Polybius: Histories Book 16

See supra 15, 20-24 ; Livy, 31, 17 , sqq .

KING PHILIP having arrived at Pergamum, and believing that he had as good as made an end of Attalus, gave the rein to every kind of outrage; and by way of gratifying his almost insane fury he vented his wrath even more against the gods than against man. For his skirmishing attacks being easily repelled by the garrison of Pergamum, owing to the strength of the place, and being prevented by the precautions taken by Attalus from getting booty from the country, he directed his anger against the seats of the gods and the sacred enclosures; in which, as it appears to me, he did not wrong Attalus so much as himself. He threw down the temples and the altars, and even had their stones broken to pieces that none of the buildings he had destroyed might be rebuilt. After spoiling the Nicephorium, cutting down its grove, and demolishing its ring wall, and levelling with the ground many costly fanes, he first directed his attack upon Thyatira, and thence marched into the plain of Thebe, thinking that this district would supply him with the richest spoil. But finding himself again disappointed in this respect, on arriving at the “Holy Village” he sent a message to Zeuxis, demanding that he would furnish him with corn, and render the other services stipulated for in the treaty.1 Zeuxis, however, though feigning to fulfil the obligations of the treaty, was not minded to give Philip real and substantial help. . . .

As the siege was not going on favourably for him, and the enemy were blockading him with an increasing number of decked vessels, he felt uncertain and uneasy as to the result. But as the state of affairs left him no choice, he suddenly put to sea quite unexpectedly to the enemy; for Attalus expected that he would persist in pushing on the mines he had commenced. But Philip was especially keen to make his putting to sea a surprise, because he thought that he would thus be able to outstrip the enemy, and complete the rest of his passage along the coast to Samos in security. But he was much disappointed in his calculations; for Attalus and Theophiliscus (of Rhodes), directly they saw him putting to sea, lost no time in taking action. And although, from their previous conviction that Philip meant to stay where he was, they were not in a position to put to sea quite simultaneously, still by a vigorous use of their oars they managed to overtake him, and attacked,—Attalus the enemy's right wing, which was his leading squadron, and Theophiliscus his left. Thus intercepted and surrounded, Philip gave the signal to the ships of his right wing, ordering them to turn their prows towards the enemy and engage them boldly; while he himself retreated under cover of the smaller islands, which lay in the way, with some light galleys, and thence watched the result of the battle. The whole number of ships engaged were, on Philip's side, fiftythree decked, accompanied by some undecked vessels, and galleys and beaked ships to the number of one hundred and fifty; for he had not been able to fit out all his ships in Samos. On the side of the enemy there were sixty-five decked vessels, besides those which came from Byzantium, and along with them nine triemioliae (light-decked vessels), and three triremes.

The fight having been begun on the ship on which King Attalus was sailing, all the others near began charging each other without waiting for orders. Attalus ran into an eight-banked ship, and having struck it a well-directed blow below the water-line, after a prolonged struggle between the combatants on the decks, at length succeeded in sinking it. Philip's tenbanked ship, which, moreover, was the admiral's, was captured by the enemy in an extraordinary manner. For one of the triemioliae , having run close under her, she struck against her violently amidships, just beneath the thole of the topmost bank of oars, and got fast jammed on to her, the steersman being unable to check the way of his ship. The result was that, by this craft hanging suspended to her, she became unmanageable and unable to turn one way or another. While in this plight, two quinqueremes charged her on both sides at once, and destroyed the vessel itself and the fighting men on her deck, among whom fell Democrates, Philip's admiral. At the same time Dionysodorus and Deinocrates, who were brothers and joint-admirals of the fleet of Attalus, charged, the one upon a seven-banked, the other upon an eight-banked ship of the enemy, and had a most extraordinary adventure in the battle. Deinocrates, in the first place, came into collision with an eightbanked ship, and had his ship struck above the water-line; for the enemy's ship had its prow built high; but he struck the enemy's ship below the water-line,2 and at first could not get himself clear, though he tried again and again to back water; and, accordingly, when the Macedonian boarded him and fought with great gallantry, he was brought into the most imminent danger. Presently, upon Attalus coming to his aid, and by a vigorous charge separating the two ships, Deinocrates unexpectedly found himself free, and the enemy's boarders were all killed after a gallant resistance, while their own vessel being left without men was captured by Attalus. In the next place, Dionysodorus, making a furious charge, missed his blow; but running up alongside of the enemy lost all the oars on his right side, and had the timbers supporting his towers smashed to pieces, and was thereupon immediately surrounded by the enemy. In the midst of loud shouts and great confusion, all the rest of his marines perished along with the ship, but he himself with two others managed to escape by swimming to the triemiolia which was coming up to the rescue.

The fight between the rest of the fleet, however, was an undecided one; for the superiority in the numbers of Philip's galleys was compensated for by Attalus's superiority in the number of his decked ships. Thus on the right wing of Philip's fleet the state of things was that the ultimate result was doubtful, but that, of the two, Attalus had the better hope of victory. As for the Rhodians, they were, at first starting, as I have said, far behind the enemy, but being much their superiors in speed they managed to come up with the rear of the Macedonians. At first they charged the vessels on the stern as they were retiring, and broke off their oars; but upon Philip's ships swinging round and beginning to bring help to those in danger, while those of the Rhodians who had started later than the rest reached the squadron of Theophiliscus, both parties turned their ships in line prow to prow and charged gallantly, inciting each other to fresh exertions by the sound of trumpets and loud cheers. Had not the Macedonians placed their galleys between the opposing lines of decked ships, the battle would have been quickly decided; but, as it was, these proved a hindrance to the Rhodians in various ways. For as soon as the first charge had disturbed the original order of the ships, they became all mixed up with each other in complete confusion, which made it difficult to sail through the enemy's line or to avail themselves of the points in which they were superior, because the galleys kept running sometimes against the blades of their oars so as to hinder the rowing, and sometimes upon their prows, or again upon their sterns, thus hampering the service of steerers and rowers alike. In the direct charges, however, the Rhodians employed a particular manœuvre. By depressing their bows they received the blows of the enemy above the water-line, while by staving in the enemy's ships below the water-line they rendered the blows fatal. Still it was rarely that they succeeded in doing this, for, as a rule, they avoided collisions, because the Macedonians fought gallantly from their decks when they came to close quarters. Their most frequent manœuvre was to row through the Macedonian line, and disable the enemy's ships by breaking off their oars, and then, rowing round into position, again charge the enemy on the stern, or catch them broadside as they were in the act of turning; and thus they either stove them in or broke away some necessary part of their rigging. By this manner of fighting they destroyed a great number of the enemy's ships.

