DOCSLIB.ORG

Plutarch and Mos Maiorum in the Life of Aemilius Paullus*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Plutarch and Mos Maiorum in the Life of Aemilius Paullus* PLUTARCH AND MOS MAIORUM IN THE LIFE OF AEMILIUS PAULLUS* Abstract: Plutarch’s Life of Aemilius stands out as an exceedingly favourable portrait of one of the leading figures of mid-Republican Rome. Above all, the biographer generously praises his subject’s quali- ties as a wise and traditionalist statesman in the city and as a philan- thropic and philhellenic benefactor abroad. Although his policies are characterised as distinctly ‘conservative’, Aemilius admirably succeeds in winning universal popularity, thus bridging the common divide between Senate and people. Led astray by demagoguery, only his unruly troops temporarily disturb the general consensus. Throughout the narrative, Aemilius strives to educate the people around him: his sons and his peers, the Roman citizens and soldiers, foreign peoples and leaders. While many of these features can also be found in the historical tradition beyond Plutarch, the biographer adapts and reinforces them to suit his own interests and objectives. The same applies to his representa- tion of political life in the Middle Republic, which sometimes resembles a golden age of ancestral virtue and at other times bears the foul marks of decay and indiscipline. On either reading, Aemilius is the man to uphold and enforce the political and moral standards cherished by Plu- tarch as well as by the Roman tradition of mos maiorum. The decades between the Hannibalic War and the Gracchan ‘Revolution’ are commonly regarded as a comparatively calm period of consensus within the Roman body politic. While there are many good reasons for positing this view, the relative stability of mid-Republican politics should not obscure the fact that its ideological underpinnings, the mos maiorum, were constantly being (re)invented and (re)defined both at the time and by later generations of politicians and historians. This process is inevitably reflected in the careers of the era’s leading statesmen, most notably the Scipiones, Cato the Elder, and Titus Flamininus, who were all heavily embroiled in the vicissitudes of political, legal, and cultural struggles, with concomitant debates about morality and decline. The same may be said of Aemilius Paullus, albeit with a major quali- fication: while the aforementioned figures are subject to both praise and blame, the victor of the Third Macedonian War stands out as a heroic figure with a virtually impeccable record in the entire literary tradition.1 * I am grateful to Geert Roskam for discussing with me many of the points raised in this paper, which grew out of a project supported by the Deutscher Akademischer Aus- tausch Dienst (DAAD). Ancient Society 42, 219-254. doi: 10.2143/AS.42.0.2172293 © 2012 by Ancient Society. All rights reserved. 995510_AncientSociety_42_09.indd5510_AncientSociety_42_09.indd 221919 33/10/12/10/12 009:079:07 220 M. TRÖSTER To some extent, this is surely due to Polybius, whose account underlies much of the later treatments by Livy and Plutarch, though these authors obviously wrote from their own perspective and consulted additional material as well.2 Another reason for the almost universal acclaim earned by Aemilius seems to be the way his image was used by both Scipio Aemilianus and his rivals in the political controversies of the subsequent generation (Plut., Aem. 38.3-5).3 Whatever its background, the exceptionally positive appraisal of Aemil- ius in the historical tradition needs to be borne in mind when reading the most comprehensive of the extant accounts of his career, which is pro- vided in Plutarch’s Life of Aemilius. This is not to argue that the biogra- pher was merely at the mercy of his sources. In fact, one of the key points to emerge from this paper is that Plutarch’s depiction of Aemilius owes a lot to his own values, interests, and objectives. At the same time, however, the biographer’s emphases ought to be interpreted against the background of the material at his disposal. What Plutarch produced is certainly an exceedingly favourable portrait, but this does not automati- cally imply that he was blinded by uncritical admiration for his subject and therefore chose to ignore important evidence to the contrary. Writ- ing more than 200 years after Aemilius’ death, Plutarch must have found it difficult, if not impossible, to see past the well-established tradition of celebrating the victor of Pydna as an exemplar of ancestral virtue and excellence.4 The laudatory image painted in Plutarch’s sources also helps to under- stand his emphasis on the value of imitating good examples in the proem to the Aemilius – Timoleon, which emphatically asserts a personal con- nexion between the biographer and his readers on the one hand and the exemplary subjects of the Lives on the other. According to Alberto Bar- zanò, this programmatic statement implies a sharp contrast with the methodological approach adopted in the rest of the series, revealing that Plutarch purposefully chose to conceal the negative aspects of Aemilius’ 1 Cf. Reiter (1988); Barzanò (1994), (1996) 97-116; also Vianoli (1972), who all seek to demonstrate that this is historically inadequate. A different approach is adopted in Tröster (2010). 