CHAPTER XXIII

THE GREEK LEAGUES AND MACEDONIA

I.

ARATUS AND THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE

IN this chapter a continuous narrative can again be given, though the preoccupation of our authorities between 245 and 221 with Peloponnesian affairs, important as these were, rather tends to throw the history of these years out of focus. The growth of federalism in Greece meant that many cities now preferred increased security as against the monarchies to unrestrained sovereignty; and noteworthy features of the time were that the two principal Leagues, the Aetolian and Achaean, now used their federal citizenship to expand to the utmost, incorporating cities of old renown, and that the federal and monarchic principles reacted on each other: while Federalism overthrew the Epirote monarchy and actually influenced the Macedonian, most Leagues tended to come under single heads, thus constituting a middle term between Monarchy and City. Indeed in the Achaean League Aratus became little less a ‘monarch’ than any Antigonid king in Macedonia; and though Aratus’ power was both obtained and exercised under different forms, nevertheless the Antigonid was as definitely the leader elected by the one people as the Sicyonian by the other.

In 245 BC the struggle in Central Greece was renewed (or culminated), and the Aetolians were strong enough to invade Boeotia. Achaea, as before, supported Boeotia, but Aratus crossed to her aid too late; she was decisively defeated by the Aetolians at Chaeronea, Abaeocritus was killed, and Aetolia was left arbiter of Central Greece. This defeat was for Boeotia what the Chremonidean war was for Athens; she never again played a leading part in politics. Aetolia did not break up her League or incorporate her cities, but made that League her ally; next year an Aetolian city, Lamia, was arbitrating some private disputes between Boeotians and Athenians. The elimination of Boeotia enabled Aetolia to acquire all Phocis with both Phocian votes, making ten in all, and possibly Opuntian Locris. She incorporated the first oversea member of her confederation by entering into isopolity with Chios, thus obtaining a naval station in the Aegean; and as nine votes sufficed for control of the Amphictyons she gave Chios her tenth vote. Acting through the Amphictyons she replaced the existing Soteria by a new and greater quadriennial Soteria, conducted by her own agonothetes, and obtained from the Greek world recognition of this new monument of her defeat of the Gauls, a skilful move, for it implied also recognition of the legality of her position at Delphi. So far, however, she had admitted her limitation to the Amphictyonic sphere by making Chios an Amphictyonic state, but she soon began to aim further, and used her friendship with Elis, which tradition made her colony, to expand down the west coast of the Peloponnese; by 241 she had entered into isopolity with Phigalea, once Elis’ possession, and about 240 she brought Messenia indirectly into her system through isopolity between Messenia and Phigalea. She aimed also at securing Epirote Acarnania; Alexander of Epirus was dead (c. 240), and his widow Olympias, who was ruling Epirus for her two young sons, applied for help to Macedonia and offered Demetrius her daughter Phthia. But this incident probably belongs to 239; certainly Aetolia made no actual move while Antigonus lived. The story that Rome ordered Aetolia to leave Acarnania alone is a later invention.

In 245 Aratus was elected General of the Achaean League; he was not yet 30, but there is no evidence that the General had to be. Thenceforth he held the Generalship every other year, while in the intervening years until 235 his influence was paramount. The war with Aetolia occupied his first generalship; but in his second, in 243, he embarked seriously on his scheme of freeing the Peloponnese. His effectiveness is shown by his going straight to the heart of the position; the Peloponnesian tyrants depended on Antigonus, and the keystone of Antigonus’ system was Corinth; he rightly decided that if he could secure Acrocorinthus the system would ultimately fall to pieces. So far there had been no hostility between Antigonus and the Achaean League since Alexander’s death, and Antigonus’ men went and came peacefully between Corinth and Sicyon. Among them were four brothers, Syrians, who had stolen some of Antigonus’ money and came to Sicyon to exchange the Macedonian pieces; Aratus bought their help, and one of them, Erginus, became his lieutenant in his various unofficial enterprises. By their aid he got into Corinth one night with 400 picked Achaeans; a series of fortunate accidents enabled the little force to dispose of the Macedonian commander; Aratus scaled Acrocorinthus, and after a stiff fight forced his way at dawn over the fortress wall, and the sun rose on a free Corinth. It was an amazing feat of arms. The Corinthians gathered in the theatre to hear the news; Achaean troops held the stage, and Aratus came forward in his armour, weary and war-stained, and stood awhile in silence, leaning on his spear, amid the wild enthusiasm of the people. He then persuaded the Corinthians to join the Achaean League, and gave them the keys of their city; they had not handled them for nearly a century. He had set right a great wrong, and to do so he had done a great wrong himself; a declaration of war was obligatory in Greek law, and he had broken the law of nations and attacked a friendly state in time of peace.

Antigonus’ system in Greece, though it lingered on for years, had received its death-blow, as both men knew; and Antigonus was too old to rebuild it. In his anger he too put himself in the wrong; he accepted an invitation from Aetolia that they should jointly conquer and partition Achaea. But when his anger cooled, he declined thus to stultify his life’s policy, and left Aetolia to act alone. The Achaeans garrisoned Acrocorinthus, and Aratus secured Megara, Troezen, and Epidaurus for the League, and in view of the danger from Aetolia obtained Egypt’s alliance, and Ptolemy III was made nominal commander-in-chief of the League. It was a compliment only; but the League’s hostility to Macedonia was useful to Ptolemy, and he gave Aratus an annual subsidy. Egypt’s friend Sparta also joined the alliance from fear of Megalopolis, where the normal anti-Spartan majority had again recovered power, probably when Antigonus regained Corinth, and its leader Lydiades had made himself tyrant. Early in 242 Aratus invaded Attica, hoping that Athens would join the League; but the Athenians made no sign, and his attempt to take Salamis failed. For some reason unknown the Aetolians did not move till 241; then they came south through Boeotia, and Aratus, General for the third time, and Agis of Sparta joined forces at Corinth to meet them. But Aratus, who distrusted Agis as a revolutionary, decided against fighting, and withdrew his men, though they cursed him for a coward; and Agis naturally went home again. The Aetolians passed the Isthmus and took and sacked Pellene; then, when they were scattered and plunderladen, Aratus attacked and defeated them. To allow the enemy to plunder his fill and then attack him when in disorder was a recognized manoeuvre in current tactical manuals1; and Aratus at once regained his influence with the League, though the disgust of the people of Pellene at being used as bait was to show itself later. Aratus’ life was to be full of similar incidents—failure in the field, followed first by indignation in Achaea, and then by complete recovery of his influence when he faced the Achaeans; evidently he could sway a massed audience at his pleasure.

After the Aetolian defeat Antigonus accepted the situation and made peace with Achaea (winter 241). But peace made little difference to Aratus, and he used the spring of 240, when he was still General, in attempts upon Athens and Argos. He tried to surprise the Piraeus, and was repulsed; this breach of international law excited such indignation that he laid the blame on Erginus, which nobody believed: Erginus could not call out federal troops. Aratus then marched on Argos, hoping that the city would join him, since Aristomachus had been killed by his slaves. But no one moved; Aristomachus’ son Aristippus had succeeded him, and the people were content. This second attack in peace-time was too much for the Achaeans, and when Aratus’ year expired they properly submitted the offence to the arbitration of Sparta’s friend Mantinea, who awarded Aristippus thirty minae, a trifling sum which must have represented compensation for material damage only and not for the breach of international law; possibly the arbitrators regarded the tyrant as outside all law, though he was also leader of the democratic and anti-Spartan majority in Argos, who had just refused to overthrow him when success was certain. Aratus then accused Aristippus of planning his assassination. It is possible enough; Aratus had once planned to assassinate his father, and Aristippus must have regarded Mantinea’s award as the farce it was.

II.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE

The Achaean League was now becoming an important state, and its constitution, for which high rank has been claimed among federal constitutions, must be described. It was a League of cities united in a sympolity, with a common federal citizenship; any larger agglomerations that joined were, as in Aetolia, normally broken up into their component parts; thus Pegae and Aegosthena, though villages of Megara, became independent units when Megara joined the League. The citizenship of the city maintained itself alongside that of the League; the cities kept their own internal powers and law-courts, and the League did not arbitrarily interfere; all private law was outside the League’s competence, and a citizen of one city did not acquire private rights in another without a special grant; the cities did not in any sense fuse. A city could inflict even exile or death on its own citizens for offences against itself; but offences against the League were subject to federal judgment. The cities also kept their own constitutions; but some cities possessed magistracies so nearly resembling those of the League (a phenomenon also found occasionally in other Leagues) that the remodelling of their magistracies may conceivably have been, not merely imitation, but a condition of membership; a good example is Megara, which on joining the Achaean League substituted demiourgoi for her strategoi, and when subsequently transferred to Boeotia, replaced the demiourgoi by polemarchs. All foreign policy was reserved for the League; no city could send or receive ambassadors, make treaties, or wage war; a real service done by the Greek Leagues was that each prevented war between its own cities. A city could, however, offer its services as mediator to other states. Every citizen’s military service was due to the League alone, and he paid the League’s property-tax, though apparently his city was responsible for its collection. There was identity of weights, measures, and coinage throughout the League; but, unlike Aetolia and Boeotia, the local mints coined concurrently with the federal, the bronze coins of each city bearing both the city’s name and the League’s. The religious centre was the temple of Zeus Amarios at the federal capital Aegium.

The League officials, elected annually, consisted of a General (substituted in 255 for the original two), ten demiourgoi, a secretary, treasurer, and admiral; the elections at this period were held in mid-winter at a mass meeting of all citizens, called archairesiai, and the new officials entered office in May. The General was both civil and military head of the League, and could be re-elected every alternate year. The ten demiourgoi, corresponding in number to ten Achaean cities, were also due to a re-organization carried through after 273 and before the eleventh city, Olenus, joined the League, and seem copied from the fifteen demiourgoi of the Arcadian League as re-organized before 300; they formed with the General a governing Board (synarchiai) which transacted current business and represented the League in its intercourse with other states. A board of nomographoi, representing the cities in proportion to population, revised the laws. Any citizen of any League city could be elected to any office.