But the most brilliant and hazardous exploits were those of three quinqueremes: the flagship on which Theophiliscus sailed, then that commanded by Philostratus, and lastly the one steered by Autolycus, and on board of which was Nicostratus. This last charged an enemy's ship, and left its beak sticking in it. The ship thus struck sank with all hands; but Autolycus and his comrades, as the sea poured into his vessel through the prow, was surrounded by the enemy. For a time they defended themselves gallantly, but at last Autolycus himself was wounded, and fell overboard in his armour, while the rest of the marines were killed fighting bravely. While this was going on, Theophiliscus came to the rescue with three quinqueremes, and though he could not save the ship, because it was now full of water, he yet stove in three hostile vessels, and forced their marines overboard. Being quickly surrounded by a number of galleys and decked ships, he lost the greater number of his marines after a gallant struggle on their part; and after receiving three wounds himself, and performing prodigies of valour, just managed to get his own ship safely off with the assistance of Philostratus, who came to his aid and bravely took his share of the danger. Having thus rejoined his own squadron, he darted out once more and ran in upon the enemy, utterly prostrated in body by his wounds, but more dashing and vehement in spirit than before.

So that there were really two sea-fights going on at a considerable distance from each other. For the right wing of Philip's fleet, continually making for land in accordance with his original plan, was not far from the Asiatic coast; while the left wing, having to veer round to support the ships on the rear, were engaged with the Rhodians at no great distance from Chios.

As the fleet of Attalus, however, was rapidly overpowering the right wing of Philip, and was now approaching the small islands, under cover of which Philip was moored watching the result of the battle, Attalus saw one of his quinqueremes staved in and in the act of being sunk by an enemy's ship. He therefore hurried to its assistance with two quadriremes. The enemy's ship turning to flight, and making for the shore, he pursued it somewhat too eagerly in his ardent desire to effect its capture. Thereupon Philip, observing that Attalus had become detached a considerable distance from his own fleet, took four quinqueremes and three hemioliae , as well as all the galleys within reach, and darting out got between Attalus and his ships, and forced him in the utmost terror to run his three ships ashore. After this mishap the king himself and his crew made their way to Erythrae, while Philip captured his vessels and the royal equipage on board them. For in this emergency Attalus had employed an artifice. He caused the most splendid articles of the royal equipage to be spread out on the deck of his ship; the consequence of which was that the first Macedonians who arrived on the galleys, seeing a quantity of flagons and purple robes and such like things, abandoned the pursuit, and turned their attention to plundering these. Thus it came about that Attalus got safe away to Erythrae; while Philip, though he had distinctly got the worst of it in the general engagement, was so elated at the unexpected reverse which had befallen Attalus, that he put to sea again and exerted himself strenuously in collecting his ships and restoring the spirits of his men by assuring them that they were the victors. For when they saw Philip put to sea towing off the royal ship, they very naturally thought that Attalus had perished. But Dionysodorus, conjecturing what had really happened to the king, set about collecting his own ships by raising a signal; and this being speedily done, he sailed away unmolested to their station in Asia. Meanwhile those Macedonians who were engaged with the Rhodians, having been for some time past in evil case, were gradually extricating themselves from the battle, one after the other retiring on the pretence of being anxious to support their comrades. So the Rhodians, taking in tow some of their vessels, and having destroyed others by charging them, sailed away to Chios.

In the battle with Attalus Philip had had destroyed a ten-banked, a nine-banked, a seven-banked, and a six-banked ship, ten other decked vessels, three triemioliae , twenty-five galleys and their crews. In the battle with the Rhodians ten decked vessels and about forty galleys. While two quadriremes and seven galleys with their crews were captured. In the fleet of Attalus one triemiolia and two quinqueremes were sunk, while two quadriremes besides that of the king were captured. Of the Rhodian fleet two quinqueremes and a trireme were destroyed, but no ship was taken. Of men the Rhodians lost sixty, Attalus seventy; while Philip lost three thousand Macedonians and six thousand rowers. And of the Macedonians and their allies two thousand were taken prisoners, and of their opponents six hundred.

Such was the end of the battle of Chios; in which Philip claimed the victory on two pretexts. First, because he had driven Attalus ashore and had captured his ship; and secondly, because, as he had anchored at the promontory of Argennum, he had the credit of having taken up his anchorage where the wrecks were floating. He acted in accordance with this assertion next day by collecting the wrecks, and causing the corpses which could be recognised to be picked up for burial, all for the sake of strengthening this pretence. For that he did not himself believe that he had won was shortly afterwards proved by the Rhodians and Dionysodorus. For on that very next day, while he was actually engaged on these operations, after communication with each other they sailed out to attack him, but, on nobody putting out to meet them, they returned to Chios. Philip indeed had never before lost so many men either by land or sea at one time, and was extremely mortified at what had happened and had lost much of his spirit for the enterprise. To the outside world, however, he tried to conceal his real sentiments: though this was forbidden by facts. Besides everything else, what happened after the battle impressed all who saw it too strongly. For the slaughter and destruction was so great that, on the day of battle itself the whole strait was filled with corpses, blood, arms, and wrecks; while on the subsequent days the strands might be seen piled up with all these together in wild confusion. Hence the extreme consternation of the king could not be confined to himself, but was shared by all his Macedonians.

Theophiliscus survived for one day; and then having written a despatch home with an account of the battle, and appointed Cleonaeus to succeed him in his command, died from his wounds. He had shown great valour in the engagement, and his far-sighted policy deserves to be remembered. If it had not been for his boldness in attacking Philip in time, all the allies would have let the opportunity pass, in terror at Philip's audacity. But by beginning the war as he did he forced his countrymen to seize the opportunity, and compelled Attalus not to lose time in mere preparatory measures for war, but to go to war energetically and grapple with the danger. The Rhodians, therefore, were quite right to pay him, even after his death, such honours as were incentives, not only to men living at the time, but to future generations also, to prompt service in their country's cause.

