book I

made a promise, still unfulfilled, of taking a fitting opportunity of drawing a comparison between the arms of the Romans and Macedonians, and their respective system of tactics, and pointing out how they differ for better or worse from each other. I will now endeavour by a reference to actual facts to fulfil that promise. For since in former times the Macedonian tactics proved themselves by experience capable of conquering those of Asia and Greece; while the Roman tactics sufficed to conquer the nations of Africa and all those of Western Europe; and since in our own day there have been numerous opportunities of comparing the men as well as their tactics,—it will be, I think, a useful and worthy task to investigate their differences, and discover why it is that the Romans conquer and carry off the palm from their enemies in the operations of war: that we may not put it all down to Fortune, and congratulate them on their good luck, as the thoughtless of mankind do; but, from a knowledge of the true causes, may give their leaders the tribute of praise and admiration which they deserve.

[Sidenote: The Roman defeats in the Punic wars were not from inferior tactics, but owing the genius of Hannibal.]

Now as to the battles which the Romans fought with Hannibal, and the defeats which they sustained in them, I need say no more. It was not owing to their arms or their tactics, but to the skill and genius of Hannibal that they met with those defeats: and that I made quite clear in my account of the battles themselves. And my contention is supported by two facts. First, by the conclusion of the war: for as soon as the Romans got a general of ability comparable with that of Hannibal, victory was not long in following their banners. Secondly, Hannibal himself, being dissatisfied with the original arms of his men, and having immediately after his first victory furnished his troops with the arms of the Romans, continued to employ them thenceforth to the end.[84] Pyrrhus, again, availed himself not only of the arms, but also of the troops of Italy, placing a maniple of Italians and a company of his own phalanx alternately, in his battles against the Romans. Yet even this did not enable him to win; the battles were somehow or another always indecisive.

It was necessary to speak first on these points, to anticipate any instances which might seem to make against my theory. I will now return to my comparison.

+29.+ Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge. For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet; and as the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it, and to balance the weight in front; it follows clearly that each hoplite will have ten cubits of his sarissa projecting beyond his body, when he lowers it with both hands, as he advances against the enemy: hence, too, though the men of the second, third, and fourth rank will have their sarissae projecting farther beyond the front rank than the men of the fifth, yet even these last will have two cubits of their sarissae beyond the front rank; if only the phalanx is properly formed and the men close up properly both flank and rear, like the description in Homer[85]—

“So buckler pressed on buckler; helm on helm; And man on man: and waving horse-hair plumes In polished head-piece mingled, as they swayed In order: in such serried rank they stood.”

And if my description is true and exact, it is clear that in front of each man of the front rank there will be five sarissae projecting to distances varying by a descending scale of two cubits.

+30.+ With this point in our minds, it will not be difficult to imagine what the appearance and strength of the whole phalanx is likely to be, when, with lowered sarissae, it advances to the charge sixteen deep. Of these sixteen ranks, all above the fifth are unable to reach with their sarissae far enough to take actual part in the fighting. They, therefore, do not lower them, but hold them with the points inclined upwards over the shoulders of the ranks in front of them, to shield the heads of the whole phalanx; for the sarissae are so closely serried, that they repel missiles which have carried over the front ranks and might fall upon the heads of those in the rear. These rear ranks, however, during an advance, press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies; and thus make the charge very forcible, and at the same time render it impossible for the front ranks to face about.

[Sidenote: The Roman more open order compared with the phalanx.]

Such is the arrangement, general and detailed, of the phalanx. It remains now to compare with it the peculiarities and distinctive features of the Roman arms and tactics. Now, a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man—because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing,—it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear, if he is to do his duty with any effect. The result of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx, so that he has to encounter and fight against ten spears, which one man cannot find time even to cut away, when once the two lines are engaged, nor force his way through easily—seeing that the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks, either by way of adding weight to their charge, or vigour to the use of their swords. Therefore it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength.

[Sidenote: Why the phalanx fails.]

+31.+ Why is it then that the Romans conquer? And what is it that brings disaster on those who employ the phalanx? Why, just because war is full of uncertainties both as to time and place; whereas there is but one time and one kind of ground in which a phalanx can fully work. If, then, there were anything to compel the enemy to accommodate himself to the time and place of the phalanx, when about to fight a general engagement, it would be but natural to expect that those who employed the phalanx would always carry off the victory. But if the enemy finds it possible, and even easy, to avoid its attack, what becomes of its formidable character? Again, no one denies that for its employment it is indispensable to have a country flat, bare, and without such impediments as ditches, cavities, depressions, steep banks, or beds of rivers: for all such obstacles are sufficient to hinder and dislocate this particular formation. And that it is, I may say, impossible, or at any rate exceedingly rare to find a piece of country of twenty stades, or sometimes of even greater extent, without any such obstacles, every one will also admit. However, let us suppose that such a district has been found. If the enemy decline to come down into it, but traverse the country sacking the towns and territories of the allies, what use will the phalanx be? For if it remains on the ground suited to itself, it will not only fail to benefit its friends, but will be incapable even of preserving itself; for the carriage of provisions will be easily stopped by the enemy, seeing that they are in undisputed possession of the country: while if it quits its proper ground, from the wish to strike a blow, it will be an easy prey to the enemy. Nay, if a general does descend into the plain, and yet does not risk his whole army upon one charge of the phalanx or upon one chance, but manœuvres for a time to avoid coming to close quarters in the engagement, it is easy to learn what will be the result from what the Romans are now actually doing.

