Walbank F.W., Astin A.E., Frederiksen M.W., Ogilvie R.M. The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 7, Part 1: The Hellenistic World
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
ANTIGONUS AND MACEDONIA 227
which is quite unlike anything found in the other Hellenistic monar-
chies,
frankness and power are by no means synonymous. The simple
fact is that for all practical purposes the Antigonids were the state.
In its organization, too, Macedonia came increasingly to resemble the
other Hellenistic monarchies.
The
king's Companions, prominent
during the reigns of Philip
II
and Alexander, are not found after the
latter's death, but the Friends
{philoi),
who constituted a Council of State
in most kingdoms including Macedonia, are their Hellenistic counter-
part. Like Philip II's Companions they were chosen from outside as well
as inside the kingdom and they were in essence the king's men, personal
to him; his successor need not retain them, and when the young Philip V
wanted to assert his independence one of his earliest actions was to rid
himself ruthlessly
of
the Friends whom
he
had inherited, some
as
guardians, from Antigonus III. The Friends constituted an important
element
in the
royal court.
As
under Alexander, this court also
continued
to
include Bodyguards
{somatophylak.es),
a
group
of
high-
ranking officers who stayed close to the king night and day, except when
assigned confidential duties, Royal Pages
{basilikoi
paides),
the sons of
nobles and others of high family, themselves future Friends and officers,
and 'foster-brothers'
{syntrophoi),
boys from the same social group
chosen to be brought up with the royal princes. We hear, too, of several
posts paralleled
in
the bureaucratic and military structure
of
other
kingdoms: the Secretary
of
State, the Treasurer, the Captain
of
the
Bodyguard
and the
Captain
of the
Peltasts
(a
body
of
infantry
resembling Alexander's hypaspists). Most of the evidence comes from
the reign of Philip V, but in essentials the organization will no doubt
already have existed under Antigonus II.
Economically Antigonid Macedonia benefited from
a
substantial
growth
in
urbanization. Under Philip
II
and Alexander the highland
areas
—
Elimiotis, Orestis, Lyncestis, Eordaea and Pelagonia
—
were still
divided into cantons with virtually
no
cities,
and
though lower
Macedonia was organized with communities consisting each of a city
with its territory, only a few of these cities other than the Greek colonies
along the coast were more than market towns; an exception to this, as
excavations have shown, was the capital
at
Pella. Under Alexander's
successors, however, cities multiplied. Cassander had initiated two
important foundations, both probably
in 316 -
Thessalonica,
a
synoecism of several small towns at the head of the Thermaic
Gulf,
and
Cassandreia, incorporating the cities of Pallene. Both had large Greek
populations, but
a
growing national consciousness of being Macedonian
is reflected in the fact that during the Antigonid period citizens of all
Macedonian cities, whatever their origin, now style themselves Mace-
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
22
8 7 MACEDONIA AND GREECE
donians.
8
Outwardly
the
cities reveal
the
structure
and
institutions
of
Greek democratic states. Inscriptions containing decrees granting
asylia
(literally, freedom from reprisals (see below,
p.
235))
to the
temple
of
Asclepius at Cos
in
242
s
provide evidence that Cassandreia had a council
and Thessalonica
a
council and assembly, and since an assembly
is
also
mentioned
at
Philippi
and
Amphipolis,
it
seems probable that
all,
including purely Macedonian cities like Pella and Aegae, possessed both
institutions. Like cities elsewhere they were divided into tribes
and
demes, and inscriptions also mention generals, law-guardians
(nomophy-
lak.es),
treasurers, archons
and
priests. They carried
on an
active
exchange
of
embassies with cities elsewhere and made honorific grants
of proxenia
10
to
citizens
of
those cities, just as
if
they were independent
city-states. But this impression is quite misleading, for in fact they were
wholly subservient
to the
king, who installed
in
them royal governors
{epistatai),
royal judges
(dikastai)
and other officials, whose control was
exercised both indirectly and, when necessary, directly. Thus
a
letter
written
by
Philip
V to
his representative
in
Thessalonica, Andronicus
(IG
x.2.1,
no. 3) forbids the municipal authorities
to
interfere with
the
revenues
of
the temple
of
Sarapis without permission from
the
royal
governor and judges; and under Antigonus II the decrees granting
asjlia
to
the
Coan Asclepieum indicate that
the
decisions conveyed have
the
king's approval. Within these limits however
the
cities
of
Macedonia
enjoyed local autonomy, administered their own funds and could even
confer
a
local citizenship.