The Indecisive Battle of Chios Was Followed by Another Off Lade, in Which Philip Was Partly Successful3 After the battle of Lade, the Rhodians being out of his way, and Attalus not having yet appeared on the scene, it is clear that Philip might have accomplished his voyage to Alexandria. And here we have evidence stronger than any other of Philip's infatuation in acting as he did. What, then, prevented his design? Nothing in the world but what always occurs in the natural course of affairs. For at a distance many men at times desire the impossible from the extravagant prospects it holds out, their ambition over-mastering their reason; but when they approach the moment of action they quite as irrationally abandon their purpose, because their calculations are obscured and confused by the embarrassments and difficulties which meet them.

Having made some assaults which proved abortive owing to the strength of the place, Philip went away again, plundering the forts and villages in the country. Thence he marched to Prinassus and pitched his camp under its wall. Having promptly got ready his pent-houses and other siege artillery, he began to attempt the town by mines. This plan proving impracticable, owing to the rocky nature of the soil, he contrived the following stratagem. During the day he caused a noise to be made under ground, as though the mines were being worked at; while during the night he caused earth to be brought and piled up at the mouth of the mine, in order that the men in the city, by calculating the quantity of earth thrown up, might become alarmed. At first the Prinassians held out bravely: but when Philip sent them a message informing them that he had underpinned two plethra of their walls, and asking them whether they preferred to march out with their lives, or one and all to perish with their town when he set fire to the props, then at last, believing that what he said was true, they surrendered the city.

The town of Iassus is situated in Asia on the gulf between the temple of Poseidmen, the territory of Miletus, and the city of Myndus, called the gulf [of Iassus by some]. but by most the gulf of Bargylia from the names of the cities built upon its inner coast. The Iassians boast of being originally colonists from Argos, and more recently from Miletus, their ancestors having invited to their town the son of Neleus, the founder of Miletus, owing to their losses in the war with the Carians. The size of the town is ten stades. Among the people of Bargylia it is a common report widely believed that the statue of the Kindyan Artemis, though in the open air, is never touched by snow or rain; and the same belief is held among the Iassians as to the Artemis Astias.4 All these stories have been repeated by certain historians. But, for my part, I have in the whole course of my work set myself against such statements of our historiographers and have had no toleration for them. For it appears to me that such tales are only fit to amuse children, when they transgress not only the limits of probability but even those of possibility. For instance, to say that certain bodies when placed in full light cast no shadow argues a state of quite deplorable folly. But Theopompus has done this; for he says that those who enter the holy precinct of Zeus in Arcadia cast no shadow, which is on a par with the statements to which I have just referred. Now, in so far as such tales tend to preserve the reverence of the vulgar for religion, a certain allowance may be made for some historians when they record these miraculous legends. But they must not be allowed to go too far. Perhaps it is difficult to assign a limit in such a matter; still it is not impossible. Therefore, in my judgment, such displays of ignorance and delusion should be pardoned if they do not go very far, but anything like extravagance in them should be rejected.

I have already described the deliberate policy of Nabis, tyrant of the Lacedaemonians; how he drove the citizens into exile, freed the slaves, and gave them the wives and daughters of their masters. How also, by opening his kingdom as a kind of inviolable sanctuary for all who fled from their own countries, he collected a number of bad characters in Sparta. I will now proceed to tell how in the same period, being in alliance with Aetolians, Eleans, and Messenians, and being bound by oaths and treaties to support one and all of those peoples in case of any one attacking them, he yet in utter contempt of these obligations determined to make a treacherous attack on Messene.

As some episodical historians have written on the period which embraces the affair at Messene and the sea-fights already described, it is my intention to discuss them briefly. I will not however speak of them all, but only those whom I suppose to be worthy of commemoration and full discussion. These are the Rhodian writers Zeno and Antisthenes, whom I judge to deserve this distinction, for more than one reason. They were contemporary with the events, and were engaged in practical politics; and, lastly, they composed their histories with no view to gain, but for the sake of fame, and as part of the business of politicians. Since then they write of the same events as myself, I cannot omit mentioning them; lest, from the reputation of their country, and the idea that naval affairs are peculiarly the province of Rhodians, some students may prefer their authority to mine where I differ from them.

Now both these writers, to begin with, describe the battle of Lade as not less severe than that of Chios, but more fiercely and daringly contested, both in detail and as a whole, and finally assert that the victory was with the Rhodians. For my part I should be inclined to allow that historians must show some partiality to their own countries; not however that they should state what is exactly opposite to the facts regarding them. There are quite enough mistakes which writers make from ignorance, and which it is difficult for poor human nature to avoid: but if we deliberately write what is false for the sake of country, friends, or favour, how do we differ from those who do the same to get a living? For as the latter, by measuring everything by the standard of private gain, ruin the credit of their works, so your politicians often fall into the same discredit by yielding to the influence of hatred or affection. Therefore readers ought to be jealously watchful on this head; while writers ought to be on their guard for their own sakes.

The present matter is an example. When coming to details of the battle of Lade, these writers confess that in it “two quinqueremes of Rhodes were captured by the enemy; and that upon one ship raising its studding-sail to escape from the conflict, owing to its having being staved in and shipping sea, many of the vessels near it did the same and made for the open sea; and that at last the admiral, being left with only a few vessels, was forced to follow their example. That for the present they were forced by unfavourable winds to drop anchor on the territory of Myndus, but next day put to sea and crossed to Cos; while the enemy, having secured the quinqueremes, landed at Lade and took up their quarters in the Rhodian camp: that, moreover, the Milesians, deeply impressed by what had taken place, presented not only Philip, but Heracleides also, with a garland of victory on his entrance to their territory.” And yet, though they give all these particulars, which all evidently indicate the losing side, they still declare the Rhodians to have been victorious both in particular combats and in the whole battle; and that too in spite of the fact that the original despatch from the admiral concerning the battle, sent to the Senate and Prytanies, still exists in their Prytaneium, which testifies to the truth, not of the statements of Antisthenes and Zeno, but of mine.

