[Sidenote: B. C. 168. Coss. L. Aemilius Paullus, C. Licinius Crassus.
A fragment of the speech of L. Aemilius before starting for Macedonia.
See Livy, 44, 22.]
+1.+ “Their one idea, expressed at parties or conversations in the
street, was, that they should manage the war in Macedonia while
remaining quietly at home in Rome, sometimes by criticising what the
generals were doing, at others what they were leaving undone. From this
the public interests never got any good, and often a great deal of
harm. The generals themselves were at times greatly hampered by this
ill-timed loquacity. For as it is the invariable nature of slander
to spread rapidly and stop at nothing, the people got thoroughly
infected by this idle talk, and the generals were consequently rendered
contemptible in the eyes of the enemy.”...
[Sidenote: In answer to an embassy from Ptolemy Physcon and his sister
Cleopatra, the Senate sends Gaius Popilius Laenas to Alexandria. Livy,
44, 19.]
+2.+ The Senate being informed that Antiochus had become master
of Egypt, and all but taken Alexandria, and conceiving that the
aggrandisement of that king was a matter affecting themselves,
appointed Gaius Popilius and others to go as ambassadors to put an end
to the war, and generally to inspect the state of affairs....
[Sidenote: Genthius joins Perseus on being supplied with 300 talents;]
[Sidenote: and also consents to join in a mission to Rhodes.]
+3.+ Hippias, and the other ambassadors sent by Perseus, to Genthius
to make an alliance with him, returned before the winter, and reported
that Genthius would undertake to join in the war with Rome if he was
paid three hundred talents and received proper securities. Thereupon
Perseus sent Pantauchus, one of his chief friends, with the following
instructions: He was to agree to pay Genthius the money; to interchange
oaths of alliance; to take from Genthius such hostages as he himself
might select, and send them at once to Macedonia; and to allow Genthius
to have such hostages from Perseus as he might name in the text of
the treaty; further, he was to make arrangements for the transport
of the three hundred talents. Pantauchus immediately started and met
Genthius at Mebeōn, in the country of the Labeates, and quickly bought
the young monarch over to join in the projects of Perseus. The treaty
having been sworn to and reduced to writing, Genthius at once sent the
hostages whose names Pantauchus had caused to be entered in the text of
the treaty; and with them he despatched Olympion to receive the oaths
and hostages from Perseus, with others who were to have charge of the
money. Pantauchus persuaded him to send also some ambassadors to join
in a mission to Rhodes with some sent by Perseus, in order to negotiate
a mutual alliance between the three states. For if this were effected,
and the Rhodians consented to embark upon the war, he showed that they
would be easily able to conquer the Romans. Genthius listened to the
suggestion, and appointed Parmenio and Morcus to undertake the mission;
with instructions that, as soon as they had received the oaths and
hostages from Perseus, and the question of the money had been settled,
they were to proceed on the embassy to Rhodes.
[Sidenote: Perseus meets the envoys from Genthius;]
+4.+ So these various ambassadors started together for Macedonia. But
Pantauchus stayed by the side of the young king, and kept reminding
him of the necessity of making warlike preparations, and urging him
not to be too late with them. He was especially urgent that he should
prepare for a contest at sea; for, as the Romans were quite unprepared
in that department on the coasts both of Epirus and Illyria, any
purpose he might form would be easily accomplished by himself and the
forces he might despatch. Genthius yielded to the advice and set about
his preparations, naval and military alike: and Perseus, as soon as
the ambassadors and hostages from Genthius entered Macedonia, set off
from his camp on the River Elpeius,[165] with his whole cavalry, to
meet them at Dium. His first act on meeting them was to take the oaths
to the alliance in the presence of the whole body of cavalry; for he
was very anxious that the Macedonians should know of the adhesion
of Genthius, hoping that this additional advantage would have the
effect of raising their courage: and next he received the hostages
and handed over his own to Olympion and his colleagues, the noblest
of whom were Limnaeus, the son of Polemocrates, and Balacrus, son of
Pantauchus. Lastly, he sent the agents who had come for the money to
Pella, assuring them that they would receive it there: and appointed
the ambassadors for Rhodes to join Metrodorus at Thessalonica, and hold
themselves in readiness to embark.