+32.+ For no speculation is any longer required to test the accuracy of what I am now saying: that can be done by referring to accomplished facts.

[Sidenote: Flexibility of the Roman order.]

The Romans do not, then, attempt to extend their front to equal that of a phalanx, and then charge directly upon it with their whole force: but some of their divisions are kept in reserve, while others join battle with the enemy at close quarters. Now, whether the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or is itself driven back, in either case its peculiar order is dislocated; for whether in following the retiring, or flying from the advancing enemy, they quit the rest of their forces: and when this takes place, the enemy’s reserves can occupy the space thus left, and the ground which the phalanx had just before been holding, and so no longer charge them face to face, but fall upon them on their flank and rear. If, then, it is easy to take precautions against the opportunities and peculiar advantages of the phalanx, but impossible to do so in the case of its disadvantages, must it not follow that in practice the difference between these two systems is enormous? Of course those generals who employ the phalanx must march over ground of every description, must pitch camps, occupy points of advantage, besiege, and be besieged, and meet with unexpected appearances of the enemy: for all these are part and parcel of war, and have an important and sometimes decisive influence on the ultimate victory. And in all these cases the Macedonian phalanx is difficult, and sometimes impossible to handle, because the men cannot act either in squads or separately. The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once armed and on the field, is equally well equipped for every place, time, or appearance of the enemy. He is, moreover, quite ready and needs to make no change, whether he is required to fight in the main body, or in a detachment, or in a single maniple, or even by himself. Therefore, as the individual members of the Roman force are so much more serviceable, their plans are also much more often attended by success than those of others.

I thought it necessary to discuss this subject at some length, because at the actual time of the occurrence many Greeks supposed when the Macedonians were beaten that it was incredible; and many will afterwards be at a loss to account for the inferiority of the phalanx to the Roman system of arming.

[Sidenote: Prudent conduct of Philip.]

+33.+ Philip having thus done all he could in the battle, but having been decisively beaten, after taking up as many of the survivors as he could, proceeded through Tempe into Macedonia. On the night previous to his start he sent one of his guard to Larisa, with orders to destroy and burn the king’s correspondence. And it was an act worthy of a king to retain, even in the midst of disaster, a recollection of a necessary duty. For he knew well enough that, if these papers came into the possession of the Romans, they would give many handles to the enemy both against himself and his friends. It has, perhaps, been the case with others that in prosperity they could not use power with the moderation which becomes mortal men, while in disaster they displayed caution and good sense; but certainly this was the case with Philip. And this will be made manifest by what I shall subsequently relate. For as I showed without reserve the justice of his measures at the beginning of his reign, and the change for the worse which they subsequently underwent; and showed when and why and how this took place, with a detailed description of the actions in this part of his career;[86] in the same way am I bound to set forth his repentance, and the dexterity with which he changed with his change of fortune, and may be said to have shown the highest prudence in meeting this crisis in his affairs.

As for Flamininus, having after the battle taken the necessary measures as to the captives and the rest of the spoils, he proceeded to Larisa....

[Sidenote: Estrangement of Aetolians.]

[Sidenote: Flamininus grants fifteen days’ truce to Philip.]

+34.+ Flamininus was much annoyed at the selfishness displayed by the Aetolians in regard to the spoils; and had no idea of leaving them to be masters of Greece after he had deprived Philip of his supremacy there. He was irritated also by their braggadocio, when he saw that they claimed all the credit of the victory, and were filling Greece with the report of their valour. Wherefore, wherever he met them he behaved with hauteur, and never said a word on public business, but carried out all his measures independently or by the agency of his own friends. While the relations between these two were in this strained state, some few days after the battle Demosthenes, Cycliadas, and Limnaeus came on a mission from Philip; and, after considerable discussion with them, Flamininus granted an immediate armistice of fifteen days, and agreed to have a personal interview also with Philip in the course of them to discuss the state of affairs. And this interview being conducted in a courteous and friendly manner, the suspicions entertained of Flamininus by the Aetolians blazed forth with double fury. For as corruption, and the habit of never doing anything without a bribe, had long been a common feature in Greek politics, and as this was the acknowledged characteristic of the Aetolians, they could not believe that Flamininus could so change in his relations with Philip without a bribe. They did not know the habits and principles of the Romans on this subject; but judging from themselves they concluded that there was every probability of Philip in his present position offering a large sum of money, and of Flamininus being unable to resist the temptation.

[Sidenote: The disinterestedness of the Romans generally as to money.]

[Sidenote: Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Minor.]

[Sidenote: Lucius Aemilius Paulus.]

