Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T08:33:21.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The International Amicitia between Athens and Rome

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2015

Paul J. Burton
Paul J. Burton*
Affiliation:
The Australian National University, Paul.Burton@anu.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is no agreement on when international amicitia between Rome and Athens was first established. This article proposes that the most likely date for it belongs in the context of the later stages of the First Macedonian War (215-205) – specifically, during the mediation attempts of 209 or 208 – rather than the other commonly canvassed candidates, 228,205 and 201-200.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 47: Thematic Issue: Culture, Identity and Politics in the Ancient Mediterranean World , 2013 , pp. 207 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2013

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 Holleaux, M., Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies hellénistiques au Me s, av. J.-C, 273-205 (Paris 1921) 54 n. 1, 56 n. 1 and 119 n. 1Google Scholar; Dahlheim, W., Struktur und Entwicklung des römischen Völkerrechtes im 3 und 2, Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Munich 1968) 219-21 n. 99Google Scholar; Rich, J., ‘Roman Aims in the First Macedonian War’, PCPS 21 (1984) 176-7 an. 209-210Google Scholar; Gruen, E.S., The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1984) 567 n. 16, 79 n. 137 and 441 n. 15Google Scholar; Ferrary, J.-L., Philhellénisme et impérialisme; Aspects idéologiques de la conquête du monde hellénistique (Rome 1988) 25 n. 81Google Scholar. All dates BC.

2 Most discussions of the Roman-Athenian amicitia are folded into larger analyses of Athens' status as an adscriptus on the Roman side in the Peace of Phoenice in 205; Holleaux, , ‘Le prétendu recours des Athéniens aux Romains en 201/200’, REA 22 (1920) 934Google Scholar; Larsen, J.A.O., ‘The Peace of Phoenice and the Outbreak of the Second Macedonian War’, CP 32 (1937) 15–31Google Scholar; Warrior, V.M., The Initiation of the Second Macedonian War: An Explication of Livy Book 31 (Stuttgart 1996) 99–100Google Scholar; Eckstein, A.M., Rome Enters the Greek East: From Anarchy to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic Mediterranean, 230-170 B.C. (Oxford and Maiden MA 2008) 210-11Google Scholar; others listed below, nn. 8-9.

3 On beginning international amicitia generally, see now Burton, P. J., Friendship and Empire; Roman Diplomacy and Imperialism in the Middle Republic (353-146 BC) (Cambridge 2011) 76–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Omen, , HWCR (n. 1) 54–95Google Scholar; Burton, Friendship and Empire (n. 3), defining international amicitia as a flexible, informal (non-legal, unwritten) and often asymmetrical ongoing relationship between two states, whose sole basis is a moral obligation to preserve mutual loyalty (fides) and to perform occasional services (beneficia) either voluntarily or when requested by one side or the other.

5 E.g. Ager, S., ‘Roman Perspectives on Greek Diplomacy’, in Eilers, C. (ed.), Diplomats and Diplomacy in the Roman World (Leiden 2009) 15–43Google Scholar.

6 in Polyb. 16.34.7; foedera and pacem in Liv. 31.18.4.

7 Embassies: Liv. 31.1.10-2.2, 5.2, 5-8, 14.3 (and below, n. 14); Romans at Athens: Polyb. 16.26.6-8; Liv. 31.15.1-5; Nicanor: Polyb. 16.27. On the chronology, see Warrior, , Second Macedonian War (n. 2) 38–42Google Scholar, although there is no need to accept her hypothesis that November 201 is too early for Macedonian participation in the first attack on Athens; see Eckstein, , Rome Enters the Greek East (n. 2) 207 n. 92Google Scholar with others there cited. Täubler, E., Imperium Romanum I (Leipzig 1913) 216Google Scholar and n. 2 (followed by Holleaux, , Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies hellénistiques [n. 1] 267 n. 5Google Scholar, and Eckstein, , Rome Enters the Greek East [n. 2] 211Google Scholar) is mistaken to ascribe to Appian the view that the Romans had no interest in Athens when Philip invaded Attica in 201. What the passage actually says is that Philip's Macedonians ravaged Attica and laid siege to Athens ‘as if these places were of no concern to the Romans’ App, . Mac. 4.1)Google Scholar – in other words, Philip (wrongly) thought the Romans held no brief for Athens. For ὡς plus a genitive absolute, indicating ‘as if or’ ‘as though’, see LSJ s.v. C.I.3.