Next as to their account of the treacherous attempt upon Messene. Zeno says that “Nabis started from Sparta, crossed the Eurotas near the tributary called the Hoplites, and advanced along the narrow road past Poliasium until he arrived at Sallasia, thence past Pharae to Thalamae, and so to the river Pamisus.” About which I do not know what to say. It is just as if one were to say that a man started from Corinth and marched through the Isthmus and arrived at the Scironean way, and then came straight to the Contoporian road, and journeyed past Mycenae to Argos. For such a statement would not be merely slightly wrong but wholly contradictory. For the Isthmus and the Scironian rocks are east of Corinth, while the Contoporian road and Mycenae are nearly due south-west; so that it is completely impossible to go by way of the former to the latter. The same may be said about Lacedaemon; for the Eurotas and Sallasia are to the northeast of Sparta, while Thalamae, Pharae, and the Pamisus are to the south-west. Therefore it is not possible to go to Sallasia, nor necessary to cross the Eurotas, if a man means to go to Messenia by way of Thalamae.

Besides these mistakes, he says that Nabis started on his return from Messenia by the gate on the road to Tegea. This is another absurdity; for Megalopolis is between Tegea and Messene, so that it is impossible that a gate at Messene should be called the “Gate to Tegea.” The fact is that there is a gate there called the “Tegean Gate,” by which Nabis commenced his return; and this led Zeno into the mistake of supposing that Tegea was near Messene, which is not the fact: for the Laconian territory, as well as that of Megalopolis, lies between that of Messene and Tegea. Lastly, he says that the Alpheus flows underground from its source for a considerable distance, and comes up near Lycoa, in Arcadia. The truth is that this river does go down underground not far from its source, and, after remaining hidden for about ten stades, comes up again, and then flows through the territory of Megalopolis, at first with a gentle stream, and then gaining volume, and watering that whole district in a splendid manner for two hundred stades, at length reaches Lycoa, swollen by the tributary stream of the Lusius, and become unfordable and deep. . . .

However, I think that the points I have mentioned, though all of them blunders, admit of some palliation and excuse; for the latter arose from mere ignorance, those connected with the sea-fight from patriotic affection. But is it not then a fault in Zeno, that he does not bestow as much pains on investigating the truth and thoroughly mastering his subject, as upon the ornaments of style; and shows on many occasions that he particularly plumes himself on this, as many other famous writers do? To my mind it is quite right to take great care and pay great attention to the presentation of one's facts in correct and adequate language, for this contributes in no small degree to the effectiveness of history; still I do not think that serious writers should regard it as their primary and most important object. Far from it. Quite other are the parts of his history on which a practical politician should rather pride himself.

The best illustration of what I mean will be the following. This same writer, in his account of the siege of Gaza and Antiochus's pitched battle with Scopas in Coele-Syria, at Mount Panium,5 showed such extreme anxiety about ornaments of style, that he made it quite impossible even for professional rhetoricians or mob-orators to outstrip him in theatrical effect; while he showed such a contempt of facts, as once more amounted to unsurpassable carelessness and inaccuracy. For, intending to describe the first position in the field taken up by Scopas, he says that “the right extremity of his line, together with a few cavalry, rested on the slope of the mountain; while its left with all the cavalry belonging to this wing, was in the plains below. That Antiochus, just before the morning watch, despatched his elder son Antiochus with a division of his army to occupy the high ground which commanded the enemy; and that at daybreak he led the rest of his army across the river which flowed between the two camps, and drew them up on the plain: arranging his heavy-armed infantry in one line, facing the enemy's centre, and his cavalry, some on the right and the rest on the left wing of the phalanx, among which were the heavy-armed horsemen, under the sole command of the younger of the king's sons Antiochus. That in advance of this line he stationed the elephants at certain intervals, and the Tarentines6 commanded by Antipater; while he filled up the spaces between the elephants with archers and slingers. And finally, that he took up his own station on the rear of the elephants with a squadron of household cavalry and bodyguards.” After this preliminary description he continues: “The younger Antiochus”—whom he had described as being on the level ground with the heavy-armed cavalry—“charged down from the high ground and put to flight and pursued the cavalry under Ptolemy, son of Aeropus, who was in command of the Aetolians in the plain on the left wing; but the two lines, when they met, maintained a stubborn fight.” But he fails to observe that, as the elephants, cavalry, and light-armed infantry were in front, the two lines could not possibly meet at all.

Next he says that “the phalanx, outmatched in agility and forced backwards by the Aetolians, retired step by step, while the elephants received the retreating line, and did great service in charging the enemy.” But how the elephants got on the rear of the phalanx it is not easy to understand, or how, if they had got there, they could have done good service. For as soon as the two lines were once at close quarters, the animals would no longer have been able to distinguish friend from foe among those that came in their way. Again, he says that “the Aetolian cavalry were thrown into a panic during the engagement, because they were unaccustomed to the look of the elephants.” But, by his own account, the cavalry which was originally stationed on the right wing remained unbroken; while the other division of the cavalry, that on the right wing, had all fled before the successful attack of Antiochus. What portion of the cavalry was it, then, that was on the centre of the phalanx, and was terrified by the elephants? And where was the king, or what part did he take in the battle, seeing that he had with him the very flower of the infantry and cavalry? For not a word has been told us about these. And where was the elder of the young Antiochi, who, with a division of the troops, occupied the high ground? For this prince is not represented even as returning to his quarters after the battle. And very naturally so. For Zeno started by assuming two sons of the king named Antiochus, whereas there was only one in the army on that occasion. How comes it, again, that according to him, Scopas returned first and also last from the field? For he says: “when he saw the younger Antiochus, after returning from the pursuit, on the rear of his phalanx, and accordingly gave up all hopes of victory, he retired.” But afterwards he says that “he sustained the most imminent peril when his phalanx got surrounded by the elephants and cavalry, and was the last man to retire from the field.”

