² Hatzopoulos, , Institutions, ii. 34Google Scholar.

³ Not to mention the fact that the stone has been damaged twice since its discovery: cf. id., Organisation, 61.

⁴ Roussel, 46–7.

⁵ Loreto, 351.

⁶ ‘il regolamento andrebbe collocato a prima dei 200 e a dopo il 241’, Loreto, 352.

⁷ Polyb. v. 25. 2. In my opinion, the Budé translation is more accurate than the Loeb at the beginning of the passage: ‘qu'ils risquaient leur vie pour tous’.

⁸ Phld., De Pietate 102, quoted in LSJ, s.v. ἐθίζω, an expression that we also find in an Athenian decree of the 1st c. BC, an ephebic monument (IG ii².1043. l. 30).

⁹ Not 219 as Hatzopoulos, Organisation, 144; see P. Pédech's notice in the Budé edition of Polybius, v, p. 11.

¹⁰ In its legal aspect, but not with regard to the inscription, Cf. Loreto (n. 6).

¹¹ Hatzopoulos, Organisation, 144.

¹² ‘Le marbre porte un certain nombre de trous irréguliers, défauts ou brisures, qui existaient avant qu'on n'eût gravé l'inscription; les lettres se suivent de part et d'autre de cestrous’, Feyel, 30.

¹³ Hatzopoulos, Organisation, 76 n. 8.

¹⁴ Kertész, I., ‘The Roman cohort tactics—problems of development’, Oikumene, 1 (1976), 95Google Scholar. The exact reference is not Plut., Vit. Phil. 9. 2Google Scholar, as given by the author, but 9. 4.

¹⁵ Garlan, Y., La Guerre dans L'antiquité (Paris, 1972), 181–2Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Asclep. 2. 2. Unless otherwise mentioned, I shall use the Loeb translations.

¹⁷ Plut., Vit. Eum 8. 5Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Feyel, 48.

¹⁹ D.S. xix. 22. 1–3.

²⁰ Feyel, 50. Loreto, 339 n. 46 follows the same track, and before either, Lesquier, J., Les Institutions militaires de l'Egypte sous les Lagides (Paris, 1911), 93Google Scholar.

²¹ Cf. Loreto, loc. cit.

²² Ibid.

²³ On the significant activity entailed by the ‘administration’ of the booty, see Loreto, 343–4 who, in n. 83, quoting several Polybian passages, well emphasizes its importance in the campaigns of Philip V.

²⁴ I discovered later that such was the option chosen by R. Flacelière and É. Chambry in their Budé edition of Plut. Eumenes (p. 63) to translate τῶν ἡγεμονικῶν.

²⁵ M. B. Hatzopoulos, Bull. Ep., 1997, 542 no. 370.

²⁶ Side B, 1. 42. Cf. Gauthier, Ph. and Hatzopoulos, M. B., La Loi gymnasiarchique de Béroia (Meletemata, 16; Paris, 1993), 21Google Scholar.

²⁷ Fernández Nieto, 227.

²⁸ See below.

²⁹ Feyel, 56.

³⁰ Ibid., 51.

³¹ Cf. Mommsen, T., The History of Rome (New York, 1895), i, 199–200Google Scholar: ‘whatever the soldier who was fighting in the ranks of the levy gained, whether movable or immovable property, fell not to him, but to the state’. On the vocabulary of booty and foraging, cf. Dain, 347, and more specifically Pritchett, W. K., The Greek State at War, 5 vols. (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1971–91), i. 54–8, v. 73–152Google Scholar.

³² Cf. W. K. Pritchett's chapter, ibid., ‘IV. Legal Ownership of Booty’, 85–92, who concludes ‘our scattered references show that booty was normally considered a collective matter’, 92 (This is true from data mainly relative to the classical period. For Hellenistic times, some Polybian references at 91–2 n. 39).

³³ Loreto, 331–66. I fully subscribe to M. B. Hatzopoulos's positive opinion in Bull. Ep. (1995), 496 no. 430 concerning this article: ‘observations pénétrantes sur le partage du butin et les rapports du roi macédonien et de ses hommes (p. 344)’.

³⁴ Feyel, 30.

³⁵ Loreto, 338.