8 Holleaux, , Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies hellénistiques (n. 1) 54 n.l, 56 n. 1 and 259-60Google Scholar; followed by Larsen, “The Peace of Phoenice’ (n. 2); Dahlheim, , Struktur und Entwicklung (n. 1) 209-21Google Scholar; Habicht, C.Studien zur Geschichte Athens in Hellenistischer Zeit (Göttingen 1982) 138-42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ferrary, , Philhellénisme et impérialisme (n. 1) 25 n. 81Google Scholar; id., ‘Traités et domination romaine dans le monde hellénique’, in L. Canfora, M. Liverani and C. Zaggagnini (eds), I trattati nel mondo antico: Forma, ideologia, funzione (Rome 1990) 220; Habicht, , Athens from Alexander to Antony (Cambridge MA 1997) 195Google Scholar; Eckstein, , Rome Enters the Greek East (n. 2) 113-4, 210-11 and 248 n. 62Google Scholar.

9 Bickerman, E.J., ‘Les préliminaires de la seconde guerre de Macédoine’, RPh 61 (1935) esp. 67-8Google Scholar; Balsdon, J.P.V.D., ‘Rome and Macedon (205-200 BC)’, JRS 44 (1954) 30–42Google Scholar; Briscoe, J., A Commentary on Livy Books xxxi-xxxiii (Oxford 1973) 40 and n. 3, 69Google Scholar; Rich, , ‘Roman Aims’ (n. 1) 150 and 176-7 nn. 209-210Google Scholar; Warrior, , Second Macedonian War (n. 2) 99Google Scholar.

10 Polyb. 16.24.1-4; Holleaux, , Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies hellénistiques (n. 1) 267Google Scholar, followed now by Eckstein, , Rome Enters the Greek East (n. 2) 211Google Scholar.

11 On Ilium, see e.g. Eckstein, , Rome Enters the Greek East (n. 2) 113-4Google Scholar (with many others listed at 114 n. 137); against, e.g., Gruen, , Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy (Leiden 1990) 32-3 and 150Google Scholar.

12 On the date and circumstances, see now Burton, , Friendship and Empire (n. 3) 84-5Google Scholar.

13 Sources and discussion: Gruen, , HWCR (n. 1) 533-4Google Scholar. Philip's attacks on Rhodes and Rhodian interests may be considered provocative too, if a longstanding Roman-Rhodian amicitia already existed, as is likely; references and discussion: Burton, , ‘Clientela or Amicitia? Modeling Roman International Behavior in the Middle Republic (264-146 B.C.)’, Klio 85 (2003) 356-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Philip, of course, claimed that he had been the victim of Rhodian and Pergamene aggression (Liv. 31.18.2; Polyb. 16.34.5 [the Rhodians only]), and the extant record suggests that up until the battle of Chios, when he was confronted with a hostile fleet that included Rhodian and Pergamene ships, the king had carefully limited himself to attacking Ptolemaic interests in Asia Minor (Eckstein, Rome Enters the Greek East [n. 2] 197). For the present purpose, the issue of who attacked whom first matters less than how the Romans saw the situation, and they were obviously convinced of Philip's guilt in attacking Attalus.

14 Liv. 31.1.10; App, . Mac. 4Google Scholar. The authenticity of the Athenian embassy of 201 has been questioned: Gruen, , HWCR (n. 1) 385-6 and n. 157Google Scholar (with earlier scholarship there cited) – unnecessarily, as has been shown by Habicht, , Athens in Hellenistischer Zeit (n. 8) 150-8Google Scholar, and Eckstein, , Rome Enters the Greek East (n. 2) 206-7Google Scholar. There is also no valid reason to conflate the first two Athenian embassies, as Warrior, Second Macedonian War (n. 2) 26 and 97-9.

15 Sources and discussion: Gruen, , HWCR (n. 1) 533 and n. 16Google Scholar.

16 Liv. 31.14.6-10. The Macedonian fleet was probably dispatched to raid the Attic coastline as well, for Polyb. 16.26.9 and Liv. 31.15.5 agree that Rhodes later recaptured and returned to Athens four Athenian warships which had been taken by the Macedonian fleet. We need not doubt that the execution of the two Acarnanians was a sufficient casus belli for Philip; after all, what perplexed Livy was not the insignificance of the casus belli but the disproportionate Athenian response to the profanation, which they knew would attract Philip's hostility (Liv. 31.14.6).

17 This need not imply that the Peace of Phoenice was a formal ‘common peace’ encompassing all the Greek states: Gruen, , HWCR (n. 1) 389-90Google Scholar; against, e.g. Bickerman, , ‘La seconde guerre de Macédoine’ (n. 9) 59–81Google Scholar.

18 According to Polyb. 16.1, Philip thought he was about to finish off Attalus since his operations were now focused on doing battle with the garrison of Pergamum itself and despoiling the shrines and temples in the surrounding countryside.

19 They had, in a pinch, Rhodes as well: above, n. 13.

20 Balsdon, , ‘Rome and Macedon’ (n. 9) 33Google Scholar.

21 Ibid. 39.

22 Warrior, , Second Macedonian War (n. 2) 31Google Scholar, suggests that Livy omitted the Athenian material for literary/artistic reasons.

