Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T03:03:10.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Polybius and Rome's Eastern Policy*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

F. W. Walbank
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Any discussion of the policy of the Roman Senate towards the Hellenistic world at the end of the third century B.C. must inevitably take account of the work of two men who wrote their most important books around this topic. One is, of course, Polybius, the other Maurice Holleaux. Holleaux's book on Rome, Greece and the Hellenistic monarchies appeared in 1921; but it came as the culmination of several studies on this subject, which had been exercising his attention particularly since 1913. Today, then, we stand virtually at the fiftieth anniversary of Holleaux's thesis, and we can appropriately consider how far it has stood the test of time. However, that is not my main purpose in this paper, which will be concerned much more with what Polybius has to say on the subject. As everyone knows, it is the evidence of Polybius that stands behind Holleaux's remarkable reconstruction of Roman policy; and Holleaux's problem is quite central to Polybius' interests—indeed it is very close to, though not identical with, his main theme. ‘Who,’ he asks, ‘is so worthless and so indolent as not to want to know by what means and under what constitutional system the Romans in less than fifty-three years have succeeded in subjecting nearly the whole inhabited world to their sole government—a thing unique in history?’ It is perhaps not unfair to judge a historian by the degree of success he attains in tackling his main theme. If that seems a reasonable proposition, we may ask ourselves: Does Polybius in fact offer a satisfactory answer to the question he has raised?

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 53 , Issue 1-2 , November 1963 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © F. W. Walbank 1963. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

A presidential paper read to the Annual General Meeting of the Roman Society in London on 18th June, 1963.

References

1 Holleaux, M., Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies hellénistiques (Paris, 1921)Google Scholar.

2 An article on the negotiations between Antiochus III and the Romans appears in that year; cf. REA, 1913, 1–24 = Études d'épigraphie et d'histoire grecques (ed. L. Robert), v, 156–79.

3 I, 1, 5.

4 o.c. (n. 1), III–IV.

5 CAH, VII (1928), 822–57; VIII (1930), 116–240 = Études d'épigraphie, IV, 76–114; V, 295–432 (French text with supplementary bibliography).

6 Heuss, A., Die völkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der römischen Aussenpolitik in republikanischer Zeit, Klio Beiheft XXXI (Leipzig, 1933)Google Scholar. On deditio see also Piganiol, A., Rev. int. droits d'antiquité, v, 1950, 339–47Google Scholar, ‘venire in fidem.’

7 Eutrop. II, 15, ‘legati Alexandrini a Ptolomaeo missi Romam venere et a Romanis amicitiam quam petierant obtinuerunt’ cf. App. Sic. I; Dion. Hal. XX, 14; Dio, fg. 41; Zon. VIII, 6, II; Val. Max. IV, 3, 9; Justin. XVIII, 2, 9; Livy, ep. 14; cf. XXVII, 4, 10. See Holleaux, Rome, 64 ff.

8 Neatby, L. H., TAPA, 1950, 89–98.Google Scholar

8a For the archaeological evidence Blakeway, A., JRS, 1935, 129–49Google Scholar, remains valuable.

9 cf. Gjerstad, E., The Etruscans and Rome in Ancient Times (Malmö, 1962), 149–50.Google Scholar

10 cf. XII tabulae, 8, 4 (Riccobono, FIRA, I, 54) for poena; carmen arvale (CIL I, 22, 2 = Warmington, E. H., Remains of Old Latin, IV (London, 1940), p. 251Google Scholar) for triumpus; cf. Momigliano, below, p. 121.

11 cf. Castagnoli, F., Studi e materiali, 1959, 109 ff.Google Scholar; Weinstock, S., JRS, 1960, 112–8Google Scholar (with bibliography).

12 FGH 4 F 84 = Dion. Hal. I, 72, 2.

13 FGH 115 F 317 = Pliny, NH, III, 57.

14 Plut. Cam. 22, 2.

15 ibid. 22, 3.

16 Pliny, NH. III, 57.Google Scholar On these fourth century writers see Hoffman, W., Rom und die griechische Welt im 4. Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1934), 105 f.Google Scholar

17 v, 232.

18 cf. Cleitarchus, FGH 137 F 31 = Pliny, NH, III, 57.

19 FGH 240 F 29 = Dion. Hal. I, 72, 5.

20 Fg. 106–7 Pfeiffer.

21 Insc. Lind. 92 = Degrassi, Insc. lat. lib. rei pub. I, 245.

22 cf. Πρακτικά, 1953, 270 f.

23 In the course of a recent discussion in Paris M. Louis Robert expressed his firm belief in a second century date for this inscription.

24 cf. Schmitt, H. H., Rom und Rhodos (Munich, 1957), 36Google Scholar n. 2, quoting information communicated by Miss V. Grace that several vase handles published in IG XIV date to 300 or earlier.

25 IG IX, 7 a, 51.

26 Plut. Arat. 12.

27 1226 ff., 1444 ff.

28 XXX, 5, 6.

29 o.c. (n. 24), 1–49.

30 See especially Momigliano, A., CQ, 1945 44–53Google Scholar = Secondo contributo alla storia degli studi classici (Rome, 1960), 446–53. The argument for a second century date is stated in detail by K. Ziegler in P-W, ‘Lykophron (8)’, cols. 2316–2381.

31 Livy, III, 31; Dion. Hal. X, 52, 54; but this is probably apocryphal. See now Ruschenbusch, E., Historia, 1963, 250 ff.Google Scholar

32 For a defence of the annalistic tradition see Balsdon, J. P. V. D., CQ, 1953, 158–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; JRS, 1954, 30–42.

