Chapter XVIII: Part III: , European Nations; of which only 1 volume, Greeks, has (10)

4. Cassander being now master, and, from 302, king of Macedonia, confirmed his dominion by a marriage with Thessalonice, half-sister to Alexander, and at the same time endeavoured to corroborate as far as possible his authority in Greece. Polysperchon and his son Alexander, it is true, still made head in Peloponnesus; but the states without the peninsula, Aetolia excepted, were all either allies of Cassander, or occupied by Macedonian troops. After the defeat of the league against Antigonus, in which Cassander had borne a part, general peace was concluded, with the proviso, that the Grecian cities should be free, and that the young Alexander, when of age, should be raised to the throne of Macedonia: this induced Cassander to rid himself both of the young prince and his mother Roxana by murder: but he thereby exposed himself to an attack from Polysperchon, who, availing himself of the discontent of the Macedonians, brought back Hercules, the only remaining illegitimate son of Alexander. Cassander diverted the storm by a new crime, instigating Polysperchon to murder the young Hercules, under promise of sharing the government: Polysperchon, however, unable to possess himself of the Peloponnesus which had been promised him, appears to have preserved but little influence. Cassander met likewise with formidable opponents in the persons of Antigonus and his son; and although delivered by the breaking out of the war with Ptolemy from the danger of the first invasion of Greece by Demetrius, his situation was more embarrassing at the second irruption; from which, however, he was extricated by the circumstance of Antigonus being obliged to recall his son, on account of the newly formed league (see above, p. 230).

Antigonus, on his return from Upper Asia, declares loudly against
Cassander, B. C. 314; despatches his general Aristodemus to
Peloponnesus, and frames a league with Polysperchon and his son
Alexander; the latter, however, Cassander succeeds in winning over
by a promise of the command in Peloponnesus. Alexander was soon
after murdered, but his wife Cratesipolis succeeded him, and
commanded with the spirit of a man. Meanwhile, Cassander carried
war against the Aetolians, who sided with Antigonus, 313; but
Antigonus, 312, having sent his general Ptolemy into Greece with a
fleet and army, Cassander lost his supremacy. In the peace of 311,
the freedom of all the Grecian cities was stipulated; but this
very condition became the pretext of various and permanent feuds;
and Cassander having murdered the young king, together with his
mother, drew upon himself the arms of Polysperchon, who wished to
place Hercules on the throne, 310; but the pretender was removed
in the manner above described, 309.--Cassander now endeavouring to
reestablish his power over Greece, Demetrius Poliorcetes was by
his father sent into that country in order to anticipate Ptolemy
of Egypt, in the enforcement of the decree for the freedom of the
Greeks, 308; the result at Athens was the restoration of
democracy, and the expulsion of Demetrius Phalereus.--From any
further attack of Demetrius, Cassander was delivered by the war
which broke out between Antigonus and Ptolemy, (see above, p.
229.) and had the leisure, once more, to strengthen his power in
Greece, until 302, when Demetrius arrived a second time, and, as
generalissimo of liberated Greece, pressed forward to the borders
of Macedonia; Demetrius was, however, recalled by his father into
Asia, and at the battle of Ipsus, 301, lost all his dominions in
that quarter of the world. Yet although Athens closed her harbours
against him, he still maintained his possessions in Peloponnesus,
and even endeavoured to extend them; from thence, in 297, he
sallied forth, and once more took possession of his beloved
Athens, and after driving out the usurper Lachares, forgave her
ingratitude.

5. Cassander survived the establishment of his throne by the battle of Ipsus only three years: and bequeathed Macedonia as an inheritance to his three sons, the eldest of whom, Philip, shortly after followed his father to the grave.

6. The two remaining sons, Antipater and Alexander, soon worked their own destruction. Antipater having murdered his own mother Thessalonice, on account of the favour she showed his brother, was obliged to flee; he applied for help to his father-in-law Lysimachus of Thrace, where he soon after died. Meanwhile Alexander, fancying that he likewise stood in need of foreign assistance, addressed himself to Pyrrhus, king of Macedonia, and to Demetrius Poliorcetes, both of whom obeyed the call only with the expectation of being paid. After various snares reciprocally laid for each other, the king of Macedonia was murdered by Demetrius, and with him the race of Antipater became extinct.

7. The army proclaimed Demetrius king; and in his person the house of Antigonus ascended the throne of Macedonia, and, after many vicissitudes, established their power. His seven years' reign, in which one project succeeded the other, was a constant series of wars; and as he never could learn how to bear with good fortune, his ambition was at last his ruin.

The kingdom of Demetrius comprised Macedonia, Thessaly, and the
greatest part of the Peloponnesus; he was also master of Megara
and Athens.--Twofold capture of Thebes, which had been rebuilt by
Cassander, 293, and 291; unsuccessful attempt upon Thrace, 292.
His war with Pyrrhus, 290, in whom men fancied they beheld another
Alexander, had already alienated the affections of the
Macedonians; but his grand project for the recovery of Asia
induced his enemies to get the start of him; and the hatred of his
subjects compelled him secretly to escape to Peloponnesus, to his
son Antigonus, 287. Athens, taking advantage of his misfortunes,
drove out the Macedonian garrison, and, by the election of
archons, reestablished her ancient constitution; although
Demetrius laid siege to the town, he allowed himself to be
pacified by Crates. Having once more attempted to prosecute his
plans against Asia, he was obliged, 286, to surrender to Seleucus
his father-in-law, who, out of charity, kept him till the day of
his death, 284.

8. Two claimants to the vacant throne now arose, viz. Pyrrhus of Epirus and Lysimachus of Thrace; but although Pyrrhus was first proclaimed king, with the cession of half the dominions, he could not, being a foreigner, support his power any longer than the year 286, when he was deposed by Lysimachus.