The full integration
of
the coastal cities
as
part
of
Macedonia both
strengthened
the
kingdom economically
and
contributed
to the
grow-
ing hellenization which characterized Antigonus' reign. Under
the
regency Macedonia
had
lacked
the
lustre
of a
royal court;
but
both
Antipater and Cassander maintained links with the Peripatetic school at
Athens, and Cassander patronized the visual arts. The confusion
of
the
two decades following his death ended all this,
but
under Antigonus
II
Pella once more became
a
minor centre
of
patronage
and
culture
—
though indeed Macedonia never possessed the wealth
to
compete with
cities such
as
Antioch
or
Alexandria. Nevertheless, Pella extended
its
hospitality
to
many writers
of
distinction,
in
particular Aratus
of
Soli,
who like Antigonus himself had been
a
pupil
of
the Stoic Menedemus.
Aratus was the author
of
a
famous and popular work, the
Phaenomena,
a
8
The one apparent exception
is
Cassandreia;
but
the Cassandreians must also have considered
themselves Macedonians,
for a
city decree
of 242
conferring asylia
on the
Coan Asclepieum
mentions the good will
of
Cos towards
'
King Antigonus, the city of Cassandreia and all the rest of
the Macedonians'
(SEG
xn.373).
9
Herzog
and
Klaffenbach 1952,
1:
(B
89).
10
A proxenos
was originally the representative of
a
foreign state in another city; butproxenia had
by this time become
a
mainly titular honour.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
MACEDONIA AND GREECE IN 272
22
9
Stoic poem on the physical universe, the rising and setting
of
the stars
and the lore of weather-signs. Zeno, the founder of the Stoic school, had
also taught Antigonus,
but
declined
an
invitation
to
come
to
Pella.
Persaeus of Citium came in his place and stayed on as tutor to the king's
son Halcyoneus. As a courtier and as a politician and general he found a
career outside philosophy, ultimately committing suicide when
as
commander of
the
Acrocorinth in 243 he failed to prevent its seizure by
Aratus (see below,
p.
251). Persaeus' treatise On
Kingship
shows
the
current philosophical interest
in
the new monarchies. Other visitors
to
Pella were Timon
of
Phlius,
who
wrote lampoons, satyr-plays
and
various philosophical works,
and
perhaps Bion
of
Borysthenes,
the
wandering Cynic teacher and writer.
Even more important were the historians, who included Marsyas
of
Pella, author
of a
history
of
Macedonia
and
perhaps
the
first native
writer
of
importance, and Antigonus' own half-brother Craterus, who
published a collection of Athenian decrees with a commentary. But the
main figure was Hieronymus
of
Cardia, the most outstanding and
-
as
far as one can judge from fragments
—
the most reliable writer
on the
events from Alexander down to Pyrrhus' death in 272. Originally in the
service of Eumenes of Cardia, he transferred his allegiance to Antigonus
I after Eumenes' death and remained loyal
to
his house until
his
own
death around 250. Other branches
of
literature also flourished
at
Pella;
they included
the
works
of the
tragedian Alexander
of
Aetolia
and
Antagoras
of
Rhodes, author
of a
Theban epic.
But the
influence
of
Greek culture
was not
restricted
to
literature
and
philosophy:
the
discovery of several outstanding pebble mosaics
at
Pella, an impressive
tomb with highly competent tomb paintings at Lefkadhia and the great
Hellenistic palace
at
Vergina (Aegae) near the site
of
the tombs
of
the
Macedonian kings
are
sufficient indication that
at the
higher levels
at
least Macedonia
was now in no
sense
a
cultural backwater;
and
continuing excavations
at
Pella are revealing
an
impressive Hellenistic
town.
11
III.
MACEDONIA
AND
GREECE
IN 272
The consolidation
of
Macedonia was impossible without security both
against barbarian attacks from
the
north
and
against interference
by
Hellenistic rivals.
