UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Livy, Book 45 : historical commentary and study of sources Baronowski, Donald Walter 1974

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A8 B37.pdf [ 9.94MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093047.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093047-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093047-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093047-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093047-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093047-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093047-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093047-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093047.ris

Full Text

LIVY, BOOK 4 5 : HISTORICAL COMMENTARY AND STUDY OF SOURCES by DONALD WALTER BARONOWSKI B. A., McGill University, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF,; MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Classics We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1 9 7 4 In present ing t h i s thes i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permiss ion for extensive copying of t h i s thes i s for s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thes i s for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permiss ion . Donald W. Baronowski Department of C l a s s i c s The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, B . C . V6T 1W5, Canada September 4, 1974 i i ABSTRACT In P a r t One the composition of Book 45 of L i v y ' s Ab Urbe Condita i s s tudied and an attempt i s made to trace por t ions of the book to a smal l number of p r i n c i p a l sources . I t i s demonstrated that L i v y used the work of the Greek h i s t o r i a n Po lyb ius for h i s account of Roman a c t i v i t i e s i n the H e l l e n i s t i c east and for Roman r e l a t i o n s wi th the H e l l e n i s t i c s t a t e s . L i v y ' s L a t i n sources i n t h i s book were the S u l l a n a n n a l i s t s V a l e r i u s An t ia s and Q. Claudius Q u a d r i g a r i u s , of whom Claudius may have been the more prominent. L i v y used these l a t e a n n a l i s t s for h i s account of events i n Rome and the west, and for a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e t a i l s such as l i s t s of magi s tra tes . Th i s a n a l y s i s of L i v y ' s work helps us to evaluate the r e l a t i v e worth of h i s account, s ince Po lyb ius was g e n e r a l l y more r e l i a b l e than the a n n a l i s t s i n h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of a f f a i r s i n the H e l l e n i s t i c east , wh i l e the a n n a l i s t s seem to have provided an important s e r v i c e by p r e s e r v i n g " a r c h i v a l " m a t e r i a l i n t h e i r w r i t i n g s . The d e t a i l e d commentary on Book 45 appears i n P a r t Two. Although problems of many kinds are t r e a t e d , the emphasis i s on i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s , prosopography, p o l i t i c a l groups i n Rome, chronology and the other t r a d i t i o n s which t r e a t the events descr ibed by L i v y . In Appendix One and Appendix Three an attempt i s made to c l a r i f y the d ip lomat ic r e l a t i o n s of Rome with the Rhodians and wi th the Ptolemaic kingdom, r e s p e c t i v e l y , dur ing the years 172 - 167. T h i s attempt invo lves an eva luat ion and synthes is of a v a r i e t y of sources belonging to d i f f e r e n t t r a d i t i o n s . The a t t i t u d e towards the Rhodians r e f l e c t e d i n the work of the Roman a n n a l i s t s forms the subject of Appendix Two. In Appendix Four the r e l a t i o n s between Rome and the H e l l e n i s t i c s tates are cons idered . The most usua l bond between Rome and these s tates i n the second century B . C . seems to have been that of a m i c i t i a , a r e l a t i o n s h i p which denoted f r i e n d s h i p without c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g the terms by which f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s were to be mainta ined. The Romans, however, became more and more i n s i s t e n t that t h e i r fore ign amici should fol low Roman fore ign p o l i c y much as the I t a l i a n s o c i i d i d . A few H e l l e n i s t i c states, however, were granted, or were forced to accept, foedera with Rome which imposed upon them obligations similar to those of the Italian s o c i i , but these non-Italian s o c i i of Rome were never f u l l y absorbed into the system of the "Roman alliance". iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations vi Introduction x Part One. The Sources 1 Part Two. Commentary 26 Part Three. Appendices 134 Bibliography 154 V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In completing t h i s t h e s i s I wish to express my a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r the generous support I have r e c e i v e d from the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia and from the Department of C l a s s i c s . In p a r t i c u l a r I am g r a t e f u l to Mr. E. G. W i l s o n f o r h i s u s e f u l suggestions. P r o f e s s o r s R u s s e l l and W i l l i a m s have o f f e r e d v a l u a b l e advice on s e v e r a l a r c h a e o l o g i c a l problems. Through d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h P r o f e s s o r Harding about i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s among the c l a s s i c a l Greek and H e l l e n i s t i c s t a t e s , I have begun to l e a r n how to approach s i m i l a r problems as they i n v o l v e Rome and the H e l l e n i s t i c s t a t e s i n the second century. P r o f e s s o r s Evans and Dusing, the d i r e c t o r s of t h i s t h e s i s , have reviewed a l l p o r t i o n s of my work. To P r o f e s s o r Evans I am e s p e c i a l l y indebted f o r h i s help and advice on complicated problems i n H e l l e n i s t i c h i s t o r y and c i v i l i z a t i o n . P r o f e s s o r Dusing has not only guided me through the l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s of s c h o l a r s h i p on Roman h i s t o r y and i n s t i t u t i o n s , but has a l s o given very generously of h i s time and pat i e n c e i n teaching a young graduate student how to present h i s work f o r m a l l y . To P r o f e s s o r McGregor, who has o f f e r e d h i s a s s i s t a n c e and encouragement on so many occasions, I should a l s o l i k e to express my deepest g r a t i t u d e . v i AJA  AJP A n a t o l i a n Studies Ant . C l a s s . Beloch I t a l i s c h e Bund B l e i k e n V o l k s t r i b u n a t Broughton Magis trates Brunt I t a l . Manpower  BSA Buettner-Wobst CAH Casso la Gruppi C I L , 2nd ed. C I L 2 C o l i n Rome et l a Grece CP CQ Dar emb e r g - S a g l i o De Sanct i s S t o r i a , 2nd ed. S t o r i a 2 ABBREVIATIONS American Journa l of Archaeology American Journa l of P h i l o l o g y C a l d e r , W. M. and J . K e i l , ed. A n a t o l i a n Studies Presented to W i l l i a m Hepburn Buckler  L ' A n t i q u i n g C l a s s i q u e Be loch , J . Per I t a l i s c h e Bund unter Roms Hegemonie B l e i k e n , J . Das V o l k s t r i b u n a t der k l a s s i s c h e n Republ ik Broughton, T . R. S. The Magis tra tes of the Roman Republ ic Brunt , P . A . I t a l i a n Manpower, 225 B . C . - A . D. 14  Annual of the B r i t i s h School at Athens  P o l y b i i H i s t o r i a e . E d i t e d by T . Buettner-Wobst. 5 v o l s . Cook, S. A . , F . E . Adcock and M. P . Charlesworth , ed. The Cambridge Ancient H i s t o r y C a s s o l a , F . I Gruppi P o l i t i c i Romani n e l I I I seco lo A . C . Corpus Inscr ipt ionum Latinarum C o l i n , G . Rome et l a Grece de 200 a 146 avant J e s u s - C h r i s t  C l a s s i c a l P h i l o l o g y C l a s s i c a l Q u a r t e r l y (N. S. i n d i c a t e s New Ser i e s ) Daremberg, Ch. and E . S a g l i o , ed. D i c t i o n n a i r e des A n t i q u i t e s Grecques et Romaines De S a n c t i s , G . S t o r i a d e i Romani v i i Degrass i F a s t i Triumphales Degrassi E l o g i a Deininger P o l . Widerstand Frank ESAR I Fraser-Bean Rhodian Peraea Giarratano Hammond Macedonia Hansen A t t a l i d s Heuss V B l k . G r u n d l . H i l l Roman Middle Class Holleaux Rome, l a Grece How Se lec t L e t t e r s HSCP IG, 2nd ed. IG' ILS Jacoby FGrHis t JHS  JRS Klotz L i v i u s Degrass i , A . F a s t i Consulares et Triumphales , I n s c r i p t i o n e s I t a l i a e . v o l . X I I I , Fasc . 1 Degrass i , A . E l o g i a , I n s c r i p t i o n e s I t a l i a e . v o l . X I I I , Fasc . 3 De in inger , J . Der p o l i t i s c h e Widerstand gegen Rom i n Griechenland 2 1 7 - 8 6 v . Chr . Frank, T . Rome and I t a l y of the R e p u b l i c , An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, v o l . I F r a s e r , P . M. and G . E . Bean. The Rhodian Peraea and Is lands  T i t i L i v i Ab Urbe Condita L i b r i XLI - XLV. E d i t e d by C . Giarra tano Hammond, N . G . L . A H i s t o r y of Macedonia. v o l . I Hansen, E . V . The A t t a l i d s of Pergamon Heuss, A . Die V O l k e r r e c h t l i c h e n Grundlagen der rbmischen A u s s e n p o l i t i k i n r e p u b l i k a n i s c h e r Z e i t H i l l , H. The Roman Middle C lass i n the Republ ican P e r i o d Hol leaux, M. Rome, l a Grece et les Monarchies H e l l e n i s t i q u e s au I I I e s i e c l e avant J . - C . (273 - 205) How, W. W . , ed. C i c e r o : Se lec t L e t t e r s with H i s t o r i c a l In troduct ions , Notes and Appendices Harvard Studies i n C l a s s i c a l P h i l o l o g y  I n s c r i p t i o n e s Graecae Dessau, H. I n s c r i p t i o n e s Lat inae Selectae Jacoby, F . Die Fragmente der gr i ech i schen H i s t o r i k e r J o u r n a l of H e l l e n i c Studies  Journa l of Roman Studies K l o t z , A . L i v i u s und seine Vorga'nger v i i i Larsen ESAR IV Larsen Rep. Gov ' t L a t t e RBm. R e l . McShane Fore ign P o l i c y Magie Roman Rule Maleovat i ORF Matthaei Meloni Perseo Mommsen RHm. S t a a t s r , Mfl l ler FHG Nissen K r i t . Untersuch . O g i l v i e Commentary  OGIS Oost Roman P o l i c y Pease De Natura Deorum Pedech Meth. H i s t . Peter HRR2 L a r s e n , J . A . 0. Roman Greece, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, v o l . IV L a r s e n , J . A . 0. Representat ive Government i n Greek and Roman H i s t o r y L a t t e , K . Rtjmische R e l i g i o n s g e s c h i c h t e McShane, R. B. The Fore ign P o l i c y of the A t t a l i d s of Pergamum Magie, D. Roman Rule i n A s i a Minor  to the End of the T h i r d Century a f t e r C h r i s t M a l c o v a t i , H . Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta. 2nd ed. v o l . I M a t t h a e i , L . E . "On the C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Roman A l l i e s " . CQ 1 (1907) 182 - 204. M e l o n i , P . Perseo e l a F i n e d e l l a Monarchia Macedone Mommsen, T h . Rflmisches S taat srecht Mtf l ler , C . Fragmenta Hi s tor i corum Graecorum N i s s e n , H . K r i t i s c h e Untersuchungen fiber d ie Que l l en der V i e r t e n und Ftinften Dekade des L i v i u s O g i l v i e , R. M . A Commentary on L i v y , Books 1 - 5 Di t t enberger , W. O r i e n t i s G r a e c i I n s c r i p t i o n e s Se lectae Oost , S. I . Roman P o l i c y i n E p i r u s and Acarnania i n the Age of the Roman Conquest of Greece Pease, A . S . , ed. M. T u l l i C i c e r o n i s De Natura Deorum Pedech, P . La Methode H i s t o r i q u e de Polybe P e t e r , H . Hi s tor i corum Romanorum R e l i q u i a e R E R o s t o v t z e f f S E H R o t o n d i L e g e s P u b l i c a e S c h a n z - H o s i u s G e s c h . R U m . L i t . S c u l l a r d R o m . P o l , S E G S G D I S I G -T A P A T a y l o r V o t i n g D i s t r i c t s T a y l o r V o t i n g A s s e m b l i e s W a l b a n k C o m m e n t a r y W e i s s e n b o r n - M u ' l l e r W i l l H i s t o i r e W i s s o w a R e l . u n d K u l t . P a u l y s R e a l - E n c y c l o p H d i e d e r c l a s s i s c h e n A l t e r t u m s w i s s e n s c h a f t R o s t o v t z e f f , M . T h e S o c i a l a n d E c o n o m i c H i s t o r y o f t h e H e l l e n i s t i c  W o r l d R o t o n d i , G . L e g e s P u b l i c a e P o p u l i  R o m a n i S c h a n z , M . a n d C . H o s i u s . G e s c h i c h t e d e r R H m i s c h e L i t e r a t u r b i s z u m G e s e t z g e b u n g s w e r k d e s K a i s e r s J u s t i n i a n S c u l l a r d , H . H . R o m a n P o l i t i c s , 2 2 0 - 1 5 0 B . C . H o n d i u s , J . J . E . e t a l i i , e d . S u p p l e m e n t u m E p i g r a p h i c u m G r a e c u m C o l l i t z , H . , F . B e c h t e l a n d 0 . H o f f m a n n . S a m m l u n g d e r g r i e c h i s c h e n D i a l e k t -I n s c h r i f t e n D i t t e n b e r g e r , W . S y l l o g e I n s c r i p t i o n u m G r a e e a r u m . 3 r d e d . T r a n s a c t i o n s a n d P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e A m e r i c a n P h i l o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n T a y l o r , L . R . T h e V o t i n g D i s t r i c t s o f t h e R o m a n R e p u b l i c T a y l o r , L . R . R o m a n V o t i n g A s s e m b l i e s f r o m t h e H a n n i b a l i c W a r t o t h e D i c t a t o r s h i p o f C a e s a r W a l b a n k , F . W . A H i s t o r i c a l C o m m e n t a r y o n P o l y b i u s T i t i L i v i A b U r b e C o n d i t a L i b r i . E d i t e d b y W . W e i s s e n b o r n a n d H . J . M t i l l e r W i l l , E . H i s t o i r e P o l i t i q u e d u M o n d e H e l l e n i s t i q u e W i s s o w a , G . R e l i g i o n u n d K u l t u s d e r R O m e r INTRODUCTION A f t e r t h e i r v i c t o r y i n the s trugg le against Hannibal and the Car thag in ians , the Romans turned t h e i r a t t e n t i o n to the H e l l e n i s t i c east to s e t t l e an o ld score with P h i l i p V, k ing of Macedonia. The Second Macedonian War brought Rome for the f i r s t time i n t o c lose and continuous contact with the H e l l e n i s t i c east and provided an e n t i r e l y new theatre of a c t i o n i n which the Roman p o l i t i c i a n s and generals could win renown and p u b l i c support at home. The Greeks, d i s t r a c t e d by t h e i r own q u a r r e l s , t r i e d on many occasions to use the might and p r e s t i g e of Rome as a means to t h e i r own ends, but they f a i l e d to understand how the p o l i t i c a l experiences of the Roman people had accustomed them to be leaders ins tead of f o l l o w e r s , and to demand enduring respect ins tead of momentary g r a t i t u d e from the communities upon which they conferred b e n e f i t s . The s tates which had i n v i t e d Roman i n t e r v e n t i o n and which had co-operated wi th the Romans became the i n f e r i o r partners i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s wi th Rome. Several H e l l e n i s t i c s ta t e s , such as Rhodes and the A t t a l i d s , d iscovered suddenly and i n unpleasant circumstances that they were no longer free to act i n t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s without cons ider ing the wishes of Rome. I t was def iance of Roman wishes that brought on the Achaean War of 1 4 7 - 1 4 6 whose r e s u l t was the superv i s ion of Greece by the governor of Macedonia. The arrogance and armed force which had p r e v i o u s l y been reserved for the Ant igonids and the Se leuc ids along with t h e i r Greek a l l i e s had now been turned against the h o s t i l e s tates of mainland Greece . But naked v io l ence had been used against the Greeks over twenty years e a r l i e r . A f t e r the d e s t r u c t i o n of the Macedonian monarchy i n 168 - 167, the Romans d i sp layed a shocking ruth lessness and c r u e l t y i n punishing the Greeks and the other peoples of the Balkans who had fought on the Macedonian s i d e . C i t i e s and towns were plundered; i n d i v i d u a l s were put to death or forced i n t o e x i l e by the Romans and by the fr iends of the Romans i n the Greek s t a t e s . Leading f igures were detained i n I t a l y , where they were denied the opportunity to defend themselves against suspic ions and nebulous charges of anti-Roman sympathies or actions. For years after their crushing victory the Romans were pleased to allow Epirus and several of the Greek states to be dominated by opportunists such as Kharops and Kailikrates. These men were permitted or even encouraged to persecute any of their political opponents whom they could brand as anti-Roman. It is with these reflections on Roman relations with the Hellenistic world that we begin our study of the last extant book of Livy. Unless otherwise stated, all dates are B. C., and all dates are given by the day and month of the pre-Julian calendar. In the transliteration of Greek and Latin names, I have tried to follow the original as closely as possible except where the Latinized or Anglicized forms have become common (for example, A. Antonius, Kharops, but Pompey, Polybius. For non-Anglicized Latin names I have followed the spelling given by Broughton Magistrates wherever possible. The forms of the Greek and Latin names given in the headings to the notes in the commentary are the forms of these names as they appear in the text of Giarratano. The numbers in parentheses which follow the names of Roman magistrates and officers are the numbers used in the articles of RE to distinguish the various persons with the same nomen gentilicium, and such numbers following other personal names are those used in the articles of RE to distinguish persons who bore the same name. An asterisk signifies that the article appears in the first edition of RE. Where an equivalent without an asterisk is given to a number with an asterisk, for example, Quinctilius (*6/l3), the equivalent number (in this example, 13) refers to the corresponding article in the new edition of RE (edited by G. Wissowa et a l i i . Stuttgart, 1894 - ). It is intended that these references will aid the reader in identifying the persons discussed in this thesis and in obtaining further biographical and prosppographical information about them from the articles in RE and from Broughton Magistrates, where reference is x i i made to a r t i c l e s i n RE whenever they e x i s t . I have not used a r t i c l e s i n the supplements to RE which have appeared s ince 1962 (SupplementbMnde IX (1962) - ) for any of the Roman magistrates and o f f i c e r s mentioned i n t h i s t h e s i s . PART ONE THE SOURCES Introduct ion Most of our informat ion about the per iod between the end of the Second Punic War and the f a l l of the Macedonian monarchy can be traced to the work of the Greek h i s t o r i a n P o l y b i u s . As a prominent f i gure i n the Achaean League, Po lyb ius was among the thousand Achaeans detained i n I t a l y a f t er the war against Perseus because of a l l eged anti-Roman sympathies. While i n Rome Po lyb ius became a f r i e n d of S c i p i o Aemil ianus and was allowed the freedom to c o l l e c t in format ion for a h i s t o r y of the H e l l e n i s t i c world as i t f e l l under Roman domination i n the per iod 220/19 to 146/5 B . C . As a member of a prominent family i n one of the more important Greek s ta te s , as a l eading f i g u r e i n the Achaean League, w i th fr iends and connections i n other H e l l e n i s t i c s ta te s , as the f r i e n d and protege of an i l l u s t r i o u s and powerful Roman f a m i l y , as a res ident of a great c a p i t a l where he could speak to so many persons of h igh rank, and as a t r a v e l e r and observer who witnessed many of the events he d e s c r i b e d , Po lybius was i n a favourable p o s i t i o n to undertake the w r i t i n g of an account of the developments which brought Rome to world domination. Although h i s pre jud ice s can be r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i e d , the h i s t o r i c a l methods and the standards of accuracy of Po lybius give h i s work a h igh v a l u e . See Pedech Meth. H i s t , esp. 598 - 604; Walbank Po lyb ius 71 - 96. Of Books 16 - 39, t r e a t i n g the years 202/1 - 146/5, only fragments s u r v i v e . The Codex Vat icanus U r b i n a s , which conta ins excerpts from Books 1 - 1 8 (except Book 17), i s our best s i n g l e manuscript of the fragments of P o l y b i u s . Most of the excerpts from the remaining books (19 - 39) are found i n the c o l l e c t i o n s made i n the tenth century on the order of the emperor Constant ine Porphyrogennetos (see p . 24 n . 3 ) . Other fragments of the l o s t books occur i n the works of l a t e r w r i t e r s , i n c l u d i n g P l u t a r c h , Strabo, Athenaios and the author of the Suda L e x i c o n . See Z i e g l e r RE XXI . 2 (1952) c o l s . 1575 - 1577. 2 One of the l a t e r Greek w r i t e r s to make extensive use of P o l y b i u s ' work i n h i s own treatment of the per iod 2 1 8 - 1 4 6 was Diodoros of S i c i l y , who wrote i n the middle and l a t t e r part of the f i r s t century B . C . Books 2 5 - 32 of Diodoros surv ive only i n fragments preserved i n the Cons tant in ian excerpts , i n the works of Photios and i n the work of an u n i d e n t i f i e d Byzantine w r i t e r . A comparison of the fragments of Diodoros with the corresponding fragments of P o l y b i u s , where they e x i s t , suggests that Diodoros was fo l lowing h i s source very c l o s e l y . See Schwartz RE V. 1 ( 1 9 0 3 ) c o l s . 6 6 4 , 6 8 8 - 6 9 0 . An important c o n t r i b u t i o n made by L i v y to our knowledge of Roman h i s t o r y i n the e a r l y second century was h i s regu lar use of Polybius for events i n the H e l l e n i s t i c world from the outbreak of the Second Macedonian War to the end of the Achaean War i n Books 3 1 - 52 of the Ab Urbe C o n d i t a , of which only Books 3 1 - 4 5 are extant . Us ing P o l y b i u s , L i v y was able to present a d e t a i l e d and r e l i a b l e account of eastern events which was super ior to the work of the S u l l a n a n n a l i s t s Q. Claudius Quadr igar ius and V a l e r i u s A n t i a s , L i v y ' s two major L a t i n sources for the same p e r i o d . For informat ion on a d m i n i s t r a t i v e matters and events i n Rome and the west, L i v y turned to the work of Claudius and A n t i a s , whose s p e c i a l value cons i s ted i n t h e i r pre s erva t ion of Roman documentary evidence, e s p e c i a l l y from the Tabulae Pont i f i cum. T h i s a n n a l i s t i c m a t e r i a l inc luded e l e c t i o n l i s t s , d i s t r i b u t i o n of provinces and commands among the consuls , praetors and promagis trates , l eg ionary d i s p o s i t i o n s i n the var ious theatres of war, p r i e s t l y appointments, p r o d i g i e s , g r a i n p r i c e s and p u b l i c games. The a n n a l i s t s a l so d e a l t w i th t r e a t i e s , embassies and m i l i t a r y a c t i o n , but t h e i r work on these subjects was often u n r e l i a b l e , e s p e c i a l l y when they descr ibed events i n v o l v i n g the H e l l e n i s t i c s ta t e s . Even the m a t e r i a l which appears to be a r c h i v a l must be treated wi th caut ion because the l a t e r a n n a l i s t s seem to have indulged i n a c e r t a i n amount of e l a b o r a t i o n and i n v e n t i o n . A study of L i v y ' s sources i s therefore of immediate value i n p r o v i d i n g a means of es t imat ing the r e l a t i v e worth of L i v y ' s account. In the a n n a l i s t i c sect ions of the fourth and f i f t h decades, i t i s genera l ly agreed that L i v y used Claudius and Ant ias as h i s 3 principal sources, Antias being the more prominent source in Books 3 1 - 3 8 , Claudius thereafter. Since Livy usually identified his sources only to note a conflict in his sources or to supply additional information from another source, it is often impossible to identify with confidence the annalistic source which Livy followed at any given point in his narrative. In Bodk 4 5 there are at least four passages that seem to permit us to attempt an identification of the annalistic sources: 1) 1 . 1 - 5 , which bears some resemblance to a fragment of Valerius Antias; 2 ) 2 0 . 4 - 2 5 . 4 , describing an embassy which Claudius possibly antedated to 1 6 9 ; 3 ) 4 0 . 1 - 5 , where Valerius Antias seems to have been used as an alternative source; 4 ) 4 3 . 1 - 8 , where Antias seems to have been used for additional information. Since Claudius and Antias were Livy's two main annalistic sources, it is probable that, i f we are able to exclude either-one of these as the source for a given annalistic passage, we may identify the other as the source for that passage. On Livy's use of sources see Nissen Krit. Untersuch. 18 - 1 0 9 ; Klotz RE XIII. 1 ( 1 9 2 6 ) cols. 8 3 5 - 8 4 6 and Livius 1 r 7 8 ; Walsh Livy 1 1 0 - 1 3 7 and Latin Historians, ed. Dorey 124 - 1 2 9 ; Walbank, Livy, ed. Dorey 4 7 r 5 9 . On Claudius and Antias see Peter HRR2 I. cclxxxv — cccxxxiii; Niese RE III. 2 ( 1 8 9 9 ) cols. 2 8 5 8 - 2 8 6 1 ; Klotz Rheinisches  Museum 9 1 ( 1 9 4 2 ) 2 6 8 - 2 8 5 ; Volkmann RE VII. A. 2 ( 1 9 4 8 ) cols. 2 3 1 3 - 2 3 4 0 ; Badian, Latin Historians, ed. Dorey 18 - 2 2 . On the historical worth of the annalists, see Klotz Livius 78 - 1 0 0 ; Balsdon C Q 3 N. S. ( 1 9 5 3 ) 1 5 8 - 164 and JRS 4 4 ( 1 9 5 4 ) 3 0 - 4 2 ; Walbank, Livy, ed. Dorey 5 6 - 5 9 ; Meyer, Aufstieg und  Niedergang der RHmischen Welt, vol. I, Part 2 ( 1 9 7 2 ) 9 7 0 - 9 8 6 . Of the fifth decade of Livy, only Books 4 1 r 4 5 are extant. These books survive in but a single MS. of the fifth or sixth century, the Codex Vindobonensis (see Giarratano 7 r 1 2 ) . The remaining books of Livy ( 4 6 - 5 2 ) in which Polybius was used are l o s t . Apart from the works of l a t e r w r i t e r s who used L i v y , these l o s t books are represented by the Epitomae of L i v y f o r Books 46 - 52, and by the Oxyrhynchus summaries f o r Books 48 - 52 (see K l o t z RE X I I I . 1 (1926) c o l s . 822 - 824). > Dio C a s s i u s , who wrote a h i s t o r y of Rome i n Greek i n the time of Septimius Severus, seems to have f o l l o w e d the P o l y b i a n account of events i n the H e l l e n i s t i c east i n Books 18 - 21, cov e r i n g the years 201 - 146, but the occurrence i n h i s work of a n n a l i s t i c m a t e r i a l very s i m i l a r to that found i n L i v y suggests t h a t Dio d i d not use P o l y b i u s d i r e c t l y , but i n s t e a d obtained the P o l y b i a n account along w i t h a n n a l i s t i c m a t e r i a l from the L a t i n h i s t o r i a n . Dio seems to have used other sources, p o s s i b l y i n c l u d i n g a n n a l i s t i c w r i t e r s . His work i s u s u a l l y of no help to us i n t r a c i n g p o r t i o n s of L i v y ' s account e i t h e r to P o l y b i u s or to the a n n a l i s t s . In the manuscripts of Dio are preserved only Books 36 - 54, s u b s t a n t i a l fragments of Books 55 - 60, fragments of Books 78 - 79 and m u t i l a t e d remains, probably of Book 17. Of the l o s t books of Dio we have excerpts i n the works of the Byzantine w r i t e r s X i p h i l i n o s (second h a l f of the 11th c ) , who used Dio, Books 36 - 80 and Zonaras ( e a r l y 12th c ) , who used Dio, Books 1 - 2 1 and 44 - 80 i n Books 7 - 12 of h i s ' E TiTop*) MoTopciov. Other fragments of Dio are found i n the C o n s t a n t i n i a n c o l l e c t i o n s and i n a number of other sources. See Schwartz RE I I I . 2 (1899) c o l . 1721. The other sources f o r t h i s p e r i o d , such as V e l l e i u s P a t e r c u l u s and Appian, cannot be considered i n the context of the P o l y b i a n -L i v i a n t r a d i t i o n . These authors are g e n e r a l l y u n h e l p f u l to us i n the study of L i v y ' s sources, s i n c e we cannot i d e n t i f y t h e i r own sources w i t h confidence and s i n c e we do not know how they used t h e i r sources. 5 A n a l y s i s o f L i v y , B o o k 4 5 1 . 1 - 3 . 2 P r e s e n t i m e n t o f v i c t o r y a t Rome ( 1 . 1 - 5 ) ; a n n o u n c e m e n t o f v i c t o r y , d e m o b i l i z a t i o n o f R o m a n f o r c e s , t h a n k s g i v i n g ( 1 . 6 - 3 . 2 ) . T h i s s e c t i o n i s a n n a l i s t i c . N i s s e n ( K r i t . U n t e r s u c h . 2 7 2 ) a r g u e d t h a t 1 . 1 - 5 i s P o l y b i a n o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e n a m e s o f t h e t h r e e e n v o y s a p p e a r i n a p a s s a g e o f B o o k 4 4 w h i c h i s c l e a r l y P o l y b i a n ( L . 4 4 . 4 5 . 3 ) a n d t h a t t h e r e t u r n o f F a b i u s t o M a c e d o n i a i s m e n t i o n e d i n a p a s s a g e o f B o o k 4 5 w h i c h i s c l e a r l y P o l y b i a n ( L . 4 5 . 2 7 . 1 ) . K l o t z ( L i v i u s 2 0 , 7 3 ) a g r e e s w i t h N i s s e n i n a t t r i b u t i n g 1 . 1 - 5 t o P o l y b i u s , b u t s u g g e s t s t h a t L i v y o b t a i n e d t h e n a m e s o f t h e e n v o y s f r o m t h e a n n a l i s t i c s o u r c e o f 1 . 6 - 3 . 2 . N i s s e n ' s r e a s o n s f o r a t t r i b u t i n g 1 . 1 - 5 t o P o l y b i u s a r e u n c o n v i n c i n g b e c a u s e i t i s n o t u n u s u a l f o r b o t h P o l y b i u s a n d L i v y ' s a n n a l i s t i c s o u r c e s t o k n o w t h e n a m e s o f R o m a n e n v o y s . F u r t h e r m o r e , a m i r a c u l o u s s t o r y o f t h i s k i n d i s n o t t o b e e x p e c t e d f r o m P o l y b i u s ( s e e f o r i n s t a n c e h i s c r i t i c i s m o f T i m a i o s i n 1 2 . 2 4 . 5 : O S T O 5 « ^ « P 4\/ jaW r«*?s" r c S v ngK*? u. <XTJ\ LJ opi'flfl 5 T T O A A ^ U C?TT I 0?<*• I ' W l cbc - ivo ' r -n ra. \«x\ ro'kyiV) <Je r<x?s i o i T « a s <*rro<p«<re <rtv/ C - U U I T V I ' W V j<«c T e p < * " r c o v (<ou (J.VJVCO^ i r r c t f ^ v u w ^<*i <rv\\rf (5cbv/ &<rL <ri ocu^ouL<x.f t X ^ e V V O O j »<0U T <Jp cJiTCru'^ 5 ^ \j V <* 11< cu & oo S C-0"T1 T T / X k T ] p , | ^ ) . T h e m o r e u s u a l a c c o u n t o f t h e a n n o u n c e m e n t o f t h e v i c t o r y a t P y d n a g i v e n b y m o s t R o m a n a u t h o r s i n c l u d e d t h e d i v i n e b r o t h e r s C a s t o r a n d P o l l u x , w h o e i t h e r a c t a s i n t e r m e d i a r i e s a n n o u n c i n g t h e v i c t o r y t o P . V a t i n i u s ( C i c e r o De N a t . D e o r . 2 . 6 , 3 . 1 1 ; V a l . M a x . 1 . 8 . 1 ; L a c t a n t i u s I n s t . 2 . 7 . 1 0 ) o r b r i n g w o r d t o Rome t h e m s e l v e s ( F l o r u s 1 . 2 8 . 1 4 - 1 5 ; P l i n y NH 7 . 8 6 ; M i n u c i u s F e l i x 7 . 3 ) . We may c o m p a r e L i v y ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e a n n o u n c e m e n t o f t h e v i c t o r y o v e r P e r s e u s w i t h h i s d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e b a t t l e o f L a k e R e g i l l u s ( 2 . 1 9 . 3 - 2 0 . 1 3 ) . T h e a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n s e e m s t o h a v e d e s c r i b e d t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n q f C a s t o r a n d P o l l u x i n t h i s b a t t l e ( C i c e r o De N a t . D e o r . 2 . 6 , 3 . 1 1 ; D i o n y s i o s o f H a l i k a r n a s s o s A n t . 6 . 1 3 . 1 - 3 ; F l o r u s 1 . 1 1 . 4 - 5 ; V a l . M a x . 1 . 8 . 1 ; F r o n t i n u s S t r a t . 1 . 1 1 . 8 ; L a c t a n t i u s I n s t . 2 . 7 . 1 0 ) . T h e o n l y v e s t i g e o f t h e C a s t o r a n d P o l l u x s t o r y i n L i v y ' s a c c o u n t i s t h e v o w i n g o f a t e m p l e t o t h e 6 d i v i n e brothers by the d i c t a t o r A. Postumius. O g i l v i e (Commentary 289) w r i t e s : " L i v y b l a n d l y omitted the theophany which was the motive for the vow and the climax of the engagement". The presentiment s t o r y t h e r e f o r e seems to be an adjustment which L i v y made i n the g e n e r a l l y accepted v e r s i o n of the announcement of the Roman v i c t o r y over Perseus. We may compare t h i s passage to the one i n which L i v y described the p o r t e n t s which accompanied the r e p o r t of renewed f i g h t i n g i n A f r i c a i n 202 (L. 30.38.6-12). A c l o s e r p a r a l l e l to the presentiment s t o r y i s the passage i n L i v y (37.38) d e s c r i b i n g the rumor Celebris i n Rome, according to which the consul L. C o r n e l i u s S c i p i o A s i a t i c u s and h i s brother S c i p i o A f r i c a n u s had been captured by Antiochus I I I and t h a t a l l the Roman forces i n A s i a had been destroyed. V a l e r i u s A n t i a s , who was c i t e d by L i v y (37.38.1, 7) as the s o l e a u t h o r i t y f o r t h i s rumor, may a l s o have been L i v y ' s source f o r the presentiment s t o r y , which occurs only here i n L i v y i n connection w i t h the r e p o r t of the v i c t o r y over Perseus, and i n sources dependent upon L i v y . The presentiment s t o r y as given by L i v y i s found i n s u b s t a n t i a l l y the same form i n P l u t . Aem. 24.2-3 and Zon, 9.24.2. The account of Zon. can probably be traced to L i v y and i t i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e that P l u t a r c h used L i v y f o r t h i s s t o r y . The account of the miraculous presentiment d i d not belong to the a n n a l i s t i c account of the r e p o r t of v i c t o r y presented i n L. 45.1.6 - 3.2. One i n d i c a t i o n of t h i s i s the language of L i v y i n 1.6: et a l t e r a t r a d i t u r turbae non minus s i m i l i s v e r i l a e t i t i a . The account which f o l l o w s i s c i r c u m s t a n t i a l and f o l l o w s the u s u a l p a t t e r n f o r the t r a n s a c t i o n of p u b l i c business i n Rome. F i r s t news of the v i c t o r y i s brought on 16 Sept. by the t a b e l l a r i u s sent by the envoys, who a r r i v e i n Rome themselves on 25 Sept. (1.6, 2.2-3). The source of the presentiment s t o r y seems to have been unaware of the t a b e l l a r i u s and placed the o f f i c i a l r e p o r t some time a f t e r the presentiment, quod postquam v e r i u s n u n t i i s F a b i L e n t u l i q u e et M e t e l l i adventu firmatum est (1.5). There a l s o seems to be a c h r o n o l o g i c a l problem created by the source of the presentiment s t o r y . While the a n n a l i s t i c s t o r y which included Castor and P o l l u x placed the r e p o r t of v i c t o r y i n Rome on 7 the very evening a f t e r the b a t t l e , the a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n a l s o placed the r e p o r t of v i c t o r y by the t a b e l l a r i u s on 16 Sept., the second day of the L u d i Romani. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the source of the presentiment s t o r y placed the r e p o r t of the v i c t o r y i n Rome on the t h i r d day a f t e r the b a t t l e ( i . e . , on 7 Sept.) i n an e f f o r t to b r i n g t h i s event i n t o the context of the L u d i Romani. T h i s would suggest t h a t the source of the s t o r y was an a n n a l i s t of the S u l l a n p e r i o d (or l a t e r ) , s i n c e the L u d i Romani were o r i g i n a l l y h e l d on one day (15 Sept.) and the f e s t a l p e r i o d was g r a d u a l l y extended so th a t i n Augustan times i t l a s t e d from 4 to 19 Sept. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the games began almost as e a r l y as the f o u r t h i n the time of the S u l l a n a n n a l i s t s . S i n c e the c i r c u s games, however, d i d not begin u n t i l 15 Sept., w h i l e the p r e s e n t a t i o n s which preceded them were dramatic, the source of the presentiment s t o r y would have produced a poor c h r o n o l o g i c a l l i n k w i t h the account of the formal announcement of v i c t o r y . See on 1.6. L i v y ' s account of the formal r e p o r t of v i c t o r y (1.6 - 3.2) came from h i s p r i n c i p a l a n n a l i s t i c source, w h i l e the presentiment s t o r y probably came from a secondary a n n a l i s t i c source, and was added i n order to help e s t a b l i s h an emotional s e t t i n g f o r the o f f i c i a l r e p o r t of v i c t o r y . We may perhaps accept the suggestion of K l o t z ( L i v i u s 20, 73) tha t the names of the envoys d i d not appear i n the presentiment s t o r y , but were taken by L i v y from h i s a n n a l i s t i c source f o r the s e c t i o n 1 . 6 - 3.2. There i s a d i f f e r e n c e between the accounts of P o l y b i u s ( i n L. 44.32.5) and of the a n n a l i s t i c source ( i n L. 45.3.1) concerning the names of the l e g a t i from I l l y r i c u m . According t o the P o l y b i a n account, the envoy was Perperna (M. Perperna (3), w h i l e L i v y ' s a n n a l i s t i c source named C. L i c i n i u s Nerva (133) and P. Decius (20). See on 3.1. On the sources of L. 45.1.1 - 3.2 see N i s s e n K r i t . Untersuch. 272 - 2 73; K l o t z L i v i u s 20 - 21, 73 - 74. 8 3.3 - 12.8 Rhodian embassy (3.3-8); return of Marcellus from Spain (4.1); capture of Perseus (4.2 - 6.12); interview of Paullus with Perseus (7.1 - 9.1); review of the history of the Macedonian kingdom (9.2-7); Popillius at Rhodes (10. 1-15); summary of events in Egypt (11.1-11); Popillius in Egypt (12.1-8). Except for a brief annalistic portion (4.1), this section is Polybian. A change of source from the annalistic sources of 1.1 - 3.2 is indicated at 3.3 by the words tradidere quidam. Fragments of the Polybian narrative which Livy used in this section are found in Pol. 29, covering the Olympiad year 152.4 (169/8). We begin with an extract from Polybius1 section on the Bellum Persicum treating the Rhodian embassy (L. 45.3.3-8= Pol. 29.19). Before turning to events in Macedonia and the Hellenistic east in 4.2, Livy added a brief note on the return of Marcellus from Spain from his annalistic source. This completed Livy's account of business handled by the senate in the middle of the consular year 168. No Polybian fragments dealing with the capture of Perseus are preserved, but a derivative account is probably to be found in Dio fr. 66.3 and in Zon. 9.23.9-12. The opening words of L. 45.4.2 (Paulus Aemilius consul, cum castra, ut supra dictum est, ad  Siras terrae Odomanticae haberet....) point back to the Polybian narrative on the subjugation of Macedonia by Paullus which we left at the end of Book 44 (L. 44.46.11). The arrival of Paullus at Sirae must have been mentioned in the page of the MS. which is missing at the end of Book 44 (see Weissenborn-Mu'ller 183) . The speech of Paullus to the young Roman officers was derived from Polybius (L. 45.8.6-7= Pol. 29.20). The review of Macedonian history in L. 45.9.2-7 is probably from Polybius. Although we do not have a fragment of Polybius which corresponds to this passage, we may note that the remarks of Polybius concerning the prediction made by Demetrios of Phaleron (29.21) are appropriate to a summation from which Livy could have drawn material for his own account. Another argument in favour of a Polybian summation at this point is that Polybius had originally intended to carry his history only down to 9 the f a l l of the Macedonian monarchy i n 168 - 167 ( c f . P o l . 3.1.9). Dio, who seems to have followed L i v y , agrees w i t h him t h a t Perseus was the twentieth k i n g of Macedonia a f t e r Karanos (L. 45.9.3; Zon. 9.24.5), w h i l e a v a r i a n t t r a d i t i o n i s p o s s i b l y recorded by J u s t i n u s 33.2.6, where i t i s s t a t e d t h a t Perseus reigned t h i r t i e t h a f t e r Karanos. Eusebios, counting such f i g u r e s as P y r r h o s , Lysimakhos and Ptolemy Keraunos, made Perseus t h i r t y - n i n t h a f t e r Karanos ( c f . E u s e b i i Chronicorum L i b e r P r i o r , ed. Schoene. c o l s . 241 - 242). According to Eusebios, Perseus reigned f o r ten years and e i g h t months. The l a s t p o r t i o n of L i v y ' s n a r r a t i v e d e r i v e d from P o l y b i u s ' s e c t i o n on the Bellum Persicum deals w i t h the a c t i o n s of P o p i l l i u s a t Rhodes (L. 45.10). No fragment of P o l y b i u s s u r v i v e s , but Dio f r . 68.1 may probably be t r a c e d to him. At 45.10.1 L i v y resumed the P o l y b i a n n a r r a t i v e of n a v a l a c t i o n i n the Aegean which we l e f t a t 44.29.5 (see L. 44.28.1 - 29.5). Next we come to a p a r t of L i v y ' s account d e r i v e d from P o l y b i u s ' s e c t i o n on the Bellum A n t i o c h i cum Ptolemaeis F r a t r i b u s . L i v y (45.11) provided a summary of events i n Egypt from l a t e i n 169 u n t i l the i n t e r v e n t i o n of P o p i l l i u s i n the summer of 168. P o l y b i u s was probably the source of t h i s summary: see h i s review of events i n Egypt i n the years 213 - 204 (Pol. 14.12). The summary i n Zon. 9.25.1 probably depends u l t i m a t e l y on P o l y b i u s (but note the erroneous d e t a i l t h a t Antiochus supported the claims of the younger b r o t h e r ) . The c r i t i c i s m of Antiochus f o r h i s pretence of supporting the r i g h t s of the e l d e r Ptolemy, and f o r h i s abrupt abandonment of t h a t pretence once he had l o s t h i s p r e t e x t , i s found i n Diod. 31.1 as w e l l as i n L i v y (45.11.8). The occurrence of t h i s d e t a i l i n Diod. s t r o n g l y suggests a P o l y b i a n o r i g i n . ^ L i v y ' s passage on the i n t e r v e n t i o n of P o p i l l i u s i n Egypt (45.12.1-8) was d e r i v e d from P o l . 29.27. We may a l s o note two p l a c e s i n the s e c t i o n L. 45.3.3 - 12.8 where L i v y apparently e x p l a i n e d the Greek of P o l y b i u s f o r h i s readers: Theondan, q u i summus magistrates apud eos e r a t - regem i p s i a p p e l l a n t - ad Persea m i t t u n t (5.6), and p u e r i r e g i i apud 10 Macedonas vocabantur principum l i b e r i ad min is ter ium e l e c t i reg i s (6 .7 ) . The passages noted by Weissenborn-Mu'ller 6 as p a r a l l e l s to L i v y ' s account of the Rhodian embassy (Zon. 9 .24.6; Dio f r . 68.2-3) r e f e r , not to the embassy of 168, but to the embassy of 167. On the sources of L . 45.3.3 - 12.8 see Nissen K r i t . Untersuch. 273 - 274; Klotz L i v i u s 21 , 75. 12.9 - 18.8 Campaign of the consul L i c i n i u s i n Gaul (12.9-13); congratu la tory embassies of Antiochus IV and of the Ptolemies (13.1-9); d i spute between Luna and P i s a (13.10-11); embassy from Eumenes, A t t a l o s and Athenaios (13.12); embassy from Mas in i s sa (13.12 - 14 .9); census (15.1-9); r e l i g i o u s matters (15.10); the new consuls put the quest ion of the provinces before the senate (16 .1-4); prod ig i e s (16.5-6); thanksgiv ing (16 .7-8); sett lement of Macedonia and I l l y r i c u m (17.1 - 18 .8) . T h i s s ec t ion of L i v y i s a n n a l i s t i c . L i v y completed h i s account of the events of the consular year 168 (12.9 - 15.10) and opened h i s account of 167 (16.1 - 18.8) wi th h i s a n n a l i s t i c source . The account of the congratu la tory embassies from Antiochus IV and from the Ptolemies (13.1-9) i s a n n a l i s t i c ra ther than P o l y b i a n . The Po lyb ian account of the Egypt ian embassy i s found i n P o l . 30.16. There are a number of d i f f erences i n d e t a i l between L i v y ' s account and that of P o l y b i u s . Noumenios, the Ptolemaic ambassador, and Menalkidas , a Spartan re leased by the Ptolemies at the request of C . P o p i l l i u s Laenas, appear i n P o l . but not i n L i v y . P o l . spoke of ol ^ c W t -Ae ^ J , whi le L i v y ' s a n n a l i s t i c source spoke of the "regibus Aegypt i , Ptolemaeo Cleopatraeque". Ptolemy V I I I Euergetes I I , the younger brother of Ptolemy V I , now shared the throne of Egypt with Ptolemy VI under Roman p r o t e c t i o n (cf . P o l . 2 9 . 2 7 . 9 ) , but the a n n a l i s t i c source does not seem to have recognized t h i s here . In L i v y ' s account we a l so note the a n n a l i s t i c d e t a i l that C . P a p i r i u s d i s t r i b u t e d the presents to the envoys. Furthermore, i t i s u n l i k e l y that L i v y would pass over the account of the Olympiad year 153.1 (168/7) on the Res I t a l i a e and the Res Graec iae , now represented by 11 P o l . 30.1-15, i n order to use the Po lyb ian account of the Ptolemaic embassy, s ince L i v y normally followed the order of events as given i n the text of P o l y b i u s . The Po lyb ian accounts of the sett lement of Macedonia and I l l y r i c u m occur i n L . 45.29.1-14 and 26.11-15, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The a n n a l i s t i c source of L . 45.17.1 - 18.8 named the l e g a t i sent to determine the d e t a i l e d arrangements of the settlement of Macedonia and I l l y r i c u m , and reported the general terms of the settlement proclaimed by the senate, adding an explanat ion of Roman motives . On the sources of L . 45.12.9 - 18.8 see Nissen K r i t . Untersuch . 274; K l o t z L i v i u s 21, 75. 19.1 - 34.14 Embassy of A t t a l o s (19.1 - 2 0 . 3 ) ; embassy of the Rhodians (20.4 - 2 5 . 4 ) ; the Rhodian Peraea, the request by Rhodes for an a l l i a n c e wi th Rome (25.4-13); A n i c i u s i n I l l y r i c u m and E p i r u s , arrangements f o r I l l y r i c u m (26); sack of A i g i n i o n , Agassa i and A i n e i a by P a u l l u s (27.1-4); t r a v e l s of Pau l lus i n Greece (27.5 - 2 8 . 5 ) ; v i o l e n c e i n A e t o l i a (28.6-8); P a u l l u s meets the ten commissioners and Perseus at Amphipolis (28.8-11); arrangements for Macedonia (29); d e s c r i p t i o n of Macedonian resources (30) ; i n v e s t i g a t i o n and a r r e s t of anti-Roman p o l i t i c i a n s (31); p r o v i s i o n s for the government of the Macedonian |xc-pi'o(:5 , deporta t ion of l ead ing Macedonians to Rome, v i c t o r y games of P a u l l u s at Amphipol is (32); d e d i c a t i o n of s p o i l s , punishment of I l l y r i a n s who had supported Perseus (33); sack of E p i r u s , A n i c i u s orders depor ta t ion of anti-Roman p o l i t i c i a n s i n E p i r u s and Akarnania to Rome, departure of Pau l lus for Rome (34 .1-9); embassy to the G a l a t i a n s (34.10-14). For h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of events i n the H e l l e n i s t i c east , L i v y returned to the n a r r a t i v e of Polybius i n Book 30, cover ing the Olympiad year 153.1 (168/7). We begin with por t ions from P o l y b i u s ' s ec t i on on the Res I t a l i a e (embassy of A t t a l o s , L . 45.19.1 - 20.3 = P o l . 30 .1-3; the Rhodian Peraea and the Rhodian request for a Roman a l l i a n c e , L . 45.25.4-13 = P o l . 30 .5 ) . Next we turn to the p o r t i o n of L i v y ' s n a r r a t i v e der ived from the P o l y b i a n s e c t i o n on the Res Graeciae. In L. 45.26.1 we are r e f e r r e d to the P o l y b i a n account i n L i v y , Book 44 on the capture of Gentius (L. 44.30.1 - 32.5). In L. 45.26.1 - 34.9 we may note the f o l l o w i n g correspondences w i t h the fragments of P o l y b i u s : t r a v e l s of P a u l l u s i n Greece, L. 45.27.5 - 28.5: c f . P o l . 30.10; i n v e s t i g a t i o n and a r r e s t of anti-Roman p o l i t i c i a n s , L. 45.31.5-11 = P o l . 30.13; remark of P a u l l u s a t the v i c t o r y c e l e b r a t i o n s , L. 45.32.11 P o l . 30.14; sack of E p i r u s , L. 45.34.5-6 = P o l . 30.15. The two correspondences w i t h the fragments of Diodoros are probably evidence f o r a P o l y b i a n o r i g i n : the d i v i s i o n of Macedonia i n t o four p a r t s , L. 45.29.4-9 = Diod. 31.8.6-9; v i c t o r y c e l e b r a t i o n s , shipment of tr e a s u r e to Rome, departure of P a u l l u s from Macedonia, L. 45.32.8 - 33.7, 34.7-8: c f . Diod. 31.8.9. The account of v i o l e n c e i n A e t o l i a as described by L i v y (28.6-8) was probably d e r i v e d from the n a r r a t i v e of P o l y b i u s t o which P o l . 