The sovereigns of Epirus, belonging to the family of the Aeacidae,
were properly kings of the Molossi. See above, p. 150. They did
not become lords of all Epirus, nor consequently of any historical
importance, until the time of the Peloponnesian war. After that
period Epirus was governed by Alcetas I. about 384, who pretended
to be the sixteenth descendant from Pyrrhus, the son of Achilles;
Neoptolemus, father to Olympias, by whose marriage with Philip,
358, the kings of Epirus became intimately connected with
Macedonia, _d._ 352; Arymbas, his brother, _d._ 342; Alexander I.
son of Neoptolemus, and brother-in-law to Alexander the Great; he
was ambitious to be as great a conqueror in the west as his
kinsman was in the east, but he fell in Lucania, 332. Aeacides, son
of Arymbas, _d._ 312. Pyrrhus II. his son, the Ajax of his time,
and, we might almost say, rather an adventurer than a king. After
uninterrupted wars waged in Macedonia, Greece, Italy, and Sicily,
he fell at last at the storming of Argos, 272. He was followed by
his son Alexander II. in the person of whose successor, Pyrrhus
III. 219, the male line became extinct. Although the daughter of
this last prince, Deidamia, succeeded to the throne, the Epirots
were not long before they established a democratic government,
which endured till such time as they were, together with Macedonia
and the rest of Greece, brought under the Roman yoke, 146.

9. In consequence of the accession of Lysimachus, Thrace, and for a short time even Asia Minor, were annexed to the Macedonian kingdom. But rankling hatred and family relations soon afterwards involved Lysimachus in a war with Seleucus Nicator, in which, at battle of Curopedion, he lost both his throne and his life.

Execution of the gallant Agathocles, eldest son of Lysimachus, at
the instigation of his step-mother Arsinoe: his widow Lysandra and
her brother Ptolemy Ceraunus, who had already been driven out of
Egypt by his step-mother Berenice, go over, followed by a large
party, to Seleucus, whom they excite to war.

10. The victorious Seleucus, already lord of Asia, now causing himself to be proclaimed likewise king of Macedonia, it seemed as if that country was again about to become the head seat of the whole monarchy. But shortly after he had crossed over into Europe, Seleucus fell by the murderous hand of Ptolemy Ceraunus, who, availing himself of the treasures of his victim, and of the yet remaining troops of Lysimachus, took possession of the throne; by another act of treachery he avenged himself of Arsinoe, his half-sister; but just as he conceived himself securely established, he lost both his crown and his life by the irruption of the Gauls into Macedonia.

The irruption of the Gauls, threatening desolation not only to
Macedonia but to the whole of Greece, took place in three
successive expeditions. The first under Cambaules, (probably 280,)
advanced no further than Thrace, the invaders not being
sufficiently numerous. The second in three bodies; against Thrace
under Ceretrius; against Paeonia under Brennus and Acichorius;
against Macedonia and Illyria under Belgius, 279. By the
last-mentioned chieftain Ptolemy was defeated; he fell in the
contest. In consequence, Meleager first, and Antipater
subsequently, were appointed kings of Macedonia; but both, on
account of incapacity, being soon afterwards deposed, a Macedonian
noble, Sosthenes, assumed the command, and this time liberated his
country. But the year 278 brought with it the main storm, which
spent its fury principally on Greece: Sosthenes was defeated and
slain: and although the Greeks brought all their united forces
into the field, Brennus and Acichorius burst into Greece on two
different sides, and pushed on to Delphi, the object of their
expedition; from hence, however, they were compelled to retreat;
and most of them were cut off by hunger, cold, or the sword.
Nevertheless a portion of those barbarians stood their ground in
the interior of Thrace, which, consequently, was for the most part
lost to Macedonia: another portion, consisting of various hordes,
the Tectosagae, Tolistobii, and Trocmi, crossed over to Asia Minor,
where they established themselves in the country called after them
Galatia (see above, p. 236). Although there can be no doubt that
the Tectosagae must have come from the innermost parts of Gaul, the
mode of attack demonstrates that the main tide of invaders
consisted of the neighbouring races; and, in fact, in those days
the countries from the Danube to the Mediterranean and Adriatic
were mostly occupied by Gauls.--Greece, though she strained every
nerve, and with the exception of Peloponnesus, was united in one
league, could scarcely bring forward more than 20,000 men to stem
the torrent.

11. Antigonus of Gonni, son to Demetrius, now seated himself on the vacant throne of desolated Macedon; he bought off his competitor, Antiochus I. named Soter, by treaty and marriage. Successfully as he opposed the new irruption of the Gauls, he was dethroned by Pyrrhus, who, on his return from Italy, was a second time proclaimed king of Macedonia. That prince, however, having formed the design of conquering the Peloponnesus, and, after an ineffectual attack on Sparta, which was repelled with heroic gallantry, wishing to take possession of Argos, fell at the storming of the latter place.

Extraordinary as these frequent revolutions appear, they may be
easily accounted for by the mode of warfare in those days. Every
thing depended on the armies; and these were composed of
mercenaries, ever willing to fight against him they had defended
the day before, if they fancied his rival to be a more valiant or
fortunate leader. Since the death of Alexander, the Macedonian
phalanx was no longer dependent on its captains, but they on their
men. The impoverishment of the countries, in consequence of war,
was such, that the soldier's was almost the only profitable trade;
and none prosecuted that trade more ardently than the Gauls, whose
services were ever ready for any one who chose to pay for them.

12. After the death of Pyrrhus, Antigonus Gonnatas recovered the Macedonian throne, of which he and his descendants kept uninterrupted possession, yet not till after a violent contest with Alexander, the son and successor of Pyrrhus. But no sooner were they secure from foreign rivals, than the Macedonian policy was again directed against Greece, and the capture of Corinth seemed to insure the dependence of the whole country, when the formation of the Aetolian, and the yet more important Achaean, league, gave rise to relations entirely new, and of the highest interest, even for the universal history of the world. After so many storms, the sun of Greece was about to set in all his splendour!