In
setting up his capital
at
Pella rather than
in
any
of
the coastal cities Antigonus asserted
his
return
to a
traditional policy
11
On
the Pella mosaics see Robertson 1965, 72-89:
(B
512); 1967, '33-6
(B
313); Petsas 1965,
41-56:
(B
311) Plates vol., pi. 139. Robertson dates them with some hesitation
to
the late fourth
century under Cassander. On the Lefkadhia tomb
see
Petsas
1966:
(j
239);
Plates vol.,
pi.
671.
On the
palace
at
Vergina see Andronikos and Makaronas 1961:
(j
172); Andronikos 1964:
(j
171); Plates
vol.,
pi.
69.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
230 7 MACEDONIA AND GREECE
and also perhaps demonstrated his concern
for
the interior
of
his realm.
Strong defences
in the
north, east
and
west were essential
not
only
for
Macedonia but (as the Gaulish invasion had showed)
for
Greece as well.
On Antigonus' policy
in
Thrace
no
evidence survives;
but it
seems
unlikely that
he
ceded the area east
of
the Nestus
to
Antiochus
12
in the
settlement
of
278
(see
above,
ch. 4, p.
116).
The
coins
of
Lysimacheia
continued
to
feature Lysimachus,
and
that suggests that this area
maintained
an
uneasy independence
of
both Macedonia
and the
Seleucids until the reign of Antiochus II.
To
the north the upper Axius
valley was occupied by the kingdom of Paeonia; like the Molossians (and
the Macedonians themselves)
the
Paeonians formed
a
commonalty
{koinori)
with
a
king. Paeonia
had
briefly recovered
its
independence
at
the time
of
the Gaulish invasion;
at
Olympia
the
koinon
honours King
Dropion
as its
'founder'
(SIG 394).
Antigonus probably took
no
immediate steps
to
recover Paeonia,
but
that
he
did so later is shown
by
his foundation
of
a new city called Antigoneia, probably near Banja
in
the Axius valley.
On the
western frontier likewise
the
provinces
of
Tymphaea
and
Parauaea were left
in
Epirote hands.
In all
these three
areas the indications are that Antigonus sought a quick settlement which
would leave him free to concentrate on home affairs. Thessaly was more
essential
and its
recovery was
not
long delayed. Delphic records show
the Thessalians represented
at
Amphictyonic meetings even after
the
organization fell under Aetolian control in
277;
but since throughout the
third
and
early second centuries states directly under Macedonia
normally withdrew their representatives from the Amphictyonic Coun-
cil while
it
was dominated by the Aetolians, the absence
of
Thessalians
from
the
Council from 276 onwards indicates that Macedonian control
of Thessaly
had
been reimposed from that time onwards.
It was a basic principle of Macedonian policy to deny southern Greece
to Ptolemy
or any
other rival power
and for
this purpose
the
minimal
requirement was control
of
the sea-route
by
way
of
Demetrias, Chalcis
and,
if
possible Piraeus, to Corinth. Philip V was later to dub Demetrias,
Chalcis
and
Corinth
the
'fetters
of
Greece'; they constituted
the
foundation
of
Macedonian power
in the
south
of the
peninsula.
Antigonus
had
managed
to
hold
on to
these coastal strongholds even
when he still did not yet control Macedonia and (probably since 280/79,
when he was attacking Antiochus I) he had entrusted Corinth to his
half-
brother Craterus, whose command also took
in
Chalcis,
the
Piraeus
(which defected during
the war
with Pyrrhus,
but was
recovered
in
271 /70) and several other
states.
Within this area Craterusgoverned almost
as
an
independent viceroy.
The Macedonian system based
on
this command
in
Corinth derived
12
So
Tarn 191}, 168: (D 38); Beloch 1927,
iv.2.3;;ff.:
(A
J).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
MACEDONIA AND GREECE IN 272
2
3
1
strength from the pro-Macedonian
or
Macedonian-controlled states
of
the Isthmus
and the
Peloponnese, where they served
to
counter
the
ambitions
of
Sparta.
The
long Spartan tradition
of
hostility
to
Macedonia was interrupted briefly following Antigonus' help
to
Areus
during Pyrrhus' invasion; but Areus soon reverted
to
his earlier enmity
and, subsidized
by
Egypt, showed himself in addition anxious
to
play
the part
of
a
Hellenistic king in
a
manner well outside the traditions of
Sparta. Sparta's enemies were ranged in varying degrees
of
support on
the side of Macedonia. Both Elis and Megalopolis had pro-Macedonian
tyrants.