As the League’s written constitution has not survived, its institutions have to be reconstructed from incidental notices given by its distinguished citizen Polybius. Unfortunately he was too familiar with those institutions to trouble to explain them, while, like many Greeks, he does not use technical terms with modern precision; the result is that the nature of the Achaean Assembly and the Achaean meetings is one of the most difficult problems in Greek history. That Assembly did not, like the Aetolian and (so far as it went) the Macedonian, originate in a gathering of the people under arms; it was a thing made by the cities that made the League, so there is no a priori guide to its nature. Again, the Council, in Aetolia of little importance, bulked so large in Achaea that we are reminded that some Leagues—Boeotia in the fifth century, and the Ionian, Island, and Panhellenic Leagues—had no primary Assembly at all. The size of the Achaean Council early in the second century is illustrated by Eumenes’ offer of 120 talents, the interest of which was to pay the members at their meetings. If we suppose three annual meetings of three days each and interest at 8 per cent., then, taking the usual indemnity of one drachma a day, the Council would number over 6000 members; this may be too high, but it was certainly very large, and quite unlike any other Council known.

For the League meetings Polybius has two names, synodos and synkletos, and there were certainly two types of meeting corresponding to the two names; but he may not always use synodos in its technical sense. In that sense, the synodos was the regular meeting fixed by the constitution; there were two, one immediately after the autumn equinox, and one about April, before the end of the official year. Some have believed that there were two other regular synodos,  one early in June and one in late July or August; but the few cases alleged occur either in the War of the Allies or the First Macedonian War, and as that in June 218 was certainly an extraordinary meeting summoned at Philip’s request, it seems more probable (and nothing forbids the supposition) that every synodos outside the regular two was an extraordinary meeting. There has been much argument as to whether a regular synodos was a meeting of the Council alone or whether it also included every citizen over 30 years who liked to attend; except for one passage, Polybius is frankly ambiguous. The present writer’s opinion is that a regular synodos was a meeting of the Council (and officials) alone; otherwise the distinction of synodos and synkletos is meaningless, and Polybius does once definitely identify the autumn synodos with the Council. The explanation may be that the synodos had originally been the Achaean Assembly, limited in some way, which subsequently absorbed, and became, the Council; this would account for the Council’s great size. The synkletos was the general Assembly of the League, composed of the Council, officials, and all citizens over 30; it met only when summoned by the synarchiai. This Board could summon extraordinary meetings as and when it chose, but every extraordinary meeting was not necessarily a synkletos; it could undoubtedly call an extraordinary meeting of the Council alone. It seems probable that Polybius sometimes calls an extraordinary meeting a synodos without specifying, or perhaps at the distance of time knowing, whether that meeting comprised only the Council or the citizens over 30 also; this assumption would unravel much of the confusion.

The Council was composed of delegations from the several cities in proportion to population. Some such form of delegation was known on the Councils of various Greek states, but never in the Assemblies; so far then as the system could be called representation, the Achaean League had advanced much further than any other Greek state, owing to its Council having in effect almost become the League Assembly. But whether the delegations were chosen by election or lot, and what chance of representation there was for minorities, are things unknown.

League affairs were, generally speaking, the business of the regular synodos, i.e. the Council, which decided foreign policy, received and sent ambassadors, and conferred federal citizenship; in its hands were the relations between the League and its cities, arrangements to arbitrate disputes between cities, federal justice, and military and financial administration; possibly it could admit a new member. Outside its competence were the declaration of war, and new treaties and alliances, which had to be referred to a synkletos. A synkletos could not initiate business, but could only decide matters referred to it; and as such matters had usually been discussed in the synodos, a synkletos was really a mass referendum on particular questions. The two regular synodoi always met at Aegium; a synkletos, or an extraordinary meeting, could be summoned in any city. The danger of a synkletos being swamped by the population of the city where it assembled was met by the vote being taken, not by heads, but by cities; but whether each city had one vote, or whether votes were proportional to size, cannot be decided. Apparently the synodos voted in the same way.

The Achaean League, then, had a sufficiently democratic constitution; the balance was fairly held between the Federal authority and the constituent cities, and the difficulty of the mass meeting was overcome by some degree of representation. It was less democratic than Aetolia in 275, but more so than Aetolia in 220. Its obvious shortcomings were three. War was declared by the men over 30, so that many of those who had to fight had no voice in the decision; in this respect it was behind Aetolia. The president was commander-in-chief, whether he had military ability or not; but this was common to most Greek Leagues. Finally, the expense in time and journeys involved in being a member of the Council must have confined membership to the comparatively well-to-do. Indeed, the League’s worst defect apparently was that, the Council being for many purposes the Assembly, it rather weighted the scales on the side of the well-to-do, which told heavily in its conflict with Sparta; at the same time, the preponderance of a few wealthy men had by 220 become more marked in the Aetolian League than it ever was in the Achaean.

III.

AGIS IV OF SPARTA AND REFORM

We must now turn to the city which was to be the Achaean League’s enemy, Sparta. When in 244 BC the young Agis IV, not yet twenty, ascended the throne as Eurypontid king and social reformer, he found Sparta fallen on evil days. Aristotle had indeed drawn a gloomy picture of Sparta in his time—the decay of the Spartiate body, the accumulation of wealth in comparatively few hands, the neglect of the common meals; but the amount of hard fighting which Sparta had done since points to some exaggeration in his sketch, while in his insistence on the uselessness of Spartan women he probably voiced his own prejudices against woman’s freedom. But an even darker picture of things at Sparta in 244 was drawn by the contemporary historian Phylarchus, a passionate partisan of Cleomenes and the revolution; one might suspect him of darkening the background to throw his hero into brighter relief, but a comparison with Aristotle, and such analysis as is possible of the economic position of the poor in Greece, leave little doubt of his substantial accuracy; the tendencies noted by Aristotle had merely worked themselves out to their logical conclusion. Phylarchus’ figure for the Spartiate body, 700, may be too low, but is generally accepted; doubtless it was very small. The old land-system of lots was in ruins, and all the land belonged to the comparatively few rich men, who had abandoned Spartan habits and become luxurious; there were many poor men who had lost their land, and consequently, under the Spartan constitution, their citizenship; the common meals were deserted, as the rich would not and the poor could not participate; and very many were loaded down with debt1. What had happened can be traced; the money which successful wars, or mercenary service in Egypt and Asia, had once poured into Sparta, and which had enriched individuals, not the State, had been invested in land, since there was no outlet in trade or manufactures. But the class of large landowners thus formed were themselves not a homogeneous body; some were still wealthy in money, but others had only their land, which they had mortgaged to the former class in order to live up to the rising standard of luxury. The poor, of course, had as usual run into debt merely to live at all; for one of the strangest phenomena of the earlier part of the third century is that while prices, as previously noted, had risen enormously, wages, compared with Demosthenes’ time, had actually fallen; the position of the poor was desperate in many places beside Sparta. A king of Sparta in 244, if he wanted to think, had plenty to think about; and there were three main lines of thought which might affect Agis.

The first was the threat of social revolution due to the economic position. It was nothing new; still in the fourth century civil strife had usually been a conflict between two ideas of government, democracy and oligarchy, rather than between rich and poor as such. But in the third century internal troubles were more and more becoming risings of the ‘have-nots’ against the ‘haves’; such apparently was the revolution at Cassandreia which ended in Apollodorus’ tyranny, such some at least of those troubles in the islands which had to be settled by the intervention of Egypt or Macedonia. The social revolution had now a formal programme under four main heads: abolition of debts, equal division of land, confiscation of personal property by and for the people, i.e. the State, and liberation of slaves to support the revolution. The constitutions of the Panhellenic Leagues of Alexander and Demetrius had each contained provisions for using the full force of the League to crush social revolution in any League city; and to many a well-to-do Greek, Macedonia had long seemed the natural bulwark of law and order. But conservative thinkers had always regarded Macedonia’s enemy Sparta as the true type of Greek stability; what was Sparta going to do?

The second was philosophic. To philosophy, the class state had died with Aristotle; the ideal of Zeno, and of that great unknown called Iambulus, was a human brotherhood, a state without rich or poor, without classes and consequently without dissensions, where men should live in equality and concord, and love one another as they had done in a state of nature before wealth and war came into the world. Certainly Zeno’s successors were emphasizing that equality was only theoretical; you could not make men, or their circumstances, alike; nothing could prevent some seats in the theatre being better than others. But the watchwords remained: equality, abolition of class war, concord—the famous Homonoia or union of hearts. Alexander and Demetrius had tentatively tried to introduce it into practical politics, and failed; might not a king of Sparta, on other lines, succeed? For just as conservatives looked to Sparta, so did all who dreamt of a better world; for had not Sparta once been the nearest approach to the ideal nature-state of their dreams, and Spartans a band of brothers, with no private property and equal lots of land—even if only a military brotherhood camped amid conquered Helots, who presumably were not anybody’s brothers? It is startling indeed to find Polybius, the orderly conservative thinker, in his description of Sparta’s past, using, consciously or unconsciously, the very phraseology of Iambulus.

Last comes this same tradition about Sparta’s past. It was a literary invention of the fourth century, partly derived from the division of land which obtained in new colonies and cleruchies, but still an invention; for there never had been, in historical times, an equal division of land at Sparta, and there had always been rich and poor. But the common meals and training, which were a fact, had helped to foster the idea, and certainly in 244 many people believed it. The idea was that all the land had originally belonged to the Spartan State, which had allotted it among the citizens, not exactly as property, but only to enable them (since the lots were cultivated for them by Helots) to devote their time unhampered to military training. All Sparta’s troubles, it was supposed, like those of the Old Testament Jews, were due to back-sliding; she had fallen away from her old ideal; but might not a king of Sparta restore it, and in restoring it cut away the ground from beneath the social revolution and carry out the dreams of philosophy?

