The Major Factors That Led Rome and the Hellenistic Kingdom to Clash Essay

6. What were the major factors that led to clangs between Rome and the Hellenistic lands. down to 146 B. C. ? Can one make up one’s mind what proportion of the duty for these clangs belongs to Rome. to the Hellenistic “great powers” ( the Antigonids. Seleucids and Ptolemies ) and to the minor participants?

This essay will what were the major factors that led to clangs between Rome and the Hellenistic land. down to 146 B. C. A brief history of Rome’s increasing engagement in the Hellenistic country get downing with its wars with Hannibal of Carthage and how the Hellenistic Kingdoms of Antigonids. the Seleucids and the Ptolemies and several other minor powers in the country came to be after the decease of Alexander. The essay will concentrate on the factors that the author believes contributed to the clangs. These being. Prince philips confederation with Hannibal and the Punic imperium. the consequences of embassadors from Rhodes and Pergamum being received in Rome and relation of an add oning confederation between Philip of Macedon and Antiochus of the Seleucids Kingdom. the 3rd factor is that Rome was merely coming to the assistance of its ‘friends’ . assorted smaller powers in the country with which it had formed confederations. The essay will so concentrate on to whom the duty for the clangs between Rome and the Hellenistic Kingdoms lies with and what proportion of duty can allocate to each party.

This will concentrate on the major participants of the Hellenistic Kingdoms. the Antigonids. Seleucids and Ptolemies and other smaller participants. After the decease of Alexander in 323B. C. the imperium which he had created began to be broken up into different lands and satraps amid acrimonious infighting by his generals. including Ptolemy. Cassander. Antigonus. Parmenion and Seleucus. “the ultimate atomization of Alexander’s imperium was likelihood from the start. and the history of the undermentioned coevals was to see the outgrowth of several separate lands and dynasties out of his once unified imperium. ” Out of these generals three emerged to take control of big pieces of Alexander’s imperium. these were. Ptolemy. Antigonus and Seleucus. Ptolemy Soter had campaigned with Alexander from the beginning and had gained Alexanders trust. and had become one of his personal escorts every bit good as one of Alexander’s generals. After Alexanders decease Ptolemy was given the satrapy of Egypt and shortly used his new found authorization to get down claiming some of the environing countries. including. the part around Cyrene.

His first challenge to the authorization of the other satrapies and lands was the claiming of Alexanders remains as his funeral emanation toured through his imperium. Ptolemy subsequently won the lands of Palestine and Cyprus to farther secure Egypt’s boundary lines. The Ptolemy dynasty lasted many centuries until it besides came under Roman regulation. Antigonus was another one of Alexander’s replacements and created the Antigonid dynasty which was to govern Macedonia and parts of Greece. Antigonus had aspirations to animate Alexanders imperium and this was recognized by the other replacements who formed an confederation against him. that was fought over many conflict but reached no existent decision. but prevented him from spread outing his land any farther. Antigonus was invariably under onslaught from all sides and eventually fell in conflict and his land now came under the control of his boy. Seleucus was another of Alexanders general and after his decease was given the satrapy of Babylonia and after first being ousted by Antigonus. he fled to Egypt to seek safety with Ptolemy. after a figure of old ages in Egypt. Seleucus returned to take over much of Persia.

The lands that he had gained were ethnically diverse and used different parts of each civilization to administrate his lands. Seleucus managed to derive back much of Alexander’s former imperium until he was assassinated and his boy took over his leading. These three replacements of Alexander along with the more minor satrap of Lysimachus and Cassander inherited an imperium but through about changeless warfare between themselves were non able to raise Alexander’s imperium either singularly or as an confederation. The three chief replacements forged dynasties that lasted a twosome of centuries until they all were defeated or came under the sway of Rome. Rome fought three wars with Carthage called the Punic wars. these wars were fought between 264B. C. and 146B. C. ( First 264-241B. C. . Second 218-202B. C. . Third 149-146B. C. )

The first two Carthaginian wars were basically defensive wars for Rome particularly the 2nd where Hannibal in bid of the Punic forces crossed the Alps and attacked mainland Italy. the Romans were able to drive Hannibal and his ground forces. Hannibal was finally defeated by the celebrated General Publius Cornelius Scipio and pushed back to North Africa and Carthage. The 2nd war reduced Carthage to nil but a metropolis province. but Rome still feared that Carthage could lift one time once more to its former military might and with the 3rd Punic war ; Rome razed Carthage to the land. butchering or enslaving its dwellers.

