 191 ff., xxv (1923), 330 ff.; CAH viii 154–5. De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 15Google Scholar.

50 Polyb. xvi, 8; cf. xvi, 28; Livy (P) xxxi, 15, 10.

51 Appian, Maced. 4, 2Google Scholar; Polyb. xvi, 24, 2–3; Justinus xxx, 3, 5; cf. Livy (A) xxxi, 2, 1.

52 Polyb. xvi, 24. Holleaux, , Rev. EA xxii (1920), 249–50Google Scholar, XXV (1923) 353–5.

53 Livy (P) xxxi, 14, 11. Holleaux, , Rev. EA. xxv (1923), 353–9Google Scholar; De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 16Google Scholar, n. 44. See infra p. 191, n. 70.

54 Bickermann, op. cit., 164 n. 3.

55 Livy (P) xxxi, 14, 6–10; 15, 5; Polyb. xvi, 26, 9. In adapting Polybius, Livy has limited himself to presenting separately, first the outbreak of hostility between Philip and the Athenians, then the formal declaration of war: the intervening account of events by sea has been omitted.

56 Polyb. xvi, 25–6, cf. Livy (P) xxxi, 14, 11–15, 7. The Polybian fragment has not been abridged: the undefined allusions refer back to he previous chapters (cf. Holleaux, , Rev. EA xxv, 1923), 356Google Scholar n. 6).

57 Cf. Ferguson, Hell. Athens, 268; De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 20Google Scholar n. 52; and Holleaux, , Rev. EA xxv (1923), 356–9Google Scholar.

58 Paus. I, 36, 5–6; cf. Ferguson, op. cit., 269; De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 21Google Scholar; Holleaux, , Rev. EA xxii (1920), 84Google Scholar n. 3; C AH viii, 161.

59 Supra p. 185, n. 39,

60 Polyb. xvi, 27; 34, 1–7; Livy (A) xxxi, 2, 3–4; Justinus XXX, 3, 3–5; xxxi, 1, 2. Holleaux, , Rev. EA xv (1913), 4Google Scholar, XXV (1923), 359; Rome, 50; CAH viii, 161; De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 23Google Scholar n. 57.

61 Polyb. xvi, 27, 2.

62 Täubler, op. cit., 216–7; Holleaux, , Rev. EA xxii (1920), 77Google Scholar; Rome, 267–70; CAH viii, 161 n. 2.

63 Livy omits all mention of the envoys in his adaptation of Polybius, not because after a critical survey he felt it inconsistent with his annalistic account of the causes of the war (as Holleaux, , Rev. EA xxii (1920), 91–2Google Scholar; CAH viii, 161, n. 2) nor in order to preserve the dignity of Rome (as De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 32Google Scholar, n. 65), but rather because he had stated that they went direct to Alexandria (Livy (A) xxxi, 2, 3): this would appear from his addition in xxxi, 18, 1; cf. Polyb. xvi, 34.

64 Polyb. xvi, 26, 6.

65 See infra p. 192 ff.

66 Livy (A) xxxi, 6, 3–4; cf. Passerini, op. cit., 281.

67 Niese, , Gesch. der griech. und maked. Staaten ii, 589Google Scholar.

68 Ferguson, Hell. Athens, 96, n. 2; Athenian Tribal Cycles, 5, n. 1.

69 IG 2 ii, 2362. Ferguson, , Ath. Tr. Cycles, 141Google Scholar, n. 1.

70 Ferguson (Ath. Tr. Cycles, 141, n. 1) has placed the Acarnanian raid in autumn 201, before the return of Philip, in order to explain the abolition of Antigonis and Demetrias; but the evidence given above (p. 187ff.) dates the raid to spring 200, and our explanation, we submit, provides satisfactorily for the abolition of the tribes. Bickermann (op. cit., 164, n. 3), without detailed treatment, places the Eleusis incident in August 201, the Acarnanian invasion some weeks later in autumn 201, and the Athenian embassy to Rome in winter 201–0. The present reconstruction (see also infra, p. 197 ff.) may be held to dispose of this view.

