The Late Hellenistic Period. 197Bc–31Bc

chapter 2 The Late Hellenistic Period. 197bc–31bc

2.1 Introduction to the Period

In many ways what I have chosen to call the late Hellenistic period could also be thought of as the early Roman period in Greek history—the period when Greece was gradually brought within the orbit of the emerging superpower to the west.1 Following his victory over the Macedonians at Kynoskephalai in 197, Flamininus was quick to reassure the Greeks of Rome’s good intentions towards them. At the Isthmian Games of 196 he made his famous proclamation of Greek freedom.2 Ironically this date has been seen by some as a landmark in the disappearance of that freedom as Greece began to come increasingly under Roman control.3 At this point the three main Hellenistic kingdoms were all still intact. Other kingdoms had also now sprung up, either on the fringes of the Greek world, or in areas that had broken away from the territories of the older dynasties. Most important and powerful of these was Pergamon, which was enjoying a privileged position in the Greek world as ally of Rome. The poleis of Greece remained inextricably caught up in the fortunes of these kingdoms, turning to them for help in solving local quarrels and being forced to choose sides in the struggles between them. Rome entered the Greek world as a power on a par with these kingdoms in terms of military strength. As Eric Gruen has shown, Rome’s early relationship with the poleis conformed to patterns that the cities had developed in their dealings with the kings.4 Flamininus’ proclamation itself is reminiscent of similar pronouncements made by the diadochoi a century earlier.5 At the beginning of the century it must have been impossible to predict that Rome would from now on be the dominant power in the Greek world.

1 Again, it is worth stressing that this is not the place for a proper narrative history of the period. Good overviews of the main developments can be found in the works cited in Ch 1. n. 1 above. More detailed treatments, with particular emphasis on the incorporation of Greece into the Roman Empire are provided by Gruen 1984 (for the first half of the period) and Kallet-Marx 1995 (taking up where Gruen leaves off). 2 Plutarch Life of Flamininus 12.8, Polybios 18.46.5, Livy 33.32. 3 Most notably by Larsen 1935. For the terms imposed on Macedon at this time see Polybios 18.19–27. 4 Gruen 1984 passim. 5 See Dmitriev 2011, 112–144.

It was a long time, however, before Roman hegemony brought stability to the area. In 191 Antiochos iii was in Greece fighting as ally of the Aetolian league against Rome; he was soon driven out. The conflict between Rome and Mace- donia too had merely been postponed. In 168bc the last Macedonian king, Perseus was decisively defeated by the legions of Aemilius Paullus at Pydna. Some scholars have seen Pydna as more significant than Kynoskephalai as a watershed in Rome’s curtailment of Greek freedom.6 The Romans now weak- ened Macedonia by dividing it into four separate republics but they did not make it a province.7 It is also at this time that Rome, to secure the compliance of the Greeks, took a thousand leading citizens of the Achaian League back to Italy as hostage. Most famous among them was the man whose writings con- stitute our best source for the period, Polybios. Within two decades there was a Macedonian uprising against Rome led by a certain Andriskos, who claimed to be the son of Perseus. The revolt (150–148bc) ended with the crushing defeat of Macedonia by the general Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus. In the meantime relations between Rome and the Achaian League had also wors- ened. Although the precipitating causes are unclear, in 146bc war also broke out between these two powers.8 The swift result was that Lucius Mummius defeated the Achaian League and ruthlessly sacked the ancient city of Corinth. It is generally assumed that Macedonia was annexed as a province following Metellus’ victory,with Thessalonikē as the capital.9 The rest of mainland Greece did not become a Roman province until much later.10 Whatever their technical status, however, both regions were from now on firmly under Roman control. That the events of the mid second century were seen as a decisive moment in the subjugation of Greece is signified by the fact that when the rest of Greece

6 See Larsen 1935 for references. Larsen points out that this was Polybios’ opinion, citing 1.5, 2.7 and 3.1 as the relevant passages. This was, however, precisely the interpretation that Larsen himself was arguing against. Polybios, our best contemporary source for these years, as Larsen points out, is responsible for the vision of Greece as a Roman subject post– 168bc. 7 Livy 45.17–18, 45.29.1–10, 45.32.1–2; Diodorus Siculus 31.8.1, 38.1.6–9. 8 See McGing 2003, 78 for the main interpretations that have been advanced, with references. 9 McGing 2003, 81. Note, however, that Robert Morstein Kallet-Marx (1995, 57–96) has argued that “provincial” here does not actually mean that the area was annexed as Roman territory but that the country was merely assigned as a sphere of magisterial influence. On Thessalonikē as the capital see Cicero For Plancius 41. There is also numismatic and other evidence—Papagiannopoulos 1982, 36–42. 10 For the creation of the provinces of Achaia and Epiros see Alcock 1993, 14. For Greece’s status in the interim period see McGing 2003, 80–81.