ROME AND THE CONQUEST OF THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN

How to host a Roman orgy.  Knowing the proper etiquette is everything.

On the Roman legion and warfare, try this site.

  1. Introduction
    1. Three decisive victories and wars of short duration characterize the process. Perhaps the Hellenistic monarchs were so passive because they believed that their fortunes would change (for such had been the pattern in the East between Alexander and the arrival of the Romans); that Rome would not prove so tenacious a foe.
    2. Qualities of Warfare: Romans superior in both tactics and strategy.
    3. The propaganda. Propaganda also a constraint: Rome did not want to appear as a barbarian state, but as the "savior" of the Greeks; what she could do was limited by her own perception of her mission and of her virtue:
      1. Rome fought for "the freedom of the Greeks", a specious and over-used pretext by Hellenistic standards and a cover for fear (that another Hannibal/Alexander/Pyrrhus might arise),
      2. desire for booty (but no evidence of commercial goals) and
      3. glory (to ensure political advantage and prestige both at Rome and in East --where history was written!).
    4. The process of involvement
      1. Conscious Roman policy to keep her potential enemies weak; hence, she always acted to de-stabilize powerful neighbors.
      2. The weaker Greek states, as always anxious to remain independent of powerful immediate neighbors, constantly seek Roman support and intervention. Rome actively courted such appeals.
  1. The social and cultural situation in the cities of the Mediterranean...
    1. The classical city-state, leagues and monarchies.
    2. The development of trade and commerce. Despite the uncertain political situation, the general level of prosperity increased.
      1. Release of resources stored by the Persian kings
      2. There were few restrictions on trade and it became extensive.
        1. Increasing diplomatic ties.
        2. Increasing frequency of commercial treaties, representation, monetary pacts, trading privileges, banking, arbitration, marine insurance, mortgaging.
    3. Culture and politics
      1. Physical and intellectual life of the cities.
      2. Spread of Culture.
        1. Wide popularity of Attic drama especially that of the 5th century and of Euripides encouraged development of the koiné,
        2. Increasing movement of philosophers and of sophists.
          1. stress on personal freedom and commercial freedom
          2. humanitarianism
          3. cosmopolitanism
      3. New philosophies: Stoicism especially important, but is more appropriate for a later lecture
      4. Education: A private yet civic responsibility.
      5. The formation of public opinion: historians, rhetoricians, and biographers.
    4. Greek culture was respected as being clearly superior to what the Romans had to offer. Moreover, the Romans were impressed by the historical consciousness of the Greeks; they wanted to be part of that constellation.
  2. Early Contacts
    1. Legend.
    2. Greek states of Italy had certainly heard of Alexander's conquests and had sent ambassadors to him at Babylon (323). Rome must have been aware to events.
    3. War with Pyrrhus a turning point
      1. Pyrrhus represented a Hellenistic threat to Rome and Italy.
      2. Victory had brought Rome into formal alliance with the Greek states of Italy. Rome henceforth a part of Hellenistic world, with contacts and commitments.
    4. The domination of Greek speaking Italy meant that Rome forced to protect trading interests of her subject allies.
    5. The Hellenistic States
  3. The First Macedonian War (214-205)
    1. Roman action against pirates ".
    2. In 214, Rome declares war and sends Valerius Laevinus to Apollonia (in NW Greece). He makes alliances with the smaller Hellenistic states of Aetolia, Rhodes and Pergamon. But, as Rome was fully occupied elsewhere, the war stagnates. In 206, Rome's allies make peace with Philip and Rome follows one year later.
  4. The Second Macedonian War (200-196)
    1. Causes: one of the great issues of modern historiography. Reasons given by ancient (i.e., by pro-Roman) writers are not plausible (Rome's allies had been attacked, but none are mentioned or known). Some factors:
      1. Philip's successes in eastern Mediterranean against smaller states.
      2. A secret alliance with Antiochus to divide Ptolemaic possessions.
      3. Outrage of "respectable" Greek (i.e., Athenian) opinion at Philip's (alleged?) actions and plans.
      4. The unsatisfactory conclusion of First War in which Rome's reputation had been blemished by brutality.
