Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:17:07.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Polybius' View of the Roman Empire*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

J. S. Richardson
Get access

Opinione di polibio sull' impero romano

Polibio è giustamente considerato come la fonte più importante per la comprensione dell'Imperialismo Romano nel II secolo a.C. ma la sua pittura risalente all'impero romano è molto spesso ignorata. La sua opinione tanto sull'estensione che sulla natura del dominio romano è fondamentalmente diversa da quella avuta dai Romani nel I secolo a.C.; e deve essere stata diversa da quella dei senatori nel II secolo, almeno in assenza delle idee chiave, come imperium e provincia. Egli vede Roma in termini applicabili a una monarchia ellenistica, opinione condivisa dai suoi contemporanei in Grecia, ma non a Roma.

Type
Research Article
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 47 , November 1979 , pp. 1 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 1979

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 Thus note especially the following, referred to hereafter by author's name alone: Walbank, F. W., ‘Polybius and Rome's eastern policy’, JRS liii (1963) 1–13Google Scholar; A. Momigliano, ‘Polybius and Posidonius’, in id., Alien Wisdom (Cambridge 1975), 22–49; Musti, D., Polibio e l'imperialismo romano (Naples 1978)Google Scholar; Derow, P. S., ‘Polybius, Rome, and the East’, JRS lxix (1979) 1–15Google Scholar; Harris, W. V., War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327–70 B.C. (Oxford 1979), 107–17Google Scholar.

2 Polybius I. 1. 5–6 (tr. E. S. Shuckburgh); cf. XXXIX. 8. 7, and the other passages cited by Walbank, , Commentary on Polybius I (Oxford 1957), 40Google Scholar.

3 For ‘imperialism’ as a process, see the remarks of Musti, 14–16.

4 Thuc. VII. 57. 3.

5 Polybius XI. 34. 14. For the status of these territories, see Walbank, , Commentary on Polybius II (Oxford 1967), 315–6Google Scholar.

6 On this meaning of hypēkoos, see esp. Derow, 4–6.

7 So explicitly at III. 1. 9–10; cf. XXIX. 21 (quoting Demetrius of Phaleron) and XXXVIII. 22 (though the reference to the fall of empires here may well be due to Appian—see Walbank, , Comm. on Polybius III (Oxford 1979) 725)Google Scholar.

8 As will be clear, I am indebted in this section to the work of Brunt, P. A., esp. in JRS liii (1963) 170–6Google Scholar, and in Imperialism in the Ancient World (ed. Garnsey, and Whittaker, ) (Cambridge 1978), 159–91Google Scholar. Though wishing to suggest an emphasis not present in his account, I have found Brunt's correction of earlier and over-simplified versions of Roman attitudes both stimulating and almost entirely convincing.

9 postea quam imperio omnium gentium constituto diurnitas pacis otium confirmavit … (de or. 1.4. 14).

10 noster hic populus, quem Africanus hesterno sermone a stirpe repetivit, cuius imperio iam orbis terrae tenetur (de rep. 3. 15. 24).

11 ut Asia, quae imperium antea nostrum terminabat, nunc tribus novis provinciis cingatur (de prov. con. 12. 31).

12 On Pompey, : in Cat. III. 11. 26Google Scholar; pro Sest. 31. 67; pro Balb. 5. 13. On Caesar, : de prov. cons. 13. 33Google Scholar; pro Balb. 28. 64. Compare Pompey's claim, on an inscription recorded by Diodoros ‘καὶ τὰ ὁρία τῆς ἡγεμονίας τοῖς ὃροις τῆς γῆς προσβιβάσας’ (Diod. Sic. XL. 4).

13 Rerum gestarum, quibus orbem terra[rum] imperio populi Rom[ani] subiecit (R. G. praef.). For the republican tradition, see Cic., de rep. 3. 15. 24Google Scholar.

14 Pannonia, and Illyricum, , R.G. 30Google Scholar; Egypt, R.G. 27.

15 Pompey, see esp. Cic., de prov. cons. 12. 31Google Scholar, Diod. Sic. XL. 4, Augustus, R.G. 27Google Scholar.

16 reges socios … nec aliter universos quam membra partisque imperii curae habuit (Suet., Aug. 48Google Scholar). Brunt, (in Imperialism in the Ancient World, 169Google Scholar) argues from this passage that ‘Augustus was to regard all reges socios as membra partisque imperii’. However Suetonius appears to be saying that Augustus knew they were different from the membra partisque, but decided to treat them as if they were not.

17 Thus Cic., de imp. Cn. Pomp. 17. 53Google Scholar, where a threat to the empire is represented in terms of a threat to the provinciae; as also at de prov. cons. 12. 31 and Phil. 7. 5. 15. For Strabo, see XVII. 24 (p. 839) where he distinguishes those parts of τῆς συμπάσης χώρας τῆς ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίοις which are ruled by kings and others, from that ἥν δ' ἔχουσιν αὐτοὶ καλέσαντες ἐπαρχίαν, and to which they send governors and tribute collectors.

18 On eparchia, see Mason, H. J., Greek terms for Roman institutions (American Studies in Papyrology 13, Toronto 1974) 135 ff.Google Scholar The word is found, meaning a provincia, in the letter of a Roman magistrate to the guilds of Dionysiac artists, from the latter half of the second century, (Sherk, Roman Documents no. 44 1.2); and in the Milesian arbitration between the Lacedaemonians and the Messenians c. 140 (SIG 3 683, 11. 63–5).