The ancient confederacy of the twelve Achaean cities (see above, p.
145.) had subsisted until the death of Alexander, but was
dissolved in the subsequent commotions; particularly when, after
the battle of Ipsus, 301, Demetrius and his son made Peloponnesus
the principal seat of their power. Some of these cities were now
garrisoned by those princes, while in others arose tyrants,
generally favourable to their interests. In 281, four asserted
their freedom and renewed the ancient federation; which, five
years afterwards, was gradually joined by the rest, Antigonus
being busied elsewhere, in consequence of his occupation of the
Macedonian throne. But the league did not become formidable till
the accession of foreign states. This took place, in the first
instance, with Sicyon, through the exertions of the liberator of
that town, Aratus, who now became the animating spirit of the
federation; and in 243 brought over Corinth, after the expulsion
of the Macedonian garrison, and Megara. Afterwards the league
gradually acquired strength, by the junction of several Grecian
cities, Athens among others, 229; and thereby excited the jealousy
of the rest. And as Aratus, who was more of a statesman than a
general, and possessed but little independence, had in the very
outset joined the party of Ptolemy II. the league soon became
involved in the disputes of the great powers, and was too often
but a mere tool in their hands. The main principles on which it
was founded were the following: 1. Complete political equality of
all the federate cities; in this respect it essentially differed
from all the earlier federations in Greece. 2. Unconditional
preservation of the domestic government in every one of the
cities. 3. The meeting twice a year of deputies from all the
cities, at Aegium, and afterwards at Corinth; for transacting all
business of common interest, particularly foreign affairs, and
also for the purpose of electing the strategus, or military leader
and head of the union, and the ten demiurgi, or supreme
magistrates.--But what more than all contributed to exalt this
league, founded on pure liberty, was the virtue of Aratus, 213,
Philopoemen, 183, and Lycortas, 170; men who breathed into it the
spirit of union, until, enfeebled by Roman policy, it was
overthrown.

# BREITENBAUCH, _History of the Achaeans and their league_, 1782.

The Aetolian league was formed about 284, in consequence of the
oppressions of the Macedonian kings. The Aetolians had likewise a
yearly congress, panaetolium, at Thermus; where they chose a
strategus and the apocleti, who constituted the state council.
They had, besides, their secretary, [Greek: grammateus]; and
supervisors, [Greek: ephoroi], whose particular functions are,
however, matter of doubt. This federation did not increase like
the Achaean, none but Aetolians being admitted. The more unpolished
this piratical nation remained, the more frequently it was used as
the tool of foreign, and particularly of Roman, policy.

13. Antigonus, in the latter part of his reign, had recourse to various means, and more especially to an alliance with the Aetolians, for the purpose of counterpoising the Achaeans. He died in his eightieth year, and was succeeded by his son, Demetrius II. who waged war upon the Aetolians, now, however, supported by the Achaeans; and endeavoured to repress the growth of the latter, by favouring the tyrants of particular cities. The remainder of the reign of this prince is little more than a chasm in history.

The vulgar assertion that this prince conquered Cyrene and Libya,
originates in a confusion of names; his uncle Demetrius, son of
Poliorcetes of Ptolemais, being mentioned by Plutarch as king of
Cyrene. The history of that town, from 258 to 142, is enveloped in
almost total darkness: cf. Prolog. Trogi, l. xxvi. ad calcem
Justini.

14. Demetrius's son Philip was passed over; his brother's son, Antigonus II. surnamed Doson, being raised to the throne. This king was occupied the most of his time by the events in Greece, where a very remarkable revolution at Sparta, as we learn from Plutarch, had raised up a formidable enemy against the Achaeans; and so completely altered the relative position of affairs, that the Macedonians, from having been opponents, became allies of the Achaeans.

Sketch of the situation of Spartan affairs at this period: the
ancient constitution still continued to exist in form; but the
plunder of foreign countries, and particularly the permission to
transfer landed estates, obtained by Epitadeus, had produced great
inequality of property. The restoration of Lycurgus's constitution
had, therefore, a twofold object; to favour the poor by a new
agrarian law and release from debts, and to increase the power of
the kings by repressing that of the ephori.--First attempt at
reform 244, by king Agis III; attended in the beginning with
partial success, but eventually frustrated by the other king,
Leonidas, and terminating in the extinction of Agis and his
family, 241. Leonidas, however, was succeeded, 236, by his son
Cleomenes, who victoriously defeated the plans of Aratus to force
Sparta to accede to the Achaean league, 227; this king, by a
forcible revolution, overthrew the ephori, and accomplished the
project of Agis, at the same time increasing the Spartans by the
admission of a number of periaeci; and enforcing the laws of
Lycurgus referring to private life; but as in a small republic a
revolution cannot be confirmed without some external war, he
attacked the Achaeans as early as 224; these being defeated,
implored, through Aratus, the help of Antigonus; Cleomenes in
consequence was, at the battle of Sellasia, 222, obliged to yield
to superior force, and with difficulty escaped over to Egypt;
while Sparta was compelled to acknowledge her independence as a
gift at the hands of Antigonus. Such was the miserable success of
this attempt made by a few great men on a nation already
degenerate. The quarrels between the ephori and king Lycurgus and
his successor Machanidas, placed Sparta in a state of anarchy,
which ended, 207, in the usurpation of the sovereign power by one
Nabis, who destroyed the ancient form of government. Let him who
would study great revolutions commence with that just described;
insignificant as it is, none perhaps furnishes more instructive
lessons.

PLUTARCHI _Agis et Cleomenes_. The information in which is
principally drawn from the Commentaries of Aratus.

15. Philip II. son of Demetrius. He ascended the throne at the early age of sixteen, endowed with many qualities, such as might, under favourable circumstances, have formed a great prince. Macedonia had recruited her strength during a long peace; and her grand political aim, the supremacy of Greece, secured by the connection of Antigonus with the Achaeans, and by the victory of Sellasia, seemed to be already within her grasp. But Philip lived in a time when Rome was pursuing her formidable plans of aggrandizement: the more vigorous and prompt his efforts were to withstand that power, the more deeply was he entangled in the new maze of events, which embittered the rest of his life, and at last brought him to the grave with a broken heart, converted by misfortune into a despot.

16. The first five years of Philip were occupied by his participation in the war between the Achaeans and Aetolians, called the war of the two leagues; notwithstanding the treachery of his minister Apellas and his dependents, the prince was enabled to dictate the conditions of peace, according to which both parties were to remain in possession of what they then had. The conclusion of this peace was hastened by the news of Hannibal's victory at Thrasymenus, Philip being then instigated to form more extensive projects by Demetrius of Pharus, who had fled before the Romans, and soon acquired unlimited influence with the Macedonian king.