“At the sight of the metropolis absolutely diing amidst the fires Scipio burst into cryings. and stood long reflecting on the inevitable alteration which awaits metropoliss. states. and dynasties. ” Rome and the Hellenistic lands fought four wars called the Macedonian wars between 215B. C. and 146B. C. and wars signalled the first clangs between Rome and the Hellenistic lands. The first Macedonian war was fought between Rome and Philip V of Macedon of the Antigonid land and was brought approximately as a cause of retaliation. In 216B. C. Philip V thought that with Hannibal’s uninterrupted triumphs over the Roman forces that the Italian peninsula would fall and that the clip was right to organize an confederation with Hannibal. with the aspiration of spread outing his ain spheres. This was a war that Rome did non desire to be involved in as they were already stretched militarily in their battle against Carthage. and sent merely a little force to cover with Philip V and the Macedon land.

Harmonizing to Livy. Rome made an confederation with the Aetolians to contend against Philip V and sent a larger force to pay war. but on geting found the Aetolians had made peace with Philip V and it was easier for Rome to seek peace with Philip V than fight entirely. and therefore the first Macedonian war ended. The Second Macedonian was fought between 200-196B. C. and was started after an evident secret trade between Philip V of Macedon and Antiochus III of the Seleucid land to assail and split up the Egyptian land under Ptolemy regulation. Ambassadors from Rhodes and Pergamum had sent diplomatic missions to Rome with these studies with the purpose of deriving Roman support against Philip V and the menaces he posed to their lands. Philip’s aggression towards the Greek metropolis provinces. some who had confederations with Rome. caused Rome to publish an ultimatum to Philip. to take his forces back into Macedon. Philip refused and on the stalking-horse of assisting its ‘friends’ Rome started t move its forces against Macedon.

It is possible that Rome besides feared if Philip and Antiochus gained farther bridgeheads in the Eastern Mediterranean. they could at some point threaten Italy. besides of note is the aspiration of Roman commanding officers to derive personal promotion and public prestigiousness through the victory of winning wars. Philip was defeated in the conflict of Cynoscephalae in 196B. C. and was forced to give up all districts outside of Macedonia and go an ally of Rome. At this point Rome proclaimed that all Greek was ‘free’ and basically Greece came under Rome’s political and military sway. ‘The Senate of the Romans and Titus Quibctius the proconsul holding defeated king Philip and the Macedonians in war. let ( Greece ) to be free. ungarrisoned. non capable to tribute and utilizing their hereditary Torahs. ” In 192B. C. Antiochus III invaded Greece apparently at the petition of some Grecian provinces to emancipate Greece from the Roman’s. Antiochus found small support in Greece for his enterprise. for many of the Grecian provinces had regained independency after the Roman business and had no desire to be ruled over by another male monarch.

Rome retaliated and Antiochus was defeated in conflicts at Thermopylae. Myonnesos and Magnesia-by-Sipylos. these were oppressing lickings and forced Antiochus back to Syria and what was left of the Seleucid land and thrust Rome deeper into the personal businesss of the part. The 3rd Macedonian war fought between 172-167B. C. and was caused by accusal by King Eumenes of Pergamum of Macedonian misdemeanors of its district and an blackwash effort on Eumenes that were both attributed to king Perseus. who had now taken the throne after the decease of his male parent. Perseus tried diplomatic dialogues with Rome who had an confederation with Pergamum. but these merely served to give Rome more clip to fix an invasion force. Perseus managed to win a few minor conflicts. but was crushed in the conflict Pydna in 168B. C. and this signalled the ended of the Antigonid land as it was split up into four democracies by Rome. In the period between 168-146B. C. Rome consolidated its power in the part with naming on Antiochus to retreat his military personnels from Egypt and farther decimated the Seleucid land by firing its ships and hamstringing its elephants which efficaciously brought an terminal to any opposition.