In
Elis,
it
is true, Aristotimus survived only six months before
falling
to the
blows
of
tyrannicides;
but at
Megalopolis Aristodamus
established himself more firmly and held power for around two decades.
The chronology of
his
rule cannot be
firmly
ascertained; but one famous
incident, the defeat and death
of
Areus' son Acrotatus while attacking
Megalopolis, will belong
to the
later part
of his
reign
(c.
255).
The
position
in
Argos
is
less clear. Aristippus,
who had
supported
Antigonus
at
the time
of
Pyrrhus' attack, bears
a
name which suggests
that he was
a
forebear of the later dynasty of Argive tyrants (see below,
pp.
247—8),
but
that
he
himself exercised tyrannical power
is not
attested.
Nor
was Macedonian control continuous there, since
in the
250s Argos was
a
centre
for
anti-Macedonian conspirators (see below,
p.
243). Sicyon at this time fell under a series of tyrants, whose relation to
Antigonus
is not
entirely clear. Cleinias,
for
instance, the father
of
the
future Achaean leader Aratus,
who
exercised
a
beneficent autocracy
during
the
early 260s,
had
close family links with both Ptolemy
and
Antigonus.
Elsewhere Macedonian control was maintained with garrisons, as
at
Troezen, whence
the
Spartans were expelled
c.
272,
and at
Megara.
Corinth,
it may be
noted, though
the
centre
of the
Macedonian
command, was itself a privileged city;
on
one occasion
it
can
be
seen
exercising a vote on the Amphictyonic Council, and
it
retained coining
rights.
13
The position
at
Athens
is
rather different. Athens' represen-
tation
on
the Amphictyonic Council between 277 and 265 need
not in
itself attest
her
independence, since
she
could
be
enjoying
a
specially
privileged position like Corinth. But her independence is confirmed
for
271/70 by the passing of
a
decree honouring the democrat Demochares
in that year,
14
and for
270/69 when,
in the
archonship
of
Sosistratus,
special honours were voted
for
Callias
of
Sphettus who, as
a
Ptolemaic
mercenary captain, had brought help in liberating Athens at the time of
the democratic rising against Demetrius Poliorcetes
in
287 (see above,
ch.
4, p.
108);
15
Athenian sympathies
are
also indicated
by the
treaty
13
Flaceliere 1937, 200: (D 105).
14
Plut.
X
Oral.
vil. 851
D
(Attic archonship
of
Pytharatus).
15
On the
date see, against Shear 1978:
(c
62), Habicht 1979, 45—67:
(D
91).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
232
7
MACEDONIA
AND
GREECE
sworn with Aetolia
in 272 (SVA
470).
16
The
Piraeus, however,
remained
in
Macedonian hands without
a
break.
17
The
deprivation
of
their main harbour continued
to be a
constant irritation
to the
Athenians, which was ultimately
to
lead
to
war. Thus
by
270 Craterus
was
in
the firm possession of a considerable territory which included the
Isthmus
and
Euboea, together with several
key
cities
and
fortresses,
while further south,
in
the Peloponnese,
a
zone
of
Macedonian influence
varying
in
intensity from city
to
city derived strong support from
the
tyranny
in
Megalopolis. Further north,
on his
western frontier,
Antigonus left the Epirote monarchy undisturbed, probably seeing in
it
a
counterweight against the
Illyrians.
A factor of more concern, since the
defeat and death
of
Pyrrhus, was the growing strength and influence
of
the Aetolian League.
IV. THE RISE OF AETOLIA
The Aetolians occupied a rough and mountainous territory on the north
shore
of
the Corinthian
Gulf;
their land was
not
rich and the inhabitants
supplemented
a
scanty living derived from agriculture with piracy,
brigandage
and
mercenary service.
At
the
time
of
the
Peloponnesian
War they were loosely
but
effectively organized
in
three main tribes
together with some sub-tribes;
but
either towards
the end
of
the fifth
century
or
early
in the
fourth,
and
certainly before
367,
Aetolia
had
developed into a federal state possessing
a
central government and made
up
of
units consisting
of
cities with their territories.
In
the
third
and
second centuries, when evidence
is
fuller, there existed (though
not
perhaps in all parts of the federation) districts known as
tele,
intermediate
between the central government and the individual cities. Examples are
known
of
tele
centring
on
Stratus
and
West Locris;
the
second
of
these
possessed
a
local official called
a
boularch, so presumably
it
had
its
own
local council.