71 224–3 or 223–2. Feguson, Ath. Cycles, 92.

72 Polyb. v, 106, 6–8. Niese, , op. cit., ii, 463–5Google Scholar; Ferguson, Hell. Athens, 241 ff.; Ath. Tr. Cycles, 143–4; De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 16 ff.Google Scholar; Holleaux, Rome, 118.

73 Ferguson, Ath. Tr. Cycles, 142.

74 Livy (P) xxxi, 15, 8–10; Polyb. xvi, 26, 10, cf. xvi. 28.

75 Polyb. xvi, 27; Livy (P) xxxi, 16, 1–2. Livy omits the incident of Nicanor and records only the despatch of Philocles; but there was not merely one episode, with Livy giving Philocles in confusion for Nicanor (as Ferguson, Hell. Athens, 273, n. 1) or Polvbius giving the subordinate Nicanor and Livy the commander Philocles (Niese, , op. cit., ii, 592Google Scholar, n. 7; De Sanctis, 35, n. 67). Livy omitted the Nicanor incident because it introduced the Roman envoys he did not wish to mention (see supra p. 190, n. 63); and the despatch of Philocles presupposes a knowledge of the Roman ultimatum which must have come through Nicanor: ‘Philippus … ne Romano quidem quod imminebat bello territus, Philocle … misso,’ etc. (cf. Polyb. xvi, 29, 1).

76 Livy (P) xxxi, 16, 2.

77 Livy (P) xxxi, 16, 3–17, 11. See infra, p. 199.

78 Polyb. xvi, 34, 1–7; Livy (P) xxxi, 18, 1–4; Diod. xxviii, 6; Appian, Maced. 4, 2Google Scholar.

79 Cf. Holleaux, Rome, 267–8; CAH viii, 164; De Sanctis, op. cit., iv, 1, 35Google Scholar; Niese, op. cit., ii, 595Google Scholar.

80 Livy i, 32,5; cf. vii, 6, 7; 32, I; x, 45, 7. Dionys, . Ant Rom. 11, 72Google Scholar, 6. Lange, Römnche Altertütner 13, 322 ff.

81 Theoretically, of course, the Roman People has always suffered injury from its adversary; and it is reparation for this injury that is sought by the pater patratus. The rerum repetitio is also called the clarigatio, cf. Servius, ad Aen. ix, 52Google Scholar; Arnobius ii, 67; and Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer 2, 553.

82 Testatio–Livy i, 32, 9, ‘ego vos testor populum ilium iniustum esse’: denuntiaio–Livy x, 12; Cic. de re pub. ii, 17.

83 Livy vii, 6, 7, the term used being iubere; this step is omitted in the account of i, 32, 5.

84 Livy x, 45, 7 where the fetiales are sent ad res repetendas; ‘quibus non redditis ex auctoritate patrum iussu populi bellum Faliscis indictum;’ Cic. loc. cit.; Lange, op. cit.,i3, 328. In two places in Livy (i, 32, 5; vii, 32, 1–2) the expression indictio belli is used to describe the denuntiatio; the reason for this curious error will be considered below (p. 194, n. 91).

85 Serv. Dan. ad Aen. ix, 52Google Scholar: ‘cum … nec invenirent locum ubi hanc sollemnitatem per fetiales indicendi belli celebrarent.’

86 Serv. Dan. ibid.; Ovid, Fasti vi, 205 ff.Google Scholar This fiction was preserved into imperial times; cf. Suet. Claud. 25; Amm. Marc. xix, 2, 6.

