No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Macedon, Illyria, and Rome, 220–219 B.C.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
Extract
One of the most interesting problems in the political history of the last three decades of the third century B.C. is the appearance of the Romans east of the Adriatic. Whether Rome in the First and Second Illyrian Wars was inaugurating a definite imperialistic policy with the conscious aim of gaining control in the Balkan peninsula, or whether at this time she was acting purely on the defensive against Illyrian piracy, are questions with which I am not concerned at present. The fact of primary importance is that, by establishing herself in Illyria, Rome came into contact with Macedon, and this contact was bound to lead to hostilities; for the Antigonids could not fail to resent the intrusion of a stranger in what they considered their own sphere of influence. In this paper I propose to consider the attitude of Philip V to the Roman protectorate in Illyria at the beginning of his reign. Since his whole life was one long struggle with Rome, the importance of understanding his policy in regard to this question is obvious. Before entering upon the subject, however, it will be necessary to try to determine how far westward Macedonian authority extended. A knowledge of this western frontier will not only inform us on the proximity of Macedonian possessions to the Roman protectorate, but will also reveal some of the problems which the barbaric Illyrian and Dardanian tribes presented to Philip in this quarter. Once we have these matters clearly in mind, we shall be in a much better position to form an unbiased estimate of Philip's attitude to what may be called his Illyrian problem.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright ©John Van Antwerp Fine 1936. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
References
1 For a discussion of this Roman ‘imperialism’ see Holleaux, M., Rome, la Grèce, et les monarchies hellénistiques au iiie siècle avant J.C. (Paris, 1921)Google Scholar. Cf. also Walek's not too successful replies, Rev. Phil. xlix (1925), 28–54, 118–142Google Scholar, and Holleaux's retorts to these criticisms, Rev. Phil. l (1926), 46–66, 194–218Google Scholar.
2 Strabo vii, 5, 6–7, 315 f., says the Dardanians were an Illyrian tribe, and describes the boundaries of their territory by saying that on the west the Drilo river was navigable as far as Dardania, that on the south the Dardanians bordered on Macedonian and Paeonian tribes, and that on the east, through the Galabrii and the Thunatae who belonged to them, they extended as far as the Maedi, a Thracian tribe.
3 Strabo vii, 4, 1, 313 and vii, frag. 4, roughly defines the boundaries of Paeonia.
4 Diod. xvi, 4.
5 Kazarow, , ‘Die ethnographische Stellung der Päonen,’ Klio xviii (1922), 20–26Google Scholar.
6 See Geyer in P-W, s.v. ‘Makedonia,’ coll. 720–750.
7 Holleaux, , REG xliii (1930), 254 ff.Google Scholar, has definitely shown that Demetrius II died before May 229.
8 Justin xxviii, 3, 14; Trogus Prolog. xxviii; Livy xxxi, 28, 2.
9 Polyb. ii, 70; Plut. Cleom. 27; 30.
10 Demetrius aided Doson at Sellasia; Polyb. ii, 66, 5; iii, 16, 3.
11 At least in their piratical expedition in 220 they were acting in concert; Polyb. iv, 16, 6.
12 Cf. note 2. Also see p. 28.
13 Polyb. iv, 29, 1; 66, 1 and 6–7; Justin xxix, 1, 10–11.
14 Polyb. v, 97, 1–2.
15 Op. cit. p. 748.
16 Kiepert, FOA, xvi, p. 4a, places Sintia on the Strymon river, but this is incompatible with the passage in Livy just cited.
17 While describing the Egnatian Way, Strabo vii, 7, 4, 323 (from Polyb.; cf. Polyb. xxxiv, 12, 6), says: ἡ μὲν οὖν πᾶσα Ἐγνατία καλεῖται, ἡ δὲ πρώτη ἐπὶ Κανδαουίας λέγεται, ὄρους Ἰλλυρικοῦ, δια Λυχνιδοῦ πόλεως καὶ Πυλῶνος τόπου ὁρίζοντος ἐν τῇ όδῷ τήν τε Ἰλλυρίδα καὶ τὴν Μακεδονίαν.
18 See Holleaux, , CAH, vii, 826–827Google Scholar.
19 See p. 29.
20 Holleaux, , REG xliii (1930), 243–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has definitely fixed the date of this war.
21 For the territory which the Romans took under their protection, see Polyb. ii, 11–12; vii, 9, 13; Appian, Illyr. 7–8. See Holleaux's treatments of this question, Rome etc., pp. 104–112, particularly p. 110, n. 1, and CAH vii, 836–837.
