CONTENTS
In the 148th Olympiad (B.C. 188-184) embassies came from Philip and the tribes bordering on Macedonia to Rome. The decrees of the Senate concerning them. In Greece the quarrel of Philip with the Thessalians and Perrhaebians about the cities held by Philip in their countries from the time of the war with Antiochus. The decision concerning them before Q. Caecilius at Tempe. Decisions of Caecilius. A difference of Philip with the ambassadors of Eumenes and the exiles from Maroneia; the pleadings on these points at Thessalonica and the decision of Caecilius. The massacre at Maroneia instigated by king Philip. The arrival of the Roman legates, and their decisions. The causes of the war between the Romans and Perseus. Arrival of ambassadors from kings Ptolemy and Eumenes and Seleucus in the Peloponnese. The decision of the Achaeans on the alliance with Ptolemy, and on the gifts offered them by these kings. Arrival of Q. Caecilius and his disapprobation of the measures taken in regard to Sparta. Embassy of Areus and Alcibiades, two of the earlier exiles from Sparta, to Rome, and their accusations against Philopoemen and the Achaeans. The Roman envoys come to Cleitor, where there is an Achaean assembly. The speeches delivered for both parties, and the Achaean decrees in the affair of Sparta.[116]
[3.] After the execution of the men at Compasium,[117] some of the Lacedaemonians, incensed at what had been done, and believing that the power and authority of the Romans had been set at naught by Philopoemen,An appeal to Rome against Philopoemen. B.C. 187. Coss. M. Aemilius Lepidus, C. Flamininus. went to Rome and accused Philopoemen and his proceedings; and finally obtained a letter addressed to the Achaeans from Marcus Lepidus, the consul of the year, and afterwards Pontifex Maximus, in which he told the Achaeans that they had not acted equitably in the matters of the Lacedaemonians. At the same time as this mission from Sparta, Philopoemen also appointed Nicodemus of Elis and others to go on an embassy to Rome.
Just at that time Demetrius of Athens came on a mission from Ptolemy, to renew the existing allianceRenewal of the treaty between the Achaean league and Ptolemy. between the king and the Achaean league. This was eagerly accepted, and my father, Lycortas, and Theodoridas, and Rhositeles of Sicyon were appointed ambassadors to take the oaths on behalf of the Achaeans, and receive those of the king.The accomplishments of Ptolemy Epiphanes. And on that occasion a circumstance occurred, which, though not important perhaps, is still worth recording. After the completion of this renewal of alliance on behalf of the Achaeans, Philopoemen entertained the ambassador; and in the course of the banquet the ambassador introduced the king’s name, and said a great deal in his praise, quoting anecdotes of his skill and boldness in hunting, as well as his excellence in riding and the use of arms; and ended by quoting, as a proof of what he said, that the king on horseback once transfixed a bull with a javelin....
[4.] In Boeotia, after the formation of the treaty between Rome and Antiochus, the hopes of the wholeThe effect of the collapse of Antiochus upon Boeotia. revolutionary party were destroyed. Politics therefore began to assume a new aspect; and whereas the administration of justice among them had been postponed for nearly the last twenty years, voices began to make themselves heard in the cities to the effect that “there ought to be an end and settlement of their mutual disputes.” But after considerable controversy on this point, because the discontented were more numerous than the wealthy, the following circumstance occurred which helped accidently to support the party of order. Titus Flamininus had for some time past been zealously working in Rome to secure the restoration of Zeuxippus to Boeotia,Resistance to the recall of Zeuxippus. because he had found him serviceable on many occasions during the wars with Antiochus and Philip. And just at this time he had induced the Senate to send a despatch to the Boeotians ordering them to recall Zeuxippus and his fellow exiles. When this despatch arrived, the Boeotians, fearing that, if these men were restored, they would become detached from their good understanding with Macedonia, determined that the legal sentence upon Zeuxippus and the rest should be publicly proclaimed,[118] which they had formerly drawn up against them. Thus they condemned them on two charges, first, of sacrilege for having stripped off the silver from the plated table of Zeus, See 18, 43. Livy, 33, 28. and, secondly, of murder for having killed Brachylles. Having made this arrangement, they assumed that they need pay no further attention to the despatch of the Senate, but contented themselves with sending Callicritus and others to Rome with the message that they were unable to rescind what had been settled by their laws. Zeuxippus having sent an embassy to the Senate at the same time, the Romans wrote to the Aetolians and Achaeans an account of the attitude assumed by the Boeotians, and ordered them to restore Zeuxippus to his country. The Achaeans refrained from invading the country with an army, but selected some ambassadors to go and persuade the Boeotians to obey the orders from Rome; and also to settle the legal disputes existing between them and the Achaeans, on the same principles as they conducted the administration of justice at home: for it happened that there were some controversies between the two nations that had been dragging on for a long time. On receiving this message the Boeotians, whose Strategus was then Hippias, promised at the moment that they would do what was demanded of them, but shortly afterwards neglected it at every point. Therefore, when Hippias had laid down his office and Alcetas had succeeded him, Philopoemen gave all who chose license to make reprisals on the territories of the Boeotians; which proved the beginning of a serious quarrel between the two nations. For on the cattle of Myrrhichus and Simon being driven off,[119] and a struggle arising over this transaction, the contest soon ceased to be political, and became the beginning and prelude of open war. If indeed the Senate had persisted in carrying out the restoration of Zeuxippus, war would quickly have been kindled; but as it maintained silence on the subject, the Megareans were induced by an embassy proposing terms to stop the reprisals.[119]...