30.11 belongs. L i v y ' s account of the embassy to the G a l a t i a n s came from P o l y b i u s ' s e c t i o n on the Res A s i a e . Although no fragment from t h i s s e c t i o n s u r v i v e s f o r t h i s Olympiad year, we note t h a t P o l y b i u s mentioned the embassy which was sent to the G a l a t i a n s i n 167 under P. L i c i n i u s Crassus ( P o l . 30.3.7-8), and tha t he i n d i c a t e d t h a t he t r e a t e d the G a l a t i a n problem f u r t h e r on i n h i s n a r r a t i v e . The s e c t i o n on the Res Asi a e f o r t h i s Olympiad year would have occurred between the s e c t i o n s on the Res Graeciae (represented by f r s . 6 - 15) and on the Res Aegypti (represented by f r . 16). Since P o l y b i u s (30.28) reported the senatus consultum l i b e r a t i n g the G a l a t i a n s from Pergamon i n h i s account of the Olympiad year 153.3 (166/5), i t i s probable t h a t he described the G a l a t i a n problem i n some d e t a i l i n i t s a p p r o p r i a t e p l a c e under the two preceding Olympiad y e a r s . Note t h a t i n 45.32.2 L i v y t r a n s l a t e d the Greek of P o l y b i u s : senatores quos synedros vocant. L i v y ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the Rhodian embassy (45.20.4 - 25.4) was der i v e d , not from P o l y b i u s , but from an a n n a l i s t i c source. L i v y d i d not name the Rhodian ambassadors u n t i l he returned to the P o l y b i a n n a r r a t i v e a t 25.4, but he d i d not name the t h i r d envoy, P h i l o p h r o n . P o l y b i u s d i d not name the pr a e t o r (M'. Iuv e n t i u s Thalna) who proposed the d e c l a r a t i o n of war on Rhodes, nor d i d he mention the other t r i b u n e , M. Pomponius, who acted w i t h Antonius i n dragging the p r a e t o r down from the r o s t r a . There are, furthermore, a number of s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s between the two accounts. L i v y ' s account i s the more c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , as he described the meeting of the senate convened by the consul M . Iunius Pennus to d i s c u s s the r e c e p t i o n of the Rhodians, the p u b l i c r e b u f f o f f e r e d by the consul and the senate to the ambassadors, the proposal of war by the p r a e t o r Iuventius which was blocked by the t r i b u n i p l e b i s Antonius and Pomponius, and the v i o l a t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r a c t i c e by both Iuventius and the t r i b u n e s . According to L i v y the Rhodians donned mourning a f t e r t h e i r p u b l i c r e b u f f by the senate, w h i l e P o l y b i u s placed t h i s a f t e r the p r o p o s a l of war by the p r a e t o r . The tenor of the speech made by Astymedes before the senate, as we gather from the c r i t i c i s m of i t by P o l y b i u s , was t h a t the s e r v i c e s of the Rhodians had been f a r greater than those of the other Greeks, whose offenses a g a i n s t Rome Astymedes emphasized and exaggerated. In the speech which L i v y composed to represent the address of the Rhodian spokesman, the argument of the Rhodians i s t h a t t h e i r previous behaviour had always been c o r r e c t i n view of the a m i c i t i a w i t h Rome, and t h a t t h e i r lukewarm support of Rome i n the war a g a i n s t Perseus had been the f a u l t , not of a l l the Rhodians, but only of a few misguided p o l i t i c i a n s , who e i t h e r had or would be punished to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the senate. Although L i v y used h i s a n n a l i s t i c source to d e s c r i b e the Rhodian embassy, he returned to P o l y b i u s f o r the account of subsequent Rhodian problems i n the Peraea and of n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h Rome i n 167. At t h i s p o i n t L i v y accepted the P o l y b i a n v e r s i o n of events which placed the senatus consultum l i b e r a t i n g L y c i a and C a r i a i n 167, and r e j e c t e d the v e r s i o n of Claudius Q u a d r i g a r i u s , who placed i t i n 169 (see L. 44.15.3-7 w i t h N i s s e n K r i t . Untersuch. 261; K l o t z L i v i u s 71 - 72). In the speech composed by L i v y f o r the embassy of 167 (L. 45.22-24), the Rhodians f a i l to complain about the l o s s of L y c i a and C a r i a ( c f . 22.2: R h o d i i , quos p r o v i n c i i s  nuper L y c i a atque C a r i a , quos praemiis atque honoribus a m p l i s s i m i s d o n a s t i s ; 23.1: Praemia e t P h i l i p p o et Antiocho d e v i c t o amplissima  accepimus a v o b i s ; 23.17 ( r e f e r r i n g to the Rhodian peace-making embassy of 168): S a t i s quidem et tunc i n p r a e s e n t i a c a s t i g a t a i l i a legatio erat, cum tarn tristi responso vestro dimissa. Si turn  parum ignominiae pensum est, haec certe tarn miserabilis ac supplex  legatio etiam insolentioris, quam i l ia fuit, legationis satis magnum  piaculum esset). Livy has therefore removed all references to a senatus consultum in 169 in order to have the speech agree with the Polybian dating of the senatus consultum liberating Lycia and Caria to 167. Although it is possible that Livy was using Valerius Antias, who may have agreed with Polybius in placing the senatus consultum in 167, it is also possible that for his account of the Rhodian embassy Livy used Claudius Quadrigarius, who may have described the embassy of 167 without repeating the earlier loss of Lycia and Caria through the senatus consultum which he had placed in 169. But even i f Claudius had mentioned the loss of Lycia and Caria, Livy could s t i l l have used his account, omitting references to i t . Thus, Livy's agreement with Polybius on the dating of the senatus  consultum does not indicate the identity of his annalistic source for the section 20.4 - 25.4. Since Claudius, however, placed the senatus consultum in 169, it is possible that for artistic reasons he telescoped the three Rhodian embassies of 169, 168 and 167 into one embassy which he described in his account of the consular year 169. If this is the case, then Claudius would not have described a separate Rhodian embassy in his account of 167, and Livy would presumably have used Valerius Antias for his account of this embassy. See Klotz Livius 71-72. The insertion of an annalistic section (20.4 - 25.4) into a Polybian section of the narrative (19.1 - 20.3, 25.4 - 34.14) is not unusual. In his account of the final campaign in Macedonia leading to the battle of Pydna and the fall of the Macedonian kingdom (44.32.5 - 46.11), Livy inserted a brief annalistic passage (37.5-9) describing the lunar eclipse which preceded the battle of Pydna, although the rest of the narrative is Polybian (see Nissen Krit. Untersuch. 265 - 266; Klotz Livius 20, 73). Livy probably judged that his annalistic source was more reliable and more complete in its treatment of the Rhodian embassy than Polybius was. Polybius himself may have used an early annalistic source for his account of the Rhodian embassy (see K l o t z L i v i u s 76), or he may have questioned witnesses, o b t a i n i n g a v e r s i o n of events not too d i s s i m i l a r from t h a t of L i v y ' s a n n a l i s t i c source. K l o t z ( L i v i u s 76) suggests t h a t L i v y may have used the O r i g i n e s of Cato as w e l l as an a n n a l i s t i c source f o r h i s account of the Rhodian embassy, but t h i s i s g e n e r a l l y considered improbable (see Walsh L i v y 134 - 135; Walbank i n L i v y , ed. Dorey 50 - 51). On the sources of L. 45.19.1 - 34.14 see Niss e n K r i t . Untersuch. 274 - 277; K l o t z L i v i u s 21, 76. 35.1 - 44.21 Debate over the triumph of P a u l l u s (35.1 - 39.20); triumph of P a u l l u s (40.1-5); speech of P a u l l u s (40.6 - 42.1); triumph of Octavius (42.2-3); custody of Perseus, Alexander and B i t h y s , embassy from Kotys, Macedonian ships (42.4-12); triumph of A n i c i u s (43.1-8); Gentius i n custody, I l l y r i a n s hips (43.9-10); m i l i t a r y a c t i v i t y of the consuls of 167 (44.1); e l e c t i o n s f o r 166 (44.2); calendar, r e l i g i o u s appointments (44.3); embassy of P r u s i a s (44.4-21). L i v y completed h i s account of the consular year 167 by d e s c r i b i n g events i n Rome according to h i s a n n a l i s t i c source (see a l s o P e r . 46, where L i v y seems to have begun h i s account of 166 by f o l l o w i n g the a n n a l i s t i c source on the campaigns of the consuls a g a i n s t the Gauls and L i g u r i a n s ) . L i v y o f t e n completed h i s account of the consular year by d e s c r i b i n g events i n Rome according to an a n n a l i s t i c source ( c f . 42.6.4 - 10.8 (173); 42.18.6 - 28.13 (172); 43.1.1 - 3.7 (171); 44.13.12 - 18.8 (169); 45.12.9 - 15.10 (168). L i v y ' s account of the debate concerning the triumph of P a u l l u s i s a n n a l i s t i c . P o l y b i u s d i d not o r d i n a r i l y concern h i m s e l f w i t h the d e t a i l e d treatment of events i n Rome unless these events were c l o s e l y connected w i t h developments i n the Greek world, but s i n c e he had discussed important events i n Rome which i n v o l v e d S c i p i o A f r i c a n u s , the grandfather by adoption of S c i p i o Aemilianus ( c f . P o l . 23.14), i t i s a l s o l i k e l y t h a t he mentioned the attempt to deny a triumph to A e m i l i u s P a u l l u s , the f a t h e r of S c i p i o Aemilianus. 16 I f P o l y b i u s mentioned the triumph of A e m i l i u s P a u l l u s , h i s passage on the triumph of A n i c i u s (30.22) could have been a comparison of the extravagance of A n i c i u s at h i s triumph w i t h the t r a d i t i o n a l forms observed by P a u l l u s . Although i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t P o l y b i u s t r e a t e d the triumph of P a u l l u s i n h i s s e c t i o n on the Res I t a l i a e f o r the Olympiad year 153.2 (167/6), perhaps i n a passage which occurred before the account of the embassy of Kotys at 30.17, i t seems more l i k e l y t hat L i v y ' s account i s a n n a l i s t i c . C e r t a i n d e t a i l s i n L i v y ' s n a r r a t i v e suggest t h i s : the senatus consulturn on the triumphs of the v i c t o r i o u s generals and the s p e c i a l r o g a t i o on the imperium of the generals (35.4); the note on S u l p i c i u s Galba, q u i tri b u n u s m i l i t u m secundae l e g i o n i s i n Macedonia f u e r a t (35.8); the r o g a t i o of the t r i b u n e T i . Sempronius on the imperium of P a u l l u s (36.1); the r e p e t i t i o n of the v o t i n g and the note on S e r v i l i u s Pulex, qui consul et magister equitum f u e r a t . . . . T r i b u n i . . . d e  i n t e g r o agere coeperunt revocaturosque se easdem t r i b u s pronuntiaverunt (36.9-10). The mention of the presentiment i n P l u t . Aem. 31.4 p o i n t s back to the a n n a l i s t i c account i n Aem. 24.2-3 and i n L. 45.1.1-5. P l u t a r c h ' s account (Aem. 30 - 31) was probably d e r i v e d i n p a r t e i t h e r from L i v y or from the same source used by L i v y i n 45.35.1 - 39.20. The d e s c r i p t i o n of the triumph of P a u l l u s (40.1-5) i s a n n a l i s t i c . N o t i c e e s p e c i a l l y the d e t a i l s of the m i l i t a r y p r o c e s s i o n (deinde equites turmatim et cohortes peditum s u i s quaeque o r d i n i b u s ) , d e t a i l s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of money to the troops, and the s p e c u l a t i o n about the i n t e n t i o n of P a u l l u s to grant a more generous d i s t r i b u t i o n . N i s s e n ( K r i t . Untersuch. 278) thought that P l u t a r c h used the same source f o r both the debate over the triumph (Aem. 30 - 31) and f o r the d e s c r i p t i o n of the triumph (Aem. 32 - 34), w h i l e L i v y used t h i s source only f o r the debate over the triumph (35.1 - 39.20) and turned to another source f o r h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of the triumph (40.1-5). I t i s not necessary, however, to p o s i t the use of two sources i n L. 45.35.1 - 40.5. P l u t a r c h ' s account of the triumph of P a u l l u s (Aem. 32 - 34) can be r e c o n c i l e d w i t h t h a t of L i v y (40.1-5). The triumphal c e l e b r a t i o n s l a s t e d t h ree days ( c f . Degrassi F a s t i Triumphales p. 81 ad a. 167: see on 40.1). According to the epitomator F l o r u s , whose work on t h i s p e r i o d i s g e n e r a l l y agreed to have been based mainly on Livy,^ in the procession on the first day there appeared the statues and pictures; on the second day, arms and money; on the third day, the captives and the king himself (1.28.12-13). This bare summary is essentially in agreement with the account of Plutarch. The events described in L. 45.40.1-5 occurred on the third day of the triumph. Livy's account of the first two days of the triumphal celebrations, and of the earlier part of the third day, must have occurred in the page of the MS. which is missing before the beginning of Chapter 40 (see Weissenborn-Mu'ller 219; Giarratano 359). In the procession which took place on the third day of the triumph, there were, according to Plutarch, trumpeters, sacrificial victims, precious metals, the chariot of Perseus with the royal arms preceded by the children of the king and their attendants, the advisors of Perseus following the king, wreaths of gold and the triumphator Aemilius Paullus in his chariot followed by the army. The interrupted narrative of Livy resumes with comments on the sum of precious metals captured, with a note on the accumulated wealth of Perseus. These notes, which probably formed part of the description of the Macedonian booty, occur appropriately just before Livy's description of Paullus. Thus, Livy's annalistic account of the triumph (40.1-5), which is probably represented by Florus 1.28.12-13, can be compared to the account of Plutarch (Aem. 32-34) and can be shown not to have been radically different from that account. Both Livy and Plutarch can have used the same annalistic source for their accounts of the triumph, or perhaps Plutarch used Livy. The differences between the two accounts can be explained partly by Plutarch's use of a variety of sources. The account of Diodoros (31.8.10-12), which differs in several details from the annalistic account represented by Plutarch, Florus and Livy, was possibly derived from Polybius. Livy's comments on the total value of the precious metals captured from Macedonia do not fit the usual pattern found in his accounts of triumphs. Livy usually provided a list of the precious metals displayed in their several forms (see Frank ESAR I. 126 - 138). The total given here is probably part of the description of the Macedonian booty. In the missing page of the MS. Livy probably followed the usual method of describing captured money and precious metals, for in criticizing the total given by Valerius Antias, he remarked: qua haud dubie major aliquanto summa  ex numero plaustrorum ponderibusque auri, argenti generatim ab ipso  scriptis absumptum efficitur. Unless Livy was merely correcting the arithmetic of Valerius Antias, this remark of Livy's suggests that he was using Antias here as an alternative source with whom he disagreed. Perhaps this allows us to identify Livy's main source as Claudius Quadrigarius. If L. 45.35.1 - 40.5 may be traced to one annalistic source, we are not prevented from identifying this source as Claudius by the detail in the speech of Servilius (38.7) that Scipio Africanus lived at Liternum during his exile. Although this fact was stated by Valerius Antias, Livy's main source for the "trials of the Scipios" (L. 38.50.4 - 55.13; Scipio at Liternum: 38.53.8, 56.3; see Nissen Krit. Untersuch. 213; Klotz Livius 16), the details of the exile of Scipio Africanus at Liternum were a commonplace in literature (cf. Val. Max. 2.10.2; Pliny NH 14.49, 16.234; Seneca Ep. 86; Dio fr. 63; Dio 38.26.3), and as such, a reference to the exile of Scipio Africanus could have appeared just as well in the work of Claudius Quadrigarius. Livy's account of the misfortune of Paullus in the loss of his sons (40.6 - 42.1) is probably annalistic, but the Polybian tradition, which is probably represented by Diod. 31.11, treated this episode and the speech of Paullus in a very similar manner. The speech of Paullus could have occurred in the Polybian section on the Res Italiae for the Olympiad year 153.2 (167/6) in a passage which preceded his account of the embassy from Kotys (Pol. 30^17). Polybius may have used a Roman annalist or a family document preserving the speech of Paullus; he may have heard the speech himself or learned of i t through witnesses. As an exhibition of the fortitude of Paullus in the midst of personal tragedy, this speech became part of the annalistic tradition. From the version of Val. Max. 5.10.2, where a portion of the original speech may 19 be' preserved, it appears probable that the annalistic tradition included a sketch of Paullus' movements and achievements similar to that reported in the Polybian tradition (cf. Val. Max. 5.10.2: oratione, quam de rebus a se gestis apud populum habuit). The annalistic tradition is probably represented by Plut. Aem. 34.4 - 37.1 and perhaps also by Appian Mak. 19. ^ In both of these sources there occurs a sketch of the movements and achievements of Paullus similar to the one in Diod. 31.11, which probably represents the account of Polybius. The detail in Livy's account that Paullus addressed a contio assembled by the tribunus plebis M. Antonius (45.40.9) suggests an annalistic origin. The section on the return of Bithys to his father Kotys (L. 45.42.6-11) is annalistic. In Livy's account there occurs a statement of Roman motives and a report of the arguments of the senate which placed Kotys in the wrong. The names of the envoys sent to escort Bithys to Thrace are listed, and the gift of 2000 asses for each of the Thracian envoys is mentioned. Bithys was summoned from Carseoli, where he was being detained according to L. 45.42.5. The Polybian version of the embassy from Kotys occurs at Pol. 30.17. In describing the triumph of Anicius (43.1-8), Livy seems to have used Valerius Antias only for the additional piece of information on the value of that part of the booty from Illyricum which Anicius did not surrender to the treasury. Livy, however, realized that the statement of Antias was suspect because information of this kind was not ordinarily available (see on 43.8). Livy's main source for this passage may probably be identified as Claudius. The embassy of Prusias (45.44.1-19, 20-21) is described according to Livy's annalistic source (cf. 44.19: haec de Prusia nostri scriptores). In 44.19-20 Livy mentioned the alternative account of Polybius, whose treatment of this embassy seems to have been concerned mainly with criticism of the servile behaviour of Prusias (cf. Pol. 30.18). The annalistic account favourable to Prusias is also preserved in Val. Max. 5.1.1e and in Eutropius 4.8.4. On the sources of L. 45.35.1 - 44.21 see Nissen Krit. Untersuch. 277 - 279; Klotz Livius 76 - 77. The following chart represents an attempt to show the relationship of Livy's account to the other surviving accounts of the same events. In the f i r s t column appear portions of Livy's narrative for which parallels in the other major sources can be found. In the second column occur references to parts of the Polybian account used by Livy, and in the third column occur references to portions of the account of Diodoros which correspond to fragments of Polybius and to portions of Livy's account. Since Diodoros based his account of the years 218 - 146 on Polybius, his work is also evidence for the Polybian origin of corresponding portions of the Livian account. In the fourth column are listed references to the fragments of Dio and to the excerpts of Zonaras from Dio, who seems to have based his account of the years 201 - 146 on Livy. Since i t is not clear what sources Appian consulted and how he used his sources, the references to portions of his work which appear in the fourth column do not suggest anything about the origin of the corresponding portions of Livy's account. As with the works of Dio, Zonaras and Appian, the references to Plutarch's Aemilius cannot be used as independent evidence for the origin of the corresponding parts of Livy's narrative, since Plutarch used a variety of sources, probably including both Polybius and Livy, so that in his account are preserved elements of both the annalistic and the Polybian traditions. Presentiment of victory L. 45.1.1-5 see Zon. 9.24.2 see Plut. Aem. 24.2-3 Rhodian embassy L. 45.3.3-8 Pol. 29.19 - L. 45.3.3-8 see Diod. 30.24 Capture of Perseus L . 45.4.2 - 9.1 see Zon. 9.23.9-12 see Plut. Aem. 26-27 see Dio fr. 66.3-4 Remark of Paullus to his military staff L. 45.8.6-7 Pol. 29.20 Diod. 30.23 = L. 45.8.6-7 = Pol. 29.20 Summary of Macedonian history L. 45.9.2-7 (Pol. 29.21 probably part of a summary) (Diod. 31.10 = Pol. 29.21) Popillius at Rhodes L. 45.10 see Dio fr. 68.1 Summary of events in Egypt L. 45.11 see Zon. 9.25.1 Judgement of the conduct of Antiochus L. 45.11.8 see Pol. 29.26 IV see Diod. 31.1 Popillius in Egypt L . 45.12.1-8 Pol. 29.27 =-L. 45.12.1-8 Diod. 31.2 =• Pol. 29.27 see Appian Syr. 66 Embassy of Attalos L. 45.19.1 - 20.3 Pol. 30.1-3 - L. 45.19.1 - 20.3 Rhodian embassy L. 45.20.4 - 25.4 see Zon. 9.24.6 see Dio fr. 68.2 Trouble in the Rhodian Peraea L. 45.25.4-13 Pol. 30.5 = L. 45.25.4-13 Rhodian feeling of relief L. 45.25.6 Pol. 30.5.2-3 =» L. 45.25.6 Diod. 31.5.2b =- Pol. 30.5.2-3 Paullus on tour L. 45.27.5 - 28.5 see Pol. 30.10 see Plut. Aem. 28.1-2 Division of Macedonia L . 45.29.4-9 Diod. 31.8.6-9 = L. 45.29.4-9 Arrest of anti-Roman politicians L . 45.31.5-11 Pol. 30.13 = L. 45.31.5-11 Remark of Paullus at the victory celebrations L. 45.32.11 Pol. 30.14 Diod. 31.8.13 see Plut. Aem. 28.5 = L. 45.32.11 = Pol. 30.14 The sack of E p i r u s L. 45.34.5-6 P o l . 30.15 see Appian 111. 9 see P l u t . Aem. 29.3 - L. 45.34.5-6 Debate over the triumph of P a u l l u s L. 45.35.1 - 39.20 see P l u t . Aem. 30-31 The triumph of P a u l l u s L. 45.40.1 - 40.5 see Zon. 9.24.3 see P l u t . Aem. 32-34 The misfortune of P a u l l u s i n the l o s s of h i s sons L. 45.40.6 - 42.1 see Diod. 31.11 see Appian Mak. 19 see P l u t . Aem. 34.4 - 37.1 Release of B i t h y s L. 45.42.6-12 see Zon. 9.24.5 Embassy of P r u s i a s L . 45.44.4-19, 20-21 see Zon. 9.24.7 see Dio f r . 69 see V a l . Max. 5.1.1e The P o l y b i a n account of the embassy of P r u s i a s L. 45.44.19-20 see P o l . 30.18 Diod. 31.15 see Appian M i t h . 2 = P o l . 30.18 Footnotes to Part One Both Dio, from whose work Zonaras made excerpts, and Plutarch, in his biographies of Romans, used Livy and the Roman annalists as well as Greek authors. On Plutarch see Nissen Krit. Untersuch, 280 - 305; Peter Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Biographien der ROmer; Smith CQ 34 (1940) 1-10; Delvaux Les sources de Plutarche  dans les vies paralleles des Romains; Ziegler RE XXI. 1 (1951) cols. 912 - 914; Griffith "The Greek Historians", Fifty Years  (and Twelve) of Classical Scholarship 220 - 221, notes 103 - 107; De Sanctis Storia III. 2 2. 197 - 200, 366 - 373. For his account of the Second Punic War, Dio seems to have used Livy as well as annalistic sources. Polybius seems to be the basis of Dio's account of the years 201 - 146, covered in Books 18 to 21, but the appearance in Dio of annalistic material similar to that found in Livy suggests that Dio followed Livy instead of making direct use of Polybius. On Dio's readings, cf. Dio fr. 1.2; £M c-^  vuw rr« v ro(, lis e-iTretv T trep^  *OTU»V TKTI v^p«^u.eVa, o-uveW|°w,fa ^ °^ rr<*vrcx o<ra efeKptVa. On Dio see Nissen Krit. Untersuch. 308 - 312; Schwartz RE III. 2 (1899) cols. 1696 - 1697; De Sanctis Storia III. 2 2. 186 - 192, 637 - 641. For his account of the years 218 - 146, covered in Books 25 to 32, Diodoros followed Polybius closely. A number of fragments from Books 30 and 31 of Diodoros can be shown to be almost verbatim copies of Polybius. On Diodoros see Nissen Krit. Untersuch. 110 - 113; Schwartz RE V. 1 (1903) cols. 688 - 690; De Sanctis Storia III. 2 2. 647 - 650. Within each Olympiad year, Polybius treated events in each theatre of action, following a fixed order which is rarely broken (i.e., Italy, Sicily, Spain, Africa, Greece and Macedonia, Asia, Egypt; cf. Pol. 32.11.2: Trjv h c T | <r i v drM T~TJV e^ifuev^ Tovfk.V, ^ ^ cojo.€-T?a TTcxp' o'ATyv/ Tr\ v TTp«^oiTcHocV) • The Constantinian excerpts from Polybius were placed under fifty-three titles, of which only six have survived: De Virtutibus  et Vitiis; De Sententiis; De Insidiis; De Strategematis; De Legat ionibus Gentium ad Romanos; De Legat ionibus Romanorum ad Gentes. The Cons tant in ian excerpts cover the whole of P o l y b i u s ' work except Books 17, 19, 26, 37 and 40, and are arranged i n the order i n which they appeared i n the o r i g i n a l , but i d e n t i f y i n g book-numbers are r a r e l y g iven . The fragments of Po lyb ius preserved under the s i x t i t l e s mentioned may be arranged w i t h i n the account of the Olympiad years according to P o l y b i u s ' usua l order for the var ious theatres of a c t i o n . See Z i e g l e r RE X X I . 2 (1952) c o l s . 1575 - 1577; Moore The Manuscript T r a d i t i o n of P o l y b i u s 123 - 167. On F l o r u s see Rossbach RE V I . 2 (1909) c o l s . 2765 - 2766; F l o r u s : Oeuvres, ed. J a l . v o l . I . x x i i i - xxx. In Mak. 19 the account of Appian i s c lose to that of P o l y b i u s , but i t appears that Appian a l so used a n n a l i s t i c m a t e r i a l and that he may have obtained the P o l y b i a n t r a d i t i o n through an in termediary . On Appian see Nissen K r i t . Untersuch . 113 - 118 Schwartz RE I I . 1 (1895) c o l s . 219 - 2 2 2 ; Meloni I I Va lore  S t o r i c o e l e F o n t i d e l L i b r o Macedonico d i Appiano 207 - 213; W i l l H i s t o i r e I I . 469. - 471. PART TWO COMMENTARY V i c t o r i a e n u n t i i : Q. Fabius Maximus Aemil ianus (109) L . Corne l ius Lentulus (190) Q. C a e c i l i u s Mete l lus (Macedonicus) (94) Fabius was a son of L. Aemi l ius Paul lus (see on 1.8) by h i s f i r s t w i f e , P a p i r i a . In 181 he was adopted in to the fami ly of the F a b i i Maximi, probably by Q. Fabius Maximus (105), a grandson of Q. Fabius Maximus Cunctator (116). The younger brother of Fabius was P . C o r n e l i u s S c i p i o Afr i canus Aemil ianus (335), adopted i n 179 in to the family of the C o r n e l i i Sc ip iones by P . Corne l ius S c i p i o (331), the e ldes t son of P . C o r n e l i u s S c i p i o A f r i c a n u s (336). As praetor i n S i c i l y i n 149 dur ing the T h i r d Punic War, Fabius (109) rece ived the Car thag in ian hostages and t r a n s f e r r e d them to Rome; he a t ta ined the consulship i n 145. Lentulus may be the same L . C o r n e l i u s Lentulus (191) who was praetor i n 140, or the Corne l ius Lentulus (172) who was praetor i n 137, and perhaps the L . Corne l iu s Lentulus (192) who was consul i n 130. The C o r n e l i i L e n t u l i were t r a d i t i o n a l supporters of the S c i p i o s (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 166 - 167). L a t e r i n 168 a P. C o r n e l i u s Lentulus (202) was sent by Aemi l ius Pau l lus as a legatus to negot ia te wi th Perseus (L . 4 5 . 4 . 7 ) . As praetor i n Macedonia and Greece i n 148 C a e c i l i u s crushed the r e v o l t of Andr i skos ; h i s imperium was prorogued i n 147 and i n 146. A f t e r he defeated the Achaeans and t h e i r a l l i e s at Skarpheia and K h a i r o n e i a , he was superseded by Mummius and returned to Rome, where he ce lebrated a triumph over the Macedonians and A n d r i s k o s . He was consul i n 143, censor i n 131, augur from before 140 to 115. His fa ther , Q. C a e c i l i u s Mete l lus (81), had been a supporter of S c i p i o A f r i c a n u s (see Casso la Gruppi 407 - 410; S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 76 - 78). C a e c i l i u s (94), although at f i r s t a f r i e n d of S c i p i o Aemi l ianus , l a t e r became 27 h o s t i l e to him (see A s t i n S c i p i o Aemil ianus 312 - 315). 1.2 quarto post d i e : 7 Sept . by the Roman ( i . e . , the p r e - J u l i a n ) ca lendar . See on 1.11. 1.2 cum i n c i r c o l u d i f i e r e n t : c f . P l u t . Aem. 24 .2: ITTTT I K O U S «»f . 1.2 murmur: For other examples of unconfirmed reports i n L i v y , see L . 5.18.7-12 (rumor i n the Roman camp and i n Rome a f t e r a defeat by the F a l e r n i a n s and Capenates) , 24 .11 .6 (on the s ta te of war i n S i c i l y ) , both of which proved to be t r u e , and 33.41.1 (the death of Ptolemy V ) , 28.25.1 (the death of S c i p i o A f r i c a n u s ) , both of which proved to be f a l s e . For fur ther examples of miraculous pre-knowledge see Pease De Natura Deorum I . 557 - 558. An account s i m i l a r to t h i s one i s that of the report of v i c t o r y over Hasdrubal by L i v i u s S a l i n a t o r and Claudius Nero i n 207 (L . 27.50.3 - 51 .10) . A rumor (fama) spread to the e f f e c t that two cavalrymen from the camp guarding the pass of F u r l o i n t o Umbria had come to Rome wi th t i d i n g s of the v i c t o r y which cou ld s c a r c e l y be b e l i e v e d , e s p e c i a l l y because the b a t t l e had been fought only two days b e f o r e . 1.6 ante diem quintum decimum kalendas Octobres , Ludorum Romanorum secundo d i e : Roman 16 Sept . The L u d i Romani were o r i g i n a l l y he ld on a s i n g l e day (15 S e p t . ) , but the f e s t a l p e r i o d was g r a d u a l l y extended, so that by Augustan times i t l a s t ed from 4 to 19 Sept . The days before the epulum Iov i s (13 Sept . ) were devoted to dramatic presen ta t ions , and the days a f t e r , commencing wi th 15 S e p t . , to the c i r c u s games. See Miche l s The Calendar of  the Roman Republ ic 185; Wissowa R e l . und K u l t . 127 - 128, 454. 1.6 C . L i c i n i o c o n s u l i : C . L i c i n i u s Crassus (51). As consul i n 168, h i s province was I t a l y , w i th charge of l e v i e s and suppl ies for the Macedonian war. A f t e r the b a t t l e of Pydna he dismissed h i s l e v i e s (see on 2.1) and l a t e r i n the year he went to G a u l , where h i s imperium was prorogued u n t i l he was appointed as one of the ten commissioners for the sett lement of Macedonia. The L i c i n i i C r a s s i were at t h i s time p o l i t i c a l 28 assoc iates of the P o p i l l i i (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 194 - 198, 207 - 208). As praetor i n 172, L i c i n i u s enabled M. P o p i l l i u s Laenas (*6/24), proconsul i n L i g u r i a , to escape condemnation for excessive s e v e r i t y against the S t a t e l l i a t e s (L. 42 .22 .2 -8 ) . 1.6 t a b e l l a r i u s ; There i s no previous mention of th i s messenger i n the text of L i v y , who, in a Po lyb ian sec t ion of h i s n a r r a t i v e , reported only the despatch of the three l e g a t i (L . 44 .45 .3 ) . 1.6 laureatas l i t t e r a s : The despatch bear ing news of v i c t o r y was decorated with l a u r e l : see L . 5 .28.13; von Premerstein RE X I I . 1 (1924) c o l . 1014; O g i l v i e Commentary 691. 1.8 L . Aemilium: L . Aemi l ius Paul lus (114), the conqueror of Perseus . He was curule aed i l e i n 193. In 191 he was praetor i n Far ther Spa in , where h i s imperium was prorogued in*190 and 189. He was consul i n 182 and proconsul i n L i g u r i a i n 181, consul for a second time i n 168 i n Macedonia, where h i s imperium was prorogued i n 167, censor i n 164, and augur from about 192 u n t i l h i s death i n 160. c f . CIL XI (1888) no. 1829; Degrass i E l o g i a no. 81, pp. 62 - 63: L . Aemi l ius L . f. P a u l l u s , Co(n)s (u l ) I I , cens (or ) , i n t e r r e x , p r ( a e t o r ) , a e d ( i l i s ) c u r ( u l i s ) , q (uaes tor) , tr ( ibunus) mi l ( i tum) t e r t i o , aug(ur) . L i g u r i b u s domitis p r i o r e consulatu t r iumphav i t . Iterum co(n)s (u l ) ut cum rege [Perjse bel lum gerere t , ap [.. . . f ]actus es t . copias r e g i s [decern diebjus quibus Mac[e] [doniam a t t i j g i t d e l e v f i t ] , [regem cum l i b e r i j s c e p [ i t - - - ] 1.9 c i v i t a t e s omnes Macedoniae i n dicionem p o p u l i Romani ven i s se : By 6 Sept . (see on 1.11). D e d i t i o (ded i t i o i n fidem, i n dicionem, in potestatem, and so on) s i g n i f i e d the u n c o n d i t i o n a l surrender of an i n d i v i d u a l or a community i n t o Roman hands before a complete m i l i t a r y defeat (expugnatio). A s t a t e a t war w i t h Rome could surrender v o l u n t a r i l y or under compulsion, w h i l e a s t a t e at war w i t h or threatened by another s t a t e could make an act of d e d i t i o to Rome as a request f o r Roman p r o t e c t i o n . D e d i t i c i i were considered to have no p o l i t i c a l r i g h t s u n t i l the Romans arranged t h e i r p o l i t i c a l s t a t u s . Although an act of d e d i t i o was deemed to p l a c e the s t a t e s u r r e n d e r i n g a t d i s c r e t i o n completely a t the mercy of Rome, the d e d i t i c i i had a c l a i m on Roman f i d e s and could u s u a l l y expect moderate treatment. D e d i t i o had been an instrument f o r b u i l d i n g up the a l l i a n c e of s t a t e s i n pe n i n s u l a r I t a l y under Roman hegemony. In the H e l l e n i s t i c east, d e d i t i o e s t a b l i s h e d Roman spheres of i n f l u e n c e (as i n I l l y r i c u m a f t e r the war aga i n s t the A r d i a e i under Teuta: see Dahlheim D e d i t i o und s o c i e t a s 22 - 27) or served as a means of r e s t r i c t i n g the sovereignty of u n f r i e n d l y s t a t e s ( as i n the case of A e t o l i a i n 189: I b i d . 20 - 21, 45 - 51). The formula of d e d i t i o made to Rome by a h o s t i l e s t a t e i s given by L. 1.38.2 ( a l s o see P o l . 36.4.1-3; O g i l v i e Commentary 153 - 154). For the terminology of d e d i t i o by a n o n - h o s t i l e s t a t e seeking Roman p r o t e c t i o n see Dahlheim D e d i t i o und s o c i e t a s 22 - 27; on d e d i t i o i n general see Heuss VOlk. Grundl. 60 - 113; Badian Foreign C l i e n t e l a e 4 - 7 ; Dahlheim D e d i t i o und s o c i e t a s . 1.11 t e r t i u s decimus d i e s : 16 Sept. Therefore the b a t t l e was fought on 4 Sept. according to the a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n . Our major sources f o r the b a t t l e of Pydna are L. 44.37.5 f f . , Zon. 9.23.4-7 and P l u t . Aem. 17.3 f f . The Roman a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n seems to agree t h a t the b a t t l e occurred on the day f o l l o w i n g a lunar e c l i p s e , but i t i s not c l e a r whether P o l y b i u s ( c f . P o l . 29.16) gave p r e c i s e l y the same sequence. According to C i c e r o De Re Pub. 1.23, S u l p i c i u s Galus, on the day a f t e r the e c l i p s e , addressed the troops i n order to calm t h e i r f e a r s . There i s no mention of the b a t t l e of Pydna having taken p l a c e t h a t day. V a l . Max. 8.11.1 l i n k s the speech of S u l p i c i u s Galus a f t e r the e c l i p s e w i t h the renewed eagerness 30 of the Roman troops f o r b a t t l e . J u s t i n u s 33.1.7 r e l a t e s t h a t a lunar e c l i p s e occurred on the n i g h t before the b a t t l e . P l i n y NH 2.53 r e l a t e s t h a t S u l p i c i u s Galus freed the army from fear when, on the day before the defeat of Perseus, he was brought before the s o l d i e r s by P a u l l u s t o f o r e t e l l the e c l i p s e . F r o n t i n u s S t r a t . 1.12.8 s t a t e s t h a t S u l p i c i u s Galus p r e d i c t e d the e c l i p s e . The a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n seems to agree th a t the e c l i p s e occurred on the n i g h t before the b a t t l e , but i s i n disagreement as to whether the speech of S u l p i c i u s Galus preceded or f o l l o w e d the e c l i p s e . The accounts of L i v y (L. 44.37.5 f f . ; a l s o c f . Ep. 44), Zonaras (9.23.4-7) and P l u t a r c h (Aem. 14 - 22) are more d i f f i c u l t to analyse. In h i s account of the b a t t l e of Pydna and of the f i g h t i n g which preceded, L i v y (44.32.5 - 43.9) used P o l y b i u s except f o r a b r i e f a n n a l i s t i c passage (44.37.5-9) which records the address of S u l p i c i u s Galus to the troops about the lunar e c l i p s e which was to occur l a t e r t h a t evening (see N i s s e n K r i t . Untersuch. 264 - 267; K l o t z L i v i u s 20, 73). In p l a c i n g the b a t t l e of Pydna on the f o l l o w i n g day ( c f . 44.37.10: Postero  d i e ) , L i v y agreed w i t h the a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n , but i t i s not c l e a r whether P o l y b i u s (29.16), who a l s o placed the e c l i p s e before the b a t t l e of Pydna, assigned i t to the day preceding the b a t t l e . According to Zon. 9.23.4, which seems to represent the account of L i v y , there was an i n t e r v a l of s e v e r a l days between the a r r i v a l of P a u l l u s i n the v i c i n i t y of Pydna and the b a t t l e . This delay mentioned by Zon. was probably described i n the four m i s s i n g f o l i a which occur i n the t e x t of L i v y , Book 44, before chapter 36 (see Weissenborn-Mffller 181; G i a r r a t a n o 286), and the march described by L i v y (44.36.1-3) was probably the l a s t change of p o s i t i o n which preceded the b a t t l e . The words postero d i e , t h e r e f o r e , i n d i c a t e t h a t the b a t t l e occurred on the day a f t e r t h i s change of p o s i t i o n , but s i n c e L i v y ' s passage on the e c l i p s e i s a n n a l i s t i c , h i s account does not i n d i c a t e the p r e c i s e c h r o n o l o g i c a l sequence of e c l i p s e and b a t t l e i n the P o l y b i a n 3 1 tradition. Polybius could have placed the eclipse at any time during the presence of Paullus in the vicinity of Pydna, but there is no compelling reason for us to deny that he may have placed the eclipse on the day preceding the battle. Plutarch used a variety of sources for his account of the battle of Pydna and the fighting which preceded it (Aem. 14 - 22), among them Polybius, with whom he often disagreed (cf. Aem. 15.3, 16.2, 19.2). Plut. reported two variant accounts of how the battle started (Aem. 18.1-2), the second of which seems to agree with the Polybian account preserved in Livy (44.40.4-10). Since Plut. did not report any disagreement among his sources on the chronology of eclipse and battle (cf. Aem. 17.6 ff.), i t is at least possible that Polybius, too, had reported the occurrence of the battle on the day after the eclipse. The date of the battle is fixed by reference to the lunar eclipse of Julian 21 June 168 B. C. See von Oppolzer Canon  of Eclipses Lunar Eclipse no. 1596. Mr. 0. Gingerich, Professor of Astronomy and the History of Science at Harvard University, and Mr. L. V. Morrison of Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office, Royal Greenwich Observatory, kindly responded by letter to my inquiry about the validity of the Canon for this period, and have indicated that a total lunar eclipse would have been observed from Greece on Julian 21 June 168 B. C. about an hour after sunset. This information agrees with Livy's statement from the annalistic source that Sulpicius Galus predicted the eclipse ab hora secunda usque ad quartam horam (44.37.6). The date of the eclipse as given by the annalistic tradition was A. D. I l l Non. Sept. (cf. L. 44.37.8: nocte quam pridie  nonas Septembres insecuta est dies), or Roman 3 Sept. Since this eclipse was visible from Rome (see Ginzel Spezieller Kanon  der Sonnen- und- Mondfinsternisse ftir das Landgebiet der  klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 192), it was almost certainly recorded in the Annates Maximi. If we rely upon the date handed down by the t r a d i t i o n , we may e s t a b l i s h the equation, Roman 3 Sept. - J u l i a n 21 June. Thus, i n the year 168 the Roman calendar was some 74 days ahead of the J u l i a n . On the problems w i t h the Roman calendar at t h i s time see De S a n c t i s S t o r i a IV. I 2 . 358 - 365; Derow Phoenix 27 (1973) 345 - 356. Upon t h i s date f o r the e c l i p s e depend the dates f o r the b a t t l e and f o r the r e p o r t of v i c t o r y i n Rome. We have noted that we are not sure of the p r e c i s e sequence of e c l i p s e and b a t t l e i n P o l y b i u s , but th a t L i v y , i n agreement w i t h the a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n , wished to pl a c e the b a t t l e on 4 Sept. The t a b e l l a r i u s sent ahead by the o f f i c i a l envoys a r r i v e d i n Rome ante diem  quintum decimum kalendas Octobres, ludorum Romanorum secundo  d i e . . . . t e r t i u s decimus d i e s e r a t ab eo, quo i n Macedonia  pugnatum est (L. 45.1.6, 11), t h a t i s , on 16 Sept. The L u d i Romani, i n e a r l i e r times, began on 15 Sept., so that the a r r i v a l of the t a b e l l a r i u s i s c o r r e c t l y dated to the second day of the f e s t i v a l . I f t h i s was twelve days ( e x c l u s i v e reckoning) a f t e r the b a t t l e , then i n the a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n the date of the b a t t l e was 4 Sept. E u t r o p i u s (4.7.1), who gave the date of the b a t t l e as A. D. I l l Non. Sept., must have e i t h e r confused the date of the b a t t l e w i t h the date of the e c l i p s e , or made a mistake i n h i s a r i t h m e t i c a r i s i n g from the confusion of i n c l u s i v e and e x c l u s i v e reckoning. The a n n a l i s t i c account, which dated the b a t t l e to 4 Sept. ( J u l i a n 22 June), seems to disagree w i t h P o l y b i u s 1 i n d i c a t i o n of time by r e f e r e n c e to the seasons. We may t r a c e t o P o l . the statement i n L. 44.36.1: ...anni post circumactum s o l s t i t i u m e r a t and perhaps the statement i n P l u t . Aem. 16.7: -v5epous ^v-dif * q> t'\lovT"05. i t would appear, then, t h a t P o l y b i u s placed the b a t t l e of Pydna at the h e i g h t of summer, perhaps somewhat l a t e r than the Roman a n n a l i s t s placed i t . However, there i s probably no c h r o n o l o g i c a l problem here, s i n c e seasonal dates i n P o l . are always approximate and i t i s not l i k e l y t h a t P o l y b i u s used astronomical t a b l e s f o r p r e c i s e d a t i n g by phenomena. See Pedech Meth. H i s t . 461 - 464; Sumner Proceedings of the  A f r i c a n C l a s s i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n 9 (1966) 1 - 9 . We have, moreover, an A t t i c i n s c r i p t i o n honouring one K a l l i p h a n e s , who brought to Athens the news of the defeat of Perseus (see M e r i t t Hesperia 3 (1934) no. 18, pp. 18 - 21 and Hesperia 5 (1936) no. 17, pp. 429 - 430). The i n s c r i p t i o n i s dated to the l a s t day of the archon year of Eunikos (169/8). M e r i t t now equates t h i s date w i t h J u l i a n 7 August, but h i s e a r l i e r view had been 8 J u l y (see M e r i t t The Athenian Year 219 - 220). M e r i t t ' s e a r l i e r view seems more a p p r o p r i a t e , s i n c e the Athenians had no cause to postpone f o r over s i x weeks the v o t i n g of t h e i r memorial of the Roman v i c t o r y . No p r e c i s e date i s given f o r the capture of Perseus. A b r i e f n o t i c e on the capture occurs i n L. 45.13.9 i n an a n n a l i s t i c s e c t i o n on events which occurred l a t e i n the consular year 168. On the n i g h t a f t e r the b a t t l e , Perseus reached P e l l a ( P l u t . Aem. 23.3). By the second day a f t e r the b a t t l e (6 Sept.) he reached Amphipolis (L. 44.45.1), where he t r i e d w i t h o u t success to o b t a i n a i d from the B i s a l t a e , who l i v e d i n l a n d on the west bank of the Strymon. P e r c e i v i n g t h a t the people of Amphipolis would not support him a g a i n s t the Romans, Perseus f l e d to Galepsos, a r r i v i n g there on the same day as h i s departure from Amphipolis. On the f o l l o w i n g day he reached Samothrace (L. 44.45.15). S i n c e P a u l l u s had r e c e i v e d the submission of most of Macedonia w i t h i n two days (by 6 Sept.), Perseus probably f l e d Macedonia w i t h i n a week or ten days of h i s defeat at Pydna, a r r i v i n g i n Samothrace about 14 Sept. ( J u l i a n 2 J u l y ) . Meanwhile at Pydna P a u l l u s r e c e i v e d the ambassadors sent by Perseus from Amphipolis. These ambassadors would have a r r i v e d i n Pydna by at l e a s t 8 Sept. ( J u l i a n 26 June). As y e t unaware of the king's f l i g h t to Samothrace, P a u l l u s placed g a r r i s o n s i n the Macedonian c i t i e s under h i s c o n t r o l and sent out e x p e d i t i o n s to destroy r e s i s t a n c e . I f we a l l o w about two weeks for t h i s a c t i v i t y , P a u l l u s would have s e t out from Pydna about 20 Sept. ( J u l i a n 8 J u l y ) , r e a c h i n g P e l l a on the f o l l o w i n g day (L. 44.46.4). A f t e r having spent a few days here, examining 34 the s i t e and r e c e i v i n g c o n g r a t u l a t o r y embassies, he l e f t f o r Amphipolis, a r r i v i n g there a f t e r a three-day march on about 26 Sept. ( J u l i a n 14 J u l y ) . From Amphipolis P a u l l u s marched up the Strymon to S i r a e (L. 45.4.2), probably to complete the subjugation of Macedonia. I f we a l l o w about a week f o r t h i s a c t i v i t y , P a u l l u s would have returned to Amphipolis about 3 Oct. ( J u l i a n 19 J u l y ) . During the n e g o t i a t i o n s between P a u l l u s and Perseus, Octavius brought the f l e e t to Samothrace. Some time was consumed i n the e f f o r t s of Octavius to persuade the Samothracians to a l l o w the removal of Perseus from the sanctuary. Perseus meanwhile l a i d p l a ns f o r an escape, but he was abandoned by h i s guide Oroandes. H i s two younger c h i l d r e n were taken by the t r i b u n u s m i l i t u m C. Postumius along w i t h the r o y a l pages, and Perseus now surrendered h i m s e l f t o Octavius along w i t h h i s e l d e r son. I f we a l l o w about a week f o r these events, the capture of Perseus would have occurred about 10 Oct. ( J u l i a n 28 J u l y ) . That the capture of Perseus occurred i n the archonship of Xenokles (168/7) i s not proved by the fragment of Apollodoros of Athens (Jacoby FGrHist I I . B. 244 F 47, verses 28 - 31): V\ ^ <* p.if < r f u J p fxer\ T V TT*p<reu»s « X < * m v , ! A f K * s , m'os <£v TToX,v;£evoO > e r r i Z e v o x A f o o j TT^V arto'AvJcrcV TOO jScoo e r r o i ' v j V t f T . . . . This scheme f o r the capture of Perseus a l l o w s an i n t e r v a l of about f i v e weeks between the b a t t l e of Pydna and the capture of the k i n g . See De S a n c t i s S t o r i a IV. 1 . 314 - 323, where only seven days are allowed between the b a t t l e and the a r r i v a l of P a u l l u s i n Amphipolis. 2.1 s u p p l i c a t i o n e s : These were occasions of request or of t h a n k s g i v i n g , i n i t i a t e d by the consuls or the senate, and c e l e b r a t e d by the e n t i r e c i t i z e n body. O r i g i n a l l y l a s t i n g only one day, the s u p p l i c a t i o n e s as occasions of request to the gods were sometimes extended to l a s t two or even three days. There was a tendency t o extend s u p p l i c a t i o n e s as occasions of t h a n k s g i v i n g a f t e r m i l i t a r y v i c t o r i e s , so that i n the l a t e r e p u b l i c we hear of such f e s t i v a l s l a s t i n g ten days (Cicero De Prov. Cons. 27) and even as long as f i f t y days (Cicero P h i l . 14.29.37). See Wissowa R e l . und K u l t . 425. 35 2.1 D e m o b i l i z a t i o n : On 17 Sept. the senate decreed t h a t the consul L i c i n i u s should disband a l l the f o r c e s under h i s command quos p r a e t e r m i l i t e s  sociosque navales coniuratos haberet (2.1). The c o n i u r a t i were those Roman, L a t i n and a l l i e d troops ( c f . P o l . 