Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T17:12:03.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Treaty of Apamea (188 B.C.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

A. H. McDonald
A. H. McDonald
Affiliation:
Clare College, Cambridge.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is no more likely factor of dispute in a peace treaty than its definition of an inland frontier, even when the terms of the treaty are directly known: one has not to look far for instances where a topographic reference has proved to be equivocal. The terrain itself, of course, may be to blame. Only a continuous river line provides a clear demarcation of territory; a mountainous area or steppe or desert land, often by its nature sparsely populated, may lack the local place-names to give precision to a frontier. In the second century B.C. the Romans experienced this difficulty in North Africa and Asia Minor. But the modern scholar is even more at a loss, in two ways. First, his knowledge has geographical gaps, and the ancient names may have changed: one has only to think of the debt that we owe to the epigraphic work of men who have scoured Asia Minor for the evidence identifying ancient sites. Secondly, the literary texts have suffered corruption, in greater or less degree, during the course of their manuscript transmission. It is necessary to combine the study of topography, inscriptions, and text. Further—with reference to the present subject—the Romans imposed peace and what may be called a ‘protectorate’ in Asia Minor, however loosely.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 57 , Issue 1-2 , November 1967 , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright ©A. H. McDonald 1967. 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.)

References

1 I wish to thank the Director, and the Faculty in the School of Historical Studies, of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J., U.S.A., for their kind hospitality in the fall of 1966, when I prepared this paper: and Professor Nimet Özgüç for her help on matters of Anatolian topography.

2 Mommsen, , Röm. Forschungen II, 1879, 527 ff.Google Scholar; U. Kahrstedt, Gött. Nachr. 1923, 93 ff.; Meyer, Ernst, Die Grenzen der hellenist. Staaten in Kleinasien 145–6Google Scholar; Holleaux, M., Ét. d'épigr. et d'hist.grecques (ed. Robert, L.) v, 2, 208 ff.Google Scholar, with bibliography; W. Ruge, PW, 2 Reihe, IV, 2, 2169, s.v. ‘Tanais’.

3 On the course of events, consult Niese, B., Gesch. der griech. und makedon, Staaten II, 739 ff.Google Scholar; on the geography and regional history, Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor I–II (Vol. II with notes and bibliography)Google Scholar; on Roman policy, Sanctis, G. De, Storia del Romani IV, 1, 193 ff.Google Scholar; Holleaux, op. cit. V, 2, 413, 420 ff. (= CAH VIII, 222, 229 ff.); E. Badian, Studies in Greek and Roman History 122 ff.; on the Treaty of Apamea, Täubler, E., Imperium Romanum I, 75–77, 442 ff.Google Scholar; on the general settlement, Ernst Meyer, op. cit. 146 ff.; on the Greek cities, Bikerman, E., REG 50 (1937), 217 ffGoogle Scholar.

4 On Livy's use of Polybius see H. Nissen, Krit. Untersuchungen über die Quellen der IV und V Dekade des Livius, chs. 2–4; here p. 194.

5 D. Magie, op. cit. II, 757, 761.

6 See Holleaux, op. cit. v, 2, 213–4.

7 Nissen, op. cit. 8–11, 14.

8 As regards the text (on the MSS. see below and n. 14), I read ‘Mysiae regias silvas’: Mysias regias silvas B X: Mysiam regias sylvas Mg. Editors have compared Livy XXXVIII, 39, 15 (Polyb.) to emend: Mysiam regiam et Milyas Madvig, Mysiam < quam ademerat Prusias > regi, ac Milyada H. J. Müller. But this passage concerns only Antiochus' part of Mysia, from the Roman angle of policy, and the source may be Roman (as Mommsen, below, n. 9). On the connection with Prusias of Bithynia, see Habicht, Chr., Hermes 84 (1956), 94 ffGoogle Scholar. In any event the region under attention here does not include Milyas in the south (Magie, op. cit. II, 761–2). For the provisions affecting the Greek cities see the works cited in n. 3, especially Bikerman, op. cit. 218 ff. and Magie, op. cit. II, 950 ff.

9 Polyb. XXI, 18–24, cf. Livy XXXVII, 52–6. See Nissen, op. cit. 198–200, Mommsen, op. cit. II, 522–4; cf. Ed. Meyer, , Rh. Mus. 36 (1881), 120–6Google Scholar; E. Kumpel, Die Quellen zur Gesch. des Krieges der Römer gegen Antiochus III, 23. On the senatorial historiography of the second century B.C., consult Gelzer, M., Kl. Schriften III, 93–110Google Scholar. We should recognize the diplomatic material that was available to the senatorial historians and Polybius in common at that time.

10 For details see Magie, op. cit. II, 758–64, (Eumenes), 952–3 (Rhodes), 958–9 (the Greek cities); cf. Täubler, op. cit. 1, 76.

11 Polyb. XXI, 35–6; 43–4; Livy (Polyb.) XXXVIII, 15; 37; Magie, op. cit. II, 1134–5, 1156–8.

12 Polyb. XXI, 45; Livy XXXVIII, 38; cf. Täubler, op. cit. 1, 442 ff.

13 Nissen, op. cit. 20–21, 206.

14 Consult O.C.T., ‘Livius’ v, ‘Praefatio’, §§ 100 ff.

15 For these conjectures see Drakenborch's note on XXXVIII, 38, 4 (Livius, vol. V, 231).

16 Mommsen, , Röm. Forsch. II, 527–32Google Scholar; but see Viereck, P., Klio 9 (1909), 372–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Kahrstedt, , Gött. Nachr., 1923, 93 ff.Google Scholar; but see Holleaux, op. cit. V, 2, 222–36.

18 Ruge, loc. cit. (above, n. 2); cf. Ernst Meyer, op. cit. 146.

19 Täubler, op. cit. I, 75, n. 1, 76–7; Holleaux, op. cit. V, 2, 215 ff.; cf. Magie, op. cit. II, 757–60.

20 Holleaux, ibid. 213–4 (but Ruge, loc. cit.).

21 Holleaux, ibid. 216–20.

22 Cardinali, G., Klio 10 (1910), 249–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; but see Meyer, op. cit. 145–6.

23 For these corrections refer conveniently to Holleaux, op. cit. V, 2, 211, 220–2.

24 The general map (fig. 1) is designed to illustrate the controversy. For more details of places see Calder, W. M. and Bean, G. E., A Classical Map of Asia Minor (Brit. Inst. of Arch, at Ankara, 1959)Google Scholar; at critical points consult Magie, op. cit. I, 260–1 (Cestrus), 266–8 (Calycadnus), 276–7 (‘Cilician Gates’), with his notes.

25 See Schaffer, F. X., ‘Cilicia’, Petermanns Geogr. Mitteil., Ergänz.-band XXX, 141 (1903), 17, 46 ff.Google Scholar; for the upper Calycadnus terrain, Sterrett, J.R.S., ‘Wolfe Expedition’, Arch. Inst. of America, Papers of Am. Sch. of Class. Stud. at Athens III (1884–1885)Google Scholar with his two maps (drawn by H. Kiepert)—the best impression of the region for our purpose. Sterrett (p. 45) corrects the name ‘Buzaktsche Tschai’ for the Göksu branch north of Mut. This is difficult country to describe, and my local map (fig. 2) includes modern names to help identification.

26 On Άρτάναδα τῆς Ποταμίας, see Sterrett, ibid. 51 ff.