18
There
is no
reason
to
suppose that this political
reorganization brought any great change to Aetolian life in general; and
for many purposes tribal affiliations clearly continued
to
be
important.
The Aetolian League possessed
a
primary assembly consisting,
it
would seem,
of
all adult male citizens and meeting twice
a
year, once
in
spring
at
the
so-called
Panaetolica,
which was held
at
various towns
in
turn, and again in autumn at Thermum, when the elections took place; in
addition extraordinary meetings were called when required.
The
16
This belongs
to a
time when Athens was sending
hieromnemoms
to
the Amphictyonic Council.
See Flaceliere
1937,
190: (D
105).
17
Pausanias' reference (1.26.31)
to
Olympiodorus ffcipaid
Kal
Movwxiav dvaacuaa/xevo?,
is probably
to
be interpreted as
a
successful defence against Cassander's troops around 305, rather
than
as a
recovery
in
272;
see
Habicht
1979,
102—7:
(D
91).
18
Larsen
1968,
197: (A
33).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
THE RISE OF AETOLIA 233
assembly had wide and democratic powers; it was responsible for
striking alliances, admitting new members, conferring citizenship,
despatching and receiving embassies and sacred delegates (theoroi),
electing magistrates, passing laws - though a board of
nomographoi
was
responsible for their periodic review and revision - and making war and
peace. There was also a council
{boule,
synedrion)
consisting of rep-
resentatives whose number was proportionate to the military strength of
the contingents furnished by the various cities, and this body stayed in
permanent session. It provided continuity in the administration between
meetings of the assembly and it served as a federal court; but its
effectiveness was hampered by its size, since it contained over 1,000
councillors. Consequently there was also a smaller, elected body, the
apokletoi,
who acted as a permanent committee of the council under the
presidency of
the
chief
magistrate,
the general. Magistrates were elected
annually in autumn by the assembly meeting at Thermum. They
consisted of the single general
(strategos)
who could be re-elected, but
only after an interval, a secretary (and from a date not later than 207 a
second secretary assigned to the council), a cavalry officer (hipparch), an
agonotbetes
(to preside at the
Soteria
festival at Delphi) and a steward
{famias)
or stewards. The large numbers taking part in both the assembly
and the
synedrion
reflected democratic principles, but made them
ineffective instruments for quick action and led to more and more
decisions, including those affecting foreign policy, being taken by the
apokletoi.
In the course of the third century the administration of Aetolia
thus became increasingly oligarchic.
Socially and economically Aetolia remained backward. Although the
constituent units of the league were cities, these were mainly small.
Aetolia proper was not highly urbanized and the more prominent
Aetolian cities, such as Naupactus or Heraclea, were situated in areas
which had been annexed to the league. Insofar as there was a capital it
was at Thermum, which was little more than a temple and the site of an
annual fair and festival. There and at Delphi the more important
inscriptions were set
up;
but whether the Aetolian archives and treasury
were also kept at Thermum is not recorded.
The Aetolians had won themselves great prestige by their courage in
defending Delphi at the time of the Gaulish invasion (see above, ch. 4,
p.
115), and this they exploited to gain possession of Delphi itself and
increasingly to dominate the Amphictyonic Council which administered
the shrine. During the sixty years following the Gaulish inroad the
confederacy steadily expanded its territory, and this growth can be
traced in broad outline through the increase in the number of votes on
the Amphictyonic Council which were controlled by the Aetolians. This
was brought about by their appropriating places on the Council which
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
2J4 7 MACEDONIA AND GREECE
belonged by tradition to states now incorporated in the Aetolian League.
Unfortunately our knowledge of the details of the process is hampered
in various ways. In the first place the dating of many of the relevant
documents
is
still controversial; indeed until the table
of
Delphic
archons is firmly established many dates must remain subject to query.
Secondly, although it is clear that any increase in the number of Aetolian
delegates must imply the acquisition of, or at least a claim to, new terri-
tories,
which these were on any particular occasion is often a matter for
speculation, since the Aetolian delegates might come from any part of
the confederation, regardless of which vote they were exercising; nor
can one be sure that when the Aetolians lost their control
of
some
territory entitled to send a
hieromnemon
to the Amphictyonic Council,
they invariably abandoned their claim
to its
delegate. One must
therefore envisage the possibility that the Aetolians maintained their
claim to delegates representing lost territories, or in the case of an ally
still sending
hieromnemones
in its own name that exiles were used
as
representatives.
