Get The last kings of macedonia and the triumph of rome ian worthington free all chapters
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://ebookmass.com/product/the-last-kings-of-macedonia-and-the-triumph-of-rome -ian-worthington/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
The Last Kings of Macedonia and the Triumph of Rome Ian Worthington
The Last Kings of Macedonia and the Triumph of Rome
IAN WORTHINGTON
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress
ISBN 978–0–19–752005–5 eISBN 978–0–19–752007–9
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197520055.001.0001
in memoriam
Tim
(T.T.B.) Ryder
who first introduced me to Greek history and who was the proverbial scholar and gentleman
Contents
ListofFigures
ListofMaps
Preface
ListofAbbreviations
Introduction
1. The Kingdom of Macedonia
2. Introducing Philip V
3. The Social War
4. Taking on Rome and the First Macedonian War
5. Keeping Calm and Carrying On
6. The Second Macedonian War
7. Fall of the Phalanx
8. Macedonia Renascent
9. Perseus: Last of the Antigonids
10. The Third Macedonian War
11. Dismembering Macedonia
12. Andriscus aka Philip VI and the Fourth Macedonian War
Philip II facial reconstruction. Licensed under a CC0 1.0 Univ ersal License (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/ze ro/1.0/deed.en).
Head of Alexander the Great. Photo credit: Yair Haklai. Licen sed under a CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License (https://creativ ecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
Pydna: site of the battle. Photo credit: Robin Waterfield. Battle of Pydna. Licensed under a CC BY-SA 4.0 License (htt ps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).
Reconstruction drawing of monument of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi, c. 167 B.C. Reproduced from A. Jacquemin and D. L aroche, “Notes sur trois piliers delphiques,” BCH106 (1982): 191–218.
11.5.
11.6.
Reconstruction drawing of frieze on Paullus’ Monument at D elphi. Illustrated by Albert Nguyen. Reproduced from M.J. Ta ylor, “The Battle Scene on Aemilius Paullus’ Pydna Monumen t: A Reevaluation,” Hesperia85 (2016): 559–576.
Macedonia showing the merides. Reproduced from P.J. Burt on, RomeandtheThirdMacedonianWar, Cambridge Univer sity Press, 2017. Reproduced with permission of The Licenso r through PLSclear.
Roman Forum and Agora, Thessalonica. Photo credit: Marco Verch. Licensed under a CC BY-SA 4.0 License (https://creati vecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).
ListofMaps
1. Overview: Greece and the Balkans. Reproduced from Ian Worthington, Ptole my I: King andPharaohofEgypt, Oxford University Press, 2016.
2. Macedonia. Reproduced from Ian Worthington, Athens After Empire: A Histor y from Alexander the Great to the Emperor Hadrian, Oxford University Press, 2021.
3. Macedonia and Illyria. Reproduced from N.G.L. Hammond and F.W. Walbank, AHistory ofMacedonia, vol. 3, Oxford University Press, 1988.
4. Macedonia and Thrace. Reproduced from Ian Worthington, By the Spear: Phi lip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise and Fall of the Macedonian Empire, Oxford University Press, 2014.
5. Greece and the Aegean. Reproduced from Ian Worthington, Athens After Em pire: A History from Alexander the Great to the Emperor Hadrian, Oxford Uni versity Press, 2021.
6. Thessaly. Reproduced from P.J. Burton, Rome and the Third Macedonian Wa r, Cambridge University Press, 2017. Reproduced with permission of The Lice nsor through PLSclear.
7. The Peloponnese. Reproduced from N.G.L. Hammond and F.W. Walbank, AHi story ofMacedonia, vol. 3, Oxford University Press, 1988.
