Fourth Macedonian War

Tensions between the Roman Republic and Macedon had first begun in 215 BC, when Philip V of Macedon allied himself with Rome's rival, Carthage, and declared war on Rome, sparking the First Macedonian War, an indecisive sideshow of the larger Second Punic War between Rome and Carthage.[3] Soon after the end of the war with Carthage, a victorious Rome received multiple requests for assistance from a number of Greek polities and city-states which were afraid of Philip's ambition. Although war-weary from the recent Punic War, Rome agreed, and when Philip refused to accept their terms, they declared war on and defeated him in the Second Macedonian War of 200-197 BC, in which Philip was stripped of much territory and prestige, and forced to comply with Rome's demands.[4] In the aftermath of this conflict, tensions developed between Rome and the Seleucid Empire, whose ambitious monarch, Antiochus III the Great, aimed to attain hegemony over Greece. Encouraged by the Aetolian League, Antiochus went to war with Rome in 192 BC, sparking the Roman-Seleucid War; it ended in a resounding Roman victory — Antiochus lost all his territory in Asia Minor and had to disband his fleet, pay a massive war indemnity and promise not to cross the Taurus mountains, effectively relegating the Seleucids to an Asiatic power and ending their influence in Greece.[5] Macedon regained some territory and influence on account of their cooperation with the Romans in this conflict, but high-handed Roman actions and Macedonian revanchism continued to stoke resentment in Philip.[6]

Macedonian power continued to grow for the rest of Philip's reign, and this was continued by his talented son and successor, Perseus. Although Rome formally reaffirmed "friendship" with him, tensions continued to grow on account of reviving Macedonian power, Perseus' growing popularity with the Greeks and his successful diplomacy in the Greek world, in which he revived Macedonian influence and strengthened its position as a leading power once again.[7] A tenuous peace continued until Eumenes II of Pergamon, a staunch Roman ally and Perseus' arch-rival, went to Rome in 172 BC and persuaded them that Perseus was a threat to Rome and the Greeks, and exhorted them to break his power. Finally, as Eumenes was returning to Pergamon, an assassination attempt on him, for which Perseus was blamed, resolved Rome in favour of war. The ensuing Third Macedonian War of 171-168 BC was hard-fought, but ended in a complete Roman victory and Perseus' surrender and imprisonment, establishing Rome's position as the sole hegemonic power in the Greek world.[8]

The Greek world was harshly treated in the aftermath of the Roman victory; allies of Perseus were brutally repressed, while those suspected to have sympathized with Perseus became pariahs in the new Roman-dominated order.[9] Rome took unprecedented measures to ensure that a revival of Macedonian power would be impossible — the ancient Macedonian monarchy was abolished and Perseus was exiled to an Italian city. Knowing that occupying Macedon would require military presence against barbarian tribes on Macedon's northern frontier, Rome decided against making it a province; instead, Macedon was broken up into four client republics, or merides, that paid tribute to Rome, with trade regulations and restrictions on interaction between the republics, as well as being forbidden to work Macedon's rich mines freely, and limiting them to possessing only such military forces as were necessary to deal with barbarian tribes to the north.[10][Note 2] Most of the former ruling elite was deported to Rome.[11] Macedon also suffered from impoverishment, due to the fiscal restrictions imposed on it and the looting of treasuries by victorious Roman troops at the end of the Third Macedonian War in 168 BC. This, along with the effective destruction of the old social order, created great resentment among many sections of the populace.[12]

However, Rome withdrew all its troops in 167 BC; thereafter, it left the Macedonian republics alone in their internal administration, not intervening even when appeals were made to it to resolve serious crises like a massacre of Macedonian officials in 163 BC.[13] It has been suggested that Rome was seeking to satisfy the Macedonians with local autonomy, so that they would forget any sort of "national" identity; however, a general longing for monarchy persisted in Macedon, as the people had not yet adapted to democratic institutions, though a significant class of pro-Roman Macedonian republicans did develop, including those who had been persecuted by the old Antigonid monarchy.[14][15][16] Some regulations were relaxed; for instance, the Macedonians were allowed to use their mines again from 158 BC, but resentment continued, including over those restrictions that remained, as well as the division of Macedon, leaving the situation ripe for the rise of pretenders to the old Antigonid throne.[17][12][18]

Demetrius I of Syria, who refused military aid to the pretender and had him sent to Rome