For the period with which we are immediately concerned the picture
is,
however, fairly clear.
19
In
277, the year
of
Antigonus' victory
at
Lysimacheia, the first Amphictyonic list since the Aetolians took over
Delphi shows them controlling two votes, and these are probably those
of the Ozolian Locrians and Heraclea-on-Oeta.
20
The fact that the
Thessalians still hold the presidency shows that they had not yet been
reconquered by Antigonus (see above, p. 230), whereas their absence
from the Council the next year must indicate that they had now once
more come under Macedonia. In that year (276) the Aetolians control a
third vote, which may be that of the Dolopians. By 272 they exercise five
votes,
probably after incorporating the Aenianes, and documents of 268
furnish
the
first evidence
for
their possessing
six
votes; the new
acquisition is likely to have been Doris. Thus in under ten years the
Aetolian Confederacy had extended its territory eastward as far as the
Malian
Gulf.
The Aetolians had
a
bad reputation
in
Greece and this largely
outweighed such gratitude
as
was felt
for
their good services
in
preserving Delphi from the Gauls. This reputation has been relayed to
posterity by the Achaean historian Polybius, who
is
directly or indirectly
responsible
for
most
of
our information about
a
people which
throughout most of the third and second centuries was the enemy of his
native Achaea. There
is
however no reason
to
question his account
19
The
Amphictyonic lists from
277
to
193/2 are
conveniently assembled
in
Flaceliere
1937,
386-417:
(D 105).
20
Cf.
Will
1979,
1.212:
(A 67). The
first list (archon Hieron) should
be
assigned
to
277:
cf.
Klaffenbach
1939, 194: (D 107); and
lists
2, 3
and
4
(Flaceliere
1937,
386-7:
(D
IOJ),
archons
Aristagoras
and
Charixenus), consequently belong
to
276 and 275.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
THE RISE OF AETOLIA 235
(xvm.4.8-5.2)
of
their regular addiction
to
privateering
and
their
custom of allowing their nationals
to
participate in any war against any
state,
even where Aetolia was itself neutral
and the
belligerents their
allies.
Aetolian access
to
the
Malian Gulf meant that
the
Aegean now
became exposed
to
piratical attacks.
In
these circumstances other states
frequently found
it
advantageous
to
secure from the Aetolians (as also
from
the
other people much given
to
piracy,
the
Cretans) grants
of
immunity from legalized reprisals
(asylia),
which often meant
in
effect
immunity from piratical outrage; and when
in
spite
of
such immunity
piracy occurred (as
it
often did),
it
was helpful if
in
addition the injured
party
had
previously received
a
grant
of
isopoliteia
from Aetolia.
Isopoliteia
represented potential Aetolian citizenship which could
be
made actual
if
the individual
to
whom
it
was granted came
to
live
on
Aetolian territory, but it also served to give an injured party access to the
courts of
his
assailants
for
the purpose
of
securing legal redress. Grants
of
asylia
and
isopoliteia
were made to both individuals and communities;
and complaints against their violation were sometimes heard
by the
Aetolian assembly acting as a federal court. Such grants were conferred
by other states too,
but
they were especially valuable when made
by
peoples such
as the
Aetolians
and
Cretans
for
whom, often
in
consequence of their poverty or national traditions, piracy was a way of
life.
Willingness
to
make such grants may be regarded as evidence
of
a
growing humanity during
the
Hellenistic period,
and
this
is
also
exemplified
by an
increasing readiness
to
settle disputes
by
arbitration
rather than
in the old
way
by
righting
(see
further below, ch.
8,
p.
313).
But
grants
of
asylia
and
isopoliteia
were
not
without
ad-
vantage
to the
Aetolians themselves, who could subsequently
use the
privileged cities
as
bases
for
depredations elsewhere.
The Aetolians also used grants
of
isopoliteia
as
a
political means
of
extending their power.