23 References and critique: Burton, , Friendship and Empire (n. 3) 80Google Scholar.

24 Gruen, , HWCR (n. 1) 54–95Google Scholar; Burton, , Friendship and Empire (n. 3), esp. 161–245Google Scholar, on the nature of beneficia in international amicitia.

25 Balsdon, , ‘Rome and Macedon‘(n. 9) 31Google Scholar.

26 Attalus: above and n. 12; Sparta: a Roman amicus before 205, under the regency of Pelops (Liv. 34.32.1, with Holleaux, , Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies hellénistiques [n. 1] 261 n. 2)Google Scholar; Elis: probably a Roman amicus by the time the Romans protected their territory and used it as a base of operations in 209 (Liv. 27.31.1-3, 32.2-6); Messene: a Macedonian envoy speaking at Aegium in 209 (see below) refers to the Aetolians and their Peloponnesian allies (i.e. Elis, Sparta and Messene) fighting Philip, but no direct Messenian-Roman interaction is attested (Polyb. 10.25.3). Holleaux, loc. cit. 265, believes the Messenians became Roman amici between 212 and 206. Ilium, the other adscriptus on the Roman side, is too controversial to consider here: above, n. 11; but note that adscripti were commonly non-combatants and neutrals as well as belligerents: Bickerman, , ‘La seconde guerre de Macédoine’ (n. 9) 59–68Google Scholar; against, e.g. Dahlheim, , Struktur und Entwicklung (n. 1) 209-20Google Scholar.

27 Zon. 8.19.7; Polyb. 2.12.7-8. Briscoe, , Commentary (n. 9) 69Google Scholar, Rich, , ‘Roman Aims’ (n. 1) 175 n. 187Google Scholar, and Warrior, , Second Macedonian War (n. 2) 99–100Google Scholar, accept the 228 date for the establishment of amicitia; Gruen, , HWCR (n. 1) 56-7 n. 16Google Scholar, and Eckstein, , Rome Enters the Greek East (n. 2) 210Google Scholar, are willing to entertain it as a possibility.

28 Burton, , Friendship and Empire (n. 3) 88–114Google Scholar.

29 If the amicitia between Rome and the Seleucid kingdom dating from between 247 and 226 is genuine, then between two and four decades passed before Roman-Seleucid interaction again occurred (Burton, Friendship and Empire [n. 3] 105-6Google Scholar). If Rome's amicitia with Rhodes began either around 306 or 240 (above, n. 13), then at least four and perhaps as many as ten decades passed before meaningful interaction again took place. Rome's interactions with Ptolemaic Egypt were also few and far between: no more than a few genuine episodes are recorded between 273, the year the Roman-Egyptian friendship was established, and the final decade of the third century, when interaction became more frequent (Gruen, , HWCR [n. 1] 672-8Google Scholar).

30 Polyb. 5.106.6-7. On what follows, see Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony (n. 8) 173-93Google Scholar.

31 Burton, , Friendship and Empire (n. 3) 106Google Scholar.

32 Eckstein, , Rome Enters the Greek East (n. 2) 206Google Scholar.

33 On the specific objections raised in these cases, see Eckstein, , ‘Greek Mediation in the First Macedonian War’, Historia 51 (2002) 268-97Google Scholar and Rome Enters the Greek East (n. 2) 91116. On the conceptual difficulty, see Ager, , ‘Roman Perspectives’ (n. 5) esp. 24Google Scholar: ‘[the Roman concept of iustum bellum] undeniably implies that [divine] judgment… has already taken place before Rome even embarks on war. In some sense, Rome has already been to “arbitration”, for a judgment has been rendered that the enemy is the guilty party. For a mere human to offer his third party diplomatic skills when Rome has already received heaven's judgment on the matter would therefore be at the least superfluous, and might - should the Romans choose to view it this way – be construed as presumptuous and offensive.’

34 See e.g. Eckstein, , ‘Greek Mediation’ (n. 33) 28 n. 54Google Scholar and Rome Enters the Greek East (n. 2) 89-90 and 104-5, and Burton, , Friendship and Empire (n. 3) 84 n. 24Google Scholar, against, e.g. Rich, , ‘Roman Aims’ (n. 1) 126-80Google Scholar.

35 This is not to say that Roman messengers from the fleet deliberately scuttled the negotiations upon their arrival; it was more likely the Aetolians who did that. It is nevertheless clear that this outcome was congenial to Roman interests.

36 Ferguson, W.S., Hellenistic Athens: An Historical Essay (London 1911) 255Google Scholar, followed by Holleaux, , Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies hellénistiques (n. 1) 119 n. 1Google Scholar (who added Chios to these later mediations as well).

37 Habicht, , Athens in Hellenistischer Zeit (n. 8) 136-7Google Scholar, followed by Eckstein, , ‘Greek Mediation’ (n. 33) 281Google Scholar and Rome Enters the Greek East (n. 2) 100 n. 89.