The war of the two leagues arose out of the piracies of the
Aetolians on the Messenians, the latter of whom the Achaeans
undertook to protect, 221. The errors committed by Aratus
compelled the Achaeans to have recourse to Philip, 220; whose
progress, however, was for a long time impeded by the artifices of
Apellas's faction, who wished to overthrow Aratus. The
Acarnanians, Epirots, Messenians, and Scerdilaidas of Illyria,
(who, however, soon after declared against Macedonia,) combined
with Philip and the Achaeans; the Aetolians, on the other hand,
commanded by their own general, Scopas, had for their allies the
Spartans and Eleans.--The most important consequence of this war
for Macedonia was, that she began again to be a naval
power.--About the same time a war broke out between the two
trading republics of Byzantium and Rhodes (the latter supported by
Prusias I. of Bithynia) insignificant in itself, but which, as a
commercial war, originating in the duties imposed by the
Byzantines, was the only one of its kind in this age, 222. The
Rhodians, so powerful in those days by sea, compelled their
adversaries to submit.

17. The negotiations between Philip and Hannibal concluded with an alliance, in which reciprocal help was promised towards annihilating Rome. But Rome contrived to excite so many foes against Philip on the borders of his own kingdom, and availed herself so skilfully of her naval power, that the execution of this plan was prevented until it became possible to attack the Macedonian king in Greece; where he had made himself many enemies, by the domineering tone he had assumed towards his allies at the time that, sensible of his power, he was about to enter upon a wider sphere of action.

Commencement of hostilities by Rome, against Philip: immediately
that the alliance of Philip and Hannibal was known, a squadron
with troops on board was stationed off the coast of Macedonia, by
which the king himself was defeated at Apollonia, 214.--Alliance
of Rome with the Aetolians, joined likewise by Sparta and Elis,
Attalus king of Pergamus, and Scerdilaidas and Pleuratus, kings of
Illyria, 211. On Philip's side were the Achaeans, with whom
Philopoemen more than supplied the loss of Aratus, occasioned,
213, by the Macedonian king; to them were joined the Acarnanians
and Baeotians.--Attacked on every side, Philip successfully
extricated himself from his difficulties; in the first place, he
compelled the Aetolians, who had been abandoned by Attalus and
Rome, to accept separate terms, which, shortly after, Rome,
consulting her own convenience, converted into a general peace,
inclusive of the allies on either side, 204.

18. New war of Philip against Attalus and the Rhodians, carried on for the most part in Asia Minor; and his impolitic alliance with Antiochus III. to attack Egypt. But can Philip be blamed for his endeavours to disarm the military servants of the Romans? Rome, however, did not grant him time to effect his designs; the Macedonian king was taught at Chios, by woeful experience, that his navy had not increased proportionably with that of the Rhodians.

19. The war with Rome suddenly hurled the Macedonian power from its lofty pitch; and by laying the foundation of Roman dominion in the east, wrought a change in almost all the political relations of that quarter. The first two years of the war showed pretty evidently, that mere force could scarcely overturn the Macedonian throne. But T. Quintius Flaminius stepped forward; with the magic spell of freedom he intoxicated the Greeks; Philip was stripped of his allies; and the battle of Cynoscephalae decided everything. The articles of the peace were: 1. That all Grecian cities in Europe and Asia should be independent, and Philip should withdraw his garrisons. 2. That he should surrender the whole of his navy, and never afterwards keep more than 500 armed men on foot. 3. That he should not, without previously informing Rome, undertake any war out of Macedonia. 4. That he should pay 1,000 talents by instalments, and deliver up his younger son Demetrius as an hostage.

The Roman allies in this war were: the Aetolians, Athenians,
Rhodians, the kings of the Athamanes, Dardanians, and
Pergamus.--The Achaeans at the beginning sided with Philip, but
were subsequently gained over by Flaminius. See below, in the
Roman History.

20. Soon after, the freedom of Greece was solemnly proclaimed at the Isthmian games by Flaminius: but loud as the Greeks were in their exultations, this measure served merely to transfer the supremacy of their country from Macedonia to Rome: and Grecian history, as well as the Macedonian, is now interwoven with that of the Romans. To foster quarrels between the Greek states, with the especial view of hindering the Achaeans from growing too formidable, now became a fundamental principle at Rome; and Roman and anti-Roman parties having quickly arisen in every city, this political game was easily played.

Flaminius even took care that the Achaeans should have an opponent
in the person of Nabis, although under the necessity of waging war
against him previous to his return into Italy, 194.--In 192, war
between Nabis and the Achaeans; followed after the murder of Nabis,
at the hands of the Aetolians, by the accession of Sparta to the
Achaean league.--But about the same time Greece once more became
the theatre of foreign war; Antiochus having firmly seated himself
in the country, and enleagued himself with several tribes, but
more particularly the Aetolians, inspired with bitter and
long-standing hatred against the Romans. These last, however,
after the expulsion of Antiochus from Greece, 191, paid dearly for
their secession; nor was peace granted them by Rome till after
long and unsuccessful supplications, 189.

21. While war was pending between the Romans and Antiochus, Philip, in the character of one of the numerous allies of Rome, ventured to increase his territory at the expense of the Athamanes, Thracians, and Thessalians. To keep him in good humour he was permitted to effect those conquests; but after the termination of the war the oppression of Rome became so galling, that it could not be otherwise than that all his thoughts should centre in revenge, and all his exertions be directed towards the recovery of power. Meanwhile the violent measures adopted for repeopling his exhausted kingdom--such is the punishment of ambition which usually awaits even the victorious!--the transplantation of the inhabitants of whole cities and countries, and the consequent and unavoidable oppression of several of his neighbours, excited universal complaints; and where was the accuser of Philip to whom Rome would not now lend a ready ear?--His younger son, Demetrius, the pupil of Rome, and by her intended, it is probable, to succeed to the crown, alone diverted the impending fate of Macedonia. But after the return of that prince from his embassy, the envy of his elder and bastard brother, Perseus, grew into an inveterate rancour, such as could not be quenched but by the death of the younger. The lot of Philip was indeed hard, compelled as a father to judge between his two sons; but the measure of human woe was filled, when after the death of his favourite child he discovered that he was innocent; are we to wonder that sorrow should soon have hurried him to a premature grave!