[Sidenote: and sends others to Eumenes and Antiochus.]
This embassy succeeded in persuading the Rhodians to join in the war.
And, having accomplished this, Perseus next sent Herophon, who had been
similarly employed before, on a mission to Eumenes; and Telemnastos of
Crete to Antiochus to urge him “Not to let the opportunity escape; nor
to imagine that Perseus was the only person affected by the overbearing
and oppressive conduct of Rome: but to be quite sure that, if he did
not now assist Perseus, if possible by putting an end to the war, or,
if not, by supporting him in it, he would quickly meet with the same
fate himself.”...
[Sidenote: The intrigues of Perseus and Eumenes.]
+5.+ In venturing upon a narrative of the intrigues of Perseus and
Eumenes, I have felt myself in a position of great embarrassment. For
to give full and accurate details of the negotiations, which these two
kings conducted in secret between themselves, appeared to me to be
an attempt open to many obvious criticisms and exceedingly liable to
error: and yet to pass over in complete silence what seemed to have
exercised the most decisive influence in the war, and which alone
can explain many of the subsequent events, seemed to me to wear the
appearance of a certain sluggishness and entire want of enterprise. On
the whole, I decided to state briefly what I believed to be truth, and
the probabilities and surmises on which I founded that opinion; for I
was, in fact, during this period more struck than most people at what
happened.
[Sidenote: The Romans become suspicious of Eumenes, and ostentatiously
transfer their favour to his brother Attalus.]
+6.+ I have already stated[166] that Cydas of Crete, while, serving
in the army of Eumenes and held in especial honour by him, had in the
first place had interviews with Cheimarus, one of the Cretans in the
army of Perseus, and again had approached the walls of Demetrias, and
conversed first with Menecrates, and then with Antimachus. Again, that
Herophon had been twice on a mission from Perseus to Eumenes, and that
the Romans on that account began to have reasonable suspicions of king
Eumenes, is rendered clear from what happened to Attalus. For they
allowed this prince to come to Rome from Brundisium, and to transact
the business he had on hand, and finally gave him a favourable answer
and dismissed him with every mark of kindness, although he had done
them no service of any importance in the war with Perseus; while
Eumenes, who had rendered them the most important services, and had
assisted them again and again in their wars with Antiochus and Perseus,
they not only prevented from coming to Rome, but bade him leave Italy
within a certain number of days, though it was mid-winter. Therefore
it is quite plain that some intriguing had been taking place between
Perseus and Eumenes to account for the alienation of the Romans from
the latter. What this was, and how far it went, is our present subject
of inquiry.
[Sidenote: The origin of the intrigue between Eumenes and Perseus was
the idea of the former that, both sides being tired of the war, he
might intervene with profit to himself.]
[Sidenote: B.C. 168.]
+7.+ We can easily satisfy ourselves that Eumenes cannot have wished
Perseus to be the victor in the war and become supreme in Greece. For
to say nothing of the traditional enmity and dislike existing between
these two, the similarity of their respective powers was sufficient to
breed distrust, jealousy, and, in fact, the bitterest animosity between
them. It was always open to them to intrigue and scheme against each
other secretly, and that they were both doing. For when Eumenes saw
that Perseus was in a bad way, and was hemmed in on every side by his
enemies, and would accept any terms for the sake of putting an end to
the war, and was sending envoys to the Roman generals year after year
with this view; while the Romans also were uneasy about the result,
because they made no real progress in the war until Paulus took the
command, and because Aetolia was in a dangerous state of excitement, he
conceived that it would not be impossible that the Romans would consent
to some means of ending the war and making terms: and he looked upon
himself as the most proper person to act as mediator and effect the
reconciliation. With these secret ideas in his mind, he began sounding
Perseus by means of Cydas of Crete, the year before, to find out how
much he would be inclined to pay for such a chance. This appears to me
to be the origin of their connexion with each other.
[Sidenote: The bargain attempted between Eumenes and Perseus.]
+8.+ Two kings, one of whom was the most unprincipled and the other
the most avaricious in the world, being now pitted against each
other, their mutual struggles presented a spectacle truly ridiculous.
