A reassessment of Philip V. of Macedon in Polybios' Histories

MD ThesisThis thesis offers a new evaluation of Philip V of Macedon (221-179 BC) through a reassessment of his portrait in our primary literary source, Polybios of Megalopolis. Chapter 1 introduces the topic and explores how Polybios’ presentation of his content, including Philip, is greatly dependent on his intention to produce a pragmatic, didactic, universal history, facilitated by the unifying concepts of symploke and tyche. Chapter 2 investigates Polybios’ Achaian background, patriotism and admiration of the Achaian leader Aratos, and how this political bias shapes Philip’s depiction. Chapter 3 questions the validity of the historian’s claim that the king suddenly turned from a brilliant king to a treacherous tyrant in 215 BC, and reveals how Polybios overemphasises this change to explain the king’s downfall, encourage correct political and moral behaviour, and defend Aratos and the League’s association with the king. Chapter 4 assesses Polybios’ conviction that Philip’s treatment of his Greek allies turned deceitful after his change for the worse in 215, and reveals how his statements are exaggerated and once again in pursuit of vilifying the king, justifying the League’s defection to Rome in 198 BC and ultimately explaining Macedonia’s demise. Lastly, Chapter 5 discusses Polybius’ tragic account of Philip’s last years and its modern reception, arguing that while the account may not be historically accurate, it still represents a completely satisfactory, consistent and justifiable end to Polybius’ account of the Macedonian king. This thesis concludes that Polybios’ picture of the king is intensely loaded and complex, dependent on a number of wider literary factors and personal biases. Yet, it also proves that it is possible to unravel Philip from some of the historian’s weavings and uncover a more balanced portrayal of the monarch than the generally negative one presented in the Histories

On the composition of the Achaian synodos in Polybios’ time

The question of who attended the regular assemblies (synodoi) of the Achaian koinon in the 2nd century BCE is still a subject of discussion. Two main theories prevail: the synodos either was a primary assembly of all citizens or a meeting of the federal council. However, the very existence of an elected council in the koinon can be doubted, since no trace of activity of this federal body in the 3rd and the 2nd centuries BCE can be found, either in literary, or epigraphic sources. The only evidence supposedly proving the existence of an Achaian council is the frequent mention of the word boule in Polybios’ accounts of the federal assembly meetings. Attentive consideration of these passages leads to the conclusion that, in the lexicon of the Achaian historian, boule is not the official name of a state institution and does not necessarily mean “a council.” Of the two theories, seeing the synodos as a meeting of the primary assembly seems to be the most compatible with the evidence. However, in light of the recently found inscription SEG LVIII 370, we may be certain that in Polybios’ time the synodos was a representative body – and therefore not a people’s assembly in the strict sense of the word. The only reasonable interpretation of this contradictory evidence appears to be the following: the synodos was a meeting of several thousand delegates representing all the Achaian poleis, the size of each delegation being determined in proportion to the population of the community. The list of these delegates varied from meeting to meeting, and therefore the synodos should not be regarded as a body with permanent membership, such as a state council. This kind of assembly also might have served as a model for the archairesiake ekklesia of the Lykians

Kirja-arvostelu kirjasta Polybios ja hänen historiansa

Non peer reviewe

La costituzione mista in Polibio

This paper examines the theory of mixed constitution and the sociological doctrine of anacyclosis in Book VI of Polybius’ Histories. The ideal of a mixed government was popularized by Polybius, who saw the Roman Republic as a manifestation of Aristotle’s theory. Monarchy was embodied by the consuls, the aristocracy by the Senate, and democracy by the elections and great public gatherings of the assemblies. Each institution complements and also checks the others, presumably guaranteeing stability and prosperity. Polybius makes further distinction in the forms of government by including the nefarious counterparts to the ones mentioned above; tyranny, oligarchy, and ochlocrazy. These governments, according to Polybius cycle in a process called anacyclosis, which begins with monarchy and ends with ochlocrazy. The Roman model avoids this problem when it sets up the republic and becomes a mixture of the three types. Of course, none of this can happen without the censure of the people and no man can be installed in any position without the vote of the people. It is in this way, as Polybius understands it, that the strength of the Roman State is shown and held together. Polybius’ political beliefs have had a continuous appeal to republican thinkers from Cicero to Montesquieu to the Founding Fathers of the United States

Polybios to Pausanias: Arkadian Identity in the Roman Empire

Papers from the third international seminar on Ancient Arcadia, held at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 7-10 May 2002Many ancient statements about Arkadia date from the Roman period, and most of what we hear from Arkadians themselves, directly from Polybios, and indirectly via Pausanias, belongs in this context. This source material combines references back to earlier 'classical' texts with the new need to position the region in the Roman empire. A few aspects of Arkadian life and culture, such as poverty, piety and a very ancient ancestry, make up a stereotype that was recognisable and could therefore be put to good use. With few exceptions this Arkadian image is positive and it could give Arkadian communities an advantage in dealing with the outside world, especially because some outsiders were keen to have a pan in this illustrious heritage