22. The same policy which was observed by the Romans towards Philip, they pursued towards the Achaeans, with whom, since the termination of the war with Antiochus, they had assumed a loftier tone; and this artful game was facilitated by the continual quarrels among the Greeks themselves. Yet the great Philopoemen, worthy of a better age, maintained the dignity of the league at the very time that the Romans presumed to speak as arbitrators. After his decease they found it easy to raise a party among the Achaeans themselves, the venal Callicrates offering his services for that purpose.

The Achaeans was continually embroiled either with Sparta or with
Messene: the grounds of difference were, that in both of those
states there were factions headed by persons who, out of personal
motives, and for the most part hatred to Philopoemen, wished to
secede from the league; on the other hand, the prevailing idea
among the Achaeans was, that this league ought to comprise the
whole of the Peloponnesus. In the war against the Messenians,
183, Philopoemen, at the age of seventy, was taken prisoner by the
enemy and put to death.

PLUTARCHI, _Philopoemen_. Nearly the whole of which is compiled
from the lost biography of Polybius.

23. The last Macedonian king, Perseus, had inherited his father's perfect hatred of the Romans, together with talents, if not equal, at least but little inferior. He entered into the speculations of his predecessor, and the first seven years of his reign was occupied in constant exertions to muster forces against Rome; with this view he called the Bastarnae out of the north, in order to settle them in the territories of his enemies the Dardanians; he endeavoured to form alliances with the kings of Illyria, Thrace, Syria, and Bithynia; above all, he strove by negotiations and promises to reestablish the ancient influence of Macedonia in Greece.

The settlement of the Bastarnae (probably a German race, resident
beyond the Danube) in Thrace and Dardania, in order with them to
carry war against the Romans, was one of the plans traced out by
Philip, and now partially executed by Perseus.--In Greece the
Macedonian party, which Perseus formed chiefly out of the great
number of impoverished citizens in the country, would probably
have gained the upper hand, had not the fear inspired by Rome, and
the active vigilance of that power, interposed an effectual bar.
Hence the Achaeans, apparently at least, remained on the Roman
side; the Aetolians, by domestic factions, had worked their own
destruction; the case was the same with the Acarnanians; and the
federation of the Boeotians had been completely dissolved by the
Romans, 171. On the other hand, in Epirus the Macedonian party was
superior; Thessaly was occupied by Perseus; several of the
Thracian tribes were friendly to him; and in king Gentius he found
an ally who might have been highly useful, had not the Macedonian
prince, by an ill-timed avarice, deprived himself of his
assistance.

24. The commencement of open hostilities was hastened by the bitter hatred existing between Perseus and Eumenes, and by the intrigues of the latter at Rome. Neglect of the favourable moment for taking the field, and the defensive system, skilfully in other respects as it was planned, caused the ruin of Perseus, as it had done that of Antiochus. Nevertheless he protracted the war to the fourth year, when the battle of Pidna decided the fate both of himself and his kingdom.

Miserable condition of Perseus until his capture at Samothrace;
and afterwards until his death at Rome, 166.

25. According to the system at that period followed by Rome, the conquered kingdom of Macedonia was not immediately converted into a province; it was first deprived of all offensive power, by being republicanized and divided into four districts, wholly distinct from one another, and bound to pay Rome half the tribute they were before wont to furnish to their kings.

26. It was in the natural order of things that the independence of Greece, and more especially that of the Achaean league, should fall with Perseus. The political _inquisition_ of the Roman commissaries not only visited with punishment the declared partizans of Macedonia; but even to have stood neutral was a crime that incurred suspicion. Rome, however, amid the rising hatred, did not deem herself secure until by one blow she had rid herself of all opponents of any importance. Above a thousand of the most eminent of the Achaeans were summoned to Rome to justify themselves, and there detained seventeen years in prison without a hearing. While at the head of the league, stood the man who had delivered them up, Callicrates, (_d._ 150.) a wretch who could, unmoved, hear "the very boys in the streets taunt him with treachery."--A more tranquil period, it is true, now ensued for Greece, but it was the result of very obvious causes.

27. The ultimate lot both of Macedon and was decided by the system now adopted at Rome, that of converting the previous dependence of nations into formal subjection. The insurrection of Andriscus in Macedonia, an individual who pretended to be the son of Perseus, was quelled by Metellus, the country being constituted a Roman province; two years afterwards, at the sack of Corinth, vanished the last glimmer of Grecian freedom.

The last war of the Achaeans arose out of certain quarrels with
Sparta, 150, fomented by Diaeus, Critolaus, and Damocritus, who had
returned bitterly enraged from the Roman prison; in these disputes
Rome interfered, with the design of wholly dissolving the Achaean
league. The first pretext that offered for executing this scheme
was the ill-treatment of the Roman ambassadors at Corinth, 148;
war, however, still raging with Carthage and Andriscus, the Romans
preserved for the present a peaceful tone. But the party of Diaeus
and Critolaus would have war; the plenipotentiaries of Metellus
were again insulted, and the Achaeans declared war against Sparta
and Rome. In the very same year they were routed by Metellus, and
their leader Critolaus fell in the engagement; Metellus was
replaced in the command by Mummius, who defeated Diaeus the
successor of Critolaus, took Corinth and razed it to the ground,
146. The consequence was, that Greece, under the name of Achaia,
became a Roman province, although to a few cities, such as Athens,
for instance, some shadow of freedom was still left.

