{"title":"Roman aims in the First Macedonian War","authors":"J. Rich","doi":"10.1017/S0068673500004673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Maurice Holleaux, in the brilliant study which for so long dominated discussion of Rome's early dealings with the Greek East, argued that Roman aims in the First Macedonian War were strictly defensive. The Romans' sole purpose in forming alliances with the Aetolians and other Greek powers was, he held, to prevent Philip from crossing to Italy by obliging him to fight in Greece. Roman conduct showed how limited their interest in the war in Greece was: they fulfilled their obligations to their allies halfheartedly and in the end neglected them altogether, while they viewed the other Greeks simply as a source of booty. They regarded the compromise peace reached with Philip at Phoenice as entirely satisfactory, and their decision to renew war against him in 200 was a complete reversal of policy.Although most aspects of Holleaux's interpretation of Rome's Eastern policy have generated great controversy, his treatment of the First Macedonian War has, except for certain specific points, received relatively little attention. While the significance of the Peace of Phoenice has been much discussed, most of those who have written on the war itself have been in broad agreement with Holleaux's views on the Romans' aims and conduct, and only a few brief protests have been registered. This paper is an attempt to fill this gap. I shall argue that Roman aims in the war were less limited and their conduct less half-hearted than has usually been supposed, and offer a new interpretation of the obscure last years of the war, based on a redating of the expedition of P. Sempronius Tuditanus and the Peace of Phoenice to 206.","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"39 1","pages":"126-180"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"1984-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0068673500004673","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Classical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500004673","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
Maurice Holleaux, in the brilliant study which for so long dominated discussion of Rome's early dealings with the Greek East, argued that Roman aims in the First Macedonian War were strictly defensive. The Romans' sole purpose in forming alliances with the Aetolians and other Greek powers was, he held, to prevent Philip from crossing to Italy by obliging him to fight in Greece. Roman conduct showed how limited their interest in the war in Greece was: they fulfilled their obligations to their allies halfheartedly and in the end neglected them altogether, while they viewed the other Greeks simply as a source of booty. They regarded the compromise peace reached with Philip at Phoenice as entirely satisfactory, and their decision to renew war against him in 200 was a complete reversal of policy.Although most aspects of Holleaux's interpretation of Rome's Eastern policy have generated great controversy, his treatment of the First Macedonian War has, except for certain specific points, received relatively little attention. While the significance of the Peace of Phoenice has been much discussed, most of those who have written on the war itself have been in broad agreement with Holleaux's views on the Romans' aims and conduct, and only a few brief protests have been registered. This paper is an attempt to fill this gap. I shall argue that Roman aims in the war were less limited and their conduct less half-hearted than has usually been supposed, and offer a new interpretation of the obscure last years of the war, based on a redating of the expedition of P. Sempronius Tuditanus and the Peace of Phoenice to 206.
Maurice Holleaux在长期以来主导罗马早期与希腊东部交往的精彩研究中认为,罗马在第一次马其顿战争中的目标是严格防御的。他认为,罗马人与埃托利亚人和其他希腊大国结盟的唯一目的是通过强迫菲利普在希腊作战来阻止他越境前往意大利。罗马人的行为表明,他们对希腊战争的兴趣是多么有限:他们半心半意地履行对盟友的义务,最终完全忽视了他们,而他们只是将其他希腊人视为战利品的来源。他们认为在Phoenice与Philip达成的妥协和平是完全令人满意的,他们决定在200年再次对他发动战争,这完全是政策的逆转。尽管霍莱对罗马东方政策的解释在大多数方面都引起了很大的争议,但他对第一次马其顿战争的处理,除了某些特定的问题外,相对较少受到关注。虽然Phoenice和平的意义已经被广泛讨论,但大多数写过战争本身的人都广泛同意Holleaux对罗马人目标和行为的看法,只有少数短暂的抗议活动被记录在案。本文试图填补这一空白。我认为,罗马在战争中的目标没有通常想象的那么有限,他们的行为也不像通常想象的那样三心二意,并根据对P.Sempronius Tuditanus的探险和到206年的Phoenice和平的编辑,对战争的最后几年进行了新的解释。