The Histories of Polybius, Vol. 2 (of 2)

by Polybius

[13.] It has often and in many cases occurred to me to wonder at the mistakes men make;Was Aristaenus a traitor or a wise Opportunist? but none seems to me so surprising as that of traitors. I wish, therefore, to say a word in season on the subject. I know very well that it is one which does not admit of easy treatment or definition. For it is not at all easy to say whom we ought to regard as a real traitor. Plainly all those, who at a time of tranquillity make compacts with kings or princes, cannot be reckoned such off hand; nor, again, those who in the midst of dangers transfer their country from existing friendships and alliances to others. Far from it. For such men have again and again been the authors of manifold advantages to their own countries. But not to go any further for example, my meaning can be made clear by the circumstances of the present case. For, if Aristaenus had not at this time opportunely caused the Achaeans to leave their alliance with Philip and join that of Rome, it is clear that the whole league would have been utterly ruined. But as it was, this man and this policy were confessedly the sources, not only of security to individual Achaeans at the time, but of the aggrandisement of the whole league. Therefore he was not looked upon as a traitor, but universally honoured as a benefactor and saviour of the country. The same principle will hold good in the case of all others who regulate their policy and measures by the necessities of the hour.

[14.] From this point of view fault might be found with Demosthenes, admirable as he is in many respects,Comparison of the policy of the Achaeans and other Peloponnesians towards Philip V. with that recommended by Demosthenes towards Philip II. for having rashly and indiscriminately launched an exceedingly bitter charge at the most illustrious Greeks. For he asserted that in Arcadia, Cercidas, Hieronymus, and Eucampidas were traitors to Greece for making an alliance with Philip; in Messene the sons of Philiades, Neon and Thrasylochus; in Argos, Mystis, Teledamus, one Mnaseas; in Thessaly, Daochus and Cineas; in Boeotia, Theogeiton and Timolas: and many more besides he has included in the same category, naming them city by city; and yet all these men have a weighty and obvious plea to urge in defence of their conduct, and above all those of Arcadia and Messene.[79] For it was by their bringing Philip into the Peloponnese, and humbling the Lacedaemonians, that these men in the first place enabled all its inhabitants to breathe again, and conceive the idea of liberty; and in the next place, by recovering the territory and cities which the Lacedaemonians in the hour of prosperity had taken from the Messenians, Megalopolitans, Tegeans, and Argives, notoriously raised the fortunes of their own countries.[80] In return for this they were bound not to make war on Philip and the Macedonians, but to do all they could to promote his reputation and honour. Now, if they had been doing all this, or if they had admitted a garrison from Philip into their native cities, or had abolished their constitutions and deprived their fellow-citizens of liberty and freedom of speech, for the sake of their own private advantage or power, they would have deserved this name of traitor. But if, while carefully maintaining their duty to their countries, they yet differed in their judgment of politics, and did not consider that their interests were the same as those of the Athenians, it is not, I think, fair that they should have been called traitors on that account by Demosthenes. The man who measures everything by the interests of his own particular state, and imagines that all the Greeks ought to have their eyes fixed upon Athens, on the pain of being styled traitors, seems to me to be ill-informed and to be labouring under a strange delusion, especially as the course which events in Greece took at that time has borne witness to the wisdom, not of Demosthenes, but of Eucampidas, Hieronymus, Cercidas, and the sons of Philiades.B.C. 338. For what did the Athenians eventually get by their opposition to Philip? Why, the crowning disaster of the defeat at Chaeronea. And had it not been for the king’s magnanimity and regard for his own reputation, their misfortunes would have gone even further, thanks to the policy of Demosthenes. Whereas, owing to the men I have mentioned, security and relief from attacks of the Lacedaemonians were obtained for Arcadia and Messenia generally, and many advantages accrued to their states separately.

[15.] It is not easy then to define to whom one may properly apply this name. The nearest approach to truthThe true traitor is the man who acts with personal objects or from party spirit. would be to assign it to those who in times of public danger, either for the sake of personal security or advantage, or to retaliate upon political opponents, put their cities into the hands of the enemy: or indeed to those who, by admitting a foreign garrison, and employing external assistance to carry out private aims and views, bring their country under the direction of a superior power. All such men as these one might include in the category of traitors with perfect reasonableness. Such men, indeed, gain neither profit nor honour, but the reverse, as every one acknowledges.The reward of treason. And this brings me back to my original observation, that it is difficult to understand with what object, and supported by what reasoning, men rush upon such a disastrous position. For no one ever yet betrayed his city or camp or fort without being detected; but even if a man here and there managed to conceal it at the moment of his crime, yet all have been detected in the course of time. Nor when known has any such ever had a happy life; but, as a rule, they meet with the punishment they deserve from the very persons in whose favour they act. For, indeed, though generals and princes constantly employ traitors for their own purposes;Demosth. de Corona, § 47. yet when they have got all they can out of them, they treat them thenceforth as traitors, as Demosthenes says; very naturally considering that those, who have put their country and original friends into the hands of their enemies, are never likely to be really loyal or to keep faith with themselves. Nay, even though they escape violence at the hands of these, yet they do not easily avoid the vengeance of those whom they betrayed. Or if, finally, they manage to evade the designs of both the one and the other, yet all over the world fame dogs their footsteps with vengeance to their lives’ end, suggesting to their imaginations night and day numberless terrors, false and true; helping and hounding on all who design any evil against them; and, finally, refusing to allow them even in sleep to forget their crimes, but forcing them to dream of every kind of plot and disaster, because they are aware of the universal loathing and hatred which attend them. Yet, though all this is true, nobody who wanted one was ever at a loss for a traitor, except in the rarest cases. From which one might say with some plausibility that man, reputed the most cunning of animals, gives considerable grounds for being regarded as the stupidest. For the other animals, which obey their bodily appetites alone, can be deceived by these alone; while man, though he has reason to guide him, is led into error by the failure of that reason no less than by his physical appetites....