IV. _History of some smaller or more distant Kingdoms and States erected out of the Macedonian monarchy._

SOURCES. Besides the writers enumerated above, (see p. 232.)
Memnon, an historian of Heraclea in Pontus, deserves particular
mention in this place, (see p. 162): some extracts from his work
have been preserved to us by Photius, Cod. 224. In some individual
portions, as, for instance, in the Parthian history, Justin[a] is
our main authority; as are likewise Ammianus Marcellinus, and the
extracts from Arrian's _Parthica_, found in Photius. The coins of
the kings are also of great importance; but unfortunately
Vaillant's Essay shows, that even with their assistance the
chronology still remains in a very unsettled state. For the Jewish
history, Josephus (see p. 35.) is the grand writer: of the Books
of the Old Testament, those of Ezra and Nehemiah, together with
the Maccabees, although the last are not always to be depended
upon.

The modern writers are enumerated below, under the heads of the
different kingdoms. Much information is likewise scattered about
in the works on ancient numismatics.

[a] As Justin did no more than extract from Trogus Pompeius, a
question presents itself of great consequence to various
portions of ancient history; what authorities did Trogus
Pompeius follow? The answer will be found in two treatises
by A. L. L. HEEREN: _De fontibus et auctoritate Trogi Pompeii,
ejusque epitomatoris Justini_, inserted in _Comment. Soc.
Gott._ vol. 15.

1. Besides the three main empires into which the monarchy of Alexander was divided, there likewise arose in those extensive regions several branch kingdoms, one of which even grew in time to be among the most powerful in the world. To these belong the kingdoms of, 1. Pergamus. 2. Bithynia. 3. Paphlagonia. 4. Pontus. 5. Cappadocia. 6. Great Armenia. 7. Little Armenia. 8. Parthia. 9. Bactria. 10. Jewish state subsequent to the Maccabees.

We are acquainted with the history of these kingdoms, the Jewish
state alone excepted, only so far forth as they were implicated in
the concerns of the greater empires; of their internal history we
know little, often nothing. With respect to many of them,
therefore, little more can be produced than a series of
chronological data, indispensable, notwithstanding, to the general
historian.

2. The kingdom of Pergamus, in Mysia, arose during the war between Seleucus and Lysimachus. It owed its origin on the one hand to the prudence of its rulers, the wisest of whom luckily reigned the longest; and, on the other, to the weakness of the Seleucidae: for its progressive increase it was indebted to the Romans, who in aggrandizing the power of Pergamus acted with a view to their own interest. History exhibits scarcely one subordinate kingdom whose princes took such skilful advantage of the political circumstances of the times; and yet they earned still greater renown by the anxiety they showed, in rivalling the Ptolemies, to foster the arts of peace, industry, science, architecture, sculpture, and painting. How dazzling the splendour with which the small state of Pergamus outshines many a mighty empire!

Philetaerus, lieutenant of Lysimachus, in Pergamus, asserts his
independence; and maintains possession of the citadel and town,
283-263. His nephew, Eumenes I. 263-241, defeats Antiochus I. at
Sardes, 263, and becomes master of Aeolis and the circumjacent
country. His nephew, Attalus I. 241-197, after his victory over
the Galatians, 239, becomes king of Pergamus: a noble prince, and
one whose genius and activity embraced everything. His wars
against Achaeus brought him in alliance with Antiochus III. 216.
Commencement of an alliance with Rome, arising out of his
participation in the Aetolian league against Macedon, 211, in order
to thwart Philip's project of conquest. Hence, after Philip's
irruption into Asia, 203, participation on the side of Rome, in
the Macedonian war. His son Eumenes II. the inheritor of all his
father's great qualities succeeds him, 197-158. As a reward for
his assistance against Antiochus the Great, the Romans presented
him with almost all the territories possessed by the vanquished
king in Asia Minor, (Phrygia, Mysia, Lycaonia, Lydia, Ionia, and a
part of Caria,) which thereafter constituted the kingdom of
Pergamus; this prince extended his frontiers, but lost his
independence. In the war with Perseus he was scarce able to
preserve the good will of the senate, and therewith his kingdom.
His brother, Attalus II. 158-138, a more faithful dependent of
Rome, took part in nearly all the concerns of Asia Minor, more
especially Bithynia. His nephew, Attalus III. 138-133, a prince of
unsound mind, bequeathed his kingdom to the Romans, who, after
vanquishing the lawful heir, Aristonicus, 130, took possession of
it, annexing it to their empire, under the shape of a province
called Asia.--Great discoveries and vast establishments made at
Pergamus. Rich library; subsequently transferred by Antony to
Alexandria, as a present for Cleopatra. Museum. Discovery of
parchment, an invaluable auxiliary to the preservation of works of
literature.

CHOISEUIL GOUFFIER, _Voyage pittoresque de la Grece_, vol. ii.
1809. Containing excellent observations, both on the monuments and
history of Pergamus, as well as on those of all the neighbouring
coasts and islands.

SEVIN, _Recherches sur les rois de Pergame_, inserted in the _Mem.
de l'Acad. des Inscript._ vol. xii.

From the fall of Tyre and the unsuccessful attempt of Demetrius,
B. C. 307, to the establishment of Roman dominion in the east,
300-200, was the brilliant period of Rhodes; alike important for
political wisdom, naval power, and extensive trade. At the head of
the senate ([Greek: boule]) were presidents, ([Greek: prytaneis,])
who went out of office every half year, and were honoured with
precedence in the meetings of the commons. Friendship with all,
alliance with none, was the fundamental maxim of Rhodian policy,
until subverted by Rome. Thus was preserved the dignity of the
state, together with its independence and political
activity--where do we not meet with Rhodian embassies?--and
permanent splendour, resulting from the cultivation of arts and
sciences. What proofs of general commiseration did not Rhodes
enjoy after that dreadful earthquake, which threw down even the
famous colossus, 227! Long did her squadrons command the Aegaean;
over that sea, the Euxine, and the western parts of the
Mediterranean as far as Sicily, her commerce extended, consisting
in the rich exchange of commodities between three quarters of the
globe. Her revenue proceeded from the customs, and was abundant;
until, blinded by avarice, she sought to obtain at Peraea a
territory on the mainland; an ambition of which the Romans availed
themselves to her detriment, by presenting her with Lycia and
Caria, 190. And yet did this republic outlive that of Rome! Great,
indeed, is the chasm left in general history by the loss of the
internal history of this island!