6.21; L. 22.38.1-5) who had taken the formal oath of l o y a l t y administered by the decuriones and centurions to t h e i r u n i t s (see F i e b i g e r RE IV. 1 (1900) c o l . 885). The l e v i e s now to be disbanded by L i c i n i u s were p o s s i b l y the e v o c a t i , who took the oath (sacramentum) en masse i n a shortened form. See Se r v i u s ad Aeneidem 8.1; F i e b i g e r RE V. 1 (1907) c o l s . 1145 - 1152; K l i n g m i l l l e r RE I . A. 2 (1920) c o l s . 1667 - 1668, On 25 Sept. the senate ordered the d i s m i s s a l of the s o c i i navales and of a l l troops who had taken the c o n i u r a t i o before L i c i n i u s , Rowers i n the f l e e t were u s u a l l y s u p p l i e d by the a l l i e s , but Roman c i t i z e n s of the lowest census r a t i n g might a l s o serve (see Liebenam RE V. 1 (1903) c o l s . 606 - 607; Toynbee Hannibal's  Legacy I I . 518 - 521). No previous mention occurs of the d i s p o s i t i o n of reserv e troops i n the places s p e c i f i e d i n 2.11, but i n 169 the s o c i i nominis ,p — — — — • - -~ -L a t i n i were to be hel d i n reserv e i n case of f u t u r e need ( c f . L. 43.12.8: s i quo res p o s c e r e t ) , w h i l e l e v i e s of c a v a l r y and i n f a n t r y over and above the the two le g i o n s needed f o r Macedonia were to be d i s t r i b u t e d as g a r r i s o n s (L. 44.21.8: ceteros p e d i t e s  equitesque i n p r a e s i d i i s d i s p o n i ) . 3.1 duo l e g a t i : C. L i c i n i u s Nerva (133) P. Decius (Subulo) (20) L i c i n i u s may have been the legatus of A n i c i u s i n 167 and the ambassador sent to Kotys of Thrace l a t e i n that year (see L. 45.26.2, 42.11; Broughton M a g i s t r a t e s I . 432 n.1). The L i c i n i i Nervae were t r a d i t i o n a l supporters of the S c i p i o s (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 186 - 187). Note that i n 169 an A. L i c i n i u s Nerva (131) had been chosen by the senate as one of the three s p e c i a l envoys to r e p o r t on c o n d i t i o n s i n Greece and Macedonia. 36 These envoys were to be men acceptable to P a u l l u s , the consu l -e l ec t (L . 44 .18 .5 ) . The D e c i i were a p lebe ian family who rose to p o l i t i c a l prominence at the time of the Samnite wars, a f ter the consulship had been opened up to plebeians by the L i c i n i a n -Sext ian Laws of 367. The most prominent representa t ive s of the D e c i i were P. Decius Mus (15), consul i n 340; P. Decius Mus (16), consul i n 312, 308, 297, 295, censor i n 304, Magis ter Equitum i n 306; P . Decius Mus (17), consul i n 279, consul suf fec tus i n 265. The next member of the gens Decia known to have he ld high o f f i c e a f t er Decius (17) was P . Decius (9), praetor i n 115. Decius (20) had been t r i u m v i r co loniae deducendae for A q u i l e i a i n 169 (L . 43 .17 .1 ) . In a Po lyb ian sec t ion of the n a r r a t i v e (44.23.1 - 37.4) L i v y s tates that A n i c i u s , a f t er the f a l l of Scodra, sent Perperna (M. Perperna (3) to announce the v i c t o r y over Gentius (L . 44 .32 .4 ) . We are thus confronted by a d i f f e r e n c e between the P o l y b i a n and the a n n a l i s t i c accounts . Mflnzer (RE IV. 2 (1901) c o l . 2286; RE X I I I . 1 (1926) c o l . 453) s tates that we must simply pre fer the account of P o l y b i u s to that of the a n n a l i s t s , but i t i s at l ea s t p o s s i b l e that the two accounts are not mutual ly e x c l u s i v e . Since we have a lready noted that an A . L i c i n i u s Nerva (131) had been sent as a s p e c i a l envoy to Greece and Macedonia i n 169, and s ince L i c i n i u s (133) may perhaps be i d e n t i f i e d wi th the legatus of A n i c i u s i n 167, the appearance of a L i c i n i u s i n the present context i s not s u r p r i s i n g . The Roman commanders l e f t for t h e i r provinces i n e a r l y s p r i n g (L. 44 .30 .1 ) . Gentius was captured w i t h i n a month (32.4) , whi le the b a t t l e of Pydna was not fought u n t i l summer (c f . L . 44.36.1 and see on 1.11). L i c i n i u s and Decius could have been sent a f ter the defeat of Perseus, whi le Perperna may have been sent immediately a f t er the capture of G e n t i u s . A poss ib l e p a r a l l e l i s the r e p o r t of the v i c t o r y over Hasdrubal at the Metaurus i n 207 by Claudius Nero and L i v i u s S a l i n a t o r (L. 27.50.3 - 51.10) , where news was f i r s t brought by two cavalrymen whose report was 37 l a t e r confirmed by a l e t t e r from t h e i r commanding o f f i c e r and f i n a l l y by the report of the three o f f i c i a l l e g a t i . 3.1 Gentium regem: Gentius was k ing of the A r d i a e i , an I l l y r i a n t r i b e , from 180 to 168. His predecessors S k e r d i l a i d a s and Pleuratus had become amic i of Rome about 216 before the opening of the F i r s t Macedonian War. P l e u r a t u s , the son of S k e r d i l a i d a s , was inc luded as an adscr iptus to the Peace of Phoinike (c f . P o l . 5 .110.8-9; L . 26 .24 .9 , 29 .12 .14) . I t was probably the I l l y r i a n s who brought the complaints against P h i l i p V mentioned by L i v y (30.26.2 f f . , 30.42.2 f f . , 32.33.3 = P o l . 18 .1 .4 ) . P leuratus a s s i s t e d the Romans dur ing the Second Macedonian War (c f . L . 31.28.1) and i n the war against Antiochus I I I (c f . L . 3 8 . 7 . 1 - 3 ) . Although Gent ius had been accused of h o s t i l e acts against the Romans (c f . L . 40 .18 .3-5 , 40 .42 .1-5 , 42 .26 .2-7; 4 3 . 9 . 4 ) , he sent a squadron of 54 lembi for the Roman f l e e t i n 170 (L . 42 .48 .8 ) , but i n the fo l lowing year he abandoned h i s a m i c i t i a w i th Rome and made an a l l i ance , wi th Perseus ( c f . P o l . 29 .2 ; L . 44 .23) . See Stat ie l in RE V I I . 1 (1910) c o l . 1199; Holleaux Rome, l a Grece 165 - 166, 177 - 178, 211 n . 1; Badian Fore ign C l i e n t e l a e 55 -57. 3.2 supp l i ca t iones d e c r e v i t . Indic tae a consule sunt: The reading of the MS. i s DECRE / UITURLATINAEDICTAE. Mommsen emended t h i s to supp l i ca t iones d e c r e v i t . i terum Lat inae e d i c t a e . He drew p a r a l l e l s from the F a s t i to show that the F e r i a e Lat inae could be repeated as a feast of thanksg iv ing , for example i n 449 and 23 B . C . , and pointed to the evidence of Dio 55 .2 .5 , where a r e p e t i t i o n of the F e r i a e Lat inae was being planned for the c e l e b r a t i o n of the triumph of Drusus, the brother of T i b e r i u s , i n 9 B . C . See Mommsen ROmische Forschungen 97 - 112. The F e r i a e Lat inae were not f ixed to any one date by the ca lendar , but were set by the consuls before t h e i r departure for t h e i r provinces at the beginning of the magis trate y e a r . The F a s t i (Tabula Feriarum Lat inarum, CIL I 2 (1893) pp . 55 - 59; CIL V I . 1 (1876) nos. 2011 - 2019; CIL XIV (1887) nos . 2227 - 2250), which date from i m p e r i a l t imes, c o n s i s t e n t l y name only one day, 38 the day f o r the e s s e n t i a l s a c r i f i c e , but the f e s t a l p e r i o d l a s t e d up to four days. The F e r i a e L a t i n a e could be repeated because of an e r r o r i n form, or repeated as a s p e c i a l occasion of t h a n k s g i v i n g . See Samter RE V I . 2 (1909) c o l s . 2213 - 2217; Wissowa R e l . und K u l t . 125; L a t t e Rtim. R e l . 144 - 146. While Mommsen was c o r r e c t about the p o s s i b i l i t y of the r e p e t i t i o n of the F e r i a e L a t i n a e , i t i s not l i k e l y t h a t t h i s honour would be accorded t o A n i c i u s , whose achievements were d e s c r i b e d by the a n n a l i s t i c source of L i v y (45.43.1-4) as i n f e r i o r to those of P a u l l u s . We may a l s o p o i n t out the l i n g u i s t i c p a r a l l e l to the s u p p l i c a t i o voted i n t h a n k s g i v i n g f o r the v i c t o r y of P a u l l u s : s u p p l i c a t i o . . . i n d i c t a est ex ante diem quintum idus  Octobres cum eo d i e i n quinque d i e s (2.12). The s u p p l i c a t i o i n t h a n k s g i v i n g f o r the v i c t o r y of A n i c i u s was to l a s t only three days. 3.3 legatos Rhodios nondum dimissos: On the Rhodian embassy of 168 see Schmitt Rom und Rhodos 143 - 150; W i l l H i s t o i r e I I . 247 - 253; De S a n c t i s S t o r i a I V . I 2 . 306, 343; Deininger P o l . Widerstand 184 - 191, 204 - 208. This embassy was sent to Rome i n the summer of 168 be f o r e the defeat of Perseus ( P o l . 29.10) f o r the purpose of mediating a peace between Rome and Macedonia. On the d i p l o m a t i c r e l a t i o n s between Rome and Rhodes from 172 to 167 see Appendix I . There i s a t r a d i t i o n t h a t there e x i s t e d a r e l a t i o n s h i p of a m i c i t i a between Rome and Rhodes s i n c e 306. An i n f o r m a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of a m i c i t i a c e r t a i n l y d i d e x i s t from about 201, when the Rhodians sent an embassy to Rome to warn the senate about the Syro-Macedonian pact. A formal t r e a t y (foedus) was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 165/4 ( P o l . 30.31; L. Kp. 46). On a m i c i t i a and s o c i e t a s see Appendix I V . On the problem of the a m i c i t i a between Rome and Rhodes see Holleaux Rome, l a Grece 29 - 46; Casson TAPA 85 (1954) 168 - 187; Schmitt Rom und Rhodos 1 - 150, esp. 47 - 49; Cass o l a Gruppi 41 - 45. 3.4 Agepolim, principem eorum: / c f . P o l . 29.10.4: oc< oev ^ e . f n « p « ^ ^ P « rrpe^ur** K*Te<rr^w r o U * L « X u W r « * rev ^ f p ^ ( l , f e ^ V A ^ c - c r o A ^ A i o K ^ f j , \C A. i v o p j ^ p o T c V ... . Agepolls had been a member 39 of an e a r l i e r embassy to the consul Q. Marcius P h i l i p p u s and to C. Marcius F i g u l u s , commander of the f l e e t , i n 169 ( P o l . 28.16). Since on both occasions h i s name heads the l i s t of ambassadors, he was probably one of the l e a d i n g members of the group which favoured mediation. 3.7 cum Perseus i n Thessaliam...obsideret: In 171 Perseus had taken c o n t r o l of the pass of Tempe, which gave him easy access to Thessaly. He was forced to withdraw h i s g a r r i s o n s i n the s p r i n g of 169 when the consul P h i l i p p u s reached the coast of Macedonia (L. 42.51.11, 44.3-6). 3.8 Postquam...audissent: In summer of 168 P a u l l u s forced the pass i n t o P e r r h a i b i a at P e t r a and turned to meet Perseus, who o f f e r e d b a t t l e near the coast at Pydna (L. 44.34.10 - 35.23; P l u t . Aem. 13.3 - 16.5). 4.1 M. M a r c e l l u s : M. Claudius M a r c e l l u s (225) As p r a e t o r i n 169 h i s province was the two Spains (L. 43.15.3). He was consul i n 166, 155 and 152. The C l a u d i i l e d one of the major groups of Roman p o l i t i c i a n s . T h e i r c l o s e s t a s s o c i a t e s were the F u l v i i . See S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 61 f f . , 93 f f . , 165 f f . M a r c o l i c a i s u n i d e n t i f i e d . For the war-time treatment of Spain see on 16.2. 4.2 Paulus Aemilius...haberet: Previous mention of S i r a e i n L i v y ' s account would have occurred i n the page of the MS. l o s t a f t e r L. 44.46.11 (see Weissenborn-Mtf l l e r 183; G i a r r a t a n o 284). A f t e r h i s entry i n t o Amphipolis P a u l l u s probably marched up the Strymon to complete the subjugation of Macedonia. S i r a e (modern S e r r e s ; c f . Hdt. 8.115: ev £Hp l TT«IO\K'^S ) i s o n the l e f t or e a s t e r n bank of the Strymon above Lake K e r k i n i t i s . 4.3 qui paulo a n t e . . . a u x i l i a : Perseus had defeated the Dardani and I l l y r i a n s , i n v e t e r a t e enemies of the Macedonians, i n 170 (L. 43.18-21). These campaigns had r e s u l t e d i n c o n s i d e r a b l e conquests f o r Perseus. See Meloni Perseo 273 - 277. 40 The Bastarnae, whom Philip V had asked for military aid (to destroy the Dardani and to plunder Italy: cf. L. 39.35.4 and 40.57.5-6), refused to co-operate with Perseus after the death of Philip (L. 40.57.8), and Perseus continued to stir up trouble between the Dardani and the Bastarnae (cf. L. 41.19.3). Polybius (25.6) described an embassy from the Dardani to the senate in 177 complaining about an agreement among Perseus, the Bastarnae and the Galatians. Livy (44.26.1 - 27.7) described the failure of Perseus in 169 to secure the aid of the "Galli", whose chieftain he called Clondicus. Since, however, this was the name of one of the chieftains of the Bastarnae (L. 40.58.8), Livy may have confused the Bastarnae, a Germanic tribe (see Strabo 7.306; Pliny NH 4.81; Tacitus Germania 46) with the Galatians. See Meloni Perseo 329 - 335. 4.3 fani religione...tutus esset: Perseus took sanctuary in the temple of the Kabeiroi (cf. L. 45.41.6: in templo Samothracum). According to Pol. 29.8.7, Samothrace was part of the Macedonian kingdom. It had probably been taken by Philip V some time after 196, but in the Roman settlement of 167 Samothrace was declared a civitas libera (cf. Strabo 7 fr. 48 and see on 18.7, 20.2). 4.7 tres legati: P. Cornelius Lentulus (202) A. Postumius Albinus (Luscus) (*26/46) or A. Postumius Albinus (*33/31) . A. Antonius (18) The Cornelii Lentuli were political associates of the Aemilian-Scipionic group (see on 1.1). Note also that Cornelius (202) and P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (Corculum) (353) were both curule aedile in 169 and praetor in 165. Cornelius (202) was consul suffectus in 162 with Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (19), one of the three legati acceptable to Paullus who were chosen to investigate conditions in Greece and Macedonia late in 169 (L. 44.18.5). Of the two Postumii, it seems more likely that the ambassador to Perseus was Postumius (*33/31), for as tribunus militum in 41 167 he received custody of Perseus and his son (L. 45.28.11). Postumius (*33/31) was praetor in 155 and consul in 151. The Postumii were political associates of the Fabii (see Scullard Rom. Pol. 134 ff., 164 ff.) No fewer than five members of the gens Postumia served as legati during the Third Macedonian War (see Broughton Magistrates I. 410 - 432). On the political prominence of the Postumii during the period 174 - 169 see Scullard Rom. Pol. 191 - 193. Of Antonius (18) nothing further is known. M. Antonius (27), tribunus plebis in 167, prevented the declaration of war against Rhodes (L. 45.21.1-3) and summoned the contio before which Paullus as triumphator addressed the people (L. 45.40.9). 4.7 ut se suaque omnia in fidem et clementiam populi Romani permitteret; Aemilius Paullus was urging Perseus to make an act of deditio to Rome (see on 1.9). 5.1 Cn. Octavi; Cn. Octavius (17) As praetor in 168 he held command of the fleet in the war against Perseus. The Octavii had been politically associated with the Scipios. Cn. Octavius (16), father of Octavius (17), served as a promagistrate under Scipio Africanus in 202. Scullard (Rom. Pol. 208) thinks that Octavius (17) belonged to the Scipionic group (also see Astin Scipio Aemilianus 87), but Briscoe (Historia 18 (1969) 63 - 65) argues that he was associated with the Fulvii and that he had ties with the group of senators who accepted the unscrupulous treatment of Roman enemies and of uncooperative amici. 5.4 homicida: Polybius accused Perseus of attempting to have Eumenes II of Pergamon murdered at Delphi in 172 (cf. Pol. 22.18.5, 27.6.2; L. 42.15-16; Diod. 29.34; Appian Mak. 11.7). Because Eumenes had come to Delphi from Rome, where he had urged the senate to declare war on Perseus, the attempt to implicate Perseus had good value as propaganda against the king. The attempted murder of Eumenes appears among the charges against Perseus listed 42 i n an i n s c r i p t i o n set up i n De lph i about 171 - 170 (cf . S I G 3 643, l i n e s 29 - 32). Nothing fur ther came of t h i s accusat ion a f ter the war; Eumenes was even sa id to have had secret deal ings with h i s puta t ive would-be assass in towards the end of the war ( c f . P o l . 29.5-9). On the i m p l i c a t i o n of Perseus see Meloni Perseo 162 - 164; De Sanct i s S t o r i a IV . 1 . 266; Hansen A t t a l i d s 104. 5.5 per Evandrum: Evander the Cretan was a commander of a u x i l i a r i e s under Perseus . He was accused by Polybius of leading the attempt on the l i f e of Eumenes ( L . 42.15-16). He was present to advise Perseus at the b a t t l e of K a l l i n i k o s i n 171 (L . 42.59.8-11). A f t e r the defeat at Pydna he was one of the few supporters of Perseus to remain l o y a l (L. 44.43.6), and t r i e d to persuade the people of Amphipolis to continue r e s i s t a n c e i n support of the k ing (L . 44.45.10-11). At the muster of h i s forces at K i t i o n i n 171, Perseus had some 3000 Cretans under t h e i r commanders Sousos of P h a l a s a r n a i and S y l l o s of Knossos ( c f . L . 42.51.7 and M e l o n i Perseo 218 n . 3). On the p o l i t i c a l connections between Perseus and the Cretans , note that according to Po lyb ius (29.8.6), the Knossians were to rece ive the hostages from Eumenes i n connection wi th the secret t ransact ions between the two k i n g s . The escape of Perseus from Samothrace was to be arranged by the Cretan Oroandes (L . 45.6.2). 5.6 Theondam...regem i p s i a p p e l l a n t : A Samothracian named Theondas d ied i n A l e x a n d r i a i n the t h i r d century (see Merriam AJA 1 (1885) 21). The rex (^ o(tUA<co5) o f Samothrace was the eponymous magistrate (see Schoeffer RE I I I . 1 (1897) c o l s . 66 - 71). He was p o s s i b l y a member of the c o l l e g e of TTpo€-c>poi, the annual pres idents of the Samothracian bou le . See F r a s e r Samothrace 24, 28 - 29. 6.2 ad C ot ym : Kotys , k ing of the Odrysian T h r a c i a n s . He p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the Macedonian war as an a l l y of Perseus , l ead ing T h r a c i a n forces i n the campaign of 171 (L . 42.51.10, 57.6); he was present wi th 43 the Odrysian c a v a l r y at the b a t t l e of Pydna ( L . 44.42.2). His son B i t h y s , whom he had sent to Macedonia as a hostage ( P o l . 30.17; L . 45.42.6-12), was captured by the Romans along w i t h the other Thracian hostages, who were rel e a s e d without ransom by the Romans l a t e i n 167 ( L . 45.42.6-11). "The kingdom of the Odrysae, the l e a d i n g t r i b e of Thrace, extended over present-day B u l g a r i a , T u r k i s h Thrace (east of the Hebrus) and Greece between the Hebrus and the Strymon, except f o r the c o a s t a l s t r i p w i t h i t s Greek c i t i e s . . . . " (Cormack, The Oxford C l a s s i c a l D i c t i o n a r y , 2nd ed. 1065). By the Roman settlement of Macedonia i n 167, the f i r s t of the four ^ep 1- was to extend from the Strymon to the Nessos, encroaching i n p a r t upon the t e r r i t o r y of the Odrysae. The acceptance of t h i s arrangement by Kotys may have been a c o n d i t i o n f o r the r e l e a s e of B i t h y s and the other hostages without ranson. On e a r l i e r Macedonian r e l a t i o n s w i t h Thrace see M e l o n i Perseo 86 - 92. 6.9 ad C. Postumium tribunum m i l i t u m ; C. Postumius (*3l/l0) The P o s t u m i i were p o l i t i c a l a s s o c i a t e s of the F a b i i (see on 4.7). For the year 168 P a u l l u s had been pe r m i t t e d t o choose twelve t r i b u n i m i l i t u m f o r h i s two Macedonian l e g i o n s from among a l l the t r i b u n i f o r the e i g h t l e g i o n s , h a l f of the t r i b u n i having been e l e c t e d by the people and h a l f chosen by the two consuls ( L . 44.21.2). I t i s t h e r e f o r e p o s s i b l e t h a t Postumius ( * 3 l / l 0 ) , who served as t r i b u n u s m i l i t u m under Octavius i n t h i s y e a r , was not a p a r t i c u l a r l y important a s s o c i a t e of P a u l l u s , even though another Postumius, L . (Postumius) A l b i n u s (*29/41) served as t r i b u n u s mi1itum under P a u l l u s i n 168. 6.9 Ion T h e s s a l o n i c e n s i s : In 171 he commanded the s l i n g e r s and j a v e l i n - t h r o w e r s of Perseus ( L . 42.58.10). 6.9 Philippum, maximum natu ex f i l i i s ; Perseus' two sons were P h i l i p and Alexander ( L . 45.39 . 7 ) . Perseus a l s o had a daughter whose name i s unknown ( c f . P l u t . Aem. 33.4). 44 Perseus and h i s e l d e r son were taken to Amphipolis soon a f t e r they were captured, but h i s younger son Alexander and h i s daughter were l e f t i n Samothrace u n t i l autumn of 167 ( c f . L. 45.28.11), when they were summoned to Amphipolis. Perseus and h i s three c h i l d r e n were sent to Rome to be paraded i n the triumph ( P l u t . Aem. 33.4). Perseus, P h i l i p and the daughter died i n p r i s o n a t Al b a F u c e n t i a , but Alexander survived as an a r t i s a n and as a s e c r e t a r y to the l o c a l m a g istrates ( P l u t . Aem. 37.3). 7.1 Q. Aelium Tuberonem; Q. A e l i u s Tubero (154) He was married to a daughter of A e m i l i u s P a u l l u s ( P l u t . Aem. 5.4). In 168 he served as legatus i n Macedonia under h i s f a t h e r - i n - l a w . In the middle of the f i r s t century B. C , Q. A e l i u s Tubero (156) wrote a h i s t o r y of Rome from the f a l l of Troy to at l e a s t the time of the c i v i l war between Caesar and Pompey. A e l i u s (156) was the son of L. A e l i u s Tubero (150), not of Q. A e l i u s (154). Q. A e l i u s Tubero (155), the son of Q. A e l i u s (154), was tr i b u n u s p l e b i s before 129, and would not l i k e l y be a l i v e over e i g h t y years l a t e r to be w r i t i n g about the c i v i l war. See Schanz-Hosius Gesch. Rflm. L i t . I . 321 - 323. The A e l i i were p o l i t i c a l a s s o c i a t e s of the S c i p i o s (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 96, 211). Note t h a t a P. A e l i u s Tubero (152) had been one of the ten commissioners f o r the settlement of A s i a i n 189 (L. 37.55.7). 7.2 Patrum aetate Syphax r e x : For the i n t e r v i e w of S c i p i o A f r i c a n u s w i t h Syphax i n the Roman camp, see L. 30.13. 7.3 nec i p s i u s tantum p a t r i s . . . f e c e r a n t : Perseus was the son of P h i l i p V (221 - 179) and the grandson of Demetrios I I (239 - 229). The r o y a l dynasty of the An t i g o n i d s to which Perseus belonged had been f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d i n Macedonia by Antigonos Gonatas (276 - 239), the f a t h e r of Demetrios I I and the son of Demetrios I P o l i o r k e t e s , who r u l e d Macedonia from 294 to 285. The dynasty of P h i l i p I I 4 5 and Alexander the Great had come to an end in 310 with the execution by Kassandros of Alexander IV, the son of Alexander the Great and Roxane. 8.4 pacis: For the terms of peace with Philip V in 196 see Pol. 18.44; L. 33.30. For the Isthmian Declaration see Pol. 18.46; L. 33.32. 9.3 Perseus Q. Fulvio L. Manlio consulibus regnum accepit: In 179. See L. 40.54.1 - 57.1. 9.3 a senatu rex est appellatus M. Iunio A. Manlio consulibus: In 178. Recognition by the senate implied that the Romans expected the new king to follow the policy of his predecessors in acting in accordance with Roman wishes. See Sands The Client Princes of the Roman Empire under the Republic 59 - 88; Badian Foreign Clientelae 105 - 106. 10.1 Anterior: Admiral of the Macedonian fleet (see L. 44.28.1 - 29.5). See Wilcken RE I. 2 (1894) col. 2353; Schoch RE Suppl. IV (1925) cols. 31 -32. 10.2 C. Popilius; C. Popillius Laenas (*7/l8). He was praetor in 175, consul in 172, legatus in Greece and Macedonia in 170 and 169, consul again in 158. Early in 168 Popillius was instructed by the senate to protect the Ptolemies from Antiochus IV (L. 44.19.3; see Appendix III), but until the defeat of Perseus at Pydna, he commanded a squadron of ships based at Delos in praesidio navibus Macedonian! petentibus (L. 45.10.2). The Macedonian fleet under Antenor was attacking merchant ships (L. 44.29.3-4). These would have included grain carriers heading for Chalcis in Euboia, the Roman naval base in Greece. Egyptian grain was brought to Chalcis for distribution to the Roman forces (OGIS 760), and it was probably to inspect conditions that the three legati visited Chalcis (L. 44.29.1) before going to the Aegean against Antenor. The Pop'illii had recently emerged from a century of obscurity to prominence in political life along with a number of other plebeian gentes, such as the Aelii Ligures and the Cassii Longini (see Scullard Rom. Pol. 194 - 198). M. Popillius Laenas (*6/24), the brother of Popillius (*7/l8), had been praetor in 180 and consul in 173. .2 adventiciis navibus: The reading of the MS. is ADTICISNAUIBUS. The following emendations have been proposed: adventiciis navibus, Madvig; Attalicis navibus, Attali navibus, Luterbacher; Asiaticis  navibus, Harant. The reading adopted by Giarratano 298 is adventiciis navibus. Attalos, the brother of Eumenes II of Pergamon, participated in the military campaigns of the Third Macedonian War, but we have no evidence for his presence with the fleet, while we do know that Eumenes himself commanded a fleet of twenty sail in 169 (see McShane Foreign Policy 180 - 181). The Pergamene sailors met by Popillius at Delos before the defeat of Perseus were described as Eumenis socii navales (L. 44.29.3). Thus, it seems unlikely that we may connect Attalos with the fleet by reading Attalicis navibus or Attali navibus with Luterbacher. The words adventicius and Asiaticus are not used in the surviving books of Livy in the manner proposed in the emendations of Madvig and Harant. Ferguson (Hellenistic Athens 314 n. 1) suggested that we read Atticis navibus, since the Athenians are known to have participated in the defense of Delos in the Second Macedonian War (cf. SIG3 582). In 171 the praetor C. Lucretius Gallus refused the Athenian offer of naval assistance (L. 43.6.1-3), but Athenian ships may have been necessary in 168 to oppose the fleet which Perseus sent into the Aegean (L. 44.28.1 -29.5). It was perhaps in recognition for their services that the senate assigned to the Athenians Haliartos in Boiotia and the islands of Delos, Skyros, Lemnos and Imbros (cf. Pol. 30.20 and see De Sanctis Storia IV. 1 . 336 - 337). Thus, on historical grounds Ferguson's suggestion is not unreasonable; i t is possible that the first syllable of Atticis was erroneously transcribed as the preposition ad. .2 ad susceptam legationem: This embassy was sent early in the consular year 168 in response to a request for aid against Antiochus IV from the co-rulers of Egypt, Ptolemy VI, Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra II. On the chronology of the Sixth Syrian War and diplomatic relations between Rome and the Ptolemies from 170 to 168, see Appendix III. The tradition according to which an informal relationship of amicitia was established between Rome and Ptolemy II in 273 is now generally accepted. In 201/200 Rome seems to have been made the errCTpoTTo^ 0 f Ptolemy V (see on 44.13). See Holleaux Rome, la Grece 60-83; Heuss VHlk. Grundl. 31 - 32; Neatby TAPA 81 (1950) 89 - 98; Cassola Gruppi 45 - 47; Dahlheim Deditio und societas 134 - 140; Heinen, Aufstieg und Niedergang  der RHmischen Welt I. 1 (1972) 633 - 659; Peremans and van't Dack, Aufstieg und Niedergang der ROmischen Welt I. 1 (1972) 660 - 667. For general discussions of the embassy of Popillius see 2 Badian Foreign Clientelae 107; De Sanctis Storia IV. 1 . 325 -327; Will Histoire II. 262 - 275; Scullard Rom. Pol. 210 n. 2. 4 Cum praeterveherentur Asiam legati et Loryma venissent: Loryma (modern Bozuk or Oplasikabu'ku') was a town in the Rhodian Peraea just across from the city of Rhodes. See Fraser-Bean Rhodian Peraea 59. The members of this embassy were C. Popillius Laenas (*7/l8) C. Decimius (1) C. Hostilius (Tubulus ?) (3) On the Popillii see on 10.2. The family of the Decimii had only recently attained Roman citizenship. During the second Punic War, Num. Decimius (6), a prominent nobleman from the Samnite town of Bovianum, was placed in command of 8000 infantry and some 500 cavalry by the dictator Q. Fabius Maximus in 217 (L. 22.24.11-14). In 209 C. Decimius Flavus (8) served as tribunus militum under the proconsul M. Claudius Marcellus. During the Third Macedonian 48 War two other members of this family, L. Decimius (3) and M. Decimius (4) served as legati. In 171 Decimius (1) had been one of the three legati sent to Crete to raise additional auxiliary troops. He was praetor in 169. The Hostilii were politically associated with the "middle group" led by the Fabii, Claudii and Fulvii (see Scullard Rom. Pol. 184 - 189). Because of the importance of the embassy to Antiochus IV, and since Popillius was of consular and Decimius of praetorian rank, Mifnzer (RE VIII. 2 (1913) col. 2501) argued that Hostilius (3) must have been one of the praetors whose names appeared in the list of magistrates for 170 which occurred in the lacuna in the text of Livy after 43.3.7. Broughton (Magistrates I. 420) does not include Hostilius (3) in his list of praetors in 170, but at least two of the names on his list are very uncertain. 11.1 The Sixth Syrian War: On the chronology of the Sixth Syrian War and the diplomatic relations between Rome and the Ptolemies from 170 to 168, see Appendix III. " 11.1 maiore Ptolemaeo: Ptolemy VI Philometor (180 - 145) 11.2 ad sororem: Cleopatra II (170 - ca. 116) 11.3 ad fratrem: Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (170 - 116) 12.6 dextram regi tamquam socio et amico porrexit: The tradition which spoke of a foedus amicitiae between Rome and a Seleucus (Seleucus I or II?), granted by Rome on condition that Ilion be left free of taxation, is generally discredited. There was also an annalistic tradition that before the war with Rome, Antiochus III had been an amicus (cf. L. 32.8.13, 33.20.8). Although this is generally disbelieved by modern scholars, it it not impossible that the tradition is sound. From about 200 to 198, Antiochus III had enjoyed cordial relations with Rome which could be considered an informal amicitia (see Appendix IV). 49 After his defeat by the Romans, Antiochus became an amicus of Rome (cf. Pol. 21.42-43; L. 38.38). See Holleaux Rome, la Grece 46 - 60; Heuss VHlk. Grundl. 35 - 37; Cassola Gruppi 48. 12.9-12 Licinius in Gaul: Livy's annalistic source made an unfavourable comparison of the achievements of Licinius with those of Paullus, but the the comparison is probably a fair one. Licinius' province was Italy, with charge of the levies and supplies for the Macedonian war. The Gallic campaign conducted by Licinius began late in 168; his imperium was prorogued for 167 (L. 45.17.2), but Licinius was later succeeded in Gaul by the new consul Q. Aelius Paetus when he was named to the commission for the settlement of Macedonia. The Roman magistrate took the auspicia on behalf of the state in a place designated by the augurs and called the templum. For the technical fault in his omission to do so, Licinius was deprived by the augurs of his legions. See Mommsen ROm. Staatsr. I. 99 - 104; WissowaRel. und Kult. 526 - 528. 12.10 augur es: In 168 the college of augurs probably included Patricians: L. Aemilius Paullus (114) ca. 192 - 160 C. Claudius Pulcher (300) 195 - 167 P. Cornelius Scipio (331) 180 - ? ? (name lost in the lacuna which occurs in the text of Livy 43.11.13. His predecessor was L. Quinctius Flamininus (*4/43) 170 - ? Plebeians: M. Servilius Pulex Geminus (78) 211 - after 168 Q. Aelius Paetus (104) 174 - ? T i . Sempronius Gracchus Veturianus (T. Veturius Gracchus Sempronianus (*17/23): see below) 174 - ? T i . Sempronius Gracchus (53) 204 - ? ? (identity unknown) The t e x t of L. 41.21.9 reads T. V e t u r i u s Gracchus Sempronianus. Th i s suggests t h a t a Sempronius Gracchus was adopted by a T. V e t u r i u s who had no cognomen. According to Broughton (Magistrates I . 407 n. 5 ) , the r e t e n t i o n of the cognomen Gracchus a f t e r adoption would not have been i m p o s s i b l e , but i t i s unexampled i n t h i s p e r i o d . A greater d i f f i c u l t y i s t h a t the names of the four p a t r i c i a n augurs i n 174 are known, so t h a t as a p a t r i c i a n , a member of the gens V e t u r i a would have been excluded from the c o l l e g e of augurs at t h i s time. Geer (AJP 60 (1939) 466 - 467) argued t h a t the new augur must have been a p l e b e i a n and suggested t h a t we read T i . Sempronius Gracchus Ve t u r i a n u s . In t h i s case, a member of the p a t r i c i a n gens V e t u r i a would have been adopted i n t o the p l e b e i a n gens Sempronia. Of the nine augurs, four belonged to the A e m i l i a n - S c i p i o n i c group: A e m i l i u s P a u l l u s h i m s e l f ; C o r n e l i u s (331), the son of S c i p i o A f r i c a n u s ; S e r v i l i u s (78), who supported the b i l l g r a n t i n g P a u l l u s h i s triumph i n 167 ( c f . L. 45.36.9 - 39.19); A e l i u s (104) (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 211). Sempronius (53), although he married a daughter of S c i p i o A f r i c a n u s , was a supporter of the C l a u d i i (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 295 - 296). The V e t u r i i were supporters of the A e m i l i a n - S c i p i o n i c group (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 134 - 135, 165 - 166), but i f a V e t u r i u s was adopted by a Sempronius, he could probably be expected t o f o l l o w the p o l i t i c a l a l l i g n m e n t of h i s new f a m i l y , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e the Sempronii were much more prominent than the V e t u r i i . The r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the C l a u d i i was Claudius (300), consul i n 177, censor i n 169. I f the unknown p a t r i c i a n augur was a Q u i n c t i u s , he would probably have been an a s s o c i a t e of the C l a u d i i (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 97 - 98). .13 praetores p r a e t e r C. Papirium Carbonem: C. P a p i r i u s Carbo (32) had obtained S a r d i n i a as h i s p r o v i n c e during h i s p r a e t o r s h i p i n 168, w h i l e L. A n i c i u s had obtained 5 1 the j u r i s d i c t i o n between c i t i z e n s and f o r e i g n e r s i n Rome (L. 44.17.10). When A n i c i u s was sent to succeed Appius Claudius i n I l l y r i c u m (L. 44.21.4), P a p i r i u s took over as praetor peregrinus f o r A n i c i u s and P. Fonteius Capito (24), praetor i n S a r d i n i a i n 169, was probably continued i n h i s command. 13 .1 P o p i l i u s et ea l e g a t i o : See on 10.2. 13.10 disceptatum i n t e r Pisanos Lunensesque legatos e s t : P i s a was an Etruscan town which became a socius of Rome probably a t the time of the L i g u r i a n war i n 238 - 236 (on foedera between Rome and the Etruscan s t a t e s see H a r r i s Rome  i n E t r u r i a and Umbria 85 - 98). In the e a r l y second century the L i g u r i a n s penetrated n o r t h e r n I t a l y , r eaching P l a c e n t i a ( i n 194) and Mutina ( i n 177). In 180 P i s a , threatened by the L i g u r i a n s , who had captured the Tyrrhenian coast j u s t t o the no r t h , o f f e r e d t e r r i t o r y to Rome w i t h the request t h a t a L a t i n colony be founded on i t (L. 40.43.1). Three years l a t e r the Romans founded Luna on the Bay of Spezia, which the L i g u r i a n s had captured from the Etruscans i n the v i c i n i t y of the r i v e r Macra. Luna, however, was founded not as a L a t i n colony but as a Roman colony (L. 41.13.4-5). Before the Second Punic War the c i t i z e n - c o l o n i e s (Roman c o l o n i e s ) had been e x c l u s i v e l y c o l o n i a e maritimae occupying s t r a t e g i c p o i n t s w h i l e the c o l o n i a e L a t i n a e were sent to s i t e s of the f i r s t rank where there was an e x c e l l e n t chance f o r the development of an important community. A f t e r 183, however, w i t h the settlement of A q u i l e i a , L a t i n c o l o n i z a t i o n ceased. Salmon (JRS 26 (1936) 47 - 67) argued that the senate stopped L a t i n c o l o n i z a t i o n i n order to mainta i n c i t i z e n numbers, w h i l e the u n w i l l i n g n e s s of Romans to r e l i n q u i s h t h e i r c i t i z e n s h i p or to share the s p o i l s of conquest w i t h n o n - c i t i z e n s were a l s o f a c t o r s . See McDonald Cambridge H i s t o r i c a l J o u r n a l 6 (1939) 127 - 128; Sherwin-White The Roman C i t i z e n s h i p 7 2 - 7 5 ; Salmon Phoenix 9 (1955) 63 - 75; Toynbee Hannibal's Legacy I I . 142 - 154, 533 - 540; H a r r i s Rome i n E t r u r i a and Umbria 147 - 160. 52 S a t u r n i a , Parma and Mutina ( in 1 8 3 : L . 3 9 . 5 5 . 6 - 9 ) were the f i r s t i n l a n d co lonies (coloniae agrar iae) to have Roman rather than L a t i n s ta tus . C i t i z e n co lonies before 1 8 3 normally rece ived 3 0 0 f a m i l i e s , whi le the L a t i n co lon ies tended to be much l a r g e r , Vibo V a l e n t i a r e c e i v i n g 3 7 0 0 pedi tes and 3 0 0 equites i n 192 (L . 3 5 . 4 0 . 5 - 6 ) , P l a c e n t i a and Cremona 6 0 0 0 fami l iae i n 1 9 0 (L . 3 7 . 4 6 . 9 - 4 7 . 2 ) , and Bononia 3 0 0 0 homines i n 1 8 9 (L . 3 7 . 5 7 . 7 - 8 ) . With i n l a n d Roman co lon ies now r e p l a c i n g L a t i n c o l o n i e s , Luna rece ived 2 0 0 0 c ives (L. 4 1 . 1 3 . 4 - 5 ) , as had Mutina and Parma and probably Sa turn ia i n 1 8 3 (L . 3 9 . 5 5 . 6 - 9 ) . The s i z e of the al lotments had been, on the whole, much l a r g e r i n the L a t i n co lon ie s than i n the c i t i z e n c o l o n i e s . From 1 9 4 to 1 7 7 the al lotments i n c i t i z e n co lonies tended to be under 10 iugera per man, whi le i n the L a t i n co lon ies the a l lotments during the same p e r i o d v a r i e d from 15 iugera (Vibo V a l e n t i a ) to as much as 5 0 iugera ( A q u i l e i a ) , d i scount ing the p r o - r a t a al lotments of the centurions and equi tes . See Frank ESAR I . 122 - 1 2 3 . Salmon (Roman C o l o n i z a t i o n under the Republ ic 1 8 8 n . 1 9 3 and JRS 2 6 ( 1 9 3 6 ) 6 5 ) r e j e c t e d the f i gure of 5 1 1/2 iugera per man at Luna given by the MS. at L . 4 1 . 1 3 . 5 (LIS= 5 1 1 / 2 ) , which he emended to VIS ( 6 1/2) to b r i n g the a l lotment at Luna in to l i n e w i th al lotments at the other Roman co lon ie s e s tab l i shed i n t h i s p e r i o d . The reading of the manuscript may w e l l be c o r r e c t , however, i n view of the c e s s a t i o n of L a t i n c o l o n i z a t i o n , and the unusual s i z e of the a l lotments may e x p l a i n the complaints of the people of P i s a . We have no informat ion about the sett lement made by the f i v e commissioners (see on 1 3 . 1 1 ) . P i s a was dec lared one of the consular provinces i n 1 6 7 (see on 1 7 . 6 ) . 1 3 . 1 1 quinque v i r o s : Q . Fabius Buteo ( 5 8 ) P. C o r n e l i u s B l a s i o ( 7 6 ) T . Sempronius Musca ( 7 2 ) L . Naevius Balbus ( 1 1 ) C . Appuleius Saturninus (not i n RE) 53 Fabius had been p r a e t o r i n C i s a l p i n e Gaul i n 181 where h i s imperium was prorogued i n 180; he was named t r i u m v i r c o l o n i a e deducendae when P i s a o f f e r e d land f o r a colony (see on 13.10). C o r n e l i u s became p r a e t o r about 165 (see Broughton M a g i s t r a t e s I . 438 n . l ) . Nothing f u r t h e r i s known about the other members of the commission, who were probably f a i r l y young men. On the p o l i t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n s of the Sempronii (Gracchi) see on 15.8. 13.12-13 Se r v i c e s of M a s i n i s s a to Rome: c f . L. 42.29.8-10, 62.5 (1000 c a v a l r y , 1000 i n f a n t r y , 22 e l e p h a n t s ) ; 43.6.11-13 (1,000,000 modii of wheat, 1200 c a v a l r y , 12 e l e p h a n t s ) . In a d d i t i o n to a change i n C a r t h a g i n i a n hostages (L. 45.14.5), Masgaba may a l s o have been seeking to win Roman approval f o r h i s f a t h e r ' s s e i z u r e of C a r t h a g i n i a n t e r r i t o r y . Carthage had remained f a i t h f u l to the t r e a t y of 201 ( c f . P o l . 15.18; L. 30.37; Appian L i b . 54 w i t h Walbank Commentary I I . 466 - 469), f u r n i s h i n g s i x ships f o r the war a g a i n s t Antiochus I I I i n 191 (L. 36.42.2) and two quinquiremes f o r the war against Perseus i n 171 (L. 42.56.6). They s u p p l i e d 1,000,000 modii of wheat and 500,000 modii of b a r l e y i n 170 (L. 43.6.11). The Romans had n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n s i s t e n t l y allowed M a s i n i s s a t o s e i z e and r e t a i n C a r t h a g i n i a n t e r r i t o r y ( c f . L. 40.17.1-6 (182); L. 40.34.14 (181); L. 42.23-24 (172); P o l . 31.21; Appian L i b . 67). The aim of M a s i n i s s a , according to P o l y b i u s ( c f . L. 42.29.8-10 w i t h N i s s e n K r i t . Untersuch. 248 - 249; K l o t z L i v i u s 19, 68) had been to g a i n c o n t r o l of a l l C a r t h a g i n i a n t e r r i t o r y i n the event of a Roman set-back i n the war a g a i n s t Perseus. I t was perhaps because of t h i s i n t e n t i o n of M a s i n i s s a ' s t h a t the senate, which d i d not d e s i r e the complete d e s t r u c t i o n of Carthage, considered a v i s i t by the Numidian c h i e f t a i n unwelcome, and saw f i t to remind him t h a t he owed h i s p o s i t i o n to Rome. In 153, during another boundary d i s p u t e , K a r t h a l o , the C a r t h a g i n i a n commander of a u x i l i a r y f o r c e s , attacked a group of Numidians occupying disputed t e r r i t o r y . T his a t t a c k l e d to 54 a war between Mas in i s sa and the Car thag in ians , who had now t e c h n i c a l l y broken the t rea ty of 201. A f t e r a s er i e s of embassies to A f r i c a , the senate dec lared war against Carthage i n the winter of 151 - 150 on the grounds that the m i l i t a r y preparat ions of Carthage cons t i tu ted an infringement of the t rea ty of 201 (L. Ep . 48) . On the p r e l i m i n a r i e s to the T h i r d Punic War see De Sanct i s S t o r i a IV. 3. 1 - 3 3 ; A s t i n S c i p i o Aemil ianus 2 70 - 280. 14.2 tr ium regum b e l l i s : In the wars against P h i l i p V (c f . L . 31 .11 .8-12) , Antiochus I I I (c f . L . 36.4.8) and Perseus (see on 13.12). 14.5 P e t e n t i Masgabae . . . ex igere t : Giarra tano 308 reads: obses i n locum * [ ex igere tur , responsum est haud aequum v i d e r i senatum a Carthag in iens ibus obsides a r b i t r i o Masinissae] ex igere . Giarra tano e x p l a i n s : Post LOCUM  genetivus nominis p r o p r i i deest . Lacunam e x p l e v i t Z i n g e r l e , Sigonium, Madvigium, H. I . Muellerum secutus . The reading of the M S . , i n t e r p r e t e d by Giarratano as ex igere , i s e x i g e r e t . According to the peace t rea ty of 201 the Carthag in ians were requ ired to sent 1000 hostages to Rome. I t appears from t h i s passage that hostages were s t i l l being he ld i n 168 and that t h e i r personnel was changed from time to time (c f . P o l . 15.18 with Walbank Commentary I I . 466 - 471) . Hanno was p o s s i b l y the son of that Hamilkar ( c a l l e d "the Samnite") who l a t e r became the leader of the s o - c a l l e d democratic par ty i n Carthage which favoured going to war against Mas in i s sa (c f . Appian L i b . 68) . 14.8-9 Misagenes: In 171 he was sent wi th 1000 i n f a n t r y , 1000 cava l ry and 22 elephants to serve under the consul P . L i c i n i u s Crassus (L. 42.29.8-10, 62.2, 65 .12) . L i v y ' s account of t h i s episode, p a r t l y l o s t i n the lacuna which fol lows 45 .14 .9 , may be reconstructed from V a l . Max. 5 . 1 . I d , where Misagenes i s c a l l e d Musochares. 15.1 Census: Part of the census d e s c r i p t i o n i s miss ing from the beginning 55 of Chapter 15, where a page of the MS. is lost (see Weissenborn-Mu'ller 213; Giarratano 309). To this lacuna probably belonged the information preserved in L. Ep. 45: Lustrum a censoribus conditum est; censa sunt civium capita  trecenta duodecim milia octoginta quinque. 15.1-6 The voting of the libertini: In the early republic the libertini voted in the four urban tribes. As censor in 312, Appius Claudius Caecus enrolled the libertini in all the tribes, but Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus and P. Decius Mus, censors in 304, cancelled the registrations of Appius Claudius and once more restricted the libertini to the four urban tribes (L. 9.46; Diod. 20.36.4; Plut. Poplicola 7). In the next half-century other censors evidently followed the example of Appius Claudius by enrolling libertini in the rural tribes, since at some time between 234 and 220 they were once again restricted to the four urban tribes (L. Ep. 20 with Taylor Voting Districts 138 n. 22). By the Lex Terentia of 189 (see Rotondi Leges Publicae 274) the sons of libertini were granted full citizen rights, and at some time between 189 and 174, probably in 179 during the censorship of M. Aemilius Lepidus and M. Fulvius Nobilior, favourable changes were made in the registration of the libertini themselves. Those who had sons over five years of age and those who^ had property valued at a minumum of 30,000 HS. (a census rating of the first and secons classes) were placed in the rural tribes (L. 45.15.1-2). In 168 the censor T i . Sempronius Gracchus wished to exclude the libertini altogether from the tribes, except, perhaps, those already enrolled in the four urban tribes, but his colleague C. Claudius Pulcher objected and a compromise was reached, by which one of the four urban tribes was to be chosen by lot and all the libertini, except, perhaps, those already enrolled in the four urban tribes, were to be placed in i t . The precedent for the selection by lot of a tribe in which a group of people would vote was the selection by lot of a tribe for the Latini (see 56 Tay lor Vot ing Assemblies 79 n . 46. On the use of the l o t i n e l e c t i o n s , see I b i d . 70 - 74). I t was perhaps M. Aemi l ius Scaurus, the consul of 115, who res tored the l i b e r t i n i to the four urban t r i b e s and perhaps to the r u r a l t r i b e s as w e l l . Several fur ther attempts were made to e n r o l l the l i b e r t i n i i n a l l the t r i b e s , notably by P. S u l p i c i u s Rufus i n 88, by C . M a n i l i u s i n 66 and by P. C lod ius Pulcher i n 53, but except for b r i e f p e r i o d s , the votes of the l i b e r t i n i dn the l a t e r e p u b l i c were l i m i t e d to the four urban t r i b e s . See Mommsen Rom. S t a a t s r . I I I . 434 - 439; T a y l o r Vot ing D i s t r i c t s 132 - 149; Casso la Gruppi 119 - 120. C . Claudius Pulcher (300) and T i . Sempronius Gracchus (53), the censors of 169, belonged to f a m i l i e s which were p o l i t i c a l l y assoc iated (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 134 - 135, 165 f f . , 295 -296). Claudius and Sempronius had been praetors together i n 180 and consuls i n 177. During t h e i r t r i a l for p e r d u e l l i o i n 169, i t was sa id that Claudius was saved from c o n v i c t i o n by the threat of Sempronius to go in to e x i l e i f h i s co l league should be condemned (c f . L . 43 .16.15-16) . Claudius may have been r e t u r n i n g a favour by l e t t i n g Sempronius have h i s way i n the matter of the v o t i n g of the l i b e r t i n i . On the c e n s o r i a l a c t i v i t y of Sempronius, a l so see C i c e r o De O r a t . 1.38; [Aure l ius V i c t o r ] De V i r . 111. 57 .3 . 15.8 P l u r e s . . . i g n o m i n i a : Seven men were removed from the senate (L . 43 .15 .7 ) . Persons accused of immoral i ty or misbehaviour by the censors suf fered the p u b l i c d i sgrace (ignominia) of having a mark (nota censoria) p laced against t h e i r names i n the r e g i s t e r of c i t i z e n s . The punishment which accompanied the nota c e n s o r i a could take four d i f f e r e n t forms: a senator could be expe l led from membership i n the senate (senatu motus); an Eques Equo  Pub l i co could be deprived of the Equus Pub l i cus (equum vendere i u s s u s ) , and any f u l l Roman c i t i z e n subject to the tr ibutum (see on 34.5) could be taxed at a higher ra te (aerar ius factus) o r , i f he was r e g i s t e r e d i n one of the r u r a l t r i b e s , he could be both taxed at a higher ra te and t r a n s f e r r e d to one of t h e f o u r u r b a n t r i b e s ( t r i b u m o t u s e t a e r a r i u s f a c t u s ) . Mommsen (ROm. S t a a t s r . I I . 