87 Wissowa, op. cit., 554; P-W., s.v. ‘Fetiales’ (Samter); Weiss in Daremberg-Saglio, Dict. des antiquités, ii, 1100 (inaccurately paged 2000); Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, ii3, 675; cf. Varro, de l. l. v, 86 (fetiales) ‘ … ex his mittebantur … qui res repeterent, et per hos etiam nunc fit foedus.’

88 Livy xxi, 17, 4; the passage derives ultimately from a contemporary annalistic tradition: cf. De Sanctis, , op. cit., iii, 2, 185Google Scholar.

89 Livy (A) xxi, 18, 2; Polyb. iii, 20, 6–7 gives two similar alternatives.

90 Livy xxi, 18,13 (Polybius through an annalist, cf. De Sanctis, , op. cit., iii, 2, 176Google Scholar); Polyb. iii, 33, 2.

91 The reason for the error in Livy (see supra, p. 193, n. 84) is now clear: under the later procedure, the new senatorial legati deliver the indictio belli immediately before departing–in short, at the point where formerly the fetiales had delivered the denuntiatio. The spear-throwing ceremony is a mere rite, to be carried out at Rome or on the enemy's frontier, as convenience allows: the real indictio belli is the parting word of the legati.

92 Op. cit., 172 ff. Apart from the difficulty of explaining the allotment of Macedonia as a province to Sulpicius at the beginning of the year (supra, p. 185, n. 39), the chronology of Bickermann's thesis is hard to accept. Sulpicius landed in Epirus autumno fere exacto (Livy (P) xxxi, 22, 4), i.e. in mid-September (cf. Holleaux, BCH, lvi 1932, 53Google Scholar. ff.): and Philip learnt of this on the way from Abydus to Macedon (Livy (P) xxxi, 18, 9). Now if Lepidus' meeting at Abydus preceded the war-vote in the Comitia, time is needed for Philip's reply to reach Rome, for the two votes on the war-motion, for all the preparations and formalities, and for the army to get from Rome to Epirus before Philip left Abydus. Bickermann allows (op. cit., 174, n. 3) twenty days for the journey from Abydus to Rome, three days for the supplicatio, ten days for military preparations and other formalities and nine days for the journey from Rome to Epirus–in all about six weeks. Therefore, assuming that Philip left Abydus about the time that Sulpicius landed in Epirus (as seems likely, since the news met Philip en route for Macedon), Philip must have stayed six weeks at Abydus after it fell. But Livy's words ( (P) xxxi, 18, 9) are simply: ‘Philippus imposito Abydi praesidio in regnum rediit.’ It is difficult to limit the whole of the Roman preparations to ten days and equally so to prolong Philip's stay at Abydus to six weeks (particularly after the visit of Lepidus). Yet Bickermann's figures are here a maximum and a minimum respectively: neither can be modified except at the expense of the other.

93 Op. cit., 183. Bickermann's other criticisms are easily disposed of. His first—that if the ultimatum at Abydus was the indictio belli, that to Nicanor must have been the clarigatio—rests on a misunderstanding not only of the procedure at this time, but indeed of the ius fetiale of the early republic. for original indictio belli was, as we saw (supra, p. 193, n. 84), a mera have possessed ‘la même ampleur’ as the clarigatio. Secondly Rowing; Bickermann argues, Lepidus was sent to Abydus Bickermann argues, Lepidus was sent to Abydus on the instuctions of the embassy, Whereas any question of an ultimatum must have been managed direct from Rome. But that the envoys did have direct insturctions from Rome is clear from pol. xvi 34, 2: βουλόμενοι πρὸς αὐτὸν τὸν Φίλιππον ποιήσασθαι τοὺς λόγους κατὰ τὰς ἐντολάς.

94 xxxi, 8, 3–4.

95 The similarity of language in which the two decisions and the subsequent religious ceremonies are described shows the two situations to be parallel: if Livy (A) xxi, 17, 4 (quoted supra, p. 193) and xxxi, 8, 1–2 (A): ‘supplicatio inde in triduum ex senatus consulto indicta est, obsecratique circa omnia pulvinaria dei, ut quod bellum cum Philippo populus iussisset, id bene ac feliciter eveniret.’