These were the lines of thought already in men’s minds that converged on the personality of Agis. Agis was primarily a Spartan patriot, and desired a conservative reformation which should restore what he believed to have been Lycurgus'’ Sparta. Possibly he had military ambition—he kept extremely good discipline in his army—and he had seen what a source of strength the military allotment had been to the Macedonian kingdoms. He may perhaps have dreamt of himself as Plato’s philosopher-king in action. Some have called him a saint; doubtless he really was a noble and single-hearted man, who may have felt sincere sympathy for the poor. Those who wish may call him a Socialist, as he did intend to nationalize the land; but as he must have known Stoic theories through Zeno’s pupil Sphaerus, who was at Sparta, his leaning was more probably towards Stoic Communism, which, unlike modern Communism, aimed primarily at abolishing class war, a horror which Greek thinkers had seen too much of in practice to idealize. With social revolution as such he cannot, as a Spartan king, have felt any sympathy; if he succeeded, he would render it unnecessary, assuming always that no one cared about Helots. But the restoration of Lycurgus’ Sparta in fact entailed division of the land; and as Agis could not usefully distribute mortgaged land, or distribute land at all to men burdened with debt, he had to envisage the cancellation of all debts, the State having no money to pay them; and so this conservative reformer was driven to adopt the two main proposals of the social revolution. As to the other proposals, he did not intend to confiscate personal property, and freeing Helots was out of the question; they were the very basis of Lycurgus’ institutions. Even the Stoics never advocated emancipation, for in their eyes slavery affected only the body, and was immaterial when the poorest slave might be a king in his own soul.

Agis’ first converts were the wealthy ladies of his own family; and he won the support of the young, and of a few men of weight, who felt Sparta’s decadence. The landowners were divided; those who were burdened with mortgages or debts, led by Agis’ uncle Agesilaus, urged Agis on for their own purposes; the wealthy were uncompromisingly hostile. Their leader, the other king Leonidas, Cleonymus’ son, is represented as entirely self-seeking; but the father of Cleomenes and Chilonis, who gave his son Sphaerus for tutor and secured the devotion of such a daughter, was perhaps less unworthy than he is drawn. Agis’ friend Lysander obtained election as ephor, and through him Agis laid his proposals before the Council of Elders: all debts were to be cancelled; the Spartan land proper was to be divided into 4500 lots for Spartiates, and the outer lands into 15,000 lots for Perioeci; as there were not 4 500 Spartiates, the roll was to be filled up from Perioeci and selected metics in sympathy with Spartan institutions. The proposed inclusion of metics excited great interest in Greece, for some might even be Asiatics. The people were easily won over, Agis and his family putting their land and their own fortunes at the disposal of the State amid much enthusiasm; but the Council by a majority of one rejected the proposals. Thereon Lysander impeached Leonidas, who took sanctuary; the ephors removed him, and made king in his place Chilonis’ husband Cleombrotus. But Lysander’s year now expired, and the reactionaries secured the next ephorate, reinstated Leonidas, and impeached Lysander. As the ephorate was all-powerful, Agis’ young followers cut the knot by removing the ephors, and a new board was appointed, headed by Agesilaus; but there was no bloodshed, Agis saving Leonidas’ life and sending him to Tegea.

But Agesilaus was merely using Agis for his own ends. He persuaded the inexperienced young king, against his better judgment, not to carry out both his proposals concurrently, but to cancel debts first; this was done, and Agesilaus and his party, once freed from their mortgages, had no intention of surrendering their lands. Chance favoured them; Sparta’s ally Aratus applied for help against Aetolia (241), and the ephors sent Agis north with the army. During his absence Agesilaus played the tyrant and alienated the people, already disillusioned at not receiving the promised land; Leonidas came back with some mercenaries and recovered power; and when Agis returned, he saw that he must fight or fail. He decided not to fight, and took sanctuary, together with Cleombrotus; as tradition says he was sure of his army, it means that he preferred to die rather than kill his fellow-citizens. He was taken by a trick and murdered, together with his mother and his grandmother Archidamia, the heroine of Pyrrhus’ siege; all died like Spartans. Cleombrotus was saved by Chilonis’ pleading, and exiled. Cleomenes’ sister furnishes the noblest portrait of a woman since the heroines of Euripides; when Cleombrotus helped to overthrow Leonidas she left her husband and shared her father’s misfortunes; when her father in his turn threatened Cleombrotus, she left him and took sanctuary with her husband, whose life she saved and whose banishment she shared; exile with her, says Plutarch, were better than kingship without her. Many supporters of Agis were also exiled. His friend Hippomedon, Agesilaus’ son, went to Egypt and was given high office; but most went to Aetolia, who undertook their restoration as a means of furthering her own influence. Aetolian troops coming through Messenia presently invaded and plundered Laconia with impunity; and though they failed to reinstate the exiles, their inroad revealed to Spartans the weakness of Leonidas’ restored regime.

IV.

THE WAR OF DEMETRIUS II WITH THE LEAGUES

The year following Agis’ death saw the death of Antigonus (early in 239). He had outlived all his contemporaries and most of their sons; he was known as The Old Man. He had had much success in his chequered life; he had restored Macedonia to her fullest boundaries, had regained at Andros the command of the Aegean, and so won the confidence of his people that nothing could now overthrow his line but overwhelming force. But he had ended with a failure; he had lost Corinth. One city only; but a bridge with its keystone withdrawn has only lost one stone; like the bridge, his system in Greece was doomed whenever the strain should come. His son Demetrius II succeeded, and on his accession (if not before) married Phthia; their eldest son1, afterwards Philip V, was born in 238. His marriage meant that he undertook to prevent Aetolia depriving Epirus of Acarnania; and as Aetolia’s arrangement with Antigonus ended with his death2, a collision between Macedonia and Aetolia seemed inevitable. In the Peloponnese, as Demetrius upheld his father’s system, Aratus’ intention of freeing the Peloponnese was bound to bring about a collision between Macedonia and Achaea. The Aetolian and Achaean Leagues therefore formed an alliance, which included also Aetolia’s allies, Boeotia and Elis.

The obscure war between Demetrius and the two Leagues probably broke out in 238. Boeotia naturally quitted Aetolia, joined Demetrius as an ally, and again secured Opuntian Locris; and that part of Phocis which before 245 had been Boeotia’s ally also joined Demetrius and became independent again. Demetrius apparently lost Atintania, which appears to have been independent in 230; but Aetolia failed to secure Acarnania. As against Aetolia, therefore, Demetrius re-established much the same position that obtained before Boeotia’s defeat in 245. It is true that Aetolia’s Amphictyonic vote was not, apparently, diminished; but even if the Delphic archons could be certainly dated, stress can no longer be laid on this, for it seems that Aetolia, once she had a country’s vote, now claimed to retain that vote so long as she held any fraction of the country, or even sheltered a substantial body of its exiles who could act in her favour; the vote was her method of perpetuating her claim to lost territory, and Demetrius was not interested in Amphictyonic votes, while no hieromnemon could appear at Delphi against Aetolia’s wishes. Between 238 and 233 Athens’ territory was frequently ravaged by the Achaeans and perhaps by Aetolian privateers. But in the Aegean Demetrius was still master; he was suzerain of Delos (where he founded a festival on his accession), Ceos, and probably many of the Cyclades, and Delos had close relations with Thessalonica; he even went farther afield than Antigonus, for in 237, through an alliance with Gortyn and her allies, he obtained a footing in Crete, heretofore the preserve of Egypt and Sparta. He founded one city, Phila near Tempe; but the war with Aetolia at first left him little opportunity to attend to the Peloponnese, where his cause was really maintained by Argos, to whom he sent a few troops by sea. Nothing is heard of Megalopolis, though its tyrant Lydiades must have been Demetrius’ partisan.

Aratus, though he periodically ravaged Attica, paid most attention to Argos. After more than one unofficial attempt to surprise the city, he invaded Argolis in force in the summer of 237; Aristippus met him, and Aratus threw away victory by losing his nerve and breaking off the battle. As he refused to renew it because the enemy outnumbered him, and as Aristippus cannot have maintained anything approaching as many mercenaries as would outnumber the Achaean army, of at least 10,000 men, we see once more that the tyrant had large support from the Argives. Aratus persuaded Cleonae to join the League and there celebrated a rival Nemea in opposition to Argos; but he disgraced himself by breaking the Nemean truce, capturing some performers at the Argive Nemea, and selling them as slaves. Next year the Achaeans took Heraea. Aristippus waited till Aratus’ next Generalship (235 BC), and then tried to recover Cleonae; but Aratus secretly collected troops, slipped into Cleonae unobserved by night, and at dawn flung open the gates and surprised the enemy. Aristippus was defeated and killed, but Argos itself was saved by his brother Aristomachus with Macedonian help. Whatever condemnation some of Aratus’ methods deserve, one cannot help feeling sympathy and even admiration for a man who, knowing that he was afraid in a pitched battle, and knowing that others knew it, still never gave up but always fought again, frequently retrieving his errors. Aratus’ psychology became a common topic of discussion in the schools; the information that remains points to his weakness being some uncontrollable nervous affection; he was not a coward at heart. His inner life must have been a terrible conflict; it may explain some of his misdeeds

The victory of Cleonae showed that the Achaean League might become formidable, while Demetrius’ power to help his friends seemed doubtful. Lydiades of Megalopolis began to reconsider the situation. He was an ambitious and noble-minded man; he was rather afraid of Aratus, while he envied his position as chief magistrate of a free commonwealth. He laid down his tyranny under an amnesty, joined Megalopolis to the League (235), and became an Achaean citizen and a popular hero; the north and west of Arcadia followed Megalopolis’ lead and also joined. Lydiades was elected General for 234, and for six years alternated with Aratus; his popularity was a threat to Aratus’ unique influence, and Aratus, who was jealous, intrigued against him, opposed him in the Assembly without, it is said, much success, and suggested to the Achaeans that the cuckoo might some day become a hawk again. More important probably was the change in the League’s position created by the adhesion of the ‘ Great City.’ Mercantile Corinth had fallen into line, but Megalopolis was too important and virile a community to become merely an Achaean town; she had her own traditional policy of hostility to Sparta, and the question promptly arose, would Megalopolis follow the policy of the League or would she compel the League to follow the policy of Megalopolis; for the moment Lydiades took office he proposed to attack, not Argos, but Sparta. Aratus secured the defeat of the project. In one way Lydiades was right; had he been successful, there would have been no Cleomenes, and the League would not have become a Macedonian dependency. But these things could not be foreseen; and on what was known in 234 wisdom lay with Aratus. Lydiades persuaded Nearchus, tyrant of Orchomenus, to abdicate under an amnesty as he had done, and Orchomenus joined the League, perhaps unwillingly; for to secure itself the League gave allotments there to Achaean settlers, who were forbidden to alienate them for twenty years. Mantinea also joined, probably the same year.