Preface
THIS BOOK IS a history and reassessment of the last three kings of ancient Macedonia: Philip V (r. 221–179), his son Perseus (r. 179–168), and the pretender Andriscus, also called Philip VI (r. 149–148). Their names are not as immediately recognizable as predecessors like Philip II (r. 359–336) and Alexander the Great (r. 336–323), and by the time Philip V came to the throne the heyday of Macedonia as an imperial power under Alexander was long over. Yet their reigns underpin one of the more important periods in antiquity: the rise of Roman dominion in the east. All three kings were at war with Rome, for which ancient writers denounced them for flawed policies, disreputable personal qualities, and rashness, so that their reigns are seen as postscripts to Macedonian history and subsumed within the history of Roman expansion.
Certainly, these three kings are not the household names that their illustrious predecessors are, nor did they forge or maintain a vast, overseas empire, as had Alexander. But they were far from being a postscript to Macedonia’s Classical greatness or merely collateral damage in Rome’s rise in the east. Philip and Perseus deserve credit as they often had the upper hand in their wars against Rome and had to contend with hostile eastern powers and Greeks south of Mount Olympus.
Rather than appraising each king individually, this book—the first full-scale treatment of Philip V in eighty years and the first in English of Perseus and Andriscus in over fifty—discusses them together to argue that they and the period deserve to be rated more highly. They fought to preserve their kingdom’s independence and standing in the Greek world, no matter the odds against them, and so deserve to be center stage in Macedonia’s, not just Rome’s, history.
It is my pleasure to thank once again Stefan Vranka for his support and feedback and all the admirable staff at Oxford University Press who saw the book through production.
I am indebted to Monica D’Agostini, Joseph Roisman, and Robin Waterfield for generously agreeing to read an earlier draft of the book: their sharp and precise comments improved greatly what they had to read.
My thanks also go to the anonymous Oxford University Press referees for equally excellent remarks and for thinking the book has merit.
I am grateful to Monica D’Agostini for sending me a copy of her book on Philip V when access to libraries was impossible; my excellent colleague Danijel Dzino for chats about Illyria; Yuri Kuzmin for setting me straight about Philip’s mother; Robin Waterfield for some needed personal photos of the Aous Gorge, Cynoscephalae, and Pydna sites; and Albert Nguyen for graciously granting his permission to reuse his drawing of the frieze on the Paullus monument at Delphi. As well, I thank Angela Abberton for the thankless task of checking many ancient references and Sarah Plant for the equally herculean task of compiling the index.
I am obliged to Macquarie University for granting me OSP leave in the second semester 2020, which allowed me to finish a second draft of the book and make substantial progress on another.
My deep regret is that the dedicatee of this book did not live to see it. I knew Tim Ryder, who died in October 2021, for forty-five years since my undergraduate days at Hull (1976–1979), and we kept in good contact since I left there. He inspired in me a love for Greek history, which shows no sign of abating, and for that I thank him.
Last but certainly not least, I thank my family for being there.
Ian Worthington Macquarie University October 2022
ListofAbbreviations
BNJ Brill’s New Jacoby (Jacoby Online), numerous ancient writers prepared by modern scholars, editor-in-chief Ian Worthington (Leiden: 2003–)
IG Inscriptiones Graecae, many volumes with different editors (Berlin: 1873–)
ISE Iscrizionistoriche ellenistiche, 2 vols., editor L. Moretti (Florence: 1967–75)
SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, many volumes, various editors (Leiden: 1923–)
MAP 1. Overview: Greece and the Balkans. Reproduced from Ian Worthington, Ptol emy I: King andPharaohofEgypt, Oxford University Press, 2016.
MAP 2. Macedonia. Reproduced from Ian Worthington, Athens After Empire: A Hist ory from Alexander the Great to the Emperor Hadrian, Oxford University Press, 2021.
MAP 3. Macedonia and Illyria. Reproduced from N.G.L. Hammond and F.W. Walban k, AHistory ofMacedonia, vol. 3, Oxford University Press, 1988.
MAP 4. Macedonia and Thrace. Reproduced from Ian Worthington, By the Spear: P hilip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise and Fall of the Macedonian Empire, Oxford University Press, 2014.
MAP 5. Greece and the Aegean. Reproduced from Ian Worthington, Athens After E mpire: A History from Alexander the Great to the Emperor Hadrian, Oxford University Press, 2021.