96 See supra, pp. 193–4.

97 Livy (A) xxxi, 8, 3: ‘bellum, quod indiceretur regi Philippo, utrum ipsi utique nuntiari iuberent …’

98 ibid. ‘an satis esset, in finibus regni, quod proximum praesidium esset, eo nuntiari.’

99 Op. cit., 172.

100 Livy (A) xxxvi, 3, 7 ff. A similar evasiveness may appear also in the record of the priests' reply to the consul's second question—whether a separate declaration of war must be made against the Aetolians and whether friendly relations must first be broken off; for the statement that Aetolia had already broken off her relations with Rome by her refusal to give satisfaction legatis totiens (res) repetentibus (Livy (A) xxxvi, 3, 10) grossly mis-represents the negotiations of Flamininus with the Aetolians in 192 at the spring League meeting (Plut. Tit. 15; Livy (P) XXXV, 33) and at Aegium in November (Livy (P) xxxv, 47 sq.; Plut. Philop. 15; Tit. 17; Comparison, 2).

101 Livy (A) xxxi, 8,4.

102 Livy (A) xxix, 37, 1. Bickermann follows Münzer (Römische Adelsparteien, 171) in the view that the quaestorship at this time brought automatic entry to the Senate; but neither adduces any evidence in its support.

103 Val. Max. ii, 2, 1. Q. Fabius communicated the war-decision against Carthage to Crassus ‘memor eum triennio ante quaestorem factum, ignarus nondum a censoribus in ordinem senatorum adlectum, quo uno modo etiam iis qui iam honores gesserant aditus in curiam dabatur.’ The last statement requires modification, at least as regards consuls, praetors and curule aediles (see infra, n. 106).

104 Mommsen, op. cit., iii3, 863.

105 Mommsen, op. cit., iii3, 874; Daremberg-Saglio, , op. cit., iv, 1185Google Scholar, ‘Senatus’ (Lecrivain): according to the latter the age of entrance to the Senate was probably reduced by the Lex Villia of 180 to twenty-seven.

106 Livy (A) xxiii, 23.

107 Aul. Gell. iii, 18, 7; cf. also Festus, p. 339, M: ‘qui post lustrum conditum ex iunioribus magistratum ceperunt, et in senatu sententiam dicunt, et non vocantur senatores ante quam in senioribus sunt censi.’ The seniores are presumably those of forty-six and over.

108 Even if it could be proved that Lepidus was a member of the Senate in 200, there is still the possibility that the words qui extra senatum essent are merely the annalistic or Livian transcription of an original qui nondum senatores essent or the like, The distinction between senatores and quibus in senatu sententiam dicere licet was blurred as early as the S.C. ‘de Bacchanalibus’ of 186; cf. Mommsen, op. cit., iii3, 859, n. 1.

109 Livy (A) xxi, 18, 2 referring to the legati of 218. See supra, p. 194.

110 cf. Mommsen, op. cit., ii3, 685: ‘Einzelgesandte finden sich auch, aber sehr selten.’

111 op. cit., 170, quoting Flor. ii, 6, 2, ‘summa foederum Romanis religio est.’

112 Polyb. xvi, 34, 1: ὁ νεώτατος; 34, 6: νέος καὶ πραγμάτων ἄπειρος; cf. Livy (P) xxxi, 18, 1.

113 Carthage: Polyb. iii, 20, 7; Livy (A) xxi, 18, 3. Abydus: Polyb. xvi, 34, 3; cf. Livy (P) xxxi, 18, 1. (On the source of Livy xxi, 18 see supra, p. 193, n. 88.)