It was evident that if Demetrius were to retain any footing in the Peloponnese he must act vigorously. In 233 he was able to send a sufficient force, and his general Bithys defeated Aratus thoroughly at Phylacia (locality unknown), to the delight of Athens, who rewarded Bithys with citizenship; the Achaeans were paralysed, and did not move again till Demetrius died. Mantinea and Orchomenus now quitted the Achaean League and with Tegea and probably Caphyae joined the Aetolian, which thus acquired most of eastern Arcadia, a district which had learnt to act independently in the Chremonidean war. As an Achaean city took an oath never to secede, this strange step can hardly have been taken without the Achaean League’s concurrence; perhaps it was intended to compensate Aetolia for her losses in Central Greece in the common cause. But Aetolia was now quite safe, for Demetrius’ hands were full in the north. A powerful tribe or confederacy, the Bastarnae, now definitely proved to have been Gauls, not Germans1, were migrating southward, and either they or the Scordisci broke the Illyrian Autariatae and other tribes and drove the fragments to join Dardania, greatly increasing Dardania’s strength. The Dardanians, of Illyrian blood, were a brave and semi-barbarous people about the upper Axius (Vardar), who proverbially washed only thrice in their lives, at birth, marriage, and death; they could put a large force into the field, their heavy infantry being armed like Macedonians and accompanied by light-armed slaves. Their king Longarus now invaded Paeonia, and Demetrius allied himself with Agron of Illyria, who had recovered much of the southern Illyrian districts formerly conquered by Pyrrhus and had consolidated a powerful kingdom.

V.

THE TRIUMPH OF FEDERALISM

Meanwhile Olympias' son Pyrrhus II, king of Epirus, died, and was succeeded by his brother Ptolemaeus. Under him Epirus’ constitution broke down; the majority desired a republic, and there was civil war. The revolution was probably supported, if not engineered, by Aetolia, since her enemy Demetrius supported his brother-in-law Ptolemaeus; but Demetrius was fully occupied elsewhere, and the republicans triumphed; Ptolemaeus was killed, Olympias died of grief, and the last member of the great Pyrrhus’ house, his granddaughter Deidameia, though she renounced her claim to the throne, was barbarously murdered by the Ambracian mob at the very altar of Artemis (? 235). The new republic allied itself with Aetolia; but Macedonia’s friend Acarnania proclaimed herself independent, and restored her ancient League, but under a single general. The Aetolians invaded Acarnania and besieged Medeon, but Agron at Demetrius’ request sent a fleet which rescued the city (autumn 231). Next spring, Agron being dead, his widow Teuta sent out a large force which defeated the Epirotes, took the federal capital Phoenice, and broke up Pyrrhus’ Epirus; Ambracia entered into isopolity and alliance with the Aetolian League and Amphilochia joined it, while Athamania declared itself a kingdom under Amynander; and Epirus, now reduced to a federation of its original three tribes, under three generals, left Aetolia and allied itself with Illyria, which also acquired Atintania, Epirus’ ally in the war.

In spring 229 Demetrius died, after a severe defeat by the Dardanians, who occupied Paeonia; his heir was a boy of nine. Confusion followed; the Dardanians invaded Macedonia; and all Macedonia’s enemies saw their opportunity. Aetolia struck at once; though she did not recover independent Phocis, she incorporated Thessaly and Achaea Phthiotis, including the coveted Thebes, where she settled some Aetolians; by 228 she had doubled her territory and reached her greatest expansion on the Greek mainland. She was now firmly set across the peninsula from sea to sea, anchored as it were at either end by her two recent acquisitions, Thebes on the Gulf of Pagasae and Ambracia on the Ambracian Gulf; and in either sea she had outposts, bound to her by isopolity and alliance, in the Ionian sea Cephallenia, in the Aegean Chios and (now or later) Ceos, and Vaxus (Oaxus) in Crete. She apparently had 15 Amphictyonic votes, and presently gave two to Cephallenia and Ambracia. Western Peloponnese was in her system and she held part of Arcadia, while Rome had freed her from any fear of Illyria. She regarded herself now as Macedonia’s equal.

Athens recovered independence in 229. Her leading man was now the wealthy Eurycleidas of Cephissia, a member of the pro-Macedonian government, who as military steward had raised a subscription to protect Attica against Achaean inroads and get in the crops in safety, and as agonothetes, perhaps in 230, had spent seven talents on reviving the Dionysia and large sums to bring the ravaged land back into cultivation. On Demetrius’ death he led a movement, probably instigated by Egypt, to secede from Macedonia, and approached Diogenes, commander of the Piraeus garrison, who, seeing no prospect of support, agreed to hand over the Piraeus on payment of 150 talents to satisfy his mercenaries. The movement shows that the pro-Macedonian party in Athens was as dead as the Nationalist; in fact, there were now no parties there at all; a few would have joined Achaea, but the great majority had only one object, peace. Aratus hurried to Athens, hoping to secure her adhesion; but Athens’ past forbade her becoming a unit in a League, while she had no mind to play buffer-state for Achaea against enemies from the north. Aratus, with his great success elsewhere, could afford to take the rebuff graciously; he made amends to Athens for his attacks by subscribing twenty talents to the fund for Diogenes, and left her alone.

Athens found the money somehow; the Thespians and Thebans raised subscriptions which they lent to her through their cities, and she pawned her official copies of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides to Ptolemy III for 15 talents. Diogenes was paid, and handed to Athens the Piraeus and all the forts (228). In his honour were founded the festival Diogeneia and the gymnasium called the Diogeneum, which became a centre for the Athenian ephebes; his seat, with the inscription ‘Of Diogenes the Benefactor,’ still stands in the Dionysiac theatre. Eurycleidas and his brother Micion took the lead in the new government; finance was again administered by a board, but conjoined with a military steward; they restored the walls of Athens and the Piraeus, and strengthened the harbours. But they really relied on international forbearance; and the Greek states readily recognized Athens’ freedom, for the harmless and historic city was an object of general friendliness. Men from the new Hellenistic capitals, excellently planned in rectangular blocks, with broad streets and wide vistas, came to regard Athens as we may some mediaeval town; she was a place to visit, with her narrow winding alleys and antiquated houses, her air of bygone greatness, her glorious temples of an older day. Eurycleidas dedicated a new precinct to The People and the Graces, whose worship proclaimed Athens’ gratitude to the world for its kindness; he and his family were perpetual priests, and there Ptolemy III and probably Diogenes were also worshipped. In the precinct stood an altar of Aphrodite, goddess of love, with the inscription ‘Leader of the People,’ typifying that once Imperialist people’s goodwill to all men; it recalls the place of Love in Zeno’s world-wide Utopia.

In the Peloponnese Aristomachus abandoned the now hopeless struggle to maintain himself. After Demetrius’ death, but before May 229, he had been ready to entertain a proposal made by Aratus that he should, like Lydiades, abdicate, and join Argos to the League; but Lydiades, who was General, naturally desired the credit of bringing Argos over, and himself introduced Aristomachus to the Achaean Assembly. Aratus thereon procured the rejection of Aristomachus’ proposal; but after Lydiades had quitted office, and he was himself General, he welcomed him; Argos joined the League, and Aristomachus abdicated under the usual amnesty and was elected General for 228 instead of Lydiades. The episode throws an ugly light on Aratus’ attitude toward Lydiades and its repercussion on the League’s policy. Following Aristomachus’ example, the tyrants of Phlius and Hermione also abdicated and their cities joined the League; in spring 228 Aegina joined, and Aratus took Caphyae; and when in May 228 he went out of office, he had his heart’s desire: there was no longer a tyrant in Peloponnese, or any trace of Macedonian influence; there was in fact no tyrant left in Greece.

This was the highest point which the Achaean League ever reached; later it was to embrace more territory, but at present it contained none but willing citizens, and was also a fully independent federation, for its nominal alliance with the now inactive Ptolemy III, and Aratus’ Egyptian subsidy, hardly affected its policy, whatever might have happened had there been a strong king reigning at Alexandria. It gave its members good government; and the defects that were to ruin it—lack of proper military training, and the bias of its constitution in favour of the well-to-do—had not yet fully revealed themselves. Aratus had the right to be proud of his work, for his work it was, carried through in the face of what at first looked impossible odds. But the territory of the League suggests one peculiar reflection. It embraced Achaea, Sicyon, Corinth, Megara, Argos, the Argolid and the coastal cities, Aegina, Megalopolis and the larger part of Arcadia; and, except Aegina, all these countries had for long been the sphere of the Macedonian; they had been part of the empires of Cassander and Demetrius I, and comprised the cities in which Antigonus Gonatas had maintained his system. Their use to the Antigonids had been to hold in check the free districts, primarily Sparta, and struggles with Sparta had been the history of the League’s principal cities; and the League was, in this aspect, only the old pro-Macedonian opposition to Sparta under a new name and constitution, as events were soon to show. It is said that Aratus, his ambition achieved, now aspired to a greater work, the unification of the whole Peloponnese in his League. It was a natural aspiration, but a vain one. History gave warrant for the overthrow of tyrants; it gave none for the belief that Sparta could ever be brought to join Argos and Megalopolis.

Thus the federal movement had triumphed, though partly by the grace of Dardanian barbarism. Gonatas’ system was dead, and Macedonia held nothing south of Olympus but Demetrias, Euboea, and some Cyclades. Only two Greek-speaking kingdoms remained in the peninsula; and the impact of victorious federalism upon Macedonia and Sparta must now be traced.