MAP 6. Thessaly. Reproduced from P.J. Burton, Rome andthe Third Macedonian W ar, Cambridge University Press, 2017. Reproduced with permission of The Licensor through PLSclear.
MAP 7. The Peloponnese. Reproduced from N.G.L. Hammond and F.W. Walbank, A History ofMacedonia, vol. 3, Oxford University Press, 1988.
Introduction
WE THREE KINGS
THIS BOOK IS a study of the last three kings of ancient Macedonia, north of Mount Olympus in Greece: Philip V (r. 221–179), his son Perseus (r. 179–168), and the pretender Andriscus, also called Philip VI (r. 149–148). They are not the household names that their distinguished predecessors Philip II (r. 359–336) and Alexander the Great (r. 336–323) are, in both antiquity and today.1 Philip II laid the foundations of a Macedonian empire that, thanks to Alexander, stretched from Greece to India. By the time Philip V came to the throne in 221, a little over a century after Alexander’s death, Macedonia no longer had an empire, and a new power in the Mediterranean was emerging: Rome. And by the end of Andriscus’ reign the Macedonian monarchy was no more, and Greece was part of the Roman Empire.
Still, the reigns of the last three kings underpin an important period in antiquity: the rise of Roman dominion in the east. Yet they are routinely denounced for self-serving ambitions, flawed policies, unsavory personal qualities, and even foolhardiness that led to their defeats at Roman hands and the eventual absorption of Greece into the Roman Empire. They are viewed as postscripts to the kingdom’s heyday and even folded into the history of Roman expansion in the east. These views are far from true as I show in this book, at the same time placing these kings more center stage in Macedonia’s, not just Rome’s, history.
Philip V was one of the more colorful characters of the period. He seems to have striven the most to emulate Philip II, Alexander the Great, Demetrius I Poliorcetes (“the besieger”), and Pyrrhus of
Epirus, all dynamic rulers, always to be found in the thick of battle, and demonstrating strategic skills, decisiveness, speed of execution, and daring. Perseus also showed similar qualities and did well for his kingdom, though his entanglement with Rome dominated his reign too much. Andriscus, king for only one year, was not on the throne long enough to achieve anything substantial, but his reign bookends what Philip II had begun in the 350s.
All three kings were at war with Rome. Yet despite Roman manpower and resources always putting them at a disadvantage, Philip and Perseus many times had the upper hand in their conflicts and won victories over Roman troops. In the end, they were routed by Roman armies, with the Senate imposing settlements on Macedonia and finally turning it into a province after Andriscus’ downfall in 147. If the Macedonians under Philip II and Alexander enjoyed being an imperial power, those under the later monarchs must surely have had heavy hearts at their situation.2
When Philip V became king, the Antigonid dynasty—starting with Antigonus I Monophthalmus (“the one-eyed”) at the tail end of the fourth century—was well established. But Antigonid kings faced a different world from rulers of the previous dynasty, the Argead (which had ruled since the early eighth century), especially Philip II and Alexander. Philip had turned the kingdom from a backwater on the periphery of the Greek world into a formidable military and economic power, in the process establishing Macedonian hegemony over the Greeks. Alexander had inherited his father’s plan to invade Asia and in a spectacular decade-long campaign toppled the Persian Empire and extended Macedonian sway—albeit briefly—as far east as what the Greeks called India (present-day Pakistan).
On Alexander’s death in 323, however, his senior staff divided up his empire and then waged war against each other for forty years for greater slices of territory, eventually (in 306) calling themselves kings. When the “Wars of the Successors” were over in 280, the Hellenistic-era kingdoms of Seleucid Syria and Ptolemaic Egypt had formed, and Antigonid Macedonia and Greece were not far behind.