The alleged Forth Macedonian war consisted of local anti-Roman rebellions and invasion from Thrace in 149B. C. by Andriscus who managed to get the better of the Macedonian opposition crowned himself Philip VI. but his reign was ephemeral and after being handed over to the Romans in 146B. C. . Macedon was made a Roman state. therefore signalling the terminal of the Antigonid land. To impute a proportion of duty for the clangs between Rome and the Hellenistic lands can non be clearly defined as both parties during this epoch had thoughts of enlargement and each struggle could potentially be blamed on the other party. An illustration of this is the 2nd Macedonian war where the duty could be split because Philip had been traveling frontward in taking land off the Greek metropolis provinces. while Rhodes and Pergamum had been seeking to lure the Romans to assail Philip through directing embassadors to Rome with their grudges and it could be argued that the senators and commanding officers in Rome wanted to assail Philip for grounds of personal promotion and prestigiousness.

Whilst in many of the other wars Rome could be seen as the attacker as their seemed to really small aggravation or logical thinking in some of their onslaughts. shown by the 3rd Macedonian war. In decision this essay has given a history of Roman military motions up until their entry into the Hellenistic kingdom. along with histories of the major Hellenistic lands and how they ended up colliding with Rome. The major factors which led to these clangs have been identified along with what proportion of duty should be given to each party for the clangs. It is possible that the ruin of the Hellenistic lands was inevitable and it was merely a affair of clip before Rome conquered them all. “the Romans in less than 53 old ages have succeeded in subjecting about the whole inhabit ted universe to their exclusive government—a alone thing in history? ”

Bibliography:
Austin M. M. The Hellenistic World: From Alexander to the Roman Conquest. 2nd Ed Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 2006 Balsdon. J. P. V. D. Rome and Macedon. 205-200 B. C. Journal of Roman Studies. 44: . 1954 Billows. R. A. . Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State. University of California Press. Berkley. 1990 Dorey T. A. Rome Against Carthage. Seeker and Warburg. London. 1971. Great Lives from History: The Ancient World. Salem Press. 2004 Gruen. E. S. Rome and the Seleucids in the wake of Pydna Chiron. 6. 1976 Livy The History of Rome trans. Rev. C. Roberts. EP Dutton and Co. New York. 1912 McDonald A. H. Rome and Greece 196-146 B. C. Auckland University Press. 1970 Polybius The Histories of Polybius. trans. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh. Macmillan. London. 1889 Shipley. G The Grecian Universe: After Alexander 323-30B. C. Routledge. London 2000 Walbank F. W. The causes of the Third Macedonian War: recent positions The in Ancient Macedonia II: Documents Read at the Second International Symposium Held in Thessaloniki. 1973. Metsakes. K. . 1977

——————————————–
[ 1 ] . M. M. Austin The Hellenistic World: From Alexander to the Roman
Conquest 2nd Ed Cambridge University Press Cambridge. 2006 pp. 63 [ 2 ] . Great Lives from History: The Ancient World. Salem Press. 2004 pp 25-28 [ 3 ] . Billows. R. A. Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State. University of California Press. Berkley. 1990 [ 4 ] . G. Shipley The Grecian Universe: After Alexander 323-30B. C. Routledge. London 2000 pp. 286-287 [ 5 ] . T. A. Dorey Rome Against Carthage Seeker and Warburg. London. 1971. Pp. 37-51 [ 6 ] . Polybius 39. 51The Histories of Polybius. trans. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh. London Macmillan. 1889 [ 7 ] . J. P. V. D. Balsdon Rome and Macedon. 205-200 B. C. Journal of Roman Studies. 44: . 1954 pp:31-33 [ 8 ] . Livy 31. 1-31. 4 The History of Rome trans. Rev. C. Roberts. EP Dutton and Co. New York. 1912 [ 9 ] . Livy 31. 2 The History of Rome

[ 10 ] . G. Shipley The Grecian Universe: After Alexander 323-30B. C. pp:374-375 [ 11 ] . A. H. McDonald. Rome and Greece 196-146 B. C. Auckland University Press. 1970. 113-114 [ 12 ] . Polybius 18. 46 The Histories of Polybius

[ 13 ] . Livy 37. 41-37. 45 The History of Rome
[ 14 ] . F. W. Walbank The causes of the Third Macedonian War: recent positions The in Ancient Macedonia II: Documents Read at the Second International Symposium Held in Thessaloniki. 1973. Metsakes. K. . 1977 pp. 84-86 [ 15 ] . E. S. Gruen. Rome and the Seleucids in the wake of Pydna Chiron. 6. 1976 pp. 74 [ 16 ] . Polybius 1. 1 The Histories of Polybius