³⁶ Ibid., 342. Cf. Fernández Nieto, 224: ‘El objeto de esta medida parece, sin duda, obvio: puesto que el botín, (…) pertenece a todo el ejército (…) este debe ser reunido, inventariado y, quizá, vendido o subastado en presencia de todos los jefes, evitando que los διαρπάζοντες lo hagan suyo, oculten una parte e entren en el campamento, y que los objetos no puedan ser recuperados.’

³⁷ Garlan, Y., ‘Cités, armées et stratégies à l'époque hellénistique d'après l'oeuvre de Philon de Byzance’, Historia, 22 (1973), 28Google Scholar.

³⁸ Feyel, 55.

³⁹ Moretti, L., Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche (Biblioteca di studi superiori, 62; Florence, 1975), ii. 110Google Scholar, no. 114, following his restoration ὧς instead of ὡς (ibid., log), adopted by Hatzopoulos, , Institutions, ii. 35Google Scholar and Organisation, 163.

⁴⁰ Loreto, 343.

⁴¹ Ibid., 360 n. 74. There is a misprint in the text in one of the given references: not Polyb. v. 16. 54 but Polyb. v. 16. 5.

⁴² One characteristic passage in Livy: ‘Primum diem quo fines hostium ingressi sunt populando absumpserunt; postero die acie instructa ad urbem accesserunt etc.’, ‘The first day on which they [Philip V and the Achaians] entered the territory of the enemy they spent in devastation. On the next day, drawing up a battle-line, they approached the city etc.’, Livy xxvii. 32. 1.

⁴³ ‘le produit du butin étant destiné pour une part à être distribué entre les soldats’, Feyel, 56.

⁴⁴ Hatzopoulos, , Organisation, 78, 144Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ e.g. Ο δἐ βασιλεὺς(. . .) τοῖς μἑν ἐπὶ τῆς τῶν λαφύρων οἰκονομίας τεταγμένοις περὶ ταῦτα συνέταξε γινομἑνοις μἡ καθυστερεῖν, ‘The king [Philip V, in 218 BC] (…) ordered those who were charged with the disposal of the booty to dispatch this business’, Polyb. v. 16. 5, or again ἀφικὁμενος δ᾿ εἰς Τέγεαν καὶ λαφυροπωλήσας πᾶσαν τὴν λείαν, ‘Reaching Tegea he [still Philip y at the same period] there held a sale of all his booty’, v. 24. 10.

⁴⁶ Ducrey 236.

⁴⁷ Faraguna's, M. article ‘Aspetti amministrativi e finanziari della monarchia macedone fra IV e III sec. a.C.’, Athenaeum, 86 (1998), 349–96Google Scholar, esp. part 6, on booty, 379–86, establishes this beyond any doubt for Alexander the Great, and comes to the same conclusion for the Antigonids in general and Philip V in particular (cf. 385–6). The author stresses the royal authority, which sometimes could simply be the king's goodwill; this may explain the various practices (cf. Polyb. iv. 80. 16, cited below). Persepolis, given over to plunder (the palaces excepted) by Alexander to his soldiers (Diod. xvii. 70. 2–6), is a famous example. In fact, at all periods, sovereigns could simply decide to hand over a town and its riches to the soldiery.

Apart from the references employed by Faraguna, there is another passage in Polybius which can be adduced for the times of the Antigonids: καὶ προελθὠν εἰς τὴν ᾿ Ηλείαν τἀς μέν προνομὰς ὲπαφῆκε κατἀ τῆς χώρας αὐτὸς δὲ καταεστρατοπέδευσε περί τὁ καλούμενον ᾿ Αρτεμίσιον. Προσδεξάμενος δ᾿ σ`νταῦθα τὴν λεἰαν, ‘Advancing into Elis he [Philip V] sent out foraging parties to scour the country, and himself encamped at the place called Artemisium, where he waited for the booty’, Polyb. iv. 73. 4–5.

⁴⁸ ‘Ο δε φἰλιππος ἐκ τῆς ᾿Ολυμπίας ἀναζεύξας τὴν ἐπί Φαραἰαν παρῆν εἰς Τέλφουσαν κἀκεῖθεν εἰς ᾿Ηραίαν. Καἰ τἠν μἐν λείαν ἐλαφυροπὡλει, ‘Setting out from Olympia by the road leading to Pharea, Philip reached first Telphusa and thence Heraea. Here he held a sale of the booty’ Polyb. iv. 77.5. Let us quote finally Onasander who prescribed that the general in chief himself had to sell the proceeds of the booty: ταῦτα δἐ πιπρἁσκειν τὀν στρατηγὁν, ‘these [the plundering and particularly the prisoners] should be sold by the general’, Onos. 35.1.2,

⁴⁹ Roussel, 46. However he also envisaged ‘la répartition en parts’, an idea that we cannot follow (see below). Cf. ‘[τ]ἁ μἐ[ρ]η [τ]ῶν χ[ρ]ημἀτων’ in SIG¹ 364 B 1 (Ephesus, iii B.C.); LSJ, s.v. χρῆμα: ‘in later Prose Fund, some of money, Arch. F. Religionswiss. 10.211 (Cos, ii B.C.)’.