      5. Fear of Philip's growing power ("Hannibal complex") and concern for own reputation. She was willing to assume the prestigious patronage of Greece, a cultural hegemony.
      6. Desire for glory and lust for booty.
    2. Immediate cause was decision to send an "impertinent" ultimatum to Philip to cease and desist from attacking an unspecified Roman ally. Clearly a provocation and understood by Philip as such.
    3. After three years of indecisive campaigning and diplomacy, the decisive battle fought at Cynoscephalae in 197. Flamininus the victor.   On the military aspects, visit this site.
    4. The Settlement
      1. Consistent with Roman policy, Philip was confirmed as king and paid a modest indemnity..
      2. Aetolia, Rome's foremost ally in war, failed to gain the territorial concessions she had sought and expected.
      3. Greece (i.e., the Greek city-states) is "liberated".
  5. Rome and the Hellenistic States of Asia Minor
    1. The War against Antiochus III (the Macedonian king of Greater Syria) and the Aetolians, 192-189.
      1. The Aetolians, angry over the territorial settlement of the First Macedonian War, invite Antiochus to invade and "liberate" Greece --an explicit refutation of Rome's claim.
      2. Antiochus' invasion (really only a raiding party) may have been a counter, designed to gain Roman recognition of Seleucid hegemony in Asia. If so, it failed, for Rome interpreted the attack as the first step in an invasion of Italy.
      3. Battle of Magnesia decides war.
      4. Settlement: Syria reduced to non-entity pays an enormous indemnity, restricted to Syria proper. The big winner in this war was Pergamum which now has control over all of Anatolia; Seleucids too weak to defend eastern frontier, a fact which will bring the Romans in again.
    2. The Third Macedonian War
      1. Perseus comes to throne on death of father.
      2. Perseus, in contrast to earlier policy of Macedonia, now begins to encourage lower classes of Greek city states; Rome is the champion of order and moderate aristocracy (previously supported by the Macedonians!).
      3. Declaring that Perseus had attacked unspecified allies of Rome in the Balkans, Rome demands reparations. Perseus refuses. After three years of indecisive warfare, Aemilus Paullus defeats Perseus at Pydna, 168. The line of the victorious phalanx broke up under own momentum.
      4. Macedonia divided into four republics; too weak for defense of self or of Greece (Note RC 77)
      5. Rome and Rhodes: The latter had been responsible for peace at sea, but unfortunately, had attempted to mediate between Rome and Perseus. This is not something a client does!
    3. The end of independence for the Hellenistic monarchies
      1. Egypt: the constant strife between family members increasing led to an appeal to Rome; but, as Rome decided on the basis of who of the applicants was openly the most "pro-Roman", there could be no enduring solution.
      2. The Fourth Macedonia War = Achaean War, 150-146 B.C.
        1. The republican militias of Macedonia were not effective against the rebel and alleged son of Perseus, Andriscus. Metellus defeats him in 148 and makes Macedonia a province of the Roman people.
        2. After the Third Macedonian War, Greece again reverted to its traditional pattern of intra- and extramural strife.
        3. To discourage trouble, Rome took to Italy one thousand hostages from the best families of Greece.
        4. Roman brutality and insensitivity led to a revolt under the leader- ship of Critolaus of Corinth. Metellus crushed the revolt and destroyed the city of Corinth (one of the two greatest in Greece!).
  6. Why had Rome succeeded? Why had the Greco-Macedonian world fail to defend itself?
    1. On the Greco-Macedonian side, it is apparent that there were sufficient resources in men and material to limit the Roman advance. The failure then was at least in part a political failure
    2. Rome's attitude also played an important role.
    3. Though Rome was inferior to the totality of Hellenistic manpower and weapons, she enjoyed the advantage of a technologically superior "weapons system" and a more flexible mode of fighting..
    4. It took, then, only three decisive battles for Rome to gain effective control over the area. She will not be challenged in the Mediterranean until the 4th century, A.D.
  7. Events in the West, 202-146 B.C.
    1. Problem areas:
      1. Northern Italy, especially the Po Valley.
      2. Liguria (the area around and to the west of Genoa) is now reduced.
      3. Spain: the source of Hannibal's resources in material and manpower; it could not be ignored or left as a power vacuum. There are continuous wars from 215-15 B.C.
    2. Methods of control: based on solutions of an earlier period.
      1. Colonies
      2. Roads