To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Philip [V],1 the Macedonian king, persuaded Dikaiarchos of Aitolia, a man of daring, to become a pirate, and gave him twenty ships.2 He ordered him to levy tribute on the islands and to aid the Cretans in their war against the Rhodians. According to these instructions, he plundered merchants and through robbery exacted money from the islands.
On the same day the senate voted a declaration of war against Perseus, and even though it gave an audience to his envoys, it gave no reply to them.1 It also ordered the consuls to make an explicit proclamation to the assemblies, and that the envoys and all the Macedonians were to leave Rome on the same day, and Italy within thirty days.
(1) Marcus Antonius made peace with the Cretans, which was observed for a while.1 Later they considered how best to structure matters for their own benefit, and the oldest and wisest advised that an embassy should be sent to Rome in order to defend themselves against the charges that had been made, and to attempt to propitiate the senate with reasonable words and petitions.2 Thus thirty of their most distinguished men were sent to Rome as envoys. They went around individually to the homes of the senators, and by putting forth every kind of vocal entreaty, they won over the leaders of the senate. (2) Then they were brought before the senate and made a sensible defense against the charges, recounting precisely their own services and alliance with the empire, calling upon them to consider these to merit their restoration to their previous favor and alliance.
The Carthaginians, by bringing Masanassa into the war, were believed to have terminated their treaty with the Romans. When they sent envoys, they were given the answer that they knew what must be done.1 The answer was obscure, which left the Carthaginians deeply disturbed.2
When those in Antioch learned of the death of Antiochos (VII),1 the city not only went into public mourning, but every house was dejected and filled with lamentation. In particular, the wailing of the women inflamed their suffering. They had lost 300,000, including those other than the soldiers who had gone into the interior, and there was no household that was exempt from misfortune.2 Some lamented the loss of brothers, others of husbands, and still others of sons. Many girls and boys were orphaned and deplored their desolation, until time – the best physician for grief – released them from the peak of their suffering.
(1) Fighting about wealth produces contention in humanity and can create great misfortune for those desirous of it. It is the impetus toward unjust and illegal activities, produces all kinds of intemperate pleasures, and leads the foolish to thoughtless activities.1 Thus one can see that such people fall into great misfortune and become the cause of disasters to their cities.
All evils should be avoided by those who are sensible, but especially arrogance, since the expectation of profit invites many to injustice and becomes the cause of great evils to humanity.1 Thus it is the mother city2 of injustice, producing a great many misfortunes not only for private persons but for the greatest of kings.
At about the same time Marius defeated the Libyan kings Bocchos [I] and Jugurtha in a great engagement, and killed myriads of Libyans, and later took Jugurtha prisoner, who had been captured by Bocchos and was thus pardoned by the Romans for what had brought him into the war.1 Moreover, the Romans, at war with the Kimbrians, were stumbling greatly in Galatia and were exceedingly demoralized.2 Also, at about the same time, certain people came from Sicily and reported an uprising of slaves numbering tens of thousands. When this was announced, all of Rome found itself in a continual crisis, since about 60,000 soldiers had died in the Galatian war against the Kimbrians, and there was a lack of chosen troops to send out.
Epikouros the philosopher said in his treatise Principal Doctrines that the just life is calm but the unjust is mostly full of disturbance.1 Thus in a short statement he completely encompassed true wisdom, which, on the whole, has the power to correct the evil in men. Injustice, being the mother city of evils,2 causes the greatest misfortunes, not only for private citizens but collectively for peoples, populations, and kings.
Those in the Carthaginian army were Iberians,3 Kelts,4 Balearians,5 Libyans, Phoenicians,6 Ligystinians,7 and mixed Hellenic slaves.8
Leaders abounded in the ancient world, from kings, pharaohs, emperors, tyrants, politicians, and orators to generals, minor officials and intellectuals. This book opens fresh perspectives on leadership by examining under-explored topics, posing new questions and revisiting old concepts. In particular, it seeks to shift attention from constitutional issues stricto sensu (such as kingship, monarchy, tyranny, etc.) or, more productively, to prompt a re-examination of these issues through the lens of leadership. The volume includes chapters on a range of cultures from across the ancient world in order to promote comparative reflection. Key questions include whether some models of good and bad leadership were universal among ancient cultures or exhibited differences? Why did a certain culture emphasise one leadership quality while another insisted on another? Why did only some cultures develop a theoretical discourse on leadership? How did each culture appropriate, define, redefine (or react) to existing concepts of leadership?
This is the first systematic collection of the remains of the lost Greek chronicles from the period AD 350–650 and provides an edition and translation of and commentary on the fragments. Introducing neglected authors and proposing new interpretations, it reveals the diversity of the genre and revises traditional views about its development, nuancing in particular the role usually attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea. It shows how the writing of chronicles was deeply entangled in controversies about exegesis and liturgy, especially the dates of Christmas and Easter. Drawing from Latin, Armenian, Syriac and Arabic sources besides Greek ones, the book also studies how chronographic material travelled across linguistic and cultural boundaries. In this way, it sheds a profoundly new light on historiography in transition from Antiquity to the Middle Ages.
This book investigates the ways that technological, and especially mechanical, strategies were integrated into ancient Greek religion. By analysing a range of evidence, from the tragic use of the deus ex machina to Hellenistic epigrams to ancient mechanical literature, it expands the existing vocabulary of visual modes of ancient epiphany. Moreover, it contributes to the cultural history of the unique category of ancient 'enchantment' technologies by challenging the academic orthodoxy regarding the incompatibility of religion and technology. The evidence for this previously unidentified phenomenon is presented in full, thereby enabling the reader to perceive the shifting matrices of agency between technical objects, mechanical knowledge, gods, and mortals from the fifth century BCE to the second century CE.
The Peloponnesian War affected how mass and elite interacted at Athens and how the public sphere worked there. The Athenians themselves thought in terms of two ruptures, one at the death of Perikles, one at the end of the war. But the degree of rupture in both cases has been exaggerated, and it is better to think in terms of how power was exercised. Here we see various ways in which the people’s control of the elite was strengthened during the war, and indeed the use of exile and atimia (disenfranchisement) as penalties fatally weakened Athens by causing factional strife. The Peloponnesian War concentrated the people inside Athens and the Long Walls and increased the number of spaces in which Athenians were mixed up with metics and enslaved people, enhancing the deep politicisation of Athenian culture, which affected the wealthy as well as the poor and promoted the hetaireiai and, eventually, concentration of political factions into particular spaces. War enhanced the Athenians’ emotional investment, and this came out in particular over the Sicilian Expedition. It was because war affected the Athenians in a variety of different ways, each with their own timescale, that the traumatic effects emerged only after fifteen years.