2 On Plutarch’s sources for the Aemilius cf. Flacelière & Chambry (1966) 60-65; Scardigli (1979) 57-60; Barzanò (1996) 90-96. Also note Gabba (2004), Zecchini (2005) as well as Tatum (2010) on the biographer’s use of Polybius. 3 See below at n. 101ff. 4 This argument is developed more fully in Tröster (2010). Plutarch’s bias in favour of Aemilius (and Flamininus) is also discussed by Bremer (2005). 995510_AncientSociety_42_09.indd5510_AncientSociety_42_09.indd 222020 33/10/12/10/12 009:079:07 PLUTARCH AND MOS MAIORUM IN THE LIFE OF AEMILIUS PAULLUS 221 historical record.5 However, the biographer does not actually declare an intention to pass in silence over his subject’s defects, as Barzanò has it, but rather to use the Lives as a means of evading the discomfort encoun- tered in daily life (Aem. 1.5). Having said that, it remains remarkable that Plutarch’s heroes are gen- erally characterised by a mixture of good and bad traits,6 whereas the greater part of the Aemilius is constructed around an antithesis between a virtually stainless protagonist (Aemilius) and his dishonest and das- tardly adversary (Perseus).7 As indicated above, this can to a large extent be attributed to the one-sided nature of the historical tradition, which inevitably constrained the compositional options available to Plutarch. Aemilius’ (and Timoleon’s) brilliant record made it most appropriate, then, that the proem to this particular syzygy should highlight the merits of studying the fairest examples (tà kállista t¬n paradeigmátwn). Like elsewhere, the opening statement is a carefully crafted introduction that responds to the specific challenge of writing the pair at hand.8 At the same time, its focus on imitation and paradigms of virtue is perfectly in line with the moral agenda that underlies the whole series.9 Notwithstanding the importance of considering Plutarch’s material, it is above all the rich repertoire of biographical adaptation and reinterpretation that makes the Lives an original and intriguing piece of literature. Evi- dently, Plutarch’s values, his views on politics, society, and culture, and the intended message to his Graeco-Roman audience are fundamental to a meaningful understanding of the text. If Aemilius had come to embody the Roman tradition of mos maiorum before Plutarch, it is through Plu- tarch’s eyes that the modern reader looks at his career and character. Accordingly, the present paper pays special attention to the specifically Plutarchan elements in the depiction of Aemilius and his milieu, thus trying 5 Cf. Barzanò (1994) 403-404: “dichiarando esplicitamente di voler eliminare dal suo racconto tutti gli aspetti negativi pure presenti nella sua vita” (p. 404). 6 Cf. Duff (1999) 45-49 and 53-65, who rightly rejects attempts at classifying particu- lar Lives as either positive or negative; pace Nikolaidis (2005) 312-315. Also note Stadter (2000) 500-506. 7 On Plutarch’s use of foils cf. generally Bucher-Isler (1972) 62-68; Frazier (1996) 64-67. The negative characterisation of Perseus is discussed below at n. 50ff. 8 Cf. generally Duff (1999) 13-51 passim; also Cooper (2004) 34-45. 9 The imitation of exempla is also discussed in Per. 1-2 and Demetr. 1.1-6 (on bad examples); further Arat. 1. Other passages set out the purpose of depicting character: Alex. 1; Cim. 2.2-5; Nic. 1.5; also Pomp. 8.7; Dem. 11.7; Cat. Min. 24.1; 37.10; further Galb. 2.5. On some of these programmatic statements cf. the references cited in the previ- ous note, as well as Stadter (1988) 283-295; Desideri (1989) 199-204. 995510_AncientSociety_42_09.indd5510_AncientSociety_42_09.indd 222121 33/10/12/10/12 009:079:07 222 M. TRÖSTER to gain a clearer idea of how the Greek writer viewed his subject and the Roman Middle Republic as a historical period. The discussion is divided into four sections, focusing in turn on (1) the protagonist’s traditionalism and his commitment to the public good, (2) his encounter with Greece and her culture, (3) his political affiliation and statesmanlike presence at Rome, and (4) his rôle as a military leader and champion of discipline in the field. 1. AEMILIUS AND ANCESTRAL VIRTUE Following the formal proem, the narrative of Aemilius’ life begins with some remarks on the protagonist’s distinguished ancestry (Aem. 2.1-4). Evidently, this is a most appropriate opening for a biography dedicated to a champion of traditional values. In characteristic fashion, Plutarch not only highlights the shining record of the patrician house of the Aemilii, but also makes a suggestive observation on the possibility of a connexion with Pythagoras, the alleged educator of Numa (Aem.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nicholas Victor Sekunda the SARISSA