These and similar blunders appear to me to reflect very great discredit upon writers. It is necessary, therefore, to endeavour to make one's self master of all departments of history alike. That is the ideal; but if that is impossible, one ought at least to be excessively careful on the most essential and important points in it. I have been induced to say this because I have observed that in history, as in other arts and sciences, there is a tendency to neglect the true and essential, while the ostentatious and the showy secure praise and emulation as something great and admirable. The fact being that in history, as in other departments of literature, these latter qualities require less trouble and gain a cheaper reputation. As to his ignorance of the topography of Laconia, considering that his error was an important one, I did not hesitate to write to Zeno personally. For I thought it a point of honour not to look upon the mistakes of others as personal triumphs, as is the way with some writers; but to do the best I could to secure correctness, not only of my own historical writings, but of those of others also, for the benefit of the world at large. When Zeno received my letter and found that it was impossible to make the correction, because his history was already published, he was much vexed, but could do nothing. He, however, put the most friendly interpretation on my proceeding; and, in regard to this point, I would beg my own readers, whether of my own or future generations, if I am ever detected in making a deliberate misstatement, and disregarding truth in any part of my history, to criticise me unmercifully; but if I do so from lack of information, to make allowances: and I ask it for myself more than others, owing to the size of my history and the extent of ground covered by its transactions. . . .

Tlepolemus,7 the chief minister in the kingdom of Egypt, was a young man, but one who had spent all his life in the camp, and with reputation. By nature aspiring and ambitious, he had done much that was glorious in the service of his country, but much that was evil also. As a general in a campaign, and as an administrator of military expeditions, he was a man of great ability, high natural courage, and extremely well fitted to deal personally with soldiers. But on the other hand, for the management of complicated affairs, he was deficient in diligence and sobriety, and had the least faculty in the world for the keeping of money or the economical administration of finance. And it was this that before long not only caused his own fall, but seriously damaged the kingdom as well. For though he had complete control of the exchequer, he spent the greater part of the day in playing ball and in matches in martial exercises with the young men; and directly he left these sports he collected drinking parties, and spent the greater part of his life in these amusements and with these associates. But that part of his day which he devoted to business, he employed in distributing, or, I might rather say, in throwing away the royal treasures among the envoys from Greece and the Dionysian actors, and, more than all, among the officers and soldiers of the palace guard. He was utterly incapable of saying no, and bestowed anything there was at hand on any one who said anything to please him. The evil which he himself thus began continually increased. For every one who had received a favour expressed his gratitude in extravagant language, both for the sake of what he had got and of what he hoped to get in the future. And thus being informed of the universal praise which was bestowed on him, of the toasts proposed in his honour at banquets, of complimentary inscriptions, and songs sung in his praise by the public singers all through the town, he became entirely befooled, and grew daily more and more puffed up with conceit, and more reckless in squandering favours upon foreigners and soldiers.

These proceedings were very offensive to the other members of the court; and, therefore, they watched everything he did with a jealous eye, and conceived a detestation for his insolence, which they began to compare unfavourably with the character of Sosibius. For the latter was considered to show more wisdom in his guardianship of the king than his age gave reason to expect; and, in his dealings with other persons, to maintain the dignity proper to his high trust, which was the royal seal and person. Just at this time, Ptolemy, the son of Sosibius, returned from his mission to Philip. Before he left Alexandria on his voyage, he had been full of foolish pride, partly from his own natural disposition and partly from his father's success. But upon landing in Macedonia, and mixing with the young men at court, he conceived the notion that the virtue of the Macedonians consisted in the better fashion of their boots and clothes; he therefore came home got up in imitation of all these peculiarities, and fully persuaded that his foreign tour and association with Macedonians had made a man of him. He therefore immediately began showing jealousy of Tlepolemus, and inveighing against him; and as all the courtiers joined him, on the ground that Tlepolemus was treating the business and revenue of the state as though he were its heir and not its guardian, the quarrel quickly grew. Meanwhile Tlepolemus, being informed of certain unfriendly speeches, originating in the jealous observation and malignity of the courtiers, at first turned a deaf ear to them and affected to despise them; but when at length they ventured to hold a meeting and openly express their disapproval of him in his absence, on the ground of his maladministration of the government of the kingdom, he grew angry; and, summoning the council, came forward and said that “they brought their accusations against him secretly and in private, but he judged it right to accuse them in public and face to face.” . . .

After making his public speech, Tlepolemus deprived Sosibius of the custody of the seal also, and having got that into his hands, thenceforth conducted the administration exactly as he chose. . . .

It seems to me to be at once just and proper to give the people of Gaza8 the praise which they deserve. For though they do not differ as to bravery in war from the rest of the inhabitants of Coele-Syria, yet as parties to an international agreement, and in their fidelity to their promises, they far surpass them, and show altogether a courage in such matters that is irresistible. In the first place, when all the other people were terrified at the invasion of the Persians,9 in view of the greatness of their power, and one and all submitted themselves and their countries to the Medes, they alone faced the danger and stood a siege. Again, on the invasion of Alexander, when not only did the other cities surrender, but even Tyre was stormed and its inhabitants sold into slavery; and when it seemed all but hopeless for any to escape destruction, who resisted the fierce and violent attack of Alexander, they alone of all the Syrians withstood him, and tested their powers of defence to the uttermost. Following the same line of conduct on the present occasion, they omitted nothing within their power in their determination to keep faith with Ptolemy. Therefore, just as we distinguish by special mention in our history individuals of eminent virtue, so ought we, in regard to states as such, to mention with commendation those which act nobly in any point from traditional principles and deliberate policy. . . .

Italy (Livy, 30, 45 ）

Publius Scipio returned from Libya soon after the events I have narrated. The expectation of the people concerning him was proportionable to the magnitude of his achievements: and the splendour of his reception, and the signs of popular favour which greeted him were extraordinary. Nor was this otherwise than reasonable and proper. For after despairing of ever driving Hannibal from Italy, or of averting that danger from themselves and their kinsfolk, they now looked on themselves as not only securely removed from every fear and every menace of attack, but as having conquered their enemies. Their joy therefore knew no bounds; and when Scipio came into the city in triumph, and the actual sight of the prisoners who formed the procession brought still more clearly to their memories the dangers of the past, they became almost wild in the expression of their thanks to the gods, and their affection for the author of such a signal change. For among the prisoners who were led in the triumphal procession was Syphax, the king of the Masaesylii, who shortly afterwards died in prison. The triumph concluded, the citizens celebrated games and festivals for several days running with great splendour, Scipio, in his magnificent liberality, supplying the cost. . . .

