Explore the vast range of titles available.

Valerius Antias, a 1st century BCE Roman annalist, has often been accused of extensive fabrications. John Rich has recently tried to restore Antias’ reputation, suggesting that he used senatus consulta, but has faced a serious roadblock: Antias’ account of the senatus consultum freeing the Greeks in 196, preserved in Livy, contained clauses absent from Polybius’ version and which, therefore, have been rejected by scholarship. In contrast, this paper systematically evaluates these Valerian clauses and argues for their veracity. This has serious implications for the idea that annalists like Antias, and ultimately Livy, accurately conveyed senatorial decrees from the Middle Republic.

Valerius Antias, a 1st century BCE Roman annalist, has often been accused of extensive fabrications. John Rich has recently tried to restore Antias’ reputation, suggesting that he used senatus consulta, but has faced a serious roadblock: Antias’ account of the senatus consultum freeing the Greeks in 196, preserved in Livy, contained clauses absent from Polybius’ version and which, therefore, have been rejected by scholarship. In contrast, this paper systematically evaluates these Valerian clauses and argues for their veracity. This has serious implications for the idea that annalists like Antias, and ultimately Livy, accurately conveyed senatorial decrees from the Middle Republic.

Livy saw the Roman confrontations and wars with the Hellenistic Greek monarchies as the major interstate events of the post‐Hannibalic War period. He used the Greek historian Polybius (writing a century or more earlier) as his major source for these events, following here the rediscovery of Polybius as a writer by the previous generation of Roman intellectuals led by Cicero. Since large sections of both Polybius and Livy survive, comparison offers us a unique opportunity to examine in detail how a later historical writer used an earlier one. While it is clear that Livy followed Polybius' outline of events closely, and even included speeches at dramatic points in the order in which Polybius included speeches, he was also significantly independent of the earlier writer. Livy often compressed Polybius' narrative by omitting what he viewed (but Polybius did not view) as unnecessary details; but sometimes Livy expanded Polybius' narrative for the purpose of dramatic depiction. Examination shows that the differences in presentation lie in differences of purpose: Polybius' purpose was a cold analysis of power‐relationships and the objective sources of Roman success (and Greek failure); Livy's purpose was both patriotic, to extol Roman virtue of the past in order to inspire the present, but also more dramatic: to place his audience on the spot at moments of high excitement. Livy is a better writer than Polybius (who is often dry and technical), but perhaps he is less penetrating in analysis.

Dans l'unique chapitre du livre XXIX de Tite-Live qui soit consacré aux affaires de Grèce, deux points font encore difficulté. D'une part, pourquoi l'initiative est-elle laissée aux Epirotes, instigateurs de la paix de Phoinikè (205), alors que les neutres ont si rarement droit de cité dans l'histoire et l'historiographie des Anciens ? Serait-ce manière, pour Tite-Live, de masquer le désengagement des Romains ? D'autre part, la présence d'Ilion et d'Athènes sur la liste des adscripti de Rome jointe au traité pourrait s'expliquer à la fois par une réécriture annalistique destinée à légitimer, du point de vue romain, l'ouverture de la deuxième guerre de Macédoine, et par le contexte culturel dans lequel Tite-Live écrivit. Livy, XXDC, 12, and the Roman presence in Greece : the problems of neutrality (205-200 BV). In the only chapter of Livy's book XXIX to be devoted to Greek affairs, two points are still mooted. To begin with, why was the initiative left to the Epirotes, as promoters of the Phoinike peace treaty (205), when neutrals are so seldom granted right ot city in the history and historiography of the Ancients ? Would it be a way for Livy to conceal Roman disengagement. On the other hand, the presence of Ilion and Athens on the list of Rome's adscripti appended to the treaty could be accounted for both as an annalistic rewriting purporting to legitimatize the outbreak of the second Macedonian war from a Roman point of view and as a consequence of the cultural context of Livy's narrative.

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Sources Rome, Macedonia, and Illyria (230–217) The First War Between Rome and Macedonia The Crisis in the Greek State‐System and the Second War between Rome and Macedonia The Recovery of Macedonia and the Third Macedonian War The End of Macedonian Freedom Conclusion Bibliographical Essay