22 Polyb. v, 108, 1–8.
23 Polyb. v, 108, 3 and 8; cf. Holleaux, Rome etc., p. 167, n. 3—remark on contrast between ἀνεκτήσατο (recovered) and κατελάβετο (took).
24 zippel, G., Die römische Herrschaft in Illyrien bis auf Augustus (Leipzig, 1877), p. 61Google Scholar; Geyer, op. cit., p. 747.
25 Livy xxxi, 27, 2; cf. Zippel, op. cit., p. 61, and Holleaux, Rome etc., p. 167, n. 3. Creonium was probably in the immediate vicinity.
26 Leake, W. M., Travels in Northern Greece (London, 1835), iii, p. 328Google Scholar.
27 Op. cit. p. 747. Kiepert, FOA xvi, however, tentatively places Sation and Boei on the east bank.
28 Op. cit. p. 329.
29 FOA xvi.
30 It has generally been agreed that the districts of Parauaea and Tymphaea belonged to Macedon in 221 B.C. (cf. Beloch, , Griechische Geschichte iv, 2, pp. 378–379Google Scholar). If this is correct, it would mean that in this direction also Macedonian territory bordered on the Roman protectorate, for Atintania was under Roman influence. In a recent paper, Trans. of the American Philol. Assoc. lxiii (1932), 126–130Google Scholar, however, I think I have demonstrated that all through Philip's reign Parauaea and Tymphaea belonged to Epirus.
31 E.g. Antipatreia, Chrysondyon, and Gertus.
32 See p. 24; also n. 2.
33 Polyb. ii, 6, 4 cf. 8, 5.
34 Polyb. iv, 29, 3; v, 4, 3.
35 Cf. p. 25, n. 8.
36 Our knowledge of the relations between Macedon, Illyria, and Rome from the time of Agron down to the accession of Philip V is derived from the following sources: Polyb. ii, 2–12; 65, 4; iii, 16, 3; Dio xii, 49 and 53; Zonaras 8, 19–20; Appian, Illyr. 7–8. The following give no additional information: Orosius iv, 13, 2; Eutropius iii, 7; Livy, Per. xx; Florus i, 21 (ii, 5). Whether the Romans made a victorious campaign against the Histrians in 221 does not concern us here. See Zippel, op. cit., p. 101, for the sources. Holleaux, Rome etc., p. 134, n. 1, claims that the expedition is apocryphal.
37 Rome etc., p. 100; CAH vii, 833.
38 De Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani (Turin, 1916) iii, 1, p. 296Google Scholar.
39 Doson was too busy with the Dardanians; see P. 25, n. 8.
40 For the probable extent of Demetrius' realm, see Holleaux, Rome etc., p. 105, n. 6.
41 Cf. p. 25, n. 10.
42 For the methods which Doson probably used to win over Demetrius, see Holleaux's conjectures in CAH vii, 845 and n. 1; cf. Holleaux, Rome etc., pp. 131–135.
43 This date is somewhat in doubt. Beloch, iv, 1, p. 719, iv, 2, p. 113, places the accession in the summer of 221. Dinsmoor, W. B., The Archons of Athens (Cambridge, Mass. 1931), p. 509Google Scholar, places it in September 222. The precise date is not of importance to us. I am accepting the suggestion of W. W. Tarn as given in CAH vii, 763.
44 Polyb. iv, 16, 6.
45 As usual, it is impossible to set an exact date, but from an examination of the events of the year 220 it is possible to arrive at a sufficiently approximate one. Aratus became strategos about the middle of May (Polyb. iv, 7, 10; 37, 2; v, 1, 1. cf. Beloch iv, 2, p. 220; Niese, B., Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten ii, p. 433Google Scholar, n. 2; Tarn, , CAH vii, 736Google Scholar). A careful reading of Polyb. iv, 9–12, shows that the battle of Caphyae must have occurred in June. Shortly afterwards (Polyb. iv, 14) a meeting of the Achaean assembly was held. This occurred at the end of the 139th Olympiad (Polyb. iv, 14, 9)—hence almost surely in July 220. At the beginning of the 140th Olympiad the Achaeans sent ambassadors to the various members of the Hellenic League (Polyb. iv, 15–16) and immediately afterwards the Illyrians set out (16, 6). Since Demetrius touched at Pylos, raided the Cyclades (16, 7–8) and co-operated with Taurion (19, 7–9), and since after these events Philip spent considerable time in the Peloponnese (22–26)—all before Scopas was elected Aetolian strategos after the autumn equinox (27, 1; 37, 2)—it seems inevitable to assign the setting out of Scerdilaidas and Demetrius either to the end of July or to the beginning of August.