+35.+ If I had been speaking of an earlier period, and expressing what was generally true, I should have had no hesitation in asserting of the Romans as a nation that they would not be likely to do such a thing,—I mean in the period before they engaged in wars beyond the sea, and while they retained their own habits and principles uncontaminated.[87] But in the present times I should not venture to say this of them all; still, as individuals, I should be bold to say of the majority of the men of Rome that they are capable of preserving their honesty in this

## particular: and as evidence that I am making no impossible assertion,

I would quote two names which will command general assent,—I mean first, Lucius Aemilius who conquered Perseus, and won the kingdom of Macedonia. In that kingdom, besides all the other splendour and wealth, there was found in the treasury more than six thousand talents of gold and silver: yet he was so far from coveting any of this, that he even refused to see it, and administered it by the hands of others; though he was far from being superfluously wealthy himself, but, on the contrary, was very badly off. At least, I know that on his death, which occurred shortly after the war, when his own sons Publius Scipio and Quintus Maximus wished to pay his wife her dowry, amounting to twenty-five talents, they were reduced to such straits that they would have been quite unable to do so if they had not sold the household furniture and slaves, and some of the landed property besides. And if what I say shall appear incredible to any one, he may easily convince himself on the subject: for though there are many controversies at Rome, and especially on this particular point, arising from the antagonistic parties among them, yet he will find that what I have just said about Aemilius is acknowledged by every one. Again, Publius Scipio, son by blood of this Aemilius, and son by adoption of Publius called the Great, when he got possession of Carthage, reckoned the wealthiest city in the world, took absolutely nothing from it for his own private use, either by purchase or by any other manner of acquisition whatever, although he was by no means a very rich man, but very moderately so for a Roman. But he not only abstained from the wealth of Carthage itself, but refused to allow anything from Africa at all to be mixed up with his private property. Therefore, in regard to this man once more, any one who chooses to inquire will find that his reputation in this particular is absolutely undisputed at Rome. I shall, however, take a more suitable opportunity of treating this subject at greater length.

[Sidenote: The congress of Tempe, B.C. 197.]

[Sidenote: Speech of King Amynandros.]

[Sidenote: Alexander the Aetolian.]

+36.+ Titus then having appointed Philip a day for the congress, immediately wrote to the allies announcing when they were to appear; and a few days afterwards came himself to the pass of Tempe at the appointed time. When the allies had assembled, and the congress met, the Roman imperator rose and bade each say on what terms they ought to make peace with Philip. King Amynandros then delivered a short and moderate speech, merely asking that “they would all have some consideration for him, to prevent Philip, as soon as the Romans left Greece, from turning the whole weight of his anger upon him; for the Athamanes were always an easy prey to the Macedonians, because of their weakness and the close contiguity of their territory.” When he had finished, Alexander the Aetolian rose and complimented Flamininus for “having assembled the allies in that congress to discuss the terms of peace; and, above all, for having on the present occasion called on each to express his opinion. But he was deluded and mistaken,” he added, “if he believed that by making terms with Philip he would secure the Romans peace or the Greeks freedom. For neither of these was possible. But if he desired to accomplish both the design of his own government and his own promises, which he had given to all the Greeks, there was one way, and one only, of making terms with Macedonia, and that was to eject Philip from his throne; and this could easily be done if he did not let slip the present opportunity.”

After some further arguments in support of this view he sat down.

[Sidenote: Reply of Flamininus.]

+37.+ Flamininus here took up the argument, and said that “Alexander was mistaken not only as to the policy of Rome, but also as to the object which he proposed to himself, and above all as to the true interests of Greece. For it was not the Roman way to utterly destroy those with whom they had been at open war. A proof of his assertion might be found in the war with Hannibal and the Carthaginians; for though the Romans had received the severest provocation at their hands, and afterwards had it in their power to do absolutely what they pleased to them, yet they had adopted no extreme measures against the Carthaginians. For his part, moreover, he had never entertained the idea that it was necessary to wage an inexpiable war with Philip; but on the contrary had been prepared before the battle to come to terms with him, if he would have submitted to the Roman demands. He was surprised, therefore, that those who had taken part in the former peace conference should now adopt a tone of such irreconcilable hostility. Have we not conquered? (say they). Yes, but this is the most senseless of arguments. For brave men, when actually at war, should be terrible and full of fire; when beaten, undaunted and courageous; when victorious, on the other hand, moderate, placable, and humane. But your present advice is the reverse of all this. Yet, in truth, to the Greeks themselves it is greatly to their interest that Macedonia should be humbled, but not at all so that she should be destroyed. For it might chance thereby that they would experience the barbarity of Thracians and Gauls, as has been the case more than once already.” He then added that “the final decision of himself and Roman colleagues was, that, if Philip would consent to fulfil all the conditions formerly enjoined by the allies, they would grant him peace, subject, of course, to the approval of the Senate: and that the Aetolians were free to take what measures they chose for themselves.” Upon Phaeneas attempting to reply that “Everything done hitherto went for nothing; for if Philip managed to extricate himself from his present difficulties, he would at once find some other occasion for hostilities,”—Flamininus sprang at once from his seat, and said, with some heat, “Cease this trifling, Phaeneas! For I will so settle the terms of the peace that Philip will be unable, even if he wished it, to molest the Greeks.”

[Sidenote: On the third day of the conference Philip appears.]

[Sidenote: The Aetolians checkmated by Flamininus.]