Around 154/153 BC, a Greek named Andriscus, who bore a resemblance to the Antigonids, began claiming that he was Philip, a now-obscure son of Perseus, and had been reared in secrecy by a foster family.[19][Note 3] The origins of this youth are unclear; ancient sources generally agree that he was a man of low origins, and that he hailed from Adramyttium in Aeolis in northwestern Asia Minor.[21] He entered Macedonia in force to claim "his" throne, but was repulsed, presumably by the combined forces of three of the four client republics (the third republic had been forbidden from raising troops by the settlement of 167 BC).[22]

At some point after this failure, he travelled to Syria and enlisted as a mercenary of the Seleucid monarch, Demetrius I Soter, and now began making his claims there. News of his claims spread, and after gaining enough notability, he appealed to the Seleucid monarch, Demetrius I Soter, to help him regain his throne.[20] Despite riotous support for him from the population of the Seleucid capital, Antioch, Demetrius refused to help him, and instead arrested him and had him shipped to Rome.[23][19][Note 4] The senate, however, remained complacent; although he was brought before the senate, he was simply exiled to an Italian city.[23] He soon managed to escape from Italy and fled back to the Greek world, but the Romans remained unpreturbed; they did not take him seriously.[19]

He travelled to Miletus, where he tried to advance his claims further, attracting significant attention.[28] Diodorus writes that when the leaders of Miletus learned about this, they arrested him and sought advice from visiting Roman envoys on what to do with him; the envoys were contemptuous of the pretender and told the Milesians that he was safe to release.[29] After his release, he continued to try and achieve his aim of becoming king of Macedon. He travelled to Pergamon to meet with Callippa, a former concubine of Perseus, who gave him money and royal regalia.[28] From there he went on to Byzantium, where he was received favourably and obtaining a significant following and a number of sympathizers.[23] Helliesen proposes that the following that Andriscus built up in this period derived from Macedonians who had fled to Attalid territory after the Third Macedonian War and had been settled in garrisons in western Lydia.[30]

Andriscus then travelled to Thrace, where he found allies and sympathy, especially from the Odrysian king Teres III, who was related to the Antigonids by marriage.[29][28] Teres held a coronation ceremony for Andriscus, crowning him with a diadem, gave him a hundred troops, and introduced him to other Thracian leaders, including one Barsabas, who agreed to accompany him on his campaign to reclaim the Macedonian throne.[31] He was also aided by some forces of Macedonian origin that Rubinsohn refers to as "émigré rabble".[27]

Death of the "false Philip" in a 15th-century miniature.

The battle shattered Andriscus' army and broke the Macedonian war effort. He fled to Thrace and began raising another army there, but Metellus pursued him swiftly, forcing Andriscus into a new battle before his raw levies were fully prepared.[58][Note 6] This engagement was an easy victory for the Romans; as soon as the Macedonian front ranks were broken, the rest of the army fled in panic. Andriscus himself fled to the Thracian princeling Byzes, but Metellus managed to persuade the latter to become a Roman ally and hand Andriscus over, concluding the campaign.[60]

However, Macedon was not fully pacified yet. Another uprising, probably with Thracian support, arose under the leadership of a certain Alexander, who now declared himself to be a son of Perseus and occupied the basin of the Nestus River. However, he was quickly defeated by Metellus and forced to flee into Dardania.[61] By the end of 147 BC, Metellus had largely pacified the country and restored order.[62] This was not the end of Macedonian rebellions against Rome; another pretender would later cause a serious crisis in 143/142 BC, raising an army of 16,000 men before being defeated and killed by the quaestor Lucius Tremellius; apart from this, border crises with the Thracians, which had been an issue for previous Macedonian governments as well, continued.[63][64]

Metellus imposed penalties on the Macedonians, as well as on the Byzantines, who had earlier been sympathetic to Andriscus. He took significant booty, including some of the spoils taken by Alexander the Great at the Battle of the Granicus, and many valuable works of art.[65] After settling subsequent affairs in Greece and Macedon, the victorious praetor later returned to Rome in 146 BC, where he was given the agnomen Macedonicus and granted a triumph. Andriscus was paraded in this triumph, and subsequently executed.[54]