VI.

ANTIGONUS DOSON

Demetrius had apparently named as his son Philip’s guardian his cousin Antigonus, called Doson (another nickname of unknown meaning), son of Demetrius the Fair; probably he promised Demetrius to secure Philip’s future succession. The trouble in Macedonia called for a man, and the army must have confirmed Antigonus’ guardianship. Antigonus III was a statesman; he understood the victories federalism had won, and was prepared to make in Macedonia such concessions to the new spirit as a Macedonian monarch might; he also understood that a name may sometimes pass for a thing. We gather dimly that he presently came into conflict with the army; the result was a bargain. They elected him King; but Macedonia became ‘The League1 of the Macedonians.’ It seemingly gave the people no new powers or rights; but it meant that their jealously-guarded ancestral partnership with their king was now formally recognized, and crystallized under a name borrowed from the terminology of Greek Federalism; the unwritten quasi-constitution of Macedonia was, so to speak, reduced to writing, and found expression both in Antigonus’ acts of state, done by ‘King Antigonus son of King Demetrius and the Macedonians,’ and later in Philip V’s bronze coinage inscribed ‘Of the Macedonians’ and in the statue of him set up at Delos by the Macedonian League; while the Macedonians were to appear as members of Antigonus’ Hellenic League, since Antigonus alone was no longer the Macedonian State, as Philip II, Alexander, and Demetrius I had been when they formed their Leagues of Corinth. It seems that Phthia had pre-deceased Demetrius, and his new wife Chryseis had adopted Philip; Antigonus now kept his promise to Demetrius by adopting Philip as his son and successor and marrying his ‘mother’ Chryseis. Like Cassander, Antigonus was a consumptive.

Antigonus first drove out the Dardanians and recovered southern Paeonia, but not Bylazora, which commanded the pass into Paeonia from Dardania. During 228 he recovered much of Thessaly, and took his place as head of the Thessalian League, while Epirus became his ally. With Aetolia he succeeded in renewing the arrangement Gonatas had made and secured her neutrality, but to obtain this he had to abandon to her all Achaea Phthiotis and part of Thessaly; her League now seemingly included Limnaea, Gomphi, Tricca, and possibly Pharsalus, that is, parts of Thessaliotis and of Hestiaeotis; she controlled all the roads over or round Othrys into Malis, and cut off Macedonia from access to Greece by land. That he conceded so much to obtain Aetolia’s neutrality shows that she had not been much damaged by Demetrius II. In 227 Antigonus made his obscure expedition to Caria, directed against Egypt. In the Aegean he was suzerain of Delos and some Cyclades, extended his authority to Cos and Nisyrus, and made treaties with Eleutherna and Hiera-pytna in Crete, but he neglected the fleet; by 220 it had largely rotted away, and most of the Aegean was masterless. He made no attempt to regain anything in Greece, and even specifically recognized Athens’ independence; his policy before 224 is as little known as his personality1. But his reign saw a dramatic clash of principles and causes in the Peloponnese.

VII.

CLEOMENES III OF SPARTA AND THE REVOLUTION

Agis’ death left Leonidas all-powerful at Sparta, and he ruled unconstitutionally without a colleague. But he at once made a mistake. Agis had left a young widow, Agiatis, gentle, beautiful, and wealthy; to obtain her fortune, Leonidas, in spite of her resistance, married her to his young son Cleomenes. The result was one of the rare love-stories of Greece; Cleomenes fell in love with his wife, and she, recognizing that her marriage was not the boy’s fault, and moved by his sympathy for herself and Agis, converted him to Agis’ ideas, to which he was perhaps already predisposed; for Sphaerus was his tutor, and the treatise he wrote for him on the Spartan constitution doubtless portrayed Sparta’s history as Agis had understood it. Cleomenes III, on his enemies’ admission, was a born leader. He was a high-minded man, but harder and stronger than Agis, not so single of purpose, and intensely ambitious; doubtless he desired to make his people happier, but he took up reform partly with the ulterior object of so strengthening Sparta that his ambition should have scope. He saw why Agis had failed, and realized that he could only carry reform by force; and a Spartan king, who in peace had little power, could only secure force in one way, through war. He came to the throne in 237, when Leonidas died, but he made no move till in 229 Macedonia seemed impotent; then he deliberately provoked Achaea by obtaining the ephors’ permission to enter the Belbinate, a district in dispute between Sparta and Megalopolis, where he fortified a post. It is not denied that he sought war with Achaea as the only way of carrying through his reforms, even if those reforms were partly a means to another end; and the quarrel was fanned by the Aetolians, who decided to retire from their Arcadian cities, Tegea, Mantinea, Orchomenus and Caphyae, but ceded them, not to Achaea, but to Sparta, thus driving in a Spartan wedge between Megalopolis and Argos; perhaps Aetolia was becoming alarmed at Achaea’s expansion and regarded Sparta as a promising counterpoise.

Aratus, although he attempted unsuccessfully to surprise Tegea and Orchomenus, had no desire to endanger his League’s prosperity by open hostilities with Sparta, while the ephors, who distrusted Cleomenes, recalled him; but in spring 228 Aratus, by taking Caphyae, forced them to send out Cleomenes again. In May 228 Aristomachus succeeded Aratus as General; he wholeheartedly desired to attack Argos’ secular enemy, and the League at once declared war; it was, however, during 228 confined to border incursions, Cleomenes having only a small force and Aratus straining his influence to hold back Aristomachus; the two armies did meet at Pallantium near Megalopolis, but Aratus managed to prevent a battle. In 227, however, when Aratus was again General, Cleomenes, who had now recruited mercenaries—his real object —was better equipped, and early in the season he defeated Aratus at Lycaeum near Megalopolis, but Aratus as usual recovered himself by surprising and capturing Mantinea; as the majority there was normally pro-Spartan he tried to safeguard the city for the League by giving citizenship to metics and introducing Achaean settlers, hardly a likely method of reconciling Mantinea to League membership.

In view of this setback Cleomenes procured the recall from exile of Agis’ brother Archidamus to share the kingship, hoping thus to win over the Eurypontid partisans; but Archidamus was murdered by those who had murdered Agis. It has been proved, if proof be needed, that this was not Cleomenes’ doing, though his own position was too precarious to enable him to punish the murderers. But he bribed the ephors for a chance to avenge the loss of Mantinea, and at Ladoceia near Megalopolis encountered Aratus with an Achaean force, Lydiades commanding the cavalry. Cleomenes’ advance-guard was driven in, and Aratus, who was outnumbered and meant to act only on the defensive, then stopped the Achaean advance at a protecting water-course. But Lydiades disobeyed the order to halt and went on with the cavalry alone; he was defeated and killed, and the Achaean phalanx, disordered by the flying horsemen, was driven in rout from the field. Cleomenes showed what was in his mind by covering Lydiades’ body with his purple and sending it to Megalopolis; so had Alexander acted towards Darius. Lydiades’ death was his own fault, for he had disobeyed orders, and a commander-in-chief is entitled to fight his battle his own way; but the Achaeans blamed Aratus for not supporting him, and refused to vote him further supplies. But Cleomenes was no longer thinking of Aratus. He left his citizen troops in camp, hurried back to Sparta with his mercenaries, turned out the ephors, killing four of them and ten supporters who fought, exiled 80 of their principal followers, and was sole master of Sparta at a cost of 14 lives, one of the quickest and cheapest revolutions known.

He spent the winter of 227 in re-establishing, as he supposed, Lycurgus’ Sparta. He abolished the ephorate as being a later usurpation unknown to Lycurgus and transferred its powers to himself, though possibly he created a new board, the patronomoi, to exercise civil justice. The council of elders, being Lycurgan, was only shorn of power and perhaps made an annual magistracy. Debts were abolished and the land divided as Agis had proposed, but the Spartiate lots were made 4000 instead of 4500, the Spartiate body being filled up with Perioeci and approved metics. The common meals and the rigorous Spartan training of the young were restored; here Sphaerus usefully co-operated. These reforms concentrated all power in Cleomenes’ hands, and gave him also a strong citizen army, which he re-armed in Macedonian fashion; but just as his land allotment, with the necessary surveys, cannot have been completed for some time, so the reconstitution of the army was perhaps not carried through till Egyptian subsidies became available. He probably built the wall round Sparta of which stone foundations remain, and possibly struck a new coinage with the unaccustomed type of Apollo of Amyclae and his own head—a strong handsome face, if it be his. His panegyrist says that he kept his army free of women and camp-followers, and that his own way of life was the pattern of simplicity; it may well be so, for to one of his overmastering ambition material luxury might mean little. In his new Sparta a majority supported him; but he could not reconcile the wealthy who had opposed Agis, though in dividing the land he set aside lots for the 80 exiles, whom he promised to recall later; like Demetrius I, he meant to imitate Alexander’s recall of his political opponents. Probably too some adherents of the Eurypontids remained his enemies; and as the Lycurgan constitution required two kings, and he dared not recall another Eurypontid, he crowned his brother Eucleidas. It was unconstitutional, and gave a handle to those who called him a tyrant; but Sphaerus would doubtless have said that on the contrary he had overthrown a tyranny, a state of things incompatible with that Universal Law to which all, from king to peasant, owed obedience.

The revolution at Sparta greatly affected the Peloponnese. Cleomenes thought that he had been restoring Lycurgus’ constitution; the people elsewhere thought that he was carrying out social revolution, and the hopes of all who found this world a hard place began to centre on the brilliant young king. But he affected more than the common people; one of the governing class in Sparta’s enemy Megalopolis—Aratus’ friend Cercidas, who had Cynic leanings—is actually found preaching philanthropy and exhorting his fellows to heal the sick and give to the poor while they had time, otherwise the social revolution might be upon them and their wealth be taken away. Possibly Cleomenes even affected Boeotia, represented as now sunk in slothful materialism; for though debts were not cancelled they practically ceased to be recoverable, and Polybius blames one Opheltas for using State funds to help the poor. Indeed, had Cleomenes been content to make peace with the willing Aratus and devote himself to the internal betterment of Sparta it does not appear what could have prevented his revolution being permanently successful; in a little country like Laconia the necessary periodical revision of the lots should have been feasible, as Diodorus says it had been at Lipara. But he was in the grip of his ambition; and he was dreaming, not of peace for Sparta or of social reform elsewhere, but of the hegemony of the Peloponnese, perhaps of Greece, and of playing Alexander in a new League of Corinth. There was indeed to be a new League of Corinth, but not under Cleomenes; he was to be forestalled by Antigonus, the rival who, men said, had ‘Alexander’s own Fortune.’