Eumenes held out every kind of hope, and threw out every species of
bait, believing that he would catch Perseus by such promises. Perseus,
without waiting to be approached, rushed to the bait held out to him,
and made for it greedily; yet he could not make up his mind to swallow
it, to such an extent as to give up any money. The sort of huckstering
contest that went on between them was as follows. Eumenes demanded
five hundred talents as the price of his abstention from co-operating
with the Romans by land and sea during the fourth year of the war,
and fifteen hundred for putting an end to the war altogether, and
promised to give hostages and securities for his promise at once.
Perseus accepted the proposal of hostages, named the number, the time
at which they were to be sent, and the manner of their safe custody
at Cnosus. But as to the money, he said that it would be disgraceful
to the one who paid, and still more to the one who received it, to be
supposed to remain neutral for hire; but the fifteen hundred talents he
would send in charge of Polemocrates and others to Samothrace, to be
held as a deposit there. Now Perseus was master of Samothrace; but as
Eumenes, like a poor physician, preferred a retaining-fee to a payment
after work, he finally gave up the attempt, when he found that his own
craftiness was no match for the meanness of Perseus. They thus parted
on equal terms, leaving, like good athletes, the battle of avarice a
drawn one. Some of these details leaked out at the time, and others
were communicated subsequently to Perseus’s intimate friends; and he
has taught us by them that every vice is clinched, so to speak, by
avarice.
[Sidenote: Reflexions on the blindness of the avaricious kings.]
[Sidenote: See Plutarch, _Aemilius_, ch. 12.]
+9.+ I add the further question from my own reflexions, whether avarice
is not also short-sighted? For who could fail to remark the folly of
both the kings? How could Eumenes on the one hand expect to be trusted
by a man with whom he was on such bad terms; and to get so large a sum
of money, when he was able to give Perseus absolutely no security for
recovering it, in case of his not carrying out his promises? And how
could he expect not to be detected by the Romans in taking so large a
sum? If he had concealed it at the time he certainly would not have
done so long. Moreover, he would have been bound at any rate, in return
for it, to have adopted the quarrel with Rome; in which he would have
been certain to have lost the money and his kingdom together, and very
probably his life also, by coming forward as an enemy of the Romans.
For if, even as it was, when he accomplished nothing, but only imagined
it, he fell into the gravest dangers, what would have happened to
him if this design had been brought to perfection? And again, as to
Perseus—who could fail to be surprised at his thinking anything of
higher importance, or more to his advantage, than to give the money and
allow Eumenes to swallow the bait? For if, on the one hand, Eumenes had
performed any part of his promises, and had put an end to the war, the
gift would have been well bestowed; and if, on the other hand, he had
been deceived of that hope, he could at least have involved him in the
certain enmity of Rome; for he would have had it entirely in his own
power to make these transactions public. And one may easily calculate
how valuable this would have been to Perseus, whether he succeeded or
failed in the war: for he would have regarded Eumenes as the guilty
cause of all his misfortunes, and could in no way have retaliated upon
him more effectually than by making him an enemy of Rome. What then was
the root of all this blind folly? Nothing but avarice. It could have
been nothing else; for, to save himself from giving money, Perseus was
content to suffer anything, and neglect every other consideration. On a
par too with this was his conduct to the Gauls and Genthius....
[Sidenote: The Rhodians take active steps to form a confederation
against Rome, in case their intervention fails.]
+10.+ The question being put to the vote at Rhodes, it was carried to
send envoys to negotiate a peace; and this decree thus decided the
relative strength of the opposite political parties at Rhodes [as has
been stated in my essay on public speaking], showing that the party for
siding with Perseus was stronger than that which was for preserving
their country and its laws. The Prytanies immediately appointed
ambassadors to negotiate the cessation of the war: Agepolis, Diocles,
and Cleombrotus were sent to Rome; Damon, Nicostratus, Agesilochus,
and Telephus to Perseus and the consul. The Rhodians went on in the
same spirit to take further steps, so that they eventually committed
themselves past all excuse. For they at once sent ambassadors to Crete,
to renew their friendly relations with the entire Cretan people, and
to urge that, in view of the dangers that threatened them, they should
throw in their lot with the people of Rhodes, and hold the same people
to be friends and enemies as they did, and also to address the separate
cities to the same effect....
