DOCSLIB.ORG

13. the Second Macedonian War (The Social/Symmachic War) 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
13. the Second Macedonian War (The Social/Symmachic War) 1 13. THE SECOND MACEDONIAN WAR (THE SOCIAL/SYMMACHIC WAR) 1. THE CAUSES (228-220) The end of the 'War of Demetrios', by a presumed treaty between the Aitolians and King Antigonos in 228 or 227 which is nowhere actually attested, left Aitolia greater in size than ever before, but in an international situation which had radically changed, and was about to change still further. The collapse of the Epeirote monar­ chy had opened up the west to Aitolian expansion, but had also encouraged Illyrian seaborne expansion, which in turn had brought Romans onto the scene. The brief collapse of Macedon in Thessaly, had also allowed Aitolian expansion there but it had also produced, for the first time in four decades, a violent reaction from Macedon, and no doubt a continuing suspicion. To the south the same war had produced an alliance with Achaia, also now greatly swollen, but to be allied with such a lawless and unstable state was a problem in itself. And just as Aitolia's expansion had provoked hostility from Macedon, so Achaia's had produced hostility from Sparta. It is not altogether clear if the alliance with Achaia continued in effect after the end of the fighting in 228. It had originated at a time when both leagues were threatened by Demetrios II, a situation which ceased to apply after the various settlements of 228 - peace between Aitolia and Macedon, Argos subsumed into the Achaian League, the Macedonian garrisons removed from Attika, the Illyrians subdued by Rome. Co-operation between the leagues had been inef­ fective, except in the Illyrian invasion of Epeiros, and the absence of any Achaian assistance to Aitolia in Thessaly was mirrored by the absence of any Aitolian assistance to Achaia in the Peloponnese. It seems reasonable to assume that the alliance may be defined as defunct by 228 1• The delivery of the Peloponnesian cities of Manti­ nea, Tegea, and Kaphyai to Kleomenes of Sparta2, with at least 1 Walbank, more than once, remarks that the battle of Paxos was the 'last joint action' of the alliance (01H VII (2) 453, and in Hammond Hist. Mac 3.335), but this is not necessarily the end of the alliance. 2 Pol. 2.46.2. THE SECOND MACEDONIAN WAR: THE CAUSES (228-220) 245 Aitolian compliance, if not active assistance, was a development which will not have encouraged the continuance of that alliance. The real problem was not the occasional disputes and other alliances of the two leagues, but their differing methods and policies. The Achaian tradition, as developed and exemplified by Aratos, was to threaten and use violence - coups at Sikyon and Corinth, raids into Attika and Argos - and it had a distressing tendency to favour deals with tyrants so that Lydiadas of Megalopolis and Aristomachos of Argos became strategoi of the league and other tyrants brought in their cities, despite the fact that Aratos had begun his political career as a liberator from tyranny at Sikyon. The expansion of the Achaian League had thus been accomplished by revolution, war and black­ mail, and the smaller cities who joined it had clearly done so as a means of self-defence - defence, that is, against the Achaians. These methods were essentially the same as those used by the Illyrians in their brief imperial career. The Aitolian method, however, did not rely on such procedures, but was cautious and non-violent in most cases. Since 278 the league had been involved in only one war, and had used violence to expand only in the cases of Herakleia and Medeon. The fighting in Thessaly against Antigonos had been unexpected, judging by the brief account we have of it. That is to say, the Aitolian League did not expand by the methods used by Aratos. This difference in method is important, for Aratos' methods, pre­ sumably distasteful to the Aitolians, were liable to involve the Achaian League in conflicts, which, if the alliance of the two leagues continued, might drag