VIII.

 CLEOMENES AND ARATUS

So far the driving force of the war had been Megalopolis, whose territory alone had suffered. But Cleomenes now made war differently; in 226 BC., after again ravaging Megalopolis’ lands he retook Mantinea, where his partisans murdered the Achaean colonists and he re-established the old constitution, passed north and took Lasion, which he restored to his ally Elis (who had joined Sparta in 229), invaded Achaea itself, and at Hecatombaeum near Dyme inflicted a crushing defeat on the Achaean army. The Achaeans, weary of following Megalopolis to disaster, resolved upon peace, and Cleomenes offered to restore land and prisoners in return for the headship of the Achaean League; doubtless he meant to be General for life, as Antigonus was of Thessaly, and to make the League the kernel of his new confederacy, with Sparta playing Macedonia’s part. Probably, had he met the Assembly, they would have granted his demand; but he fell ill and had to return to Sparta, and Aratus procured the rejection of the proposal, though many favoured it. But without allies the League lay at Cleomenes’ feet; even Ptolemy now transferred his support and subsidies to Cleomenes, as being more likely to hold Macedonia in check. Aratus should have been General for 225, but he refused election, and was ill spoken of for failing his country in her need; his partisan Timoxenus was elected. But the reason of his refusal was that he desired to carry out certain negotiations in a private and not an official capacity. For after Hecatombaeum he had already in spirit made the great betrayal; he, whose life’s work it had been to drive the Macedonian out of the Peloponnese, had decided to bring the Macedonian back. He took advantage of the fact that the revelation of Cleomenes’ ambition had made Megalopolis—even Cercidas—careless of the means employed to thwart him, and that the dominant party there had always been friendly to Macedonia; and at his instigation two Megalopolitans, Cercidas and Nicophanes, with permission of the Achaeans, approached Antigonus.

It is easy to condemn Aratus, and to say, as some said at the time, that he ought rather to have joined Cleomenes against Macedonia; but how many in his place would have surrendered their position in the League they had made to a younger and hostile rival ? Polybius says he was afraid of Aetolia joining Cleomenes; perhaps he knew more than he relates, but, to judge from his narrative, Aetolia’s neutrality since 228 had been unexceptional. The truth seems to be that Aratus had lost his hold of the masses; they were turning to Cleomenes, who to them meant land for all and no debts; and what weighed heavily with Aratus and his supporters among the well-to-do was fear of social revolution, against which Macedonia had long been the obvious bulwark . Many cities too of the Achaean League had once looked to Macedonia as their suzerain and protector, and there were, as the event showed, strong parties ready to join her again. These reasons amply explain, though they may not excuse, Aratus’ action. But one further consideration arises. The man was desperate; in a few months at most all must inevitably be lost; one dare not from an armchair judge too hardly a man struggling blindly with his back to the wall. Some men in Aratus’ position would have defied fate and gone down fighting; but he was not of that mettle.

Antigonus too had his ambitions, and he saw that he might utilize the Greek dread of social revolution to regain, by one diplomatic stroke, the position in Greece for which his predecessors had often had to fight. He proffered help, but on terms: the cession of Corinth. The Achaeans could not yet bring themselves to sacrifice a League city, and Aratus, who did not want to take more responsibility than he could help, procured the rejection of the offer by the Assembly. But when in spring 225 Cleomenes moved out from Sparta, the League began to break up; he hardly needed to fight. Every discontented element—men who disliked Aratus, men who hoped to make themselves tyrants —saw its profit in joining him, but the decisive thing was the attitude of the masses; they thought that what Cleomenes had done at Sparta he would do elsewhere, and that there would be a new world. An unexampled wave of revolutionary enthusiasm swept the League’s territory; except Megalopolis and Stymphalus, all Arcadia joined him or was easily secured; at Cynaetha the revolution went through and the land was divided. Even one Achaean town, Pellene, expelled the Achaean garrison and went over, its revenge on Aratus for having sacrificed it to the Aetolians in 241. Cleomenes also secured Phlius and almost surprised Sicyon itself; but the League conferred special powers on Aratus, and he mastered the disaffected in his own city. Cleomenes’ greatest gain was Argos. Here the popular majority had normally been pro-Macedonian, but the masses had also been prone to revolution, as witness the famous ‘cudgelling’; possibly the artisan clubs with strange names were really old. As between Macedonia and the revolution, the Argive populace, led by Aristomachus, ex-General of the League, elected for revolution; it is noteworthy that Aristomachus’ niece1 afterwards married a revolutionary, Nabis of Sparta. With their help Cleomenes mastered this important city during the Nemea without bloodshed, and again summoned the League to elect him General, on  terms that they should jointly garrison Acrocorinthus; again Aratus procured a refusal. Cleomenes then secured Hermione, Troezen, and Epidaurus, and approached Corinth; and the Corinthians rose and joined him (winter 225), though the Achaean garrison saved Acrocorinthus.

Corinth’s defection removed the difficulty of ceding it to Antigonus; but the League, now reduced to Megalopolis, Sicyon, Stymphalus, Megara, and ten Achaean towns, made a last effort. Megara was directed to save herself by joining Boeotia; a special meeting convened at Sicyon then made Aratus dictator1, with a Sicyonian bodyguard, a form of one man rule which naturally modified the constitution and involved the suspension of the Generalship; consequently no General of the League was again appointed till after Sellasia, though possibly Aratus’ powers had to be, and were, annually renewed. But his efforts to secure help from Aetolia and elsewhere had no success. Cleomenes meanwhile drew lines round Acrocorinthus and besieged Sicyon; but the city, under Aratus’ command, was still holding out when the date of the spring meeting (224) arrived. Aratus slipped out and reached Aegium by sea; and the Achaean Rump passed the fateful vote to accept Antigonus’ terms. Cleomenes at once raised the siege of Sicyon, and fortified lines across the Isthmus, connecting them with his circumvallation of Acrocorinthus. Aetolia, anxious about her neutrality, now courted Ptolemy III and set up statues of him and his family; to this time may also belong her friendship with Attalus I of Pergamum, who at some time before 220 fortified Elaus for her and perhaps built his portico in Delphi to celebrate his Gallic victory. Athens, for the same reason, instituted a festival in Ptolemy’s honour, and created a thirteenth tribe, Ptolemais, while retaining the two Macedonian tribes.

IX.

 CLEOMENES AND ANTIGONUS

Antigonus had come south through Euboea, Aetolia having enforced her neutrality and forbidden him passage through Thermopylae; by early summer (224) he was in the Megarid, where Aratus joined him, having appointed Timoxenus to command the Achaean troops in his absence. Antigonus’ attempt however to pierce the Isthmus lines failed. But military success could not prevent Cleomenes’ cause being already lost; for the masses everywhere had learnt that he had no intention of introducing a general social revolution, and in their disillusionment they were ready to abandon him as quickly as they had joined him. A deputation from Argos so informed Aratus; and while he with 1500 of Antigonus’ men made for Argos by sea, Timoxenus marched the League troops thither behind Cleomenes’ back, and Argos changed sides. The danger to his communications made Cleomenes’ lines untenable; he evacuated them and hurried to Argos, while Antigonus occupied Acrocorinthus. For a moment Cleomenes recaptured Argos, but Antigonus was hard on his heels, and he had to abandon the city and fall back to cover Sparta; to crown his misfortune came news of his wife’s death. Antigonus occupied Argos, where Aristomachus was justly enough executed for treason; all Argolis joined him; and at the autumn meeting at Aegium he finally constituted the new Hellenic League which he had already begun to form.

For the last time in Greece Alexander’s policy of free alliances was revived; Antigonus’ League recalled the Leagues of Alexander and Demetrius I, but it was no longer a League of cities; conformably to the spirit of the age, it was a League of Leagues. The members were the Macedonian and Thessalian Leagues, and Antigonus’ allies the Leagues of Achaea, Boeotia, Epirus, Acarnania, Euboea, and non-Aetolian Phocis; Boeotia included Megara and Opuntian Locris, and Macedonia included Magnesia, i.e. Demetrias. Antigonus’ League had no federal income, and the constituent states had to confirm a declaration of war and (contrary to the provisions of Demetrius’ League) suffered no penalty if they refused cooperation; the new League was thus less centralized than that of Demetrius, though Antigonus may have had many of Demetrius’ powers. Though powerful, the Hellenic League was not Panhellenic; beside Sparta, it did not include Aetolia, her friends Elis and Messenia, or Athens; and it could not, like the older Panhellenic Leagues, meet at the Panhellenic festivals, for Aetolia controlled Delphi and (through Elis) Olympia. In fact, Greece was definitely split in two. But it restored Macedonia’s influence in Greece, for its members could not conduct an independent foreign policy. Antigonus’ proclamation later that he was not at war with Sparta but only with Cleomenes shows that a primary business of his League was to crush the social revolution. The Hellenic League’s delegates met at Aegium and elected Antigonus commander-in-chief; he wintered at Corinth and Sicyon, and Aratus took part in Sicyon’s worship of a Macedonian king.