At the beginning of the winter in which Publius Sulpicius was elected consul at Rome, king Philip, who was staying at Bargylia, was rendered exceedingly uneasy and filled with many conflicting anxieties for the future, when he observed that the Rhodians and Attalus, far from dismissing their navy, were actually manning additional ships and paying more earnest attention than ever to guarding the coasts. He had a double cause, indeed, for uneasiness: he was afraid of sailing from Bargylia, and foresaw that he would have to encounter danger at sea; and at the same time he was not satisfied with the state of things in Macedonia, and therefore was unwilling on any consideration to spend the winter in Asia, being afraid both of the Aetolians and the Romans; for he was fully aware of the embassies sent to Rome to denounce him [as soon as it was known] that the war in Libya was ended. These considerations caused him overwhelming perplexity; but he was compelled for the present to remain where he was, leading the life of a wolf, to use the common expression: for he robbed and stole from some, and used force to others, while he did violence to his nature by fawning on others, because his army was suffering from famine; and by these means managed sometimes to get meat to eat, sometimes figs, and sometimes nothing but a very short allowance of corn. Some of these provisions were supplied to him by Zeuxis, and some by the people of Mylae, Alabanda, and Magnesia, whom he flattered whenever they gave him anything, and barked at and plotted against when they did not. Finally, he made a plot to seize Mylae by the agency of Philocles, but failed from the clumsiness with which the scheme was contrived. The territory of Alabanda he harried as though it were an enemy's, alleging that it was imperatively necessary to get food for his troops. . . .

When this Philip, father of Perseus, was thus overrunning Asia, being unable to get provisions for his army, he accepted a present of figs from the Magnesians, as they had no corn. For which reason, when he conquered Myus, he granted its territory to the Magnesians in return for their figs. . . .

The Athenian people sent envoys to king Attalus, both to thank him for the past, and to urge him to come to Athens to consult with them on the dangers that still threatened them.10 The king was informed a few days afterwards that Roman ambassadors had arrived at the Peiraeus; and, believing that it was necessary to have an interview with them, he put to sea in haste. The Athenian people, being informed of his coming, passed very liberal votes as to the reception and general entertainment of the king. Arrived at the Peiraeus, Attalus spent the first day in transacting business with the Roman ambassadors, and was extremely delighted to find that they were fully mindful of their ancient alliance with him, and quite prepared for the war with Philip. Next morning, in company with the Romans and the Athenian magistrates, he began his progress to the city in great state. For he was met, not only by all the magistrates and the knights, but by all the citizens with their children and wives. And when the two processions met, the warmth of the welcome given by the populace to the Romans, and still more to Attalus, could not have been exceeded. At his entrance into the city by the gate Dipylum the priests and priestesses lined the street on both sides: all the temples were then thrown open; victims were placed ready at all the altars; and the king was requested to offer sacrifice. Finally they voted him such high honours as they had never without great hesitation voted to any of their former benefactors: for, in addition to other compliments, they named a tribe after Attalus, and classed him among their eponymous heroes.

They next summoned an ecclesia and invited the king to address them. But upon his excusing himself, on the plea that it would be ill-bred for him to appear before the people and recount his own good services in the presence of those on whom they had been bestowed, they gave up asking for his personal appearance; but begged him to give them a written statement as to what he thought was the best thing to do in view of the existing circumstances. On his consenting to do this, and writing the document, the magistrates produced the despatch to the ecclesia. The contents of this written communication were briefly these: he recalled the good services he had done the people in the past; enumerated the things he had accomplished in the existing war against Philip; and lastly exhorted them to activity in this war, and protested that, if they did not determine resolutely to adopt this policy of hostility to Philip in common with the Rhodians, Romans, and himself, and yet afterwards wished to share in the benefits which had been secured by others, they would miss securing the true interests of their country. As soon as this despatch had been read, the people, influenced both by its contents and by their warm feeling towards Attalus, were prepared to vote the war: and when the Rhodians also entered and argued at great length to the same effect, the Athenians at once decreed the war against Philip. They gave the Rhodians also a magnificent reception, honoured their state with a crown of valour, and voted all Rhodians equal rights of citizenship at Athens, on the ground of their having, besides other things, restored the Athenian ships which had been captured with the men on board them. After concluding this arrangement, the Rhodian ambassadors sailed to Ceos with their fleet to visit the islands. . . .

While the Roman ambassadors were still at Athens, Nicanor, by the command of Philip, made a raid upon Attica, and came as far as the Academy. Thereupon the Romans sent a herald to him, and bade him announce to his master Philip that “The Romans admonished him to make no war upon any Greek State, and to submit to an arbitration before a fair tribunal as to the injuries he had inflicted upon Attalus: that, if he did this, he might have peace with Rome, but, if he refused to obey, the opposite would immediately follow.” On the receipt of this message Nicanor retired. Then the Romans sailed along the coast of Epirus and delivered a similar announcement in regard to Philip in the town of Phoenice; also to Amynandrus in the district of Athamania; also to the Aetolians in Naupactus, and the Achaeans in Aegium. And having thus by the mouth of Nicanor given Philip this clear warning, the Roman envoys themselves sailed away to visit Antiochus and Ptolemy with a view to settle their controversies. . . .

It appears to me that to make a good beginning, and even to maintain enthusiasm long enough to secure a considerable measure of success, is an achievement of which many have been found capable; but to carry a purpose through to its end, and, even though fortune be adverse, to make up by cool reason for the deficiency of enthusiasm is within the power of few. From this point of view one cannot but disparage the inactivity of Attalus and the Rhodians, while regarding with admiration the royal and lofty spirit displayed by Philip, and his constancy to his purpose,—not meaning to speak in praise of his character as a whole, but simply commending the vigour with which he acted on this occasion. I make this distinction to prevent any one supposing that I contradict myself, because I recently praised Attalus and the Rhodians and found fault with Philip, whereas I am now doing the reverse. This is just such a case as I referred to at the beginning of my history, when I said that it was necessary sometimes to praise, and sometimes to blame the same persons, since it frequently happens that changes of circumstances for the worse and calamities alter men's original dispositions, and frequently also changes for the better; and sometimes too it is the case that from natural temperament men are at one time inclined to what is right, at another to the reverse. And it is a variation of this sort that I think occurred to Philip in this instance. For, irritated by his defeats, and influenced in a great degree by anger and passion, he addressed himself with a kind of insane or inspired eagerness to meet the dangers of the hour; and it was in this spirit that he rose to the attack upon the Rhodians and king Attalus, and gained the successes which followed. I was induced to make these remarks, because I observe that some men, like bad runners in the stadium, abandon their purposes when close to the goal; while it is at that particular point, more than at any other, that others secure the victory over their rivals. . . .

