The Rise of Rome (Penguin Classics)

by Plutarch

  72. Gortyn: Philopoemen had assisted Gortyn (modern Gortyna), a major city in central Crete, during his first period in Crete. Gortyn remained in conflict with its principal rival, Cnossus, and Nabis, whose influence extended into Crete, supported Cnossus against Gortyn. Presumably Philopoemen was in Crete both to aid Gortyn and oppose Nabis’ interests there. See Errington, Philopoemen, pp. 36–48.

  73. other men to be their generals: If Plutarch’s statement here reflects Philopoemen’s true or likely motive, then either he failed in his next bid for the generalship of 199/8, which was held by Aristaenus, or, taken less literally, was dissatisfied with the results of the elections for 200/199; see Errington, Philopoemen, pp. 73–5. But this explanation may be nothing more than Plutarch’s own surmise, based on his belief that ‘Philopoemen was no friend of leisure’ or his assumption that Aristaenus was Philopoemen’s political enemy (ch. 13).

  74. Ptolemy: Possibly Ptolemy V (210–180), if this anecdote is correctly associated with Polybius 22.3.7–9, where this Ptolemy’s prowess is praised in Philopoemen’s presence. During Ptolemy V’s reign, Egypt suffered significant reverses and loss of territories.

  75. Megalopolitans … tried to exile him … Aristaenus: They tried to exile Philopoemen during Aristaenus’ generalship of 199/8. Aristaenus, a citizen of Megalopolis, was also general of the Achaean League in 196/5, 188/7 and 186/5. He was a staunch proponent of a pro-Roman policy for the Achaean League (ch. 17).

  76. he incited … the Achaeans: These events must have taken place soon after Philopoemen’s return in 194 or early 193, but little about them can be recovered; see Errington, Philopoemen, pp. 90–91. In any case, Philopoemen was elected general for 193/2, so his political influence in the league was by then clearly robust, whether or not these intrigues made any difference outside Megalopolis (at ch. 14 Plutarch observes that Philopoemen returned from Crete with a brilliant reputation).

  77. Titus: Titus Quinctius Flamininus, the subject of the Roman Life in this pairing. Philip was decisively defeated at the battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 (Flamininus 7–8).

  78. Nabis was at war … with Rome: In 195 Rome and her Greek allies went to war with Nabis in order to force him to surrender Argos. He was ultimately forced to capitulate and to surrender all possessions outside Laconia. Most of his Peloponnesian holdings, including Argos, became part of the Achaean League. In 193 Nabis attempted to recover his former coastal territories, in particular Gytheum (modern Gytheio), which precipitated a war with the Achaean League (it immediately sent ambassadors to Rome and to Flamininus for consultation on the matter). The events of this chapter took place in 192.

  79. elected to a command: Philopoemen was general for 193/2.

  80. sea battle: Livy (35.25–30) gives an extended account of the battle and its sequel; see also Pausanias 8.50.7–10.

  81. match that of Epaminondas: In 364/3 Epaminondas led a naval expedition to Greek cities in the east, intending to detach them from their alliance with Athens, but little came of it (Diodorus 15.78.4–15.79). The idea that the mission met with deliberate failure is decidedly improbable.

  82. in Plato’s phrase: Plato, Laws 4.706b–c, quoted again at Themistocles 4.

  83. Philopoemen … was quite convinced: The more extended version at Livy 35.25 suggests that Plutarch is here misleadingly abbreviating his source’s account. Philopoemen was in fact reluctant to fight at sea before the allied Roman fleet arrived, but felt that he had no alternative, an attitude that would not suit Plutarch’s picture of a Philopoemen resolutely independent of Rome.

  84. ship … not sailed for forty years: Livy (35.26.5) says that it had been captured eighty years before. The two notices are compatible, however, since it may well have sailed in some form after its capture.

  85. the siege of Gytheum: Begun in 193, the city fell to Nabis in 192 (though Plutarch does not mention that here). In the end, however, Philopoemen inflicted a serious and crippling defeat on Nabis (in the battle described in this chapter), after which Flamininus intervened to settle hostilities (Livy 35.25–30).

  86. Philipoemen halted the pursuit … near the city: Plutarch here simplifies an extremely complicated account; the exchange in fact lasted two days (Livy 35.27.14–35.29.7) and the pursuit also had several phases (35.29.8–35.30.13), of which Plutarch selects only the last.