In
addition
to the
direct annexation
of
contiguous areas revealed
by
the
Amphictyonic documents
and
the
bringing
of
neighbouring states under Aetolian influence without
annexation
-
an
example
of
this
is
the
control exercised over Boeotia
after
245
(see below, p. 249-50) -the Aetolians also attached many states
to them
by
grants
of
isopoliteia,
especially where they were separated
geographically from
the
federation. Such grants were made
at
various
times
to
Ceos, Cephallenia, Chios, Oaxus
on
Crete,
and
Lysimacheia,
Cius
and
Chalcedon;
21
and
isopoliteia
was
also employed
in the
Peloponnese, where Phigalea and Messene were linked to Aetolia in this
way.
22
Much
of
the evidence
for the
use
of
isopoliteia
by
the Aetolians
21
Cf. SIG
)zz=SVA 568;
SEC
n.zjg+JEG xvm.245 (Chios);
IC
11
Vaxos, nos.
18 and 19
(Oaxus);
Polyb. xvm.3.11 (Lysimacheia, Cius, Chalcedon);
for
Cephallenia see Flaceliere 1937,
284
n.
y.
(D
105).
« SIG -,-,i = SVA 48y
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
236
7
MACEDONIA
AND
GREECE
comes from
a
period later than that
now
under consideration.
But
already the Aetolians had exploited the years of Macedonian anarchy and
Antigonus' preoccupation with
the
consolidation
of
his
position
at
home
and in
Greece
to
extend their territorial base.
The
events
of
the
next decade were
to
afford them
new
opportunities
for
expansion.
V. THE CHREMONIDEAN WAR
In
the
autumn
of
268 Macedonian progress
in
southern Greece
was
interrupted
by the
outbreak
of
a
war
directed against
the
Macedonian
positions there and led by Athens and Sparta. The main evidence
for its
outbreak
is
an
inscription containing
an
Athenian decree moved
by
Chremonides who, along with his brother Glaucon, was one of
a
group
of anti-Macedonian statesmen active in Athens at this time.
23
The decree
{SVA.
476), which
is
dated by the Athenian archonship
of
Peithidemus
(268/7)
an
d
is accompanied by the text of
the
alliance now made between
Athens
and
Sparta, accuses Antigonus
of
treaty-violation (though
of
which treaty
or
treaties
is
uncertain)
and
enumerates
the
allies lined
up
behind the two powers, namely Elis (now
rid of
its
tyrant Aristotimus),
the Achaean League (which
had
recently been refounded:
see
below,
p.
244), Tegea, Mantinea, Orchomenus, Phigalea, Caphyae
and
some
Cretan cities;
24
it
also indicates that
the
movement
was
supported
by
Ptolemy
II
with whom Athens was already allied.
The
wording
of
the
decree is redolent of panhellenic sentiment and recalls the glories of past
struggles against those who have tried
to
enslave the cities, and another
inscription from Plataea, containing
a
decree
of
the
'
koinon
of
the
Greeks' honouring Glaucon, Chremonides' brother,
for his
solicitude
towards the shrine
of
Zeus Eleutherios, provides further evidence of the
extent to which the movement sought to recall the former great occasion
when Athens
and
Sparta had fought together
in
unity
to
save Greece.
25
Thus the Chremonidean War (as
it
has been called from the name of the
proposer
of
the decree) looked back
to
the struggle against the Persians
as well
as to
Demosthenes and
the
Lamian
War for
inspiration
in
this
new chapter
in the
fight against Macedonia
for
Greek freedom.
Why Ptolemy,
who
after
his
father's share
in the
Athenian revolt
against Demetrius Poliorcetes
(see
above,
ch. 4, p.
108)
had
remained
inactive throughout
the
struggle between Pyrrhus
and
Antigonus,
chose the early sixties to stir up a war against Macedonia is not recorded
in our sources and has been
a
cause
of
much speculation. He may indeed,
23
See
Pouilloux, Melanges
Pre'aux
197J, 376?.: (D
98);
Etienne
and
Pierart
1975,
jiff.:
(B
70);
Habicht 1976,
-jff.:
(D 60).
24
Possibly Gortyn, Itanus, Olus, Aptera, Rhithymna, Polyrrhenia and Phalasarna; see, however,
van Effenterre 1948, 203-4:
(D
143); Heincn 1972, i43ff.:(A 21). For an alliance between Polyrrhenia
and Phalasarna, instigated
by
Sparta, sometime before 275, see
SVA
471.
25
Etienne
and
Pierart
1975,
jiff.:
(B
70).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008