114 Carthage: Polyb. iii, 20, 10 sq.; Livy (A) xxi, 18, 4. Abydus: Polyb. xvi, 34, 5; cf. Livy (P) xxxi, 18, 2.

115 Carthage: Polyb. iii, 33, 1–2; Livy (A) xxi, 18, 13. Abydus: Pol. xvi, 34, 5; cf. Livy (P.) xxxi, 18, 2–3.

116 Carthage: Polyb. iii, 33, 4; Livy (A) xxi, 18, 14. Abydus: Polyb. xvi, 34, 7; cf. Livy (P) xxxi, 18, 4.

117 Livy (P) xxxi, 16, 2. See supra, p. 192.

118 Livy (P) xxxi, 26, 1.

119 Livy (P) xxxi, 14, 3; 22, 5–7. Zonaras ix, 15. Appian, Maced. 4, 1Google Scholar, is misdated to 201: the record represented by the phrase ἑτέρῳ μέρει στρατοῦ may originally have applied to the simultaneous operations of Philip in Thrace and Philocles in Attica in the summer of 200.

120 Livy (P) xxxi, 22, 8; 24, 10.

121 Polyb. xvi, 30, 7; 31, 3. Livy (P) xxxi, 16, 7.

122 Paus. i, 36, 5–6.

123 Niese, op. cit., ii, 590Google Scholar, n. 1; Täubler, op. cit., i, 216Google Scholar; Ferguson, Hell. Athens., 269, n. 1; De Sanctis, , op. cit. iv, 1, 21Google Scholar, n. 53.

124 As Holleaux, , Rev. EA xxii (1920), 8Google Scholar4 (cf. Nissen, op. cit. 122 note).

125 Cf. for βασιλεῖς, ἔθνη αὐτόνομα: Ditt. ii3, 557, 31 ff.; 590, 12, 31; 613 A. 3–4; for the Aetolians as an ἔθνος: i, 532, 6; ii, 554, 7; 598, D. 6; for νησιῶται: i, 390, 13, 19, 24; ii, 582, 6 ff.

126 Ferguson, op. cit., 270, n. 5.

127 Holleaux, , Klio xiii (1913), 146–8Google Scholar; Seltma, Greek Coins, 261.

128 Holleaux, Rome, 266, n. 3.

129 Livy (P) xxxi, 15, 9–10. See supra, p. 185.

130 Cf. Passerini, op. cit., 282–6.

130 Cf. Passerini, op. cit., 282–6.

131 Polyb. xvi, 29, 1; Livy (P) xxxi, 15, 11. De Sanctis, op. cit., iv, 1, 34Google Scholar; Holleaux, CAH viii, 163Google Scholar; Passerini, op. cit., 287–8.

132 Polyb. xvi, 29–34; cf. Livy (P) xxxi, 16, 3–18, 8.

133 polyb. xvi, 34, 1–4.

134 This embassy, it may be noted, should not be confused with the Athenian envoys who met Sulpicius Galba on his arrival in Greece in the autumn and requested the immediate despatch of a squadron to the relief of Athens (Livy (P) xxxi, 14, 3): against Larsen, Class. Phil. xxxii, 1 (1937), 22 ffGoogle Scholar.

135 Meritt, Hesperia v (1936), 3, 424–5, 427Google Scholar.

136 ll. 7–12: ibid., 425–6.

137 According to Pausanias (ii, 9, 4) Eurycleides and Micion, like Aratus, were poisoned by Philip. Eurycleides' death occurred after the archonship of Archelaus (212–1 or 209–8: Ferguson, Ath. Tr. Cycles, 36, n. 7), and before the archonship of Dionysius, which, with the preceding archonship of Nicophon, may now (since we have Apollodorus 204–3 and Proxenides 203–2) be placed before the archonship of Callistratus 206–5. It may thus be dated as early as 211 or as late as 207, and the later date is preferable in view of the effect of their policy, which would imply influence in the last decade of the century, and in the light of the tradition of Philip's hostility.

138 ll. 12–17. Meritt, op. cit., 426: cf. Heichelheim, loc. cit. (see supra, p. 184, n. 32).