But Macedonia’s hold on Greece was never as strong as under Philip II and Alexander. The reasons are several. Those two monarchs never had to deal with two powerful leagues, the Achaean (in the northern Peloponnese) and Aetolian (in central Greece), which defied Macedonian power. In addition, there were the defiance and eventual independence of Athens in 229. In the Hellenistic period (323–30) Athens was no longer the military, economic, or even cultural powerhouse it had been in the Classical age (478–323), yet it was still a force with which to be reckoned and coveted by Antigonid and other Hellenistic rulers.3 Finally, from the early third century onward Rome played a role in Greek affairs, among other things encouraging cities to fight Macedonia and waging war on the kingdom no fewer than four times.
Some Antigonid kings worked to promote Macedonia’s standing in Greece but were plagued by the belligerent activities of the Aetolian League and issues with border security, especially on the northwestern border with Illyria. In contrast to the days of the Argead dynasty, Rome had a “protectorate” of cities in a part of Illyria called Illyris, abutting western Macedonia, in what is now Albania and Dalmatia. On top of that, the Dardanians, an aggressive Illyrian tribe to Macedonia’s north, were a frequent menace to the kingdom and invaded parts of it. Thus, Antigonid kings had to contend with a Roman presence in Illyria, the need to protect their borders, and a severely compromised relationship with the Greeks. We trace all these issues and how they were dealt with in more detail in later chapters.
Philip V therefore faced many threats when he assumed the throne and decided to do something about them once and for all. Unfortunately, our ancient literary writers are openly hostile to Philip and Perseus, as noted throughout this book and in the appendix. Besides denigrating their characters and moral worth, ancient literary writers accuse Philip of the grandiose intentions of invading Italy to attack Rome and eventually achieve world dominion. They see a treaty he made with the Carthaginian general Hannibal in 215, when the Romans were embroiled in the Second Punic War against
Carthage (218–201), as evidence of an anti-Roman offensive. They also claim that toward the end of his reign Philip was planning a war against Rome, which his son Perseus inherited, thereby showing the latter’s animosity to Rome. Their view is echoed by some modern scholars when writing of these kings and the period.
Those views are wrong. Philip was never able to invade Italy because he lacked a strong war fleet. More than that, his focus was on safeguarding his borders, with Perseus following suit. To this end, both kings aimed at reversing Macedonia’s weak position in Greece, and Philip was especially intent on confronting the Romans’ involvement in Illyria.
Philip II had overcome the Illyrians in 358, even integrating them into the organization of Macedonia and deploying them in his army. Even so, he was constantly worried by the security of his northwest border. In the 350s he founded a series of cities along it, populated by people he moved from other parts of his kingdom, to maintain its strength and defend it if need be. Later, when some cities in Illyria came under Rome’s protection, and Roman troops began to operate there, Macedonia was placed in a perilous position. The Illyrian factor, to call it that, explains Philip’s alliance with Hannibal. Only after Philip was defeated at the battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 was he forced to abandon attempts to regain Illyria.
Likewise, all kings were always concerned about their southern border with Thessaly, through which an invading army had easy access into Macedonia. Philip and Perseus went to great lengths to ensure good relations with Thessaly, and even control of it. They worked to restore confidence in them among the Greeks, and also to offset any danger from enemy armies landing on the mainland and joining forces with hostile Greek cities. Again, their reasoning was all to do with keeping their borders safe. After Cynoscephalae, Philip conducted a series of campaigns in Thrace. These were not to try to establish some sort of Balkan empire but this time to protect his eastern border, something in which Perseus also put great stock. And it was for border protection that Philip was planning another operation against the troublesome Dardanians when he died: this operation was what Perseus inherited, not a war against Rome as
our ancient writers would have it. Thus, castigated like his father for daring to defy Rome, Perseus also deserves rehabilitation. No matter what he did or did not do, he was in the Senate’s crosshairs from the moment he became king.