In 223 Antigonus invaded Arcadia, took Tegea, and advanced to the Laconian border; but Cleomenes’ strong garrison in Orchomenus threatened his rear and compelled him to turn and take the place; a counterstroke of Cleomenes against Megalopolis failed. The smaller Arcadian towns joined Antigonus, but Mantinea resisted. He stormed the town and abandoned it to Achaean vengeance for the settlers murdered four years before , a vengeance which brought much disgrace on the Achaean name; for, besides executing the guilty, they razed the ‘Lovely City’ and sold the entire surviving population as slaves, a horrible law of war which had apparently been falling into disuse. Aratus must bear his share of blame. Having secured Arcadia, Antigonus in September retired to Argos with his mercenaries and sent his Macedonians home to winter; like every Macedonian king, he spared them all he could. Cleomenes’ inactivity during the summer possibly means that he was re-arming his troops; he also freed and armed a small body of Helots, for which there was precedent, but the story that he obtained 500 talents by selling 6000 Helots their freedom may be doubted, for next year he was short of money, despite Ptolemy’s subsidies. But once the Macedonians had gone, he struck hard; he surprised and captured Megalopolis itself. Most of the people escaped, and he offered them their city again in return for their alliance; the young Philopoemen persuaded them to refuse, whereupon Cleomenes plundered and razed the city in revenge for Mantinea, while next spring (222) he ravaged Argos’ territory up to the walls. Antigonus was helpless and the moral impression was considerable, but in reality Cleomenes, possibly from lack of money, only illustrated once more, as Leosthenes had done before Lamia , the weakness of Greek warfare as compared with Macedonian: Greeks never now possessed, or made, siege-trains.

By June 222 the Macedonians had returned, and Antigonus collected his forces for the invasion of Laconia. He had some 28,000 men, including beside mercenaries 13,000 Macedonians, about 9000 League troops, and 1600 Illyrian allies under Demetrius of Pharos, a Greek who was now powerful in Illyria . Cleomenes, who had raised 20,000 men, was outnumbered; his only chance was skilful use of the ground. Antigonus approached from Tegea, and Cleomenes occupied a position in the middle Oenus (Kelephina) valley north of Sellasia; but exactly where he stood cannot be satisfactorily established from Polybius’ account, though the battlefield was near his home. It is impossible also to reconcile the contradictions in our accounts of the battle; but as these go back to three sources—Aratus, who if there was not in action; Philopoemen (probably), who drove his immediate opponents right off the battlefield; and some person unknown on Cleomenes’ side—honest discrepancies are inevitable. The political situation, however, shows that on the main point Spartan tradition (Phylarchus) is right and Megalopolitan tradition (Polybius) wrong: Cleomenes charged because he meant to charge and not as a forlorn hope. For the situation was that Antigonus had induced Ptolemy III to abandon Cleomenes and Cleomenes was short of money to pay his men; both commanders therefore desired a decision, Antigonus because it was necessary to destroy the army of the revolution, and Cleomenes because victory was his only chance; he could no longer afford a war of manoeuvre, and he had obviously resolved not to stand a siege in Sparta, doubtless through fear of treachery by the opposition, though by the irony of history a brief siege would have saved him, owing to Dardania’s intervention.

Cleomenes’ position bestrode the Oenus valley; he himself with his phalanx, 6000, and 5000 mercenaries and light-armed, held a palisaded position on Olympus, a sloping hill on his right; his brother Eucleidas with 6000 Perioeci occupied a detached hill, Euas, on the left; in the valley between were some 3000 men. The right was the striking force, the centre and left being really flank guards. Antigonus did not wish to turn the position, even if he could, and could not pierce the centre, commanded from either flank; his decision, after long reconnoitring, to attack Euas seems an obvious one. On his left he himself commanded his phalanx, 10,000, and 5000 mercenaries; in the centre were his 1200 horse, which included the Achaean cavalry under Philopoemen, and a few allies, including 1000 Megalopolitan exiles under Cercidas; his right apparently was in two columns, the inner led by 1000 Acarnanians, the outer composed of the Illyrians and the 3000 Macedonian Bronze Shields, successors of Alexander’s hypaspists.

The battle was probably fought early in July. In the night Antigonus’ right established themselves under Euas; at dawn the Acarnanian column began the ascent, while the Illyrian column, invisible to Eucleidas and hidden by Euas itself from Cleomenes, turned the hill and ascended from the flank. The Acarnanian column drew the defenders’ attention; Cleomenes’ centre also attacked it, and Philopoemen charged without orders and drove the centre off; Antigonus commended him with a smile, for it was not the real operation. The real striking force, the Illyrian column, surprised and completely defeated Eucleidas, uncovering Cleomenes’ flank. Meanwhile on Olympus the mercenaries engaged each other; but before the Illyrians came into sight, and while Eucleidas still stood his ground, Cleomenes called in his mercenaries, Antigonus following his example, and the Spartan phalanx, overthrowing their palisade, lowered their lances and charged magnificently down the slope. The fire of their attack drove Antigonus’ phalanx back a considerable distance; meanwhile Euas fell. Whether their effort wore itself out, or whether they were threatened on their now uncovered flank, cannot be said; certainly the two phalanxes lost contact. Antigonus then reformed his Macedonians in close order and attacked in turn; numbers and experience overbore the gallant resistance of the Spartans; after heavy loss they broke, and all was over. Spartan kings died on a lost field; but Cleomenes and some friends escaped to Gythium, where a ship lay ready to take them to Egypt; he had made beforehand his pathetic decision that death was too easy, and that, whatever the obloquy, he must live for Sparta. For three years he ate out his heart in exile, waiting for the help which Egypt never gave; then he and his friends, virtually prisoners, rose against Ptolemy IV (219), tried and failed to raise Alexandria, and finally slew each other, leaving their wives and families to be murdered. History must regret that Cleomenes had not died with his Spartans at Sellasia.

Thus, after many centuries, Sparta was taken. Antigonus was not vindictive; but the ephorate was of course restored (the king-ship remaining in abeyance), many of Cleomenes’ men lost their land, and Sparta became an ally, perhaps a member, of the Hellenic League; Antigonus appointed a temporary governor to superintend the transition, and dedicated his spoils at Delos. He garrisoned Orchomenus, and Heraea on the Elean frontier; otherwise he re-established the Achaean League and enlarged it by the addition of Tegea, and as there was trouble between rich and poor over the rebuilding of Megalopolis he nominated one Prytanis as lawgiver; but the troubles continued till 217, when Aratus settled them by appointing Cercidas, who could perhaps see both sides, to make fresh laws. The Achaean constitution was restored, and Aratus refounded Mantinea as Antigoneia; there and in many other cities Antigonus was worshipped as Saviour and Benefactor. But much of this took place after Antigonus’ return to Macedonia; for hardly was Sellasia fought when a Dardanian1 invasion called him home. He defeated the Dardanians, but his exertions brought on haemorrhage of the lungs; though not immediately fatal, it was his death-warrant. He lived for a year, and made all arrangements for Philip’s succession; he sent him to visit Aratus and study the affairs of Greece, appointed Apelles his guardian, and filled all offices with men he thought he could trust. He died in autumn 221, aged 42, a loss alike to Macedonia, whose power he had restored, and to Greece, where, except at Mantinea, he had on the whole used that power with moderation and equity.

X.

THE WAR OF THE ALLIES

No Macedonian king for a century had come to the throne amid such high hopes as the seventeen-year old Philip V. Nature had endowed him with many qualities: ability and resource, a regal presence and an amazing memory, daring and skill in war, and great personal charm. He was fond of recalling his relationship, on his mother’s side, to Alexander; and few perhaps guessed that beneath the surface lay Alexander’s temper without Alexander’s control, and a cruelty long foreign to the Antigonids. But for the present he was ready to follow in Antigonus’ steps; and it was Aetolia’s fault, not his, that his first years were occupied by the meaningless struggle between the Macedonian and non-Macedonian halves of Greece called the War of the Allies (commonly known as the Social War). Aetolia had loyally kept her arrangement with Antigonus, and, though friendly with Ptolemy III, had not moved to save Cleomenes; but after Antigonus’ death she thought that she could act as she chose: Philip was only a boy. She had invented a method, not unknown afterwards to Elizabeth of England, whereby private citizens made war while the government remained at peace, ready to adopt or disown their proceedings as seemed expedient; and the present war was brought about by two Aetolian citizens, Dorimachus and Scopas, who played much the part which Drake was to play against another Philip. Possibly Philip still for awhile controlled Delos (where he afterwards dedicated the spoils of the war) and certain islands; but the growing anarchy in the Aegean, even before Antigonus’ death, had been Aetolia’s opportunity, and her corsairs harried any island unless she had granted it immunity, a grant she had previously made to Delos, Ceos, Chios, Tenos, and Mitylene, and was in 219 to make to Athens.

Dorimachus was Aetolian governor in Phigalea. His privateersmen wanted occupation, and he let them raid Phigalea’s ally Messenia; and when Messenia protested, he and Scopas with Cephallenian ships ferried an Aetolian force over to Achaea, through which it marched plundering to Phigalea and thence raided Messenia afresh. Messenia applied for help to Achaea, who, angered by the violation of her territory, agreed; Aratus, General-elect for 220, took the seals five days before he should, sent the Aetolians an ultimatum, tried to cut them off from return with an inadequate force, and was badly defeated near Caphyae; but the indignation in Achaea as usual subsided when he addressed the Achaeans. The Aetolian spring Assembly (220) disavowed Dorimachus and Scopas to the extent of declaring that Aetolia was at peace with Messenia, but they also resolved to fight Achaea if she interfered; and the government made no attempt to prevent Dorimachus and Scopas, with a large force, raiding Arcadia and burning Cynaetha. The Achaeans secured Messenia’s admission to the Hellenic League, and then called on Philip for help; he summoned the delegates of the Hellenic League to Corinth, and all came with bitter complaints of Aetolian raids and sacrilege. Philip did not want war, and understood that his allies meant to utilize him as the instrument of their vengeance, but he stood by his covenant, and the congress passed a war resolution: all territory taken by Aetolia from any of the allies since the death of Demetrius II must be restored; every city that had joined the Aetolian League under compulsion was, in the time-honoured formula, to be again free, ungarrisoned, and self-governing; and Aetolia was to surrender her control of the Amphictyons and restore to them the temple at Delphi. Philip then gave Aetolia another chance: he would hear anything they had to say in their defence, but, failing that, the responsibility for war would rest with them. The Aetolian reply was to make Scopas General (September 220). The allies ratified the resolution, though Epirus was half-hearted and Messenia intimated that she could not fight while Aetolia held Phigalea.