⁵⁰ Loreto, 364 n. 121.

⁵¹ Polyb. iv. 80. 16.

⁵² Cf. Hom. Il., for instance in ix. 130.

⁵³ Launey, M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques (reprint with addenda and update, in a postscript by Garlan, Y., Gauthier, Ph., Orrieux, Cl.; Paris, 1987), 749Google Scholar, n. 3. But the event is located ‘lors des désordres qui ont suivi la mort d'Évergète II’, so that it is perhaps not absolutely indicative of the royal system.

⁵⁴ Philon of Byzantium, Μηχανικἠ σύνταξις, v. D. 89.

⁵⁵ Cf. LSJ, s.v. διανέμω.

⁵⁶ Ibid., sense II.

⁵⁷ Hatzopoulos, Organisation, 78.

⁵⁸ Plut., Vit. Eum. 8.5Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Livy, xlv. 34.6. – in 167 BC, after Aemilius' plundering of Epirus. It is implicitely the method alluded to after L. Anicius' triumph over King Gentius the same year (Livy, ibid. 43. 7–8).

⁶⁰ Dain, 348.

⁶¹ On the difficulties consequent upon the distribution in kind, see particularly Ducrey 233–4, ‘La répartition’, where some examples are given.

⁶² Cf. our text, ll. 9–13.

⁶³ Cf. Ducrey, who stales (n. 4), 231: ‘Bien que ce dernier point ne soit pas explicitement mentionné, on peut supposer qu'il devait en être ainsi’; I fully agree. But obviously, it is only the first stage of the operation regarding the management of the booty and, as Jackson, A. H. remarked in his article, ‘Some recent works on the treatment of prisoners of war’, Talanta, 2 (1970), 37–53Google Scholar ‘on sharing between troops and state, he [Ducrey] says little’ (45).

⁶⁴ Same responsibility bearing on the highest ranking garrison officers in the regulation of Chalcis where ‘(…) trata de evitar cualquier entente de los frurarcos con los ecónomos para defraudar a la intendencia real’, Fernández Nieto, 232, who compares the two inscriptions, 230.

⁶⁵ On the subject of ἀποστέλλω in this context, Professor Henry has drawn my attention to the nuance of restitution, or return to the rightful owner (the King of Macedonia), of all objects of booty, a nuance which ἀποστέλλω could contain here. Although I have been unable to find such a sense in similar contexts, it is none the less true that this is indeed what is implied by the regulation, in actual fact and without spelling it out, for the context and the reality of the phenomenon probably made the implication obvious for all the Macedonian soldiers who had the knowledge of the regulation.

⁶⁶ A simple research on PHI Documentary CD #7—the computerised Corpus of the Greek inscriptions, compiled by The Greek Epigraphy Project at Cornell University (Ithaca, NY), and of papyri compiled by The Duke Data Bank of Documentary Papyri (DDBDP), under the direction of J. F. Oates (Duke University)—has yielded only about a dozen occurrences, without distinction of period.

⁶⁷ One single occurrence of στέλλω in ii. ig. 12 (sending out a Roman colony to a Gallic territory); στειλάμενοι and οτείλασθαι appearing again in the Fragmenta ex incertis libris, 220.

⁶⁸ By far the commonest form e.g. in the Zenon papyri (mid. 3rd c. BC). Likewise in the Hellenistic documents of the series P.Col., P.Mich., P.Petr., P.Hib., P.Enteux., PErasm., PSI, P.Zen.Pestm., PTebt., UPZ, of the middle and of the end of the 3rd c. BC respectively (P.CoL, P.Mich., PSI, P.Petr. and P.Hib. P.Zen.Pestm., P.Tebt.—with some documents of the 2nd c. in this last series), and of the middle of the 2nd c. B C (UPZ).

