This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
1 B.C. 191
2 Persons who had held the offices which conferred eligibility to sit in the senate but had not yet been formally admitted by the censors were granted in the interim the ius sententiam dicendi.
3 Here, as in XXXV. xxxiii. 4, it is assumed that the alliance with the Aetolians was in effect, even though there is no mention of any formal renewal after the war with Philip. There is also no record of any declaration of war upon the Aetolians, except as they were included among the partisans of Antiochus (i. 5 above).
4 B.C. 191
5 Cf. XXXI. viii. 3.
6 The etiquette of declarations of war was a special function of the fetials, and the importance of proper ceremonial was very great, not only because of the Roman fondness for punctiliousness but because of their desire to have justice and the gods on their side. The traditional form of the fetial ritual  — probably little changed in later times —is described by Livy in I. xxxii; it put especial stress on the demand for restitution (res repetere) of stolen property, as would be natural in early times. The same phraseology is used here: the immediate cause for complaint on Rome's part was Antiochus' attempt to recover the Greek cities on the Asian coast (XXXV. xvi. 3). The “restitution” demanded of him was the abandonment of the attempt to take away their liberties. The Aetolians were involved with him in this offence.
7 These actions on the part of the Aetolians were good enough causes for war, even though they were not, literally, the specific offences contemplated by the fetial institution. Possibly these overt acts justified the Romans in omitting a formal declaration of war upon them.
8 The military tribunes were elected by the assembly (XXVII. xxxvi. 14).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.