The Senate realized that the settlement of 168 BC could no longer sustain itself; the extent of support that Andriscus' uprising had won among the Macedonians demonstrated both the fragility of indirect control and the need for a thorough reorganization of Macedonia.[66][40] It is likely that a senatorial legation was sent to Macedon, probably soon after Metellus' victory, and, together with Metellus, made administrative changes to governance in Macedon, transferring significant functions to a Roman praetor.[67] From this point onwards, a legion and a praetor were permanently stationed in Macedon; this was the first time Roman troops were permanently based east of the Adriatic sea.[68] Macedon was unified into a single administrative unit as the Provincia Macedonia; the new province included not only Macedon, but also parts of southern Illyria, as well as Epirus and Thessaly. This received mixed reactions; on one hand, the people welcomed the reunification of Macedon; on the other hand, they resented their loss of freedom and the harsher rule of the Romans.[69] Many praetors would engage in corruption and extortion; besides, they were not as effective as previous administrations in protecting the region from barbarian raids.[70]

The exact nature and chronology of the provincialization is a matter of debate. It is known that a new provincial era, the "Macedonian Era", was proclaimed in 148 BC, but it is disputed as to whether this was to signify the formation of the province or Metellus' victory.[15] Doubts have been expressed as to whether Metellus could have had the time to organize Macedonia into a province, and it has instead been suggested that it was one of the consuls of 146 BC, Lucius Mummius, who reorganized Macedon with the help of a decemviral commission while settling the affairs of Greece.[71] Gruen and Eckstein doubt whether Macedon ever formally became a province, pointing out that the Macedonian merides continued to exist well into the early principate. In their view, what changed after the Fourth Macedonian war was the fact that from then on, a Roman praetor and his legion were permanently stationed in Macedonia; naturally, they gradually took on more administrative and bureaucratic roles, leading to an informal provincialization. Still, the presence of Roman officials after 148 BC was a sudden and clear change, and signified the loss of Macedonian and Illyrian freedom.[72][68]

Soon afterwards, the Achaean League in 146 BC mobilized for a new war against the Roman Republic. This is known as the Achaean War, and was noted for its short duration and its timing right after the fall of Macedonia. Until this time, Rome had only campaigned in Greece in order to fight Macedonian forces, allies or clients. The Achaean leaders almost certainly knew that this declaration of war against Rome was hopeless, as Rome had triumphed against far stronger and larger opponents, the Roman legion having proved its supremacy over the Macedonian phalanx.[73]

Polybius blames the demagogues of the cities of the league for inspiring the population into a suicidal war. Panhellenic rhetoric and the idea of triumphing against superior odds motivated the league into this rash decision. The Achaean League was swiftly defeated, and, as an object lesson, Rome utterly destroyed the city of Corinth in 146 BC, the same year that Carthage was destroyed. After nearly a century of constant crisis management in the Greek world, which always led back to internal instability and war when Rome pulled out, the Senate decided to establish the Roman province of Macedonia, covering all of mainland Greece and establishing a permanent Roman presence in the region, though a few territories like Athens and Sparta retained self-government and partial autonomy. More than a century later, Augustus would establish Achaea as a separate province.[74]

• History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

• Gabrielsen, Vincent, and John Lund, eds. 2007. The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and interregional economic exchanges. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
• Knoepfler, Denis (2018). "Athènes, Lemnos et la création de la province romaine de Macédoine: une relecture critique du décret IG II² 1224". In Kalaitzi, Myrina; Paschidis, Paschalis; Antonetti, Claudia; Guimier-Sorbets, Anne-Marie (eds.). Βορειοελλαδικά: Tales from the lands of the ethne. Essays in honour of Miltiades B. Hatzopoulos. Ethniko Hidryma Ereunōn, Institouto Historikōn Ereunōn. pp. 265–297. ISBN 978-960-9538-71-8.
• Kuzmin, Yuri N. (2013). "Kallippa and Beroia". Rheinisches Museum für Philologie. 156 (3/4): 277–287. ISSN 0035-449X. JSTOR 24392713.
• MacKay, Pierre Antony (1964). Studies in the History of Republican Macedonia, 168-146 BC (PhD). University of California, Berkeley. pp. 66–139. ISBN 9781085012713.
• Rosen, Klaus (1998). "Andriskos: Milesische Geschichten und makedonische Geschichte". In Will, Wolfgang (ed.). Alexander der Grosse : eine Welteroberung und ihr Hintergrund : Vorträge des Internationalen Bonner Alexanderkolloquiums, 19.-21.12.1996. Bonn: R. Habelt. pp. 117–130. ISBN 9783774928664.
• Sherwin-White, Adrian N. 1984. Roman foreign policy in the East 168 B.C. to A.D. 1. London: Duckworth.