The time is ripe for this book. All three kings feature in numerous general histories and more focused treatments of the Hellenistic period and Romano-Greek affairs. Principal among these are E. Grue n, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (1984); A.M. Eckstein, RomeEnterstheGreekEast:FromAnarchytoHierarchy in theHellenisticMediterranean, 230–170BC(2008); and F. Camia, Ro ma e le poleis. L’interventodiRomanellecontroversieterritorialitral e communitàgreche di Grecia e di Asia minore nell II secolo c. C. (2009). To these we can add M.B. Hatzopoulos, MacedonianInstituti ons undertheKings, 2 vols. (1996), which as the title shows is vital for any study of Macedonian history and organization. And then there is the third volume of the monumental HistoryofMacedoniaby N.G.L. Hammond and F.W. Walbank (1988), with their brilliant accounts of Philip on pp. 367–487 and Perseus on pp. 488–558. I have more to say about these two scholars below.
Actual biographies can be counted on one hand and are well out of date. In the case of Philip, we have only F.W. Walbank’s PhilipVof Macedon, which was published in 1940 but is still indispensable. More recently, M. D’Agostini’s TheRiseofPhilipV:KingshipandRule intheHellenisticWorld(2019), though not a biography, uses Philip’s earlier years (229–212) as a model to study Hellenistic kingship and contains many incisive comments on Philip and his relations with his inner circle.
Perseus enjoys two biographies: P. Meloni’s magisterial Perseoela Fine della Monarchia Macedonia, published in 1953, and P.G. Gyiok a’s Perseus, ho teleutaios basileus ton Makedonon of 1975 (in Greek), both of which are inaccessible to an English-only reading audience. More recently, there is P.J. Burton’s excellent Rome and the Third Macedonian War (Cambridge: 2017). Although written from the Roman viewpoint, Burton treats Perseus’ reign in some detail as well as addressing the last years of Philip V.
I am indebted to everyone from whose works I have learned so much in writing this book. But two influential figures stand out, both deceased: Nick Hammond and Frank Walbank. Rereading their work (and in some cases reading several things for the first time) brought home again their total mastery of the source material, history, and topography, especially Hammond, who personally walked so much of Greece in his life. These great scholars will never be equaled, and my debt to their work is evident on every page of this book.
Now, a word of warning, so to speak. My book is not a historiographical study of the sources on Philip and Perseus, especially Polybius’ literary study, on which much has already been written (especially by Walbank). Those who find my treatment of the bias of Polybius and Livy or the survey of our sources in the appendix unsophisticated are directed to the works cited in the notes. Nor is this a book about Roman politics or the reasons for the growth of Roman imperialism in the east: I bring these aspects into my narrative only when they pertain to Macedonia. Again, readers wishing to know more about Roman history should consult the works cited in the notes.
All translations are from the Loeb Classical Library except where indicated.
All dates and references to centuries are BC except where indicated.
1. On them, see, for example, Worthington 2014.
2. Macedonians under Philip II and Alexander: Worthington 2014, pp. 105–109.
3. See Worthington 2021a.
1
The Kingdom ofMacedonia
PHILIP AND PERSEUS were members of the Antigonid dynasty, taking its name from Antigonus I Monophthalmus (the “one-eyed”), one of Alexander the Great’s Successors, who shot to power in the aftermath of Alexander’s death in 323. In antiquity the area called Macedonia lay north of Mount Olympus, the home of the Olympian gods and at 9,461 feet (2,883 meters) Greece’s tallest mountain. Because of this geography, the “Macedonians,” who were almost certainly Greeks and Greek-speaking, as we discuss below, lived independently of their Greek neighbors south of Olympus. Throughout this book, when I speak of “Macedonians” I mean the people living north of the mountain and “Greeks” as those living south of it, as well as on the islands and coast of Asia Minor.