[5.] A quarrel arose between the Lycians and Rhodians from the following causes. When the ten commissioners were employed in the settlement of Asia,Rhodes and the Lycians. they were visited by Theaetetus and Philophron on a mission from Rhodes, demanding that Lycia and Caria should be given to them in return for the goodwill and zeal displayed by them in the war with Antiochus. At the same time Hipparchus and Satyrus came from Ilium begging, on the ground of their kindred with the Lycians, that the latter should receive pardon for their transgressions. The commissioners listened to these pleadings, and tried to do what they could to satisfy both. For the sake of the people of Ilium, they inflicted no severity on the Lycians, but gratified the Rhodians by presenting them with the sovereignty over that people. This decision was the origin of a serious division and controversy between the Lycians and Rhodians. For the envoys of Ilium visited the Lycian cities, giving out that they had succeeded in pacifying the Roman anger, and that they owed their liberty to them; while Theaetetus and his colleague took back word to their countrymen that Lycia and all Caria south of the Maeander had been given as a free gift by the Romans to Rhodes. Presently an embassy came from Lycia to Rhodes desiring an alliance; while the Rhodians on their part had elected certain of their citizens to go to Lycia and give orders to the several cities as to what they were to do. They were thus entirely at cross purposes, and for some time the cause of the misunderstanding was not generally intelligible. But when the Lycian ambassadors appeared in the assembly and began talking about an alliance, and Pothion the Prytanis rose after them and explained the different ideas which the two people entertained on the subject, and moreover, sternly rebuked the Lycian envoys,[120] the latter declared that they would endure anything rather than be subject to the Rhodians....
EGYPT UNDER PTOLEMY EPIPHANES AFTER THE DEATH OF ARISTOMENES (18, [53], [54])
[6.] All men admire the magnanimity of Philip towards Athens; for though he had been injured as well as abused by them,Contrast of the conduct of Philip II. of Macedon to Athens in B.C. 338 with that of Ptolemy. yet when he conquered them at Chaeroneia, so far from using this opportunity for injuring his opponents, he caused the corpses of the Athenians to be buried with the proper ceremonies; while those of them who had been taken prisoners he actually presented with clothes, and restored to their friends without ransom. But though men praise they do not imitate such conduct. They rather try to outdo those with whom they are at war, in bitterness of passion and severity of vengeance. Ptolemy, for instance, had men tied naked to carts and dragged at their tail, and then put to death with torture....
[7.] When this same Ptolemy was besieging Lycopolis, the Egyptian nobles surrendered to the king at discretion;Suppression of the revolt in Lower Egypt, B.C. 186-185. and his cruel treatment of them involved him in manifold dangers. The same was the result at the time Polycrates suppressed the revolt. For Athinis, Pausiras, Chesuphus, and Irobastus, who still survived of the rebellious Lycopolis in the Thebaid.nobles, yielding to necessity, appeared at the city of Sais and surrendered at discretion to the king. But Ptolemy, regardless of all pledges, had them tied naked to the carts and dragged off, and then put to death with torture. He then went to Naucratis with his army, where he received the mercenaries enlisted for him by Aristonicus from Greece, and thence sailed to Alexandria, without having taken any part whatever in the actual operations of the war, thanks to the dishonest advice of Polycrates, though he was now twenty-five years old....
[8.] At this time were sowed the seeds of fatal evils to the royal house of Macedonia.B.C. 186. The origin of the last Macedonian war. I am aware that some historians of the war between Rome and Perseus, when they wish to set forth the causes of the quarrel for our information, assign as the primary one the expulsion of Abrupolis from his principality, Abrupolis, a Thracian prince and friend of the Romans. See Livy, 42, 13, 40. Death of Philip V. B.C. 179. on the ground of having made a raid upon the mines at Pangaeum after the death of Philip, which Perseus repulsed, finally expelling him entirely out of his own dominions. Next they mention the invasion of Dolopia, and the visit of Perseus to Delphi, the plot against Eumenes at Delphi, and the murder of the ambassadors in Boeotia;B.C. 176-172. and from these they say sprang the war between Perseus and the Romans. But my contention is that it is of most decisive advantage, both to historians and their readers, to know the causes from which the several events are born and spring. Most historians confound these, because they do not keep a firm hold upon the distinction between a pretext and a cause, or again between a pretext and a beginning of a war. And since events at the present time recall this distinction I feel compelled to renew my discussion of this subject.See bk. 3, ch. 6. For instance, of the events just referred to, the first three are pretexts; the last two—the plot against Eumenes, the murder of the ambassadors, and other similar things that happened during the same period—are clear beginnings of the war between Rome and Perseus, and of the final overthrow of the Macedonian kingdom; but not one of them is a cause of these things. I will illustrate by examples. Just as we say that Philip son of Amyntas contemplated and determined upon accomplishing the war with Persia, while Alexander put into execution what he had projected, so in the present instance we say that Philip son of Demetrius first projected the last war against Rome, and had all his preparations ready for the execution of his design, but that after his death Perseus became the agent in carrying out the undertaking itself. If this be true, the following also is clear: it is impossible that the causes of the war should have been subsequent to the death of him who resolved upon and projected it; which would be the case if we accepted the account of these historians; for the events alleged by them as its causes were subsequent to the death of Philip....