  87. piled honours upon him … irritation: See Flamininus 13. The idea of the two men’s competition for honour and Flamininus’ consequent jealousy is reported elsewhere, e.g. Livy 35.30.13 and 35.47.4 (both notices probably derive from Polybius).

  88. consul: Flamininus was consul in 198 and afterwards proconsul until 194, when he returned to Rome. In 192 he was acting as a Roman ambassador (legatus) in the east. The word used by Plutarch here, hypatos, can refer to a consul, proconsul or an ex-consul.

  89. a single decree: Plutarch refers to the proclamation of 196 (see Flamininus 10–11).

  90. terms … brought the war to an end: In early summer 192.

  91. Nabis met his death … Aetolians: Nabis was assassinated in summer 192. The Aetolians had for some time encouraged Nabis to adopt an anti-Roman policy. His willingness to accept the protection offered him by Flamininus, however, made it appear to them that he had switched sides.

  92. Philopoemen … attacked in force: This invasion occurred in summer 192. Livy (35.36–35.37.1–3) has a fuller account.

  93. the Spartan nobility … an embassy to inform him: This incident, whereby the Spartan elite attempted to win Philopoemen’s support on some issue, remains an unclear one. It is probably to be connected with the perturbation in Sparta that Plutarch mentions in ch. 16 (which took place during the generalship of Diophanes in 192/1): see Pausanias 8.51.2. This episode is also found in Polybius (20.12), but in an isolated fragment. In any case, Plutarch is uninterested in the political context: his emphasis is on Philopoemen’s incorruptibility.

  94. the reality of virtue, not just the semblance: This is an allusion to Aeschylus, Seven Against Thebes 592, referring to the seer Amphiaraus: ‘to be best, not to seem so, that is his desire’. The same passage is quoted more fully in Aristeides and by Plato (Republic 362a–b).

  95. Spartiates: These were full Spartan citizens and something of an elite within Lacedaemonian society.

  96. Timolaus: Mentioned in the same context at Polybius 20.12.2, otherwise unknown.

  97. congress: Scholars disagree over whether this a reference to Sparta’s senate (the Gerousia) or to the assembly of the Achaean League, which seems more likely if Sparta was in danger of ‘punishment’ during Diophanes’ generalship (ch. 16 and note 93).

  98. agitation was afoot in Sparta: Although we are poorly informed about political conditions in Sparta in these years, it is nonetheless clear that Sparta remained restive, a condition that resulted in revolt against the Achaean League in 189; see Cartledge and Spawforth, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta, pp. 78–9.

  99. Diophanes: General in 192/1. In the past he had been a political associate of Philopoemen, but after this incident political differences persisted between them (Livy 38.32.6 and Polybius 22.10.4–14); see Walbank, Commentary, vol. 3, p. 93.

  100. Antiochus: On Antiochus III (c. 242–187), his empire and his war with Rome, see Errington in CAH viii, pp. 244–89; S. Sherwin-White and A. Kuhrt, From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire (1993), pp. 188–216; and Eckstein, Rome Enters the Greek East, pp. 145–50, 306–41. He was at war with the Romans from 191 until 188 (Flamininus 9 and 15 and Elder Cato 12–14).

  101. joined Titus … marched … on Sparta itself: Early in 191.

  102. the Roman consul: Flamininus was still acting as a Roman ambassador (legatus), see note 88.

  103. He went to Sparta … private citizen though he was: Plutarch returns to this at Comparison Philopoemen–Flamininus 3.

  104. Time passed … against the Spartans: Plutarch here simplifies what was in fact a complex (and still poorly understood) sequence of events, a fuller account of whic
h is provided at Livy 38.30–34. Internal discord at Sparta resulted in an attempt, in 189, to recover some of the city’s losses in the settlement of 195, an act of rebellion that inevitably provoked an Achaean response: see Cartledge and Spawforth, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta, pp. 78–9; and Briscoe, A Commentary on Livy, Books 38–40, pp. 110–18. Plutarch, then, is misleading when he reduces the matter to a mere grievance. At Comparison Philopoemen–Flamininus 1 he goes further and attributes Philopoemen’s actions at this point simply to anger.

  105. general at the time: In 189/8. Plutarch has displaced these events, which belong after some of those of ch. 17.

  106. Aristocrates: (FGrH 591) A Spartan historian and antiquarian about whom very little is known. Plutarch also cites him at Lycurgus 4 and 31. Polybius’ account of this event is lost, but see Livy 38.33.10–11. These deaths occurred in spring 188, when the Spartans surrendered to Philopoemen.