4 0 5 - 4 0 6 ) t h o u g h t t h a t t h e t w o p a r t s o f t h e p h r a s e t r i b u m o v e r e e t a e r a r i u m f a c e r e r e f e r t o t h e same a c t , o n t h e b a s i s o f h i s b e l i e f t h a t , b e f o r e t h e c e n s o r s h i p o f A p p i u s C l a u d i u s i n 3 1 2 , R o m a n c i t i z e n s s u b j e c t t o t r i b u t u r n w e r e d i v i d e d i n t o t w o c l a s s e s : t h e t r i b u l e s , w h o p o s s e s s e d t h e m i n i m u m v a l u e o f l a n d e d p r o p e r t y r e q u i r e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e S e r v i a n c l a s s e s , a n d w h o w e r e m e m b e r s o f t h e t r i b e s , a n d t h e a e r a r i i , w h o d i d n o t p o s s e s s t h e m i n i m u m p r o p e r t y c e n s u s a n d w h o w e r e n o t m e m b e r s o f t h e t r i b e s . T o t h i s s e c o n d g r o u p Mommsen a d d e d t h e c i v e s s i n e s u f f r a g i o a n d f o r m e r t r i b u l e s w h o h a d b e e n r e m o v e d f r o m t h e i r t r i b e s b y t h e c e n s o r s . A c c o r d i n g t o M o m m s e n , a p e r s o n r e m o v e d f r o m h i s t r i b e a u t o m a t i c a l l y b e c a m e a n a e r a r i u s ; a f t e r A p p i u s C l a u d i u s a d m i t t e d t o t h e t r i b e s c i t i z e n s w i t h o u t t h e m i n i m u m c e n s u s r e q u i r e m e n t f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e S e r v i a n c l a s s e s , t h e o n l y a e r a r i i l e f t w e r e t h e c i v e s s i n e s u f f r a g i o a n d f o r m e r t r i b u l e s w h o h a d b e e n r e m o v e d f r o m t h e i r t r i b e s . F r a c c a r o , h o w e v e r , h a s a r g u e d c o n v i n c i n g l y ( A t h e n a e u m 11 N . S . ( 1 9 3 3 ) 1 5 0 - 1 7 2 ) t h a t t h e h i s t o r i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n w h i c h Mommsen p o s i t e d b e t w e e n t r i b u l e s a n d a e r a r i i n e v e r e x i s t e d . M e m b e r s h i p i n t h e t r i b e s w a s n o r m a l l y a n e s s e n t i a l p a r t o f c i t i z e n s h i p ; n o R o m a n c i t i z e n c o u l d b e d e p r i v e d o f m e m b e r s h i p i n t h e t r i b e s w i t h o u t l o s i n g h i s s t a t u s a s a f u l l c i t i z e n . E v e n b e f o r e 3 1 2 c i t i z e n s w i t h o u t t h e m i n i m u m c e n s u s r e q u i r e m e n t f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e S e r v i a n c l a s s e s w e r e m e m b e r s o f t h e t r i b e s , a n d t h e a e r a r i i , b e f o r e a n d a f t e r 3 1 2 , w e r e m e m b e r s o f t h e t r i b e s . S e e a l s o L a s t J R S 3 5 ( 1 9 4 5 ) 3 0 - 4 8 . R e g i s t r a t i o n i n t h e f o u r u r b a n t r i b e s b e c a m e a d i s a b i l i t y a f t e r 3 0 4 w h e n t h e c e n s o r Q . F a b i u s M a x i m u s R u l l i a n u s t r a n s f e r r e d t h e m a s s o f t h e p o o r e r u r b a n d w e l l e r s f r o m t h e r u r a l t o t h e u r b a n t r i b e s . D i s e n f r a n c h i s e m e n t r e d u c e d a c i t i z e n t o t h e s t a t u s o f a c i v i s s i n e s u f f r a g i o , w h e r e a s t r a n s f e r f r o m a r u r a l t o a n u r b a n t r i b e c a u s e d a d i m i n u t i o n i n a c i t i z e n ' s p o l i t i c a l i m p o r t a n c e a n d i n f l u e n c e . 58 The term aerarium facere as a penalty may occur alone, w h i l e the term t r i b u movere i s always c l o s e l y l i n k e d to aerarium f a c e r e . This i m p l i e s t h a t the punishment s i g n i f i e d by the expression t r i b u movere et aerarium f a c e r e was the more severe punishment, imposing not only the payment of t r i b u t u m at a higher r a t e , but a l s o the p o l i t i c a l disadvantage of being t r a n s f e r r e d from a r u r a l to an urban t r i b e . See P i e r i L ' H i s t o i r e du Cens jusqu'a l a F i n de l a Republique Romaine 113 - 122. The Equites Equo P u b l i c o were Roman c i t i z e n s of the h i g h e s t census group e n r o l l e d i n the eighteen e q u e s t r i a n c e n t u r i e s , and are to be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from the l a r g e r number of c i t i z e n s who possessed the resources t o serve as cavalrymen a t t h e i r own expense ( c f . L. 5.7.5 w i t h O g i l v i e Commentary 641 - 642). The Equites Equo P u b l i c o were given the aes equestre and the aes hordearium by the s t a t e f o r the purchase and maintenance of a horse on m i l i t a r y campaigns. U n t i l some time between the year 123 and the time of S u l l a , senators had been e n r o l l e d i n the eighteen e q u e s t r i a n c e n t u r i e s , but were then t r a n s f e r r e d to the f i r s t c l a s s by a p l e b i s c i t u m reddendorum equorum (see Rotondi Leges P u b l i c a e 303). The l o s s of the Equus P u b l i c u s , along w i t h the p r i v i l e g e of v o t i n g i n one of the eighteen e q u e s t r i a n c e n t u r i e s , c o u l d accompany the nota c e n s o r i a . This punishment was designated by the expressions equos adimere, equi adempti, equum vendere  i u s s i t , d i r e p t i s equis p u b l i c i s , equum publicum perdere. A senator who was an Eques Equo P u b l i c o could be deprived of the Equus P u b l i c u s as w e l l as e x p e l l e d from the senate. S e e N i c o l e t L'Ordre Equestre a l'Epoque R e p u b l i c a i n e (312 - 43 av. J.-C.) 15 - 123; H i l l Roman Middle C l a s s 32 - 44. 15.9 Cn. T r e m e l l i u s t r i b u n u s : Cn. T r e m e l l i u s (2) As praetor i n 159 he was f i n e d f o r contending w i t h M. A e m i l i u s Lepidus, the P o n t i f e x Maximus and Princeps Senatus (L. Ep. 47). On the p r o r o g a t i o n of urban m a g i s t r a c i e s see Mommsen RHm. S t a a t s r . I . 637 n. 1, I I . 351. For other examples of the use of tribunician powers for personal reasons see L. Z2.61.5-8, 25.3.15-17 with Bleiken Volkstribunat 98 - 99. Since Tremellius was now tribunus plebis, he had probably already held the quaestorship, but election to this office did not automatically confer membership in the senate before the time of Sulla (see Rotondi Leges Publicae 362, 353 - 354), while the tribunate did not automatically confer membership until the passing of the Lex Atinia some time before 102 (see Rotondi Leges Publicae 330; perhaps the law was passed about 131: see Astin Scipio Aemilianus 354 - 355). The censors, who performed the lectio senatus, were not obliged to choose only ex-magistrates, but there was a tendency to choose persons who had held curule office (cf. L. 23.23.5). Another ex-magistrate in this period who was not a senator was P. Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus (72), quaestor in 152, who was mistaken for a senator at the beginning of the Third Punic War by Q. Fabius Maximus Aemilianus (Val. Max. 2.2.1). Certain privati, magistrates and ex-magistrates (quibus in  senatu sententiam dicere licet: L. 23.32.4; Gellius 3.18.7), who were not technically senators, were permitted to participate in the deliberations of the senate before they were formally enrolled as members of that body by the censors at the next lustrum. See Mommsen ROta. Staatsr. III. 354 - 866. .10 C. Cicereius: C. Cicereius (1) He was praetor in Sardinia in 173 where his imperium was prorogued in 172. Later in 172 he was sent as an ambassador to Gentius (L. 42.26.6-7). As praetor in 173 he vowed a temple to Iuno Moneta (L. 42.7.1) which he now built on the Alban mount where, as propraetor, he had celebrated an ovatio in 172 because the senate refused to grant him a triumph for his exploits in Corsica (L. 42.21.6-7). Cicereius had been secretary to Scipio Africanus (Val. Max. 3.5.1, 4.5.3). In 167 he was one of the five commissioners for the settlement of Illyricum (see on 17.4). 6 0 1 5 . 1 0 Flamen M a r t i a l i s Inauguratus; The f i f t e e n Flamines , three maiores and twelve minores, formed part of the Col legium Pont i f i cum. Each Flamen was assigned the c u l t of one god. The Flamen M a r t i a l i s , who attended to the c u l t of Mars, was one of the three Flamines maiores . See L a t t e RHm. R e l . 3 6 . L . Postumius A lb inus (--32/42) was praetor by 1 5 7 and consul i n 1 5 4 , when he died on h i s way to h i s p r o v i n c e . His grea t -grandfather A. Postumius Alb inus ( 3 0 ) had a l so he ld the p o s i t i o n of Flamen M a r t i a l i s . On the Postumii i n p o l i t i c s , see on 4 . 7 . 1 6 . 1 Q . A e l i o M. Iunio consu l ibus : Q . A e l i u s Paetus ( 1 0 4 ) M. Iunius Pennus ( 1 2 2 ) They took o f f i c e on Roman 15 March, which would have been about 1 J a n . by the J u l i a n calendar (see on 1 . 1 1 ) . L i v y now begins h i s account of the consular year 1 6 7 . The A e l i i and the I u n i i were p o l i t i c a l assoc iates of the A e m i l i a n - S c i p i o n i c group (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 1 3 4 - 1 3 5 , 1 6 5 f f . , 2 1 1 for the A e l i i ; 1 8 4 , 2 1 1 for the I u n i i ) . A e l i u s ( 1 0 4 ) had been augur s ince 1 7 4 ; he was probably praetor i n 1 7 0 (see Broughton Magis trates I . 4 2 2 n . 1 ) . As consul i n 167 h i s province was G a u l . Iunius ( 1 2 2 ) was praetor i n Nearer Spain i n 172 where h i s imperium was prorogued i n 1 7 1 . As consul i n 1 6 7 h i s province was L i g u r i a . 1 6 . 2 duas p r o v i n c i a s Hispaniam rursus f i e r i : During the war years 171 to 1 6 8 the two Spanish provinces had been un i ted under one governor of p r a e t o r i a n rank so that a praetor would be free to take command of the f l e e t . According to L . 3 2 . 2 8 . 1 1 , the two Spanish provinces were demarcated i n 1 9 7 , but Sumner (Arethusa 3 ( 1 9 7 0 ) 8 5 - 1 0 2 ) argues that from 2 1 8 u n t i l at l eas t 1 9 6 there were two simultaneous commands he ld over a l l of Spa in . Because the consul M. Porc ius Cato he ld the command i n Spain along with two praetors i n 1 9 5 , i t appears that the permanent d i v i s i o n of the province occurred 61 some time after 195. The college of praetors was increased from four to six in 197 in order to supply two governors each year for Spain. Before the permanent division of Spain into two provinces the command had been held jointly by two governors with proconsular imperium. This arrangement probably continued at least until 196. 16.3 Consulibus Pisae et Gallia decretae: Violence had perhaps broken out in the dispute between Luna and Pisa in 168 over the assignment of land for the Roman colony at Luna (see on 13.10). C. Licinius Crassus, the consul of 168, had led a campaign in Cisalpine Gaul, where his imperium was prorogued in 167 until he was named as one of the ten commissioners for the settlement of Macedonia (L. 45.12.9-12, 17.2). Later in 167 both consuls campaigned against the Ligurians (L. 45.44.1). 16.3-4 Praetorum sortes fuere: Q. Cassius (Longinus) (69) T i . Claudius Nero (252) Cn. Fulvius (13) M' . Iuventius Thalna (30) C. Licinius Nerva (133) A. Manlius Torquatus (73) Cassius (69) belonged to a family which had recently risen from three centuries of political obscurity. C. Cassius (Longinus) (55), consul in 171, was the first member of his gens to reach the consulship since Sp. Cassius Vicellinus (91) in the early fifth century. The Cassii were one of a group of plebeian families which rose to prominence in the late 170's. As praetor in 167, Cassius (69) conducted Perseus to Alba Fucentia (L. 45.42.4) and presented the ships captured from Gentius to the people of Corcyra, Apollonia and Dyrrhachium (L. 45.43.10). He was consul in 164. See Scullard Rom. Pol. 195 ff. As tribunus plebis in 170 Iuventius joined in the prosecution of C. Lucretius Gallus for his treatment of Chalcis as praetor in command of the fleet in 171 (L. 43.8.2-10). In attempting to obtain the declaration of war against Rhodes during his praetorship (L. 45.21.1-8), Iuventius was probably acting in 62 the i n t e r e s t s of Q. Marcius P h i l i p p u s (see Appendix I ) . I t i s p o s s i b l e that P h i l i p p u s , as censor i n 164, used h i s in f luence to help Iuventius to the consulship of 163, s ince the I u v e n t i i were not prominent i n Roman p o l i t i c s , and Iuventius (30) was the f i r s t and only member of h i s gens to a t t a i n the c o n s u l s h i p . He died dur ing h i s consulship i n 163. See S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 287. For L i c i n i u s see on 3 . 1 . The M a n l i i were p o l i t i c a l assoc iates of the F a b i i (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 135, 184). Manl ius (73) became consul i n 164, one year a f t er h i s brother T . Manl ius Torquatus (83). Nothing fur ther i s known of Claudius (252) and F u l v i u s (13). 16.4 A . Manl io T o r q u a t o . . . r e t e n t u s ; The p r a e t o r i a n governors of S a r d i n i a sometimes rece ived s p e c i a l a d d i t i o n a l t a sks . In 177 L . Mummius was r e q u i r e d to prosecute the L a t i n i who had not returned home before 1 Nov. of that year (L . 41 .9 .9 -10) . 16.5-6 P r o d i g i e s : c f . J u l i u s Obsequens 11. The exp ia t ion of p r o d i g i e s r e g u l a r l y took p lace at the beginning of the new year before the consuls l e f t for t h e i r prov inces . The senate could decree s a c r i f i c e s , l e c t i s t e r n i a , s u p p l i c a t i o n e s , novemdiales s a c r i , l u s t r a t i o n e s u r b i s , l u d i s c a e n i c i , or obsecrat iones . When a p a r t i c u l a r l y ser ious prodigy was repor ted , the senate might consul t the P o n t i f i c e s or seek the advice of haruspices or i ssue a decree order ing the decemvir i s a c r i s f ac iund i s to consul t the S i b y l l i n e books. See Mommsen Rb*m. S t a a t s r . I I I . 1059 - 1062; Wissowa R e l . und K u l t . 394 - 396; Hktndel RE X X I I I . 2 (1959) c o l s . 2283 - 2296; L a t t e Rom. R e l . 204. 16.7-8 L e c t i s t e r n i u m i n thanksgiv ing for the v i c t o r i e s over Perseus and Gent ius : On l e c t i s t e r n i a see L a t t e Rb*m. R e l . 242 - 244. The l e c t i s t e r n i u m for the v i c t o r y over Antiochus I I I was vowed i n 191 (L. 3 6 . 2 . 2 - 5 ) , but the f u l f i l m e n t of t h i s vow i n 185 was not recorded i n L i v y ' s a n n a l i s t i c account for that year , and i s mentioned here for the 63 f i r s t time. 17.1 - 18.8 The sett lement of Macedonia and I l l y r i c u m : On the settlement of Macedonia see Frank CP 9 (1914) 49 - 59; Larsen CP 40 (1945) 65 - 97; CP 44 (1949) 7 3 - 9 0 ; ESAR IV. 294 - 300; Rep. Gov ' t 86, 103 - 104; Greek F e d e r a l States 295 - 300; Aymard CP 45 (1950) 96 - 107; M e l o n i Perseo 409 - 431; Badian Fore ign C l i e n t e l a e 96 - 97; W i l l H i s t o i r e I I . 236 - 238; De Sanc t i s S t o r i a IV. I 2 . 328 - 331. On the settlement of I l l y r i c u m see Larsen ESAR IV. 300 - 302; Hammond BSA 61 (1966) 239 - 253; W i l l H i s t o i r e I I . 230 - 231; De Sanct i s S t o r i a IV. I 2 . 332 - 333. For L i v y ' s Po lyb ian account of the sett lement of Macedonia and I l l y r i c u m see 45.29 and 45.26.11-15, r e s p e c t i v e l y . 17.1-3 Legatos; A . Postumius (Albinus) Luscus (*26/46) C . Claudius Pulcher (300) Q. Fabius (Labeo ?) (91) (?) Q. Marcius P h i l i p p u s (79) C . L i c i n i u s Crassus (51) Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (19) Ser . C o r n e l i u s S u l l a (2, 388) L . Iunius (Brutus ?) (19) T . Numisius T a r q u i n i e n s i s (10) A. Terent ius Varro (80) Of the commissioners of c e n s o r i a l rank, Postumius had been praetor i n 185, consul i n 180 and censor i n 174; Claudius had been praetor i n 180, consul i n 177 and censor i n 169. Of the three consu lars , only the name of L i c i n i u s i s preserved i n the M S . , which seems to have omitted two names. The name of Fabius i s res tored on the bas i s of L . 45.31.14, where the Labeo sent to Lesbos i s almost c e r t a i n l y a member of the commission. The name of Marcius P h i l i p p u s was res tored by Weissenborn s o l e l y on the bas i s of M a r c i u s ' experience i n Greek a f f a i r s (see Weissenborn-Mfil ler 39 ad L . 45 .17 .2 ) . Domitius may have been praetor i n 170, seeing that h i s name occurs f i r s t a f t er those of the consulars (also see on 10 .4) . 64 C o r n e l i u s , whose name comes next, was probably the C o r n e l i u s whose imperium was prorogued i n S a r d i n i a i n 174, and who would thus probably have been praetor i n th a t province i n 175. Drumann (Geschichte Roms. v o l . IV. 10) conjectured t h a t Iunius (19) was a Brutus and the brother of M. Iunius Brutus (48), the consul of 178. Numisius had been sent to Egypt i n 169 to attempt to n e g o t i a t e a peace between Antiochus IV and Ptolemy V I I I and C l e o p a t r a (see Appendix I I I ) . Terentius had been p r a e t o r i n 184. On the p o l i t i c a l connections of the P o s t u m i i see on 4.7. On the C l a u d i i see on 4.1. On the F a b i i see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 165 f f . On Marcius P h i l i p p u s see B r i s c o e JRS 54 (1964) 66 - 67. C. L i c i n i u s Crassus (51) was an a s s o c i a t e of the P o p i l l i i (see on 1.6). Domitius, C o r n e l i u s , Iunius and Ter e n t i u s were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the A e m i l i a n - S c i p i o n i c group (Domitius had been one of the three s p e c i a l envoys to Greece and Macedonia acceptable to P a u l l u s l a t e i n 169: see on 3.1; f o r the I u n i i see on 16.1; f o r the T e r e n t i i see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 141, 211, 284) . Numisius may have been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Marcius P h i l i p p u s (see B r i s c o e JRS 54 (1964) 76 - 77). 17.4 In I l l y r i c u m autem h i n o m i n a t i ; P. A e l i u s Ligus (84) C. C i c e r e i u s (1) Cn. Baebius Tamphilus (42; c f . 43) P. Terentius Tuscivicanus (75) P. M a n i l i u s (13) A e l i u s had been consul i n 172; C i c e r e i u s p r a e t o r i n 173; Baebius praetor i n 168. A e l i u s (see on 16.1), C i c e r e i u s (see on 15.10), Baebius (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 170, 211) and T e r e n t i u s (see on 17.1) were p o l i t i c a l a s s o c i a t e s of the A e m i l i a n - S c i p i o n i c group. M a n i l i u s (13) belonged to a new fa m i l y whose f i r s t member to reach the consulship was M 1. M a n i l i u s (12), perhaps a younger 65 brother of M a n i l i u s (13), i n 149. According to C i c e r o (De Re Pub. 1.18), M a n i l i u s (13) was a member of the S c i p i o n i c c i r c l e . 17.7 ce terum. . .possent : In 189 a f t er the defeat of Antiochus I I I the senate sent ten commissioners to A s i a for the sett lement of d e t a i l s , but determined beforehand the general p o l i c y to be fol lowed (cf . P o l . 21 .24 .4 -9 ; L. 37 .55 .4 -6 ) . 18.1 l i b e r o s esse: In the H e l l e n i s t i c world the terms otofovop*'<* , eXe-u l9 had come to denote l i t t l e more than " l o c a l autonomy" and were not incompatible with var ious forms of domination (see McShane Fore ign P o l i c y 68 - 73; Jones The Greek C i t y from Alexander to  J u s t i n i a n 95 - 112). When the Romans rece ived the d e d i t i o (see on 1.9) of a defeated enemy, they considered themselves e n t i t l e d to make p o l i t i c a l arrangements for that s ta te and to determine i t s s tatus (see Dahlheim D e d i t i o und soc ie tas 1 - 52) . Cato the Censor had argued against the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of Macedonia as a province on the grounds that i t could not be defended (Malcovat i ORF 2 no. 8 f r s . 161 - 162). Macedonia now became a free amicus of Rome. The e a r l i e r Roman no t ion of l i b e r t a s excluded r e s t r i c t i o n s such as the impos i t ion of t r i b u t e , but here for the f i r s t time the Romans imposed t r i b u t e on a free s ta te (see on 18 .7) . 18.2 sub t u t e l a [popul i Romani]: The words p o p u l i Romani, which do not occur i n the M S . , and which were added by S igon ius , are accepted by Giarratano 313. L i v y r e f e r s to the informal pro tec tora te e s tab l i shed over the Greek states by the Romans dur ing the course of t h e i r i n t e r v e n t i o n i n eastern a f f a i r s from the time of the F i r s t I l l y r i a n War i n 229 - 228 (see on 43 .10) . 18.3 M e t a l l i quoque M a c e d o n i c i . . . t o l l i p lacebat : In Macedonia the gold and s i l v e r mines had formed par t of the r o y a l domains. The estates (praedia r u s t i c a ) c losed to c a p i t a l i s t development were probably the p r i v a t e estates of the k i n g . See C icero II De Lege A g r a r i a 50; Ros tovtze f f SEH 2 5 2 - 2 5 3 , 632 - 6 3 3 , 7 5 8 , 1 4 7 1 n . 3 9 . Although the senate had o r i g i n a l l y decided to c lose a l l the mines, Pau l lus and the ten commissioners c losed only the gold and s i l v e r mines, whi le permi t t ing the working of the i r o n and copper mines, presumably by Macedonian contrac tors (cf . L . 4 5 . 2 9 . 1 1 ) . The former r o y a l estates probably continued to be worked by small tenants . See Ros tovtze f f SEH 7 5 8 . Badian (Publicans and Sinners 3 9 - 4 3 ) argues that the p u b l i c a n i were being deprived of the opportuni ty to e x p l o i t the mines and estates i n Macedonia because of t h e i r c o n f l i c t with the censors C . Claudius Pulcher and T i . Sempronius Gracchus i n 1 6 9 which led to a charge of p e r d u e l l i o being brought against them by the tr ibunus p l e b i s P . R u t i l i u s (L . 4 3 . 1 6 ) . The c o n f l i c t continued in to the fo l lowing y e a r , when the censors deprived R u t i l i u s and many other Equi tes Equo Pub l i co of t h e i r horses (c f . L . 4 4 . 1 6 . 8 and see on 1 5 . 8 ) , and i n 167 the p u b l i c a n i were fur ther chas t i sed by be ing deprived of the chance to e x p l o i t the mines and estates i n Macedonia. However, i f i t was merely a quest ion of punish ing the equ i te s , the senate might simply have barred them from e x p l o i t i n g the mines and estates without prevent ing the Macedonians from e x p l o i t i n g them. The mines and estates had to be c losed because the a l t e r n a t i v e to a l lowing t h e i r e x p l o i t a t i o n by the equites was to permit the Macedonian f i n a n c i e r s to e x p l o i t them, but t h i s was considered a p o l i t i c a l l y dangerous expedient which might lead to the resurgence of Macedonian s t rength . According to L i v y ' s a n n a l i s t i c source, the p u b l i c a n i could not be permitted to e x p l o i t the mines and estates because Macedonia had been dec lared f r e e . In Spain the mines were exp lo i t ed by equestr ian companies, and the taxes on revenues from the mines were farmed out by the censors to contrac tors who b i d for the r i g h t to c o l l e c t them. The ager pub l i cus i n the Roman provinces was l e t to tenants by the censors for f ixed periods and for f ixed r e n t s . A f t e r the Pergamene kingdom had been dec lared a prov ince , the personal property of the kings was treated i n t h i s way. But s ince Macedonia had been 67 declared free , the extension of the censors' a u t h o r i t y to Macedonia would be a v i o l a t i o n of the r i g h t s of free a m i c i . Thus i t was the d e c i s i o n not to annex Macedonia as a province which p r o h i b i t e d the a c t i v i t y of the p u b l i c a n i there , but th i s d e c i s i o n was taken, not as a means of punishing the p u b l i c a n i , but because of the general re luctance of the senate dur ing th i s per iod to annex t e r r i t o r y outs ide of I t a l y (see Badian Roman Imperial i sm i n the Late Republ ic 1 - 43) . Cato ' s argument against d i r e c t r u l e over Macedonia was that the country could not be defended (c f . M a l c o v a t i ORF 2 no. 8 f r . 162). Without d i r e c t r u l e , the p u b l i c a n i could not be supervised p r o p e r l y , another reason for keeping them out of Macedonia. See Orth RE Suppl . IV (1924) c o l s . 152 - 154; Frank ESAR I . 154 - 157; Stevenson Roman P r o v i n c i a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n t i l l the  Age of the Antonines 134 - 144; H i l l Roman Middle Class 57 - 59; UrHgdi RE Suppl . XI (1968) c o l s . 1184 - 1192. The go ld and s i l v e r mines were re-opened i n 158 (cf . Cass iodorus Chron ica , ed. Mommsen. p . 130 n . 403), probably for e x p l o i t a t i o n by the Macedonians. When Macedonia became a province i n 148, the mines and other sources of revenue were presumably opened up for e x p l o i t a t i o n by the p u b l i c a n i . I t i s thought that coinage was resumed with the re-opening of the mines i n 158 and that the four Macedonian fxepi- (see below) had coined no money dur ing the preceding y e a r s . See R o s t o v t z e f f SEH 758. 18.6 commune c o n s i l i u m ; The reading of the MS. i s COMMUNECONSILIUMGENTISESSETINPROBUM  VULGIADSENATORALIQUAN POLIBERTATEMSALUBRIMODERATIONIDATAMAD  LICENTIAMPESTILENTEMTRAHERETINQUATTUORMACEDONESDESCRIBI MACEDONIAMVISUMQUAEQUECONSILIUMHABEREPLACUIT  Giarratano 314 reads [denique ne, s i ] commune c o n c i l i u m gent i s  esset , inprobus v u l g i adsentator al iquando l iber ta tem s a l u b r i  moderatione datam ad l i c e n t i a m pes t i l entem t r a h e r e t , i n  quattuor regiones d i s c r i b i Macedoniam, ut suum quaeque conc i l ium  haberet , p l a c u i t . . . . T h i s t e x t , i n i t s main o u t l i n e s and i n most p a r t i c u l a r s , i s accepted by modern e d i t o r s , except for the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the MS. reading consilium which occurs twice in this passage. Larsen (CP 4 4 ( 1 9 4 9 ) 73 - 9 0 ) argued for the retention of the MS. reading instead of emending to concilium. The emendation of consilium to concilium can be traced back to Sigonius and has generally been treated as the orthodox reading. The MS. in both cases reads consilium, which Sigonius adopted as the reading in 1 8 . 6 with a note to the effect that it should be understood as concilium, and which in 1 8 . 7 he emended to concilium. Because consilium in Livy corresponds best to the Greek <ruveof*• o v and Livy often used the word concilium to refer to the primary assembly ( ^K^ A^ c^ ex) of a Greek federal state, the reading of the MS. should be retained, especially since the terms of the settlement of Macedonia (cf. L. 4 5 . 2 9 - 3 0 ) indicate that the Romans wished to deprive the Macedonians of their capacity for common action by preventing the continuation of a single administration (see Walbank Museum  Helveticum 2 7 ( 1 9 7 0 ) 1 2 9 - 1 4 3 ) . For the division of Macedonia into four parts see L. 4 5 . 2 9 . 5 - 9 . The four regiones (juLep-rj , Diod. 3 1 . 8 . 8 ; / a e p t . ' ' c S e 5 : see Larsen CP 4 4 ( 1 9 4 9 ) 85 n. 3 7 ) with their separate administrations seem to have continued at least into the Flavian period (see Larsen Rep. Gov't. 108 - 114), although i t appears from the numismatic evidence that a Kotvov or provincial assembly for the whole of Macedonia existed as early as the reign of Claudius. For the numismatic evidence for the |Jiepic\$f see Head Historia Nummorum 2 1 6 , 2 3 8 - 2 4 6 ; Head, ed. Poole A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum, vol. V. I i i - lx i i i , 7 ff. The council ( l ^ o o A i f , consilium) of each p-(rJH5 was called a o ~ o v e c > p i o \ / (cf. L. 4 5 . 3 2 . 2 : senatores, quos synedros vocant, legendos esse, quorum consilio res publica administraretur). This implies a representative government (see Larsen CP 4 0 ( 1 9 4 5 ) 6 5 - 9 7 ; Rep. Gov't. 8 6 - 1 0 5 ) . Aymard (CP 4 5 ( 1 9 5 0 ) 102 - 1 0 7 ) argued against Larsen (CP 4 4 ( 1 9 4 9 ) 8 7 - 8 8 ) that there probably were primary assemblies in each of the four u.ef L ' ^ 5 . Larsen himself (ESAR IV. 2 9 8 ) had 69 e a r l i e r granted the p o s s i b i l i t y of e l e c t o r a l assemblies c o n s i s t i n g , presumably, of the deni p r i n c i p e s c i v i t a t i u m ( c f . L. 45.29.1). A p a r a l l e l to the d i v i s i o n of Macedonia and of I l l y r i c u m (see on 18.7) i s the d i v i s i o n of the new province of G a l a t i a i n t o t hree a d m i n i s t r a t i v e areas i n 25 B. C. (see Jones The  C i t i e s of the Eastern Roman Provinces 119 - 120). 18.6 inprobus v u l g i adsentator: L i v y i m p l i e s t h a t the lower c l a s s e s of Macedonia co u l d be s t i r r e d to r e b e l l i o n by t h e i r leaders i f the Romans were t o allow a u n i f i e d government f o r the whole country. The important s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l cleavage i n H e l l e n i s t i c s o c i e t y was not i d e o l o g i c a l (e.g., democracy versus o l i g a r c h y ) but economic (lower c l a s s versus upper c l a s s ) . Two main feat u r e s i n t h i s " c l a s s s t r u g g l e " were the demands f o r the c a n c e l l a t i o n of debts and the r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of land (see R o s t o v t z e f f SEH 755 - 757, 1115 - 1134, 1460 n. 14; Holleaux CAH V I I I (1930) 146 - 148). The question of p o l i t i c a l o p p o s i t i o n to Rome i n the H e l l e n i s t i c world from the F i r s t Macedonian War to the time of S u l l a has r e c e n t l y been s t u d i e d by Deininger (Der p o l i t i s c h e Widerstand  gegen Rom i n Griechenland 217 - 86 v. Chr.) Deininger seeks to d i v i d e t h i s o p p o s i t i o n to Rome i n t o two perio d s marked by the d e p o r t a t i o n of the anti-Roman leaders to I t a l y i n 167. Co n f i n i n g h i s study to Rhodes and mainland Greece (e x c l u d i n g Macedonia), Deininger concludes t h a t before 167 the upper c l a s s e s , d i v i d e d among themselves on the question of r e l a t i o n s w i t h Rome, c o n t r o l l e d f o r e i g n p o l i c y , w h i l e a f t e r 167 the lower c l a s s e s , who had been opposed t o Rome even d u r i n g the e a r l i e r p e r i o d , l e d the o p p o s i t i o n to Rome. Although the Romans g e n e r a l l y p r e f e r r e d to see the upper c l a s s e s i n c o n t r o l of the Greek s t a t e s ( c f . the arrangements made by Flamininus i n Thessaly i n 194: L. 34.51.4-6), i t i s not t r u e t h a t there was i n v a r i a b l y a s t a t e of h o s t i l i t y between the Romans and the lower c l a s s e s i n Greece. The Romans sometimes recognized or t o l e r a t e d r e v o l u t i o n a r y regimes (e.g., Sparta under Makhanidas and Nabis) and were not i n general concerned 70 about the internal politics of the Greek states unless there was danger that any state or group of states might upset the social and political stability and order which the Romans wished to preserve in Greece. Flamininus went to war against Nabis in 195 to free Argos from Spartan control, but this was only to restrict Spartan power in the Peloponnese (cf. L. 34.22.4 -41.10). In the wars of the the Romans, against Philip V, Antiochus III and Perseus the lower classes in the states which supported Rome generally followed without incident the example of their political leaders. See Briscoe Past & Present 36 (1967) 3 - 2 0 . In their recent reviews of Deininger's book, Derow (Phoenix 26 (1972) 303 - 311) and Errington (JRS 63 (1973) 249 - 250) question the rigid conclusions stated by the author, who may not have paid enough attention to the tendency of Livy to interpret differences in public opinion along class lines even when his source did not do so (cf. Pol. 27.1.7-9 and L. 42.44.3-5). Also see Musti, Aufstieg und Niedergang der RHmischen Welt, vol. I, Part 2 (1972) 1165 - 1168. After the deportation of the anti-Roman leaders in 167, the political leaders of the Greek states continued to come from the upper classes. In the Achaean War of 147 - 146, which broke out after the Roman attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of the Achaean League, the wealthy classes as well as the lower classes opposed Rome (see De Sanctis Storia IV. 3. 127 - 162; Fuks JHS 90 (1970) 78 - 89). The lower classes were not instantly prepared to fight Rome at the first opportunity, but had to be persuaded to vote for the declaration of war by the proclamation of social measures favourable to them. The liberation and arming of slaves was an act of necessity approved by the leaders of the Achaean League (cf. Pol. 38.15.1-5). After more than a half-century of relative political stability in the Greek world, Mithridates tried to gain the support of the lower classes in Greece and Asia Minor by promises of social revolution (see Rostovtzeff SEH 930 - 944), but although he appealed to widespread social discontent, many cities opposed him, notably Rhodes (see Hiller von Gaertringen RE Suppl. V 71 (1931) c o l s . 801 - 803), where c o n d i t i o n s were more favourable f o r the lower c l a s s e s (see R o s t o v t z e f f SEH 676 - 691 and CAH V I I I (1930) 628 - 642; Casson TAPA 85 (1954) 168 - 187). A f t e r the defeat of Perseus, Macedonians of a l l s o c i a l c l a s s e s remained h o s t i l e to Rome and r e b e l l e d i n 149 - 148 under Andriskos. The Roman settlement of Macedonia d i s p l e a s e d the t r a d e r s , whose business was damaged by r e s t r i c t i o n s placed on commerce between the four regions ( c f . L. 45.30.1-2), w h i l e the p o l i t i c a l arrangements which e s t a b l i s h e d f e d e r a l governments f o r the Macedonian regions l e d to the outbreak of d i s o r d e r and v i o l e n c e among the p o l i t i c a l l e aders ( c f . P o l . 31.2.12, 17.1-2), who probably d i s l i k e d the new ways. A l l Macedonians, whether r i c h or poor, must have resented the defeat and fragmentation of t h e i r country, which had been an important i m p e r i a l i s t power w i t h strong t r a d i t i o n s of u n i t y under a n a t i o n a l monarchy. Thus the establishment of the f our f*.ep 16&5 by Rome represents an attempt to r e s t r i c t not only the lower c l a s s e s , but a l s o the upper c l a s s e s , who would continue to supply the p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p i n Macedonia. 18.7 dimidium t r i b u t i : P l u t a r c h gives t h i s sum as 100 t a l e n t s per year (Aem. 28.3). Larsen (Greek F e d e r a l States 299) suggests t h a t the f u l l t ax formerly c o l l e c t e d by the k i n g was s t i l l c o l l e c t e d , w i t h h a l f of i t now going to Rome and h a l f to the governments of the four ( j w 6 f L ^ ^ J . The t r i b u t u m s o l i or land t a x was one of the forms of revenue d e r i v e d by the Romans from the p r o v i n c e s , but i n the case of Macedonia, a f r e e amicus of Rome, the tributum should probably be considered more a war-indemnity than a tax. See C i c e r o In Verrem I I . 3.6.12; Schwann RE V I I . A. 1 (1939) c o l s . 1 - 13, 42. U n t i l t h i s time the Romans had always a s s o c i a t e d immunitas (freedom from t a x a t i o n ) w i t h l i b e r t a s ( p o l i t i c a l independence). During the course of t h e i r involvement i n the a f f a i r s of the Greek east, the Romans learned t h a t the H e l l e n i s t i c concept 72 of auTovo^.u<x or eXto \9fo i°( d i d not exclude var ious forms of s u b j e c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g the payment of tax, so that F lamin inus , i n h i s d e c l a r a t i o n of l i b e r t y at the Isthmian Games of 196, s p e c i f i e d that the Greeks were to be l i b e r o s , immunes, su i s legibus (L. 33.32.5; c f . P o l . 18.46.5: G \ <-u i9 t p o u s , o<<sjopoXO^^TOUs; ^ O J J L O L S x P t J ° p - £ v 0 O 5 T o ? * , rr«,Tp L' 0 L <> ) . During the settlement of A s i a a f t e r the defeat of Antiochus I I I , the Romans freed from t r i b u t e c i t i e s oVoU uW Tobv ocuTovoVtov x\6\(rL»\J •vrpdfc-pov u n c - T t X o o V 'A^Tlo '^u) c^opov ( P o l . 21 .45 .2 ; note L i v y ' s t r a n s l a t i o n of t h i s : quae s t i p e n d i a r i a e r e g i Antiocho  fuerant: L . 38 .39 .7 ) . In 189 the Romans s t i l l considered i t a c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n terms that a free c i t y should be paying t r i b u t e , though apparent ly they permit ted free c i t i e s which formerly pa id t r i b u t e to A t t a l o s I to continue paying t r i b u t e to Eumenes I I . The Romans themselves are f i r s t known to have appl ied condi t ions to a .grant of l i b e r t a s i n the case of the Ambraciots i n 187 (cf . L . 38 .44.4: p o r t o r i a quae v e l l e n t . . .  caperent, dum eorum immunes Romani ac s o c i i nominis L a t i n i e ssent ) . On l i b e r t a s et immunitas see Jones, A n a t o l i a n Studies 103 - 117. As i n the case of S i c i l y , the Romans found that the Macedonians had been accustomed to paying tax, and the senate decided to continue c o l l e c t i n g i t , even though i t might have been considered more a war-indemnity than a tax, s ince the Macedonians were l e f t as free a m i c i . See Badian Fore ign C l i e n t e l a e 79 - 81. 18.7 S i m i l i a h i s et i n I l l y r i c u m mandata: For the P o l y b i a n account of the sett lement of I l l y r i c u m see L . 45.26.11-15. Cato the Censor appears to have been concerned about the treatment of I l l y r i c u m and may have argued against annexation, c f . Peter HRR2 I . p . 88 f r . 96: M. Catonem  i n Originum quarto - s c r i p s i s s e et item i n quinto: urbes insulasque omnis pro agro I l l y r i o . esse; f r . 97: Cato Originum l i b r o V: Fluvium Naronem magnum, pulchrum, p i s c u l e n t u m . . . . (the r i v e r Naro, the modern Narenta or Neretwa, i s i n J u g o s l a v i a . ) 19.1 The embassy of A t t a l o s : The purpose of t h i s embassy was to congratulate the Romans f o r t h e i r v i c t o r y over Perseus and to request ass i s tance against the Galatians. For general discussions of this embassy see McShane Foreign Policy 181 - 186; Will Histoire II. 245 - 246; De Sanctis Storia IV. I 2 . 347 - 351; Hansen Attalids 121 - 122. Eumenes himself had been forced to return home in 168 to deal with an uprising of the Galatians (see on 19.3) and was now seriously i l l in Pergamon (cf. L. 45.34.10-14). Attalos I became an amicus of Rome about 211 along with the Aetolians, with whom he was on good terms. He seems to have made arrangements with the Romans for the division of the spoils in the First and Second Macedonian Wars similar to those made by the Aetolians in 211 (for the Romano-Aetolian treaty see IG. IX 2. 1. 2 (1957) no. 241 and SEG XVII. 280 with Will Histoire II. 76 - 77). On Attalos cf. L. 28.7.4-5, 31.45.7, 31.46.16. On the amicitia between the Attalids and Rome see Holleaux Rome, la Grece 94-95; Heuss VHlk. Grundl. 32 -35; McShane Foreign Policy 92 - 109; Dahlheim Deditio und societas 216 n. 2; Hansen Attalids 46 -.47; Werner, Aufstieg und Niedergang der  RHmischen Welt, vol. I, Part 1 (1972) 549 - 551. Attalos was born in 220, the second son of Attalos I. In 192 he came to Rome with the report that Antiochus III had crossed the Hellespont into Europe (L. 35.23.10-11). Attalos was left in charge of Pergamon in 190 when Eumenes took command of the fleet (L. 37.18.1-8); he commanded forces on the Roman right wing at the battle of Magnesia (L. 37.43.5). In 189, while Eumenes was in Rome, Attalos was again left in charge of Pergamon and participated in the campaign of Cn. Manlius Vulso against the Galatians (L. 38.12.6-8). Attalos commanded the Pergamene forces in the war against Pharnakes (183 - 179) during the illness of Eumenes and went to Rome with his younger brothers to seek Roman intervention (Pol. 24.5). He commanded forces at the battle of Pydna (L. 44.36.8). He returned to Rome in 160 to refute the charges of Prusias II and the Galatians (Pol. 31.1.2-7, 32.1.5-7). The senate, displeased with the conduct of Eumenes (see on 19.5), showed Attalos special favour (cf. Pol. 32.1.7) and during the 74 embassy of 167 a group within the senate tried to create an open break between the brothers (see on 19.2). Upon the death of Eumenes, Attalos became king as Attalos II (159 - 138). 19.2 Exceptus enim ab iis...venissent: There was an important group in the senate which desired to support Attalos against Eumenes. In an annalistic section of Book 44 (see Nissen Krit. Untersuch. 260 - 263; Klotz Livius 20, 72 - 73) Livy, following Valerius Antias, contrasted the uncooperativeness of Eumenes with the eager support given the Romans by Attalos in the campaigns of 169 and 168 (L. 44.13.12-14, 44.20.7). This may have been due to the Galatian revolt in Asia Minor (see on 19.3), but a more serious charge made by Polybius was that Eumenes had communicated with Perseus concerning the negotiation of peace between Rome and Macedonia (see on 19.5). In 167 Attalos was well received by those senators present who had known him during their military service in the Macedonian war (cf. Pol. 30.1.4: -rrdtVTow oc- G?«- Ao cOiooMtos- ao-rov arrooe^onc-^wv otocTG- TTJV &\j Tr| <rTp<*TtrL« ev»-»] (Ji/v^v cuvT^f-otv K^I <JI« TO ooKfTv eovouv ao'-ro'Cs oCrr«pxe,v- ) % Scullard (Rom. Pol. 215) believes that the senators in question were members of the "less scrupulous plebeian group, including Q. Marcius Philippus, the consul of 169, whose diplomacy had previously shocked the more old-fashioned and upright". Briscoe (JRS 54 (1964) 66 - 67) suggests that we can identify a number of politicians whose high-handed and unscrupulous methods showed a lack of the "old Roman qualities of virtus and fides" - among them Q. Fulvius Flaccus (61), censor in 174; M. Popillius Laenas (*6/24), consul in 173; C. Popillius Laenas (*7/l8), consul in 172; P. Licinius Crassus (60), consul in 171; C. Lucretius Gallus (23), praetor in 171; and L. Hortensius (4), praetor in 170. Although these men did not belong to one political group, Briscoe believes they could have agreed on certain issues, such as the deception of Perseus in 172 (for the embassy of Marcius Philippus to Perseus, cf. L. 42.38.8 - 43.3; 42.47) and the interference in the Attalid dynasty in 167. 75 I t was perhaps l a r g e l y the same group w i t h i n the senate t h a t wished to i n t e r f e r e i n Pergamon and to d e c l a r e war on Rhodes (see on 25.2). P o l y b i u s (30.1.7) c a l l e d the senators concerned evc°^5 rco\j c(?ioAo'ywv'j which L i v y rendered as quidam Romanorum non boni auctores (45.19.4). Badian (Foreign C l i e n t e l a e 102 - 104), t a k i n g a d i f f e r e n t view from that of S c u l l a r d and B r i s c o e , argues t h a t i f Marcius P h i l i p p u s had been a p r i n c i p a l i n these d e a l i n g s , P o l y b i u s would not have h e s i t a t e d to name him ( c f . P o l . 23.9.8 f f . , 27.1.3 f f . , 28.17.4 f f . ) He concludes that P o l y b i u s was " s h i e l d i n g h i s f r i e n d s i n a d i s r e p u t a b l e a f f a i r " , suggesting t h a t A e m i l i u s P a u l l u s stood behind t h i s s e n a t o r i a l group. However, Marcius P h i l i p p u s was not the only senator of h i g h rank i n v o l v e d , and P o l y b i u s may have h e s i t a t e d to i d e n t i f y the whole group. The c o m p l i c i t y of P a u l l u s seems to be excluded by the f a c t t h a t he was s t i l l i n Macedonia at t h i s time. For s i m i l a r i n t e r f e r e n c e by the senate and Flamininus i n the Macedonian r o y a l house see Edson HSCP 46 (1935) 191 - 202. 19.3 The G a l a t i a n s : The kings of Pergamon were long-standing opponents of the G a l a t i a n s , who f i r s t invaded A s i a Minor i n 278/7. P h i l e t a i r o s p r o t e c t e d h i s own h i n t e r l a n d and a s s i s t e d K y z i k o s and other Greek c i t i e s a g ainst the G a l a t i a n s ( c f . OGIS 748). In 241, a f t e r h i s v i c t o r y over the G a l a t i a n s i n the Caicus v a l l e y which drove them from the coast, A t t a l o s I assumed the name £<oTrjp and the t i t l e 8c*0"iX.euj. on at l e a s t four occasions between 240 and 228 A t t a l o s defeated Antiochus I I and h i s G a l a t i a n a l l i e s i n A s i a Minor, d r i v i n g the S e l e u c i d k i n g from north-western A s i a Minor and c o n f i n i n g the G a l a t i a n s to the area between the r i v e r Sangarios to j u s t east of the Halys. When the G a l a t i a n s renewed t h e i r r a i d s on the t e r r i t o r y of Pergamon i n 190, Eumenes I I and some of the Greek c i t i e s urged the Romans to send an army against them. A t t a l o s , the b r o t h e r of Eumenes, p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the campaign of Cn. Manlius Vulso i n 189 and i n 188. The G a l a t i a n s a s s i s t e d P r u s i a s I of B i t h y n i a i n h i s war a g a i n s t Eumenes (ca. 186 - 183). A f t e r t h i s war was brought to an end by Roman i n t e r v e n t i o n , Eumenes seems to have incorp o r a t e d the 76 t e r r i t o r y of the G a l a t i a n s i n t o h i s kingdom; i t was i n the e i g h t i e s of the second century that the Great A l t a r was b u i l t . Two G a l a t i a n c h i e f t a i n s a s s i s t e d Pharnakes of Pontus i n h i s war against Eumenes (183 - 179). In 168 the G a l a t i a n s once again took arms a g a i n s t Eumenes, who was forced to leave the theatre of war i n Macedonia to meet the new th r e a t to h i s kingdom. Eumenes sent h i s brother A t t a l o s to Rome i n 167 to request a i d against the G a l a t i a n s . For subsequent developments see on 45.21. See McShane Foreign P o l i c y 29 - 186; Hansen A t t a l i d s 14 - 129. 19.5 a l t e r o nec Romanis nec P e r s e i f i d o s o c i o ; According to P o l . 29.5-9 (a l s o see L. 44.24.7 - 25.12), Eumenes had o f f e r e d e i t h e r to withdraw h i s s e r v i c e s from the Roman s i d e or to use h i s i n f l u e n c e i n making peace between Rome and Macedonia. During the Macedonian war, Eumenes had c o n t r i b u t e d c o n s i d e r a b l e m i l i t a r y and nava l f o r c e s to the Roman war e f f o r t (see McShane Foreign P o l i c y 177 - 181) and could s c a r c e l y be c a l l e d an a l l y of Perseus. The a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n , however, described the u n w i l l i n g n e s s of Eumenes to p a r t i c i p a t e p e r s o n a l l y i n the campaigns of 169 and 168, but t h i s may have been due to the G a l a t i a n r e v o l t i n A s i a Minor (see on 19.3). Because the a l l e g e d n e g o t i a t i o n s between Perseus and Eumenes came to not h i n g , Eumenes cannot have been g u i l t y of any overt act of d i s l o y a l t y . P o l y b i u s i d e n t i f i e d the source of h i s i n f o r m a t i o n concerning these n e g o t i a t i o n s as the f r i e n d s of Perseus, presumably the Macedonians who were removed to Rome i n 167 (see on 32.3). He was i n c l i n e d to b e l i e v e t h e i r s t o r y i n the l i g h t of the senate's l a t e r a t t i t u d e towards Eumenes (see P o l . 30.1.6; P o l . 29.6 w i t h De S a n c t i s S t o r i a IV. I 2 . 352 n. 325; Pedech Meth. H i s t . 400 - 404). S c u l l a r d (Rom. P o l . 286 - 287) and Badian (Foreign C l i e n t e l a e 102 - 104) accept the account of P o l y b i u s , suggesting t h a t Eumenes' motive f o r the n e g o t i a t i o n s was the G a l a t i a n r e v o l t , i n which Perseus h i m s e l f may have had a hand ( c f . P o l . 25.6.3). De S a n c t i s ( S t o r i a IV. 1 . 