Philip was anxious to anticipate the Romans in seizing bases of operation and landing-places in this country (Asia). . . .

In order that, if it should be his purpose again to cross to Asia, he might have a landing-place at Abydos.

The position of Abydos and Sestos, and the advantages of the situation of those towns it would, I think, be waste of time for me to state in great detail, because the singularity of those sites has made them familiar to all persons of intelligence. Still I imagine that it will not be otherwise than useful to remind my readers briefly of the facts, by way of attracting their attention. A man would best realise the advantages of these cities, not by regarding their sites by themselves, but by comparing and contrasting them with those about to be mentioned. For just as it is impossible to sail from the Ocean,—or as some call it the Atlantic,—into our sea, except by passing between the Pillars of Heracles, so is it impossible to sail from our sea into the Propontis and the Pontus except through the channel separating Sestos and Abydos. But as though Fortune had designed these two straits to counterbalance each other, the passage between the Pillars of Heracles is many times as broad as that of the Hellespont,—the former being sixty, the latter two stades; the reason being, as far as one may conjecture, the great superiority in size of the external Ocean to our sea: while the channel at Abydos is more convenient than that at the Pillars of Heracles. For the former being lined on both sides by human habitations is of the nature of a gate admitting mutual intercourse, sometimes being bridged over by those who determine to cross on foot, and at all times admitting a passage by sea. But the channel at the Pillars of Heracles is seldom used, and by very few persons, owing to the lack of intercourse between the tribes inhabiting those remote parts of Libya and Europe, and owing to the scantiness of our knowledge of the external Ocean. The city of Abydos itself is enclosed on both sides by two European promontories, and possesses a harbour capable of sheltering ships anchoring in it from every wind; while there is no possibility of anchoring at any point near the city outside the harbour mouth, owing to the rapidity and violence of the current setting through the strait.

Having then invested Abydos partly by a palisade and partly by an earthwork, Philip began blockading it by land and sea together. This siege was not at all remarkable for the extent of the machinery employed, or the ingenuity displayed in those works on which besiegers and besieged are wont to exhaust all their invention and skill against each other; but still it deserves, if any ever did, to be remembered and recorded for the noble spirit and extraordinary gallantry exhibited by the besieged. At first, feeling full confidence in themselves, the inhabitants of Abydos maintained a courageous resistance to the attempts of Philip; struck and dislodged some of his engines, which he brought against their walls by sea, with stones from their catapults, and destroyed others by fire, and with such fierceness, that the enemy were barely able to drag their ships out of danger. Against the siege operations on land, too, up to a certain point they offered an undaunted resistance, not at all despairing of ultimately overpowering the enemy. But when their outer wall was undermined and fell, and when moreover the Macedonians by means of these same mines were approaching the inner wall, which had been erected by the besieged to cover the breach: then at length they send Iphiades and Pantacnotus as ambassadors, with an offer to Philip that he should take over the city, on condition of letting the soldiers from Rhodes and Attalus depart under a truce; and of permitting all free persons to depart as they could, and wherever each might choose, with the clothes that each was wearing. But on Philip bidding them “surrender at discretion or fight like men,” the ambassadors returned to the town.

On being informed of the message the people of Abydos met in public assembly, and with feelings of utter despair deliberated upon their position. They thereupon resolved, first to liberate the slaves, that they might secure their sincere interest and loyalty; next, to collect all the women into the temple of Artemis, and the children with their nurses into the gymnasium; and finally to bring together their silver and gold into the market-place, as well as collect their clothes which were of any value into the quadrireme of the Rhodians and the trireme of the Cyzicenes. Having formed these resolutions and acted on the decree with unanimity, they again assembled in public meeting, and elected fifty of the older and most trusted men, who at the same time were possessed of sufficient bodily vigour to enable them to carry out what had been determined upon; and these they bound on oath in the presence of the whole of the citizens, that “whenever they saw the inner wall being captured by the enemy, they would kill the children and women, and would burn the abovementioned ships, and, in accordance with the curses that had been invoked, would throw the silver and gold into the sea.” After this they brought the priests forward, and all the citizens swore that they would conquer the enemy or die fighting for their country. To crown all, they slew victims and compelled the priests and priestesses to dictate the words of this imprecation over the burnt offerings. Having bound themselves by this solemn agreement, they left off attempting to countermine the enemy, and resolved that, directly the interior wall fell, they would fight to the last in the breach with the enemy's storming party and there die.

This would justify us in saying that the gallantry of the Abydenians outdid the proverbial Phocian recklessness and Acarnanian courage.11 For the Phocians have the reputation of having adopted a similar resolution as to their families, but not because they despaired of victory, for they were about to fight a pitched battle with the Thessalians in the open field. So too the Acarnanians, upon the mere prospect of an Aetolian invasion, adopted a like resolution; the details of which I have already narrated. But the Abydenians, at a time when they were closely invested and in all but complete despair of being saved, elected by a unanimous resolution to meet their fate along with their children and wives, rather than to live any longer with the knowledge that their children and wives would fall into the power of the enemy. Therefore one might justly complain of Fortune for having, in the former cases, given victory and safety to those who despaired of them, while she adopted the opposite decision in regard to the Abydenians. For the men were killed, and the city was taken, but the children with their mothers fell into the hands of the enemy.