+38.+ After this they separated for that day. On the next the king arrived: and on the third, when all the delegates were met for discussion, Philip entered, and with great skill and tact diverted the anger which they all entertained against him. For he said that “He conceded the demands made on the former occasion by the Romans and the allies, and remitted the decision on the remaining points to the Senate.” But Phaeneas, one of the Aetolians present, said: “Why then, Philip, do not you restore to us Larisa Cremaste, Pharsalus, Phthiotid Thebes, and Echinus?” Whereupon Philip bade them take them over. But Flamininus here interposed, and forbade the Aetolians to take over any of the towns except Phthiotid Thebes; “for upon his approaching this town with his army, and summoning it to submit to the Roman protection, the Thebans had refused; and, as it had now come into his hands in the course of war, he had the right of taking any measures he chose regarding it.” Phaeneas and his colleagues indignantly protested at this, and asserted that it was their clear right to recover the towns previously members of their league, “first on the ground that they had taken part in the recent war; and secondly in virtue of their original treaty of alliance, according to which the movable property of the conquered belonged to the Romans, the towns to the Aetolians.” To which Flamininus answered that “they were mistaken in both points; for their treaty with Rome had been annulled when they abandoned the Romans, and made terms with Philip: and, even supposing that treaty to be still in force, they had no right to recover or take over such cities as had voluntarily put themselves under the protection of Rome, as the whole of the cities in Thessaly had done, but only such as were taken by force.[88]

[Sidenote: The terms of the peace settled. Winter of B.C. 197.]

+39.+ The other members of the congress were delighted at this speech of Flamininus. But the Aetolians listened with indignation; and what proved to be the beginning of serious evils was engendered. For this quarrel was the spark from which, not long afterwards, both the war with the Aetolians and that with Antiochus flamed out. The principal motive of Flamininus in being thus forward in coming to terms was the information he had received that Antiochus had started from Syria with an army, with the intention of crossing over into Europe. Therefore he was anxious lest Philip, catching at this chance, should determine to defend the towns and protract the war; and lest meanwhile he should himself be superseded by another commander from home, on whom the honour of all that he had achieved would be diverted. Therefore the terms which the king asked were granted: namely, that he should have four months’ suspension of hostilities, paying Flamininus at once the two hundred talents; delivering his son Demetrius and some others of his friends as hostages; and sending to Rome to submit the decision on the whole pacification to the Senate. Flamininus and Philip then separated, after interchanging mutual pledges of fidelity, on the understanding that, if the treaty were not confirmed, Flamininus was to restore to Philip the two hundred talents and the hostages. All the

## parties then sent ambassadors to Rome, some to support and others to

oppose the settlement....

[Sidenote: Foolish credulity, see ch. 13; and 31, 21.]

+40.+ Why is it that, though deceived again and again by the same things and persons, we are unable to abandon our blind folly? For this particular kind of fraud has often been committed before now, and by many. That other men should allow themselves to be taken in is perhaps not astonishing; but it is wonderful that those should do so who are the authors and origin of the same kind of malpractice. But I suppose the cause is the absence of that rule so happily expressed by Epicharmus:

“Cool head and wise mistrust are wisdom’s sinews.”...

ASIA

+41.+ [They endeavoured] to prevent Antiochus from sailing along their coast, not from enmity to him, but from a suspicion that by giving support to Philip he would become an obstacle in the way of Greek liberty....

King Antiochus was very desirous of possessing Ephesus, owing to its extremely convenient position; for it appeared to occupy the position of an Acropolis for expeditions by land and sea against Ionia and the cities of the Hellespont, and to be always a most convenient base of operations for the kings of Asia against Europe....

Of King Attalus, who now died, I think I ought to speak a suitable word, as I have done in the case of others. [Sidebar: Death of King Attalus, who had fallen ill at Thebes, before the battle of Cynoscephalae, and had been brought home to die at Pergamum, autumn, B.C. 197. Livy, 33, 21.] Originally he had no other external qualification for royalty except money alone, which, indeed, if handled with good sense and boldness, is of very great assistance in every undertaking, but without these qualities is in its nature the origin of evil, and, in fact, of utter ruin to very many. For in the first place it engenders envy and malicious plots, and contributes largely to the destruction of body and soul. For few indeed are the souls that are able by the aid of wealth to repel dangers of this description. This king’s greatness of mind therefore deserves our admiration, because he never attempted to use his wealth for anything else but the acquisition of royal power,—an object than which none greater can be mentioned. Moreover he made the first step in this design, not only by doing services to his friends and gaining their affection, but also by achievements in war. For it was after conquering the Gauls, the most formidable and warlike nation at that time in Asia, that he assumed this rank and first puts himself forward as king. And though he obtained this honour, and lived seventy-two years, of which he reigned forty-four, he passed a life of the utmost virtue and goodness towards his wife and children; kept faith with all allies and friends; and died in the midst of a most glorious campaign, fighting for the liberty of the Greeks; and what is more remarkable than all, though he left four grown-up sons, he so well settled the question of succession, that the crown was handed down to his children’s children without a single dispute....

ITALY

[Sidenote: B.C. 196. Coss. L. Furius Purpureo, M. Claudius Marcellus. The treaty with Philip is confirmed.]