33 Rome, 278 n. 1; CAH, VIII, 156 n. 1 = Études d'épigraphie, v, 340 n. I.

34 Polyb. XVIII, I, 14.

35 Rome, 278 n. I.

36 Philip V of Macedon (Cambridge, 1940), 103 n. 4.

37 CQ, 1953, 163 ff.

38 PBSR, 1952, 91 n. 102.

39 See A. H. McDonald (below, p. 187), reviewing Ferro, B., Le origini della II guerra macedonica (Palermo, 1960), 9 ff.Google Scholar

40 Journ. Sav. 1923, 112–21, 173–81; 1924, 16–30 = Points de vue sur L'impérialisme romain (Paris, 1934), 21–69.

41 Münzer, F., Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien, Stuttgart, 1920Google Scholar; see also his many articles on the Roman gentes in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-encyclopaedie.

42 Scullard, H. H., Roman Politics, 220–150 B.C. (Oxford, 1951).Google Scholar

43 Rome, 211–2.

44 Geschichte der Karthager von 218 bis 146 (Berlin, 1913), 485.

45 JRS, 1954, 31.

46 Latomus, 1958, 197–211.

47 For an alleged ‘Greek lobby’ see W. G. Forrest, JRS, 1956, 170–1; and for a ‘Claudian faction’ with special interests in Greece and Macedonia see Dorey, T., AJP, 1959, 288–95.Google Scholar

48 Points de vue (see n. 40 above), 58.

49 As is assumed by Bickerman, E. J., CP, 1945, 148 n. 120.Google Scholar

50 cf. Polyb. II, 14, 7; IV, 2, 2; Petzold, K. E., Historia, 1960, 251–2.Google Scholar

51 Hist. Zeit. 1949–50, 487–8.

52 Polyb. IX, 10, II.

53 Hist. Zeit. 1949–50, 488 ff.

54 Polyb. II, 31, 8.

55 CP, 1945, 147 ff.

56 Livy (Pol.) XXXII, 21, 18.

57 CP, 1945, 148, n. 121.

58 Below, pp. 8–9.

59 CP, 1945, 148.

60 Justin. XXIX, 4, II; App. Mac. 3, 4; Zon. IX, 15, I.

61 Stier, H. E., Roms Aufstieg zur Weltmacht und die griechische Welt (Cologne and Opladen, 1957), 38 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

62 cf. XV, 24, 6.

63 Thuc. v, 105, 2.

64 Thuc. VI, 18, 3.

65 Hist. IV, 69, 5, Maur.

66 Vell. Pat. I, 6, 6.

67 CP, 1940, 1–21.

68 De Pyth. orac. II, 399 c.

69 cf. Klaffenbach, G., SB Berlin, Kl. Sprachen Lit. 1954, 1Google Scholar; IG IX, 12, 2. add. p. 477 (cf. SEG XIII, 382); Calabi, I., Riv. fil. 1956, 389–97Google Scholar; Stiehl, R., Wissensch. Zeitschri. (Leipzig), 1955–56, 289–94, 352–4;Google Scholar McDonald, A. H., JRS, 1956, 153–7Google Scholar (with improved text); Aymard, A., Rev. hist. 217, 1957, 233–49Google Scholar; Badian, E., Latomus, 1958, 197–211Google Scholar; cf. Robert, L., Bull. Épig. 1955, 47–8.Google Scholar

70 Ziegler, P-W, ‘Polybios’, col. 1524, following Heyse, reads εἰ μὴ ἐπίπαν φανείημεν ἣ λήμμασι χρώμενοι τοīς αὐτοῖς and interprets this to mean that Polybius ‘bittet … um Entschuldigung, wenn die Reden in der Gestaltung des Stoffes und in der Form nicht vollkommen wahrheitsgetreu ausfielen’. But if ἐπίπαν is right, μὴ is unacceptable here on account of hiatus, and there is no trace of it in what can be read of the text. Further, the words λήμμασι…τοῖς αὐτοῑς refer to descriptions of battles as well as speeches and therefore must mean ‘the same words as I have used elsewhere’ and not ‘the words that were actually pronounced’.

71 II, 56, 10.

72 III, 20, I.

73 A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, II (Oxford, 1956), 11; cf. Wunderer, C., Polybios-Forschungen II (Leipzig, 1901), 11.Google Scholar

74 See Miscellanea di Studi Alessandrini in memoria di Augusto Rostagni (Torino, 1963), 395–405.

75 cf. Gelzer, M. Gnomon, 1957, 402Google Scholar, recalling his discussion in Festschrift für C. Weickert (Berlin, 1955), 88.

76 XII, 25 i, 8.

77 La-Roche, P., Charakteristik des Polybios (Leipzig, 1857), 67.Google Scholar

78 Hellenen, Römer und Barbaren (Progr. Aschaffenburg, 1957–58).

79 Herod. VII, 8–11.

80 Above, p. 8, n. 63.

81 CP, 1962, 231.

82 Thucydide et l'impérialisme romain (Paris, 1947), 73 and passim.

83 L'Orient et la Grèce (Paris, 1953), 292 f.; cf. Walbank, , Historical Commentary on Polybius (Oxford, 1957)Google Scholar, on Polyb. v, 106, 5.

84 o.c. (n. 61), 36 ff.

85 Diod. XXIII, I, 4.

86 cf. Swain, , CP, 1940, 1–21.Google Scholar

87 Polyb. VI, 56, 6–12 with my commentary.

88 CP, 1945, 148.

89 See may Commentary on Polybius, 16 ff.

90 cf. Brink, C. O. and Walbank, F. W., CQ, 1954, 97–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar; von Fritz, K., The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity (New York, 1954), 155 ff.Google Scholar

91 cf. especially III, 6, 10–14 (Alexander's war against Persia); 7, 1–3 (Antiochus' war against Rome) 9, 6–10, 6 (the Hannibalic war).