Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:19:48.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘Agreement’ between Philip V and Antiochus III for the Partition of the Egyptian Empire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

David Magie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

According to Polybius, Philip V of Macedonia and Antiochus III of Syria, after the death of Ptolemy IV Philopator of Egypt, ‘each encouraging the other,’ agreed together to do away with Philopator's heir, the later Ptolemy Epiphanes, then a young child, and to divide his kingdom between themselves. This story appears twice in the historian's narrative. It is told in a brief form in the author's résumé of the contents of his history as given in his third book, where we are informed that, as the result of an agreement to divide the Egyptian Empire, Philip laid his hands on Samos, Caria and the region of the Aegean, while Antiochus seized the region of Syria Coele, and Phoenicia. It appears at greater length in the historian's fifteenth book, where he moralises on the subject, likening the two monarchs to the fish who devour the smaller members of their own kind and delivering a homily in which he shows that Nemesis, by arousing the Romans, brought on the two evil-doers the fate they had designed for their neighbour, and so visited on them the penalty they deserved, thereby teaching a lesson to posterity also.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , 1939 , pp. 32 - 44
Copyright
Copyright ©David Magie 1939. 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

1 Polybius iii, 2, 8, reading τοῐς κατ' Αἴγαιον with Niebuhr and later editor instead of the MSS Αἴγυπτον.

2 Polybius xv, 20, 2 f.

3 Appian, Mac. 4, 1Google Scholar. The passage is introduced by the words λόγοϛ τϵ ἦν ὄτι and the announcement of the agreement in Rome is characterised as a δόξα. The general unreliability of the version is shown by the statement that the boy-King against whom the plot was formed was Ptolemy IV Philopator.

4 Hieronymus, , Comm. in Daniel, xi, 13Google Scholar (Migne, PL xxv, 562)Google Scholar = Porphyrius frg. 45 Jac. (F. Gr. Hist. ii, 1224).

5 Livy xxxi, 14, 5. The material contained in this passage seems to have been derived from Polybius, but it is rather a collection of items of information than the presentation, even in an abridged form, of any part of the original narrative.

6 Trogus, Prol. xxx: Justin xxx, 2, 8. The falsity of this version was pointed out by Holleaux, in Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies hellénistiques (Paris, 1921), 72,Google Scholar n. 2, 290, n. 1, who observed that the envoy sent to Rome by Agathocles immediately upon the proclamation of Epiphanes as king (Polybius xv, 25, 14) was presumably the only representative of Egypt in Rome at this time and that the embassy spoken of by Justin is apocryphal.

7 Polybius xv, 20, 6.

8 Polybius xvi, 1, 8 f.

9 Polybius xvi, 10.

10 See, e.g. (to cite only the most recent writers), Holleaux in Rome, etc. 290, n. 1, and 317 f., and CAH viii, 150 f.; De Sanctis, , Stor. d. Rom. iv, 1 (1922), 4;Google ScholarPasserini, in Athenaeum ix (1931), 261Google Scholar f.; Bickermann, in Herm. lxvii (1932), 47Google Scholar and Rev. de philol. lxi (1935), 162 f.; C. B. Welles, , Royal Correspondence in the Hellenist. Period (1934), 168Google Scholar; McDonald, and Walbank, in JRS xxvii (1937), 182Google Scholar f.; Starr, C. G. in Cl. Philol. xxxiii (1938), 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Holleaux, observing that Philip, during his campaigns of 202–201, refrained from attacking Egypt's possessions, pointed out the extravagance of the statements of those writers who related that Philip seized all that Egypt owned in Asia Minor. He was satisfied, however, with the explanation that the compact was a lying one, ‘which neither intended to keep.’ Bickermann, on the other hand, explained (Rev. de philol. lxi, 163) Philip's failure to seize any Egyptian possessions by the theory that in addition to his compact with Antiochus he had also made a secret agreement with Egypt. McDonald and Walbank, although suggesting that Polybius ‘misrepresented the Macedonian policy in regard to Egypt’ and ‘exaggerated the aims of the pact’, limited their mistrust to Polybius and did not inquire into the real reason for his ‘misrepresentation’.