[Sidenote: The manner in which this vote of the Rhodians was carried,
B.C. 168.]
+11.+ When the embassy led by Parmenio and Morcus from Genthius,
accompanied by those led by Metrodorus, arrived in Rhodes, the
assembly summoned to meet them proved very turbulent, the party of
Deinon venturing openly to plead the cause of Perseus, whilst that of
Theaetetus was quite overpowered and dismayed. For the presence of
the Illyrian galleys, the number of the Roman cavalry that had been
killed, and the fact of Genthius having changed sides, quite crushed
them. Thus it was that the result of the meeting of the assembly was
as I have described it. For the Rhodians voted to return a favourable
answer to both kings, to state that they had resolved to put an end to
the war, and to exhort the kings themselves to make no difficulty about
the terms. They also received the ambassadors of Genthius at the common
altar-hearth or Prytaneum of the city with every mark of friendship....
[Sidenote: A digression on Polybius’s method in writing history, and
his avoidance of imaginary details.]
+12.+ Other historians [have spoken in exaggerated terms][167] of the
Syrian war. And the reason is one which I have often mentioned. Though
their subjects are simple and without complications, they seek the name
and reputation of historians not from the truth of their facts, but
the number of their books; and accordingly they are obliged to give
petty affairs an air of importance, and fill out and give rhetorical
flourishes to what was originally expressed briefly; dress up actions
and achievements which were originally quite secondary; expatiate on
struggles; and describe pitched battles, in which sometimes ten or a
few more infantry fell, and still fewer cavalry. As for sieges, local
descriptions, and the like one cannot say that their treatment is
adequate, because they have no facts to give. But a writer of universal
history must pursue a different plan; and therefore I ought not to be
condemned for minimising the importance of events, if I sometimes pass
over affairs that have met with wide fame and laboured description,
or for mentioning them with brevity; but I ought to be trusted to
give to each subject the amount of discussion which it deserves. Such
historians as I refer to, when they are describing in the course of
their work the siege, say of Phanoteia, or Coroneia, or [Haliartus],
are forced to display all the contrivances, bold strokes, and other
features of a siege; and when they come to the capture of Tarentum, the
sieges of Corinth, Sardis, Gaza, Bactra, and, above all, of Carthage,
they must draw on their own resources to prolong the agony and heighten
the picture, and are not at all satisfied with me for giving a more
truthful relation of such events as they really occurred. Let this
statement hold good also as to my description of pitched battles and
public harangues, as well as other departments of history; in all of
which I might fairly claim considerable indulgence, as also in what is
now about to be narrated, if I am detected in some inconsistency in
the substance of my story, the treatment of my facts, or the style of
language; and also if I make some mistakes in the names of mountains or
rivers, or the special features of localities: for indeed the magnitude
of my work is a sufficient excuse in all these points, unless, indeed,
I am ever detected in deliberate or interested misstatements in my
writings: for such I ask no indulgence, as I have repeatedly and
explicitly remarked in the course of my history....
[Sidenote: Intemperance and brutality of Genthius.]
+13.+ Genthius, king of the Illyrians, disgraced himself by many
abominable actions in the course of his life from his addiction to
drink, in which he indulged continually day and night. Among other
things he killed his brother Plastor, who was about to marry the
daughter of Monunius, and married the girl himself. He also behaved
with great cruelty to his subjects....
_In the spring of B.C. 168 Genthius was forced to surrender to the
praetor L. Anicius Gallus (Livy, 44, 30-31). The consul L. Aemilius
Paulus found Perseus on the left bank of the Macedonian river Enipeus
in a very strong position, which was however turned by a gallant
exploit of Nasica and Q. Fabius Maximus, who made their way with a
considerable force over the mountains, thus getting on the rear of
Perseus. Livy, 44 30-35. Plutarch,_ Aemil. _15._
[Sidenote: Nasica, Fabius, and others volunteer to cross the mountains
into Macedonia by Gytheum.]
+14.+ The first man to volunteer to make the outflanking movement was
Scipio Nasica, son-in-law of Scipio Africanus, who afterwards became
the most influential man in the Senate,[168] and who now undertook
to lead the party. The second was Fabius Maximus, the eldest of the
sons of the consul Aemilius Paulus,[169] still quite a young man, who
stood forward and offered to join with great enthusiasm. Aemilius was
therefore delighted and assigned them a body of soldiers.[170]...