P. D. CH. PAULSEN, _Commentatio exhibens Rhodi descriptionem
Macedonica aetate, Gottingae_, 1818. A prize essay.

3. The other small kingdoms of Asia Minor are fragments rather of the Persian than of the Macedonian monarchy; for Alexander's march following another direction, they were not formally subjugated by that conqueror. The lines of their kings are generally traced back to an early period of the Persian age; but, properly speaking, their rulers in those days were nothing more than viceroys: selected indeed, for the most part, from the royal family, they bore the title of princes, and, in the gradual decline of the empire, not unfrequently threw up their allegiance. Nevertheless these kingdoms do not appear as really independent until after the time of Alexander. Connected with the Grecian republics Heraclea, Sinope, Byzantium, etc. they formed, both in the Macedonian and Roman ages, a system of small states, often distracted by internal wars, and still oftener mere tools in the hands of the more powerful.

1. _Bithynia._ As early as the Persian period, mention is made of
two kings in Bithynia, Dydalsus and Botyras. The son of the
latter, Bias, B. C. 378-328, made head against Caranus, one of
Alexander's generals; as did also his son Zipoetas, _d._ 281,
against Lysimachus.--Lycomedes I. _d._ 248. He called the Gauls
over from Thrace, 278, and with their assistance deposed his
brother Zipoetas; the Gauls in consequence kept their footing in
Galatia, and were for a long time an object of terror to Asia
Minor. Zelas, _d._ about 232; established his dominion after a war
with his half-brothers. Prusias I. son-in-law and ally of Philip
II. of Macedon, _d._ 192. He sided with the Rhodians in the
commercial war against Byzantium, 222, (see above, p. 282.) and
directed his arms, 196, against Heraclea, a Grecian city in
Bithynia, with a respectable territory along shore. Prusias II.
waged war against Eumenes II. at the instigation of Hannibal, who
had fled to his court, 184; he was subsequently about to deliver
up the fugitive to the Romans; had not Hannibal put a period to
his existence, 183: this king likewise waged war against Attalus
II. 153; in both these contests Rome acted as mediator. Prusias,
who had the meanness to style himself a freedman of the Romans,
was dethroned by his own son, Nicomedes II. _d._ 92; a confederate
of Mithridates the Great, with whom, nevertheless, he afterwards
fell out concerning the appropriation of Paphlagonia and
Cappadocia. Nicomedes was murdered by his son Socrates, who was,
however, compelled to flee; in consequence of which Nicomedes III.
succeeded to the crown. Deposed by Mithridates, who supported his
half-brother Socrates, he was reinstated by Rome, 90. Having,
however, at the instigation of the Romans, 89, attacked
Mithridates, he was defeated and expelled in the first Mithridatic
war, now kindled; but in the peace of 85, he was again reinstated
by Sulla. At his death, 75, he bequeathed Bithynia to the Romans;
and this legacy gave rise to the third Mithridatic war.

VAILLANT, _Imperium Arsacidarum_, vol. ii. See below.

SEVIN, _Recherches sur les rois de Bithynie_; inserted in the
_Mem. de l'Academie des Inscript._ vol. xii.

2. _Paphlagonia._ Even in the Persian age, the rulers of this
country were but nominally subject. After Alexander's death, B. C.
323, it fell into the hands of the kings of Pontus; it was,
however, subsequently, again ruled by its own monarchs; among whom
we hear of Morzes, about 179; Pylaemenes I. about 131: who assisted
the Romans in the war against Aristonicus of Pergamus.--Pylaemenes
II. _d._ before 121; who is said to have bequeathed his kingdom to
Mithridates V. of Pontus. Hence Paphlagonia came to be implicated
in the fortunes of Pontus, (see just below,) until after the fall
of Mithridates the Great, 63, that kingdom was converted into a
province, with the exception of one of the southern districts, to
which the Romans left some shadow of freedom.