in Aitolia as well. The Macedonian war had involved at least one Aitolian raid on Attika, which was not an area in which the Aitolians had ever shown much interest, and the only power which could reap advantage from such an action was Achaia. The presence on Achaia's southern flank of the four cities who were Aitolian allies, cut off as they were from easy Aitol­ ian assistance since the Achaian acquisition of Heraia, was there­ fore an obligation which Aitolia could shed, leaving the decision to the local cities, though in doing so the Achaians would undoubtedly complain. The developing crisis in the Peloponnese thus did involve the Aitolians at first, but they rapidly disengaged themselves from it. Kleomenes of Sparta engineered the annexation of the three Aitolian allies without any protest from the cities themselves - 'they showed .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-10444-0 — Rome and the Third Macedonian War Paul J
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-10444-0 — Rome and the Third Macedonian War Paul J. Burton Index More Information Index Abdera, Greek city on the h racian coast, 15n. second year 41 , 60 , 174 political disruption sparked by Roman h ird Macedonian War embassy, 143 second year troubles with Sparta, 13 , 82n. 23 brutalized by Hortensius, 140 Acilius Glabrio, M’. (cos. 191), 44 , 59n. 12 embassy to Rome, 140 Aetolian War s.c. de Abderitis issued, 140 , see also second year Appendix C passim given (unsolicited) strategic advice by Abrupolis, king of the h racian Sapaei, 15n. 41 Flamininus, 42 attacks Macedonia (179), 58 , 81 Syrian and Aetolian Wars Acarnania, Acarnanians, 14 second year deprived of the city of Leucas (167), 177 Battle of h ermopylae, 36 – 37 First Macedonian War recovers some cities in h essaly, 36 Roman operations in (211), 25 Aelius Ligus, P. (cos. 172), 112 politicians exiled to Italy (167), 177 Aemilius Lepidus, M. (ambassador) h ird Macedonian War embassy to Philip V at Abydus (200), 28 , second year 28n. 53 political disruption sparked by Roman Aenus and Maronea, Greek cities on the embassy, 143 h racian coast, 40 , 60 , 140 , 174 two executed by the Athenians (201), 28n. 53 declared free by the senate, 46 – 47 Achaean League, Achaeans, 12 – 13 dispute between Philip V and Rome over, Achaean War (146), 194 44 – 45 , 55 , 86 , 92 , 180 Archon- Callicrates debate (175), 61 , 61n. 29 , embassy to Rome from Maronean exiles (186/ 62n. 30 , 94 – 96 5), 45 congratulated by Rome for resisting Perseus Maronean exiles address senatorial (173), 66 , 117 commission (185), 46 conquest of the Peloponnese, 13 , 82n.
    [Show full text]
  • Philip V and Perseus: the Twilight of Antigonid Macedonia Philip V of Macedonia Was a Shrewd and Effective Leader. He Proved Ev
    Philip V and Perseus: The Twilight of Antigonid Macedonia Philip V of Macedonia was a shrewd and effective leader. He proved even more adept than his predecessors at dealing with the Greek city-states, Illyrian invasions, and the other traditional concerns of his kingdom. Unfortunately for him, he was forced to deal with a completely new threat, for which he was unprepared—the rising power of Rome. Philip V and his son and successor Perseus failed in their conflicts with Rome, and ultimately allowed Macedonia to be conquered by the Romans. Since the wars they fought against Rome were recorded by Roman historians, they are known as the Macedonian Wars. Early Life and Reign of Philip V Philip V was the son of Demetrius II, who died in battle when Philip was nine years old. Since the army and nobility were hesitant to trust the kingdom to a child, they made Antigonas Doson regent, and then king. Antigonas honored Philip’s position, and when Antigonas died in 221 BC, Philip ascended smoothly to the throne at the age of seventeen. As the young king of Macedonia, Philip V was eager to prove his abilities. He defeated the Dardians in battle. When hostilities broke out between the two major leagues of Greek cities—the Achaean League and Aetolian League—he sided with Aratus and the Achaean League. Thanks to Philip’s intervention, the Achaeans achieved major victories against the Aetolians, and Aratus became one of Philip’s advisors. First Macedonian War (214–205 BC) In 219 BC, Demetrius of Pharos, the king of Illyria, fled to Philip’s court after being expelled by the Romans.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dancing Floor of Ares Local Conflict and Regional Violence in Central Greece