46 Polyb. iii, 16, 2–4.
47 The use of the present and perfect infinitives makes it difficult to determine the exact order of these events. Holleaux, Rome etc., p. 134, n. 4, maintains (correctly, I believe) that Demetrius firs pillaged Roman Illyria, then raided the Cyclades, and possibly on his return continued his plundering of Illyria.
48 Holleaux, Rome etc., pp. 141 ff.; see particularly p. 141 n. 4.
49 For Philip's councillors see Polyb. iv, 87, 6–8. Cf. Granier, F., Die makedonische Heeresversammlung (Munich, 1931), pp. 26–127Google Scholar; 132.
50 Cf. Niese, ii, p. 326; Holleaux, , CAH vii, 839Google Scholar; Rome etc., pp. 119–120. Walek, op. cit. 49, n. 3, is correct in emphasizing the importance to Macedon of maintaining her hegemony in Greece, but is wrong in minimizing her interests in Illyria. How vital control in that region was to Philip is evident from his activity in the vicinity after the Social War. See, for instance, Polyb. v, 101, 8–10; 108–110; vii, 9; viii, 13–14; Livy, xxiv, 40.
51 Demetrius of Pharos knew beforehand of the Romans' intention of punishing him (Polyb. iii, 18, 1). Philip, while at the Nemean festival in 217, received news that Hannibal had defeated the Romans at Lake Trasimene (Polyb. v, 101, 5–6).
52 Polyb. ii, 36, 4–7; cf. iii, 15, 12; 16, 1.
53 Polyb. iii, 19, 9–11; V, 12, 7, etc.
54 Cf. Holleaux, Rome etc., pp. 132 ff.
55 See below, p. 36.
56 Polyb. iv, 16, 7.
57 Niese, ii, p. 411, n. 1, demonstrated this very clearly by pointing out that at the congress of allies at Corinth it was the Achaeans and not the Messenians who complained of the attack upon Pylos (Polyb. iv, 25, 4).
58 Polyb. iv, 25, 4; ix, 38, 8. Good relations between Scerdilaïdas and the Aetolians continued until the winter of 220–219; see Polyb. iv, 16, 9–11; 29, 2–7.
59 Rome etc., p. 135, n. 4.
60 See my article, Trans. of Amer. Philol. Assoc. lxiii (1932), 130–155Google Scholar, particularly 140–142.
61 Polyb. iv, 5, 10.
62 Polyb. iv, 6, 3–10; 25, 4.
63 See above, p. 30, n. 45.
64 For Doson as head of the Hellenic League, see Polyb. ii, 54, 4; iv, 9, 4; cf. also Plut., Arat. 38, 9Google Scholar: Άντίγονος δἑ καὶ κατά γῆν καὶ κατά θἀλατταν αύτοκράτωρ ἡγεμὡν άναγορενθείς. For Philip as head of the Hellenic League, see Polyb. iv, 24, 2; 25, 1; ix, 37, 7, etc.
65 Polyb. iv, 13, 6–7.
66 Rome etc., p. 149, n. 1.
67 Polyb. iv, 15, 1–2; 16, 1–3.
68 See n. 67.
69 Polyb. iv, 15, 9.
70 Polyb. ii, 5, 1–2.
71 For Taurion's position, see Polyb. iv, 87, 8.
72 Polyb. iv, 19, 7–9.
73 As usual we can formulate only a general chronological scheme, but, nevertheless, a sufficiently accurate one for our purposes. From Polyb. iv, 37, we learn that the following events all occurred at about the same time: the younger Aratus assumed office as Achaean strategos (middle of May, see above, p. 30, n. 45); the Romans despatched Lucius Aemilius to Illyria (cf. Polyb. iii, 16, 7—ὑπὸ τὴν ὡραίαν……κατὰ τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος τῆς ἑκατοστῆς καὶ τετταρακοστῆς όλυμπιάδος—therefore, probably before July 219); Philip was marching from Macedon with his army. This would lead one to suppose that Philip must have set out toward the end of May. Such an assumption fits in with the rest of our information. He spent forty days at Ambracus (Polyb. iv, 63, 2). This brings us into July. Since Philip returned home in time to let his men gather in the harvest and since he spent the remaining part of the summer in Larisa (Polyb. iv, 66, 7), we must infer that the campaign along the Achelous lasted about a month or a little longer. Speaking roughly then, Philip spent June and part of July at Ambracus, and the rest of July and part of August in Acarnania. Since the Romans sailed for Illyria before July and since Demetrius in his flight met Philip as he was starting for home, we can conclude that the Roman campaign in Illyria must have lasted about two months. This coincides with Polybius' statement (iii, 19, 12) that Aemilius returned to Rome late in the summer (ληγούσης τῆς θερείας) If the above calculations are approximately correct, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Romans arrived in Illyria while Philip was engaged in his siege of Ambracus and that they departed (after Aemilius had organised Illyria, Polyb. iii, 19, 12) about the time Philip reached Larisa (cf. Polyb. iv, 66, 7–8).