Epigraphically, note the use of this verb e.g. in the Hellenistic inscription of Pagai in the Megarid concerning a territorial arbitration, published afresh by Robert, L., ‘Hellenica’, RPh 65 (1939), 97–217Google Scholar, esp. 97–122. Here we find ἀποστέλλω) used twice (ll. 8 and 35) with regard to the dispatching of judges, a verb that Robert restored at many other places in the same inscription (ll. 7, 12, 23, 25; cf. 102–3). It niay be noted in passing that we dated the inscription ‘après 192’, 119; in a decree of Colophon, here again about dispatching a judge, IG xii². 509. 6 (id., ‘Notes d'épigraphie hellénistique’, BCH 50 (1926), 469–70; I. Konti, ‘Παρατηρἡσεις εἰς ἐπιγραφἀς τῆς Λέσβου’, Arch. Eph. (1936), 55–60); for the sending of an embassy in a decree of Byzantium (Robert, ‘Notes’, 471), as well at 1. 10 of the famous decree of Pharos (Robert, , ‘Inscriptions hellénistiques de Dalmatie’, BCH 59 (1935), 489–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Coppola, A., Demetrio di Faro, un protagonista dimenticato (Problemi e Ricerche di Storia Antica, 15; Rome, 1993), 100–16)Google Scholar; with respect to the sending of emissaries and here also judges in decrees of the Magnesians and the Demetrians in an inscription found at Kleitor (Robert, ‘Inscriptions’, 482–7); of judges still in a decree of Messene (ibid., 487–92); in a decree of Andros, regarding ‘prescriptions sur l'envoi d'une copie du décret dans la patrie du personnage honoré’ (ibid., 493 n. 5, with reference to a series of decrees of Tenos mentioning the same practice); finally, the most interesting examples are to be found in a military context: 1) a probable dispatching of Cretan auxiliaries from the city of Gortyn to Demetrius II in 237 BC. See Halbherr, F., AJA 1 (1897), 188Google Scholar n. 17 for the editio priaceps, and esp. I. Cret. iv 167. 18 with the highly likely restoration [ἀποσ]τέλλειν, confirmed by three inscriptions indicating the dispatching of Cretan soldiers from the cities of Eleuthcrna and Hierapytna to Antigonos Doson and Rhodes, where we find the form ἀποστελοῦσιν. Cf. Launey (n. 53), 754–5. 2) mention of a dispatching of soldiers, stonethrowers and ammunition in the decree honouring Epinikos, governor of Maroneia (3rd c. BC), 1.20. Cf. Bakalakis, G. and Scranton, R. L., ‘An Inscription From Samothrace’, AJP 60 (1939), 452–8Google Scholar for the editio princeps and lastly Gauthier, Ph., ‘ΕΞΑΓΩΓΗ ΣΙΤΟΥ: Samothrace, Hippomédon et les Lagides’, Historia 28 (1979), 76–89Google Scholar for all the bibliography to date. These examples show, in the inscriptions as in the literary texts, a general and very varied use of ἀποστέλλω in the Hellenistic period.

⁶⁹ Ehrenberg, 161.

⁷⁰ Ibid., 162; for the evidence see 161–2.

⁷¹ Ibid., 162.

⁷² Ibid.

⁷³ Cf. M. B. Hatzopoulos, ‘L'etat macédonien antique’, CRAI 1997, 7–25, summarized at 7–11.

⁷⁴ Same severity with his officers in the military diagramma from Chalkis and Kynos (ll. 38–47): ‘Oeconomi who permit the storehouses to get into bad repair or who, intentionally or not, permit the stores to be dissipated, are to be reported to the king by the phrourarchs and sent him for punishment, while the phrourarehs are themselves bound to this task by the threat of a heavy fine’, Welles, C. B., ‘New texts from the chancery of Philip V of Macedonia and the problem of the “Diagramma”’, AJA 42 (1938), 254CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁵ Hatzopoulos, , Institutions, i. 433Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Suda, ed. Adler, A., i (Leipzig, 1928), 458Google Scholar β. 148.

⁷⁷ ‘Idealization might even end in a complete reversal of the real facts, when kingship “as defined as the possession of the community, not public property as the possession of the king” (Suda, ß. 148)’, Ehrenberg, 178.

⁷⁸ P. Zancan, Il monarcho ellenistico nei suoi elementi federativi (Padoue, 1934), 149 (in italics in the original text).