19 References from Mauersberger, A., Polybius-Lexicon I. 2 (Berlin 1961), 186Google Scholar.

20 I. 15. 10; I. 17. 5; I. 38. 7; VII. 4. 2.

21 III. 27. 4; III. 29. 10.

22 ἐκ τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἐπαρχίας ἀσφαλῶς ἐπανῆλθον (II. 19. 2).

23 See Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsrecht I. 51–61Google Scholar on the meaning of provincia.

24 So, for instance, Klotz, A., Livius und seine Vorgänger (Stuttgart 1940), 30–1Google Scholar.

25 τοὺς ὑπάτους ἀμφοτέρους εἰς Γαλατίαν ἐπαπέστειλε (XVIII. 12. 1).

26 Cf. Nicolet, C., ‘Polybe et les institutions romaines’ in Entretiens Fondation Hardt vol. xx (Geneva 1973) 209–58Google Scholar.

27 So Bengtson, H., Mus. Helv. x (1953) 165Google Scholar, followed by Musti, 59–60.

28 See Brunt, P. A., Italian Manpower 225 B.C.–A.D. 14 (Oxford 1971), 416–34Google Scholar.

29 Kallikrates: Polybius XXIV. 9; XXIX. 23. 10–11; XXXIII. 16. 7. On this meaning of hypēkoos, Derow, 4–6Google Scholar.

30 Livy (P) XLV. 31. 3–11; Polybius XXX. 13.

31 dynasteia (XXXVI. 9. 3); hēgemonia (IX. 4); archē (IX. 4). Cf. the reactions after Pydna, Polybius XXX. 6. 6–8.

32 See Mellor, R., ΘΕΑ ΡΩΜΗ: The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World (Göttingen 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fayer, C., Il culto della dea Roma (Pescara 1976)Google Scholar; and the review of these works by Davis, I. C., JRS lxvii (1977), 204–5Google Scholar.

33 Smyrna, Tac.Ann. IV. 56Google Scholar; Chalkis, Plut.Flam. 16. 3Google Scholar; Cibyra, , OGIS 762Google Scholar, 11. 13–15; Alabanda, Livy XLIII. 6. 5; League, Lycian, Bean, G. E., JHS lxviii (1948) 46Google Scholar, cf. Robert, J. & Robert, L., REG lxiii (1950) 185–97Google Scholar. See Fayer, 31–47.

34 See the geographical survey by Mellor, 27–110.

35 Webster, T. B. L., ‘Personification as a mode of Greek thought’, JWCI xvii (1954), 10–21Google Scholar.

36 Rhodes, : Robert, L., Monnaies grecques (Geneva 1967), 7–13Google Scholar, Fayer, 14–15; dēmos-personification, Robert, , AC xxxv (1966) 425–7Google Scholar.

37 The evidence is clearly presented by Mellor, 111–33.

38 So especially, the poem of Melinno, usually dated to the first half of the second century B.C.; on which see Bowra, C. M., JRS xlvii (1957) 21–8Google Scholar; Mellor, 121–24.

39 Plutarch, Pyrrhus 19. 6Google Scholar; I. Macc. 8. 12–16. My colleague, Michel Austin, kindly pointed out the significance of the Pyrrhus incident.

40 Polybius XXX. 18. (N.B. θεοὶ σωτῆρες, §5).

41 Polybius XXIX. 21.

42 Plut., de tranquillitate animi, 474Google Scholar E–475 A. I owe this reference to J.-L. Ferrary.

43 Polybius XXXVI. 9. 11: τοῦτο δὲ μοναρχικῆς πραγματοποιὶας οἰκεῖον εἤἶναι μᾶλλον ἢ πολιτικῆς καὶ Ῥωμαϊκῆς αἱρέσεως. See for the translation Walbank, , Commentary on Polybius III, 666–7Google Scholar.

44 Polybius VI. 11. 11–13.

45 Polybius XVIII. 13–5; on the context, see Walbank, , Commentary on Polybius II, 564–5Google Scholar.

46 Polybius XVIII. 13. 4:

47 See the discussion of Musti, (op. cit. in n. 1), 70–2.

48 Passages cited by Mauersberger, , Polybios-Lexicon I. 2. 580 ffGoogle Scholar. Sparta: Polybius VI. 49. 5 and XXXVIII. 2. 9.

49 Mauersberger, , Polybius-Lexicon I. 1. 233 ff.Google Scholar

50 The government of Cyprus, XVIII. 55. 6.

51 Polybius II. 47. 5; Thuc. VI. 85. 1; Walbank, , Commentary on Polybius I, 246Google Scholar; Welwei, K.-W., Könige und Königtum in Urteil des Polybios (Diss. Cologne 1963), 177Google Scholar.

52 Eg. the cases of Eumenes (XXX. 1–3; XXX. 19. 1–3) and Demetrius (Polybius XXXVI. 2). For further examples, see Walbank, Polybius (Los Angeles 1972) 166 ff.Google Scholar

53 Thus Diodorus XVIII. 16. 23; XVIII. 39. 5; XIX. 105. 4. See Müller, O., Antigonos Monophthalmos und ‘Das Jahr der Könige’ (Bonn 1973) 108–21Google Scholar.

54 ILLRP nos. 174, 177 and 180, discussed by Mellor, (op. cit. in n. 32), 203–6.

55 Cibyra, , OGIS 762Google Scholar, 11. 13–5; Astypalaea, Sherk, Roman Documents no. 16, 11. 31–2Google Scholar.

56 Above pp. 7–9. See also the story of Scipio's refusal of royal honours from the Spaniards, Polybius X. 40. 2–12.

57 So Momigliano (n. 1 above), esp. 48–9.