[Sidenote: Struggle in the bed of the Enipeus. Livy, 44, 35.] +15.+ The
Romans offered a gallant resistance by aid of their strong targets or
Ligurian shields....
[Sidenote: The Romans force the heights by way of Gytheum.]
Perseus saw that Aemilius had not moved, and did not reckon on what was
taking place, when suddenly a Cretan, who had deserted from the Roman
army on its march, came to him with the information that the Romans
were getting on his rear. Though thrown into the utmost panic he did
not strike his camp, but despatched ten thousand mercenaries and two
thousand Macedonians under Milo, with orders to advance with speed
and seize the heights. The Romans fell upon these as they were lying
asleep.[171]...
+16.+ An eclipse of the moon occurring, the report went abroad, and
was believed by many, that it signified an eclipse of the king. And
this circumstance raised the spirits of the Romans and depressed those
of the Macedonians. So true is the common saying that “war has many a
groundless scare.”[172]...
_Perseus finding himself thus on the point of being outflanked retired
on Pydna, near which town Aemilius Paulus, after considerable delay,
about midsummer inflicted a crushing defeat upon him. Perseus fled to
Amphipolis, and thence to Samothrace, where he was captured by Paulus
and taken to Rome to adorn his triumph, and afterwards allowed to
live as a private person at Alba. This was the end of the Macedonian
kingdom. (Livy, 44, 36-43; 45, 1-8. Plutarch,_ Aemil. _16-23.)_
[Sidenote: The phalanx the battle of Pydna, B.C. 168.]
+17.+ The consul Lucius Aemilius had never seen a phalanx until he saw
it in the army of Perseus on this occasion; and he often confessed to
some of his friends at Rome subsequently, that he had never beheld
anything more alarming and terrible than the Macedonian phalanx: and
yet he had been, if any one ever had not only a spectator but an actor
in many battles....
Many plans which look plausible and feasible, when brought to the test
of actual experience, like base coins when brought to the furnace,
cease to answer in any way to their original conceptions....
When Perseus came to the hour of trial his courage all left him,
like that of an athlete in bad training. For when the danger was
approaching, and it became necessary to fight a decisive battle, his
resolution gave way....
As soon as the battle began, the Macedonian king played the coward and
rode off to the town, under the pretext of sacrificing to Hercules,—who
certainly does not accept craven gifts from cravens, nor fulfil
unworthy prayers....
[Sidenote: Scipio Africanus the younger, cf. Livy, 44, 44 (?)]
+18.+ He was then very young, and it was his first experience of actual
service in the field, and having but recently begun to taste the sweets
of promotion, he was keen, ambitious, and eager to be first....
[Sidenote: The Rhodian mission deliver their message too late.]
[Sidenote: Uncompromising answer of the Senate.]
+19.+ Just when Perseus had been beaten and was trying to save himself
by flight, the Senate determined to admit the ambassadors, who had
come from Rhodes to negotiate a peace, to an audience: Fortune
thus appearing designedly to parade the folly of the Rhodians on
the stage,—if we may say “of the Rhodians,” and not rather “of the
individuals who were then in the ascendant at Rhodes.” When Agesipolis
and his colleagues entered the Senate, they said that “They had come
to arrange an end to the war; for the people of Rhodes,—seeing that
the war was become protracted to a considerable length of time, and
seeing that it was disadvantageous to all the Greeks, as well as to
the Romans themselves, on account of its enormous expenses,—had come
to that conclusion. But as the war was already ended, and the wish of
the Rhodians was thus fulfilled, they had only to congratulate the
Romans.” Such was the brief speech of Agesipolis. But the Senate seized
the opportunity of making an example of the Rhodians, and produced
an answer of which the upshot was that “They did not regard this
embassy as having been sent by the Rhodians in the interests either
of the Greeks or themselves, but in those of Perseus. For if they had
meant to send an embassy in behalf of the Greeks, the proper time for
doing so was when Perseus was plundering the territory and cities of
Greece, while encamped for nearly two years in Thessaly. But to let
that time pass without notice, and to come now desiring to put an end
to the war, at a time when the Roman legions had entered Macedonia,
and Perseus was closely beleagured and almost at the end of his hopes,
was a clear proof to any one of observation that the Rhodians had sent
their embassy, not with the desire of ending the war, but to rescue and
save Perseus to the best of their ability. Therefore they deserved no
indulgence at the hands of the Romans at this time, nor any favourable
reply.” Such was the Senate’s answer to the Rhodians....