11 According to the Stone, Rosetta (OGIS 90, 46Google Scholar f.) the day on which Epiphanes παρέλαβϵν τὴν βασιλϵίαν παρὰ τοῦ πατρόϛ was Phaophi 17 = 28th November, and this has generally been regarded as the day of his proclamation as king. The year has long been a matter of dispute, but there has been a growing tendency among present-day scholars to regard it as 203, and the official date of his succession is generally supposed to have been 28th November, 203; see (e.g.) Wilhelm, in Anz. Wien. Akad. lvii (1920), 55Google Scholar f.: Holleaux, Rome, etc. 71, n. 1; Rev. de philol. 1 (1926), 215Google Scholar f.; CAH viii, 149: Meyer, Ernst, Untersuch. z. Chron. d. ersten Ptolemäer = Archiv f. Pap.-Forsch., Beiheft ii (1925), 39Google Scholar f.: Bevan, E., Hist. of Egypt under the Ptol. Dynasty (London, 1927), 250:Google ScholarCary, M., Hist. of the Greek World from 323 to 146 B.C. (London, 1932), 93Google Scholar. This date, however, is based only on the fact that the King's death is related in Polybius xv, 25 f., which contains the events of Ol. 144, 2. It cannot be reconciled with the astronomical ‘Canon of the Kings’, as recorded by Claudius Ptolemaeus, which assigns seventeen years to Philopator; according to this reckoning, his last year (which was also the first year of Epiphanes) was October, 205–204; see Kubitschek, W., Grundr. d. ant. Zeitrechnung (Munich, 1928), 61Google Scholar f. It is equally difficult to reconcile it with the dating of Philopator's accession in the spring of 221, as determined by Frank, H. in Archiv f. Pap.-Forsch. xi (1935), 33Google Scholar f., for the seventeen years assigned to the King in the Canon would in this case expire in the autumn of 205 and the first year of Epiphanes extend from 28th November, 205, to 12th October, 204. It cannot, moreover, be brought into agreement with the date of the Rosetta Stone, namely 27th March of Epiphanes' ninth year, which is evidently 27th March, 196; according to this reckoning, Epiphanes' first year, as in the Canon, was 205–204. An ingenious, if not altogether convincing, attempt to reconcile this conflicting evidence has recently been made by Walbank, F. W. in JEA xxii (1936), 20Google Scholar f. Walbank, pointing out that the date Phaophi 17 was not necessarily the day of Epiphanes' proclamaion as king but may equally well have been he day on which he had previously been made co-ruler by his father, followed Niese, (Griech. u. Mak. Staaten ii, 572Google Scholar f.) and Bouché-Leclercq, (Hist. d. Lagides i, 335Google Scholar f.) in accepting the none too reliable statement of Justin (xxx, 2, 6) that Philopator's death was diu occultata by Agathocles and the palace-clique. He advanced the theory, accordingly, that Philopator died about September, 204, and, his death having been concealed for at least a year, Epiphanes was declared king about September, 203, his first year being originally reckoned as 13th October, 204–12th October, 203, but afterwards moved back to October, 205–204.

12 See Van Gelder, H., Gesch. d. alten Rhodier (Hague, 1900), 112 f.Google Scholar: König, W., Bund. d. Nesioten (Halle, 1910), 40Google Scholar f.: Hiller von Gaertringen in P-W, Suppl. v, 794Google Scholar.

13 See Holleaux, in Rev. ét. gr. xxxiii (1920), 223Google Scholar f.

14 See Herzog, in Klio ii (1902), 327Google Scholar f., and Holleaux, in Rev. ét. gr. xxx (1917), 88Google Scholar f.

15 Polybius xiii, 4 f.: Polyaenus v, 17, 2.

16 See CIG 2679 = Ins. Brit. Mus. 441 = Rev. ét. gr. xii (1899), 21Google Scholar f. = Rev. ét. anc. v (1903), 224Google Scholar f., and the commentary by Holleaux, in Rev. ét. gr. xiiGoogle Scholar.

17 See IG xii, 3, 91 = Dittenberger, Syll. 3 572, containing a letter of Philip introducing his emissary Kallias to the citizens of Nisyros and a part of their reply. The inscription was dated in 201 after the battle of Lade, by both Herzog and Holleaux (see n. 14), but there is no valid reason why it should not be dated somewhat earlier.

18 For Philip's seizure of Lysimacheia, Chalcedon, Cius, and Thasos, see Polybius xv, 21 f., and xviii, 3, 11 f. Perinthus, which was in his hands at the end of the war (Polybius xviii, 2, 4, and 44, 4 = Livy xxxii, 33, 7, and xxxiii, 30, 3), was presumably taken at this time. It was supposed by Beloch, (Griech. Gesch. 2 iv, 2, 347)Google Scholar that Thasos was an Egyptian possession, but this view was based solely on the belief that Philip set out to conquer the possessions of Egypt.

19 For the ‘Fifth Syrian War’ see Holleaux, in Klio viii (1908), 267Google Scholar f., and CAH viii, 151 f., and 165.

20 Polybius xv, 25, 13.

21 Polybius xv, 25, 13. On the proposed betrothal see Holleaux, Rome, etc. 79, n. 1.

22 See Holleaux, Rome, etc. 290, n. 1. For Maroneia and Aenus as possessions of Egypt at the accession of Ptolemy IV, see Polybius v, 34, 8 f. For their seizure by Philip in 200, see Livy xxxi, 16, 3 f.; it was wrongly dated in 202 by Beloch (l.c.).