+42.+ After Marcus Marcellus had entered upon the consulship the ambassadors from Philip, and from Flamininus and the allies, arrived at Rome to discuss the treaty with Philip; and after a lengthened hearing the confirmation of the terms was decreed in the Senate. But on the matter being brought before the people, Marcus Claudius, who was ambitious of being himself sent to Greece, spoke against the treaty, and did his best to get it rejected. The people however ratified the terms, in accordance with the wish of Flamininus; and, upon this being settled, the Senate immediately despatched a commission of ten men of high rank to arrange the settlement of Greece in conjunction with Flamininus, and to confirm the freedom of the Greeks. Among others Damoxenus of Aegium and his colleagues, envoys from the Achaean league, made a proposal in the Senate for an alliance with Rome; but as some opposition was raised to this at the time, on account of a counter-claim of the Eleians upon Triphylia, and of the Messenians, who were at the time actually in alliance with Rome, upon Asine and Pylus, and of the Aetolians upon Heraea,—the decision was referred to the commission of ten. Such were the proceedings in the Senate....

GREECE

[Sidenote: Philip allows his Boeotian followers to return home.]

[Sidenote: Zeuxippus and Peisistratus, heads of the Romanising party, determine to get rid of Brachylles, B.C. 196.]

+43.+ After the battle of Cynoscephalae, as Flamininus was wintering at Elateia, the Boeotians, being anxious to recover their citizens who had served in Philip’s army, sent an embassy to Flamininus to try and secure their safety. Wishing to encourage the loyalty of the Boeotians to himself, because he was already anxious as to the action of Antiochus, he readily assented to their petition. These men were promptly restored from Macedonia, and one of them named Brachylles the Boeotians at once elected Boeotarch; and in a similar spirit honoured and promoted, as much as before, such of the others as were thought to be well disposed to the royal house of Macedonia. They also sent an embassy to Philip to thank him for the return of the young men, thus derogating from the favour done them by Flamininus,—a measure highly disquieting to Zeuxippus and Peisistratus, and all who were regarded as partisans of Rome; because they foresaw what would happen to themselves and their families, knowing quite well that if the Romans quitted Greece, and Philip remained closely supporting the political party opposed to themselves, it would be unsafe for them to remain citizens of Boeotia. They therefore agreed among themselves to send an embassy to Flamininus in Elateia: and having obtained an interview with him, they made a lengthy and elaborate statement on this subject, describing the state of popular feeling which was now adverse to themselves, and discanting on the untrustworthiness of democratic assemblies. And finally, they ventured to say that “Unless they could overawe the common people by getting rid of Brachylles, there could be no security for the party in favour of Rome as soon as the legions departed.” After listening to these arguments Flamininus replied that “He would not personally take any part in such a measure, but he would not hinder those who wished to do so.” Finally, he bade them speak to Alexamenus the Strategus of the Aetolians. Zeuxippus and his colleagues accepted the suggestion, and communicated with Alexamenus, who at once consented; and agreeing to carry out their proposal sent three Aetolians and three Italians, all young men, to assassinate Brachylles....

[Sidenote: Zeuxippus condemned by his own conscience. See Livy, 33, 28.]

There is no more terrible witness, or more formidable accuser, than the conscience which resides in each man’s breast....

[Sidenote: The Senatus Consultum.]

+44.+ About this same time the ten commissioners arrived from Rome who were to effect the settlement of Greece, bringing with them the decree of the Senate on the peace with Philip. The main points of the decree were these: “All other Greeks, whether in Asia or Europe, to be free and enjoy their own laws; but that Philip should hand over to the Romans those at present under his authority, and all towns in which he had a garrison, before the Isthmian games; and restore Euromus, Pedasa, Bargylia, Iasus, Abydos, Thasus, Marinus, and Perinthus to freedom, and remove his garrisons from them. That Flamininus should write to Prusias commanding him to liberate Cius, in accordance with the decree of the Senate. That Philip should restore to the Romans within the same period all captives and deserters; and likewise all decked ships, except three and his one sixteen-banked vessel; and should pay a thousand talents, half at once, and half by instalments spread over ten years.”

[Sidenote: Objections of the Aetolians.]

+45.+ Upon this decree being published in Greece, it created a feeling of confidence and gratification in all the communities except the Aetolians. These last were annoyed at not getting all they expected, and attempted to run down the decree by saying that it was mere words, without anything practical in it; and they based upon the clauses of the decree itself some such arguments as follow, by way of disquieting those who would listen to them. They said “That there were two distinct clauses in the decree relating to the cities garrisoned by Philip: one ordering him to remove those garrisons and to hand over the cities to the Romans; the other bidding him withdraw his garrisons and set the cities free. Those that were to be set free were definitely named, and they were towns in Asia; and it was plain, therefore, that those which were to be handed over to the Romans were those in Europe, namely, Oreus, Eretria, Chalcis, Demetrias, and Corinth. Hence it was plain that the Romans were receiving the ‘fetters of Greece’ from the hands of Philip, and that the Greeks were getting, not freedom, but a change of masters.”

[Sidenote: The commissioners sit at Corinth, and declare all Greek cities free, except the Acrocorinthus, Demetrias, and Chalcis.]