349), on the other hand, b e l i e v e d t h a t P o l y b i u s was mis l e d by h i s informants i n t o t h i n k i n g that the subject of the n e g o t i a t i o n s was the mediation of peace between Rome and Macedonia when the r e a l t o p i c of d i s c u s s i o n may have been nothing more than the exchange of prisoners or the like (cf. L. 44.24.7). It is also possible that some of the Macedonian hostages invented this story as a way of harming their enemy Eumenes. Subsequent events, however, seem to support the allegation that the negotiation of peace was discussed (see Jones The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces 114 - 116; Badian Foreign Clientelae 102 - 105; McShane Foreign Policy 181 - 186; De Sanctis Storia IV. I 2 . 347 - 351; Hansen Attalids 120 - 129; Scullard Rom. Pol. 286 - 287). Similar attempts to negotiate a peace had been made or contemplated by the Rhodians (see Appendix I), by Ptolemy VI (Pol. 28.1.7) and possibly by Prusias II (see on 44.4). 19.10 regnum eorum novum: Philetairos, the founder of the Attalid dynasty, had been placed in charge of Pergamon by Lysimakhos, from whom he revolted in 282. Attalos I, his grand-nephew, was the first of the line to adopt the title of king (in 241). 19.11 earn infirmitatem...aetatemque Eumenis; Eumenes had fallen seriously i l l towards the end of 168 or the beginning of 167 (cf. L. 45.34.11). Born before 221, Eumenes was now in his middle or late fifties, and his wife, Stratonike, was s t i l l childless after eight years of marriage (see Hansen Attalids 95 n. 66). 19.16 ex fraterna caede: Perseus, fearing that his brother Demetrios would become king with Roman support, incited Philip V to execute Demetrios (in 181: L. 40.23-24). See Edson HSCP 46 (1935) 191 - 202; Meloni Perseo 1 - 60; Will Histoire II. 213 - 214. 20.2 Aenum sibi et Maroneam petiit: These towns in Macedonia had been promised to Attalos by the senators who wished to instigate him against Eumenes, but the offer was withdrawn when Attalos refused to comply with their wishes (Pol. 30.3.5-7). Ainos and Maroneia were declared civitates liberae (probably also immunes: see on 18.7; cf. Pol. 30.3.7: fV A T V O V K *1 r ^ v A \cxpuSvei*^ gA,€u$epoorestsj». T| <TU^ K/\TJTO£] . Along with Abdera, these 78 two towns remained outside the first Macedonian (see on 29.5). Livy concealed the original promise of Ainos and Maroneia to Attalos (see Walsh Livy 151 - 153). 20.4 Rhodian Embassy: For general discussions of this embassy see Schmitt Rom und Rhodos 151 - 167; Badian Foreign Clientelae 100 - 102; Will Histoire II. 250 - 253; De Sanctis Storia IV. I 2 . 342 - 347. 20.8 Rhodios non ita meritos...habendi sint: For the relationship of amicitia between Rome and Rhodes see on 3.3. For amicitia see Appendix IV. 21.1-8 Violations of constitutional practice: Iuventius brought before the Comitia Centuriata the b i l l (rogatio) calling for the declaration of war with Rhodes. This was done without prior consultation of the senate and without prior notification of the consuls who, as magistrates with maius imperium, had the right to introduce legislation in the comitia before the praetors. The senate enjoyed the privilege of prior consultation, especially in the fields of military commands, foreign policy, finance and public religion, stemming from the sanction of patrum auctoritas, (the sanction of the patrician senators), required for all legislation in the early republic. Although the Lex Publilia de patrum auctoritate of 339 required the senate to grant pro forma approval to any b i l l laid before the comitia (see Rotondi Leges Publicae 227), the senate continued to control legislation in important fields through senatus consulta (technically advice to magistrates), which the magistrates tended to accept as law, and through the corporate domination of the senate as a group over the magistrates, who either were senators or hoped to become senators. For other examples of bills introduced against the wishes of the senate, see L. 21.63.3; 38.36.8. The alliance with Messana in 264 was voted without the express approval of the senate (see Pol. 1.10-11 with Walbank Commentary I. 60). See Mommsen RHm. Staatsr. III. 1022 - 1239; Botsford The Roman  Assemblies 139 - 151, 230 - 232; O'Brien-Moore RE Suppl. VI (1935) c o l s . 681 - 682, 719 - 760, 800 - 812. Vot ing on a b i l l was always preceded by the p u b l i c a t i o n of an ed ic t before a gather ing of the people i n a cont io (rogationem promulgare) . The i n t e r v a l between the p u b l i c a t i o n of a b i l l and v o t i n g was set at 24 days (see T a y l o r Vot ing Assemblies 144 n . 35), the s o - c a l l e d trinum nundinum, by the Lex C a e c i l i a D i d i a of 98 B. C . (see Rotondi Leges Pub l i cae 335), but no s t r i c t i n t e r v a l was r e g u l a r l y observed before t h i s t ime. The ac tua l vo t ing on a b i l l ( in the comit ia) was t r a d i t i o n a l l y preceded by a number of in formal gatherings of the people (contiones) for the purpose of d i s c u s s i o n (there were three contiones before j u d i c i a l assembl ies ) . By ve to ing the b i l l before a l lowing s u f f i c i e n t time for d i s c u s s i o n , Antonius and Pomponius were v i o l a t i n g an accepted p r i n c i p l e of Roman c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r a c t i c e . See Mommsen Rb*m. S t a a t s r . I I I . 369 - 396; Bot s ford The Roman Assemblies 139 - 151; T a y l o r Vot ing Assemblies 15 - 19; Staveley Greek and Roman Vot ing  and E l e c t i o n s 143 - 149. The d e c l a r a t i o n of war was no longer governed by the t r a d i t i o n a l form of the ius f e t i a l e , according to which the stages i n the d e c l a r a t i o n of war were: 1) res repe tuntur ; 2) t e s t a t i o  deorum (denunt ia t io ) ; 3) senatus censet; 4) populus i u b e t ; 5) bel lum i n d i c i t u r . By the 270's the F e t i a l e s no longer journeyed to the enemy country for the b e l l i i n d i c t i o , and by the Second Punic War the F e t i a l e s were replaced by s e n a t o r i a l l e g a t i . The three journeys in to enemy t e r r i t o r y were combined in to one and the l e g a t i 'Vent out armed with a c o n d i t i o n a l d e c l a r a t i o n of war, authorized beforehand by the senate and people , so t h a t , i f the r e p l y to t h e i r rerum r e p e t i t i o was unfavourable , they could immediately convey the Roman d e c l a r a t i o n of war" (Walbank CP 44 (1949) 15). The stages i n the d e c l a r a t i o n of war were now: 1) senatus censet; 2) populus i u b e t ; 3) res repe tuntur ; 4) t e s t a t i o deorum ( d e n u n t i a t i o ) ; 5) bel lum i n d i c i t u r . See Wissowa R e l . und K u l t . 550 - 554; McDonald and Walbank 80 JRS 27 (1937) 192 - 197; Walbank JRS 31 (1941) 82 - 93 and CP 44 (1949) 15 - 19; Oost AJP 75 (1954) 147 - 159; Dahlheim D e d i t i o und s o c i e t a s 176 - 188; O g i l v i e Commentary 127 - 129. 21.3 M. Antonius et M. Pomponius t r i b u n i p l e b i s : M. Antonius (27) and M. Pomponius (*13/9). Antonius l a t e r summoned the c o n t i o at which A e m i l i u s P a u l l u s addressed the people a f t e r h i s triumph (L. 45.40.9). The Pomponii were a s s o c i a t e s of the A e m i l i a n - S c i p i o n i c group. Pomponius (*13/9) was probably the great-grandson of the brother of the M 1. Pomponius Matho (16) whose daughter was married to P. C o r n e l i u s S c i p i o (330), the consul of 218 and the f a t h e r of S c i p i o A f r i c a n u s . As urban pr a e t o r i n 161, Pomponius (*13/9) sponsored a senatus consultum banning philosophers and r h e t o r s from Rome. 22.1 Speech of the Rhodians: In t h i s speech, which seems favourable to the Rhodians, the ambassadors seek to demonstrate that Rhodes had not attacked any of Rome's a m i c i , t h a t the Rhodians had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the eastern wars of the Romans, that they had not made an a l l i a n c e w i t h Perseus or a s s i s t e d him i n any way, and t h a t i t was only a small but powerful group of p o l i t i c i a n s , not the s t a t e as a whole, which d e s i r e d a Macedonian a l l i a n c e . The Rhodians thus claimed t h a t they had acted as f a i t h f u l a m ici of Rome, but the senate regarded the a c t i o n s of the pro-Macedonian p a r t y i n Rhodes as s u f f i c i e n t grounds to terminate the a m i c i t i a w i t h that s t a t e . On a m i c i t i a see Appendix IV. 22.1 Antea, C a r t h a g i n i e n s i b u s v i c t i s . . . v e n i s s e m u s ; For the Rhodian embassies to Rome i n 201 and 189 see L. 31.2.1-2 and P o l . 21.22.5 - 24.15. 22.2 quos p r o v i n c i i s nuper L y c i a atque C a r i a . . . d o n a s t i s : These were awarded to the Rhodians by the senate i n 189 as p a r t of the eastern arrangements which followed the defeat of Antiochus I I I ( P o l . 21.24.7-8); a formal senatus consultum was passed i n 188 (L. 38.39.13). In 196, a f t e r the defeat of P h i l i p V, the Rhodians had been granted S t r a t o n i k e i a and other c i t i e s i n C a r i a which P h i l i p had h e l d (L. 33.30.11). A f t e r the 8 1 war against Ant iochus , Rhodian t e r r i t o r i e s on the mainland were extended to inc lude L y c i a and C a r i a as far as the Maeander r i v e r , but excluding Telmessos (L . 38 .39 .13) . See Fraser-Bean Rhodian Peraea 70 - 78, 107 - 117; Schmitt Rom und Rhodos 81 - 128. 22.4 R h o d i o s . . . h o s t e s ex s o c i i s f a c t u r i e s t i s : For the quest ion of the Rhodian a l l i a n c e see on 3 . 3 . 22.6-8 The causes of Rome's wars: The Rhodians r e f e r to the causes of the wars against Carthage, Macedonia and Antiochus I I I . T h e i r a t t i t u d e r e f l e c t s the Roman view that Rome went to war i n defense of a l l i e s who were being attacked or i n j u r e d . In 264 the Mamert in i , d ischarged I t a l i a n mercenaries of Agathokles who had turned to robbery and had made Messana t h e i r s tronghold , were besieged by King Hiero of Syracuse. The act of d e d i t i o of the Mamert ini to Rome was accepted and they were l a t e r granted a foedus wi th Rome of the I t a l i a n type (see C i c e r o II In Verrem 19.50 wi th Dahlheim D e d i t i o und soc ie tas 27 - 29 ) . The C a r t h a g i n i a n s , who had a lready been requested by the Mamertini to i n s t a l l a g a r r i s o n i n Messana, now jo ined wi th Hiero i n the s iege of persons who were s o c i i of Rome, not merely a m i c i . On the causes of the F i r s t Punic War see P o l . 1.7-11 wi th Walbank Commentary I . 57 - 63. The a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n regarded the appeal of the Greek s tates to Rome against the aggress ion of P h i l i p V as one of the three reasons for the Roman d e c l a r a t i o n of war against Macedonia i n 200. In an a n n a l i s t i c s ec t ion of h i s n a r r a t i v e (see Nissen K r i t . Untersuch. 119 - 120) L i v y mentioned the a r r i v a l of an Athenian embassy i n Rome to complain about P h i l i p (L . 31 .1 .10) . P o l y b i u s , too, regarded the aggress ion of P h i l i p against Athens as a fac tor i n the Roman d e c i s i o n to dec lare war (see Balsdon JRS 44 (1954) 33) . The complaints of the I l l y r i a n s may have been of s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e (see on 3 . 1 ) . Although i t seems u n l i k e l y that Rome had any s o c i i of the I t a l i a n type among the Greek s ta tes , the Romans d i d have a c i r c l e of amici i n Greece, perhaps best i d e n t i f i e d i n the l i s t of Roman a d s c r i p t i to the Peace of Phoinike i n 205 (L. 29 .12 .14) . According to the extreme view taken by Holleaux (Rome, l a Grece 258 - 271), the only amic i of Rome in Greece i n 205 were A t t a l o s I and P leura tus , but more recent scho larsh ip tends to accept the l i s t with the exception of I l i o n and Athens (see, for example, Balsdon JRS 44 (1954) 32 - 33; Badian Fore ign C l i e n t e l a e 55 - 59; Dahlheim Ded i t i o und societas 220 - 235). For b i b l i o g r a p h y on the v a l i d i t y of L i v y ' s l i s t of a d s c r i p t i , see Walbank P h i l i p V 103 n . 6; Dahlheim D e d i t i o und soc ie tas 223 n . 1. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of a m i c i t i a d i d not b ind the Romans to provide m i l i t a r y ass i s tance to an amicus who was being a t tacked , but they might do so i f they wished. On the causes of the Second Macedonian War see Walbank P h i l i p V 310 - 317; Badian Fore ign C l i e n t e l a e 62 - 69; Dorey AJP 80 (1959) 288 - 295; W i l l H i s t o i r e I . 113 - 128. The charge that P h i l i p had sent money and mercenaries to Hannibal i n A f r i c a was made by the " l e g a t i sociarum urbium" according -to L . 30.26.2 i n 203. L i v y a l so reported the presence of the "Macedonum legionem" at Zama (L . 30 .33 .6) , although they d i d not appear i n h i s account of the b a t t l e . A f t e r the b a t t l e these mercenaries and t h e i r commander Sopater, who were now Roman p r i s o n e r s , were not re leased to the Macedonian envoys who came to demand t h e i r r e s t o r a t i o n (L . 30 .42 .4 -6) . The presence of these troops appears as one of the reasons for the d e c l a r a t i o n of war against P h i l i p V i n 200 (L . 31 .1 .10) . The presence of Macedonian forces has genera l ly been d i s b e l i e v e d (see, for example, De Sanct i s S t o r i a I I I 2 . 2 . 425 n . 100), but Balsdon (JRS 44 (1954) 34 - 35) suggested that a mercenary force may have been sent to A f r i c a , although L i v y ' s a n n a l i s t i c source mistakenly supposed t h i s force to have been engaged i n the b a t t l e . Perhaps P h i l i p r e c a l l e d the e a r l i e r d i s a s t e r s suf fered by Agathokles and by M. A t i l i u s Regulus, and wished to cover h imsel f i n case of a Roman defeat without committing himsel f too deeply by sending regular forces . A f t e r the defeat of P h i l i p V, the Greek s ta tes , dec lared free by Rome, were now amici of the Romans, t h e i r p r o t e c t o r s , who f e l t e n t i t l e d to prevent Antiochus I I I from campaigning i n Thrace . The A e t o l i a n s , h o s t i l e to Rome because of the settlement of the 83 Second Macedonian War which d i d not s a t i s f y t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s , i n v i t e d Antiochus to l i b e r a t e Greece i n 192 (L. 35.32.2 - 33.11). In 192 Demetrias went over to the A e t o l i a n s , who turned i t over to Antiochus as a l a n d i n g - p o i n t and nav a l base; l a t e r t h a t year Antiochus captured C h a l c i s , and i n 191 he s e i z e d the pass of Thermopylai. Demetrias and C h a l c i s , two of the three " f e t t e r s of Greece", had been set f r e e a f t e r the defeat of P h i l i p V. See Badian Foreign C l i e n t e l a e 75 - 8 3 ; W i l l H i s t o i r e I I . 152 - 173. The charges against Perseus mentioned here by the Rhodians were brought before the senate by Eumenes i n .172 (L. 42.13.5-10, 42.40.1-11; a l s o see the r e p l y of Perseus: 42.41.1-8). Charges ag a i n s t Perseus were i n s c r i b e d f o r d i s p l a y on a s t e l e w i t h i n the p r e c i n c t of the temple of A p o l l o a t D e l p h i ( c f . SIG 3 643 and see on 27.7). See Meloni Perseo 131 - 210; W i l l H i s t o i r e I I . 222 - 228. To these examples we may add the Roman c l a i m t h a t the C a r t h a g i n i a n s had created a casus b e l l i by a t t a c k i n g a c i v i t a s s o c i a t a of Rome (the Saguntines were probably a m i c i , not s o c i i i n the I t a l i a n sense). The Ca r t h a g i n i a n s argued a g a i n s t the Romans t h a t i n a t t a c k i n g Saguntum they had not v i o l a t e d the t r e a t y of 241, which granted immunity from a t t a c k to the a l l i e s of e i t h e r s i d e , because a t t h a t time Saguntum had not been a Roman a l l y and d i d not appear as such i n the l i s t of Roman a l l i e s which formed p a r t of the t r e a t y . Some time between 241 and the c o n c l u s i o n of the Ebro Treaty i n 226, the Romans entered i n t o f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s w i t h Saguntum, but the town was probably not granted s p e c i a l p r o t e c t i o n under the terms of the Ebro Treaty. When Hannibal attacked Saguntum, the group w i t h i n the senate which d e s i r e d war w i t h Carthage could s t i l l advance the argument th a t the Romans should come to the a i d of t h e i r a m i c i . See Walbank Commentary I . 168 - 172, 335; Cas s o l a Gruppi 245 - 2 5 8 ; Dahlheim D e d i t i o und s o c i e t a s 153 n. 4. 22.9 a P o l y a r a t o et Dinone, c i v i b u s n o s t r i s : These p o l i t i c i a n s were supporters of an a l l i a n c e w i t h Perseus. In 170 they succeeded i n making arrangements w i t h Perseus f o r the r e t u r n of p r i s o n e r s ( P o l . 27.14); they spoke i n favour of 84 Perseus and Gentius when these kings sent a j o i n t embassy to Rhodes i n 169 (Po l . 29 .11) , but f a i l e d to obta in an a l l i a n c e between Rhodes and Macedonia (Po l . 30 .7 .9-10) , despi te the assurance that Metrodoros , the leader of th i s embassy, had rece ived from Polyaratos ( P o l . 29 .3 -4; L . 44 .23) . When the death penalty was decreed by the Rhodian boule against the leaders of the pro-Macedonian party a f ter the a r r i v a l of the l e g a t i P o p i l l i u s and Decius , Polyaratos f l e d to A l e x a n d r i a , where P o p i l l i u s l a t e r demanded that the Ptolemies send him to Rome. Instead, they put him on board a ship bound for Rhodes, but Polyaratos was eventual ly se ized a f t e r s evera l attempts to escape (cf . P o l . 30 .9 ) . See Lenschau RE X X I . 2 (1952) c o l s . 1438 - 1439. 22.11 Rhodian nava l a s s i s t a n c e : For the naval ass i s tance given by Rhodes i n the Second and T h i r d Macedonian Wars and i n the war against Antiochus I I I , see Schmitt Rom und Rhodos 59 - 92, 137 - 142. The Rhodian f l e e t was defeated o f f the i s l a n d of Samos by the f l e e t of Antiochus under Polyxehidas i n 190 (L . 37.10-11) . Later that year , a Rhodian f l e e t of 32 quadriremes and 4 tr iremes defeated the f l e e t of Antiochus o f f S ide i n Pamphylia . At the b a t t l e of Myonessos the Rhodian cont ingent , which accounted for 22 of the 80 ships on the Roman s i d e , played an important part i n the defeat of Polyxenidas , who l o s t 42 of h i s 89 ships (L. 37.22.2 -24.13, 37.27-30) . C . L i v i u s S a l i n a t o r (29) was praetor i n command of the f l e e t i n 191, L . Aemi l ius R e g i l l u s (127) i n 190. 23.5 nos p r i n c i p i o b e l l i mis i s se ad vos legatos: Because Eumenes, i n h i s speech u r g i n g the senate to dec lare war on Perseus, accused the Rhodians of s i d i n g with Macedonia, the Rhodians sent a de legat ion i n 172 to c l e a r themselves of s u s p i c i o n and to at tack Perseus (L . 42.14.5-10; c f . 42 .45 .6 ) . L i v y ' s a n n a l i s t i c source (cf . L . 42.26.8-9) reported the presence of a Rhodian embassy l a t e r i n t h i s year to counter the repor t of the s e n a t o r i a l l e g a t i T i . C laudius Nero and M. Decimius that the Rhodians were sympathetic to Perseus (see Broughton Magis trates I . 412, 415 n . 4 ) . According to Appian Mak. 11.2, the Rhodian fleet had carried to Macedonia the bridal possessions of Laodike, the wife of Perseus and the daughter of Seleukos IV. The Rhodian TrpoTflVl^  Hagesilikhos subsequently persuaded the boule to give full naval support to Rome (Pol. 27.3; L. 42.45), but in 171 the token squadron of 5 quadriremes sent to Chalcis was dismissed by C. Lucretius Gallus, praetor in command of the fleet (Pol. 27.7; L. 42.56.6-7; cf. L. 45.23.6). These examples suggest that the accusations made against Rhodes had some basis in fact. 23.11 legatos eodem tempore...de pace misimus; In 168. Decision to send embassies: Pol. 29.10. Embassy to Rome: Pol. 29.19; L. 45.3.3-8. Embassy to Paullus and Perseus: L. 44.35.4-6. 23.12 C. Popilius legatus Romanus: On Popillius see L. 45.12.1-6; for the theme of Rhodian arrogance, see Appendix II. 23.15 Atheniensium populum fama est...ingredientem; On this description of the character of the Athenians and the Spartans, cf. Thuc. 1.70-71. 23.16 et nostrorum tumidiorem sermonem esse: On the Asianic style in Greek oratory and literature see Norden Die Antike Kunstprosa 126 ff.; Kennedy The Art of Persuasion in Greece 301 - 303; von Willamowitz-Moellendorff Hermes 35 (1900) 1-52. cf. Quintilian Inst. Orat. 12.i0.16: Et antiqua  quidem i l ia divisio inter Atticos atque Asianos fuit, cum hi  pressi et integri, contra inflati i l l i et inanes haberentur.... The Rhodians were acquitted of Asianism by Cicero (Orator 8.25) and were described as the exponents of a middle style by certain unnamed critics mentioned by Quintilian (Inst. Orat. 12.10.18). 23.17 Earlier Rhodian embassy: See L. 45.3.3-8. 24.2 voluntatis nostrae tacitae; The Rhodians argued that because they had committed no overt act of opposition to Rome, the senate had no grounds for seeking the declaration of war. The group within the senate which desired war (see on 25.2) regarded the very intention of the 86 pro-Macedonian party to make an alliance with Perseus sufficient justification for war, while Cato the Censor insisted that the mere intention to commit a hostile act did not constitute a punishable offense according to Fetial Law (cf. Malcovati ORF2 no. 8 frs. 164 - 168). Cato also pointed to the example of legal codes, which did not consider punishable the intention to commit a crime. Most of the pro-Macedonian politicians probably desired a balance of power rather than an outright victory for Perseus (cf. Pol. 30.6.5-8), a point recognized by Cato (fr. 164), but the majority of senators do not seem to have been strongly influenced by such considerations. The senate as a whole felt that the Rhodian attempt to mediate was a hostile act. 24.6 Punishment of the pro-Macedonian politicians: For the death sentence decreed by Rhodes against these politicians in 168, see L. 45.10.13-14. For the escape and capture of Polyaratos, see on 22.9. 24.12 corpora nostra...vestrae potestati permittemus: The Rhodians would perform an act of deditio (see on 1.9) i f the Romans were to declare war upon them. 25.2 Plurimum...M. Porcius Cato: For the probable involvement of Q. Marcius Philippus in these affairs see Appendix I and on 16.3. It was perhaps largely the same group within the senate who wished to interfere with the Attalid dynasty and to declare war on Rhodes (see on 19.2). Since Paullus was s t i l l in Macedonia, the leading promoters of a war against Rhodes were probably P. Licinius Crassus, A. Hostilius Mancinus and Q. Marcius Philippus, the predecessors, of Aemilius Paullus, who had held command in Macedonia (see Briscoe JRS 54 (1964) 66 - 77 and Historia 18 (1969) 60 - 63). Since the two consuls of 167 were political associates of the Aemilian-Scipionic group (see on 16.1), Iuventius introduced the b i l l without the permission or even the knowledge of the consuls (L. 45.21.4-5). For general works on Cato the Censor (M. Porcius Cato Censorinus (*10/9) see Helm RE XXII. 1 (1953) cols. 108 - 165; Kienast Cato der Zensor. 8 7 The Origines of Cato was a history of Rome in seven books, covering the period from Aeneas to the trial of Ser. Sulpicius Galba in 149, the year of Cato's death. The speech Pro  Rhodiensibus appeared in the fifth book (cf. Malcovati ORF no. 8 frs. 163 - 171). Several other speeches of Cato appeared in the Origines (see Helm RE XXII. 1 (1953) cols. 162 - 163). On the Origines see Schanz-Hosius Gesch. ROm. Lit. I. 186 - 189. For Cato's policy regarding the Rhodians see Schmitt Rom und  Rhodos 153 - 155; De Sanctis Storia IV. I2. 344 - 346. 25.4 Philocrates et Astymedes: The third member of this embassy was Philophron. All three envoys were pro-Roman politicians. Philophron had gone as an envoy to the Roman commission for the settlement of Asia in 189 to ask for Lycia and Caria (Pol. 22.5); he supported the sending of embassies to Rome and to Marcius Philippus in 169 (Pol. 28.16.3). Astymedes supported the sending of ships to Chalcis at the request of C. Lucretius Gallus, praetor in command of the fleet in 171 (Pol. 17.7.1-3). The speech of Astymedes before the senate in 167 was criticized by Polybius (30.4.10-17) for its attack on the other Greek states. As \J (K\J(K^y{o5 of Rhodes in 154/3, Astymedes came to Rome to seek aid in the war against the Cretan pirates (Pol. 33.15-17). He was possibly the son of Theaidetos (see on 25.7). 25.6 In praesentia...praefectos: According to Pol. 30.5.11-12, the senatus consultum liberating Lycia and Caria was not issued until the return of Theaidetos (see on 25.7) to Rhodes and the outbreak of revolt in the Rhodian Peraea. Livy, however, inserted an order for the evacuation of these territories in the answer given by the senate to the Rhodian envoys. This insertion came possibly from the account of Valerius Antias (see pp. 13 - 14 above). Nissen's view (Krit. Untersuch. 275 - 276) that Livy merely anticipated the mention of this senatus consultum in the text of Polybius, which he otherwise followed closely, is unacceptable. Whereas in Polybius the senatus consultum came upon the Rhodians almost completely by surprise and caused them to despair of achieving an a l l i a n c e , i n L i v y the Rhodians knew of the senatus consultum and d e l i b e r a t e l y opposed Roman p o l i c y . Perhaps the a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n sought to conceal the o p p o r t u n i s t i c methods of the senate i n or d e r i n g the l i b e r a t i o n of L y c i a and C a r i a only a f t e r r e b e l l i o n had broken out i n these t e r r i t o r i e s , or perhaps L i v y h i m s e l f made the adjustment (a l s o see on 20.2). I f the senate had been c o n s i d e r i n g the l i b e r a t i o n of L y c i a and C a r i a at the time of the Rhodian embassy, the knowledge of the poor r e l a t i o n s between Rome and Rhodes may have prompted the r e v o l t s i n the Peraea. On L i v y ' s phrase deducere p r a e s i d i a , note t h a t i n other p l a c e s L i v y t r a n s l a t e d e A e u •fltfoOv' i n P o l y b i u s as deducere p r a e s i d i a ( c f . P o l . 21.14.8 and L. 37.35.9-10). L a t e r i n 167 the senate passed a decree o r d e r i n g the evacuation of Kaunos and S t r a t o n i k e i a ( P o l . 30.21.3), two c i t i e s i n the Rhodian Peraea which had not been assigned to Rhodes by the Romans ( c f . P o l . 30.31.5-6). .7 coronam v i g i n t i milium aureorum: The reading of the MS. i s CORONAM.XX.MILIB.AUREORUM; t h i s was co r r e c t e d by Gruter to coronam v i g i n t i m i l ium aureorum. The reading of P o l . 30.5.4 i s & rro uupi'cov'^oucrcov'(see Buettner-Wobst IV. 278). For the f i g u r e 20,000 see L. 44.14.3, where the Pamphylian envoys present a golden crown of 20,000 p h i l i p s ( <¥*-A ^  rrrT6 c o L o-ro<Tr|pf$) . For the f i g u r e 10,000 see P o l . 32.1.1, where the envoys of A r i a r a t h e s of Cappadocia b r i n g a <r Te<pc(vo\/... The Rhodian gold p i e c e was the gold s t a t e r on the A t t i c standard w i t h a weight of two drachmas. Since the r a t i o of gold to s i l v e r i n 189 had been approximately 10:1 (see P o l . 21.32 .8) , the s t a t e r would have been worth 20 drachmas, and.a golden crown of 20,000 s t a t e r s would have been worth 400,000 drachmas ( 66 t a l e n t s 4000 drachmas). The weight of such a crown would have been 40,000 drachmas. I f we allow the conversion r a t e s 1 denarius = 1 drachma and 1000 d e n a r i i ^ 1 Roman pound, the crown would have weighed 89 40 Roman pounds. See Lenormant, Daremberg-Saglio IV. 1464 - 1468; Head Historia Nummorum 637 - 640; Frank ESAR I. 75 - 76. 25.7 Theodotum, praefectum classis; The reading of the MS. is THEODOTUM. For another occurrence of this name in Livy see 45.26.5. The name Theaedetus (or Theaetetus) does not occur in the extant work of Livy. The name of this man in the Constantinian excerpts of Polybius is 0e0uT-r|To5 , corrected by Ullrich to © 6 « I 6 T ] T O ^ (see Buettner-Wobst IV. 278; also cf. Pol. 22.5.2). For an example of the name Geo6oTO/ i n Polybius see 18.10.10. The name ©ea-^TTjT O ^ was common in classical and Hellenistic times (see RE V. A. 2 (1934) 1351 - 1373). The more common form of this name on the island of Rhodes, especially at Lindos, was Oe^OTj-ro* (see IG XII. 1 (1895) hos. 163, 1135 and Index I). In 189 Theaidetos was one of the envoys to the Roman commission for the settlement of Asia who asked for Lycia and Caria (Pol. 22.5). As a pro-Roman politician (cf. Pol. 27.14, 28.2.3, 28.16.3, 29.11.2), he was one of those who advised the Rhodians to send an embassy to Rome in 169; he opposed Deinon and Polyaratos when the envoys of Perseus and Gentius came to Rhodes (Pol. 29.11). He died in 167/6 while seeking an alliance between Rome and Rhodes (Pol. 30.21). He was perhaps the father of Astymedes, one of the leaders of the Rhodian embassy of 167 (see IG XII. 1 (1895) nos. 852, 856 with Schmitt Rom und Rhodos 152 n. 4). 25.9 Nam ita per tot annos: cf. Pol. 30.5.6: is tf^ov eTj T£TT<*p K O V T « T ^ O S Tots ei^ToV # Livy's omission of the numeral 140 may reflect his decision to reject the text of Polybius in view of the development of significant co-operation between Rome and Rhodes only at about the time of the Second Macedonian War. On the problem with the text of Polybius here see Schmitt Rom und Rhodos 11 - 15. Another city which had assisted Rome as an amicus and was later granted a foedus was Elaia (or Pergamon) in 129 (cf. SIG3 649, lines 1-32). On the treaty made between Rome and Rhodes 90 i n 165/4 see Schmitt Rom und Rhodos 167 - 172. 25.11 The Rhodian Peraea: On the Rhodian Peraea, see Fraser-Bean Rhodian Peraea 70 - 78, 102 - 117; Schmitt Rom und Rhodos 93 - 128. 25.11 C a u n i i : Kaunos, i n southern C a r i a , was g iven to the Rhodians, probably by the Se l euc id k ing Antiochus I and the crown p r i n c e Seleukos. At some l a t e r time i t was l o s t , probably to P h i l i p V, who conducted a C a r i a n campaign i n 201 - 198, but i t was recaptured i n 197. See Fraser -Bean Rhodian Peraea 102 - 105. 25.11 Mylassenses: Mylasa , i n northern C a r i a , had been excluded from the grant of 188. See P o l . 21 .46 .4 with Fraser-Bean Rhodian Peraea 107 - 108. 25.11 Euromensium oppida: The t e r r i t o r y of Euromos was named a f t e r i t s c h i e f cen tre . The t e r r i t o r i e s of Euromos and Mylasa were adjacent . See Fraser-Bean Rhodian Peraea 109 - 110. 25.13 Cibyratarum asc iverant a u x i l i a : K i b y r a , i n south-eastern C a r i a , had a foedus with Rome which dates from some time a f t e r 189 (c f . OGIS 762). 25.13 A l a b a n d e n s i s q u e . . . a c i e v i c e r u n t : Alabanda i n northern C a r i a had p o s s i b l y been excluded from the grant of 188. See Magie Roman Rule I I . 994 - 995. 25.13 c i r c a Orthosiam: O r t h o s i a , "somewhere i n the Euromus". See Fraser-Bean Rhodian Peraea 110. 26.1 L . A n i c i u s rege G e n t i o . . . r e d a c t o ; For the capture of Gent ius , see L . 44.30.1 - 32 .5 . L . A n i c i u s G a l l u s (15), o r i g i n a l l y praetor peregrinus i n 168, was t r a n s f e r r e d to the command of Roman forces i n I l l y r i c u m against Gent ius ; h i s imperium was prorogued i n 167. He became consul i n 160 with M. Corne l iu s Cethegus (93). A n i c i u s may have been an assoc ia te of the A e m i l i a n - S c i p i o n i c group, s ince a C n . A n i c i u s (3) appears as a legatus of Pau l lus i n Macedonia i n 168 (cf . L . 44 .46 .3 ) . 26.2 S c o d r a e . . . C . L i c i n i u m : Gabinius (2) belonged to a family which had only r e c e n t l y a t ta ined Roman citizenship. For Licinius see on 3.1. Scodra (modern Scutari), the capital of Gentius and the centre of resistance, is at the south-eastern end of Lake Labeates. Rhizon (modern Risano) is the chief port on the Bocche di Cattaro (see Oberhummer RE I. A. 1 (1914) cols. 937 - 939). Olcinium (modern Ulcinj or Dulcigno) is a port on the southern coast of Montenegro in Jugoslavia near the Albanian border (see Saria RE IX. A. 1 (1961) cols. 507 - 508). Rhizon and Olcinium were two of the Illyrian towns which had gone over to the Romans before the defeat of Gentius (L. 45.26.13). . 3 in Epirum; For bibliography and general discussions see Scullard JRS 35 (1945) 58 - 64; Oost Roman Policy 40 - 91; Hammond Epirus 621 - 635; Deininger Pol. Widerstand 173 - 175, 202 - 204, 209 - 211. From about 232 the Epirote tribes formed a federation whose capital was Phoinike in Chaonia. The Molossian tribe broke away from the Epirote Federation in 170 in order to support Perseus (see on 26.5), but the rest of the Epirotes remained faithful to the amicitia which had been established between Rome and the Epirote Federation some time after the battle of Kynoskephalai. Before the formation of the federation in about 232, the Molossi had been the leading tribe of the Epirote Alliance, their kings acting as the military leaders of the alliance. The federation was established soon after the downfall of the Molossian monarchy. 5 Antinous et Theodotus: These politicians belonged to a group of Molossians who led their tribe to side with Perseus against Rome. Other members of this group included Kephalos and Philostratos. According to Pol. 27.15, they had hoped that Rome and Macedonia would not go to war, so that neither power would become predominant in Greece. When war broke out, however, this group had preferred to honour the amicitia with Rome (see Oost Roman Policy 55 - 56), but Kharops, whose grandfather of the same name had aided the Romans in the Second Macedonian War, repeatedly denounced them to the Romans for their earlier relations with the royal house of Macedonia, until they were driven to support Perseus 92 openly (Pol. 27.15). Scullard (JRS 35 (1945) 58 - 62) suggests that Kharops belonged to the Chaonian tribal group, whose territory was close to, or lay partly within, the Roman protectorate, and who tended to favour the Romans in opposition to their traditional rivals, the Molossians. As a boy Kharops had been sent to Rome by his grandfather to learn Latin. While in Rome he made many acquaintances, among them, perhaps, the more violent and unscrupulous members of the obscure families which were now coming into political prominence. In 167 Kharops denounced his political opponents to the Romans as supporters of Perseus (see on 31.9). Until his death in 161/0 Kharops continued to persecute his opponents (cf. Pol. 32.5-6). See Buettner-Wobst RE Suppl. I (1903) col. 285. In spring 170 Theodotos and Philostratos invited Perseus to enter Epirus and seize the consul Mancinus as he passed on his way to Boiotia, but the king was prevented from crossing the Aous by the Molossian guard, and Mancinus took ship for Thessaly (Pol. 27.16). Soon after this the Molossians broke away.from the Epirote Federation in support of Perseus. Polybius (30.7.2-3) named Antinous, Theodotos and Kephalos responsible for the alliance between Perseus and the Molossians. See Murizer RE V. A. 2 (1934) cols. 1955 - 1956. Antinous is to be identified with the Antinous Klathiatos who had been general of the Epirote Federation (SGDI 1339), Kephalos with the Kephalos Peialos who had been t r p ocr T<*1"'} 5 of the Molossian K O W O \ I (SGDI 1352). See Schoch JRE Suppl. IV (1924) cols. 878 - 879. Philostratos appears in L. 43.23 as the commander of 500 Epirote (i.e., Molossian) troops under the Macedonian officer Kleuas in 169. 26.10 pertinacia Cephali principis; For Kephalos see on 26.5. 26.11 Arrangements for Illyricum; For bibliography see on 17.1. Livy 45.26.11-15 is our only source for these arrangements. 26.12 Illyrios esse liberos...deducturum; On libertas associated with freedom from garrisons see Badian Foreign Clientelae 87 - 89 and see on 18.1. 93 2 6 . 1 3 Nort solum l i b e r o s . . . de f ec i s s en t : The Romans no longer automat ica l ly assoc iated immunitas with l i b e r t a s : see on 1 8 . 7 . See De Sanct i s S t o r i a IV. I 2 . 3 3 2 - 3 3 3 for the emendation of the MS. reading ESSENES to L i s s e n s e s . De Sanct is r e j e c t e d the emendation Issenses, made i n the e d i t i o p r i n c e p s , on the grounds that Issa was not par t of the I l l y r i a n kingdom at t h i s time and had i n f a c t been under Roman p r o t e c t i o n s ince 2 2 9 (c f . P o l . 2 . 1 1 . 1 2 wi th F l u s s RE Suppl . V ( 1 9 3 1 ) c o l s . 3 4 8 - 3 4 9 ) . 2 6 . 1 4 r e l i c t o Caravant io : Caravant ius , the h a l f - b r o t h e r of Gent ius . He commanded forces against the I l l y r i a n towns of Durnium and Caravandis ; he was captured at Meteon, a c i t y of the Labeatae, along wi th the r e s t of G e n t i u s 1 immediate fami ly , and was sent to Rome to be paraded i n the triumph of A n i c i u s (L . 4 4 . 3 0 . 9 , 4 4 . 3 2 . 3 , 4 5 . 4 3 . 6 ) . 2 6 . 1 4 v e c t i g a l . . . [ i m p o s i t u m ] ; The word impositum, omitted by the M S . , was added by Heraeus (see Giarratano 3 3 2 ) . For the tr ibutum imposed upon Macedonia see on 1 8 . 7 . 2 6 . 1 5 i n t res p a r t e s : The second I l l y r i a n reg ion was the area around Scodra and Lake Labeates; the t h i r d reg ion was the c o a s t a l area from the Bocche d i Cat taro perhaps as f ar as the r i v e r Naro to the n o r t h . The f i r s t reg ion was p o s s i b l y southern I l l y r i a below L i s s o s and the t e r r i t o r y of the T a u l a n t i i , the D a s s a r e t i and the P i r u s t a e (see Papazoglou H i s t o r i a 14 ( 1 9 6 5 ) 1 7 6 ; De S a n c t i s S t o r i a IV . I 2 . 3 3 2 - 3 3 3 ; see on 2 6 . 2 ) . The M S . , i n the d e f i n i t i o n of the f i r s t r e g i o n , reads UNAMEAMFECITQ / SUPRADICTAMEST. Madvig emended DICTAM to Issam, Z i p p e l i u s to Dyrrhachium, Mftller ( C l a u d i i Ptolemaei Geographia. v o l . I , Par t 1 . p . 3 0 8 ) to Pistam or Pis tum, a town placed between L i s s o s and Dyrrhachium by the Peut inger T a b l e . 2 7 . 1 ante adventum decern legatorum: They were sent at the beginning of the new consular year (L . 4 5 . 1 7 . 1 ) . 2 7 . 1 Q. Maximum f i l i u m : See on 1 . 1 . In 167 Fabius seems to have acted as a legatus under Aemil ius Pau l lus i n Macedonia. 94 2 7.1 ad Aeginium et Agassas diripiendas: Aiginion in Tymphaia, a part of Epirus, identified by Hammond (Epirus 680 - 682) as Nea Koutsoufliani. The people of Aiginion had killed 200 of Anicius' soldiers in a sally from the town before they were aware that the war had ended (cf. L. 44.46.3). Agassai (near the modern Katerini) was on the river Mitys in Pieria (in Macedonia). In 169 the consul Marcius Philippus accepted the deditio of Agassai (L. 44.7.4-5). 27.4 ad Aeniorum quoque urbem; Aineia, in Krousa of the Chalcidic peninsula. . In 169 the consul Marcius Philippus had ravaged its territory (L. 44.10.7-8). 27.4 L. Postumium: L. Postumius Albinus (*29/41). Postumius (*29/41) had been consul in 173; in 168 he served as tribunus militurn or legatus under Aemilius Paullus in Macedonia (L. 44.41.2). For the Postumii, see on 4.7. 2 7.5 ad circumeundam Graeciam...noscuntur: The itinerary of Aemilius Paullus, along with the notes on the sites and monuments, suggests that tourism was common in Greece in the second century. The most famous travel guide from antiquity is that of Pausanias, written in the latter half of the second century A. D. An earlier writer (ca. 164 - 86 B. C . ) was Pseudo-Dikaiarkhos (cf. Mtiller FHG II. 253 - 264), whose work consisted of general sketches rather than a detailed enumeration of places and monuments. Antiquarian works which Pausanias may have known or used were those of Diodoros, who wrote before 308 B. C . (cf. Mdller FHG II. 353 - 359), Heliodoros, who wrote about 200 B. C. (cf. Mu"ller FHG IV. 425 - 426), and Polemon of Ilion, who wrote about the same time as Heliodoros (cf. MUller FHG III. 108 - 148). The geographical works of Strabo (mid-first c. A. D.) and Ptolemy (mid-second c. A. D.) also contain information on legends, history and monuments which reflects an interest in travel. See Frazer Pausanias' Description of Greece I. lxxvi - xcvi; Lecrivain, Daremberg-Saglio V. 817 - 820; Regenbogen RE Suppl. VIII (1956) cols. 1058 - 1066. 95 On travel in the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman periods see Sneider Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus II. 206 - 207; FriedlHnder Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire I. 323 - 394. After the announcement of Greek liberty at the Isthmian festival in 196, Flamininus visited Euboia and Magnesia to remove the Macedonian garrisons and to see to the arrangement of the constitutions of the cities in those districts. He then toured among the various Greek cities in order to assure the restoration of peaceful conditions and political stability (Plut. Flamininus 12.2-3). He conducted the Nemean Festival at Argos as ot^ coVotf e-TTjs ; he dedicated a golden wreath, his own shield and some silver bucklers, probably Macedonian spoils, at Delphi. In the spring of 194 Flamininus returned to Corinth to proclaim the imminent evacuation of Greece by the Romans and the withdrawal of Roman garrisons from Corinth, Chalcis and Demetrias as well as from the other Greek cities (L. 34.48.2 - 51.6). 27.6 Praeposito castris C. Sulpicio Gallo: C. Sulpicius Galus (66) had served under Aemilius Paullus in the campaign against the Ligurians in 182 - 181, probably as tribunus militum; he was praetor in 169. As tribunus militum under Paullus in 168 he predicted the lunar eclipse which occurred on the evening before the battle of Pydna; in 167 he continued to serve under Paullus, and held the consulship in 166. Although the Sulpicii were, generally speaking, political associates of the Claudian-Fulvian group (see Scullard Rom. Pol. 135), Sulpicius (66), as tribunus militum under Paullus in 168, seems to have been associated with the Aemilian-Scipionic group (cf. L. 44.21.1-3); we are told by Cicero (De Re Pub. 1.23; De Senectute 49) that Sulpicius (66) was a close friend of Paullus. 27.6 tegentibus latera...fratre: P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Aemilianus (335) had been adopted into the family of the Cornelii Scipiones (see on 1.1). Scipio Aemilianus was consul in 147 during the Third Punic War, during which he destroyed Carthage as proconsul in 146. He was again consul in 134 during the Spanish War and destroyed Numantia as 96 proconsul in 133. Athenaios was the youngest son of Attalos I of Pergamon. He participated in the campaign of Cn. Manlius Vulso against the Galatians in 189 (L. 38.12.8-10) and came to Rome in 183 to bring complaints against Philip V (Pol. 23.1, L. 39.46.9). In 171 he was present with Eumenes and Attalos in command of the Pergamene fleet (L. 42.55.7) and was present at the battle of Pydna (see Meritt Hesperia 3 (1934) no. 18, pp. 18 - 21 and Hesperia 5 (1936) no. 17, pp. 429 - 430). For the expression tegentibus latera see L. 40.13.3: duo soli  tua tegentes latera (said of Perseus and Demetrios accompanying their father, Philip V of Macedonia). 27.7 columnas: cf. Pol. 30.10.2. The tetragonal pillar ( Kt'ovet |A(?\av r&rp« 1 «vov C K i^T^ cov/ Xtvj K W V c-uvT|p^oa-^fV0V) mentioned by Plutarch (Aem. 28.2) is probably to be identified with the monument of Aemilius Paullus found in the precinct of the temple of Apollo at Delphi near the south-east corner of the pronaos. The pillar and pedestal of this monument, which seems to have been surmounted by an equestrian statue of Paullus, are covered by 38 Greek inscriptions of later date. The reference to Paullus as imperator in the dedication (cf. CIL I 2 (1893) 622, CIL III Suppl. (1902) 1420322: L. Aimilius L. F. Inperator de rege Perse / Macedonibusque cepet) indicates that the monument was set up between the battle of Pydna ( Julian 22 June 168) and the triumph of Paullus in Rome (about Julian 12 October 167). For these dates see on 1.11 and 40.1. The frieze around the top of the pillar depicted scenes from the battle of Pydna. While Plutarch described only one monument, Polybius and Livy mention the existence of several columns. There appear to have been at least two dedications by Paullus in the precinct of the temple, since a second monument ("le monument a. rosettes"), similar to the first and covered by two inscriptions, was found near the first one. Pillars were also dedicated before the temple of Apollo in honour of Eumenes II (cf. SIG3 628, 630) and Prusias II (cf. SIG3 632). 9 7 O n t h e m o n u m e n t o f A e m i l i u s P a u l l u s s e e R e i n a c h B u l l e t i n d e C o r r e s p o n d a n c e H e l l - e n i q u e 3 4 ( 1 9 1 0 ) 4 3 3 - 4 6 8 ; C o u r b y " L a T e r a s s e d u T e m p l e " ( " L e S a n c t u a i r e d ' A p o l l o n " ) , F o u i l l e s d e  D e l p h e s I I . F a s c . 2 ; C o l i n " M o n u m e n t s d e s M e s s e n i e n s , d e P a u l -E m i l e e t d e P r u s i a s " , F o u i l l e s d e D e l p h e s I I I . F a s c . 4 , P a r t 1 ; R o s t o v t z e f f S E H 7 4 0 ; K M h l e r D e r F r i e s v o m R e i t e r d e n k m a l d e s A e m i l i u s P a u l l u s i n D e l p h i . 2 8 . 2 u r b s . . . a n t e e x c i d i u m ; C o r i n t h w a s d e s t r o y e d b y L . M u m m i u s i n 1 4 6 . S o m e s c h o l a r s h a v e t h o u g h t t h a t t h e f i r s t t h i r t y b o o k s o f P o l y b i u s w e r e c o m p l e t e d b e f o r e t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f C a r t h a g e i n t h e s a m e y e a r , b u t t h e r e i s n o c e r t a i n p r o o f t h a t P o l y b i u s h a d w r i t t e n b e y o n d B o o k 1 5 b y t h a t t i m e ( s e e Z i e g l e r R E X X I . 2 ( 1 9 5 2 ) c o l s . 1 4 8 5 - 1 4 8 9 ; W a l b a n k P o l y b i u s 1 6 - 1 9 ; D e S a n c t i s S t o r i a I I I 2 . 1 . 1 9 8 - 2 0 1 ) . I t a l s o a p p e a r s l i k e l y t h a t P o l y b i u s r e v i s e d h i s w o r k a f t e r 1 4 6 ( s e e P e d e c h M e t h . H i s t . 5 6 3 - 5 7 3 ) . T h u s , L i v y ' s c o m m e n t o n t h e g r e a t n e s s o f C o r i n t h b e f o r e i t s d e s t r u c t i o n m a y h a v e b e e n d e r i v e d f r o m P o l y b i u s . O n t h e d e s o l a t i o n o f t h e a r e a a r o u n d C o r i n t h i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e f i r s t c e n t u r y B . C . s e e t h e l e t t e r o f S e r . S u l p i c i u s R u f u s t o C i c e r o ( A d . F a m . 4 . 5 w i t h H o w S e l e c t L e t t e r s I I . 4 3 0 ) . 2 8 . 3 A e s c u l a p i n o b i l i t e m p l o . . . d i v e s e r a t ; c f . t h e c o m m e n t o f S t r a b o ( 8 . 6 . 1 5 ) o n t h e t e m p l e o f A s k l e p i o s a t E p i d a u r o s : K c U <*uT"n o ' o O K t x c r 7 | | a o ? i\ r r o ' V S j l < ° W M oCA v T « X o l < X r\v g i n < ? < ( > ; e u x v T O O V*<TKA I | m o o i ? e p c c r r e u ' e i * V O W J S r r « v r o o c i r r « ? r r ^ r r i o - r ^ e V o U . K t f t T O tefov i r X f y e * £ A O V T O $ Ul T < O V TC- K « p v o V u v v c < u TCUV * v / o i K e - i ^ t r v c o v r r t \ / o f K O J V . . . . N o m e n t i o n w a s m a d e b y S t r a b o o f d o n a t i v e o f f e r i n g s b e i n g r e m o v e d . P e r h a p s L i v y r e f e r r e d t o t h e p l u n d e r o f t h e t e m p l e t r e a s u r e s b y S u l l a i n 8 7 ( c f . P a u s . 9 . 7 . 4 ) , i n w h i c h t h e c a s e h i s c o m m e n t o n t h e s p e n d o u r o f t h e g i f t s w h i c h w e r e s t o l e n m a y h a v e b e e n d e r i v e d f r o m o n e o f h i s l a t e a n n a l i s t i c s o u r c e s , o r p e r h a p s i t r e p r e s e n t s a n a d d i t i o n b y L i v y h i m s e l f . W e d o n o t h a v e a n y e x p l i c i t r e f e r e n c e t o a n e a r l i e r p l u n d e r o f t h e t e m p l e , b u t s u c h a t h e f t c o u l d h a v e o c c u r r e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e d e s t r u c t i o n a n d s a c k o f C o r i n t h b y M u m m i u s , w h o d i d v i s i t E p i d a u r o s a t t h a t t i m e (cf. IG IV2 1 (1929) no. 306 D). In this case, Livy's comment can have been derived from Polybius. 