3.
Amynander, having recovered his kingdom, sent ambassadors both to the senate in Rome and to the Scipios in Asia, since they were tarrying in Ephesus after the decisive battle with Antiochus.
[2]
He asked for peace and defended himself for having recovered his ancestral kingdom through the aid of the Aetolians;1 he laid the blame on Philip.2
[3]
[p. 11]
From Athamania the Aetolians moved against3 the Amphilochians, and with the consent of the majority brought the whole tribe under their authority and control.
[4]
Amphilochia having been recovered4 —for it had once belonged to the Aetolians —they proceeded with the same hope to Aperantia; this state also surrendered, in large measure without resistance. The Dolopians5 had never been subjects of the Aetolians, but belonged to Philip.
[5]
At first they rushed to arms, but after they learned that the Amphilochians were with the Aetolians, that Philip had been driven from Athamania and his garrison destroyed, they too went over from Philip to the Aetolians.
[6]
Having set up these buffer-states and believing that they were now safe from the Macedonians on all sides, the Aetolians received the news that Antiochus had been defeated in Asia by the Romans; and not long afterwards their envoys returned from Rome with no promise of peace,6 and brought word that the consul Fulvius with the army had already crossed.7
[7]
Terrified by this information, first summoning embassies from Rhodes and Athens,8 that through the influence of these states their own prayers, though previously rejected, might obtain easier access to the senate, they sent the leading men of the people to Rome to try the last hope of peace, having given no thought to the avoidance of war until the enemy was almost in sight.
[8]
Marcus Fulvius had by now transported his army to Apollonia and was consulting with the chiefs of [p. 13]the Epirotes as to where to begin the campaign.9
[9]
10 The advice of the Epirotes was to attack Ambracia, which had at this time joined the Aetolians:11 if, on the one hand, the Aetolians should come to defend it, there were open plains on which to
[10]
fight; if, on the other hand, they declined an engagement, the siege would not be
[11]
difficult; for there was both abundance of material close at hand for building mounds and raising other siege-works, and a navigable river, the Aretho, suitable for the transportation of the necessary supplies, flowed past the very walls, and, moreover, summer was at hand, a season adapted to active operations. By such arguments they induced him to lead the army through Epirus.
1 Amynander recognizes the necessity of placating Rome even if he does not admit her virtual protectorate over Greece. His own diplomatic status was somewhat uncertain: he had allied himself with the Aetolians and Antiochus (XXXV. xlvii. 8), and for that reason the Romans had consented to Philip's conquest (XXXVI. xiv. 9). It may be assumed that the return of Amynander would automatically restore Athamania to the status of an Aetolian ally, and that Amynander is trying to escape the dangers of such a position.
2 These charges must have been based on the character of Philip's government after his conquest (i. 2 above), as no other plausible cause for finding fault with him is apparent.
3 B.C. 189
4 Cf. XXXII. xxxiv. 4.
5 For Philip's recent acquisition of Aperantia and Dolopia, cf. XXXVI. xxxiii. 7. In the latter case it was a re-conquest, since Dolopia had been freed from Macedonian control in 196 B.C. (XXXIII. xxxiv. 6).
6 The embassy had been expelled from Italy: cf. XXXVII. xlix. 5-7.
7 The appointment of Fulvius to Aetolia was reported at XXXVII. i. 8.
8 These two states were frequently appealed to as peacemakers; for Rhodes, cf. XXVII. xxx. 4; for Athens, cf. XXXVII. vi. 4, where her intervention for Aetolia the preceding year is recorded.
9 Livy here seems to think that there were no other Roman forces in Greece at this time, and in this he apparently has the support of Polybius (XXII. ix). However, in XXXVII. ii. 7-8 the propraetor Cornelius was instructed to conduct an army to Aetolia, and in XXXVII. i. 4 the presence of an army there was assumed. Livy has, as often, changed sources without warning. The account of the siege of Ambracia follows Polybius closely.
10 B.C. 189
11 Ambracia had been the capital of Pyrrhus (cf. v. 2 and ix. 13 below), and had later become a member of the Aetolian League.
Livy. Books XXXVIII-XXXIX with an English Translation. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1936: published without copyright notice.
The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.