  107. given Spartan citizenship: Evidently Nabis had enfranchised some of Sparta’s helots (or serfs) (Pausanias 8.51.3 and Livy 38.34.2).

  108. a portico in Megalopolis: One that the Spartans had destroyed and Philopoemen now restored (Pausanias 8.30.7 and Livy 38.34.7).

  109. the Spartan system of education: Plutarch describes it (the agoge) at Lycurgus 16–24.

  110. Years later … re-established their traditional one: At an uncertain date after 146. This restoration was limited and incomplete, see Cartledge and Spawforth, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta, pp. 201–7.

  111. When war broke out in Greece … Antiochus: The Romans’ war with Antiochus lasted from 191 until 188. Plutarch now reverts to the events of 192 (and subsequently), adjusting his focus to Philopoemen’s relations with Rome.

  112. Philopoemen was a private citizen: Philopoemen did not become general again until 191/90; when the war broke out, Diophanes was general.

  113. Chalcis: Modern Chalkida, the most important city in Euboea.

  114. Syrians: Plutarch refers here to Antiochus’ troops. See Flamininus 16 and Livy (36.11.1–4) for lurid details of Antiochus’ luxury during the winter of 192/1, but much of this is exaggeration. After all, Antiochus had captured Chalcis despite Roman and Achaean garrisons (Livy 35.50.3–4).

  115. victory: Plutarch has in mind the Romans’ victory at Thermopylae in 191, after which the war against Antiochus was carried on in Asia, although hostilities against his allies, the Aetolians, persisted until 189.

  116. the Romans … more involved in Greek affairs: For an account of Rome’s increasing and increasingly overbearing involvement in Greek affairs, see Derow, CAH viii, pp. 290–303.

  117. matters were approaching … cycle of Fortune needed to reach: It is unclear but likely that Plutarch has in mind Aemilius Paullus’ victory at the battle of Pydna in 168, an event which Polybius described as the culmination of the work of Fortune in making Rome the political master of the inhabited world (Polybius 1.1.5, 3.1.9–10 and 29.21). Plutarch shares the view that Rome’s domination of Greece was part of a providential design: see Swain, H&E, pp. 154–5.

  118. Aristaenus of Megalopolis: See note 75.

  119. ‘My dear man … destiny?’: Polybius (24.13.6) supplies a similar but less pointed version of Philopoemen’s remark. However, in Polybius the opposition between Aristaenus’ Roman policy and Philopoemen’s is less sharply drawn than in Plutarch: see Eckstein, Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius, pp. 163–4.

  120. Manius: Manius Acilius Glabrio, consul of 191, was the victor at Thermopylae.

  121. demand … allow the Spartan exiles to return: This demand seems to have come in autumn 191 (Livy 36.35.7). Political discord within Sparta had created several waves of exiles, some of whom were connected with Philopoemen (Livy 38.31.1).

  122. he restored the exiles himself: At least some of the exiles were restored when Philopoemen was again general in 189/8, but this was not ‘the following year’.

  123. general … for the eighth time: Philopoemen’s final generalship was for 183/2. It is unclear when during his term in office he met his death.

  124. nemesis: Both a goddess and an abstract concept, Nemesis was the personification of divine retribution.

  125. Deinocrates: A leading Messenian statesman and a friend of Flamininus. Our fullest account of him comes from Polybius (23.5.1–18); see Walbank, Commentary, vol. 3, pp. 220–23, and Flamininus 17.

  126. rebellion from the Achaean League: In 191 Messene had been compelled to join the league.

  127. Colonides: Livy (39.49.1) names this village Corone (modern Petalidi); Colonides is about 9 miles (15 km) to the south of Corone.

  128. on hearing this he hurried to Megalopolis: Achaean forces had already been sent into Messene (Pausanias 4.29.11, 8.51.5) but Plutarch here stresses Philopoemen’s rush to the scene. At Comparison Philopoemen–Flamininus 1 this action is cited as the precipitate of his anger.

  129. covering more than 400 stades in a … day: Philopoemen travelled more than 44 miles (71 km), which is approximately the distance between the two cities.

  130. hill of Evander: The site is unknown and is possibly a mistake for Mt Eva in Messene (Pausanias 4.31.4).

  131. Back in the city: Messene.

  132. a mood of generosity spread among the ordinary people: Pausanias (8.51.6) describes a meeting of the assembly in which Deinocrates and the rich pressed for execution and the popular party urged mercy.

  133. freedom … by expelling … Nabis: In 201 (ch. 12).