138 ll.17–22: ibid., 426.

140 ll. 22–24: ibid., 426.

141 ll. 24–7.

142 See Ferguson, Hell. Athens, 276–80 (with references).

143 ll. 27–31: Meritt, op. cit., 427.

144 Livy (A) xxxi, 1, 10; 5, 5–6; xl, 22, 6. Appian, Maced., 4, 2Google Scholar. On other annalistic falsifications, see De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 21Google Scholar, n. 55.

145 On the dating of the battle the evidence of Josephus (Ant. Iud. xii, 135) for its appearance in Polybius Bk. x vi (ob., 144, 3, 4 = 202–200) may be accepted and the year taken as 200 (cf. Niese, op. cit., ii, 578Google Scholar, n. 6; Holleaux, Klio viii (1908), 270Google Scholar; against the date of 198 upheld by De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 118Google Scholar, n. 8).

146 Livy (A) xxxi, 9, 1–5. This notice is in typical annalistic style, with its anachronistic mode of reference to the relations between Rome and her amici at this time; but allowance must be made for this characteristic elaboration in all treatment of annalistic data : it does not necessarily mean complete invention (as Niese, op. cit., ii, 580, n. 3; Holleaux, Rome, 64, n. 4). The basic record under the elaboration may be sound (cf. Sanctis, Tie, op. cit., iv, 1, 22Google Scholar, n. 56).

147 See supra, p. 192 ff.

148 Cf. Holleaux, Rome, 30–46; Carcopino, L'imperialisme romain, 48, n. 2: against De Sanctis, , Riv. fil. (NS) xiii (1935), 72–3Google Scholar.

149 Cf. Polyb. xviii, 6, 2.

150 As De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 32Google Scholar, n. 65 and Bickermann, op. cit., 75: see Holleaux, Rome, 268, and Passerini, op. cit., 289.

151 Cf. Livy (P) xxxiii, 20, 8. Holleaux, , Rev. EA xv (1913), 1–4Google Scholar.

152 Niese, op. cit., ii, 637–8Google Scholar; Holleaux, , Rev. EA xv (1913), 4Google Scholar; Rome, 58–9; CAH viii, 165–6.

153 For a full treatment of this matter, see Otto, Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers, 27–9; Mattingly, Roman Coins, 76.

154 See above all De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 21–8Google Scholar (cf. Riv. fil. (NS)xiv (1936), 196–200), and Carcopino, op. cit., 58–69.

155 Holleaux, Rome, 306 ff.; CAH viii, 157–9. Passerini (op. cit., 547–51) argues that Philip's reported designs on Cyrene (Appian, Maced., 4, 2Google Scholar) made Rome fear a possible understanding with Carthage, and he connects this with the embassy to Africa in 200 (Livy (A) xxxi, 11, 4–18; 19, 1–6). But the Macedonian policy was concerned with Greece and the Aegean, and there is no evidence that the Senate feared any Macedonian relations with Carthage. M. A. Levi (La politica imperiale di Roma, 106–117) holds that the Roman policy was to stop a Syro-Macedonian hegemony closing the Eastern markets to Romano-Italian commercial penetration, and to secure for Rome the central place in Mediterranean economic life. The assumption of commercial motives in Roman policy in the East at this time has been refuted by Holleaux (Rome, 83–93).

156 See above all, Griffith, op. cit., 7–9, with Holleaux, Rome, 320–2; CAH viii, 157–8.

157 Holleaux, Rome, 328 8 ff.; CAH viii, 237–9.

158 See Holleaux, , CAH viiiGoogle Scholar, chs. 6, 7.

159 Cf. Tenney Frank, Roman Imperialism, 150–1 Haywood, Scipio Africanus, 59 ff.

160 Holleaux, Rome, 307.

161 Holleaux, ibid., 332–4; CAH viii, 239.