[Sidenote: Perseus, being brought a prisoner before Aemilius Paulus and
his council, refuses to reply to his questions, Paulus addresses the
king in Greek and then his council in Latin. Livy, 45, 8.]
+20.+ Then Aemilius Paulus speaking once more in Latin bade the members
of his council, “With such a sight before their eyes,”—pointing to
Perseus,—“not to be too boastful in the hour of success, nor to take
any extreme or inhuman measures against any one, nor in fact ever
to feel confidence in the permanence of their present good fortune.
Rather it was precisely at the time of greatest success, either private
or public, that a man should be most alive to the possibility of a
reverse. Even so it was difficult for a man to exhibit moderation in
good fortune. But the distinction between fools and wise was that the
former only learnt by their own misfortunes, the latter by those of
others.”...
[Sidenote: Demetrius of Phalerum on mutability.]
+21.+ One is often reminded of the words of Demetrius of Phalerum. In
his treatise on Fortune, wishing to give the world a distinct view
of her mutability, he fixed upon the period of Alexander, when that
monarch destroyed the Persian dynasty, and thus expresses himself: “If
you will take, I don’t say unlimited time or many generations, but only
these last fifty years immediately preceding our generation, you will
be able to understand the cruelty of Fortune. For can you suppose, if
some god had warned the Persians or their king, or the Macedonians
or their king, that in fifty years the very name of the Persians,
who once were masters of the world, would have been lost, and that
the Macedonians, whose name was before scarcely known, would become
masters of it all, that they would have believed it? Nevertheless it
is true that Fortune, whose influence on our life is incalculable,
who displays her power by surprises, is even now I think, showing all
mankind, by her elevation of the Macedonians into the high prosperity
once enjoyed by the Persians, that she has merely lent them these
advantages until she may otherwise determine concerning them.” And this
has now come to pass in the person of Perseus; and indeed Demetrius has
spoken prophetically of the future as though he were inspired. And as
the course of my history brought me to the period which witnessed the
ruin of the Macedonian kingdom, I judged it to be right not to pass it
over without proper remark, especially as I was an eye-witness of the
transaction. It was a case I thought both for enlarging on the theme
myself, and for recalling the words of Demetrius, who appeared to me to
have shown something more than mere human sagacity in his remarks; for
he made a true forecast of the future almost a hundred and fifty years
before the event....
[Sidenote: The unexpected always happens.]
[Sidenote: Eumenes disappointed of his hope of quiet by a rising in
Galatia, and was the case now with Eumenes. He imagined that at last
his own kingdom was safe, and that he might look forward to a time of
ease, now that Perseus and the whole kingdom of Macedonia were utterly
destroyed; yet it was then that he was confronted with the gravest
dangers, by the Gauls in Asia seizing the opportunity for an unexpected
rising....
_After reigning in Memphis for a time Philometor made terms with his
brother and sister, returned to Alexandria, and there all three were
being besieged by Antiochus. See above, 28, 18._
[Sidenote: Autumn of B.C. 169.]
+22.+ After the conclusion of the battle between Perseus and the
Romans, king Eumenes found himself in what people call an unexpected
and extraordinary trouble, but what, if we regard the natural course of
human concerns, was quite an everyday affair. For it is quite the way
of Fortune to confound human calculations by surprises; and when she
has helped a man for a time, and caused her balance to incline in his
favour, to turn round upon him as though she repented, throw her weight
into the opposite scale, and mar all his successes.
[Sidenote: Winter of B.C. 169-168.]
+23.+ In the Peloponnesus a mission arrived before the end of the
winter from the two kings, Ptolemy (Philometor) and Ptolemy (Physcon),
asking for help. This gave rise to repeated and animated discussions.