    ACTA UNI VERSITATIS LODZIENSIS FOLIA ARCHAEOLOGICA 23, 2001 Nicholas Victor Sekunda THE SARISSA INTRODUCTION Recent years have seen renewed interest in Philip and Alexander, not least in the sphere of military affairs. The most complete discussion of the sarissa, or pike, the standard weapon of Macedonian footsoldiers from the reign of Philip onwards, is that of Lammert. Lammert collects the ancient literary evidence and there is little one can disagree with in his discussion of the nature and use of the sarissa. The ancient texts, however, concentrate on the most remarkable feature of the weapon - its great length. Unfor- tunately several details of the weapon remain unclear. More recent discussions o f the weapon have tried to resolve these problems, but I find myself unable to agree with many of the solutions proposed. The purpose of this article is to suggest some alternative possibilities using further ancient literary evidence and also comparisons with pikes used in other periods of history. 1 do not intend to cover those aspects of the sarissa already dealt with satisfactorily by Lammert and his predecessors'. THE PIKE-HEAD Although the length of the pike is the most striking feature of the weapon, it is not the sole distinguishing characteristic. What also distinguishes a pike from a common spear is the nature of the head. Most spears have a relatively broad head designed to open a wide flesh wound and to sever blood vessels. 1 hey are usually used to strike at the unprotected parts of an opponent’s body. The pike, on the other hand, is designed to penetrate body defences such as shields or armour.
    [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]
  • HELLENISTIC ART O. Palagia This Chapter Deals with Art In
    CHAPTER 23 HELLENISTIC ART O. Palagia This chapter deals with art in Macedonia between the death of Alexander III (“the Great”) in 323 bc and the defeat of Perseus, last king of Macedon, at the battle of Pydna in 168 bc. As a result of Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire, a lot of wealth flowed into Macedonia.1 A large-scale con- struction programme was initiated soon after Alexander’s death, reinforc- ing city walls, rebuilding the royal palaces of Pella and Aegae (Vergina) and fijilling the countryside with monumental tombs. The archaeologi- cal record has in fact shown that a lot of construction took place during the rule of Cassander, who succeeded Alexander’s half-brother Philip III Arrhidaios to the throne of Macedon, and was responsible for twenty years of prosperity and stability from 316 to 297 bc. Excavations in Mace- donia have revealed very fijine wall-paintings, mosaics, and luxury items in ivory, gold, silver, and bronze reflecting the ostentatious elite lifestyle of a regime that was far removed from the practices of democratic city- states, Athens in particular.2 Whereas in Athens and the rest of Greece art and other treasures were reserved for the gods, in Macedonia they were primarily to be found in palaces, houses, and tombs. With the exception of the sanctuary of the Great Gods of Samothrace which was developed thanks to the generous patronage of Macedonian royalty from Philip II onwards, Macedonian sanctuaries lacked the monumental temples and cult statues by famous masters that were the glory of Athens, Delphi, Olympia, Argos, Epidauros, or Tegea, to name but a few.
    [Show full text]
  • 274To 146B.C
    PUNIC WARS 274 TO 146 B.C. FIRST PUNIC WAR TO DESTRUCTION OF CARTHAGE ERA SUMMARY – PUNIC WARS The period of the Punic and Macedonian Wars was a critical one in Rome's history. At the dawn of the Punic Wars, in 264 B.C., Rome was master of Italy, but controlled no colonies or provinces outside of the Peninsula. She had neither a navy nor a merchant based economy. One hundred and twenty years later, she had entirely subdued both the Carthaginian empire in the west and the Macedonian empire in the east. She had provinces and allies throughout the Mediterranean and was the undisputed master of the seas. Although it took another century to expand and consolidate her power, by the end of the Punic Wars Rome had laid the foundation of an empire. The Punic Wars, which raged between the city of Carthage and Rome for over a century, were so named because the Carthaginians were of the Phoenician (or Punic) race. There were three Punic Wars, but the second was by far the most critical. The first Punic War lasted 24 years, involved many skirmishes, and was won primarily by perseverance. Rome gained a small amount of Carthaginian territory but never achieved a decisive victory. Carthage capitulated as much because of internal troubles as due to pressure from Rome. However, this war did much to establish Rome as a naval power. The best known Roman hero of the first Punic War was Regulus, and the best known Carthaginian heroes were Xanthippus and Hamilcar. The second Punic War was a great catastrophe for Rome and all of Italy.