3. _Pontus._ The later kings of this country derived their origin
from the family of the Achaemenidae, or house of Persia. In the
Persian age they remained dependent or tributary princes: and as
such we must consider Artabazes, son of Hystaspes, _d._ 480,
Mithridates I. _d._ 368, and Ariobarzanes, _d._ 337, mentioned as
the earliest kings of Pontus. Mithridates II. surnamed Ctistes,
_d._ 302, was one of the first to acknowledge subjection to
Alexander; after the death of the conqueror he sided with
Antigonus, who treacherously caused him to be murdered. His son,
Mithridates III. _d._ 266, (the Ariobarzanes of Memnon,) not only
maintained himself after the battle of Ipsus against Lysimachus,
but likewise possessed himself of Cappadocia and Paphlagonia.
Mithridates IV. father-in-law to Antiochus the Great, waged an
unsuccessful war against Sinope. The year of his death is
undetermined, Pharnaces, _d._ about 156. He conquered Sinope 183;
and that town then became the royal residence. War with Eumenes
II. whom Rome had made so powerful, and with his allies;
terminated by a treaty, according to which Pharnaces ceded
Paphlagonia, B. C. 179. Mithridates V. _d._ about 121. He was an
ally of the Romans, from whom, after the defeat of Aristonicus of
Phrygia, he contrived to obtain Great Phrygia. Mithridates VI.
surnamed Eupator, about 121-64. He bore the title of Great, an
epithet to which he was as fully entitled as Peter I. in modern
history; indeed he resembled the Russian prince in almost
everything except in good fortune. His reign, although of the
highest importance to general history, is, particularly in the
portion previous to the wars with Rome, replete with chronological
difficulties.--At the age of twelve years he inherits from his
father not only Pontus, but likewise Phrygia, and a reversionary
title to the throne of Paphlagonia, vacated by the death of
Pylaemenes II.--During his nonage, 121-112, while by voluntarily
inuring himself to hardships, he contrived to elude the
treacherous hostility of his guardians, Rome deprived him of
Phrygia. His conquests in Colchis and on the eastern side of the
Black sea, 112-110.--Commencement of the Scythian wars. Called by
the Greeks of Crimea to their assistance, he expelled the
Scythians; subjected several insignificant Scythian princes on the
mainland; and entered into alliances with the Sarmatic and even
Germanic races as far as the Danube, 108-105, having already a
view to the invasion of Italy from the north.--This war ended, he
travels over Asia, (Asia Minor?) about 104-103.--At his return,
after punishing with death his faithless sister and wife, Laodice,
he makes good his pretensions to Paphlagonia, which he divides
with Nicomedes II. 102. The Roman senate demanding the restoration
of that province, Mithridates not only refuses to accede, but
likewise takes possession of Galatia; meanwhile Nicomedes places
on the throne of Paphlagonia one of his own sons, whom he gives
out to be a son of Pylaemenes II. and denominates Pylaemenes
III.--Rupture with Nicomedes II. 101; the subject of dispute,
Cappadocia, which, after removing the king, Ariarathes VII. his
brother-in-law, with the assistance of Gordius, Mithridates
himself now wished to possess; he is anticipated, however, by
Nicomedes II. who marries Laodice, Ariarathes's
widow.--Mithridates, notwithstanding, expels his rival, under
pretence of holding the kingdom for his sister's son, Ariarathes
VIII. whom at the end of a few months he puts to death at a
private conference, 94; he defeats the brother of the murdered
prince, Ariarathes IX. and then places on the throne, under the
name of Ariarathes X. his own son, who is given out to be a third
son of Ariarathes VII; in opposition to whom Nicomedes sets up
another pretended Ariarathes. The Roman senate, meanwhile, declare
both Paphlagonia and Cappadocia free, B. C. 92; attending,
however, to the desires of the Cappadocians, they sanction the
election of Ariobarzanes to the crown; and he is put in possession
of the kingdom by Sylla, as propraetor of Cilicia, likewise in
92.--Mithridates, on the other hand, forms an alliance with the
king of Armenia, Tigranes, to whom he gives his daughter in
marriage; and employs him in expelling Ariobarzanes.--He himself,
after the death of Nicomedes II. 92, supports the claims of the
deceased king's exiled son, Socrates Chrestus, against the bastard
Nicomedes III. and in the mean time takes possession of
Paphlagonia. Nicomedes and Ariobarzanes are reinstated by a Roman
embassy, 90, Mithridates, in order to gain time against Rome,
causing Socrates to be put to death. The hostilities of Nicomedes,
instituted by Rome, gave rise to the first Roman war, 89-85,
carried on in Asia and Greece, and brought to a conclusion by
Sylla. By the peace of 85, Mithridates restores Bithynia,
Cappadocia, and Paphlagonia.--War with the revolted Colchians and
Bosporans, 84.--Second war with Rome brought about by the Roman
governor, Murena, 83-81. Mithridates hereupon appoints his son,
Machares, king of Bosporus, (Crimea,) whom he afterwards himself
causes to be put to death, 66; he was likewise, in all
probability, the instigator of the migration of the Sarmatae out of
Asia into Europe, in order to maintain his conquests in that
quarter, about 80. Fresh disputes with Rome about Cappadocia, of
which Tigranes takes possession, and third war with Rome, 75-64.
The contest ended in the downfal of Mithridates, caused by the
treachery of his son Pharnaces; Pontus became a Roman province;
although the Romans, in the sequel, appointed over a portion of
the country princes from the royal house, Darius, Polemo I. Polemo
II. until Nero reduced it again wholly to the state of a province.

VAILLANT, _Imperium Achaemenidarum_ in his _Imperium Arsacidarum_,
tom. ii. With the assistance of the coins.

For the history of Mithridates the Great, previously treated
without sufficient chronological accuracy, see DE BROSSES,
_Histoire de la Rep. Romaine_, and more especially

JOAN. ERNST. WOLTERSDORF, _Commentatio vitam Mithridatis Magni,
per annos digestam, sistens; praemio ornata ab A. Phil. Ord.
Gottingae:, A_. 1812.

4. _Cappadocia._ Until the time of Alexander this country remained
a province of the Persian empire, although the governors
occasionally made attempts at insurrection. The ruling family was
here likewise a branch of the royal house; Ariarathes I. was
particularly distinguished about B. C. 354. The prince
contemporary with Alexander was Ariarathes II. who, being attacked
by Perdiccas and Eumenes, fell in the contest, 322. Nevertheless,
his son, Ariarathes III. supported by the Armenians, recovered the
sceptre about 312. The son of this king, Ariaramnes, formed a
matrimonial connection with the Seleucidae, uniting his son
Ariarathes IV. with the daughter of Antiochus [Greek: Theos].
Ariarathes IV. during his lifetime, associated in the government
his son Ariarathes V. _d._ 162. who married Antiochis, daughter to
Antiochus the Great: this princess, finding herself at first
barren, procured two supposititious sons, one of whom, Orophernes,
subsequently wrested the sceptre from the legitimate and later
born son, Ariarathes VI. but was afterwards expelled by the
rightful heir, 157. In the war against Aristonicus of Pergamus,
131, he fell, as an ally of the Romans, leaving behind him six
sons; five of whom were cut off by his ambitious relict Laodice;
the sixth however, Ariarathes VII. ascended the throne, and was
married to Laodice, sister of Mithridates the Great, at whose
instigation he was murdered by Gordius, under pretence of placing
on the throne his sister's son, Ariarathes VIII; this last prince
was soon after treacherously put to death by Mithridates, 94, and
his brother Ariarathes IX. defeated 93, died of a broken heart;
Mithridates then placed on the throne his own son, Ariarathes X. a
lad eight years old. The independence of Cappadocia having
meanwhile been proclaimed at Rome, the inhabitants of the country,
in order to preclude domestic broils, themselves elect a king,
appointing to that dignity Ariobarzanes I. who was installed by
Sylla, 92, and, backed by the Romans, kept his footing in the
Mithridatic wars. In 63 he made the crown over to his son,
Ariobarzanes II. who was slain by the army of Brutus and Cassius,
43, as was his brother, Ariobarzanes III. 34, by Mark Antony;
Antony then appointed Archelaus to be king, who enticed to Rome by
Tiberius, A. D. 17, was there assassinated; and Cappadocia then
became a Roman province.