23 Polybius xv, 23; xvi, 9, 3 f.

24 Livy xxxi, 1, 9, and 29, 4: Appian, Mac. 4, 2Google Scholar. Holleaux showed (Rome, etc. 293, n. 1, and CAH viii, 152, n. 1) that the Aetolian embassy probably arrived in Rome in the autumn of 202.

25 On the chronology of the battles of Chios and Lade, see Holleaux, in Klio ix (1909), 459Google Scholar f.; Rev. ét. anc. xxii (1920), 244Google Scholar f., and xxv (1923), 330 f.; CAH viii, 153, n. 3. De Sanctis, in opposition to Holleaux, , held (Stor. d. Rom. iv, i, 10,Google Scholar n. 27) that the battle of Lade preceded that of Chios, but his arguments are not convincing. Holleaux placed Philip's invasion of Pergamum after the battle of Lade; it seems more probable that it occurred between the two naval battles.

26 Polybius v, 35, 11 (221 B.C.). For Philip's occupation of Samos, to which he attempted to withdraw when forced by the enemy to abandon the siege of Chios, see Polybius xvi, 2, 4. For the ‘ships in Samos’ which took part in the battle of Chios, see Polybius xvi, 2, 9. For the 700 captured Egyptians, see Polybius xvi, 7, 6; the reading Αἰγυπτίων of the Codex Urbinas was rejected by Niebuhr, and, following his emendation ἐναντίων, all modern editors have read ὑπϵναντίων, applying the word to Philip's opponents. It was shown by Holleaux, however, that the MS reading should be retained and that the Egyptians in question were those who were serving in the ‘ships in Samos’ previously mentioned; see Klio ix (1909), 454Google Scholar f., and Rev. ét. anc. xiii (1921), 181 f. and 187Google Scholar f.

27 The strategic importance of Samos with regard to both Pergamum and Rhodes was pointed out to the writer by his friend, Professor A. C. Johnson.

28 According to Polybius (see n. 1), the greement provided that Samos was to be part of Philip's share of the spoils.

29 Livy xxxiii, 20, 12, where in 197, Caunus, Myndus, and Halicarnassus, as well as Samos, are described as civitates sociae Ptolomaei. Earlier in the third century, Miletus had been under the supremacy of Egypt, but it had become wholly independent some time before Philip's entry into it, after the battleof Lade, when, for some inexplicable reason, he took from it the territory of Myus; see Polybius xvi, 15, 6, and 24, 9, and Holleaux, in Rev. ét. anc. xviii (1916), 244,Google Scholar n. 1, and xxii (1920), 256 f.

30 It is true that in Appian Mac. 4, 1,Google Scholar it is said that Philip captured (εἴλε) both Samos and Chios, and that in Livy xxxi, 31, 4, a Roman envoy to the Aetolians is represented as including the Samians among those who were complaining of the wrongs they had suffered from Philip. No reliance, however, can be placed on either of these passages; for Appian's statement that Chios was captured is untrue, and the speech contained in Livy is too rhetorical and too highly partisan to be regarded as historical material. A decree of Samos which mentions a siege of the city was connected by the editor with Philip's occupation of the place; see Klaffenbach, in Ath. Mitt. li (1926), 28Google Scholar f., n. 2. But, as Holleaux, observed (CAH viii, 153,Google Scholar n. 1), the connection is highly questionable; this inscription, accordingly, cannot be regarded as evidence for a siege of Samos by Philip. The suggestion of Bickermann, in Rev. d. philol. lxi (1935), 163,Google Scholar that Philip's seizure of Samos was the first step in the execution of a plan to destroy one by one all rival navies in the Aegean, lacks foundation.

31 So Holleaux in Rome, etc. 290, n. 1.

32 See above, n. 29.

33 See above, p. 33, n. 8.

34 Polybius xvi, 24, 6.

35 See above, p. 34, n. 9.

36 At the outset of his campaign in Caria, Philip seems to have made an unsuccessful attack on Cnidus; see Polybius xvi, 11, i, with the retention of the marginal note of the Codex Urbinas περὶ τῆς Κνίδου πόλεως. Cnidus was on friendly terms with Egypt under Ptolemy Philopator, to whose minister Sosibius a statue was erected in the city (Ins. Brit. Mus. 819 = OGIS 79), but there is no reason for supposing that it was in the possession of Egypt at this time. For Philip's occupation of Iasus, Bargylia, Euromus and Pedasa, see Polybius xviii, 2, 3 ( = Livy xxxii, 33, 6); 8, 9; 44, 4 ( = Livy xxxiii, 30, 3). Although unsuccessful in an attempt to seize Mylasa by treachery, he forced the city to supply him with food; see Polybius xvi, 24, 6 f.