    [Show full text]
  • Polybius and Livy on the Allies in the Roman Army
    POLYBIUS AND LIVY ON THE ALLIES IN THE ROMAN ARMY Paul Erdkamp* From the fourth or third century until the beginning of the rst century bc, Rome’s armies were also the armies of her allies. The socii and nomen Latinum raised at least half of the soldiers that fought wars for Rome. The Italic allies were clearly distinguished from the non-Italic troops, such as Cretan archers or Numidian horsemen, by the fact that they were governed by the formula togatorum. This can be concluded from their ‘de nition’ in the lex agraria from 111 bc: socii nominisve Latini quibus ex formula togatorum milites in terra Italia imperare solent. The formula togatorum is seen as a de ning element, distinguishing the Latin and Italic peoples from Rome’s overseas allies. Although in the second century bc a con- sciousness of Italy as a political and cultural unity gradually emerged, it was still referred to as a military alliance of Roman citizens and allies at the end of that century.1 The beginnings of this system remain in the dark, due to the inadequacies of our sources. The foedus Cassianum between Rome and the Latin League (traditionally dated to 493 bc) supposedly established a federal army under Roman command, but next to nothing is known about its functioning. The participation of the allied peoples was based on the treaties between their communities and Rome. The position of the Latin colonies was slightly different, because their obligations were probably based on the lex coloniae governing each Latin colony.2 We may assume that the role of the allies was re-de ned * I wish to thank John Rich, Luuk de Ligt and Simon Northwood for their many valuable comments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Other Greeks: Metaphors and Ironies of Hellenism in Livy’S Fourth Decade
    THE OTHER GREEKS: METAPHORS AND IRONIES OF HELLENISM IN LIVY’S FOURTH DECADE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Douglas S. Freeble * * * * The Ohio State University 2004 Dissertation Committee: Professor Erik Gunderson, Adviser Approved by Professor Kirk Freudenburg, Co-Adviser ___________________________ Professor Sarah Iles Johnston Adviser Greek and Latin Graduate Program Copyright by Douglas Freeble 2004 ABSTRACT Already in the Praefatio of Livy’s work the metaphor of the importation of foreign influence is apparent. Livy chooses the annalistic narrative style as the most Roman form possible and a self -construction as an author who valorizes traditional Roman values. These authorial decisions on the modality of the narrative are intimately linked to tropology and the manufacturing of the metaphors and ironies that frame Livy’s text in books 31-45. Roman control in Thessaly is asserted by manufacturing communities in its image. These collapse miserably when the guiding Roman metaphors are questioned. The failure of Roman institutions is depicted as evidence of the restless nature of the Thessalians. A representative image of Thessaly is given in the character of Theoxena, a Thessalian exile who kills herself at a festival of Aeneas. Her story allows Romans to form an emotional bond with the Thessalians, although it maintains their essential alterity. The Galatian campaign of Manlius Vulso shows the dangers of Rome’s encounter with Hellenism. The Galatians are presented as Gallic-Greek hybrids who are no longer the great Gallic warriors of the past.
    [Show full text]
  • Adrift Toward Empire Author(S): John R
    Adrift toward Empire Author(s): John R. Senseney Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 70, No. 4 (December 2011), pp. 421-441 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural Historians Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/jsah.2011.70.4.421 . Accessed: 08/02/2012 16:20 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of California Press and Society of Architectural Historians are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. http://www.jstor.org Adrift toward Empire The Lost Porticus Octavia in Rome and the Origins of the Imperial Fora john r. senseney University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign he porticus, a Roman architectural type adapted in a recent essay Dell Upton presented the ruins of Roman from the Greek stoa, was a building block of Baalbek in Lebanon as a monument exemplifying new TRepublican and Imperial urbanism.1 An early and possibilities for a world history of architecture.3 By empha- especially significant example of this type is the Porticus sizing the variety of narratives projected upon ancient build- Octavia.