These arguments of the Aetolians were repeated _ad nauseam_. But, meanwhile, Flamininus left Elateia with the ten commissioners, and having crossed to Anticyra, sailed straight to Corinth, and there sat in council with the commissioners, and considered the whole settlement to be made. But as the adverse comments of the Aetolians obtained wide currency, and were accepted by some, Flamininus was forced to enter upon many elaborate arguments in the meetings of the commission, trying to convince the commissioners that if they wished to acquire unalloyed praise from the Greeks, and to establish firmly in the minds of all that they had originally come into the country not to gain any advantage for Rome, but simply to secure the freedom of Greece, they must abandon every district and free all the cities now garrisoned by Philip. But this was just the point in dispute among the commissioners; for, as to all other cities, a decision had been definitely arrived at in Rome, and the ten commissioners had express instructions; but about Chalcis, Corinth, and Demetrias they had been allowed a discretion on account of Antiochus, in order that they might take such measures as they thought best from a view of actual events. For it was notorious that this king had for some time past been meditating an interference in Europe. However, as far as Corinth was concerned, Flamininus prevailed on the commissioners to free it at once and restore it to the Achaean league, from respect to the terms of the original agreement; but he retained the Acrocorinthus, Demetrias, and Chalcis.

[Sidenote: The Isthmian games, July B. C. 196.]

[Sidenote: Proclamation of the freedom of the Greek cities.]

+46.+ When these decisions had been come to, the time for the celebration of the Isthmian games arrived, The expectation of what would happen there drew the men of highest rank from nearly every quarter of the world; and there was a great deal of talk on the subject from one end of the assembled multitude to the other, and expressed in varied language. Some said that from certain of the places and towns it was impossible that the Romans could withdraw; while others asserted that they would withdraw from those considered most important, but would retain others that were less prominent, though capable of being quite as serviceable. And such persons even took upon themselves in their ingenuity to designate the precise places which would be thus treated. While people were still in this state of uncertainty, all the world being assembled on the stadium to watch the games, the herald came forward, and having proclaimed silence by the sound of a trumpet, delivered the following proclamation: “The senate of Rome and Titus Quintius, proconsul and imperator, having conquered King Philip and the Macedonians in war, declare the following peoples free, without garrison, or tribute, in full enjoyment of the laws of their respective countries: namely, Corinthians, Phocians, Locrians, Euboeans, Achaeans of Phthiotis, Magnesians, Thessalians, Perrhaebians.”

[Sidenote: An exciting scene.]

Now as the first words of the proclamation were the signal for a tremendous outburst of clapping, some of the people could not hear it at all, and some wanted to hear it again; but the majority feeling incredulous, and thinking that they heard the words in a kind of dream, so utterly unexpected was it, another impulse induced every one to shout to the herald and trumpeter to come into the middle of the stadium and repeat the words: I suppose because the people wished not only to hear but to see the speaker, in their inability to credit the announcement. But when the herald, having advanced into the middle of the crowd, once more, by his trumpeter, hushed the clamour, and repeated exactly the same proclamation as before, there was such an outbreak of clapping as is difficult to convey to the imagination of my readers at this time. When at length the clapping ceased, no one paid any attention whatever to the athletes, but all were talking to themselves or each other, and seemed like people bereft of their senses. Nay, after the games were over, in the extravagance of their joy, they nearly killed Flamininus by the exhibition of their gratitude. Some wanted to look him in the face and call him their preserver; others were eager to touch his hand; most threw garlands and fillets upon him; until between them they nearly crushed him to death. But though this expression of popular gratitude was thought to have been extravagant, one might say with confidence that it fell short of the importance of the actual event. For that the Romans and their leader Flamininus should have deliberately incurred unlimited expense and danger, for the sole purpose of freeing Greece, deserved their admiration; and it was also a great thing that their power was equal to their intention. But the greatest thing of all is that Fortune foiled their attempt by none of her usual caprices, but that every single thing came to a successful issue at the same time: so that all Greeks, Asiatic and European alike, were by a single proclamation become “free, without garrison or tribute, and enjoying their own laws.”

[Sidenote: Answer of commissioners to King Antiochus.]

[Sidenote: Final arrangements.]

+47.+ The Isthmian festival having come to an end, the first persons with whom the commissioners dealt were the ambassadors from Antiochus. They instructed them that “Their master must abstain from attacking those cities in Asia which were autonomous, and go to war with none of them; and must evacuate those that had been subject to Ptolemy or Philip. In addition to this they forbade him to cross over into Europe with an army; for no Greek henceforth was to be attacked in war or to be enslaved to any one. Finally, they said that some of their own number would go to visit Antiochus.” With this answer Hegesianax and Lysias returned to Antiochus. They next summoned the representatives of all the nations and cities, and declared to them the decisions of the commissioners. The Macedonian tribe of the Orestae, on the ground of their having joined Rome during the war, they declared autonomous; the Perrhaebians, Dolopes, and Magnesians they declared to be free. To the Thessalians, in addition to their freedom, they assigned the Phthiotid Achaeans, with the exception, however, of Phthiotid Thebes and Pharsalus: for the Aetolians made such a point of their claim to Pharsalus, as also to Leucas, on the ground of the rights secured them by the original treaty, that the commissioners referred the consideration of their demand in regard to these places back again to the Senate, but allowed them to retain Phocis and Locris as members of their league, as they had been before. Corinth, Triphylia, and Heraea they handed over to the Achaeans. Oreus and Eretria the majority wished to give to King Eumenes, but on the instance of Flamininus this design was not confirmed; and, accordingly, a short time afterwards these towns, with Carystus, were declared free by the Senate. To Pleuratus they assigned Lychnis and Parthus in Illyria, towns which had been subject to Philip; and Amynandros they allowed to retain all such strongholds as he had taken from Philip during the war.

