Until the second century B.C. Asia remained wholly outside the sphere of Roman politics. The eventual intrusion of the Republic into Asiatic affairs was, in no less degree than its intervention in European Greece, an unpremeditated adventure.
KeywordsEventual Intrusion Greek City Greek State Abortive Attempt Crown Land
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
- On the Roman negotiations with Antiochus see especially E. Badian, Studies in Greek and Roman History (1964), 112 ff.Google Scholar
- Livy relates, on the authority of a later Roman annalist, that Scipio Africanus was a member of the embassy to Ephesus and met Hannibal, with whom he exchanged compliments (xxxv. 14.5); Scipio’s presence is almost certainly invented. He served on a mission of inquiry to Carthage this year, 193, and he probably went to the eastern Mediterranean; it is just conceivable that he met Hannibal and this, not a fictitious membership of the other commission, was the background to the story of the meeting. In the East Scipio made several dedications at Delos and Delphi. See Scullard, Scipio Africanus (1970), 285 f.Google Scholar
- The obvious man to face Antiochus and Hannibal was Africanus, but after his consulship of 194 he could not be re-elected for ten years. Hence his brother Lucius became consul, and Africanus served as his legate. For a defence of Lucius Scipio’s abilities against the conventional depreciation see J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Historic 1972, 224 ff.Google Scholar
- The Greek cities fall into three classes: free, Pergamene and Rhodian. There are difficulties, since the accounts of Polybius (xxi. 19–24 and Livy (xxxvii. 52–6) do not quite tally. See E. Bickermann, Revue des Etudes grecques 1937, 217 ff.Google Scholar
- On Asia Minor under the Romans see D. Magie, The Roman Rule in Asia Minor, 2 vols (1950). For an attempt to relate Rome’s eastern policy during 168–146 to groups and individuals in the Senate see J. Briscoe, Historia 1969, 49 ff.Google Scholar
- The genuineness of Attalus’s will, which King Mithridates of Pontus later denounced as a forgery (Sallust, Histories, fr. 4.69, ed. Maurenbrecher), has been corroborated by a Pergemene inscription (Dittenberger, OGIS, no 338) which embodies a Pergamene decree passed before Rome had ratified the will. Another inscription (OGIS, no 43, Sherk, Documents, 11) embodies a decree of the Senate, probably in 133, about the settlement. A third (Dittenberger, Sylloge, 694) records the status of ally of Rome granted to a city (probably Pergamum) for help against the usurper Aristonicus. Translations of these three inscriptions are given in Lewis—Reinhold, R. Civ., i. 321 ff. See also T. Drew-Bear, Historia 1972, 75 ff.Google Scholar
- For the scattered sources for the war see Greenidge, Clay, Gray, Sources for Roman History, 133–70 B.C. (1960).Google Scholar
- The treaty with Judaea, which was granted by the Senate but not ratified by the Comitia, never became operative, and its renewal in 139 was a mere matter of form. Doubts about its genuineness, however, are needless: see E. Täubler, Imperium Romanum, i. (1913), 240 ff. On the Jews in the Hellenistic period see, for example, E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 5 vls, and especially the revised edition of vol. i (covering 175 B.C.-A.D. 135) edited by G. Vermes and F. Millar (1973).Google Scholar