As soon as the interior wall had fallen, the men, according to their oaths, sprang upon the ruins and fought the enemy with such desperate courage, that Philip, though he had kept sending the Macedonians to the front in relays till nightfall, at last abandoned the contest in despair of accomplishing the capture at all. For not only did the Abydenian forlorn hope take their stand upon the dead bodies of the fallen enemies, and maintain the battle with fury; nor was it only that they fought gallantly with mere swords and spears; but when any of these weapons had been rendered useless, or had been knocked out of their hands, they grappled with the Macedonians, and either hurled them to the ground arms and all, or broke their sarissae, and stabbing their faces and exposed parts of their bodies with the broken ends, threw them into a complete panic. But the fight being interrupted by nightfall, most of the citizens having now fallen in the breach, and the rest being utterly exhausted by fatigue and wounds, Glaucides and Theognetus collected a few of the older men together, and, instigated by hopes of personal safety, lowered the special eminence and unique glory which their fellow-citizens had acquired. For they resolved to save the children and women alive, and at daybreak to send the priests and priestesses with garlands to Philip, to entreat his mercy and surrender the city to him.

While this was going on, king Attalus, having heard that Abydos was being besieged, sailed through the Aegean to Tenedos; and similarly the youngest of the Roman ambassadors, Marcus Aemilius, arrived on board ship at Abydos itself. For the Roman ambassadors, having learnt at Rhodes the fact of the siege of Abydos, and wishing in accordance with their commission to deliver their message to Philip personally, put off their purpose of visiting the two kings, and despatched this man to him. Having found the king outside Abydos, he explained to him that “The Senate had resolved to order him not to wage war with any Greek state; nor to interfere in the dominions of Ptolemy; and to submit the injuries inflicted on Attalus and the Rhodians to arbitration; and that if he did so he might have peace, but if he refused to obey he would promptly have war with Rome.” Upon Philip endeavouring to show that the Rhodians had been the first to lay hands on him, Marcus interrupted him by saying: “But what about the Athenians? And what about the Cianians? And what about the Abydenians at this moment? Did any one of them also lay hands on you first?” The king, at a loss for a reply, said: “I pardon the offensive haughtiness of your manners for three reasons: first, because you are a young man and inexperienced in affairs; secondly, because you are the handsomest man of your time” (this was true); “and thirdly, because you are a Roman. But for my part, my first demand to the Romans is that they should not break their treaties or go to war with me; but if they do, I shall defend myself as courageously as I can, appealing to the gods to defend my cause.” With these words they separated. On becoming master of Abydos, Philip found all the property of the citizens collected by themselves ready to his hand. But when he saw the numbers and fury of those who were stabbing, burning, hanging, throwing into wells, or precipitating themselves from housetops, and their children and wives, he was overpowered with surprise; and resenting these proceedings he published a proclamation, announcing, that “he gave three days' grace to those who wished to hang or stab themselves.” The Abydenians, already bent on executing their original decree, and looking upon themselves as traitors to those who had fought and died for their country, could not endure remaining alive on any terms; and, accordingly, with the exception of those who had previously been put in chains or some similar restraint, they all without delay hastened to their death, each family by itself.

After the capture of Abydos, envoys came from the Achaean nation to Rhodes urging the Rhodians to make terms with Philip. But upon these being followed by the arrival of the ambassadors from Rome, who argued that they should make no terms with Philip without consulting the Romans, the Rhodian people voted to listen to the latter and to hold to their friendship with them. . . .

Philopoemen calculated the distances of all the cities of the Achaean league, and from which of them men could arrive at Tegea along the same roads. He then wrote despatches to each of them, and sent them to the most distant cities, so dividing them that each city that was farthest on a particular road should get, not only the one addressed to itself, but those also of the other cities on the same road. The contents of these first despatches addressed to the chief magistrate were as follows: “As soon as ye receive this despatch, forthwith cause all the men of military age, with arms, and provisions, and money for five days, to assemble immediately in the market-place. And as soon as they are thus collected, march them out and lead them to the next city. As soon as ye have arrived there, deliver the despatch addressed to its chief magistrate and follow the instructions therein contained.” Now, this second despatch contained exactly the same words as the former, except of course that the name of the next town was changed to which they were to march. By this arrangement being repeated right along the road, in the first place no one knew for what purpose or undertaking the expedition was directed; and in the next place, every one was absolutely ignorant where he was going, beyond the name of the next town, but all marched forward in a state of complete mystification, taking on the successive contingents as they went. But as of course the most remote towns were not equally distant from Tegea, the letters were not delivered to them all at the same time, but to each in proportion to its distance. By which arrangement, without either the Tegeans or the new arrivals knowing what was going to happen, all the Achaeans marched into Tegea under arms by all the gates simultaneously.

What suggested to Philopoemen this stratagem was the great number of the tyrant's eavesdroppers and spies. On the day then on which the main body of the Achaeans were to arrive at Tegea, he despatched a band of picked men, so timing their start, that they might pass the night near Sellasia and at daybreak begin a raid on Laconia. They had orders that, in case the mercenaries of Nabis left their quarters and attacked them, they were to retire on Scotita, and in other respects follow the directions of Didascalondas of Crete; for Philopoemen had given his confidence to this officer, and full directions as to the whole expedition. These men therefore set out in good spirits to the task assigned to them. Philopoemen himself having issued orders to the Achaeans to sup early, led out his army from Tegea, and after a rapid night's march halted it about the time of the morning watch in the neighbourhood of Scotita, which is between Tegea and Lacedaemon. When day broke the mercenaries in Pellene, being informed by their scouts of the raid which the enemy were making, started at once to the rescue, as was their custom, and bore down upon them; and when the Achaeans, in accordance with their instructions, retired, they followed, harassing them with bold and daring assaults. But as soon as they came to the place where Philopoemen lay in ambush, the Achaeans sprang up and cut some of them to pieces, and took others prisoners.

Philip seeing that the Achaeans were disposed to hesitate about undertaking the war with Rome, tried earnestly by every means to rouse their feeling of hostility.

Ptolemy's general Scopas marched into the upper region during the winter and subdued the Jewish nation.

The siege having been conducted in a desultory manner, Scopas fell into bad repute and was attacked with all the petulance of youth. . . .

Having conquered Scopas, Antiochus took Batanaea, Samaria, Abila, and Gadara; and after a while those of the Jews who inhabit the sacred town called Jerusalem submitted to him also. On the subject of this town I have a good deal more to say, and especially on account of the splendour of its temple, but I shall put it off to another opportunity.