[Sidenote: The commissioners separate and go to various parts of Greece.]

[Sidenote: Two go to Antiochus and others to Philip.]

[Sidenote: Gnaeus Cornelius at the congress of the Aetolian league.]

+48.+ This business completed, the commissioners separated in various directions: Publius Lentulus sailed to Bargylia and announced its freedom; Lucius Stertinius did the same to Hephaestia, Thasus, and the cities in Thrace; while Publius Villius and Lucius Terentius started to visit Antiochus; and Gnaeus Cornelius with his colleagues went to king Philip. They met him near Tempe, and after speaking with him on the other matters about which they had instructions, they advised him to send an embassy to Rome, to ask for an alliance, in order to obviate all suspicion of being on the watch for an opportunity in expectation of the arrival of Antiochus. The king agreeing to follow this advice, Cornelius left him and went to the league congress at Thermus; and coming into the public assembly urged the Aetolians in a lengthy speech to abide by the policy they had adopted, from the first, and maintain their good disposition towards the Romans. Many rose to answer: of whom some expressed dissatisfaction with the Romans in moderate and decorous language, for not having used their good fortune with sufficient regard to their joint interests, and for not observing the original compact; while others delivered violent invectives, asserting that the Romans would never have set foot on Greece or conquered Philip if it had not been for them. Cornelius disdained to answer these speeches in detail, but he advised them to send ambassadors to Rome, for they would get full justice in the Senate: which they accordingly did. Such was the conclusion of the war with Philip....

ASIA

+49.+ Whenever they are reduced to the last extremity, as the phrase goes, they will fly to the Romans for protection and commit themselves and their city to them....[89]

[Sidenote: Antiochus in the Chersonesus and Thrace, B.C. 196.]

[Sidenote: Speech of Lucius Cornelius.]

+50.+ Just when the designs of Antiochus in Thrace were succeeding to his heart’s desire, Lucius Cornelius and his party sailed into Selybria. These were the envoys sent by the Senate to conclude a peace between Antiochus and Ptolemy. And at the same time there arrived Publius Lentulus from Bargylia, Lucius Terentius and Publius Villius from Thasus, three of the ten commissioners for Greece. Their arrival having been promptly announced to Antiochus, they all assembled within the next few days at Lysimacheia; and it so happened that Hegesianax and Lysias, who had been on the mission to Flamininus, arrived about the same time. The private intercourse between the king and the Romans was informal and friendly; but when presently they met in conference to discuss public affairs, things took quite another aspect. Lucius Cornelius demanded that Antiochus should evacuate all the cities subject to Ptolemy which he had taken in Asia; while he warned him in solemn and emphatic language that he must do so also to the cities subject to Philip, “for it was ridiculous that Antiochus should come in and take the prizes of the war which Rome had waged with Philip.” He also admonished him to abstain from attacking autonomous cities, and added that “He was at a loss to conjecture with what view Antiochus had crossed over to Europe with such a powerful army and fleet; for if it were not with the intention of attacking the Romans, there was no explanation left that any reasonable person could accept.” With these words the Romans ceased speaking.

[Sidenote: The reply of Antiochus.]

[Sidenote: Lysimachus conquered by Seleucus Nicanor, B.C. 281.]

+51.+ The king began his reply by saying that “He did not understand by what right the Romans raised a controversy with him in regard to the cities in Asia. They were the last people in the world who had any claim to do so.” Next he claimed that “They should refrain entirely from interfering in the affairs of Asia, seeing that he never in the least degree interposed in those of Italy. He had crossed into Europe with his army to recover his possessions in the Chersonese and the cities in Thrace; his right to the government of these places being superior to that of any one in the world. For this was originally the principality of Lysimachus; and as Seleucus waged war with and conquered that prince, the whole domain of Lysimachus passed to Seleucus[90]: then owing to the multifarious interests which distracted the attention of his predecessors, first Ptolemy and then Philip had managed to wrest this country from them and secure it for themselves. He had not then availed himself of Philip’s difficulties to take it, but had _recovered_ possession of it in the exercise of his undoubted rights. It was no injury to the Romans that he should now be restoring to their homes, and settling again in their city, the people of Lysimacheia who had been expelled by an unexpected raid of the Thracians. He was doing this, not from any intention of attacking the Romans, but to prepare a place of residence for his son Seleucus. As for the autonomous cities of Asia, they must acquire their freedom by his free grace, not by an injunction from Rome. As for Ptolemy, he was about to settle matters amicably with him: for it was his intention to confirm their friendship by a matrimonial alliance.”

[Sidenote: Antiochus refuses to acknowledge the Romans as arbitrators.]

+52.+ But upon Lucius expressing an opinion that they ought to call in the representatives of Lampsacus and Smyrna and give them a hearing, this was done. The envoys from Lampsacus were Parmenio and Pythodorus, and from Smyrna Coeranus. These men expressing themselves with much openness, Antiochus was irritated at the idea of defending himself against accusers before a tribunal of Romans, and interrupting Parmenio, said: “A truce to your long speeches: I do not choose to have my controversies with you decided before a Roman but before a Rhodian court.” Thereupon they broke up the conference very far from pleased with each other....