LandandPeople
Macedonia was never a static region in the sense of having clearly defined borders that seldom changed over time. Rather like Rome, the Macedonian kingdom grew from relatively small beginnings to an imperial power under Alexander the Great, and then declined dramatically in size after his death in 323 until finally, in 168, Rome turned Macedonia into a province.1
Macedonia was a rugged mountainous region, which made travel and communications within it difficult (maps 1 and 2).2 There were only a few passes through its mountains, and the Pindus range effectively split the kingdom into two parts: Upper Macedonia to the west and Lower Macedonia to the east (map 2).3 Lower Macedonia—
with its original centers of Olympus; Pieria; the plain of Emathia and Bottiaea; and the areas of Amphaxitis, Crestonia, Mygdonia, Bisaltia, Crousis, and Anthemus—reached to the Thermaic Gulf and the Strymon River. Its temperate climate and rich soil (in contrast to Upper Macedonia) enabled the people to grow cereal crops, vegetables, grapes, and fruits and graze sheep, goats, cattle, and horses.
Upper Macedonia was made up of the originally semi-autonomous kingdoms of Elimiotis in the south, Orestis to the west, and Lyncestis to the northwest, by Lake Lychnitis, together with cantons such as Tymphaea, Eordaea, Lyncus, Pelagonia, and Derriopus.4 For much of their earlier history they comprised mostly nomadic peoples, who moved their flocks and herds to Lower Macedonia for pasturage. They were ruled by individual chieftains, who felt little allegiance to the king. Yet archaeology has shown the region had major urban settlements, as at Aiani in Elimiotis. By Philip V’s time most of its people were likely farmers and had a high standard of living and culture as the remains of large public buildings and elaborate grave goods reveal.5
Macedonia was surrounded by different tribal regions, of which the most threatening was Illyria to its north and west (maps 1–3).6 Illyria did not have static borders, and its people were divided into several tribes, of which the Dardanians to the far north posed the biggest danger to Macedonian kings.7 Philip II (whom we discuss in the next chapter) had defeated the Illyrians in 358, but they continued to give him trouble, forcing him in the mid-350s to build a series of military outposts along his northwest frontier for protection. As a result, all subsequent kings strove to ensure that their borders were secure from Illyrian invasions; on the domestic front, Illyria would be the biggest worry for Philip and Perseus, especially as there was considerable Roman influence in it by their time.
East of Illyria were the Paeonians of the Axius Valley, conquered by Philip in 358, but who still posed a danger if they decided to march south.8 To the east of the kingdom was Thrace, which Philip II had absorbed into Macedonia’s growing empire in the 340s (maps
4 and 5).9 To the southwest was the wealthy and largely independent kingdom of Epirus, home to the Oracle of Zeus at Dodona. Philip II had forged strong ties with the ruling dynasty, but these fluctuated under the Antigonid kings (maps 1 and 2).10 Philip V and Perseus always maintained good contacts with the Epirotes in case of Illyrian attacks. Still, the Macedonians’ stance toward these and other peoples was that they were “of dubious loyalty and unstable character.”11
South of Mount Olympus lay Greece (maps 1 and 5). There, cities like Athens and Thebes had a long history of hostility with the Argead and Antigonid dynasties, though by the latter’s time the Greeks’ military capabilities were a shadow of what they had been in the Classical era. Directly bordering on Macedonia was Thessaly, which afforded easy access into the southernmost cantons of the kingdom and beyond (maps 1, 5 and 6).12 There had been diplomatic contacts between Macedonia and Thessaly for some centuries, but it had become part of Philip II’s growing empire when he had conquered all Greece in 338 at the battle of Chaeronea.13 Over the years Thessaly had worked to regain its independence but given its strategic location—access to Macedonia for any invading army from the south—the Antigonid kings were always careful to maintain good relations with, if not control, this important buffer region.14
The Macedonians were tough people. All boys, including those of the royal family, were subjected to the same training regimen from an early age of fighting, riding, and hunting, and a focus on excelling continued even in adulthood—no man, for example, could recline at a banquet until he had killed a ferocious wild boar without using a net to trap it, and a soldier had to wear a rope or sash around his waist until he had killed his first man in battle. While Macedonia was not as militaristic a society as Sparta, its army was the backbone of the state, as we shall see—the Spartan mother who famously told her son as he set off to battle to come back carrying his shield or on it could just as easily have been a Macedonian mother.15