28.6 Ita peragrata Graecia...inquireret: According to Polybius, Paullus did not approve the policy of . arresting the anti-Roman politicians in the Greek states, but carried out the policy of the senate. He did not approve of the accusations brought forward by Kallikrates of Achaea and Lykiskos of Aetolia (Pol. 30.13.8-11). 28.6 Demetriadem: Demetrias in Thessaly in the Magnesian peninsula. The walls of this city were destroyed as part of the punishment of Macedonia after the war (Diod. 31.8.6). 28.6 Violence in Aetolia: See Will Histoire II. 325 - 326; Deininger Pol. Widerstand 168 -28.7 ab Lycisco et Tisippo: These men were pro-Roman politicians of Aetolia. Lykiskos attacked his opponents by accusing them of opposing Rome (Pol. 27.15.14, 28.4.5-10). He was <JTf a T ^ 0 5 of the Aetolian League in 172/1 (L. 42.38.2). He and Tisippos became very powerful after the defeat of Perseus; they headed an embassy to Paullus in 167 to congratulate him for the victory over Perseus and to denounce their opponents (Pol. 30.13). Polybius accused Lykiskos of being responsible for most of the trouble in Aetolia (Pol. 32.4). See Obst RE XIII. 2 (1927) col. 2295. Polybius was generally hostile to the Aetolians (see Brandstaeter Die Geschichten des Htolischen Landes, Volkes und Bundes 199 ff.; Fine AJP 61 (1940) 129 - 165; Walbank Commentary I. 237), but he was no more critical of Lykiskos and Tisippos than he was of other opportunists in the guise of pro-Roman politicians (e.g., Kharops of Epirus: see on 26.5). For earlier trouble in Aetolia see L. 41.25.1-6. On the anti-Roman group in Aetolia see Deininger Pol. Widerstand 146 - 152, 168 - 172. 28.7 [ab] A. Baebio [praefectro] praesidii; The reading of the MS. is ABAEBIOPRAESIDI. This was corrected 99 by Kreyssig to [ab] A. Baebio [praefecto] praesidii (see Giarratano 335). A. Baebius (8) commanded the garrison left by Aemilius Paullus in Demetrias. He was later condemned for having provided Roman troops to carry out the slaughter of Aetolians accused of anti-Roman activity (cf. L. 45.31.1-2). On the Baebii see on 17.4. For similar Roman intervention in the affairs of a foreign state, see the case of Saguntum about 223 - 222 (Pol. 3.14.7, 3.30.1-2). 28.8 Apolloniam; Apollonia Mygdonia in the Chalcidic peninsula, near the shore of Lake Bolbe. See Strabo 7.21. 28.9 Perseus; He was being held under guard, first by Q. Aelius Tubero in 168 (L. 45.8.8), then by C. Sulpicius Galus, who had been placed in charge of the- winter camp of Amphipolis in 167 (L. 45.27.6). The rebuke to Sulpicius Galus may have prompted the opposition to the triumph of Paullus led by Ser. Sulpicius Galba. See on 35.8. 28.11 The family of Perseus: See on 6.9. 28.11 A. Postumio; A. Postumius Albinus (*33/31) was probably the ambassador to Perseus in Samothrace in 168 (see on 4.7). 29.1 A r r a n g e m e n t s for Macedonia: For general bibliography see on 17.1. 29.1 denos principes: The Romans on several occasions summoned ten representatives from conquered, subject or allied states to hear their decisions: cf. the twelve Roman colonies that refused to send military contingents in 209 (L. 29.15.5) and the Epirotes in 167 (L. 45.34.2). 29.1 pecuniam regiam: Over 6000 talents according to Pol. 18.35.4. 29.3 Silentio...referebat: Aemilius Paullus spoke Greek (cf. L. 45.8.6) but chose to read in 100 Latin the arrangements for Macedonia, which were then translated into Greek by Cn. Octavius. Paullus seems to have staged an impressive spectacle of Roman ceremony in order to awe the conquered Macedonians. The proclamation of Flamininus at the Isthmian festival of 196, when the Romans posed as the champions of Greek freedom, was read in Greek by the Corinthian herald (Pol. 18.46.4). 29.4 Omnium primum...magistratus: For the meaning of libertas see on 18.1. For the guarantees of Macedonian possession of the cities and territories which had belonged to the Macedonian kingdom, also see the treaty between Rome and Carthage in 201 (Pol. 15.18.1-2; L. 30.37.1-2 with Walbank Commentary II. 466 - 468). A guarantee of this kind was included in the renewal of the League of Corinth under Philip III Arrhidaios and Polyperkhon in 319 (cf. Diod. 18.56.4: TT«\JT<n r« oc«Ttov crowds). For the guarantee of local autonomy see the treaty between Rome and Philip V (Pol. 18.44.2; L. 33.30.2) and the declaration of Flamininus at the Isthmus (Pol. 18.46.5; L. 33.32.5). In Greek usage the expression vofiocs ^foopevoi. To?S r r « T f t o t ' S may be traced back to the constitution of the League of Corinth, which seems to have guaranteed the continuation of local laws (cf. Dem. 17.12: Tous b'L&lovjj ujJ-<*S vo^oys |c«Jow <TL X^tiV). See Jones, Anatolian Studies 114 - 115. Contrast the treatment of Macedonia with that of the Aetolians in 189 (Pol. 21.32.2-4; L. 38.11.2-3), who lost Kephallenia and were bound to Rome by a foedus which deprived them of the right to pursue an independent foreign policy (see Badian Foreign Clientelae 84 - 87 and Appendix IV). 29.5 Deinde in quattuor regiones dividi Macedoniam; For the four jA.eptcW<>, see on 18.6. On the geography of Macedonia see Strabo Book 7, frs. 9-47; Pliny NH 8.10; Ptolemy Geogr. 3.12. 29.5-6 unam fore et primam partem...appellant: Ainos and Maroneia had resisted the attack of C. Lucretius Gallus in 171, and remained untaken until the end of the war, while Abdera seems to have fallen to L. Hortensius in 170 (cf. L. 43.4.8-13, 1 0 1 4 3 . 7 . 1 0 ; also see Meloni Perseo 2 6 0 - 2 6 1 ) . The senate had declared free (TJ \£\j-dt puoo~e\/) the towns of Ainos and Maroneia (see on 2 0 . 2 ) ; the senate refused to grant Abdera, which had probably also been declared a civitas libera, to Kotys of Thrace, who requested it in 1 6 6 (cf. SIG 6 5 6 ) . See Jones The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces 6 - 7 . The Bisaltae lived to the west of the lower Strymon, between Lakes Prasias and Kerkinitis. Herakleia Sintike was on the west bank of the Strymon above Lake Kerkinitis. See Hammond Macedonia 192 - 1 9 3 . 2 9 . 7 Secundam fore regionem...colerent: The Paeones lived between the upper Strymon and Axius rivers. By the fifth century they held the eastern side of the upper and middle Axius valley and a narrow strip of land on the west down to the sea (Thuc. 2 . 9 9 . 4 ) . See Hammond Macedonia 4 2 8 . 2 9 . 8 tertia pars...cingunt; The Peneus is the famous river in Thessaly. The third region was defined on the south by the lowest reach of the Peneus. See Hammond Macedonia 7 3 . 2 9 . 8 ad septentrionem Bora mons obicitur...concesserunt; The reading of the MS. is ABSENTENONEMBORA. This was corrected in the editio princeps to ad septentrionem Bora. The reading of the MS. at 2 9 . 9 is TRANSDORSUMMONTEM, corrected in the editio  princeps to trans Boram montem. The reading of Diod. 3 1 . 8 . 8 , which is not disputed, is D e p v o v °pc»5 in both cases. Hammond identifies Mt. Bora and Mt. Bernon with Mt. Bermion (see Ptolemy Geogr. 3 . 1 2 . 1 6 ) . The emendation of L. 4 5 . 2 9 . 9 is perhaps unnecessary in view of Livy's use of the word dorsum to mean "the ridge of a range" (e.g., L. 3 6 . 1 5 . 6 : Apennini  dorso Italia dividitur; also see 4 1 . 1 8 . 8 , 4 4 . 4 . 4 ) . Because Polybius' direction is east to west instead of north to south, he treats Mt. Bermion as a northern instead of as a western boundary marker. Thus there is no real problem with Edessa being actually north of Mt. Bermion. See Hammond Macedonia 73 - 7 4 . 2 9 . 9 Quarta regio...Epiro: From L. 4 5 . 3 0 . 6 we learn that this area was inhabited by the 102 Eordaei, Lyncestae and Pelagones, and that adjacent to these peoples were Atintania, Strymepalis and Elimiotis. Hammond (Macedonia 46) prefers to retain the MS. reading Strymepalis instead of adopting the common emendation Tymphaeis, which would denote part of Epirus (see Hammond Epirus 680 - 682). He places Strymepalis between Lyncestis and Eordia and to the west, in the basin south of Lake Prespa (Epirus 633 - 634). Atintania controlled the approach to Macedonia through the Aous valley (see Hammond Macedonia 76 - 78; Oost Roman Policy 82). 2 9.9 Capita regionum...fecit: Amphipolis, Thessalonike and Pella were to be administrative centres for the first three uep C6e$ ; p elagonia was not a city but a tribal district. Hammond (Macedonia 74 - 75) suggests that the tribal government of the Pelagones and the existing governments of the three capital cities formed the basis of the new administrations. This seems likely in the case of the fourth p.epiS , where there were no fully developed cities, but in the other it appears that a federal form of government was instituted, in which representatives from the various districts of the p-ep^ dfrj participated. See on 18.6. The governments of the individual Macedonian cities apparently continued to function. See Larsen Greek Federal States 295 - 300. Pelagonia was west of the upper and middle Axius, across from the Paeonians (see Hammond Macedonia 59 - 60). A city called Pelagonia is first clearly attested in the Synekdemos of Hierokles (ed. Parthey, no. 641.5), composed about 527 A. D. De Sanctis (Storia IV. I 2 . 329 n. 260) suggested that Pelagonia be identified with Herakleia Lynkestis. 29.10 Pronuntiavit...esse: Connubium and commercium, respectively, denoted the recognition in Roman law of marriages and commercial contracts between Roman citizens and foreigners. The prohibition of connubium and commercium was a punishment applied to the Latins and Italians (cf. L. 8.14.10, in 338 after the Latin War; 9.43.24, in 306 after the Second Samnite War), not only in their relationship with Rome but also in their relationships with other 103 Roman s o c i i . See Sherwin-White The Roman Citizenship 30 -32, 103 - 104, 107 - 108. De Sanctis (Storia IV. I 2 . 329 n. 262) suggested that the expression commercium agrorum aedificiorumque refers, not to the vali d i t y of contracts among the four u.trpif6c-5, but to the right of a person to own property in land and houses in a state of which he is not a citizen (^rjs K^ U otKi'tfS e'H, KTT)cn5) . gee Rostovtzeff SEH 204 - 205. On t<\\<rr\<r\.} i n Attica see Pecirka The Formula for the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions. A similar prohibition was imposed upon citizens of the Greek states which had opposed Rome in the Achaean War of 147 - 146 (cf. Paus. 7.16.9: K.<*1 °^ r<* X?T)r*<*'r'* &X o v 7>5 4^toAoovTO -P} OnepopCq KTcco*T?<U ). Restrictions on the right to own land had been imposed upon the Campanians after the f a l l of Capua in 210 (L. 26.34.6-10). 29.11 Metalla: The gold and silver mines had previously formed part of the royal domains (see Rostovtzeff SEH 252 - 253). The general policy of the senate had been to close down a l l the mines in Macedonia (see on 18.3). 29.11 Et sale invecto u t i vetuit: In modern times salt i s obtained from salt-pans near the mouth of the Haliakmon, in what would have been the third Macedonian p-fptj (see Hammond Macedonia 144, 160) . The prohibition against the import of salt into Macedonia may have been designed to encourage the production of this crucial commodity in Macedonia. With the closing of the gold and silver mines, which had formed part of the royal domains, the governments of the four y^e-ptdt-S were deprived of two important sources of revenue which might to some extent have been replaced by revenues derived from an increase in the production of salt . The Romans arranged the sale of salt to the Dardanians at Stobi in the third p-epi-5 (L. 45.29.13). On the importance of the salt-trade and on taxes on salt in the Hellenistic kingdoms see Rostovtzeff SEH 470, 1254. 29.12 Dardanis repetentibus Paeoniam: The Dardani , an I l l y r i a n t r i b e , l i v e d i n the area between the upper D r i l o and Axius r i v e r s (see Hammond BSA 61 (1966) 247 - 249 and Macedonia 80 - 82). They had been defeated by Perseus i n 170 (L . 43.18.2 , 19.14, E p . 43) wi th the loss of 10,000 men (according to P l u t . Aem. 9 .3 ) . 29.14 Navalem m a t e r i a m . . . v e t u i t : The fores ts of Macedonia were one of the c h i e f sources of timber and p i t c h i n the H e l l e n i s t i c world (see Rostovtze f f SEH 1168 - 1170, 1612 n . 110; Hammond Macedonia 207 - 209) and had formed part of the r o y a l domains (Rostovtzeff SEH 252 - 253). 2 9.14 R e g i o n i b u s . . . h a b e r e n t ; The m i l i t a r y establishment of Macedonia was to be r e s t r i c t e d to border troops . The Romans were u n w i l l i n g to assume d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the defense of Macedonia (see on 18.3) . 30.2 r e g i o n a t i m . . . i g n o r a b a n t : The n a t i o n a l f ee l ings of the Macedonians were not destroyed by the c r e a t i o n of the four f^ e p i ^ C f , which were always regarded as por t ions of Macedonia (see on 18.6) . 30.4 Secunda p a r s . . . v e r s i ; Kassandreia (Pot idaia) was i n P a l l e n e , the western prong of the C h a l c i d i c pen insu la ; Torone i n S i t h o n i a , the c e n t r a l prong; Mt . Athos on Akte , the eastern prong. A i n e i a (see on 27.4) was on the west coast , and Akanthos on the east coast of the C h a l c i d i c pen insu la , nor th of A k t e . 30.5 Vett iorum b e l l i c o s a m gentem: The people of B o t t i a i a , between the lower Axius and Haliakmon r i v e r s . See Hammond Macedonia 152 - 154; S a r i a RE V I I I . A. 2 (1958) c o l . 1842. 30.6 Tymphaeis; Hammond (Macedonia 46) reads Strymepal i s , f o l l owing the MS. (see on 2 9 . 9 ) . On the l o c a t i o n of the peoples mentioned here , see Map 15 i n Hammond E p i r u s 614. 31.1 leges: According to Just inus 33 .2 .7 , t h i s law-code was s t i l l i n force i n the time of Pompeius Trogus ( la te f i r s t c. B . C . ) or perhaps i n the time of Just inus h imse l f (second c. A . D.?) Macedonia seems to have rece ived a code s i m i l a r to that contained i n a 105 lex provinciae, which provided for the local government of the province, for the administration of justice, and for the collection of taxes. The Macedonians, however, had been declared free, so that this law-code must have been largely confined to administrative matters (cf. L. 45.32.1-2 and see Abbott and Johnson Municipal Administration in the Roman  Empire 48 - 49). There was probably little interference in other areas of law, and the Macedonians themselves were to be responsible for the administration of justice. See Meloni Perseo 418 - 419; Stevenson Roman Provincial Administration t i l l  the Age of the Antonines 68 - 69. 31.1 Aetoli deinde citati: See on 28.6 and 28.7. 31.4 Tria genera principum; Livy described three general classes of politicians within the Greek states: 1) those subservient to Rome; 2) those subservient to kings (i.e., to Perseus and Gentius), both groups seeking personal wealth and power, and 3) a middle group (media pars) which sought to preserve independence for their states. A similar classification appears in L. 42.30.2-7, where it is said that the third group (optima eadem et prudentissima) preferred Rome to Macedonia if compelled to choose, but really desired a balance of power. Polybius (30.6.5-8) placed this last group among the politicians suspected of opposing Rome. See Badian Foreign Clientelae 100 - 104. 31.9 Ab his...sequerentur: The accusers are named in Pol. 30.13.4: Lykiskos and Tisippos from Aetolia (see on 28.7), Khremas from Akarnania, Kharops (see on 26.5) and Nikias from Epirus, and Mnasippos from Boiotia. 31.9 in Achaeam; The envoys from Achaea were Kallikrates, Aristodamos, Agesias and Philippos (Pol. 30.13.3). On C. Claudius Pulcher and Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, see on 17.1. On the partiality of Polybius towards the Achaean League, see Pol. 16.14.6 with Ziegler RE XXI. 2 (1952) cols. 1557 - 1560; Walbank Commentary II. 518 - 519. Polybius (30.13.8) described 106 the Roman envoys to Achaea as Tou s &TU <? <xve-crrarou 5 «v&pc(5 fwV OGK0(, which was not quite true, at least in the case of Domitius. The thousand Achaeans deported to Rome were detained in the cities of Etruria without being given the opportunity of defending themselves against the nebulous charges of their accusers (Pol. 30.32). The three hundred or fewer who were s t i l l alive in 150 were released through the intervention of Scipio Aemilianus with the support of Cato (cf. Pol. 35.6; see Astin Scipio Aemilianus 280 - 281; De Sanctis Storia IV. 3. 127 - 128). Among the hostages was Polybius, who became a close friend of Scipio Aemilianus. On the anti-Roman group in Achaea, see Deininger Pol. Widerstand 177 - 184, 197 - 202, 211 - 214. 31.12 Aetolis dimissis; Livy failed to mention the detachment of Amphilokhia from the Aetolian League by the Romans (cf. Diod. 31.8.6). Amphilokhia was a region located on the eastern side of the Ambracian Gulf. See Hirschfeld RE I. 2 (1894) cols. 1936 - 1937; Hammond Epirus 247 - 248. 31.12 Acarnanum citata gens; In 170/69 the opponents of the pro-Macedonian group in Akarnania tried without success to obtain a Roman garrison (Pol. 28.5; L. 43.17.6-9). Shortly before the battle of Kynoskephalai the Akarnanians had abandoned Philip V in order to become amici of Rome (L. 33.16-17). During the war against Perseus they took no public action contrary to the amicitia with Rome. The island of Leukas was the political centre of the Akarnanian League (cf. L. 33.16.3, 36.11.9). Leukas, captured by the Romans in the Second Macedonian War, had been returned to the Akarnanians (cf. Pol. 18.47.8). On the Akarnanian League see Larsen Greek Federal States 89 - 95, 264 - 273; Deininger Pol. Widerstand 175 - 176. 31.13-14 Quaerendo deinde latius...iuvissent; For Q. Fabius Labeo see on 17.1. In 168 Perseus sent his admiral Antenor with the fleet into the 107 northern Aegean (L. 4 4 . 2 8 - 2 9 ) . For the punishment of A n t i s s a a l s o see P l i n y NH 5 . 1 3 9 . ... 3 1 . 1 5 Duo s e c u r i p e r c u s s i . . . i u n x e r a n t : Of t h i s Andronikos nothing f u r t h e r i s known. He and h i s f a t h e r may have served among the 5 0 0 Greeks who fought f o r Perseus (L. 4 2 . 4 1 . 8 ) . For suggested emendations of the name Andronikos see De S a n c t i s S t o r i a IV. 1 . 3 4 0 n. 2 9 8 ; Deininger P o l . Widerstand 1 9 5 n. 1 8 . On the anti-Roman group i n A e t o l i a see Deininger P o l . Widerstand 1 4 6 - 1 5 2 , 1 6 8 - 1 7 2 . Neon had been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the a l l i a n c e between Macedonia and the B o i o t i a n League (L. 4 2 . 1 2 . 5 - 6 ; on the date see Meloni Perseo 1 4 6 n. 1 ; Deininger P o l . Widerstand 1 5 3 n. 2 ) . When Q . Marcius P h i l i p p u s l e d an embassy to B o i o t i a i n 1 7 2 , Neon o f f e r e d to surrender a l l of B o i o t i a i n t o the hands of the Romans ( c f . P o l . 2 7 . 1 . 2 ) , w h i l e envoys from Thespiae o f f e r e d to surrender t h e i r c i t y alone. P r e f e r r i n g to keep the c i t i e s of the B o i o t i a n League d i v i d e d , P h i l i p p u s spurned Ismenias, the envoy of Neon. The Thebans then decided to abandon t h e i r a l l i a n c e w i t h Perseus and to e x i l e Neon and H i p p i a s , the authors of t h a t a l l i a n c e . Neon, p r o t e c t e d by Marcius P h i l i p p u s from the v i o l e n c e of the Thebans, made h i s way to Macedonia to become one of the l o y a l supporters of Perseus who accompanied the k i n g on h i s f l i g h t from Pydna (L. 4 4 . 4 3 . 6 ) . On the anti-Roman group i n B o i o t i a see Deininger P o l . Widerstand 1 5 3 - 1 5 9 , 1 6 4 - 1 6 7 . Other Greek p o l i t i c a l leaders were put to death by the orders of A n i c i u s and P a u l l u s ( c f . P o l . 3 2 . 5 . 6 ) . 3 2 . 1 Macedonum rursus advocatum c o n c i l i u m : The reading of the MS. i s CONCILIUM. Thid body was not one of the four Macedonian ff uve'cipLoc. , but the assembly composed of the deni p r i n c i p e s which had r e c e i v e d the arrangements f o r Macedonia on the f i r s t day of the g a t h e r i n g at Amphipolis ( c f . L. 4 5 . 2 9 . 1 , 3 0 . 1 ) . The L a t i n e q u i v a l e n t f o r ffoveopiov would have been c o n s i l i u m (see on 1 8 . 6 ) . 3 2 . 2 senatores, quos synedros vocant; The word tfovt/cSpiov denotes a c o u n c i l composed of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s 108 from the constituent parts of a federal state: see Larsen Rep. Gov't. 66 - 105. 32.3 Nomina*..principum Macedonum: According to Diod. 31.8.12, some 250 of the Macedonian i^ep° v f .2" . were led in the triumph of Paullus. These detainees included administrators (crrpwTT|^ oi-'', err Lo*TaTo(l) and members of the royal council (<^ iT\oi- ). See Walbank Philip V 2 - 3 . Among their number were Hippias, Meidon and Pantaukhos, the ambassadors sent from Amphipolis by Perseus to Paullus at Pydna (L. 44.45.2). The ultimate fate of these men is unknown. Some of them may have carried the funeral bier of Aemilius Paullus in 160 (cf. Plut. Aem. 39.4). 32.7 leges: See on 31.1. 32.8 ludicrum: The games organized by Paullus after the announcement of the arrangements for Macedonia were victory celebrations attended by delegates from the Hellenistic states which had supported the Roman cause. 33.2 Luamque matrem: Lua Mater was the consort of Saturn. Captured arms were dedicated to her. See L. 8.1.6 with Wissowa Rel. und Kult. 208 and Astin Scipio Aemilianus 341 - 342. 33.3-4 ea copia rerum...aveherent: Some of this surplus may have come from the accumulated stores of Perseus (cf. L. 42.12.8 with Larsen ESAR IV. 292 - 294). 33.5-6 praeda Macedonica omnis...fierent: For other examples of art looted by the Romans see L. 26.21.7-8 (Syracuse); 32.16.17 (Chalcis) and 38.9.13 (Ambracia). 33.8 ad Pellaeum; The reading of the MS. is ADPAELE / UM, corrected by Heraeus to ad Pellaeum. The Pellaeum (Pellaion) could have been the shrine of the Macedonian hero Pellas, the legendary founder of Pella. 33.8 P. Nasicam et Q. Maximum filium: P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum (353) was curule aedile in 169 and served as tribunus militum under Aemilius Paullus in 168 and 167. He was praetor in 165, consul in 162 and 155, censor in 159. He was Pontifex Maximus from 150 to his death shortly after 142. He was married to Cornelia Prima, a daughter of Scipio Africanus. Plutarch (Aem. 15.3, 21.3) quoted from a letter written by Nasica TTfo'j rtvot; T<oy p<X0"i XeuVabout the battle of Pydna and the fighting which preceded it . For Fabius Maximus Aemilianus see on 1.1. 34.1 Haud procul...aberant: See L. 45.26.15. 34.1 ad quern litteris missis...exercitui dedisse suo: On the Epirotes who opposed Rome, see on 26.3. On the involvement of Paullus in the plunder of Molossis see Scullard JRS 35 (1945) 58 - 64, where it is argued that Paullus carried out senatorial policy with which he disagreed; contra, see Oost Roman Policy 133 n. 106, 134 n. 112, where the view is expressed that Paullus himself may have desired this punishment of the Molossians. 34.2 denos principes; See on 29.1. 34.5 tantaque praeda fuit; The accounts of Livy (45.34.1-6) and Plutarch (Aem. 29) disagree on the value of the booty taken from the Epirote cities. Livy gave the figure of 200 denarii per soldier and 400 per cavalryman, while Plutarch reported 11 drachmas per soldier. Various attempts have been made to explain the difference. De Sanctis (Storia IV. I 2 . 341 n. 300), taking Livy's figures as representing the proceeds from the sale of 150,000 slaves, estimated that the average price of 50 denarii per slave would have been more than enough to cover the distributions mentioned by Livy to an army of 31,000 foot and 2400 horse. He therefore discarded the figure of Plutarch. The number 33,400, however, seems too high for the army of Aemilius Paullus (cf. L. 44.21.5-8 with Brunt Ital. Manpower 424). Thus the average price per slave would have had to have been less than 50 denarii, but we cannot know what the price of an Epirote slave would have been when the market was suddenly flooded. Frank (ESAR I. 194 - 195) gave the figure of 500 denarii 1 1 0 as the average price for an able-bodied labourer in Italy (also see Westermann RE Suppl. VI (1935) cols. 935 - 937). Leidmeier (Plutarchus' biographie van Aemilius Paullus 140 -142) supposed that Livy evaluated the total booty, Plutarch only the part that came from the sale of slaves. Hammond (Epirus 635 n. 1) suggests that Livy's figures represent the value of the gold and silver collected by the centurions and the tribuni militurn, while Plutarch's figures represent the estimated value of moveables seized by the pillaging troops. A fair reading of Livy's account, in the writer's opinion, will suggest that the higher figures in Livy were derived from the cash value of the slaves and plunder plus the value of the gold and silver collected, that is, of the entire booty. Unless Plutarch's figure is entirely worthless, it could have been derived from the value of only part of the booty, perhaps the division of the coined money or, more probably, the cash value of the soldiers' plunder (cf. Plut. Aem. 29.3: 4^vov>5 oAou Ko(To; Kep HLOtTLO'^evTo^ . Plutarch or his source apparently used this lower figure to help explain the dissatisfaction of the troops which is otherwise clearly attributed to the refusal of Paullus to distribute the spoils taken from the treasury of Perseus (cf. L. 45.34.7, 35.6, 37.10; Plut. Aem. 30.2). The money had been handed over to the quaestors (Plut. Aem. 38.6), while the works of art and other precious articles, after being displayed in Amphipolis, were handed over to Octavius for transport to Rome (L. 45.33.5-7). A distribution of 11 drachmas (equivalent to about 11 denarii) would have been the lowest recorded distribution per soldier since 191 when P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica in his triumph over the Boii gave each soldier 125 asses (under 8 denarii). The sum of 11 denarii would have been extremely low in view of the generally high profitability of the Third Macedonian War. A distribution of 200 denarii per soldier, however, would have been four times as great as the highest recorded distribution during the period 200 - 168 (the highest being 50 denarii per I l l soldier by Q. Fulvius Flaccus in 180). During this period distributions rarely exceeded 25 denarii per soldier. The sum of 200 denarii per soldier is not unreasonable in view of the distribution of 100 denarii per soldier by Paullus at his triumph and the suspension of the tributum soli on ager  Romanus (producing about 1,800,000 denarii per year in this period according to Frank ESAR I. 139) after the war. It is also possible that Aemilius Paullus was aware of the movement to deny him a triumph and wished to secure the favour of the troops by a generous distribution in Epirus. While such a distribution of 200 denarii would not have been a source of dissatisfaction to the troops, the failure of Paullus to reward the troops by a generous distribution in Macedonia, followed by his refusal to be more generous at his triumph, may have aroused their anger despite the relatively high value of the distributions. Although the soldiers could traditionally expect to be rewarded with a portion of the booty, the triumphing general was not required by law to grant any part of the booty to the troops at all (cf. the example of L. Papirius Cursor in 293: L. 10.46). See Shatzman Historia 21 (1972) 177 - 205. 34.7 Or i cum; Flamininus departed from Oricum (in Akrokeraunia, part of Epirus). cf. L. 34.52.1. 34.10 legati...in Asiam pervenerant: The leader of the Roman embassy was P. Licinius Crassus (60). The embassy left near the beginning of the consular year 167 (probably about late January: see on 1.11). For earlier trouble between the Galatians and the Attalids, see on 19.3. 34.12-14 Ibi Romani cum Solovettium...fuisse: Solovettius was probably the tetrarch of one of the three Galatian tribes. See Jones The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces 114 - 115. The report of Licinius on his interview with Solovettius shows that the Romans did not intend to arrange a peace between Pergamon and the Galatians. For the estrangement between Rome and Eumenes II 112 s e e o n 1 9 . 2 a n d 1 9 . 5 ; f o r t h e s u b s e q u e n t t r e a t m e n t o f t h e G a l a t i a n p r o b l e m b y Rome s e e o n 4 4 . 2 1 . 3 5 . 1 r e g e s c a p t i v i ; P e r s e u s a n d h i s f a m i l y h a d b e e n p l a c e d i n t h e c u s t o d y o f A . P o s t u m i u s A l b i n u s a t A m p h i p o l i s i n t h e summer o f 1 6 7 ( s e e o n 2 8 . 1 1 ) . I n t h e s u m m e r o f 1 6 8 G e n t i u s h a d b e e n p l a c e d i n t h e c u s t o d y o f C . C a s s i u s a t S c o d r a a n d w a s s o o n s e n t w i t h h i s f a m i l y a n d o t h e r l e a d i n g I l l y r i a n s t o Rome ( L . 4 4 . 3 1 . 1 5 , 3 2 . 4 ) . 3 5 . 2 s i q u i a p u d r e g e s e s s e d i c e b a n t u r ; F o r t h e e x a m p l e o f P o l y a r a t o s , s e e P o l . 3 0 . 9 . 3 5 . 3 r e g i a n a v e . . . a g e b a n t : T h i s s h i p w a s p r o b a b l y t h e € K K 0 u 6 £Ki{pT]5 o f D e m e t r i o s P o l i o r k e t e s ( c f . P l u t . Pe rn . 4 3 ) , l a t e r i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f P h i l i p V , w h o w a s p e r m i t t e d t o k e e p i t i n 1 9 7 a f t e r t h e S e c o n d M a c e d o n i a n W a r ( P o l . 1 8 . 4 4 . 6 ) . O n s u c h l a r g e s h i p s i n t h e H e l l e n i s t i c w o r l d s e e T a r n H e l l e n i s t i c M i l i t a r y a n d N a v a l P e v e l o p m e n t s 132 - 1 4 1 , w h e r e i t i s a r g u e d t h a t t h i s s h i p w o u l d h a v e b e e n a b i r e m e w i t h s i x t e e n r o w e r s t o e a c h p a i r o f o a r s , e i g h t r o w e r s t o a n o a r . 3 5 . 4 m a n d a t u m q u e Q . C a s s i b p r a e t o r i . . . i m p e r i u m e s s e t ; F o r Q . C a s s i u s L o n g i n u s ( 6 9 ) s e e o n 1 6 . 3 . I n o r d e r t o c e l e b r a t e a t r i u m p h , t h e v i c t o r i o u s g e n e r a l w a s r e q u i r e d t o b e a m a g i s t r a t e w i t h i m p e r i u m l e a d i n g t r o o p s u n d e r h i s own a u s p i c i a . T h e s e n a t e c l a i m e d t h e r i g h t t o g r a n t t h e v i c t o r i o u s g e n e r a l t h e p e r m i s s i o n t o t r i u m p h o n t h e C a p i t o l , b u t t h e r i g h t t o t r i u m p h w a s v e s t e d i n t h e g e n e r a l h i m s e l f , a n d h e c o u l d n o t b e p r e v e n t e d f r o m c e l e b r a t i n g a l e s s p r e s t i g i o u s t r i u m p h o u t s i d e t h e c i t y ( t r i u m p h u s i n m o n t e A l b a n o : s e e o n 3 8 . 4 ) . F o r t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a s p e c t o f t h e s e n a t e ' s c o n t r o l o v e r t h e t r i u m p h s s e e o n 2 1 . 1 . O n t h e c o - o p e r a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e s e n a t e a n d t h e t r i b u n i p l e b i s i n t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y s e e B l e i k e n V o l k s t r i b u n a t 4 6 - 6 3 . T h e e a r l i e s t e x a m p l e o f a c o m i t i a l l e x p a s s e d t o e n a b l e a t r i u m p h a t o r t o r e t a i n h i s i m p e r i u m o n t h e d a y o f t h e t r i u m p h i n Rome i s t h a t o f M . C l a u d i u s M a r c e l l u s i n 2 1 1 ( L . 2 6 . 2 1 . 5 : T r i b u n i p l e b i s e x a u c t o r i t a t e s e n a t u s a d p o p u l u m t u l e r u n t u t M . M a r c e l l o q u o d i e u r b e m o v a n s i n i r e t i m p e r i u m e s s e t ) . A t l e a s t 113 from this time, the imperium militiae lapsed when the magistrate crossed the pomerium, unless he could obtain this dispensation. This arrangement may have been the result of the conflict between the senate and C. Flaminius in 2 2 3 . The senate had refused Flaminius a triumph, but he was granted one through a plebiscitum (see Rotondi Leges Publicae 2 4 9 ) . Perhaps the senate allowed the populus (or the plebs) the right to refuse a triumph in exchange for the understanding that the senate would continue to hold the initiative in granting triumphs. See Mommsen Rtfai. Staatsr. I. 1 3 2 ; Botsford The Roman Assemblies 3 3 4 - 3 3 5 ; Versnel Triumphus 1 9 1 - 1 9 2 . 3 5 . 6 Antigua disclipina milites habuerat: On the declining efficiency of Roman officers and troops after the Second Punic War, see Toynbee Hannibal's Legacy II. 8 0 - 8 7 . Because it was becoming more difficult in this period to raise Roman troops, the generals had to pay more attention to the wishes of citizens liable for military service (see Brunt Ital. Manpower 6 1 - 7 5 ) . 3 5 . 8 Sed eos Ser. Sulpicius Galba...privatim imperatori inimicus; Ser. Sulpicius Galba ( 5 8 ) was tribunus militum of the second legion under Aemilius Paullus in 1 6 8 and 1 6 7 ; he was praetor in 1 5 1 and consul in 1 4 4 . As tribunus militum under Paullus, Sulpicius ( 5 8 ) was likely to have been associated with the Aemilian-Scipionic group (cf. L. 4 4 . 2 1 . 1 - 3 and see on 2 8 . 9 ) . He may have led the opposition to the triumph of Paullus because of the insult to C . Sulpicius Galus ( 6 6 ) , whose young son Quintus ( 6 9 ) later became the ward of Sulpicius ( 5 8 ) . See Val. Max. 8 . 1 . 2 . It is not known how closely related Sulpicius Galba ( 5 8 ) and Sulpicius Galus ( 6 6 ) were. 3 6 . 1 T i . Sempronius; Nothing further is known of T i . Sempronius ( 1 2 ) . For the political allignment of the Sempronii (Gracchi), see on 1 5 . 1 . The political meeting described here is a contio (see on 2 1 . 1 ) . 3 6 . 7 Intro vocatae primae tribus: A legislative meeting of the Concilium Plebis is being described. 114 The order in which the tribes voted was determined by lot. The first tribe was called the principium. See Taylor Voting Assemblies 70 - 77. 36.9 M. Servilius: M. Servilius Pulex Geminus (78) was Magister Equiturn in 203, consul in 202, augur from 211. The Servilii had been closely associated with the Aemilian-Scipionic group for the greater part of the Second Punic War (see Cassola Gruppi 411 - 413; Scullard Rom. Pol. 35, 39). Servilius (78) was probably the oldest living consular at this time. Another supporter of Paullus on this occasion was probably Cato the Censor, who seems to have delivered a speech against Galba (cf. Malcovati ORF2 no. 8, fr. 172; see Scullard Rom. Pol. 269 - 270). 36.9 ut de integro...facerent; A legislative assembly could be interrupted at any time up to the final announcement of results, most frequently by tribunician intercessio or by the report of omens. A presiding officer could interrupt proceedings in order to withdraw a b i l l which he was sponsoring, as in the cases of T i . Gracchus (cf. Appian B. C. 1.12.52-54) and of A. Gabinius (cf. Dio 36.30), who, as a threat, had introduced bills before the concilium plebis calling for the removal from office of tribuni plebis hostile to them. Electoral meetings of the Comitia Centuriata could be interrupted before the announcement of final results by a presiding officer (e.g., by Q. Fabius Maximus Cunctator at the consular elections for 214 after the centuria praerogativa had voted for two candidates of whom he disapproved: L. 24.7.10 - 9.3), by a candidate (e.g., by T. Manlius Torquatus at the consular elections for 210 after the praerogativa had voted for him despite his disabilities: L. 26.22) or by a tribunus plebis (e.g., by C. and L. Arrenius at the consular elections for 209 after the praerogativa had voted for Fabius Maximus and Q. Fulvius Flaccus: L. 27.6). In these three cases the person who stopped proceedings also addressed the voters, and the voting was repeated. In the voting for the triumph of Paullus, the leaders of the 115 senate (principes civitatis) seem to have invaded a concilium plebis (see L. 45.35.4 and 36.1) and persuaded the presiding officers, the tribuni plebis, to stop the voting. Since the praetor Q. Cassius Longinus had arranged with some of the tribuni plebis for this rogatio to be brought before the plebs, i t is likely that they were co-operating with the senate and would have allowed such an interruption of the voting at the insistence of the leaders of the senate. See Taylor Voting Assemblies 74 - 77, 93 - 94. On co-operation between the senate and the tribuni plebis see Bleiken Volkstribunat 46 - 63. 37.3 tirocinium ponere et documentum eloquentiae dare: Sulpicius Galba did not reach the praetorship until 151. He had not yet held any magistracy (cf. L. 45.37.4) and must have been a fairly young man at this time. Sulpicius later became known as an eloquent public speaker (cf. Cicero Brutus 82 with Mtfnzer RE IV. A. 1 (1931) cols. 766 - 767). 37.4-5 nomen deferret...ad populum accusaret: In order to institute legal proceedings, Sulpicius Galba could only bring a complaint against Paullus to a magistrate with the ius agendi cum populo as long as Sulpicius himself was a privatus; as a magistrate with this right, he himself would be able to institute proceedings. The charge that Sulpicius might have wished to bring against Paullus in either of these ways was that of peculatus. See Jolowicz Historical Introduction  to the Study of Roman Law 321 - 331; Shatzman Historia 21 (1972) 188 - 202. 37.9-10 eodem die...duxit: According to L. 44.36, the troops, military staff and commanders of the foreign contingents called for an immediate engagement, which Paullus refused (also see Plut. Aem. 17.1-3). 37.12 quae ambitione imperatorum clades acceptae sint...meminit: In 217 M. Minucius Rufus was appointed Magister Equitum under the Dictator Q. Fabius Maximus, and was later granted imperium equal to that of the Dictator by a bi l l sponsored by C. Terentius Varro. The example of Fabius and Minucius is not appropriate as a parallel to the hostility between Paullus and Sulpicius Galba because Minucius, who belonged to the group of politicians who favoured direct encounters with the enemy, was not trying to win favour with the troops by relaxing discipline or offering higher distributions. The point of the comparison must have been that Minucius and Sulpicius Galba were inferior men contending with their betters. See Scullard Rom. Pol. 44 - 55. 38.4 in monte Albano triumpharunt: There were three kinds of victory procession: the triumph proper (see on 35.4), the ovatio and the triumphus in monte Albano. The last of these was held outside Rome on the mons  Albanus and ended at the temple of Iuppiter Latiaris. It was celebrated as the prerogative of a victorious general by a commander who had been refused a formal triumph or an ovatio in the city, and was recorded in the Fasti Triumphales. The first such triumph was held in 231 by C. Papirius Maso (6, 57), the father-in-law of Aemilius Paullus. See Mommsen RHm. Staatsr. I. 134; Cagnat, Daremberg-Saglio V. 491; Versnel Triumphus 165 - 166. 38.4 C. Lutatio: C. Lutatius Catulus (4) concluded the treaty with Carthage and celebrated a naval triumph de Poenis ex Sicilia in 241. 38.4 P. Cornelio: P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus (336) arranged a peace with Carthage with the advice of the ten legati and celebrated a triumph over Hannibal, the Carthaginians and King Syphax in 201. 38.7 peccatum in Camillo: M. Furius Camillus (44) as Dictator in 390 saved Rome from the Gauls. After his appointment as Interrex in 391, before the Gallic invasion, Camillus had been condemned on some charge and had retired into voluntary exile, from which he was recalled in the hour of peril (cf. L. 5.32.8-9; Dionysios of Halikarnassos Ant. 13.5.1 with Ogilvie Commentary 698 - 699). 38.7 in P. Africano: After the conclusion of the war against Antiochus III, Lucius (337) the brother of Scipio Africanus (336), was accused in the senate and later by the tribunus plebis C. Minucius Augurinus, of having 117 accepted bribes from Antiochus. This attack was also aimed against Scipio Africanus, who was accused personally by the tribunus plebis M. Naevius. He withdrew into exile at Liternum, where he died in 1 8 3 . On the chronology of the so-called "trials of the Scipios", see Scullard Rom. Pol. 2 9 0 - 3 0 3 . 3 8 . 1 1 de Pyrrho: M 1 . Curius Dentatus, consul in 2 7 5 , defeated Pyrrhos, king of Epirus, at Malventum, forcing him to leave Italy, which he had invaded in 2 8 0 . 3 8 . 1 2 triumphum nomine cientes...incedunt; cf. Varro De Ling. Lat. 6 . 6 8 : Sic triumphare appellatum, quod  cum imperatore milites redeuntes clamitant per urbem in Capitolium  eunti: "Io triumphe". It was also the custom at a triumph for the soldiers to chant short Fescenine verses in praise or in blame of their general. cf. Appian Lib. 66: K«\ TwV ap^oyTcoV Keu erreuvo 0 <nv, o v $ 6e o" Kco rr T O ocr i i / j ous <^c- ytyovGLi/ • For examples of such ioci militares see Suet. J u l i u s 4 9 , 5 1 ; Pliny NH 1 9 . 1 4 4 . See Schanz-Hosius Gesch. RHm. Lit. I. 2 1 - 2 2 . 3 9 . 1 Triumphatum nuper de Philippo...et de Antiocho est: T. Quinctius Flamininus triumphed over Philip V in 1 9 4 , L. Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus over Antiochus III in 1 8 9 . 3 9 . 7 Syphax rex: According to Polybius (see L. 3 0 . 4 5 . 4 - 5 ) Syphax was led in the triumph of Scipio Africanus, but Valerius Antias reported that Syphax had died a short while before the triumph. 3 9 , 1 0 Pis quoque enim...debetur triumphus: M . Servilius seems to have argued that the triumph represented the fulfillment of a vow made by the magistrate on the Capitol before his departure for his province, but this claim must have been essentially an emotional appeal, since the state often saw fit to refuse a general a formal triumph in the city, but could not prevent him from celebrating a private triumph on the mons  Albanus (see on 3 5 . 4 and 3 8 . 4 ) . See Versnel Triumphus 181 - 1 9 5 . 3 9 . 1 3 epulae senatus: This meal took place in the temple of Iuppiter Capitolinus. 1 1 8 A c c o r d i n g t o V a l . M a x . 2 . 8 . 6 , t h e c o n s u l s w e r e r e q u e s t e d t o b e a b s e n t s o t h a t n o o n e w i t h g r e a t e r i m p e r i u m s h o u l d p a r t a k e . T h e r e w a s a l s o a f e a s t s e t f o r t h e s o l d i e r s o f t h e t r i u m p h i n g g e n e r a l , c a l l e d t h e c e n a t r i u m p h a l i s ( s e e J o s e p h u s B . I . 7 . 1 5 6 ; A p p i a n L i b . 6 6 ) . S e e V e r s n e l T r i u m p h u s 3 8 2 - 3 8 3 . 3 9 . 1 4 [ i n ] c i r c o F l a m i n i o : P a r t o f t h e t r i u m p h a l d i s p l a y a n d c e l e b r a t i o n w a s o f t e n h e l d i n t h e C i r c u s F l a m i n i u s ( c f . L . 3 9 . 5 . 1 7 ; P l u t . L u c u l l u s 3 - 4 ) . S e e M a k i n J R S 11 ( 1 9 2 1 ) 3 3 - 3 4 . 3 9 . 2 0 R e v o c a t e . . . . T h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h i s s p e e c h i s l o s t ( o n e p a g e o f t h e M S . i s m i s s i n g : s e e W e i s s e n b o r n - M u ' l l e r 2 1 9 ; G i a r r a t a n o 3 5 9 ) , b u t t h e g e n e r a l s e n s e o f t h e m i s s i n g p a r t m a y b e r e s t o r e d f r o m P l u t . A e m . 3 1 . 6 . 4 0 . 1 T r i u m p h o f P a u l l u s : c f . D e g r a s s i F a s t i T r i u m p h a l e s p . 8 1 a d a . 1 6 7 : L . A i m i l i u s L . f . M . n . P a u l l u s I I p r o c o ( n ) s ( u l e ) a . D X X C [ V I ] e x M a c e d o n ( i a ) e t r e g e P e r s e p e r t r i d u u m I I I I I I [ I ] P r ' i d i e K . D e c e r n . T h e d a t e o f t h e f i r s t d a y o f t h e t r i u m p h , b y t h e J u l i a n c a l e n d a r , w o u l d h a v e b e e n a b o u t 12 O c t . 1 6 7 . D i o d . 3 1 . 8 . 1 0 p l a c e d t h e t r i u m p h s o f A e m i l i u s P a u l l u s , O c t a v i u s a n d A n i c i u s i n r e v e r s e o r d e r . 4 0 . 1 - 5 Q u a n t i t y o f b o o t y f r o m M a c e d o n i a : V a l e r i u s A n t i a s g a v e t h e t o t a l o f 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 H S . , b u t L i v y c o n s i d e r e d t h i s f i g u r e t o o l o w i n v i e w o f t h e i n v e n t o r y o f p r e c i o u s m e t a l s p r e s e n t e d b y V a l e r i u s h i m s e l f . V e l l e i u s P a t e r c u l u s 1 . 9 . 6 r e p o r t e d t h e t o t a l o f 2 1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 H S . ; P l i n y N H 3 3 . 5 6 r e p o r t e d 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 H S . A c c o r d i n g t o P o l . 1 8 . 3 5 . 4 , t h e v a l u e o f t h e p r e c i o u s m e t a l s r e m o v e d f r o m t h e p a l a c e o f P e r s e u s w a s o v e r 6 0 0 0 t a l e n t s . I f w e a l l o w t h e c o n v e r s i o n r a t e 1 d r a c h m a = 1 d e n a r i u s , 6 0 0 0 t a l e n t s w o u l d b e w o r t h 3 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 d e n a r i i o r 1 4 4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 H S . T h i s t o t a l , a s L i v y s e e m s t o h a v e o b s e r v e d , w a s s o m e w h a t h i g h e r t h a n t h e t o t a l g i v e n b y V a l e r i u s A n t i a s . T h e i n v e n t o r i e s g i v e n b y P l u t . A e m . 32 - 3 4 a n d D i o d . 3 1 . 8 . 1 0 - 1 2 , w h i c h d i f f e r i n d e t a i l s , a r e s i m i l a r a n d b o t h 119 approximate the 6000 talents given by Polybius. See De Sanctis * Storia IV. I 2 . 342 n. 302; Meloni Perseo 433 - 435. . 40.1 Summam...Valerius Antias tradit: The values of the precious metals in their various forms were usually listed separately and the total value was sometimes added. That Antias listed the various forms is clear from Livy's observation in 40.1. See L. 45.43.4-5; Frank ESAR I. 12b- 137. 40.2-3 eoque id mirabilius erat...coepit: Perseus had accumulated money, weapons and provisions. His resources were listed by Eumenes in the summer of 172 in his attempt to persuade the senate that Perseus was a threat to the Greek world (L. 42.12.8-10). See Larsen ESAR IV. 292 - 294. 40.4 Ipse postremo Paullus in curru: This was on the third day of the triumph. For an account of another three-day triumph, see that of T. Quinctius Flamininus over Philip V (L. 34.52.4-11). 40.4 f i l i i duo: See on 1.1. 40.5 pediti...equiti: The value of the distribution to individual foot soldiers, centurions and cavalrymen was usually in the ratio of 1:2:3. See for instance L. 34.52.4-11, 39.5.14-17; see Frank ESAR I. 126 - 137. This was also the ratio for the payment of the stipendium to men serving in these capacities (cf. Pol. 6.39.12 with Walbank Commentary I. 722). For the generosity of this distribution, see on 34.5. 40.7-8 Nam duobus e filiis...opportuerat: These were the two sons of Paullus borne by his second wife (see on 1.1). According to Val. Max. 5.10.2, the boy who died after the triumph had accompanied his father in the triumphal chariot. 40.9 Paucis post diebus...fuit: M. Antonius (2 7) had earlier prevented Iuventius Thalna from proposing the declaration of war against Rhodes (L. 45.21.3). According to L. 45.40.9, Appian Mak. 19, Plut. Aem. 36.2, Diod. 31.11.1 and Val. Max. 5.10.2, the speech of Paullus 120 de suis rebus gestis was delivered after the triumph, when both of his youngest sons were dead, while Velleius Paterculus 1.10.4 placed the speech some time before the triumph and the death of Paullus' two sons, which Paullus had foreshadowed in his prayer to the gods. Perhaps the more usual occasion for a speech of this kind was the day after the triumph (cf. the speech of Sp. Cassius Vicellinus, consul in 486, in Dionysios of Halikarnassos Ant. 8.70.1-4: r«oT0( bl<xvo-^  ^e\s 1^  (ieTa Tov -\9 J> i'*" | W ^ f p o f < T 0 v e K a \ e o 6 T O n X ^ o f <s-U < f K K \ T j c r i a v * K C U rco\^t\$ e r r l T O p\r|fj.