    The Dancing Floor of Ares Local Conflict and Regional Violence in Central Greece Edited by Fabienne Marchand and Hans Beck ANCIENT HISTORY BULLETIN Supplemental Volume 1 (2020) ISSN 0835-3638 Edited by: Edward Anson, Catalina Balmaceda, Monica D’Agostini, Andrea Gatzke, Alex McAuley, Sabine Müller, Nadini Pandey, John Vanderspoel, Connor Whatley, Pat Wheatley Senior Editor: Timothy Howe Assistant Editor: Charlotte Dunn Contents 1 Hans Beck and Fabienne Marchand, Preface 2 Chandra Giroux, Mythologizing Conflict: Memory and the Minyae 21 Laetitia Phialon, The End of a World: Local Conflict and Regional Violence in Mycenaean Boeotia? 46 Hans Beck, From Regional Rivalry to Federalism: Revisiting the Battle of Koroneia (447 BCE) 63 Salvatore Tufano, The Liberation of Thebes (379 BC) as a Theban Revolution. Three Case Studies in Theban Prosopography 86 Alex McAuley, Kai polemou kai eirenes: Military Magistrates at War and at Peace in Hellenistic Boiotia 109 Roy van Wijk, The centrality of Boiotia to Athenian defensive strategy 138 Elena Franchi, Genealogies and Violence. Central Greece in the Making 168 Fabienne Marchand, The Making of a Fetter of Greece: Chalcis in the Hellenistic Period 189 Marcel Piérart, La guerre ou la paix? Deux notes sur les relations entre les Confédérations achaienne et béotienne (224-180 a.C.) Preface The present collection of papers stems from two one-day workshops, the first at McGill University on November 9, 2017, followed by another at the Université de Fribourg on May 24, 2018. Both meetings were part of a wider international collaboration between two projects, the Parochial Polis directed by Hans Beck in Montreal and now at Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, and Fabienne Marchand’s Swiss National Science Foundation Old and New Powers: Boiotian International Relations from Philip II to Augustus.
    [Show full text]
  • Roman Policies Towards Antiochus III and the Greeks from Winter 197/196 B.C
    Roman Policies towards Antiochus III and the Greeks from Winter 197/196 B.C. to Autumn 196 B.C. [Roms Politik gegenüber Antiochos III. und den Griechen zwischen Winter 197/196 a.c. und Herbst 196 a.c.] Eike Hellmut Deutschmann (Universität Hamburg) [email protected] Abstract Zusammenfassung In the Second Macedonian War (200-196 B.C.), the Die res publica verminderte im Zweiten res publica reduced the strength of the enemy King Makedonischen Krieg (200-196 a.c.) die Macht des Philip V apparently to establish a new political gegnerischen Königs Philipp V - anscheinend um order in Southern Balkans: Assumedly a pro- eine neue politische Ordnung im südlichen Roman balance of forces should prevail there, Balkanraum zu etablieren: Vermutlich sollte dort untainted by influence of another major power. A ein romfreundliches Kräftegleichgewicht particular senatorial policy towards the Greeks vorherrschen, auf das keine andere Großmacht probably did not exist before the fighting in Hellas Einfluß hat. Eine speziell an die Griechen gerichtete came to an end in summer 197 B.C. In the same Politik seitens des römischen Senats gab es year, the Seleucid king Antiochus III brought large wahrscheinlich nicht vor Ende der parts of the west coast of Asia Minor under control Kampfhandlungen in Hellas im Sommer 197 a.c. In and set about crossing the Hellespont. Rome dem Jahr erweiterte der seleukidische König subsequently stylized itself as the guardian of Antiochos III. seinen Einflussbereich auf große Teile freedom for the Greeks living in Hellas and Asia der kleinasiatischen Westküste und schickte sich Minor. The statesmen of the res publica could have an, den Hellespont zu überqueren.