EGYPT

[Sidenote: Death of Scopas. See _supra_, 13, 2; 16, 18, B.C. 196.]

+53.+ Many people have a yearning for bold and glorious undertakings, but few dare actually attempt them. Yet Scopas had much fairer opportunities for a hazardous and bold career than Cleomenes. For the latter, though circumvented by his enemies, and reduced to depend upon such forces as his servants and friends could supply, yet left no chance untried, and tested every one to the best of his ability, valuing an honourable death more highly than a life of disgrace. But Scopas, with all the advantages of a formidable body of soldiers and of the excellent opportunity afforded by the youth of the king, by his own delays and halting counsels allowed himself to be circumvented. For having ascertained that he was holding a meeting of his partisans at his own house, and was consulting with them, Aristomenes sent some of the royal bodyguards and summoned him to the king’s council. Whereupon Scopas was so infatuated that he was neither bold enough to carry out his designs, nor able to make up his mind to obey the king’s summons,—which is in itself the most extreme step,—until Aristomenes, understanding the blunder he had made, caused soldiers and elephants to surround his house, and sent Ptolemy son of Eumenes in with some young men, with orders to bring him quietly if he would come, but, if not, by force. When Ptolemy entered the house and informed Scopas that the king summoned him, he refused at first to obey, but remained looking fixedly at Ptolemy, and for a long while preserved a threatening attitude as though he wondered at his audacity; and when Ptolemy came boldly up to him and took hold of his chlamys, he called on the bystanders to help him. But seeing that the number of young men who had accompanied Ptolemy into the house was large, and being informed by some one of the military array surrounding it outside, he yielded to circumstances, and went, accompanied by his friends, in obedience to the summons.

[Sidenote: Scopas before the council.]

[Sidenote: Death of Dicaearchus.]

+54.+ On his entering the council chamber the king was the first to state the accusation against him, which he did briefly. He was followed by Polycrates lately arrived from Cyprus; and he again by Aristomenes. The charges made by them all were much to the same effect as what I have just stated; but there was now added to them the seditious meeting with his friends, and his refusal to obey the summons of the king. On these charges he was unanimously condemned, not only by the members of the council, but also by the envoys of foreign nations who were present. And when Aristomenes was about to commence his accusation he brought in a large number of other Greeks of rank also to support him, as well as the Aetolian ambassadors who had come to negotiate a peace, among whom was Dorimachus son of Nicostratus. When these speeches had been delivered, Scopas endeavoured to put forward certain pleas in his defence: but gaining no attention from any one, owing to the senseless nature of his proceedings, he was taken along with his friends to prison. There after nightfall Aristomenes caused Scopas and his family to be put to death by poison; but did not allow Dicaearchus to die until he had had him racked and scourged, thus inflicting on him a punishment which he thoroughly deserved in the name of all Greece. For this was the Dicaearchus whom Philip, when he resolved upon his treacherous attack on the Cyclades and the cities of the Hellespont, appointed leader of the whole fleet and the entire enterprise: who being thus sent out to perform an act of flagrant wickedness, not only thought that he was doing nothing wrong, but in the extravagance of his infatuation imagined that he would strike terror into the gods as well as man. For wherever he anchored he used to build two altars, to Impiety and Lawlessness, and, offering sacrifice upon these altars, worshipped them as his gods. Therefore in my opinion he met with a just retribution both from gods and men: for as his life had been spent in defiance to the laws of nature, his end was properly also one of unnatural horror. All the other Aetolians who wished to depart were allowed by the king to go in possession of their property.

[Sidenote: Enormous wealth collected by Scopas.]

+55.+ As in the lifetime of Scopas his love of money had been notorious, for his avarice did in fact surpass that of any man in the world, so after his death was it made still more conspicuous by the enormous amount of gold and other property found in his house; for by the assistance of the coarse manners and drunken habits of Charimortus he had absolutely pillaged the kingdom.

[Sidenote: The anacleteria of Ptolemy Epiphanes, B.C. 176. Aet. 12.]

Having thus settled the Aetolian business to their liking, the courtiers turned their attention to the ceremony of instituting the king into the management of his office, called the _Anacleteria_. His age was not indeed yet so far advanced as to make this necessary; but they thought that the kingdom would gain a certain degree of firmness and a fresh impulse towards prosperity, if it were known that the king had assumed the independent direction of the government. They then made the preparations for the ceremony with great splendour, and carried it out in a manner worthy of the greatness of the kingdom, Polycrates being considered to have contributed very largely to the accomplishment of their efforts. For this man had enjoyed even during his youth, in the reign of the late king, a reputation second to no one in the court for fidelity and practical ability; and this reputation he had maintained during the present reign also. For having been entrusted with the management of Cyprus and its revenues, when its affairs were in a critical and complicate state, he not only preserved the island for the young king, but collected a very considerable sum of money, with which he had just arrived and had paid to the king, after handing over the government of Cyprus to Ptolemy of Megalopolis. But though he obtained great applause by this, and a large fortune immediately afterwards, yet, as he grew older, he drifted into extravagant debauchery and scandalous indulgence. Nor was the reputation of Ptolemy, son of Agesarchus very different in the later part of his life. But in regard to these men, when we come to the proper time, I shall not shrink from stating the circumstances which disgraced their official life....

##