  134. Deinocrates was afraid of delay … before the Achaeans could intervene: Livy (39.49–50) has a more complicated sequence of events.

  135. any news about … Lycortas: This is unclear as it stands. An advance force of Achaeans had been sent to Messene under the command of Lycortas (note 128), and this explains Philopoemen’s question. Lycortas (d. c. 167), the father of the historian Polybius, was already a leading figure in the Achaean League.

  136. elected Lycortas as their general: He was elected to fill out the remainder of Philopoemen’s term (183/2).

  137. invaded Messenia … enter the city: Plutarch severely abbreviates the account given at Polybius 23.16.

  138. those who had voted … killed by them: The text is uncertain here, but it is clear from Polybius (23.16.13) that some Messenians were obliged to take their own lives (Pausanias 8.51.8 insists that only Deinocrates committed suicide).

  139. Polybius: The historian, son of Lycortas, who was born c. 208 and would have been about twenty-five at the time.

  140. statues erected … honours voted by the cities: See Diodorus 29.18.

  141. destruction of Corinth: During the Achaean War in 146.

  142. Polybius opposed the man’s slanderous charges: The controversy over Philopoemen’s statues, including an account of Polybius’ defence, is reported at Polybius 39.3.1–11. The hostile Roman is also anonymous there.

  143. Mummius … commissioners: Lucius Mummius was consul in 146 and was the Roman commander in the Achaean War. After his victory, a commission of ten senators was sent to aid him in organizing affairs in Greece.

  TITUS FLAMININUS

  Further Reading

  There is no English commentary on Titus Flamininus, but there is an excellent one in Italian: C. Pelling and E. Melandri, Plutarco, Vite Parallele: Filopemene e Tito Flaminino (1997). There is also a good biography in German by R. Pfeilschifter, Titus Quinctius Flamininus: Untersuchungen zur römischen Griechenlandpolitik (2005). Flamininus has attracted much attention from historians writing in English. A classic and accessible introduction is provided by E. Badian, ‘Titus Quinctius Flamininus: Philhellenism and Realpolitik’, in C. G. Boulter and D. W. Bradeen (eds.), Lectures in Memory of Louise Taft Semple, Second Series, 1966–70 (1973), pp. 271–327. See also E. Badian, ‘The Family and Early Career of T. Quinctius Flamininus’, JRS 61 (1971), pp. 102–11, and J. J. Walsh, ‘Flamininus and the Propaganda of Liberation’, Historia 45 (1996), pp. 344–63. The particulars of Flamininus’ settlement of Greek communities in the aftermath of the war are
examined by D. Armstrong and J. J. Walsh, ‘SIG 593. The Letter of Flamininus to Chyretiae’, Classical Philology 81 (1986), pp. 32–43.

  On the historical background, and for important interpretative studies of this Life, see Further Reading for Philopoemen.

  Notes to the Introduction to Titus Flamininus

  1. That the rise of Rome was favoured by the gods is axiomatic in Plutarch: see Swain, H&E, pp. 151–61.

  2. See Introduction to Philopoemen.

  3. See e.g. Moralia 813e and General Introduction II.

  4. In 208 Marcellus was killed while campaigning against Hannibal in southern Italy (Marcellus 29). Plutarch does not mention Flamininus’ quaestorship, which is noted only by Livy (32.7.9). On the Second Punic War, see Introductions to Fabius Maximus and Marcellus.

  5. Fabius Maximus recovered Tarentum for Rome in 209; see Fabius Maximus 21–3. Thereafter, it was assigned to the praetor Quintus Claudius. E. Badian has suggested that this man was in fact a Kaeso Quinctius Flamininus and the uncle of Flamininus, but the matter can only remain speculative; see Badian, ‘The Family and Early Career of T. Quinctius Flamininus’, JRS 61, pp. 106–10.

  6. It was expected that a man be forty-two or older when he was elected consul, but the circumstances of the Second Punic War resulted in more than one anomalous election: e.g. Scipio Africanus (elected consul for 205 at the age of thirty), Publius Sulpicius Galba (consul for the first time in 211, having held no curule magistracy) and Lucius Cornelius Lentulus (became consul in 199 after holding a special command in Spain).

  7. See R. M. Errington in CAH viii (1989), pp. 94–106. The political situation in Greece leading up to this war plays an important part in Aratus.

  8. The origins of the Second Macedonian War remain controversial. See Errington in CAH viii, pp. 244–89, and A. M. Eckstein, Rome Enters the Greek East: From Anarchy to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic Mediterranean, 230–170 BC (2008).