74 Polyb. iii, 19, 8; iv, 66, 4.
75 Cf. Holleaux, Rome etc., 146 ff.
76 Polybius, in his account of this war (iii, 16–19; cf. iv, 37, 4; 66, 8)–by far the best one we have, – says that only one consul, Lucius Aemilius Paullus, was sent to Illyria. Niese, ii, p. 436 and n. 4, and Holleaux, Rome etc., p. 138 and n. 2, follow him. Beloch, iv, I, p. 732 and n. 3 (see for the sources), prefers the later tradition that the other consul, M. Livius Salinator, was also sent. Holleaux, , CAH, vii 848Google Scholar, changes his opinion and follows Beloch (cf. Munzer in P-W s.v. ‘Livius’ coll. 892–893 and Gelzer, , Hermes lxviii (1933), 147Google Scholar). I do not see how we can arrive at any certainty in the matter. In my opinion none of the arguments advanced is sufficient to warrant rejecting the excellent testimony of Polybius in favour of the later, notoriously faulty, annalistic tradition. Whatever may be the proper answer, I think that the assumption that Philip's forces when joined to the Illyrians would have been a match for the Romans is perfectly justified.
77 This is Holleaux's suggestion, CAH vii, 849.
78 Macedonians—phalanx, 10,000; peltasts, 5,000; cavalry, 800 (Polyb. iv, 37, 7). Achaeans—300; Cretans—500 (Polyb. iv. 61, 2). Acarnanians—2,000 infantry and 200 cavalry (Polyb. iv, 63, 7). Philip also had the complete levy of the Epirots with him (Polyb. iv, 61, 2). Their numbers are not given. Holleaux, Rome etc., p. 146, n. 3, points out that at Sellasia the Epirots contributed 1,000 infantry and 50 cavalry (Polyb. ii, 65, 4), and reasonably suggests that on this occasion they certainly put as many into the field—probably more. The total forces, then, were just short of 20,000.
79 Demetrius had 6,000 men at Pharos and had garrisoned Dimale and other cities (Polyb. iii, 18, 1–2). It should be remembered that Scerdilaïdas also was now an ally of Philip (see below, p. 37). As regards a fleet, we know that Demetrius and Scerdilaïdas together had at least 90 lemboi (Polyb. iv, 16, 6).
80 Nicolaus, M., Zwei Beiträge zur Geschichte König Philipps V von Makedonien (Diss. Berlin, 1909), 52–53Google Scholar.
81 See above, p. 35, n. 73.
82 See above, P. 3, n. 51.
83 Polyb. iv, 66, 4–5.
84 Polyb. iv, 29.
85 Holleaux, Rome etc. 142 and n. 3.
86 Polyb. iv, 16, 6–11; see above, pp. 32 ff.
87 Polyb. iv, 29, 7.
88 See above, p. 28 and ns. 33 and 34.
89 Whether the decadence of the Macedonian fleet should be assigned to the reign of Demetrius II or of Doson does not concern us here. Cf. Holleaux, , Rev. Phil. l (1926), 56Google Scholar, n. 1, and Beloch iv, 2, 516–518; 548–552. That Philip had practically no navy is evident from Polyb. v, 109, where we learn that, before he could operate in Illyria in 216, he had to have 100 lemboi built in the preceding winter.
90 Polyb. v, 108.
91 See p. 39.
92 See above, p. 33.
93 Holleaux, Rome etc., 141 and n. 4.
94 See my article CQ xxviii (1934), 99–104Google Scholar.
95 Polyb. iv, 61–66.
96 Polyb. v, 3–6.
97 Polyb. v, 102, 10.
98 Polyb. v, 101, 6–10.
99 Polyb. v, 108. Cf. Holleaux, Rome etc., 166 and CAH vii, 855.
100 Rev. Phil. l (1926), 208–209Google Scholar.
101 Rev. Phil. xlix (1925), 45Google Scholar.
102 Polyb. v, 109.
103 Polyb. v, 110.
104 Polyb. vii, 9.