    [Show full text]
  • Revision and Reconstruction of the Battles of Cannae (216 Bce) and Zama (202 Bce)
    1 REVISION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE BATTLES OF CANNAE (216 BCE) AND ZAMA (202 BCE) Yozan D. Mosig and Imene Belhassen University of Nebraska at Kearney 2 Revision and Reconstruction in the Punic Wars: Cannae Revisited. Yozan D. Mosig and Imene Belhassen University of Nebraska-Kearney 2006 [Publication data: Mosig, Y., & Belhassen, I. (2006). Revision and reconstruction in the Punic Wars: Cannae revisited. The International Journal of the Humanities, 4(2), 103-110.] 3 Abstract The history of the wars between Carthage and Rome was rewritten by two pro-Roman historians, Polybius and Titus Livius. The former, while usually more reliable, revised facts that would have shown his employers, the Scipionic/Aemilian family, in an unfavorable light, while the latter, a clear Roman patriotic propagandist, embellished history to suit his purposes. Accounts of the wars by Carthaginian historians seem to have been lost or been conveniently destroyed. Nevertheless, gaps and contradictions in the Roman accounts, together with a modern understanding of human motivation and environmental circumstances, allow for the reconstruction of the original events. A case in point is the battle of Cannae, in 216 BCE, where a modern analysis reveals the real reasons for Hannibal’s victory, the true strengths of the armies of Romans and Carthaginians, the identity of the actual commander of the Roman forces, the correct casualty figures, and the likely reasons for Hannibal’s refusal to march on Rome following his great victory. 4 The battle of Cannae, between the multi-ethnic forces of the Carthaginian general Hannibal Barca and the much larger Roman army under the command of consuls Lucius Aemilius Paulus and Gaius Terentius Varro, in 216 BCE, was without a doubt one of the most significant battles in history.
    [Show full text]
  • Antigonid Macedonia the Antigonid Dynasty Ruled Macedonia from 277
    Antigonid Macedonia The Antigonid Dynasty ruled Macedonia from 277 BC until the Roman conquest of the region. The Antigonid kingdom was the smallest and most conservative of the Diadochi kingdoms; the fact that it ruled the original Macedonian homeland instead of distant foreigners new to Greek culture meant that it did not have to improvise nearly as much as the other major Diadochi kingdoms. The Birth of the Antigonid Kingdom The first founder of the Antigonid Dynasty was Antigonas I Monophthalmus (“the One-Eyed”). A general of Alexander the Great, he gained control of Asia Minor after Alexander’s death. He attempted to reunite the empire under his own rule and declared himself king, but he was defeated and killed by the other Diadochi at the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC. His son Demetrius I and his grandson, Antigonas Gonatas, fled to Macedonia, where they made themselves rulers. Demetrius conquered many Greek cities and earned the nickname “the City-Taker,” but he shared his father’s ambitions of great conquests in the East. Demetrius was captured during an invasion of Asia and died as a hostage. His son, Antigonas II Gonatas, soon lost control of the Macedonian kingdom to his father’s rivals. But in 277 BC, after a period of anarchy caused by an invasion of Gauls, Antigonas II retook the kingdom and made himself king. Thus, he was the second dynastic founder, establishing the Antigonids as the ruling dynasty of Macedonia. The Macedonian Kingdom The Antigonid kings ruled over a population of Macedonian subjects. Unlike the other Diadochi kingdoms, Macedonia had a fairly homogeneous population.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconstruction of the Landscape History Around the Remnant Arch of the Klidhi Roman Bridge, Thessaloniki Plain, North Central Greece
    Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 178–191 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas Reconstruction of the landscape history around the remnant arch of the Klidhi Roman Bridge, Thessaloniki Plain, North Central Greece Matthieu Ghilardi a,*, Abdelsalem Genç b, George Syrides c, Jan Bloemendal d, David Psomiadis e, Thodoris Paraschou c,Ste´phane Kunesch f, Eric Fouache g a CEREGE, U.M.R. 6635, C.N.R.S., Europoˆle Me´diterrane´en de l’Arbois BP 80, 13545 Aix-en-Provence CEDEX 04, France b University of Paris 4 Sorbonne, 191 rue Saint Jacques – 75005 Paris, France c Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Department of Geology, Thessaloniki, Greece d University of Liverpool, Department of Geography, Laboratory of Environmental Magnetism, UK e Institute of Materials Science, N.C.S.R. ‘‘Demokritos’’, 153 10 Agia Paraskevi Attikis, Athens, Greece f Laboratoire de Ge´ographie Physique, U.M.R. 8591, C.N.R.S., 1 Place Aristide Briand – 92195 Meudon, France g University of Paris 10 Nanterre, Department of Geography, 200 Boulevard de la Re´publique, 92000 Nanterre, France article info abstract Article history: This paper deals with the palaeoenvironmental reconstruction of the area surrounding the remnant arch of Received 21 June 2009 the ancient bridge of Klidhi, Thessaloniki Plain, Greece. 19th century travellers and 20th century historians Received in revised form discussed the age of the monument and concluded that it was built during Late Roman Times (3rd Cent. AD) 8 September 2009 and supported a branch of the Via Egnatia road.