The party of Callicrates and Diophanes were against granting the help;
while Archon, Lycortas, and Polybius were for sending it to the kings
in accordance with the terms of their alliance. For by this time it
had come to pass that the younger Ptolemy had been proclaimed king
by the people (at Alexandria), owing to the danger which threatened
them; and that the elder had subsequently returned from Memphis,
and was reigning jointly with his sister. As they stood in need of
every kind of assistance, they sent Eumenes and Dionysodorus to the
Achaeans, asking a thousand foot and two hundred horse, with Lycortas
to command the foot and Polybius the horse. They sent a message also to
Theodoridas of Sicyon, urging him to hire them a thousand mercenaries.
For the kings chanced to have become intimately acquainted with these
particular men, owing to the transactions I have related before.
The ambassadors arrived when the Achaean congress was in session in
Corinth. They therefore came forward, and after recalling the many
evidences of friendship shown by the Achaeans to the kingdom of Egypt,
and describing to them the danger in which the kings then were,
they entreated them to send help. The Achaeans generally were ready
enough to go to the help of the kings (for both now wore the diadem
and exercised regal functions), and not only with a detachment, but
with their full levy. But Callicrates and his party spoke against it;
alleging that they ought not to meddle in such affairs at all, and
certainly not at that time, but should reserve their undivided forces
for the service of Rome. For there was a general expectation just then
of a decisive battle being fought, as Q. Philippus was wintering in
Macedonia.
[Sidenote: Polybius advocates the cause of the Ptolemies.]
+24.+ The people were alarmed lest they should be thought to fail the
Romans in any way: and accordingly Lycortas and Polybius rose in their
turn, and, among other advice which they impressed upon them, argued
that “When in the previous year the Achaeans had voted to join the
Roman army with their full levy, and sent Polybius to announce that
resolution, Quintus Marcius, while accepting the kindness of their
intention, had yet stated that the assistance was not needed, since
he had won the pass into Macedonia. Their opponents therefore were
manifestly using the need of helping the Romans merely as a pretext
for preventing this aid being sent to Alexandria. They entreated the
Achaeans, in view of the greatness of the danger surrounding the king
of Egypt, not to neglect the right moment for acting; but keeping in
mind their mutual agreement and good services, and above all their
oaths, to fulfil the terms of their agreement.”
[Sidenote: Callicrates defeats the motion,]
[Sidenote: but at a smaller meeting at Sicyon Polybius prevails.]
The people were once more inclined to grant the aid when they heard
this: but Callicrates and his party managed to prevent the decree
being passed, by staggering the magistrates with the assertion that it
was unconstitutional to discuss the question of sending help abroad
in public assembly.[173] But a short time afterwards a meeting was
summoned at Sicyon, which was attended not only by the members of the
council, but by all citizens over thirty years of age; and after a
lengthened debate, Polybius especially dwelling on the fact that the
Romans did not require assistance,—in which he was believed not to be
speaking without good reason, as he had spent the previous summer in
Macedonia at the headquarters of Marcius Philippus,—and also alleging
that, even supposing the Romans did turn out to require their active
support, the Achaeans would not be rendered incapable of furnishing
it by the two hundred horse and one thousand foot which were to be
despatched to Alexandria,—for they could, without any inconvenience,
put thirty or forty thousand men into the field,—the majority of the
meeting were convinced, and were inclined to the idea of sending the
aid. Accordingly, on the second of the two days on which, according
to the laws, those who wished to do so were bound to bring forward
their motions, Lycortas and Polybius proposed that the aid should be
sent. Callicrates, on the other hand, proposed to send ambassadors
to reconcile the two Egyptian kings with Antiochus. So once more, on
these two motions being put, there was an animated contest; in which,
however, Lycortas and Polybius got a considerable majority on their
side. For there was a very wide distinction between the claims of the
two kingdoms. There were very few instances to be found in past times
of any act of friendship on the part of Syria to the Greeks,—though the
liberality of the present king was well known in Greece,—but from Egypt
the acts of kindness in past times to the Achaeans had been as numerous
and important as any one could possibly expect. By dwelling on this
point Lycortas made a great impression, because the distinction between
the two kingdoms in this respect was shown to be immense. For it was as
difficult to count up all the benefactions of the Alexandrine kings,
as it was impossible to find a single act of friendship done by the
dynasty of Antiochus to the Achaeans....