    [Show full text]
  • SELEUKID STUDY DAY VI Reception, Response, and Resistance: Reactions to Seleukid Claims to Territorial Rule Or Hegemony
    SELEUKID STUDY DAY VI Reception, Response, and Resistance: Reactions to Seleukid Claims to Territorial Rule or Hegemony Nipissing University, North Bay ON 1–3 September 2017 List of 19 Paper Abstracts & CVs 1) Eran Almagor (Jerusalem, Israel): Two Possible Ways of Jewish Response to the Seleukids Email: eranalmagor at gmail.com Abstract: This paper addresses two possible ways in which Jews responded to Seleukid rule and claims to authority, as seen in Jewish sources. One mode of response is that of acceptance and the other is defiance up to the level of open revolt. Whereas the latter one is visible in the Books of Maccabees and the Jewish tradition, the former may be gleaned from several passages in Jewish literature, i.e., Josephus, and the Book of Esther. While probably conveying a popular tradition that goes back to Persian times, and presumably echoing a vague memory of a brief and turbulent time of the Jews or of Judaea under Xerxes (cf. Ezra 4.6), Esther is late. It stands to reason that the book was composed during the Seleukid period (Fox 1991, 139–140) and reflects a Jewish exilic existence, rather than one centered in Judaea. Its message is one of approval of a foreign rule, of recognition that power and position could be gained only through the royal court, and its ultimate goal seems to be the enjoyment of religious autonomy of Jews in a separate physical presence among the gentiles (cf. Jos. BJ 7:43– 45 on the Jews of Antioch). The only acts of violence mentioned in Esther are not against the sovereign, but rather sanctioned by it (Est 8.11–13, 9.1–16).
    [Show full text]
  • Roman History Timeline
    3/9/2014 ROMAN HISTORY TIMELINE Roman History Timeline by Jim Jones, West Chester University of Pennsylvania (c.2013) Return to the Syllabus This list begins with the founding of the village of Rome around 753 BCE and continues to the fall of Constantinople in 1453 CE. It is particularly detailed for the period from 58 BCE to 31 BCE (Julius Caesar to Caesar Augustus) and for 376 CE to 480 CE (the "fall" of the Western Roman Empire). ROMAN MONARCHY 1200 BCE Etruscans reached northern Italy 800­500 BCE Greeks established colonies throughout southern Italy 800 BCE Phoenicians established Carthage on the north coast of Africa about 753 village of Rome founded BCE 600 BCE Rome was a province of Etruria 509 BCE Romans revolted against the Etruscan kings and created the system of government by the Senate and the Assembly THE CONQUEST OF ITALY 494 BCE first disputes between patricians (wealthy landowners who controlled the Senate) and plebeians (ordinary citizens) 450 BCE "Law of the 12 Tables" provides written Roman law 390 BCE Gaulic invasion sacked Rome 282­272 BCE War with Pyrrhus 265 BCE Rome completed the occupation of the Italian peninsula THE CONQUEST OF THE MEDITERRANEAN 264­241 BCE First war with Carthage (First Punic War) 238 BCE Conquest of Sardinia 229­228 BCE First Illyrian War (Balkans) 219 BCE Second Illyrian War 218­201 BCE Second Punic War (Hannibal crossed the Alps) 215­205 BCE First Macedonian War 200­197 BCE Second Macedonian War 200­191 BCE Gaul invasion of northern Italy 192­189 BCE Syrian War 171­168 Third Macedonian War 149­148 BCE Fourth (and final) Macedonian War 149­146 BCE Third Punic War and final defeat of Carthage THE END OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC http://courses.wcupa.edu/jones/his101/web/t-roman.htm 1/4 3/9/2014 ROMAN HISTORY TIMELINE 135­132 BCE First Servile War (slave revolt) 133 BCE Tiberius, the first senator to advocate land reform, was assassinated in 133 BCE by land­owners.
    [Show full text]
  • Marius' Mules: Paving the Path to Power
    1 Marius' Mules: Paving the Path to Power Mary Wright Seminar Paper Presented to the Department of History Western Oregon University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in History Spring 2009 For Dr. Benedict Lowe Dr Narasingha Sil Hst 499: Prof. Max Geier & Prof. Narasingha SilI 2 I Gaius Marius (157-86 B.C.) has long been a controversial figure in Roman history. His spectacular life and career which included seven consulships has been subject to many different interpretations. After his death, debate still rages about how much of his life and actions set the stage for the slow death of the Roman Republic. Ancient historians such as Plutarch have credited Marius with number of military reforms paving the way for the increased political influence of the army. This paper discusses how Marius' effectively marshalled several ongoing changes occurring within the Roman army while using military glory to vault over rejection by the Senate to the heights of political power. The defeat of Hannibal at the end of the Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.) left the Roman Republic poised for an unprecedented era of expansion. The annexation of Carthaginian holdings including Spain, Sardinia and Corsica brought wealth and opportunity to many. Families of senatorial rank continued to use military glory as a method of acquiring political power and prestige. The extensive series of wars all over the Mediterranean created the roots for several political and societal changes that are later reflected in Marius' reforms in the military. Families such as the Scipioni and Metelli produced several successful generals who won many impressive victories.