<Xj C05 e " $ o $ taxi nou-tv T O ~ S Te-$p 1- ^ e u K o j i j T r p w T o v p.ey otrreocoue rov o r r e p T O W T T p « / i 3 e v T o o v ocurw Xcfyov, oZ Kc-<p<x\<xi c*. ^1/ r a O r o c > 41.3 Profectus ex Ital ia. . . . : According to the tradition preserved in this speech, Paullus finished in fifteen days a war that had dragged on for four years. This fifteen-day period must refer, not to the time between the departure of Paullus from Brundisium and the battle of Pydna, but to the time required for the final military operations of the war from the attempt on the passage through Petra to the defeat of Perseus at Pydna. The magistrates left Rome for their provinces immediately after the celebration of the Feriae Latinae on Prid. Kal. Apriles (Roman 31 March = about Julian 16 January: cf. L. 44.22.16 and see on 1.11), while the battle of Pydna was fought o n Roman 4 Sept. (Julian 22 June). The seasonal dates given by Polybius for these two events, as they appear in the text o f Livy, are iam veris principium erat (L. 44.30.1) and [tempus] anni post circumactum solstitium erat (L. 44.36.1). After reaching the camp in Thessaly within nine days of his departure from Brundisium, Paullus restored discipline, marched through the pass at Tempe into Macedonia, and established a camp at Phila, north of the Peneus river. Paullus then moved north to a position across from the fortifications which Perseus had built along the north bank of the Elpeus river, and attempted to dislodge the enemy. Considerable portions of Livy's narrative of the action at Phila and at the Elpeus river have been lost (two folia after L. 44.32.11; one folium before 44.35.1 and four folia after 35.24: see Giarratano 260, 264, 268), but the surviving narrative suggests that the fighting was protracted. Because Macedonian resistance on the Elpeus was firm, Paullus finally decided to attempt the pass at Petra in order to enter . Macedonia. Scipio Nasica and Fabius Maximus Aemilianus were sent to Herakleion on the coast with Octavius and the fleet carrying ten days' cooked rations for a thousand men, while Aemilius Paullus continued to attack the fortifications along the Elpeus. When the pass at Petra had been seized, Paullus rejoined Scipio Nasica and forced his way through to Pydna, where Perseus had gone to await him. There was an interval of several days before the battle (cf. Zon. 9.23.4: £ t eVp i f <x v oo 0X1^0(5 ~y\^4^0[S > modern historians tend to disregard this statement: see, for example, Meloni Perseo 363 - 376; De Sanctis Storia IV. I 2 . 309 - 314). This interval was probably taken up with changes of position made by Paullus and Perseus (see on 1.1 An interval of fifteen days from the first attempt on the pass of Petra and the final defeat of Perseus is not impossible. There was possibly an interval of ten days between the forcing of the pass and the battle of Pydna (cf. CIL XI (1888) no. 1829, line 10 and see on 1.8). The notion in some of the ancient sources (e.g., Plut. Aem. 36.3; Appian Mak. 19) that the fifteen days in which Paullus ended the war followed directly upon his arrival in Thessaly was probably due to a misinterpretation of their sources. The journey of Paullus from Brundisium to the camp in Thessaly in nine days was quick but not unreasonably so, and winter sailing was not unknown. Pompey crossed from Brundisium to Dyrrhachium in late January, 49 B. C., and in the following year Caesar made a January crossing to Akrokeraunia in one day (Caesar B. C. 1.25-29, 3.6). In the spring of 169 Q. Marcius Philippus and C. Marcius Figulus reached Corcyra on the day after their departure from Brundisium (L. 44.1.1-2). If Ti . Sempronius Gracchus could complete the journey from Amphissa to Pella in two days (L. 37.7.11), Paullus' four days from Delphi to the camp in Thessaly is not an unreasonable interval. 122 41.5 tres ante me consules: P. Licinius Crassus (60) in 171; A. Hostilius Mancinus (16) in 170; and Q. Marcius Philippus (79) in 169. 41.7-8 Mihi quoque ipsi...sentiret: cf. Val. Max. 5.10.2: cum in maximo proventu felicitatis nostrae, Quirites, timerem ne quid mali fortuna moliretur, Iovem optimum  maximum Iunonemque reginam et Minervam precatus sum ut, si quid  adversus populum Romanum inmineret, totum in meum domum converteretur. 42.2 Cn. Octavius...navalem triumphum egit; cf. Degrassi Fasti Triumphales p. 81 ad a. 167: [Cn. Ocjtavius Cn. f. Cn. n. pro pr(aetore) an. DXXCV[l] ex Macedon(ia) et rege Perse naval(em) egit K. Dec. 42.4 Albam: Alba Fucentia on the Via Valeria, a Latin colony founded in 303 in the territory of the Aequi (L. 10.1). Alba was one of the twelve colonies which refused to send military contingents in 209 for the war against Hannibal (L. 27.9.7). The strength of its walls and its natural position made Alba an ideal place of detainment. Syphax of Numidia (L. 30.17.2) and Bituitus, king of the Arverni (L. Ep. 61) were also imprisoned here. See MacKendrick The Mute Stones Speak 95 - 98. For a possible identification of the dungeons, see De Visscher and De Ruyt Ant. Class. 20 (1951) 72 - 74. According to Diod. 31.9, Perseus had been thrown into prison by one of the praetors (TwV K°tf<x TtoA>v (rrcpcvr-^ &V c-lj •„ probably by Cassius Longinus himself) before the senate had made a final decision on the fate of the king. After seven days of the most miserable confinement Perseus was removed to more comfortable quarters at the instance of M. Aemilius Lepidus (68), the princeps senatus. There are two versions of the circumstances of the king's death. According to Diod. 31.9, which probably represents the Polybian tradition, the king was killed by the prison guards, who would not let him sleep. This version also occurs in Sallust Hist, fr. IV. 69.7. The other version is recorded by Zon. 9.24.5 and probably represents the annalistic tradition. Zonaras states that Perseus committed suicide when he lost hope of being restored to his kingdom. Plutarch (Aem. 37) recorded both versions, noting that most of his sources reported that Perseus committed suicide, while some said he was killed by the guards. According to Plutarch it was Aemilius Paullus himself who interceded on behalf of Perseus; this tradition is preserved in the Incerti Panegyricus Constantino Augusto VI (VII) 10.7. 42.5 [Bithys, filius Cotyis], regis Thracum: The words detrahens habere sineret; Bithys, filius Cotyis, which are missing from the MS. at L. 45.42.4-5, were added by Madvig (see Giarratano 363 - 364). Bithys had been captured along with the children of Perseus in Macedonia, where he had been sent as a hostage by his father (see on 6.1). In the following year Bithys was sent by Kotys at the head of an embassy to request that the Romans assign Abdera in Thrace to Kotys (cf. SIG3 656). 42.5 Carseolos: Carseoli was a Latin colony founded in 198 (L. 10.13.1). It was another one of the twelve colonies which refused to send contingents in 209 (L. 27.9.7). The town was located on the Via Valeria in the territory of the Aequi. 42.8 meminisse amicitiae quae...fuisset: Amicitia was established with three Thracian tribes in 172 (L. 42.19.6), but we do not know of any relationship of amicitia between Rome and the Odrysae, who in fact had supported Perseus against Rome (see on 6.2). 42.11 beneficia gratuita esse populi Romani: In fact the Romans had annexed to Macedonia the part of Thrace west of the Nestos and declared free the cities of Ainos, Maroneia and Abdera (see on 29.5), the last of which had been claimed by Kotys (see on 42.5). 42.11 Legati tres: T. Quinctius Flamininus (*6/46) C. Licinius Nerva (133) M. Caninius Rebilus (12) Quinctius (*6/46) was the son of either T. Quinctius Flamininus (*3/45) or of the latter's brother Lucius (*4/43). The Quinctii had been associated with the Claudii during the Second Punic War, but were not hostile to the Scipios (see Cassola Gruppi 421 - 422; Scullard Rom. Pol. 97 - 100). In 167 Quinctius (*6/46) succeeded C. Claudius Pulcher (300) as augur. He was consul in 150. For Licinius see on 3.1. Caninius (12) had been sent to Greece in 170 as a legatus to investigate the conduct of the war by the consul Hostilius Mancinus (L. 43.11.2). His brother Caius (8) had been praetor in Sicily in 171. 43.1 Triumph of Anicius: cf. Degrassi Fasti Triumphales p. 81 ad a. 167: [L. Ani]cius L. f. M. n. Gallus pro pr(aetore) de rege [Genjfio et Illurie[is] a. DXXCVI Quirinalibus. The Quirinalia were held on 17 Feb. (see Wissowa Rel. und Kult. 153 - 156). The date by the Julian calendar would have been about 2 Dec. 167 (see on 1.11). On dating by the Quirinalia indicating an intercalary year see Michels The Calendar of the  Roman Republic 171 - 172. 43.4 intra paucos dies: cf. L. 44.32.4: intra triginta dies. The subjugation of Illyricum took twenty days according to Appian 111. 9. 43.8 multis dux ipse carminibus celebratus: For triumphal odes, see on 38.12. 43.8 Sestertium ducentiens...auctorem pro re posui: The part of the booty which was displayed in the triumph was turned over to the treasury, where official lists describing this booty were deposited (cf. Cicero In Verrem II. 1.57). Because Roman generals were not required to surrender al l of the booty to the treasury, no complete lists of booty were kept, so that there were no public records from which the value of the undisplayed booty could be discovered by Valerius Antias (see Shatzman Historia 21 (1972) 177 - 205). 125 43.9 Spoletium; On the Via Flaminia, a Latin colony in Umbria founded in 241 (L. Ep. 20; Veil. Pat. 1.14.8). 43.9 Romae in carcerem: The Tullianum. See Welin RE VII. A. 1 (1939) cols. 794 - 798; Nash Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome I. 206 ff. 43.9 Iguvium; A civitas foederata on the Via Flaminia in Umbria. Iguvium received the Roman citizenship during the Social War (see Cicero Pro Balbo 47). 43.10 Corcyraeis et Apolloniatibus et Dyrrhachinis: The Greek towns of Corcyra, Apollonia and Dyrrhachium (ancient Epidamnos) had placed themselves under Roman protection (for deditio see on 1.9) during the First Illyrian War and entered into a relationship of amicitia with Rome. At the conclusion of the war the Romans established a sphere of influence over the coastal regions of Illyricum and Epirus, perhaps from the river Mati just south of Lissos, to just south of Apollonia. This sphere of influence came into being as a result of the amicitia established with Issa, Corcyra, Pharos, the Atintani and the Parthini, along with these three Greek towns. Corcyra, Apollonia and Dyrrhachium were later incorporated into the Roman province of Macedonia established in 148. See Oost Roman Policy 9-15; Badian Foreign Clientelae 44 - 45 and Studies in Greek and Roman History 1-33; Dahlheim Deditio  und societas 22 - 27; De Sanctis Storia III 2. 1. 290 - 294. 44.1 agro tantum Ligurum populato: The Ligures lived along the coast between the Rhone and the Arno, and inland as far as the Durance and the mountains south of the Po. The Ligurian tribes were defeated in campaigns between 238 and 117, and their territory incorporated into Gallia Cisalpina, the province of Gallia Narbonnensis and the Alpine provinces. The Ligurians supported Mago in 205 - 203; after the campaign of 180 the Roman colony of Luna was established on territory captured from the Ligurians (in 177: see on 13.10). 126 On the Ligurians see De Sanctis Storia IV. I 2 . 405 - 412. 44.1 consules crearunt: M. Claudius Marcellus (225) C. Sulpicius Galus (66) For Claudius (225) see on 4.1. For Sulpicius (66) see on 28.9. The two men had also been praetors together in 169. 44.2 praetores; L. Iulius (Caesar?) (28, 127?) L. Appuleius Saturninus (28) A. Licinius Nerva (131) P. Rutilius Calvus (12) P. Quinctilius Varus (*6/l3) M. Fonteius (11) The precise allotment of provinces among the praetors is unknown, except that Iulius may have been the praetor urbanus (Iulius 127) who died in office. Sex. Iulius Caesar (148, 149), consul in 157, had served as tribunus militum under Aemilius Paullus in the campaign against the Ligurians in 181; in 165 he was curule aedile with Cn. Cornelius Dolabella (132). The Iulii Caesares may therefore have been associated with the Aemilian-Scipionic group at this time. For the Licinii Nervae see on 3.1. Rutilius (12) is perhaps to be identified with the tribunus  plebis of 169, Rutilius (8), who supported the cause of the publicani in their dispute with the censors C. Claudius Pulcher and T i . Sempronius Gracchus (cf. L. 43.16). Rutilius (8) was deprived of the Equus Publicus, moved from his tribe and made an aerarius by the censors (see on 15.8). Mifnzer (RE I. A. 1 (1914) col. 1248) rejected the identification of Rutilius (12) with Rutilius (8) on the grounds that the nota censoria could not be lifted until the next census, which took place in 164, but Cicero (De Re Pub. 4.6; Pro Cluentio 119 - 122) implied that the nota censoria did not bar a man from holding public office. Note further that C. Antonius Hibrida (19), praetor 127 i n 66, had been expel led from the senate by the censors i n 70, even though the next census took place only i n 65. See Ktibler RE XVII . 1 (1936) c o l s . 1055 - 1057. The Q u i n c t i l i i were assoc iated with the "middle group" led by the C l a u d i i , the F u l v i i and the F a b i i (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 134 - 135, 165 f f . ) The Fonte i were probably supporters of the S c i p i o s (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 208 n . 1). A P. Fonte ius Capi to had been praetor i n S i c i l y i n 169, and h i s imperium was probably prorogued i n 168 (see on 12.13). 44.2 duae Hispaniae: For the war-time treatment of Spa in , see on 16.2. 44.3 Intercalatum eo anno: In 168 the Roman calendar was some 74 days ahead of the J u l i a n (see on 1.11). In the p r e - J u l i a n Roman ca lendar , the i n t e r c a l a r y month was i n s e r t e d a f t er the T e r m i n a l i a (A. D. VII K a l . M a r t . = 23 F e b . ) When 22 i n t e r c a l a r y days were to be added, the regu lar month of February was i n t e r r u p t e d on the 23rd and the 22 days were i n s e r t e d , fol lowed by the l a s t f i v e days of February; when 23 days were to be added, the regu lar month of February was i n t e r r u p t e d on the 24th and 22 days were i n s e r t e d . The i n t e r c a l a r y month was c a l l e d Mercedonius or I n t e r c a l a r i s , See Miche l s The Calendar of the Roman Republ ic 145 f f . 44.3 C . C l a u d i u s : C . Claudius Pulcher (300) had been consul i n 177, censor i n 169, augur from 195 u n t i l h i s death i n 167. For T . Q u i n c t i u s Flamininus (*6/46) see on 42 .11 . 44.3 Q. Fabius P i c t o r : Q. Fabius P i c t o r (127), Flamen Q u i r i n a l i s from 190 to 167, was the son of Q. Fabius P i c t o r (126), the f i r s t Roman h i s t o r i a n . As praetor i n 189 he was prevented by the Pont i fex Maximus P. L i c i n i u s Crassus Dives from a c t i n g as praetor i n S a r d i n i a and was t r a n s f e r r e d to the p o s i t i o n of praetor peregrinus (L . 37 .51 .1 -6) . For the p o s s i b l e representa t ion of Fabius (127) by h i s grandson or great-grandson N . Fabius P i c t o r (125), who was t r i u m v i r monetal is about 114 - 104, see Babelon D e s c r i p t i o n 128 H i s t o r i q u e et Chronologique des Monnaies de l a Republique Romaine I . 484. 44.4 rex P r u s i a : Prus ias I I , k ing of B i t h y n i a (ca. 182 - 149). His fa ther , Prus ias I (ca. 230 - 182), had at f i r s t been a supporter of P h i l i p V of Macedonia. During the F i r s t Macedonian War, Prus ias I fought against A t t a l o s I of Pergamon i n A s i a Minor and was inc luded as an adscr ip tus to the Peace of Phoin ike i n 205 as an a l l y of P h i l i p (L. 29 .12 .14) . In 202 he and P h i l i p co-operated i n the capture of K i o s , which was assigned to Prus ias ( P o l . 15.23.10) . Although Antiochus I I I sought Prus ias as an a l l y , the B i t h y n i a n k ing was persuaded by the S c i p i o s and by the legatus C . L i v i u s S a l i n a t o r to remain n e u t r a l ( P o l . 21 .11 .1 -2 ; L . 37 .25 .4-14) . P r u s i a s I I had wished to remain n e u t r a l at the opening of the T h i r d Macedonian War (L. 42 .29 .3 ) , but i n 169 he decided to contr ibute f i v e ships for the Pergamene f l e e t (L.' 44.10.12) and probably now entered in to a r e l a t i o n s h i p of a m i c i t i a wi th Rome. T h i s a m i c i t i a was terminated by the senate i n 154 ( P o l . 33 .11 .4 ) . See Habicht . RE X X I I I . 1 (1957) c o l s . 1086 - 1127. The a n n a l i s t i c source of L i v y 44.14.5-7 reported the a r r i v a l i n Rome of an embassy from Prus ias I I i n 169 with the object of n e g o t i a t i n g a peace between Rome and Macedonia. T h i s account may have been coloured by the a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n which p laced the peace-making embassy of the Rhodians i n t h i s year (see Appendix I ) . On the other hand, the Ptolemaic embassy of l a t e 170 came to Rome with the i n t e n t i o n of seeking an end to the war between Rome and Macedonia (Po l . 28 .1 .7) without provoking r e p r i s a l s (although i t must be added that the envoys r e f r a i n e d from i n t r o d u c i n g the subject of peace on the advice of M. Aemi l ius Lepidus , the princeps senatus) . P r u s i a s , too, may have withdrawn h i s o f f er of mediat ion before a c t u a l l y d e c l a r i n g h i s p o s i t i o n before the senate, or the senate may have found i t more convenient to overlook h i s mistake (see on 4 4 . 9 ) . On t h i s embassy see W i l l H i s t o i r e I I . 245 - 246. 129 For the later treatment of Prusias, see on 44.9. 44.4 cum filio Nicomede: He later reigned as Nikomedes II (ca. 149 - 128). 44.7 [L.] Cornelius Scipio quaestor: ,L. Cornelius Scipio (324), son of L. Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (337). He died soon after his quaestorship at the age of 33 (cf. CIL I 2 (1893) no. 12= ILS 5). 44.8 Praeneste unam Fortunae: At the temple of Fortuna Primigenia (see Berig RE Suppl. VIII (1956) cols. 1243 - 1254; Fasolo and Gullini II Santuario  della Fortuna Primigenia a Palestrina). At once a primordial mother-goddess and the daughter of Jupiter, she also delivered oracles (see Otto RE VII. 1 (1910) cols. 23 - 29; Latte RHm. Rel. 176, 264). Another well-known visitor to Praeneste was Karneades, the head of the Academy (in 155: cf. Cicero De Div. 2.87). The feast in honour of Fortuna Primigenia was held on 11 and 12 April, a sacrifice being offered on these dates. cf. CIL I 2 (1893) p. 235 with Commentarii p. 339 (Fasti Praenestini, ad A. D. I l l , Prid. Id. Apr.): [hoc biduo sacrificijum maximu[m] Fortunae Prim[i]g(eniae). Utro eorum die oraclum patet. II viri vitulum i[nmolant]. In 194 a temple to this goddess was built in Rome by Q. Marcius Ralla, the duumvir created for the purpose (L. 34.53.5). 44.9 ut societas secum renovaretur: For the relation of amicitia between Rome and Prusias, see on 44.4. As an informal relationship of friendship not based on a foedus of the Italian type, amicitia with Rome was frequently renewed by foreign states and rulers. The renewal of amicitia with Rome by a new Hellenistic ruler implied that the Romans expected the new ruler to continue the policy of deference to Roman wishes which his predecessor had initiated or maintained; the renewal of amicitia by a non-monarchic state implied that the Romans expected the present government to continue such a policy of deference. Examples of such renewals mentioned by Livy are: Nabis of Sparta, ca. 198 (L. 34.31.6); Perseus, 178 (42.40.4); Ptolemy VI, 173 (42.6.5); Antiochus IV, 173 (42.6.8); Rhodes and cities in Crete, 172 (42.19.8); Thebes, 172 (42.44.5); Pamphylia, 169 (44.14.4). See Sands The Client Princes of the Roman Empire under the Republic 58 - 59. On amicitia see Appendix IV. .9 agerque*sibi de rege Antiocho captus...daretur: It is not known what territory is meant here. By the treaty of Apamea (cf. Pol. 21.42; L. 38.38) Antiochus III was required to evacuate all of Asia Minor north of the Taurus and west of the Halys river. According to the settlement of Asia, Eumenes II received Hellespontine Phrygia, Greater Phrygia and Phrygia Epiktetos (also called Mysia; Prusias I had taken it from Antiochus III). At the conclusion of the war between Eumenes and Prusias in 183, the country of the Galatians seems to have fallen under Pergamene control, but in 168 the Galatians revolted and were not reduced until 166 (see on 19.3). The territory in question here might have been occupied by the Galatians before the peace of Apamea and the settlement of Asia Minor, and left in Galatian hands (cf. L. 45.44.10-11). See Hansen Attalids 92 - 101, 120 - 124. 9 filium. ..senatui commendavit; In the Roman sense, commendatio denoted an act of submission in which one party placed itself under the protection of another (cf. Caesar B. G. 4.27.7: principesque undique convenire et se civitatesque suas Caesari commendare coeperunt). In Roman social life commendatio implied that a person was placed under the tutela or clientela of another (cf. Terence Eunuchus 1039 — 1040; patri se Thais commendavit, in clientelam et fidem nobis dedit se). A somewhat similar concept in the Hellenistic world was that of •irriTponcrt'^ . According to Memnon of Herakleia (Jacoby FGrHist III. B. 434 F 14.1), Nikomedes I of Bithynia declared as err C'TpoTTo I for his heirs Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Antigonos Gonatas, and the people of Byzantion, Herakleia Pontike and Kios. This act of c-rrirpoTreCo(, however, did not necessarily imply the subordination of one party to another, but constituted a guarantee that a ruler's heirs would by recognized by other states. 131 44.9 omnium...favore est adiutus: The same group of senators who wished to interfere in the Attalid dynasty (see on 19.2) and to declare war on Rhodes (see on 25.2) probably desired to promote the influence of Prusias as the guardian of the balance of power in the east. See Badian Foreign Clientelae 104 - 105; McShane Foreign Policy 182 - 186; Will Histoire II. 245 - 246; De Sanctis Storia IV. I 2 . 352 - 354; Hansen Attalids 116 - 125; Scullard Rom. Pol. 215 - 216. 44.10 legatos: Their identity is unknown. It was perhaps their recommendations which led to the senatus consultum granting the Galatians independence in 166 (cf. Pol. 30.28). 44.13 quanta cura...documento Ptolemaeum, Aegypti regem, esse: For the tradition of amicitia between Rome and the Ptolemies since 273 see on 10.2. There is also a tradition that M. Aemilius Lepidus assumed a tutela over Ptolemy V in 201/200 at the request of the Alexandrians (cf. Justinus 30.2.8; Val. Max. 6.6.1). This may have been an act of eTUTporTet'G( , which the Romans could have interpreted as an act of commendatio (see on 44.9), that is, as an act implying that the Ptolemaic kingdom was being placed under Roman protection. In keeping with this act and with the Ptolemaic request for protection, the three legati C. Claudius Nero, M. Aemilius Lepidus and P. Sempronius Tuditanus set out for Egypt in 200 in order to attempt a settlement of the dispute between Antiochus III and Ptolemy V (cf. Pol. 16.27.5) and later warned Philip V not to touch any of Ptolemy's possessions (cf. Pol. 16.34.3). For Roman ulterior motives, see Walbank Commentary II. 533 - 534. An embassy from Ptolemy VI in late 170 renewed friendly relations with Rome (Pol. 28.1.7), and after the defeat of Perseus the Romans decided to limit the ambitions of Antiochus IV, ostensibly on behalf of their amici, the Ptolemies (see Badian Foreign Clientelae 107). The present rulers of Egypt (see on 11.1, 11.2, 11.3) were the children of Ptolemy V. 44.15 ex ea summa munera dari...data essent: —-—-j^- j One hundred pounds of silver (cf. L. 45.14.6). 44.16 ex classe, quae Brundisi esset; These were warships used in the Macedonian war; they did not belong to the flotillas of the duumviri navales which protected the coasts of Italy from 181 to 176. The duumviral squadrons made their last appearance in 176 (cf. L. 41.17.7). See Thiel Studies on the History of Roman Sea-Power in Republican Times 420 - 429. 44.19 Polybius; The account of Polybius (30.18) and of the Greek writers who followed his account (e.g., Diod. 31.15) does not treat the details of this embassy, but concentrates on portraying the servil baseness of Prusias. The annalistic tradition and the account of Polybius, which are not strictly contradictory, may reflect the different attitudes towards Prusias taken by the senate, who viewed him as a useful ally, and by Polybius, who viewed him as a gross degenerate whose vices led to his inevitable downfall (cf. Pol. 32.15, 36.15 with Pedech Meth. Hist. 216 - 229). The unfavourable opinion of the Bithynian kings seems to have persisted down to the time of Nikomedes IV, with whom Caesar was suspected by some people of having had homosexual relations (cf. Suet. Julius 2, 49). 44.21 actumque in Asia bellum inter Eumenen et Gallos in . . . . i t ; The reading of the MS. is ACTUMQUEINASIABELLUMINTEREUMENET  GALLOS / IN....IT. cf. Giarratano 370: Post IN secuntur duo  versus fere evanidi, in quibus Gitlbauer haec agnovit; ASIABELLUMINTEREUMENETGALLOS / IN....IT. Mommsen, qui jam  EUMENEN correxerat, INDE COEPIT supplevit, INCREVIT Gitlbauer, INNOTUIT Wessely. Prusias I was aided by the Galatians in his war against Eumenes II (ca. 186 - 183). In 167 Prusias II requested some territory in Asia Minor being held by the Galatians (see on 44.9). In response to this request the senate despatched ambassadors, who may have recommended that the Galatians be declared free (see on 44.10). This declaration probably followed the defeat of the Galatians by Eumenes in 168 - 166. 1 3 3 Eumenes was later accused by Prusias of interfering with the Galatians (cf. Pol. 30.30.2-3). In 165 Prusias also encouraged the Galatians themselves to complain about Eumenes (Pol. 31.1.2-5). Their suspicions increased by these accusations, the Romans sent envoys to investigate the conduct of Eumenes as well as that of the other Greeks (Pol. 31.1.6-8, 31.6). These accusations continued as late as 161 (cf. Pol. 31.32), until Prusias and Attalos II, who had succeeded his brother Eumenes in 159, went to war (ca. 156 - 154). See Willrich RE VI. 1 (1907) cols. 1096 - 1103; Vitucci II Regno di Bitinia 73-82; Habicht RE XXIII. 1 (1957) cols. 1113 - 1120; Hansen Attalids 124 - 133. On the colophon which occurs at the end of the MS. containing Book 45, cf. Giarratano 370: Post sex fere versuum intervallum  haec exstant et minio et atramento exarata: TITI LIUI AB URBE CONDITA LIB . XLU . EXP . INC . LIB . XLUI . FELICITER 1 3 4 PART THREE APPENDICES APPENDIX ONE: ROME AND RHODES, 172 - 1 6 7 L i v y ( 4 4 . 1 4 . 8 - 1 5 . 8 ) , f o l lowing h i s a n n a l i s t i c source, wrongly placed i n 1 6 9 the peace-making embassy which, according to P o l . 2 9 . 1 9 (fol lowed by L . 4 5 . 3 . 3 - 8 ) , a r r i v e d i n the summer of 1 6 8 s h o r t l y before the b a t t l e of Pydna (also see L . 4 4 . 3 5 . 4 ) . The Rhodians d i d send an embassy to Rome l a t e i n the summer of 1 6 9 ( c f . P o l . 2 8 . 2 , 1 6 ) , but at that time r e l a t i o n s between Rome and Rhodes were s t i l l c o r d i a l and the purpose of the embassy was to renew a m i c i t i a w i th Rome and to request t r a d i n g p r i v i l e g e s i n S i c i l y . The ambassadors were a l so to defend t h e i r c i t y against accusat ions (Po l . 2 8 . 2 . 2 ) . These must have been accusat ions of d i s l o y a l t y occasioned by the emergence of a powerful pro-Macedonian f a c t i o n which c o n s i s t e n t l y opposed Rhodian support of Rome (for example, of the f o r t y ships placed at the d i s p o s a l of the Romans by Hagesilokhos i n 1 7 2 , only s ix were sent when the praetor C . L u c r e t i u s G a l l u s requested Rhodian ships i n 1 7 1 : P o l . 2 7 . 3 , 7 ) . The embassy despatched to Rome under Hagesilokhos i n 1 6 9 seems to have been c o n t r o l l e d by the pro-Roman group, whi le the other embassy of 1 6 9 , sent to the consul Q . Marcius P h i l i p p u s and to the praetor C . Marcius F i g u l u s , seems to have been c o n t r o l l e d by the pro-Macedonian group. A g e p o l i s , the leader of t h i s second embassy, was the leader of the peace-making embassy of 1 6 8 ( c f . P o l . 2 8 . 2 , 1 6 ; 2 9 . 1 0 ) . When Agepol i s and h i s col leagues a r r i v e d on t h e i r embassy to him i n 1 6 9 , Marcius P h i l i p p u s suggested that the Rhodians should t r y to negot iate a peace between Rome and Macedonia (c f . P o l . 2 8 . 1 7 . 4 with Schmitt Rom und Rhodos 1 4 5 n . 2 ) . Thus, P h i l i p p u s was probably aware of the s t r i f e between the pro-Roman p o l i t i c i a n s of Rhodes and t h e i r opponents, who e i t h e r des i red an o u t r i g h t v i c t o r y for Perseus or p r e f e r r e d a balance of power (see on 2 4 . 2 , 3 1 . 4 ) . Later i n 1 6 9 Perseus sent an embassy to Rhodes ( P o l . 2 9 . 4 . 7 ) . Metrodoros, the leader of t h i s embassy, rece ived an assurance from 135 Polyaratos that the Rhodians would join Perseus ( L . 44.23). In 168 the Rhodian boule, now controlled by the pro-Macedonian group, decided to send peace-making embassies to Rome and to Aemilius Paullus and Perseus (Pol. 29.10). Envoys were also sent to the Cretan cities with which the Rhodians wished to form alliances. Upon the arrival of the embassy from Perseus, the Rhodian boule granted the ambassadors of Perseus and Gentius a courteous reply, informing them of the Rhodian policy of mediation and urging them to be disposed to accept terms with Rome (Pol. 29.11; L. 44.29.6-8). The Rhodian envoys sent to Aemilius Paullus, arriving in Macedonia shortly before the time of the battle of Pydna, were summarily dismissed (L. 44.35.4-6; Zon. 9.23.3). The envoys sent to Rome arrived before the victory over Perseus, but when they were introduced before the senate after the defeat of Perseus at Pydna was known, they made no attempt to disguise the purpose for which they had been sent. In fact, they seem to have already discussed peace negotiations at an earlier audience with the senate (cf. L. 44.35.4; Zon. 9.23.3). It is possible that the senatorial commission sent to the Hellenistic east in 172 did find out about the pro-Macedonian group in Rhodes and accurately reported that the Rhodians could not be relied upon (L. 42.19.7-8; 42.26.7-9. Annalistic: see Nissen Krit. Untersuch. 246 - 248; Klotz Livius 67 - 68). The majority of Rhodian leaders, however, were s t i l l loyal to Rome in 172 (cf. Pol. 27.3) and it was only towards the latter half of 169 that the pro-Macedonian group became predominant. The annalists probably placed the Rhodian attempt at mediation a year earlier in order to exaggerate the disloyalty of Rhodes and to justify the harsh treatment of the Rhodians which followed the war (see on 20.4). For general bibliography see on 3.3 and 20.4. Also see Schmitt Rom und Rhodos 211 - 217; Derow Phoenix 27 (1973) 351 n. 20. 136 APPENDIX TWO: THE THEME OF RHODIAN ARROGANCE IN THE ANNALISTIC TRADITION The Roman annalistic tradition seems to have characterized the Rhodians as proud and arrogant. We read, for instance, in Livy's account of the embassy of 169, Rhodii superbe commemoratis meritis suis (44.14.8). The Rhodians issued a stern warning: per quos stetisset quominus belli finis fieret, adversus eos quid sibi faciendum esset Rhodios consideraturos esse (44.14.12). After the senate, according to Claudius Quadrigarius, had issued the senatus consultum liberating Lycia and Caria, the Rhodian bubble burst: qua re audita principem legationis, cuius magniloquentiam  vix curia paulo ante ceperat, corruisse (L. 44.15.1-2). Valerius Antias reported an answer of the senate contemptuous of the Rhodians' presumption, and pointed out that the envoys refused the customary gift of money offered by the senate (L. 44.15.3-8). Livy introduced the notion of Rhodian arrogance even when his source did not. In describing the embassy of 168, Polybius wrote that Fortune made a mocking display of Rhodian stupidity ( T T J V T O O V 'PoSuoW efyvocctv": 29.19.2). Livy rendered this as ludibrium  stolidae superbiae (45.3.3). Livy also inserted a reference to inborn Rhodian arrogance into his version of the speech of the Rhodian spokesman in 167 (45.23.13-19). The reason for the tardiness of the Rhodians in seeking an alliance with Rome was, according to Pol. 30.5.6-8 (followed by L. 45.25.9), the desire to remain independent in their foreign policy. However, we may perhaps find another trace of the Roman annalistic attitude to the Rhodians in the reasons given by Dio fr. 68.3: the Rhodians wished to inspire the Romans with fear and wished to be courted by states which went to war against Rome. Finally, we may note a statement in the speech of Cato the Censor on behalf of the Rhodians delivered in 167 (Malcovati ORF2 no. 8 fr. 169): Rodiensis superbos esse aiunt id obiectantes quod mihi et liberis meis minime dici velim. sint sane superbi. quid ad nos pertinet? idne irascimini, si quis superbior est quam nos? Livy had read this speech (cf. L. 45.25.2-4) as well as the accounts of Claudius Quadrigarius and of Valerius Antias, and seems to have repeated their bias against the Rhodians which probably stemmed from the surprising tone of independence which the Rhodians alone dared to take with Rome at this time. 138 APPENDIX THREE: ROME, THE PTOLEMIES AND ANTIOCHUS IV, 170 - 168 Our knowledge of the chronology of the Sixth Syrian War is derived from a variety of sources, mainly partial or fragmentary accounts. The following scheme represents an attempt to clarify the stages of this war and the diplomatic relations between Rome and the Ptolemaic kingdom during the war. 1) Some time between 5 Oct. and 12 Nov. 170 the joint reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor, Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II and Cleopatra II was proclaimed. This move was probably connected with the Egyptian plans for the conquest of Koile Syria. See Turner Bulletin of the John Rylands, Library 31 (1948) 148 - 161; Bikerman Chronique d'Egypte 54 (1952) 396 - 403; Skeat Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 47 (1961) 107 - 112. 2) Embassy of Ptolemy VI and of Antiochus IV to Rome, late 170 (Pol. 28.1). The envoys of Antiochus complained of Ptolemaic aggression, while the envoys of Ptolemy came to renew friendly relations with Rome (see on 10.2), to seek an end to the war between the Romans and the Macedonians, and to observe the outcome of the audiences of Antiochus1 envoys with the senate. M. Aemilius Lepidus (68), who had been sent as an ambassador to Ptolemy V in 201, warned the Egyptian envoys not to introduce the subject of peace with Macedonia. The Ptolemaic envoys received favourable replies to their requests, while the ambassadors of Antiochus were told that the senate would charge Q. Marcius Philippus (79), the consul of 169, to write to Ptolemy C05 <xoTii ooKeT <rup.<}epe-iv «K TTJ y Joi°<5" rr i'<r ft? <»jy # 3) After the Ptolemaic army was defeated late in 170 (before 9 Dec: for bibliography see no. 1), Ptolemy VI failed to escape to Samothrace and was compelled to negotiate with Antiochus, who now controlled Egypt (Pol. 28.18-19; Porphyrios of Tyre, Jacoby FGrHist II. B. 260 F 49). 4) Anakleteria: late 170 or early 169 (cf. Pol. 28.12.8). News of the Anakleteria of Ptolemy VI reached the Achaeans early in 169 when Perseus was preparing to enter Thessaly. The coming of age of Ptolemy VI was most likely proclaimed by Antiochus, who recognized the right of the elder brother alone to the throne of Egypt. 139 5) Antiochus des ired the r e t u r n of Ptolemy VI to A lexandr ia as a c l i e n t k ing ( P o l . 28 .20-23) , but the r e a c t i o n of the Alexandrians to the negot ia t ions between Ptolemy VI and Antiochus had been to dec lare the younger brother of Ptolemy VI sole k ing (c f . P o l . Z 9 . Z 3 . 4 : ^ T J *yxp <ruN>*(5«ive r o v e T O V v/c-wTgpov T r T o \ e M « ' ° v Jno T £ V o'xkoov «v«l.eoe?xJ«l (Wu/<* O I * ^ v/ rTC-p I V T * cn • ). 6) Antiochus now l a i d s iege to A l e x a n d r i a , c la iming to support the r i g h t s of the e lder Ptolemy, whom he had l e f t at Memphis (c f . P o l . Z 9 . Z 3 . 4 ; P o l . 28.ZZ ; L . 45 .11 .1 ) . 7) Before the departure of Antiochus from A l e x a n d r i a , Ptolemy V I I I and Cleopatra sent an embassy to Rome. This embassy i s erroneously placed by L i v y ' s a n n a l i s t i c source (cf . L . 44.19.6-14) at the beginning of the consular year 168 (about mid-January: see on 1.11). Since by that time the two Ptolemies had been r e c o n c i l e d (see no. 10), i t appears that the a n n a l i s t i c source post-dated t h i s e a r l i e r embassy. I t was probably i n r e p l y to t h i s embassy from Ptolemy V I I I and Cleopatra that the senate sent T . Numisius T a r q u i n i e n s i s (10) to negot ia te an agreement between Antiochus and the Ptolemies (c f . P o l . Z 9 . Z 5 . 3 - 4 ) . See Nissen K r i t . Untersuch . 263; S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 210 n . 2 . There a l so seems to have been a l a t e r embassy which a r r i v e d i n Rome e a r l y i n the consular year 168 (see no. 10). 8) Unable to capture A l e x a n d r i a , Antiochus i n s t a l l e d a g a r r i s o n i n Pe lous ion , which he he ld as a po int of entry in to Egypt i n case he decided to lead another invas ion of the country . Leaving Ptolemy VI at Memphis i n c o n t r o l of the r e s t of Egypt , Antiochus r e t i r e d in to S y r i a , expect ing that a c i v i l war between the two brothers would remove any threat to h i s continued possess ion of K o i l e S y r i a (L . 45 .11 .4 -5 ) . 9) When Antiochus abandoned the siege of A l e x a n d r i a i n 169, he sent as envoys to Rome the same men whom he had sent e a r l i e r to complain about Ptolemaic aggress ion (Po l . 28.22; c f . P o l . 2 8 . 1 . 1 ) . The money which Antiochus of fered as a g i f t to the Romans may have been der ived from the booty he had taken i n Egypt (cf . Porphyrios of T y r e , Jacoby FGrHis t I I . B. 260 F 49) . 10) A f t e r the departure of Antiochus from A l e x a n d r i a and before the spr ing of 168, the Ptolemies were r e c o n c i l e d (L. 45 .11 .1 -7 ) . They asked m i l i t a r y a i d from the Achaean League (Po l . 29.23-25) and 140 from Rome (L. 44.19.6-14 with no. 7; Justinus 34.2.8 - 3.1).. The request for Roman aid was perhaps accompanied by a shipment of grain to the Roman naval base at Chalcis in Euboia (cf. OGIS 760 and see on 10.2). 11) In response to this embassy the senate sent C. Popillius Laenas (*7/18), C. Decimius (1) and C. Hostilius (3). For their instructions, cf. L. 44.19.14: Prius Antiochum, dein  Ptolemaeum adire iussi et nuntiare, ni absistatur bello, per  utrum stetisset, eum non pro amico nec pro socio habituros esse. For the amicitia of Rome with the Ptolemies and with the Seleucids see on 10.2 and 12.6. For general bibliography on this embassy, see on 10.2. 141 APPENDIX FOUR: AMICITIA, SOCIETAS, AMICITIA ET SOCIETAS According to Roman Fetial'Law, all foreign states were either hostes or socii. The socii in peninsular Italy were technically sovereign states bound to Rome by a foedus (permanent alliance). The socii nominis Latini, who were not all bound by a foedus, and whose status approached more closely that of Roman citizenship, were not foederati in the same sense as the socii proper. The individual states allied to Rome (civitates foederatae) agreed by the terms of their foedus that neither party would commit an act of hostility against the other, and that either party would come to the aid of the other if that state was attacked by a third party. Although it is possible that in theory either state was required to aid the other with all its forces (see the summary of the Foedus Cassianum in Dionysios of Halikarnassos Ant. 6.95 with Ogilvie Commentary 317 - 318), in practice the Romans, always the dominant partner in these alliances, determined the extent of allied participation in their wars by reference to the formula togatorum, by which fewer than the full levy were called up (cf. L. 27.10.3, 29.15.6). The formula togatorum was a schedule which stated either the maximum number of troops which the socii and the Latini were required to provide by treaty (see Beloch Italische Bund 203 - 210; Toynbee Hannibal's Legacy I. 424 - 437) or, more probably, the number of troops requested each year by Rome on the basis of revised estimates of allied military capacity (see Beloch Die  BevHlkerung der griechisch-rb'mischen Welt III. 353 - 355; Brunt Ital. Manpower 545 - 548. Also see Beloch Italische Bund 194 - 206; Sherwin-White The Roman Citizenship 112 - 125; Badian Foreign Clientelae 25 - 28; Toynbee Hannibal's Legacy I. 258 - 266. The relationship which Rome usually formed with non-Italian states in the third and second centuries B. C. was that of amicitia. This relationship was not necessarily based on a foedus and did not necessarily mean anything more than the existence of friendly relations between Rome and a foreign state. The amici might voluntarily co-operate with Rome in wars or in other circumstances (on Polybius' use of the term koivorrpa(^ i.'ox see Dahlheim Deditio und 142 societas 242 n. 2), but they were not strictly obliged to do more than maintain cordial relations with Rome. By the middle of the second century, however, the Romans had come to expect the amici to show a willingness to defer to Roman wishes, especially in the area of foreign policy (cf. Pol. 3.4.3; OGIS 315). In this way, the amici, although sovereign states, tended to become clientes of Rome, and the conduct expected of them approached that expected of the Italian socii. The senate declared- foreign states and individuals amici through a senatus consultum, and public lists (the so-called formula sociorum or formula amicorum) were kept of the amici (cf. L. 43.6.10, 44.16.7; CIL I 2 (1893) no. 588). Treaties formed with the amici might specify conditions under which friendly relations could be deemed to exist (cf. the treaties between Rome and Carthage: Pol. 2.7, 3.22-25 with Walbank Commentary I. 168-172, 337-353; the treaty between Rome and Antiochus III in 189: Pol. 21.42; L. 38.38 with T&ibler Imperium  Romanum 49: amicitia was established between the two powers on condition that Antiochus observe the terms of the peace treaty). A similar case was probably the amicitia granted Philip V in 197 (cf. Pol. 18.48.4-5; L. 33.35.5-6). Such treaties might also determine the nature of the co-operation between Rome and the amici for some specific purpose of limited duration (cf. the last treaty between Rome and Carthage: Pol. 3.25.1-5; the treaty between Rome and the Aetolian League in about 211: IG IX 2. 1. 2 (1957) no. 241; L. 26.24 with Walbank Commentary II. 162; Will Histoire II. 76 - 77). The conclusion of a peace treaty with a foreign power did not in itself establish a defeated state as an amicus of Rome. After the conclusion of the peace-treaty with Philip V in 197, the king was instructed to send ambassadors to Home to seek a relationship of amicitia (Pol. 18.48.4-5; L. 33.35.5-6). In the revised peace treaty (see THubler Imperium Romanum 34 - 35) ratified by Antiochus III and the ten commissioners in 188, the first clause granted Antiochus a relationship of amicitia with Rome on condition that he observe the terms of the peace treaty (Pol. 21.42.1; L. 38.38.1). Although the establishment of a m i c i t i a might be accompanied by a foedus which defined the o b l i g a t i o n s of the a m i c i , i t i s most probable that the Romans intended the f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s e s tab l i shed by a m i c i t i a to continue even a f t er the s p e c i f i c circumstances envisaged i n the foedus no longer e x i s t e d , or when both the Romans and the amici had f u l f i l l e d the terms of the foedus. One case which may seem to suggest that the Romans p laced temporal l i m i t s on the r e l a t i o n s h i p of a m i c i t i a i s the peace t rea ty between Rome and Hieron I I of Syracuse i n 2 6 3 . According to D i o d . 2 3 . 4 . 1 , peace was made for f i f t e e n y e a r s , whi le Zon. 8 . 1 6 . 2 recorded the establishment of perpetua l a m i c i t i a i n 2 4 8 . From t h i s Dahlheim (Dedit io und soc ie tas 122 - 1 2 7 ) concludes that the Romans o c c a s i o n a l l y made a l l i a n c e s (c f . I b i d , p . 1 2 1 : "Es i s t absolut s i c h e r , dass der P r a e l i m i n a r v e r t r a g h i e r erwe i ter t und Hieron unter die O"\>'u,f-«xoi z u zaTilen i s t") of f i xed d u r a t i o n , but i t seems more l i k e l y that the terms mentioned by Diodoros formed p a r t of a peace t rea ty ( W a f f e n s t i l l s t a n d s v e r t r a g , or , more probably , D e d i t i o n s v e r t r a g ; see THubler Imperium Romanum 14 - 4 4 ) , ra ther than part of an a l l i a n c e . I f these terms formed par t of a peace t r e a t y , i t i s p o s s i b l e that Hieron had been requ ired to pay t r i b u t e i n y e a r l y i n s t a l l m e n t s , the l a s t of which was p a i d i n 2 4 8 (cf . Zon. 8 . 1 6 . 2 ) , and that the r e l a t i o n s h i p of a m i c i t i a f i r s t e s tab l i shed i n 2 6 3 was now renewed on a d i f f e r e n t bas i s i n 2 4 8 . A somewhat s i m i l a r case was the a m i c i t i a between Rome and Macedonia, which was probably based on the peace t rea ty of 1 9 7 (c f . P o l . 1 8 . 4 8 . 4 - 5 ; L . 3 3 . 3 5 . 3 - 7 ) . In 1 7 2 , when Perseus refused to abide by the terms of the peace t rea ty which had been made with h i s fa ther , or to accept the Roman i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s t r e a t y , he demanded that new terms more favourable to Macedonia should be negot iated (see L. 4 2 . 2 5 , i n an a n n a l i s t i c s ec t ion r e f l e c t i n g the Roman a t t i t u d e towards a m i c i t i a : Nissen K r i t . Untersuch. 