37 Strabo xiv, 1, 25, 660.

38 For silver tetradrachms apparently issued during this period, see Rev. numis. viii (1890), 424Google Scholar f., and BM Cat. Caria p. xxvii, and 271, n. 1.

39 See OGIS 234, an Amphictyonic decree recognising the ἀσυλία of ἀ πόλις ἁ τῶν Άντιοχἐων τῶν ἐκ τοῦ Χρυσαορέων ἔθνεος. The decree is dated under the Delphian archon Philaetolos, who seems to have held office about 202–201; see Flacelière, R., Les Aitoliens à Delphes (Paris, 1937), 322, 412 f. and 493Google Scholar. The promise of Antiochus, accordingly, was made between 205–204 (when he returned to Syria from the East) and 202.

40 See Ins. Brit. Mus. 1035 = Anz. Wien. Akad. lvii (1920), 40Google Scholar f. = Welles, Royal Correspondence, n. 38, dated (ἔτουϛ), θρ´ Δαισίου ιε´ (May, 203 B.C.).

41 See two decrees of the Panamareis near Stratoniceia, BCH xxviii (1904), 345 and 354,Google Scholar n. 1, and 346 f., n. 2 and 3, combined by Oppermann, H.Zeus Panamaros (Giessen 1924), 20Google Scholar f.; the former is in honour of Philip himself, the latter, apparently, is in honour of an ἐπιστάτης and dated in Philip's 23rd year, i.e. 199–198 B.C. For Philip's forces in Stratoniceia and the neighbourhood in 197, see Livy xxxiii, 18 4f.

42 Polybius xvi, 24, 8.

43 Polybius xvi, 24, 1 f.: Polyaenus iv, 18, 2: Livy xxxi, 14, 11. See also Holleaux, in Rev. ét. anc. xxv (1923), 349 f., and 353Google Scholar.

44 Thera, for instance, was Egyptian under Philometor, the son of Epiphanes; see IG xii, 3, 466, 467 ( = Suppl. 1390 and 1391), 468 = OGIS 102, 110, 112. In 200, Philip had garrisons on Andros, Paros, and Cythnos; see Livy xxxi, 15, 8, and 45, 2 f. Paros seems to have been taken by force (Livy xxxi, 31, 4), and this may have been during his invasion of the Aegean in 201, but, in fact, his seizure of these islands cannot be definitely dated; see König Bund d. Nesioten, 38 f. In any case, there is nothing to indicate that they were Egyptian possessions.

45 Polybius xv, 25, 16 f.

46 Polybius xviii, 39, 3. For his conquests in Cilicia, see Livy xxxiii, 19, 11 f., and for those in Lycia, see Hieronymus, Comm. in Daniel. xi, 15Google Scholar (Migne, PL xxv, 563) = Porphyrius frg. 46 Jac. (F. Gr. Hist. ii, 1224)Google Scholar.

47 Appian Mac. 4, 2Google Scholar.

48 Livy xxxi, 2, 1. See also Polybius xvi, 24, 3, and Justin xxx, 3, 5.

49 It was believed by Holleaux (Rome, etc 315 f., and CAH viii, 157) that fear of the reported combination between the two kings was the compelling motive for the Romans' entry into the war, and that the Senate hoped that Philip could be reduced to impotence at once, while, in the meantime, friendly relations could be maintained with Antiochus. Passerini in Athenaeum ix (1931). 547 f., and Griffith, in Cambridge Hist, Journ. v (1935), 1Google Scholar f. ascribed the Romans' entry to their fear of Philip, Passerini observing that the King's strength appeared to be greater than it proved to be and that he may well have seemed likely to become a second Hannibal, while Griffith pointed out that Philip's large fleet and his victory at Lade, together with the possibilities for further success, were a potent factor in arousing alarm at Rome.

50 Livy xxxi, 6 f.

51 Polybius xvi, 25, 2 f., and 27, 1 f.: Appian, Mac. 4, 2Google Scholar. The embassy is mentioned in Livy xxxi, 2, 3 f. (from an Annalistic source), where, however, neither the time of its departure nor its destination is correctly stated. On this embassy and its demands see also Holleaux, in Rev. ét. anc. xxii (1920), 87Google Scholar f., and CAH viii, 159 f.: Bickermann, in Rev. de philol. lxi (1935), 167Google Scholar f.: McDonald, and Walbank, in JRS xxvii (1937), 192Google Scholar f.

52 Polybius xvi, 34, 2 f. = Livy xxxi, 18, 1 f.: Diodorus xxviii, 6.

53 For Polybius' use of Rhodian sources for this period, see xvi, 14 f., and Ullrich, H., De Polybii fontibus Rhodiis (Leipzig, 1898) 33Google Scholar f.