    [Show full text]
  • War and Society in the Roman World
    Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society Volume 5 WAR AND SOCIETY IN THE ROMAN WORLD WAR AND SOCIETY IN THE ROMAN WORLD Edited by JOHN RICH and GRAHAM SHIPLEY London and New York First published 1993 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2002. Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge Inc. 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 © 1993 John Rich, Graham Shipley and individual contributors All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data War and society in the Roman world/edited by John Rich and Graham Shipley. p. cm.—(Leicester-Nottingham studies in ancient society; v. 5) Selected, revised versions of papers from a series of seminars sponsored by the Classics Departments of Leicester and Nottingham Universities, 1988–1990. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Military art and science—Rome—History. 2. Rome—History, Military. 3. Sociology, Military—Rome—History. I. Rich, John. II. Shipley, Graham. III. Series. U35.W34 1993 355′.00937–dc20 92–36698 ISBN 0-203-07554-4 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-22120-6
    [Show full text]
  • The Diplomacy of Intervention in the Middle Republic: the Roman Decision of 201/200 B.C.1
    THE DIPLOMACY OF INTERVENTION IN THE MIDDLE REPUBLIC: THE ROMAN DECISION OF 201/200 B.C.1 Resumen: El artículo argumenta que la histórica decisión mundial de intervenir en la cri- sis geopolítica que estaba convulsionando Grecia en el invierno del 201/200 a.C. tuvo varios elementos determinantes, sobre los que destacó una cultura greco-romana que, en general, observaba la intervención del más fuerte a favor del «injustamente tratado» como una buena acción, como un signo no tanto de poder como de virtud. Palabras clave: diplomacia antigua, intervención interestatal en la Antigüedad, expansión imperial romana. Abstract: The paper argues that the world-historical Roman decision to intervene in the geopolitical crisis that was convulsing the Greek East in winter 201/200 B.C. had many determinants, but one overlooked determinant was a Greco-Roman culture that in general looked upon intervention by the strong upon behalf of the “unjustly treated” as a good thing, as a sign not merely of power but actually of virtue. Key words: ancient diplomacy, ancient interstate interventions, Roman imperial, expansion. Introduction Envoys from four Greek states —Egypt, Rhodes, Athens and Pergamum— arrived in Rome in autumn 201, pleading for Roman intervention against Philip V of Macedon and Antiochus III of Syria. They warned of severe consequences should the power of the two kings be allowed to expand unimpeded. The sudden expansion of the kings’ power was ultimately caused by the weakening and then increasing collapse of Ptolemaic Egypt, which since ca. 280 had formed one of the three pillars of the state-system in the Greek Mediterranean.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age
    Macquarie University Department of Ancient History 2nd Semester, 2011. AHIS 241 / 341 AlexanderAlexander thethe GreatGreat andand thethe HellenisticHellenistic AgeAge Unit Outline, Schedule, Tutorial Materials and Bibliography 1 Contents: Unit Introduction and Requirements p. 3 Unit Schedule: Lecture and Tutorial topics p. 9 Map 1: Alexander's March of Conquest. p. 11 Weekly Tutorial Materials p. 12 Map 2: Alexander's Successors, 303 B.C. p. 17 Map 3: The 3rd Century World of Alexander’s Successors p. 18 Map 4: The Background to the Maccabean Revolt p. 27 Unit Main Bibliography p. 32 2 Macquarie University Department of Ancient History 2011 AHIS 241 / 341: Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age. UNIT INTRODUCTION This Unit on Alexander the Great and the ‘Hellenistic Age’ will begin with the political situation in Fourth Century Greece and the rise of Macedon. It will focus first on the career of Alexander the Great, and the interpretation of a number of key episodes in his life. The aim will be to build up an overall picture of his motives and achievements, and the consequences of his extraordinary conquests for later history. The focus will then turn to the break up of his ‘Empire’ at his death, and the warfare among his successors which led to the creation of the great rival kingdoms of the Hellenistic period. The Unit will be primarily a study in cultural history, set against the background of the political history of the Mediterranean world. It will not be tied to an event-by-event account of the post- Classical Greek world, but will focus also on the history of ideas and institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronological Tables
    CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES I. IMMIGRATIONS c. 2000. Italian tribes cross Alps and settle round Northern Lakes. c. 1500. Italians push southwards into Umbria, Latium, etc. c. 900. Etruscans settle in Etruria and Western Umbria. From 800 onwards, Greeks found colonies in Sicily and S. Italy. II. ROME UNDER THE KINGS *753- Foundation of Rome by Romulus from Alba Longa. * 71 5-673. Numa Popilius (Sabine), traditional founder of religious institutions. *673-642. Tullus Hostilius (Latin) destroys Alba Longa. Ancus Martius (Latin) bridges Tiber and founds Ostia. *6i 6-579. Tarquinius Priscus (Etruscan) makes war on Latius. *5 78-53 5. Servius Tullius (Etruscan ?) builds wall : Constitution by ' classes '. *535~5io. Tarquinius Superbus (Etruscan) completes Temple on Capitol. 510. Expulsion of Tarquin, who summons aid of fellow- Etruscans. 496. Defeat of Lars Porsenna at Lake Regillus. (* These dates are purely traditional.) III. THE EARLY REPUBLIC External Internal 494. Secession of plebs to Sacred Mount : creation of tribunes. 493- Roman alliance with Latin League. c. 480. Volscian War (Coriolanus) 477- War against Veii : battle of Cremera. 474- Etruscans defeated at Cumae. c. 460. War against Aequi (Cin- cinnatus) 455 456 THE ROMAN REPUBLIC External Internal 451- Decemviri begin tabulation of Laws. 450. Decemviri (Appius Claudius) de posed. 449- Valerio-Horatian Laws : rights to plebeians. 445- Lex Canuleia : permitting inter marriage of Orders. 431- Aequi defeated at Mt. Algidus. 396. Capture of Veii by Camil- lus. 390. Rome sacked by Gauls. 376. Licinian proposals : violent strife results. 367- Licinian proposals become law : one consul plebeian, etc. 360-50. Gallic Invasions. 287. Lex Hortensia gives plebescita authority of law.
    [Show full text]
  • Polybius on Hellenism and Changing Hegemonic Powers Emma Nicholson
    Hellenic Romans and Barbaric Macedonians: Polybius on Hellenism and Changing Hegemonic Powers Emma Nicholson Abstract: This article explores the relationship between the Greeks, Macedonians and Romans through the prism of Polybius of Megalopolis and his Histories in the second century BC. It throws light on how a Greek might control and construct the image of larger powers to explain political change and assert or deny them political and cultural legitimacy, while at the same time proclaiming the continued importance of Hellenic culture. It investigates Polybius’ construction and use of Hellenism in his Histories and demonstrates how he deliberately interchanged the trajectories of Macedon and Rome to offer an ideological explanation for Rome’s rise and Macedon’s fall, to assert that the preservation of the Greeks lay with Rome not Macedon, to protect the standing of the Achaean League, and to emphasise the importance of Hellenic virtues for success on the domestic and international scenes. Keywords: Hellenism, barbarism, Polybius, Philip V of Macedon, Rome, cultural politics Ideas about what it was to be Greek, non-Greek, and barbarian were most closely fought over, negotiated and defined during periods of high pressure and large-scale political-social transformation, for instance, during the Persian Wars in the fifth century BC and the rise of Macedon in the fourth.1 The second century also saw the Greeks confronted with a similar period of upheaval and transformation following the rise of Rome in the Greek East and the defeat of the Hellenistic kingdoms. The political dynamics of the Mediterranean were altered irrevocably. Where once the Greek peoples were subject to Macedonian hegemons (whose Greekness was contested by some, although not themselves), now they were subject to a distinctly non-Greek one.
    [Show full text]