2 4 6 - 2 4 7 ; Klotz L i v i u s 6 7 - 6 8 ) . See the review of Dahlheim's book by Oost, CP 6 2 ( 1 9 6 7 ) 1 4 9 - 151. Even i f Diodoros was accura te ly r e p o r t i n g the terms of an a l l i a n c e s i m i l a r to the one which accompanied the a m i c i t i a between Rome and the A e t o l i a n League, we should not conclude that a temporal limit was imposed on the amicitia established at that time as well as on the validity of the specific terms listed in the treaty (the terms of the Romano-Aetolian treaty, for instance, were to be observed until the war against Philip V was ended on conditions acceptable to the Romans). Treaties made by Rome with the amici did not, however, assimilate the amici to the status of the Italian socii, who were distinguished from them (cf. L. 29.11.2; Appian Kelt. 13). Societas of the Italian type always rested upon a foedus, whereas amicitia was not necessarily based upon a foedus. Foedera of the Italian type were perpetual alliances, while the foedera which might accompany the establishment of amicitia contained terms which were valid in specific circumstances of limited duration. The relationship of amicitia could be revoked unilaterally by Rome or by the amicus (cf. Pol. 33.12.5; L. 36.3.8, 42.25.1), whereas societas could not be revoked in this way. Amicitia did not bind either party to come to the military assistance of the other, while societas did so bind them. The amici of Rome were not regularly called upon to provide military aid as were the Italian socii; they were not included in the formula togatorum. Unless there existed a foedus defining the responsibilities of the amici, they had no formal commitment to Rome beyond the adoption of at least a position of declared or of undeclared neutrality when Rome was at war. If an amicus did decide to give military support, "he sent it of his own free will alone, determined the amount himself and the time during which i t should be available, and it was not subject to Roman command, except by special and temporary arrangement" (Matthaei 191). It was of course expected that the amici would refrain from committing hostile acts against Rome, but the interpretation of any act as hostile was dependent upon the attitudes of the Romans at any given time, and by the middle of the second century, the failure of the amici to accept Roman foreign policy could clearly be considered a hostile act (cf. the alleged negotiations between Perseus and Eumenes II concerning the mediation of peace between Rome and Macedonia: Pol. 30.1.6 and see on 19.1 and 19.5; the attempt of the Rhodians 145 to mediate: Pol. 29.19 and see on 3.3 and 24.2). Since they were expected more and more to accept Roman foreign policy, the amici came to resemble the Italian socii in their responsibilities to Rome. See Sands The Client Princes of the Roman Empire under the Republic; Heuss VHlk. Grundl. ; Dahlheim Deditio und societas 244 - 246; Accame Roma alia Conquista del Mediterraneo Orientale 59 - 69. Although the foreign amici may be distinguished from the Italian socii, the terminology used of the amici in the literary sources is confused and imprecise. Although the amici were not identical in status to the Italian socii, the terms socii and societas were often used in connection with the amici (see Matthaei 186 - 187). We may perhaps identify a number of factors which led to this confusion. By the middle of the second century, the responsibilities of the amici were in certain ways similar to those of the Italian socii. Some of the amici did have foedera with Rome, while even those who did not have foedera could be expected to act as i f they did. Since the socii were all foederati (but not all foederati were socii), the Roman annalists may have tended to treat as socii those of the amici who did have foedera with Rome, and even those who did not have such foedera, seeing that in practice the difference between the two groups had grown slight. Any state which supported Rome in war could in a practical sense be considered a socius, and Polybius seems to have often equated KOivorrpanux with e"opu.o<;<ux , even this would not have been accurate from the point of view of Roman Fetial Law (see Dahlheim Deditio und societas 242). On the imprecise terminology of the literary sources, see Matthaei 186 - 187; Dahlheim Deditio und societas 163 - 175. Another problem is the similarly imprecise use of the expression socii et amici. Although it is used exclusively of non-Italian states, never of the Italian socii, this expression does not distinguish the different classes of non-Italian states. A notorious example is the case of Rhodes after the Third Macedonian War. Livy, probably reflecting the attitude of his 146 a n n a l i s t i c source, i n c l u d e d as p a r t of the answer of the consul. M. Iunius Pennus to the Rhodian ambassadors i n 167 the f o l l o w i n g statement: Rhodios non i t a meritos eo b e l l o , u t amicorum sociorumque numero habendi s i n t (45.20.8), i m p l y i n g that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Rome and Rhodes had been one of s o c i e t a s et a m i c i t i a , a r e l a t i o n s h i p which the Rhodians had destroyed by t h e i r attempt to f o l l o w an independent f o r e i g n p o l i c y . However, we are t o l d by P o l y b i u s (30.5.5-10), who was followed by L i v y (45.25.7-10), th a t although the Rhodians had o f t e n co-operated w i t h the Romans i n war, there e x i s t e d no t r e a t y b i n d i n g the two s t a t e s . P o l y b i u s used the expression ^ <$LAL'O( K«l irj e-\jjuf^^X L ' a t o d e s c r i b e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Rome and P r u s i a s I I which the Romans terminated u n i l a t e r a l l y i n 154 because P r u s i a s would not stop h i s war against A t t a l o s I I ( c f . P o l . 33.12.5: &io / r r6^ °t only have been one of a m i c i t i a . Since the expression s o c i i et am i c i i s a l s o used of other s t a t e s which cannot be shown to have had any s o r t of t r e a t y w i t h Rome, Matthaei and Dahlheim conclude t h a t t h i s expression was used simply to designate the amici i n t h e i r character as s t a t e s whose conduct resembled t h a t of the I t a l i a n s o c i i ( c f . M a t t h e i 185: "Socius e t amicus was, I t h i n k , simply the o f f i c i a l t i t l e a p p l i e d to the ami c i by the Roman government"; Dahlheim D e d i t i o  und s o c i e t a s 245 - 246: "Der Terminus amicus et soc i u s benennt vielmehr nur zwei von der h i s t o r i s c h e n R e a l i s i e r u n g abhSngige S e i t e n e i n - und desselben R e c h t s v e r h M l t n i s s e s , nHmlich der a m i c i t i a " ) . The expression s o c i i e t am i c i (c^cAOi Y-GL croup.otxo0 a l s o occurs i n e p i g r a p h i c documents. Among the e a r l i e s t documents which d e s c r i b e r e l a t i o n s between Rome and H e l l e n i s t i c c i t i e s c a l l e d <$t\ot KC^I cro")o. 1X0(^01 of Rome are: 0GIS 762 IG XIV (1890) p. 696 SIG 3 679 SIG 3 674 K i b y r a , ca. 189 - 167 Tabai, ca. 167 - 150 Pr i e n e and Magnesia, 160 M e l i t a i a and Narthak a i a , ca. 140 SIG3 694 Elaia (or Pergamon), 129. IG IV2. 1 (1929) no. 63 Epidauros, 115/4 SIG3 705 Athens, 112 IGXII. 3 (1904) no. 173 Astypalaia, 105 Of these, only Kibyra, Elaia, Epidauros and Astypalaia can be shown to have had treaties with Rome, a point which favours the views of Matthaei and Dahlheim. There was clearly a group of non-Italian states, however, which had foedera with Rome which did not merely specify the conditions under which amicitia could exist, or define the nature of the co-operation between Rome and these states, but which placed these states on a standing which closely resembled that of the Italian socii. These states were required not only to refrain from committing any hostile act against Rome, but also to provide military aid if Rome was the victim of attack by a third party. The Romans on their part undertook the same responsibilities towards these non-Italian states. Details of several treaties of this kind with non-Italian states are preserved on stone: OGIS 762 Kibyra, ca. 189 - 167 IG XII. 2 (1899) no. 510 Methymne, before 105 IGXII. 3 (1904) no. 173 Astypalaia, 105 Warmington Remains of Old Latin vol. IV, pp. 292 -295, no. 55 Kallatis, late second c. -early first c. IG XII. 2 (1899) no. 35 col. D Mitylene, 25 In 129 the people of Elaia (or Pergamon), who had possessed a relationship of <9v.Alft with Rome until the end of the war against Andronikos, now became cpiXol K°U <3"uu-M<*/<0t of Rome (SIG^ 694). Epidauros, which in 115/4 obtained a relationship of <OIALO<. 1 <ru}J. faCtX^ OC with Rome probably also belongs to this group of states (IG IV2. 1 (1929) no. 63). 1 4 8 T o t h e s e d o c u m e n t s w e m a y a d d a n u m b e r o f t r e a t i e s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e l i t e r a r y s o u r c e s : M e m n o n , J a c o b y F G r H i s t 4 3 4 F 1 8 . 1 0 H e r a k l e i a P o n t i k e , c a . 1 8 9 I n 1 9 0 t h e p e o p l e o f H e r a k l e i a b e c a m e a m i c i o f R o m e ( c f . M e m n o n , J a c o b y F G r H i s t 4 3 4 F 1 8 . 6 : A l e t t e r w a s s e n t t o t h e m , e v ^ $I\LC*\/ TC- Trpbs o c u r o u S Tfj$ c u ^ j K A ^ TOO (iouX-v^ u IT i CTXV & TO) , a n d p r o b a b l y i n t h e f o l l o w i n g y e a r t h e y b e c a m e s o c i i e t a m i c i , r e c e i v i n g a f o e d u s s i m i l a r t o t h o s e o f t h e I t a l i a n s o c i i ( c f . I b i d . , F 1 8 . 1 0 : K <t I Te 'Ao? <TUV^^V<<?(L TT^O^AT9OV c P " | j . c ( t o i S re K O U crA?<x ^ A e w r a t s ' ^LAOU<5 c-ivtxt yxdvov a X X a KOU <ruf>|>- be ou s ocAX-^Aot^j y c r f - ^ w v - T& Kcxt uVep oov ^e-rj n^erev/ 4t<d(TepoL . . . . ) P o l . 2 1 . 3 2 ; L . 3 8 . 1 1 A e t o l i a n L e a g u e , 1 8 9 T h e t r e a t y w i t h t h e A e t o l i a n L e a g u e w a s , s t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g , a p e a c e t r e a t y , n o t a n a l l i a n c e , b u t t h e o b l i g a t i o n s o f a s o c i u s w e r e i m p o s e d u p o n t h e A e t o l i a n s i n t h i s t r e a t y . T h e R o m a n s w e r e u n w i l l i n g t o t r e a t t h e A e t o l i a n s a s t h e y t r e a t e d t h e o t h e r n o n -I t a l i a n s o c i i b y a g r e e i n g t o r e c i p r o c a l o b l i g a t i o n s , b u t t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e A e t o l i a n s w a s s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f t h e I t a l i a n s o c i i i n t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n t o h a v e t h e s a m e f r i e n d s a n d e n e m i e s a s t h e R o m a n s ( c f . T H u b l e r I m p e r i u m R o m a n u m 6 3 : " D a s W e s e n d i e s e s V e r t r a g s l i e g t i m G e g e n s a t z z u d e n g l e i c h e n V e r t r H g e n i n d e r f o r m a l e n u n d s a c h l i c h e n E i n s e i t i g k e i t s e i n e r V e r p f l i c h t u n g e n . R o m e r s c h e i n t n u r a l s v e r p f l i c h t e n d e r , A i t o l i e n n u r a l s v e r p f l i c h t e r T e i l " ) . T h e f o r e r u n n e r o f t h i s t r e a t y s e e m s t o h a v e b e e n t h e p e a c e t r e a t y c o n c l u d e d w i t h C a r t h a g e i n 2 0 1 ( c f . P o l . 1 5 . 1 8 ; L . 3 0 . 3 7 ; A p p i a n L i b . 5 4 w i t h W a l b a n k C o m m e n t a r y I I . 4 6 6 - 4 6 9 ) , w h i c h r e s t r i c t e d C a r t h a g i n i a n f o r e i g n p o l i c y b y t h e p r o h i b i t i o n s a g a i n s t w a g i n g w a r o u t s i d e C a r t h a g i n i a n t e r r i t o r y , a g a i n s t w a g i n g w a r w i t h i n C a r t h a g i n i a n t e r r i t o r y w i t h o u t R o m a n c o n s e n t , a n d a g a i n s t w a g i n g w a r w i t h M a s i n i s s a o r a n y o t h e r a m i c u s o f R o m e . A c c o r d i n g t o L . 3 6 . 4 . 1 0 ( i n a n a n n a l i s t i c s e c t i o n : s e e N i s s e n K r i t . U n t e r s u c h . 1 7 7 - 1 7 8 ; K l o t z L i v i u s 1 3 , 3 9 ) , t h e C a r t h a g i n i a n s w e r e r e q u i r e d 149 ex foedere to provide ships against Antiochus III in 191, and later in this year we find two Carthaginian ships serving in the Roman fleet (L. 36.44.5, in a Polybian section: see Nissen K r i t . Untersuch. 186 - 187; Klotz Livius 13). Pol. 30.31; L. Ep. 46 Rhodes, 165/4 This treaty was renewed in 51 (cf. P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther in Cicero ad Fam. 12.15.2: ...Rhodum reverti confisus...  foedere quoque, quod cum his, M. Marcello, Ser. Sulpicio consulibus, renovatum erat; quo iuraverant Rhodii, eosdem hostes se habituros, quos S.P.Q.R.) In 43, when Cassius was intimidating the Rhodians with a show of force, the Rhodians, who were supporting Dolabella, reminded Cassius of the treaty (<TOV5*\K"JV ) , Hi cpooCois e^cri K<* i 'pw^ o u o c5j O T T A« ur] c$epeiv e m c x X V^Xous , adding, e i oe TI rrep\ <ru|jp.«.xvo(cJ em. u-ejacpotTo , eSeKw rro^o* lP<o (juca'wv' p o u A r j s TYofleViW, KOU KeAeuou<r^5 <TUu.^otxT[VevvtAppian B. C. 4.66). Cassius insisted that since the treaty forbade the Romans and the Rhodians to attack one another, and since i t called for mutual assistance i f either party was the victim of attack by a third power ( TO^5 oc-o*uv-9^ {\<c<s KeAe^eiv onAo< ^ djepetv err' o iAVifAou^... neAe-Jet^ i f « A A Y J \ O I ; 0 " U | J t p . a X f....), the Rhodians had violated the treaty by assisting Dolabella, an enemy of the legitimate government of Rome, against Cassius, an authorized representative of that government (Appian B. C. 4.66). According to Cassius, the treaty contained a stipulation, ' P w y - C U O v 5 fPo6L"o\JS ftoTji? C-iV, K K<*v CV d ^y\^oJ (Ti-V (Appian B. C. 4.70). As a pro-magistrate with maius imperium over the provinces east of the Adriatic (cf. Cicero P h i l . 11.30-31, 13.30 and ad Fam. 12.7.1), Cassius claimed the right to determine when the need for such military aid existed. The treaty with Rhodes had apparently been revised by Julius Caesar (Appian B. C. 4.68, 70). Josephus Ant. 12.414 - 419; I Mace. 8.22-30 Judas Maccabaeus, 160 Josephus Ant. 13.163 - 165 Jonathan Maccabaeus, 135 150 Josephus Ant. 13. 259 - 266 Hyrcanus, ca. 127/6 Although the terms of the Jewish a l l i a n c e seem to i n d i c a t e t h a t the Jews became f o r e i g n s o c i i of Rome, the r e l a t i o n s h i p e s t a b l i s h e d by the foedus of 160 and by the l a t e r renewals of i t was probably t h a t of a m i c i t i a ( c f . Josephus Ant. 14.320, where Antony i n a decree spoke of the Jews as an evv/os <$CAo\/ ) . The t r e a t y w i t h Judas Maccabaeus was made i n 160 soon a f t e r the Jews, i n r e v o l t from Demetrios I , had defeated and k i l l e d i n b a t t l e the S e l e u c i d general Nikanor. Judas had probably been i n communication w i t h the senate i n 161 ( c f . Josephus Ant. 14.233), and the a m i c i t i a was probably concluded e a r l y i n 160 before the r e c o g n i t i o n of Demetrios as k i n g by Rome i n t h i s year ( c f . P o l . 31.33.3). The Romans had probably only considered the p o s s i b i l i t y of i n t e r f e r i n g on b e h a l f of the Jews before the accord w i t h Demetrios i n 160, and the l a t e r renewals of the a m i c i t i a probably r e f l e c t s i m i l a r intentions", but i t i s not c l e a r why the Romans allowed a foedus of a m i c i t i a to take the form of a permanent a l l i a n c e w i t h a n o n - I t a l i a n s o c i u s i n t h i s case. The f i r s t m i l i t a r y i n t e r v e n t i o n of Rome i n Judean a f f a i r s was i n 64 - 63, when Pompey r e s t o r e d Hyrcanus as High P r i e s t . The Romans d i d nothing to help the Jews when t h a t people was once more brought under S e l e u c i d c o n t r o l by Bakhides, the general of Demetrios I , a f t e r the death of Judas Maccabaeus i n 160 ( c f . Josephus Ant. 13.1-57). When the Jewish a l l i a n c e was renewed i n about 127/6, the ambassadors of Hyrcanus presented l e t t e r s to the senate r e q u e s t i n g the redress of grievances a g a i n s t the S e l e u c i d k i n g , but they r e c e i v e d the answer t h a t the senate would c o n s i d e r these matters oVixv (XlTo TOLJV LCWOJV ^ ( T V J ^ K A ^ T O J eucr;x;cAVj <5"-r| (Josephus Ant. 13.265). Since the t r e a t y was made when the Jews had the upper hand i n t h e i r constant s t r u g g l e f o r independence from the S e l e u c i d s , and s i n c e the t r e a t y was twice renewed i n s i m i l a r circumstances, i t seems more l i k e l y t h a t the t r e a t y was intended to be a form of moral support f o r the Jews and a vague warning to the S e l e u c i d s t h a t the senate might s e r i o u s l y consider m i l i t a r y i n t e r v e n t i o n , os tens ib ly on behalf of t h e i r Jewish a l l i e s , i f r e l a t i o n s between Rome and the Se leuc id empire became bad enough. On the Jewish a l l i a n c e , see W i l l H i s t o i r e I I . 308 - 312; c f . THubler Imperium Romanum 253: Ihr Verhal ten gegenUber den Juden l i e g t zwar n i c h t im Sinne des Bundesgenossenschaftsvertrags, aber ebensowenig im Sinne eines f reundschaf t l i chen Abkommens. Ganz abgesehen davon, dass die Bundeshi l fe n i c h t unbedingt, sondern nach den ZeitumstHnden zugesagt war, i s t d ies eben der Unterschied zwischen einem beschworenen und einem nur durch den Senat abgeschlossenen Vertrage , dass d ieser j e d e r z e i t e i n s e i t i g aufgelOst werden kann. On the date of the renewal of the a m i c i t i a by Hyrcanus, see Broughton Magis trates I . 509 n . 2. K i b y r a , Methymne, K a l l a t i s and Mity lene are not express ly sa id to have had a r e l a t i o n s h i p of soc ie tas et a m i c i t i a ( <Sjt.Ai<X Kfll c u | ^ p . ^ X ^ ° \ ) with Rome i n the s u r v i v i n g port ions of the ep igraphic documents to which we have r e f e r r e d , but the form of t h e i r t r e a t i e s with Rome suggests that they were given that t i t l e and that i t would have appeared i n the port ions of these documents which are now l o s t (c f . the a l l i a n c e with A s t y p a l a i a as descr ibed i n IG X I I . 3 (1904) no. 173, l i n e s 26 - 28: [ TW(0 &^U.GJC0 t ^ f0 ] ['Pton^i'wv K ^ I ] Tw(i) c^p .toCi) T W ( 0 'A C T T U rr <x A, <\ i c-<o v On these foedera see THubler Imperium Romanum 44 - 66, 190 - 202, 204 - 214, 239 - 254, 276 - 317; Walbank JRS 37 (1947) 206; Magie Roman Rule 967 n . 89; Sherk Roman Documents from the  Greek East 94 - 99, 146 - 157. Although they had foedera with Rome which c l o s e l y resembled the foedera of the I t a l i a n s o c i i , these n o n - I t a l i a n s tates d i f f e r e d from the I t a l i a n s o c i i i n that they were not c a l l e d upon to perform regular m i l i t a r y serv ice according to the formula togatorum. Thi s point alone shows that the Romans continued to d i s t i n g u i s h the Italian socii from the non-Italian socii who, at least in this respect, continued to be treated as amici. It is possible that the expression socii et amici refers properly to the non-Italian socii of Rome who had foedera similar to those of the Italian socii but who were for practical reasons never fully absorbed into the system of the "Roman Alliance". The earliest epigraphic evidence for the application of the term $iAiO< «<U o"upp.«.x,fa- to the relationship between Rome and a non-Italian state which received a foedus similar to those of the Italian socii seems to be OGIS 762 (Kibyra, c_a. 189 - 167) . Writers of a later period carelessly applied this name to the amici who had foedera with Rome, even though these foedera were not of the Italian type, and even more carelessly applied i t to those of the amici who did not have foedera with Rome. A similar lack of precision seems to occur as well in the epigraphic texts. This confusion can be explained by the fact that by the middle of' the second century, the amici of Rome were expected to accept Roman foreign policy without demur and to provide satisfactory military co-operation when this was required. Matthaei and Dahlheim are undoubtedly correct in considering the status of all non-Italian states, whatever their precise position in international law, to have been closer in reality to the status of amicitia than to the status of societas of the Italian type, but there was certainly a class of foreign states whose status closely resembled that of the Italian socii. In SIG3 694, moreover, <JJi.A><* is clearly distinguished from tyiALOC K <U <rv\x\x&x since Elaia (or Pergamon) is announced in this inscription to have exchanged the former status for the latter in 129 (also see Memnon, Jacoby FGrHist 434 F 18.6, 10). Most of the non-Italian socii of Rome described as socii et amici ($iAoi K < * I (Tuu^a^oL) were single city-states of minor rank and of little or no military importance. In this respect the expression societas et amicitia (or amicitia et societas) was used by the Romans in much the same way as the expression <HAic< YCcTt <TU)L«.y>cn.x^  w^s often used in the Greek east. The expression <J)v.AC« K ° U O-up-p-^x^ often denoted the relations of the kings with the cities in their areas. While these cities were often styled o(uTovO|Aol and enjoyed a degree of local independence, they were usually subject to various forms of royal interference and control, and in general they followed the policy of the kings. The expression QiAtft K«i <ruu.y-ct)<tOl was also commonly used to describe the alliance between two powers when one of them could be considered the principal in the alliance (e.g., Philip V and Skerdilaidas the Illyrian in 220/19: Pol. 4.29.2; Hannibal and Philip V in 215: Pol. 7.9.6). It is possible that this expression, translated into Latin as amicitia et societas, was adopted to denote the technically sovereign states allied with Rome which were in fact subordinate to Rome. At the same time, this designation could serve to distinguish these non-Italian socii from the Italian socii. See Jones The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian 95 - 112; Schmitt Die StaatsvertrUge des Altertums III. Register, s.v. ^c\Cot; KoU <T\ju.U.o(AttX , PP. 440 - 441; McShane Foreign Policy 68 - 89. Among the non-Italian socii of Rome in the second century, the Aetolian League and Rhodes had been important powers whose freedom of action the senate wished to restrict. Although the Aetolians had been amici of Rome since about 212, in 192 they went to war against Rome in support of Antiochus III, whom they had invited into Greece (see on 22.6-8). Since the informal bonds of amicitia had not been sufficient to ensure the loyalty of the Aetolians, the Romans demanded the legal right to enforce this loyalty by compelling the Aetolians to accept a peace treaty which bound them to follow Roman foreign policy (cf. Pol. 21.32.2-4; L. 38.11.1-3). The Rhodians, instead of offering whole-hearted support during the war against Perseus, had attempted to negotiate a peace between Rome and Macedonia (see on 3.3 and 24.2). Because of this, the Romans finally decided in 165/4 to restrict the freedom of the Rhodians to pursue an independent foreign policy by granting them a foedus similar to those of the Italian socii. The humiliation felt by the Rhodians because of this treaty can be understood if we remember that the people of a once proud and independent city were being forced to beg the Romans to consider them as belonging to the class of minor city-states allied to Rome. Never again would the Rhodians be allowed to refuse aid when Rome demanded it . BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Ancient Authors and Texts Cited Apollodoros of Athens. FGrHist II. B, no. 244. Edited by F. Jacoby. Berlin 1929. Appian. Appiani Historia Romana. 2 vols. vol. I edited by P. Viereck and A. G. Roos. Leipzig 1939. vol. II, 2nd ed., edited by L. Mendelssohn and P. Viereck. Leipzig 1905. Appian's Roman History. Translated by H. White. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London and Cambridge, Mass. 1912 - 1913. Cassiodorus. Cassiodori Senatoris Chronica ad a. DXIX. Edited by Th. Mommsen in Chronica Minora Saec. IV. V. VI. VII, vol. II. (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctorum Antiquissimorum Tomus XI). Berlin 1894. pp. 109 - 161. Cicero. Select Letters with Historical Introductions, Notes and Appendices. Edited by W. W. How. 2 vols. Oxford 1925 - 1926. M. Tulli Ciceronis De Natura Deorum. Edited by A. S. Pease. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass. 1955 - 1958. (Text and Commentary) Dio Cassius. Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Romanarum Quae Supersunt. Edited by P. Boissevain. 5 vols. Berlin 1895 - 193 Dio's Roman History. Translated by E. Cary. 9 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London and New York 1914 - 1927. (These editions include the excerpts of Zonaras.) Diodoros of Sicily. Diodori Bibliotheca Historica. 6 vols. vols. I - V, 3rd ed., edited by Fr. Vogel, C. T. Fischer. Leipzig 1888 - 1906. vol. VI, 1st ed., edited by L. Dindorf. Leipzig 1867 - 1868. Translated by C. H. Oldfather, C. L. Sherman, C. B. Welles, R. M. Geer, F. R. Walton. 12 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London and Cambridge, Mass. 1933 - 1967. Dionysios of Halikarnassos. Dionysii Halicarnassei Antiquitatum  Romanarum Quae Supersunt. Edited by C. Jacoby. 4 vols, and supplement. Leipzig 1885 - 1925. Roman Antiquities. Edited by C. Cary. 7 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London and Cambridge, Mass. 1937 - 1950. Eusebios. Eusebii Chronicorum Liber Prior. Edited by. A. Schoene. Zurich 1875. ,,: , Florus. Epitome of Roman History. Translated by E. S. Forster. Loeb Classical Library. London and Cambridge, Mass. 1947. Oeuvres. Edited by P. Jal. Z vols. Paris 1967. Hierokles. Hieroclis Synecdemus et Notitiae Graecae Episcopatuum. Edited by G. Parthey. Berlin 1866. Incerti Panegyricus Constantino Augusto VI, XII Panegyrici Latini. Edited by R. A. B. Mynors. Oxford 1964. Josephus. vols. IV - IX. Jewish Antiquities. Translated by H. St. J . Thackeray, R. Marcus, A. Wikgren, L. H. Feldman. Loeb Classical Library. London and Cambridge, Mass. 1930 - 1965. Justinus. M. Iuniani Iustini Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum Pompei Trogi. Edited by 0. Seel. Znd ed. Stuttgart 197Z. Livy. Tit i Livi Ab Urbe Condita Libri. Edited by W. Weissenborn and H. J. Mtiller. 2nd - 10th ed. 10 vols. Berlin 1880 - 19Z4. (Text and Commentary) Titi Livi Ab Urbe Condita. Edited by R. S. Conway, C. F. Walters, S. K. Johnson, A. H. McDonald. 5 vols. Oxford 1914 - 1965. T. Livi Periochae Omnium Librorum. Fragmenta Oxyrhynchi Reperta. Edited by 0. Rossbach. Leipzig 1910. Memnon of Herakleia. FGrHist III. B, no. 434. Edited by F. Jacoby, Leiden 1950. Pausanias. Pausanias' Description of Greece. Translated by J. G. Frazer. 6 vols. London 1898. (Translation and Commentary) Description of Greece. Translated by W. H. S. Jones, H. A. Ormerod. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London and Cambridge, Mass. 1918 - 1935. Pliny the Elder. Natural History. Translated by H. Rackham, W. H. S. Jones, D. E. Eichholz. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London and Cambridge, Mass. 1938 - 1963. Plutarch. Vitae Parallelae. Edited by C. Lindskog and K. Ziegler. 4 vols. Leipzig 1914 - 1939. vol. I, 3rd ed., 1960. vol. II, Znd ed., 1959. Polybius. Polybii Historiae. Edited by T. Buettner-Wobst. 5 vols. Leipzig 1889 - 1904. vol. I, Znd ed., 1905. 156 The H i s t o r i e s . Trans la ted by W. R. Paton. 6 v o l s . Loeb C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y . London and New York 1922 - 1927. Porphyrios of T y r e . F G r H i s t I I . B , no. 260. E d i t e d by F . Jacoby. B e r l i n 1929. Ptolemy. C l a u d i i Ptolemaei Geographia. E d i t e d by C . M i d l e r and K. F i s c h e r , v o l . I , P a r t 1. P a r i s 1883. (Text and Commentary) Strabo . The Geography of Strabo . Trans la t ed by H. L . Jones. 8 v o l s . Loeb C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y . London and New York 1917 - 1932. V a l e r i u s Maximus. V a l e r i i Maximi Factorum et Dictorum Memorabilium L i b r i Novem. E d i t e d by C . Kempf. 2nd ed. L e i p z i g 1888. Zonaras. See under Dio C a s s i u s . 157 2. L i t e r a r y , Numismatic and Epigraphic C o l l e c t i o n s Babelon, E . D e s c r i p t i o n H i s t o r i q u e et Chronologique des Monnaies de l a Republique Romaine vulgairement appellees Monnaies C o n s u l a i r e s . 2 v o l s . P a r i s 1885 - 1886. C o l l i t z , H . , F . Bechte l and 0. Hoffmann. Sammlung der gr i ech i schen D i a l e k t - I n s c h r i f t e n . 4 v o l s . GHttinger 1884 - 1915. Corpus Inscr ipt ionum Lat inarum. E d i t e d by T h . Mommsen et a l i i . B e r l i n 1863 - . Degrass i , A . F a s t i Consulares et Triumphales , I n s c r i p t i o n e s I t a l i a e . v o l . X I I I , Fasc . 1. Rome 1947. E l o g i a , I n s c r i p t i o n e s I t a l i a e . v o l . X I I I , F a s c . 3 . Rome 1937. Dessau, H . I n s c r i p t i o n e s L a t i n a e Se l ec tae . 3 v o l s . B e r l i n 1892 - 1916. D i t t enberger , W. O r i e n t i s G r a e c i I n s c r i p t i o n e s Se l ec tae . 2 v o l s . L e i p z i g 1903 - 1905. Sy l loge Inscr ipt ionum Graecarum. 3rd ed. 4 v o l s . L e i p z i g 1915 - 1924. Hondius, J . J . E . et a l i i , ed. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Leiden 1923 - . I n s c r i p t i o n e s Graecae. E d i t e d by F . H i l l e r von Gaertr ingen et a l i i . B e r l i n 1873 - . Jacoby, F . Die Fragmente der gr i ech i s chen H i s t o r i k e r . 3 v o l s , w i th supplements. B e r l i n 1923 - 1930. Le iden 1940 - . M i i l l e r , C . Fragmenta Hi s tor i corum Graecorum. 5 v o l s . P a r i s 1878 - 1885. v o l . I ed i ted j o i n t l y wi th T . Mtf l l er . v o l . V , P a r t 2 ed i ted by V . L a n g l o i s . Sherk, R. K. Roman Documents from the Greek E a s t . Ba l t imore 1969. Warmington, E . H . Remains of Old L a t i n , v o l . IV. Loeb C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y . London and Cambridge, Mass. 1940. 158 3. Modern Authors Cited or Consulted Abbott, F. F. and A. C. Johnson. Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire. Princeton 1926. Accame, S. Roma alia Conquista del Mediterraneo Orientale. Naples 1966. Astin, A. E. Scipio Aemilianus. Oxford 1967. Aymard, A. "L'Organisation de la Macedoine en 167 et le Regime Representatif dans le Monde Grec". CP 45 (1950) 96 - 107. Badian, E. Foreign Clientelae. Oxford 1958. "Notes on Roman Foreign Policy in Illyria", Studies in Greek and Roman History. Oxford 1964. pp. 1 - 33. "The Early Historians", Latin Historians, ed. T. A. Dorey. London 1966. pp. 1 - 38. Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic. 2nd ed. Oxford 1968. Publicans and Sinners: Private Enterprise in the Service of the Roman Republic. Oxford 1972. Balsdon, J . P. V. D. "Some Questions about Historical Writing in the Second Century B. C. " CQ N.S. (1953) 158 - 164. "Rome and Macedon, 205 - 200 B. C." JRS 44 (1954) 30 - 42. Beloch, J . Der Italische Bund unter Roms Hegemonie. Leipzig 1880. Die BevHlkerung der griechisch-rbmischen Welt, vol. III. Leipzig 1886. Bikerman, E. "Sur la chronologie de la Sixieme Guerre de Syrie". Chronique d'Egypte 54 (1952) 396 - 403. Bleiken, J . Das Volkstribunat der klassischen Republik. Zetemata, Heft 13. Munich 1955. Botsford, G. W. The Roman Assemblies. New York 1909. Brandstaeter, F. A. Die Geschichten des Mtolischen Landes, Volkes und Bundes, nebst einer historiographischen Abhandlung tiber Polybios. Berlin 1844. Briscoe, J . "Q. Marcius Philippus and Nova Sapientia". JRS 54 (1964) 66 - 77. "Rome and the Class Struggle in the Greek -States 200 - 146 B. C." Past & Present 36 (1967) 3 - 20. "Eastern Policy and Senatorial Politics, 168 - 146 B. C." Historia 18 (1969) 49 - 70. "The First Decade", Livy, ed. T. A. Dorey. London 1971. pp. 1 - 20. Broughton, T. R. S. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. 2 vols. and supplement. New York 1951 - 1960. 159 Brunt, P. A. Italian Manpower, 225 B. C. - A. D. 14. Oxford 1971. Burck, E. "The Third Decade", Livy, ed. T. A. Dorey. London 1971. pp. 21 - 46. Cagnat, R. "Triumphus", Dictionnaire des Antiquites Grecques et Romaines, ed. Ch. Daremberg and E. Saglio. vol. V. Paris 1919. pp. 488 - 491. Calder, W. M. and J. Keil, ed. Anatolian Studies Presented to William Hepburn Buckler. Manchester, 1939. Cassola, F. I Gruppi Politici Romani nel III secolo A. C. Trieste 1962. Casson, L. "The Grain Trade of the Hellenistic World". TAPA 85 (1954) 168 - 187. Colin, G. Rome et la Grece de 200 a, 146 avant Jesus-Christ. Paris 1905. - — - - - - "Monuments des Messeniens, de Paul-Emile et de Prusias", Fouilles de Delphes. vol. III. Fasc. 4, Part 1. Paris 1930. Cook, S. A., F. E. Adcock and M. P. Charlesworth, ed. The Cambridge Ancient History, vols. VII - IX. Cambridge 1928 - 1932. Cormack, J. M. R. "Thrace"-, The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford 1970. p. 1065. Courby, F. "La Terrasse du Temple" ("Le Sanctuaire d'Apollon"), Fouilles de Delphes. vol. II, Fasc. 2. Paris 1927. Dahlheim, W. Deditio und societas: Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung der rb'mischen Aussenpolitik in der BHitezeit der Republik. Munich 1965. Daremberg, Ch. and E. Saglio, ed. Dictionnaire des Antiquites Grecques et Romaines. 5 vols, and tables. Paris, 1877 - 1919. De Sanctis, G. Storia dei Romani. vol. I l l , Parts 1, 2, and vol. IV, Part 1, 2nd ed. Florence 1967 - 1969. vol. IV, Part 3, 1st ed. Florence 1964. De Vissher, F. and F. de Ruyt. "Les Fouilles d.'Alba Fucens en 1949 et 1950". Ant. Class. 20 (1951) 47 - 84. Deininger, J. Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland 217 - 86 v. Chr. Berlin 1971. Delvaux, G. Les sources de Plutarche dans les vies paralleles des  Romains. Thesis. Brussels 1946. Derow, P. S. Review of J. Deininger's Der politische Widerstand  gegen Rom in Griechenland 217 - 86 v. Chr., Phoenix 26 (1972) 303 - 311. -- "The Roman Calendar, 190 - 168 B. C." Phoenix 2 7 (1973) 345 - 356. Dihle, A. "Velleius Paterculus (5)", RE VIII. A. 1 (1955) cols. 637 - 659. Dorey, T. A. "Contributory Causes of the Second Macedonian War". AJP 80 (1959) 288 - 295. ed. Latin Historians. London 1966. ed. Livy. London 1971. Drews, R. "Diodorus and his Sources". AJP 83 (1962) 383 - 392. Drumann, W. Geschichte Roms. 2nd ed. vol. IV. Leipzig 1929. Edson, C. F. "Perseus and Demetrius". HSCP 46 (1935) 191 - 202. Errington, R. M. Review of J . Deininger's Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland 217 - 86 v. Chr., JRS 63 (1973) 249 - 250. Fasolo, F. and G. Gullini. II Santuario della Fortuna Primigenia a Palestrina. 1 vol. and plates. Rome 1953. Ferguson, W. S. Hellenistic Athens. London 1911. Fine, J . V. A. "The Background of the Social War of 220 - 217 B. C." AJP 61 (1940) 129 - 165. Fluss, M. "Illyrioi", RE Suppl. V (1931) cols. 311 - 345. Fraccaro, P. "Tributes ed Aerarii: Una Ricerca di Diritto Publico Romano". Athenaeum 11 N. S. (1933) 150 - 172. Frank, T. "Representative Government in the Macedonian Republics". CP 9 (1914) 49 - 59. "Socii et Amici", CAH VIII (1930) 361 - 364. Rome and Italy of the Republic, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. I. Baltimore 1933. Fraser, P. M. Samothrace: The Inscriptions on Stone. New York 1960. and G. E. Bean. The Rhodian Peraea and Islands. London 1954. Friedlender, L. Translated by L. A. Magnus. Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire, vol. I. London 1907. Gaertringen, F. Hiller von. "Rhodos", RE Suppl. V (1931) cols. 731 - 840. 161 Geer, R. M. "Ti. Sempronius Gracchus and T. Veturius Gracchus Sempronianus". AJP 60|;(1939) 466 - 467. Gelzer, M. and R. Helm. "M. Porcius Cato Censorinus (9)", RE XXII. 1 (1953) cols. 108 - 165. Ginzel, F. K. Spezieller Kanon der Sonnen- und- Mondfinsternisse ftir das Landgebiet der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Berlin 1899. Gschnitzer, F. "Die Stellung Karthagos nach dem Frieden von 201 v. Chr." Wiener Studien 79 (1966) 276 - 289. Habicht, C. "Prusias (1)" (Prusias I), RE XXIII. 1 (1957) cols. 1086 - 1107. "Prusias (2)" (Prusias II), RE XXIII. 1 (1957) cols. 1107 - 1127. Hammond, N. G. L. "The Kingdoms in Illyria circa 400 - 167 B. C." BSA 61 (1966) 239 - 253. Epirus. Oxford 1967. A History of Macedonia, vol. I. Oxford 1972. and H. H. Scullard, ed. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford 1970. H a n d e l , P. "Prodigium", RE XXIII. 2 (1959) cols. 2283 - 2296. Hansen, E. V. The Attalids of Pergamon. 2nd ed. Ithaca 1971. Harris, W. V. Rome in Etruria and Umbria. Oxford 1971. Head, B. V. Historia Nummorum. 2nd ed. Oxford 1911. } edited by R. S. Poole. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, vol. V. London 1879. Heinen, H. "Die politischen Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Ptolemyerreich von ihrem AnfHngen bis zum Tag von Eleusis", Aufstieg und Niedergang der RHmischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini. vol. I, Part 1 (1972) 633 - 659. Helm, R. "Valerius Maximus (239)", RE VIII. A. 1 (1955) cols. 90 - 116. Heuss, A. Die yHlkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der rbmischen Aussenpolitik in republikanischer Zeit. Klio, Beiheft 31. Leipzig 1933. Hil l , H. The Roman Middle Class in the Republican Period. Oxford 1952. Holleaux, M. Rome, la Grece et les Monarchies Hellgnistiques au III e siecle avant J.-C. (273 - 205). Paris 1921. Jolowicz, H. F. Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law. 2nd ed. Cambridge 1952. Jones, A. H. M. "Civitates Liberae et Immunes in the East", Anatolian Studies Presented to William Hepburn Buckler, ed. W. M. Calder and J. Keil. Manchester, 1 9 3 9 . pp. 1 0 3 - 1 1 7 . The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian. Oxford 1 9 4 0 . The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Oxford 1 9 7 1 . KMhler, H. Der Fries vom Reiterdenkmal des Aemilius Paullus in Delphi. Berlin 1 9 6 5 . Kennedy, G. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton 1 9 6 3 . Kienast, D. Cato der Zensor: Seine Personlichkeit und Seine Zeit. Heidelberg 1 9 5 4 . Klotz, A. "T. Livius ( 9 ) " , RE XIII. 1 ( 1 9 2 6 ) cols. 8 1 6 - 8 5 3 . Livius und seine VorgSnger. Leipzig 1 9 4 0 - 1 9 4 1 . "Der Annalist Claudius Quadrigarius". Rheinisches Museum 91 ( 1 9 4 2 ) 2 6 8 - 2 8 5 . "Pompeius Trogus ( 1 4 2 ) " , RE XXI. 2 ( 1 9 5 2 ) cols. 2 3 0 0 - 2 3 1 3 . Kroll, W . "M. Iunianus Iustinus ( 4 ) " , RE X. 1 ( 1 9 1 8 ) cols. 9 5 6 - 9 5 8 . Ktfbler, B. "Nota Censoria", RE XVII. 1 ( 1 9 3 6 ) cols. 1 0 5 5 - 1 0 5 8 . Larsen, J . A. 0 . Roman Greece, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. vol. IV. Baltimore 1 9 3 8 . pp. 2 5 9 - 4 9 8 . "Representation and Democracy in Hellenistic Federalism". CP 4 0 ( 1 9 4 5 ) 65 - 9 7 . "Consilium in Livy xlv. 1 8 . 6 - 7 and the Macedonian Synedria" CP 4 4 ( 1 9 4 9 ) 7 3 - 9 0 . Representative Government in Greek and Roman History. Berkeley and Los Angeles 1 9 5 5 . Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History. Oxford 1 9 6 8 . Last, H. "The Servian Reforms". JRS 3 5 ( 1 9 4 5 ) 3 0 - 4 8 . Latte, K. RHmische Religionsgeschichte. Munich 1 9 6 0 . Lecrivain, Ch. "Viator", Dictionnaire des Antiquites Grecques et Romaines, ed. Ch. Daremberg and E. Saglio. vol. V. Paris 1 9 1 9 . pp. 8 1 7 - 8 2 0 . Leidmeier, Z. C. Plutarchus' biographie van Aemilius Paullus. Utrecht 1 9 3 5 . Lenormant, F. and E. Babelon. "Stater", Dictionnaire des Antiquites Grecques et Romaines, ed. Ch. Daremberg and E. Saglio. vol. IV, Part 2. Paris;i 1^ 911. pp. 1464 - 1468. Lesky, A. Translated by J . Willis and C. de Heer. A History of Greek Literature. London 1966 (2nd ed. Bern 1957 - 1958). McDonald, A. H. and F. W. Walbank. "The Origins of the Second Macedonian War". JRS 27 (1937) 180 -207. McDonald, A. H. "The History of Rome and Italy in the Second Century B. C." Cambridge Historical Journal 6 (1939) 124 - 146. MacKendrick, P. The Mute Stones Speak; The Story of Archaeology in Italy. New York 1960. McShane, R. B. The Foreign Policy of the Attalids of Pergamum. Urbana 1964. Magie, D. "Rome and the City-States of Western Asia Minor from 200 to 133 B. C " , Anatolian Studies Presented to William  Hepburn Buckler, ed. W. M. Calder and J . Keil. Manchester 1939. pp. 161 - 185. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ. 2 vols. Princeton 1950. Makin, E. "The Triumphal Route, with Particular Reference to the Flavian Triumph". JRS 11 (1921) 25 - 36. Malcovati, H. P r a t o r u m Romanorum Fragmenta. 2nd ed. vol. I . Turin 1955. Manni, E. "Sulle piu antiche relazioni fra Roma e i l mondo ellenistico". La Parola del Passato 11 (1956) 179 - 190. Matthaei, L. E. "On the Classification of Roman Allies". CQ 1 (1907) 182 - 204. Mauersberger, A. Polybios-Lexicon. Berlin 1956 - . (3 fascicules, covering c\ to K , so far published) Meloni', P. Perseo e la Fine della Monarchia Macedone. Rome 1953. Il Valore Storico e le Fonti del Libro Macedonico di Appiano. Rome 1955. Meritt, B. D. "Excavations in the Athenian Agora: The Inscriptions" Hesperia 3 (1934) no. 18, pp. 18 - 21. - - - - - - - "Excavations in the Athenian Agora: Greek Inscriptions". Hesperia 5 (1936) no. 17, pp. 429 - 430. 1 6 4 The Athenian Year . Berkeley and Los Angeles 1961. Merriam, A . C . "Inscribed Sepu lchra l Vases from A l e x a n d r i a " . AJA 1 (1885) 1 8 - 3 3 . Meyer, E . "Die rHmische A n n a l i s t i k im L i c h t e der Urkunden", A u f s t i e g und Niedergang der RMmischen Welt , ed. H. Tempor in i . v o l . I , Par t 2 (1972) 970 - 986. M i c h e l s , A . K. The Calendar of the Roman R e p u b l i c . Pr ince ton 1967. M i l l e r , F . A Study of Dio C a s s i u s . Oxford 1964. Mommsen, T h . "Die Neue Fragmente der J a h r t a f e l " , Rb*mische Forschungen. v o l . I I . B e r l i n 1879. pp. 97 - 112. ROmisches S t a a t s r e c h t . 3 v o l s . v o l s . I , I I , 3rd ed. v o l . I l l , 1st ed. L e i p z i g 1887 - 1888. Moore, J . M. The Manuscript T r a d i t i o n of P o l y b i u s . Cambridge 1965. Mtfnzer, F . "P. R u t i l i u s (8)", RE I . A . 1 (1914) c o l . 1248. Rflmische A d e l s p a r t e i e n und A d e l s f a m i l i e n . 2nd ed. S t u t t g a r t 1920. "Ser. S u l p i c i u s Galba (58)", RE IV. A . 1 (1931) c o l s . 759 - 767. M u s t i , D. " P o l i b i o n e g l i S tud i d e l l ' Ul t imo Ventennio", A u f s t i e g und Niedergang der RHmischen Wel t , ed. H . Tempor in i . v o l . I , P a r t 2 (1972) 1114 - 1181. Nash, E . P i c t o r i a l D i c t i o n a r y of Ancient Rome. 1st ed. 2 v o l s . New York 1961 - 1962. v o l . I , 2nd e d . , 1968. Neatby, L . H. "Romano-Egyptian Re la t ions dur ing the T h i r d Century B . C . " TAPA 81 (1950) 89 - 98. N i c o l e t , C . L ' O r d r e Equestre a l 'Epoque Republ ica ine (312 - 43 av. J . - C . ) v o l . I . P a r i s 1966. ' Niese , B . "Q. Claudius Quadr igar ius (308)", RE I I I . 2 (1899) c o l s . 2858 - 2861. Ni s sen , H . K r i t i s c h e Untersuchungen ifber d ie Quel len der V i e r t e n und Ftinften Dekade des L i v i u s . B e r l i n 1863. Norden, E . Die Ant ike Kunstprosa. 4th ed. L e i p z i g and B e r l i n 1923. O'Brien-Moore , A . "Senatus", RE Suppl . VI (1935) c o l s . 660 - 800. O g i l v i e , R. M. A Commentary on L i v y , Books 1 - 5 . Oxford 1965. Oost , S. I . "The F e t i a l Law and the Outbreak of the Jugurthine War". AJP 75 (1954) 147 - 159. 165 - - - Roman Policy in Epirus and Acarnania in the Age of the Roman Conquest of Greece. Dallas 1954. - - - - - - - Review of W. Dahlheim1s Deditio und societas: Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung der rbmischen Aussenpolitik in der Blfltezeit der Republik, CP_ 62 (1967) 149 - 151. Oppolzer, Th. Ritter von. Translated by 0. Gingerich. Canon of Eclipses. New York.1962 (Vienna 1887). Packard, D. W. A Concordance to Livy. 4 vols. Cambridge, Mass. 1968. Papazoglou, F. "Les Origines et la Destinee de l'Etat Illyrien: I l lyri i Proprie Dicti". Historia 14 (1965) 143 - 179. Pecirka, J . The Formula for the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions. Prague 1966. Pedech, P. La Methode Historique de Polybe. Paris 1964. Peremans, W. and E. van't Dack. "Sur les rapports de Rome avec les Lagides", Aufstieg und Niedergang der ROmischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini. vol. I, Part 1 (1972) 660 - 667. Peter, H. Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Biographien der Rbmer. Halle 1865. Pianezzola, E. Traduzione e Idiologia: Livio Interprete di Polibio. Bologna 1969. Pieri, G. L'Histoire du Cens jusqu'a la Fin de la Republique Romaine. Sirey 1968. Platnauer, M. Fifty Years (and Twelve) of Classical Scholarship. 2nd ed. Oxford 1968. Regenbogen, 0. "Pausanias (17)", RE Suppl. VIII (1956) cols. 1008 - 1097. Reinach, A. J . - "La frise du monument de Paul-Emile a Delphes". Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 34 (1910) 433 - 468. Rossbach, 0. "Florus (9)", RE VI. 2 (1909) cols. 2761 - 2770. Rostovtzeff, M. The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World. 3 vols. Oxford 1941. Rotondi, G. Leges Publicae Populi Romani. Milan 1922. Salmon, E. T. "Roman Colonization from the Second Punic War to the Gracchi". JRS 26 (1936) 47 - 67. "Roman Expansion and Roman Colonization in Italy". Phoenix 9 (1955) 63 - 75. Roman Colonization under the Republic. Ithaca 1970. Sands, P. C. The Client Princes of the Roman Empire under the 1 6 6 R e p u b l i c . Cambridge 1908. Schanz, M. and C . Hosius . Geschichte der ROmische L i t e r a t u r b i s zum Gesetzgebungswerk des Kaisers J u s t i n i a n . 4th ed. v o l s . I , I I . Munich 192 7 - 1 9 3 5 . Schmitt , H. H. Rom und Rhodos. Munich 1 9 5 7 . , ed. Die StaatsvertrHge des A l t e r t u m s . v o l . I I I . Munich 1 9 6 9 . S c u l l a r d , H. H. "Charops and Roman P o l i c y i n E p i r u s " . JRS 3 5 ( 1 9 4 5 ) 5 8 - 6 4 . Roman P o l i t i c s , 220 - 150 B . C . 2nd ed. Oxford 1 9 7 3 . Schwann, W. "Tributurn und t r i b u t u s " , RE V I I . A. 1 ( 1 9 3 9 ) c o l s . 1 - 7 8 . Schwartz, E . "Appianus (2)", RE I I . 1 ( 1 8 9 5 ) c o l s . 2 1 6 - 2 3 7 . "Cassius Dio Cocceianus ( 4 0 ) " , RE I I I . 2 ( 1 8 9 9 ) c o l s . 1 6 8 4 - 1 7 2 2 . "Diodorus ( 3 8 ) " , R E V . 1 ( 1 9 0 3 ) c o l s . 6 6 3 - 7 0 4 . Shatzman, I . "The Roman Genera l ' s A u t h o r i t y over Booty". H i s t o r i a 2 1 ( 1 9 7 2 ) 1 7 7 - 2 0 5 . Sherwin-White, A . N . The Roman C i t i z e n s h i p . Oxford 1 9 3 9 . Skeat, T . C . "Notes on Ptolemaic Chronology". Journa l of Egypt ian Archaeology 4 7 ( 1 9 6 1 ) 1 0 7 - 1 1 2 . Smith, R. E . "Plutarch ' s B i o g r a p h i c a l Sources i n the Roman L i v e s " . CQ 3 4 ( 1 9 4 0 ) 1 - 1 0 . Sneider , C . Kul turgesch ich te des Hel len ismus . v o l . I I . Munich 1 9 6 9 . StMhel in , F . Geschichte der k l e i n a s i a t i s c h e n G a l a t e r . L e i p z i g 1 9 0 7 . Stave ley , E . S. Greek and Roman Vot ing and E l e c t i o n s . London 1 9 7 2 . Stevenson, G. H. Roman P r o v i n c i a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n t i l l the Age of the Antonines . Oxford 1 9 3 9 . Sttfbler, G . von. Die R e l i g i o s i t M t des L i v i u s . S t u t t g a r t 1 9 4 1 . Sumner, G . V . "The Chronology of the Outbreak of the Second Punic War". Proceedings of the A f r i c a n C l a s s i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n 9 ( 1 9 6 6 ) 5 - 3 0 . "Proconsuls and P r o v i n c i a e i n Spain , 2 1 8 / 7 - 1 9 6 / 5 B . C . " Arethusa 3 ( 1 9 7 0 ) 85 - 1 0 2 . S u o l a h t i , J . The Roman Censors: A Study on S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e . H e l s i n k i 1 9 6 3 . T a r n , W. W. H e l l e n i s t i c M i l i t a r y and Naval Developments. Cambridge 1 9 3 0 . THubler , E . Imperium Romanum: Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des RHmischen Re ichs . L e i p z i g 1 9 1 3 . T a y l o r , L . R. The Vot ing D i s t r i c t s of the Roman R e p u b l i c . Rome 1 9 6 0 . 1 6 7 Roman Voting Assemblies from the Hannibalic War to the Dictatorship of Caesar. Ann Arbor 1966. Temporini, H., ed. Aufstieg und Niedergang der ROmischen Welt; Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Berlin 1972 - . Thiel, J . H. Studies on the History of Roman Sea-Power in Republican Times. Amsterdam 1946. Toynbee, A. J . Hannibal's Legacy. 2 vols. London 1965. Turner, E. G. "A Ptolemaic Vineyard Lease". Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 31 (1948) 148 - 161. TJrtJgdi, G. "Publicani", RE Suppl. XI (1968) cols. 1184 - 1208. Versnel, H. S. Triumphus; An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph. . Leiden 1970. Vitucci, G. II Regno di Bitinia. Rome 1953. Volkmann, H. "Valerius Antias (98)", RE VIII. A. 2 (1948) cols. 2313 - 2340. Walbank, F. W. Philip V. Cambridge 1940. "A Note on the Embassy of Q. Marcius Philippus, 172 B. C." JRS 31 (1941) 82 - 93. Review of S. Accame's II Dominio Romano in Grecia dalla Guerra Acaica ad Augusto, JRS 37 (1947) 205 - 207. "Roman Declaration of War in the Third and Second Centuries". CP 44 (1949) 15 - 19. A Historical Commentary on Polybius. 2 vols. Oxford 1957 - 1967. "Polybius", Latin Historians, ed. T. A. Dorey. London 1966. pp. 39 - 63. "The Achaean Assemblies Again". Museum Helveticum 27 (1970) 129 - 143. "The Fourth and Fifth Decades", Livy, ed. T. A. Dorey. London 1971. pp. 47 - 72. Polybius. Berkeley and Los Angeles 1972. Walsh, P. G. Livy; His Historical Aims and Methods. Cambridge 1961. "Livy", Latin Historians, ed. T. A. Dorey. London 1966. pp. 115 - 142. Werner, R. "Das Problem des Imperialismus und die rOmische Ostpolitik im zweiten Jahrhundert v. Chr.", Aufstieg und Niedergang der  RHmischen Welt, vol. I, Part 1 (1972) 501 - 563. 168 Will, E. Histoire Politique du Monde Hellenistique (323 - 30 av. J.-C.) 2 vols. Nancy 1966 - 1967. Willamowitz-Moellendorff, U.yon. "Asianismus und Atticismus". Hermes 35 (1900) 1-52. Wissowa, G. Religion und Kultus der RbWr. 2nd ed. Munich 1912. , W. Kroll, K. Witte, K. Mitttlhaus, K. Ziegler, ed. Paulys Real-EncyclopkMie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart 1894 - . Ziegler, K. "Plutarchos (2)", RE XXI. 1 (1951) cols. 636 - 962. "Polybios (1)", RE XXI. 2 (1952) cols. 1440 - 1578. _______ and W. Sontheimer, ed. Der Kleine Pauly, Lexicon der Antike. Stuttgart 1964 - . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093047/manifest

Comment

Related Items