[Sidenote: The measure is again defeated by a trick of Callicrates.]
[Sidenote: The kings ask for Lycortas and Polybius.]
+25.+ For a time Andronidas and Callicrates kept on arguing in support
of the plan of putting an end to the war: but as no one was persuaded
by them, they employed a stratagem. A letter-carrier came into the
theatre (where the meeting was being held) who had just arrived with a
despatch from Quintus Marcius, urging those Achaeans who were of the
pro-Roman party to reconcile the kings; for it was a fact that the
Senate had sent a mission under T. Numisius to do so. But this really
made against their argument: for Titus Numisius and his colleagues
had been unable to effect the pacification, and had returned to Rome
completely unsuccessful in the object of their mission. However, as
Polybius and his party did not wish to speak against the despatch, from
consideration for Marcius, they retired from the discussion: and it
was thus that the proposal to send an aid to the kings fell through.
The Achaeans voted to send ambassadors to effect the pacification:
and Archon of Aegeira, and Arcesilaus and Ariston of Megalopolis
were appointed to the duty. Whereupon the envoys of Ptolemy, being
disappointed of obtaining the help, handed over to the magistrate the
despatch from the kings, in which they asked that they would send
Lycortas and Polybius to take part in the war....
[Sidenote: Annoyed by the two Ptolemies thus joining each other,
Antiochus renews the war, B.C. 168.]
+26.+ Forgetful of all he had written and said Antiochus began
preparing for a renewal of the war against Ptolemy. So true are the
words of Simonides,—“‘Tis hard to be good.” For to have certain
impulses towards virtue, and even to hold to it up to a certain point,
is easy; but to be uniformly consistent, and to allow no circumstances
of danger to shake a resolute integrity, which regards honour and
justice as the highest considerations, is indeed difficult....
[Sidenote: Antiochus is met near Alexandria (Livy, 45, 12) by C.
Popilius Laenas, who forces him to abstain from the war.]
+27.+ When Antiochus had advanced to attack Ptolemy in order to possess
himself of Pelusium, he was met by the Roman commander Gaius Popilius
Laenas. Upon the king greeting him from some distance, and holding out
his right hand to him, Popilius answered by holding out the tablets
which contained the decree of the Senate, and bade Antiochus read that
first: not thinking it right, I suppose, to give the usual sign of
friendship until he knew the mind of the recipient, whether he were
to be regarded as a friend or foe. On the king, after reading the
despatch, saying that he desired to consult with his friends on the
situation, Popilius did a thing which was looked upon as exceedingly
overbearing and insolent. Happening to have a vine stick in his hand,
he drew a circle round Antiochus with it, and ordered him to give his
answer to the letter before he stepped out of that circumference. The
king was taken aback by this haughty proceeding. After a brief interval
of embarrassed silence, he replied that he would do whatever the Romans
demanded. Then Popilius and his colleagues shook him by the hand, and
one and all greeted him with warmth. The contents of the despatch was
an order to put an end to the war with Ptolemy at once. Accordingly a
stated number of days was allowed him, within which he withdrew his
army into Syria, in high dudgeon indeed, and groaning in spirit, but
yielding to the necessities of the time.
[Sidenote: Popilius goes on to Cyprus and forces the army of Antiochus
to evacuate it.]
[Sidenote: The previous defeat of Perseus really secured the salvation
of Egypt.]
Popilius and his colleagues then restored order in Alexandria; and
after exhorting the two kings to maintain peaceful relations with
each other, and charging them at the same time to send Polyaratus to
Rome, they took ship and sailed towards Cyprus, with the intention of
promptly ejecting from the island the forces that were also gathered
there. When they arrived, they found that Ptolemy’s generals had
already sustained a defeat, and that the whole island was in a state
of excitement. They promptly caused the invading army to evacuate the
country, and remained there to keep watch until the forces had sailed
away for Syria. Thus did the Romans save the kingdom of Ptolemy, when
it was all but sinking under its disasters. Fortune indeed so disposed
of the fate of Perseus and the Macedonians, that the restoration of
Alexandria and the whole of Egypt was decided by it; that is to say, by
the fate of Perseus being decided previously: for if that had not taken
place, or had not been certain, I do not think that Antiochus would
have obeyed these orders.