    [Show full text]
  • Thucydides HISTORY of the PELOPONNESIAN WAR
    Thucydides HISTORY OF THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR Thucydides HISTORY OF THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR ■ HISTORY OF THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR file:///D|/Documenta%20Chatolica%20Omnia/99%20-%20Provvisori/mbs%20Library/001%20-Da%20Fare/00-index.htm2006-06-01 15:02:55 Thucydides HISTORY OF THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR:Index. Thucydides HISTORY OF THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR General Index ■ THE FIRST BOOK ■ THE SECOND BOOK ■ THE THIRD BOOK ■ THE FOURTH BOOK ■ THE FIFTH BOOK ■ THE SIXTH BOOK ■ THE SEVENTH BOOK ■ THE EIGHTH BOOK file:///D|/Documenta%20Chatolica%20Omnia/99%20-%20Provvisori/mbs%20Library/001%20-Da%20Fare/0-PeloponnesianWar.htm2006-06-01 15:02:55 PELOPONNESIANWAR: THE FIRST BOOK, Index. THE FIRST BOOK Index CHAPTER I. The State of Greece from the earliest Times to the Commencement of the Peloponnesian War CHAPTER II. Causes of the War - The Affair of Epidamnus - The Affair of Potidaea CHAPTER III. Congress of the Peloponnesian Confederacy at Lacedaemon CHAPTER IV. From the end of the Persian to the beginning of the Peloponnesian War - The Progress from Supremacy to Empire CHAPTER V. Second Congress at Lacedaemon - Preparations for War and Diplomatic Skirmishes - Cylon - Pausanias - Themistocles file:///D|/Documenta%20Chatolica%20Omnia/99%20-%20Provvi...i/mbs%20Library/001%20-Da%20Fare/1-PeloponnesianWar0.htm2006-06-01 15:02:55 PELOPONNESIANWAR: THE SECOND BOOK, Index. THE SECOND BOOK Index CHAPTER VI. Beginning of the Peloponnesian War - First Invasion of Attica - Funeral - Oration of Pericles CHAPTER VII. Second Year of the War - The Plague of Athens - Position and Policy of Pericles - Fall of Potidaea CHAPTER VIII. Third Year of the War - Investment of Plataea - Naval Victories of Phormio - Thracian Irruption into Macedonia under Sitalces file:///D|/Documenta%20Chatolica%20Omnia/99%20-%20Provvi...i/mbs%20Library/001%20-Da%20Fare/1-PeloponnesianWar1.htm2006-06-01 15:02:55 PELOPONNESIANWAR: THE THIRD BOOK, Index.
    [Show full text]
  • PHILIP II and the CONSTRUCTION of the MACEDONIAN STATE By
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by The University of Utah: J. Willard Marriott Digital Library PHILIP II AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MACEDONIAN STATE by Cynthia Kimball Phillips A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of History The University of Utah August 2012 Copyright © Cynthia Kimball Phillips 2012 All Rights Reserved The University of Utah Graduate School STATEMENT OF THESIS APPROVAL The thesis of Cynthia Kimball Phillips has been approved by the following supervisory committee members: W. Lindsay Adams , Chair May 9, 2012 Date Approved Isabel Moreira , Member May 9, 2012 Date Approved Margaret Toscano , Member May 9, 2012 Date Approved and by Isabel Moreira , Chair of the Department of History and by Charles A. Wight, Dean of The Graduate School. ABSTRACT The accomplishments of Philip II of Macedonia have long been overshadowed by those of his son, Alexander the Great, due to the spectacular nature of Alexander’s achievements and to the survival of ancient sources, though written later, that have documented Alexander’s reign. Little remains of the histories or writings of Philip’s contemporaries, and those that do remain are hostile to Philip and almost exclusively pro- Athenian. Ancient sources focus on Philip’s diplomacy, imperialism, and character flaws—all from the view of outsiders watching Philip’s actions against their Greek states. These ancient literary sources have necessarily focused the modern discussion of Greece in the 4th century BC on those same subjects and away from a survey of Philip’s policies, systems, and successes within Macedonia.
    [Show full text]