[16.] King Attalus had for some time past been held in extraordinary honour by the Sicyonians,Attalus in Sicyon, B.C. 198. ever since the time that he ransomed the sacred land of Apollo for them at the cost of a large sum of money; in return for which they set up the colossal statue of him, ten cubits high, near the temple of Apollo in the market-place. But on this occasion, on his presenting them with ten talents and ten thousand medimni of wheat, their devotion to him was immensely increased; and they accordingly voted him a statue of gold, and passed a law to offer sacrifice in his honour every year. With these honours, then, Attalus departed to Cenchreae[81]....

[17.] The tyrant Nabis, leaving Timocrates of Pellene at Argos,—because he trusted him more than any one elseThe cruelty of Apega, wife of Nabis. and employed him in his most important undertakings,—returned to Sparta: and thence, after some few days, despatched his wife with instructions to go to Argos and raise money. On her arrival she far surpassed Nabis himself in cruelty. For she summoned women to her presence either privately or in families, and inflicted every kind of torture and violence upon them, until she had extorted from almost all of them, not only their gold ornaments, but also the most valuable parts of their clothing....

B.C. 197. King Attalus before the assembled Boeotians.
See Livy, 33, 2. In a speech of considerable length Attalus reminded them of the ancient valour of their ancestors....

THE END OF THE FIRST MACEDONIAN WAR

[18.] Flamininus being unable to ascertain where the enemy were encamped, but yet being clearly informedB.C. 197, at the beginning of spring. Livy, 33, 1. that they had entered Thessaly, gave orders to all his men to cut stakes to carry with them, ready for use at any moment. This seems impossible to Greek habits, but to those of Rome it is easy. For the Greeks find it difficult to hold evenThe methods of forming palisades among the Greeks and Romans. their sarissae on the march, and can scarcely bear the fatigue of them; but the Romans strap their shields to their shoulders with leathern thongs, and, having nothing but their javelins in their hands, can stand the additional burden of a stake. There is also a great difference between the stakes employed by the two peoples. The Greeks hold that the best stake is that which has the largest and most numerous shoots growing round the stem; but the Roman stakes have only two or three side shoots, or at most four; and those are selected which have these shoots on one side only. The result is that their porterage is very easy (for each man carries three or four packed together), and they make an exceedingly secure palisade when put into use. For the Greek palisading, when set in the front of the camp, in the first place can easily be pulled down; for since the part that is firm and tightly fixed in the ground is single, while the projecting arms of it are many and large, two or three men can get hold of the same stake by its projecting arms, and easily pull it up; and directly that is done, its breadth is so great that a regular gateway is made: and because in such a palisade the stakes are not closely interlaced or interwoven with each other, when one is pulled up the part next to it is made insecure. With the Romans it is quite different. For as soon as they fix their stakes, they interlace them in such a manner that it is not easy to know to which of the stems fixed in the ground the branches belong, nor on which of these branches the smaller shoots are growing. Moreover, it is impossible to insert the hand and grasp them, owing to the closeness of the interlacing of the branches and the way they lie one upon another, and because the main branches are also carefully cut so as to have sharp ends. Nor, if one is got hold of, is it easy to pull up: because, in the first place, all the stakes are sufficiently tightly secured in the ground to be self-supporting; and, in the second place, because the man who pulls away one branch must, owing to the close interlacing, be able to move several others in its train; and it is quite unlikely that two or three men should happen to get hold of the same stake. But even if, by the exertion of enormous force, a man has succeeded in pulling one or another up, the gap is scarcely perceptible. Considering, therefore, the vast superiority of this method, both in the readiness with which such stakes are found, the ease with which they are carried, and the security and durability of the palisade made with them, it is plain, in my opinion, that if any military operation of the Romans deserves to be admired and imitated, it is this.

[19.] After providing for contingencies by these preparations, Flamininus advanced with his whole force at a moderate pace, and, having arrived at about fifty stades from Pherae, pitched a camp there; and next morning,Flamininus marches to Pherae in Thessaly. just before the morning watch, sent out some reconnoitring parties to see whether they could get any opportunity of discovering the position and movements of the enemy. Philip, at the same time, being informed that the Thebae Pthiotides. Romans were encamped near Thebes, started with his whole force from Larisa in the direction of Pherae. When about thirty stades from that town, he pitched his camp there, and gave orders for all his men to make their preparations early next morning, and about the morning watch got his troops on the march. The division whose usual duty it was to form the advance guard he sent forward first, with instructions to cross the heights above Pherae, while he personally superintended the main army’s advance from the camp as the day was breaking.The advanced guards of the two armies meet. The advanced guards of the two armies were within a very little of coming into collision in the pass; for the darkness prevented their seeing each other until they were quite a short distance apart. Both sides halted, and sent speedy intelligence to their respective leaders of what had happened, and asking for instructions....

[The generals decided] to remain in their intrenchments, and recall these advanced guards. Next morning both sent out about three hundred cavalry and light infantry to reconnoitre, among which Flamininus also sent two squadrons of Aetolians, because they were acquainted with the country. These opposing reconnoitring parties fell in with each other on the road between Pherae and Larisa, and joined battle with great fury. The men under Eupolemus the Aetolian fighting gallantly, and urging the Italian troops to do the same, the Macedonians were repulsed; and, after skirmishing for a long while, both parties retired to their respective camps.