Several things beside his obligations to the Hellenic League were influencing Philip. His two advisers were pulling him different ways. Aratus had been through deep waters, which had left their mark; henceforth he plays the honourable part of upholding Philip’s better nature and encouraging him in the constitutional path. Apelles greatly desired power for himself; he also desired that Philip should abandon Antigonus Doson’s policy, return to that of Cassander, and treat the Greeks as subjects, not allies; but he failed to guess that Philip was stronger than himself. But more important to Philip than these things was Rome. The Roman conquest of Illyria and acquisition of Atintania had definitely cut off Macedonia from the Adriatic; also Teuta’s husband had been Macedonia’s ally, and Doson can have had no love for Rome. Philip did not want war in Greece till he saw what would happen in the West; for Doson’s friend Demetrius of Pharos and the Illyrian Scerdilaidas had just broken the treaty with Rome, and Demetrius was privateering in the Aegean, presumably in Macedonia’s interest. Hence Philip was disinclined to commit himself too far; he gave Aetolia a second chance, and when trouble arose in Sparta and Apelles advised him to wipe the city out he properly replied that, provided she kept her obligations as an ally, her internal affairs were not his business.

War began in the spring of 219 with Scopas invading Macedonia, taking and razing Dium, and burning the porticoes and offerings in the temple precinct. Greek laws of war pardoned much; but to touch sacred things was outside all law, and considered unpardonable. In Sparta the Cleomenists had murdered the pro-Macedonian ephors and appointed a new board, who naturally allied themselves with Aetolia; they hoped for Cleomenes’ return, but on the news of his death (spring 219) they restored the kingship and set up as kings Agesipolis and Lycurgus, the latter not a Heraclid; and in Aetolia’s interest Sparta and Elis declared war on Achaea. Sparta had been so weakened that Lycurgus could only undertake border raids, but Elis provided Aetolia with a good base and ample supplies, the division in Greece even extended to Crete, where some towns were fighting against Cnossos’ supremacy; the west of the island joined Philip, while Cnossos and her friends supported Aetolia. Philip on his side at present only proposed to defend his allies while sparing his Macedonians. He had in spring entered Acarnania through Epirus; but Rome sent a punitive expedition against Demetrius of Pharos, and for half the season Philip marked time and waited on Rome’s actions. He restored to Acarnania her seaport Oeniadae, and took Ambracus, a fort covering Ambracia; but he made no attempt to take Ambracia and cut Aetolia off from the Adriatic. In summer Demetrius, defeated, fled to Philip; and Philip, who now knew that Rome would be fully employed with Carthage, returned home to attend to Dardania. He ordered Larissa, which had suffered from famine and was partly depopulated, perhaps by the exile in 228 of Aetolia’s partisans, to fill up her citizen body with metics, that her lands might be cultivated; the reasons he gave show that he had studied Roman methods. Meanwhile the Aetolians ravaged Achaea from Elis with such impunity that Dyme, Pharae, and Tritaea refused to pay the League’s taxes and hired mercenaries for themselves instead, Tritaea raising money by selling citizenships; it illustrates the lack of grip which now characterized the Achaean League. In September Dorimachus succeeded Scopas as Aetolian General; he raided Dodona, and burnt the porticoes and offerings in the temple precinct.

The first round had gone to Aetolia; and Philip, relieved of anxiety as regards both Rome and Dardania, saw that an autumn campaign in Peloponnese was necessary. He took only a small force, but soon straightened things out; he defeated and ravaged Elis, took the strong border city of Psophis and joined it to the Achaean League, gave the Achaeans back Lasion, and methodically reduced all Triphylia, including Phigalea, in six days; he kept Triphylia himself and appointed a governor, a triumph for Apelles. He wintered at Argos, and there it became evident that, like Alexander, he would have trouble with his generals. Apelles was pressing him to treat Achaea like Thessaly, i.e., to declare himself perpetual head of the Achaean League; he refused, but Apelles in his name improperly influenced the Achaean elections against Aratus, and one Eperatus was elected General. That Apelles wanted to train the incompetent Achaean troops and prevent Achaea being merely a source of weakness to Philip was natural, but he made the mistake of attacking Aratus personally, and Philip did Aratus justice; and when Eperatus failed to provide supplies, Philip wisely supported Aratus whole-heartedly, with the result that a special Achaean meeting called in June 218 voted liberal subsidies. Apelles then conspired with Megaleas, the state secretary, and Leontius, commander of the Bronze Shields, to hamper Philip in every way short of open revolt.

Philip had decided that, if he was both to fight Aetolia and defend Achaea, he must move by water; he collected what ships he and Achaea possessed, procured some Illyrian vessels, and taught his Macedonians to row. He then attacked Cephalonia, Aetolia’s naval base, but failed to take Pale through the treachery of Leontius. Leontius then sought to waste time in Messenia; but the Aetolians had invaded Thessaly, and Philip decided on a counterstroke. He landed at Limnaea in the Ambracian Gulf, was joined by the Acarnanians, and set out on a forced march for Thermum, Aetolia’s federal centre, which had never yet seen an enemy. With the Macedonians guarded on all sides by less important troops he surprised Thermum and sacked the storehouses; great booty was taken, and 15,000 stand of arms burnt. He then took a step so remote from his previous acts in the war that, whether or not suggested by Demetrius of Pharos, it probably furnishes the first indication of his periodic lack of control; he avenged Dium and Dodona by burning the porticoes and offerings in the temple precinct. It was human, but fatal. He had been waging a limited war, with one eye on Italy and one on peace; he had not attempted to cut Aetolia off from the Adriatic, or to force Sparta and Elis into his Hellenic League. He evidently thought of reconciling Aetolia, as Doson had done; at one stroke he now made reconciliation impossible. With great skill he got his army and booty back to Limnaea intact, after a difficult rearguard action in the dangerous pass along Lake Trichonis; he then made for Corinth at full speed, summoned the Achaeans, and within a fortnight of leaving Thermum stood under the walls of Sparta, a feat regarded as impossible. He plundered Laconia scientifically, drove in Lycurgus, and camped with impunity outside the city; more he did not do; he was only warning Sparta as he had warned Aetolia.

On his return to Corinth, Rhodes and Chios tried to mediate, and he professed himself ready for peace. This brought the conspiracy against him to a head; Megaleas entered into treasonable correspondence with Aetolia, Leontius raised a mutiny in the army, and Apelles, who had secured many governors of cities, came to Corinth with a great retinue, as though power were already his. But the boy of twenty had only been waiting for the tortoise to put its head out. He talked plainly to the troops, who were essentially loyal; his general in the Peloponnese, Taurion, stood by him; he arrested and executed Apelles and Leontius, while Megaleas committed suicide; like Alexander, he had no more trouble.

But these had been three of Doson’s trusted men; he wanted to show the Macedonians that they could do as well without them, and to show Aetolia that she had better make peace. In spring 217 he collected an enormous siege-train, and having first drawn Dardania’s teeth by recapturing Bylazora, he set out from Larissa to wage real war; though his ladders proved too short to take Melitaea, whose lofty walls commanded the road over Othrys, he reached his objective, Phthiotic Thebes, by another route and reduced the strong city without a hitch by operations worthy of Demetrius the Besieger. It was Aetolia’s anchor on the Aegean and her base for invading Thessaly and Macedonia; under the resolution of the Hellenic League in 220 it reverted to himself as  part of Macedonian Thessaly. He sold the Aetolian settlers, but the Thebans were allowed to settle at Thronium in Aetolia; he colonized the place with Macedonians, and renamed it Philippopolis. Apparently he next meditated entering Phocis and attempting Delphi, which Aetolia had garrisoned; but at the Nemea a courier brought him news of Hannibal’s victory at Trasimene. Peace now was vital, for he wanted his hands free for events in Italy; and he took advantage of a fresh mediation by Rhodes, Chios, Byzantium, and Egypt to approach Aetolia. Aetolia was ready; instead of a boy she had met a man; also there was a party, led by Agelaus of Naupactus, which, though originally desirous of war, now wanted peace on more honourable grounds than expediency. Philip summoned the delegates of the Hellenic League to meet him, and at Aetolia’s request crossed and encamped near Naupactus, where peace was quickly made (about August 217), each side to retain what it had. The war had shown that, though the Hellenic League had held together, it was no match for the independent half of Greece unless Philip intervened; while the war party in Aetolia were now Philip’s irreconcilable enemies for ever.

But the conference of Naupactus is notable for this, that it saw a last vain appeal made for Hellenic unity against the barbarian. Agelaus’ famous speech is substantially genuine, otherwise Polybius would never have put it into the mouth of one of the hated Aetolians. Pointing to Italy, Agelaus said that, instead of fighting each other, they ought to thank heaven if by all taking hands, like men crossing a river, they could save themselves from the barbarian who, whether Rome or Carthage won, would certainly threaten Greece, and he appealed personally to Philip to treat the whole Hellenic world as his kin; if he desired scope for his energy, let him be ready to fight the victor of Italy in the common cause; with prudence he might reach any height. But Greeks he must let be; ‘for,’ said he, ‘if the cloud rising in the west once overspreads Greece, we shall, I fear, no longer play the games which now like children we play together; rather shall we be praying to the gods to give us back the chance of fighting and making peace with each other when we choose, and even of calling our very quarrels our own.’ For the moment he produced some effect. He was elected General and during his year kept Aetolia in the strait path; while Philip, now the ‘darling of Hellas,’ attracted such widespread goodwill that even the turbulent Cretans ceased fighting each other and the whole island voluntarily joined him. But it was a delusive gleam, the last shaft of sunlight beneath the lowering cloud. In five years’ time Agelaus’ countrymen were to be again fighting Greeks, and their ally was to be Rome.

CHAPTER XXIV

THE CARTHAGINIANS IN SPAIN