⁷⁹ Plut., Vit. Dem 44.7. 11Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Cf. Plut., Vit. Pyrrh. 26.5.9Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Livy, xlii. 53.1.

⁸² Hatzopoulos (n. 73). Some section headings are selfexplanatory: ‘Un royaume reconnaissant l'autorité civique’ (17–21); ‘Pouvoir central et pouvoirs locaux’ (23–4); ‘Un état duel: le roi et l'ethnos’ (24–5).

⁸³ Ibid.: ‘Le code mihtaire de l'armée en campagne et des garnisons est élaboré et promulgué sans aucune référence aux pouvoirs locaux. Le rapport entre le roi et les Macédoniens sous les armes est direct. De mêrae, c'est souverainement que le roi fixe la tenue du corps aulique des veneurs royaux, comme nous le révèlent un texte étonnant de la résidence royale de Démétrias.’

⁸⁴ Arr., Anab. vii. 9. 9Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Ibid. vii. 9. 6.

⁸⁶ Tréheux, J., ‘Koinon’, REA 89 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 46, 46. An exception, however, is the three classes of bronze coins issued by the Macedonians during the reign of Philip V. Cf. Hammond, N. G. L. and Walbank, F. W., A History of Macedonia, iii 336–167, BC (Oxford, 1988), 464–8Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ Reinach, A. J., ‘Delphes et les Bastarnes’, BCH 34 (1910), 289CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See Livy, xliv. 26; 27. 1; Diod. xxx. 19; Plut., Vit. Aem. 12. 6Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ On the importance of the economic reasons as motives for ancient wars, see especially Austin's, M. M. article, ‘Hellenistic kings, war and the economy’, CQ n.s. 46 (1986), 450–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁹ Plut., Vit. Aem. 28. 6Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Cf. Livy, xxxix. 24. 2: ‘Vectigalia regni non fructibus tantum agrorum portoriisque maritimis auxit sed metalla etiam et vetera intermissa recoluit et nova multis locis instituit,’ ‘He not only increased the revenues of his kingdom from the farm crops and the harbour duties, but also reopened old mines long disused and began operations on new ones in many places.’

⁹¹ Diod. xvi. 8. 6. On Macedonian finances during the Hellenistic period, see Hatzopoulos, , Institutions, i. 431–42Google Scholar, with the reservation expressed above.

⁹² See n. 83. On precious metals see A. S. Georgiadas, ‘Χρισεὶα-᾿Αργυρεῖα κλπ.Μεταλλεῖα έν Μακεδονίᾳ ᾿Ηπείρω καἰ ταῖς νἡσοις ύπὁ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἐλμεταλλευθέντα’, Arch. Eph. 1915, 88–93; Arvanitopoulis, A. S., ‘Περί τοῦ χρυσοῦ τῆς Μακεδονίας’, Pol. 5 (1952–1955), 83–119Google Scholar. Keramičfiev, A., ‘The origins of mining and metallurgy in antique Macedonia [in Macedonian; abstract in English]’, Macedoniae Ada Arckaeofogica, 3 (1977), 103–15Google Scholar. On non-precious metals see Samsaris, D. C., ‘Les mines et la métallurgie de fer et de cuivre dans la province romaine de Macédoine’, Klio, 69 (1987), 153CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹³ Mathiesen, R. W., ‘Antigonus Gonatas and the silver coinage of Macedonia circa 280–270 BC’, ANSMusN 26 (1981), 115Google Scholar, citing Plut., Vit. Aem. 28. 3Google Scholar; Livy xlv. 18. 2g, and Tarn, W. W., Antigonos Gonatas (Oxford, 1913), 187–8Google Scholar; Mathiesen estimated that the Antigonids had already benefited from identical revenues during the 3rd c. BC: ‘If the increased exploitation at this time [that of Perseus] approximatively compensated for the playing out of older deposits, then this figure can be adopted, provisionally, as similar to the output a century earlier’ (115–16).

⁹⁴ Cf. Ducrey, 252. On the benefits in cash derived from the capture of cities, see the table given by Pritchett, The Greek State at War (n. 31), v. 75–6.

⁹⁵ Arr., Anab. vii. 9. 6Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Cf. Polyb. x. 17. 1.

⁹⁷ And before him by Edson (Hatzopoulos, Organisation, 163).

⁹⁸ Cf. Polyb. iv. 10. 5, τῇ τῆς λείας ἐξαποοτολῇ ‘the shipment of booty’.