Roman Intervention Against Aristonicus

Attalus Ill died most likely in the spring of 133,^[8] having made the Roman people his heir not merely to his personal possessions and the royal treasury but to his kingdom.^[9] Attalus had no progeny; but shortly or immediately after Attalus's death,^[10] one Aristonicus, alleging to be an illegitimate son of Eumenes II, and thus Attalus's half brother, laid claim to the Pergamene throne, taking the royal name Eumenes (III).^[11] It has recently been plausibly argued by a number of scholars that Aristonicus's support lay especially among the Greek and Macedonian veterans who had been settled by the Attalid kings in colonies in the interior of northwest Asia Minor and whose interest lay in the perpetuation of that monarchy.^[12] It has gradually emerged that Aristonicus was no "social revolutionary"; this element in the tradition is probably merely a propagandistic interpretation of certain actions, such as recruitment of slaves, born out of desperate

[8] Chronology: succinctly, Gruen, HWCR , 595 n. 100. The most important evidence is the arrival of the news and the will in Rome before Ti. Gracchus's death in the summer of 133 (esp. Plut. Ti. Gracch . 13.1, 14.1; Livy Per . 58; for the season, App. BC 1.14) and the Ephesian ("Asian") era beginning in the year 134/133 (pace Sherwin-White, RFPE , 83 n. 17; cf. Rigsby, Phoenix 33 [1979] 41 with nn. 8-9, to whom also the recognition that the era is Ephesian rather than "provincial" is due).

[11] The royal name emerges from the identification of a series of cistophoric coinage as Aristonicus's: cf. Robinson, NC 14^[6] (1954) 1-8; Kleiner and Noe, ECC , 103-6; Rubinsohn, RendIstLomb 107 (1973) 557-58, and Collins, AncW 4 (1981) 319-43, are unconvincing on Eutropius's possible use of the royal name at 4.18 and 4.20. I cannot accept the argument of Potter, ZPE 74 (1988) 293-95, that Aristonicus began his revolt by crossing from Thrace.

[12] Rubinsohn, RendIstLomb 107 (1973) 561-62; Collins, AncW 3 (1980) 83-87; Rigsby, TAPA 118 (1988) 124-25.

straits.^[13] On the other hand, Aristonicus's most determined foes were the Greek cities of the coast.^[14] Aristonicus was able to rally to his cause some cities that were traditionally subject to the Attalids—of whom we know specifically only of Phocaea and Leucae near Smyrna; for others he had to fight.^[15] We happen to know, however, that Smyrna withstood Aristonicus's attack, and that Elaea, Pergamum's port, and Bargylia in Carla apparently escaped capture.^[16] But these setbacks by no means compensated for a wave of victories, including the capture of Myndos, Samos, and Colophon, which began to legitimize Aristonicus's royal claim.^[17] For a brief period in 132 Aristonicus seems to have won control of much of the Attalid kingdom and significant parts of Ionia.^[18] The tide, however, quickly turned: the Ephesian fleet defeated Aristonicus off Cumae, forcing his retreat inland, chased by a newly cohesive alliance of cities now joined by the kings of Bithynia and Cappadocia.^[19] All this had happened (so it would seem from the sequence of events given in our best source, Strabo) before the arrival of the five Roman commissioners sent in response to the news of Attalus's death and the legacy, which cannot be before early 132.^[20]

[13] Cf. Hopp, Untersuchungen , 135-37; concisely, Gruen, HWCR , 597 with nn. 1o4-6. Propaganda: Rigsby, TAPA 118 (1988) 125. The most recent champion of the "social-revolutionary" thesis is Delplace, Athenaeum 66 (1978) 20-53.

[14] Broughton, in ESAR , 4:507; Magie, RRAM , 149; Bernhardt, PrH , 28-33. Cf. Tac. Ann . 4.55.2.

[15] Flor. 1.35.4: urbis regibus parere consuetas partim facile sollicitat, paucas resistentis, Myndon, Samon, Colophona vi recepit . For Leucae and Phocaea, see Strabo 14.1.38, C646; Justin 37.1.1.

[17] Justin 36.4.7: cum multa secunda proelia adversus civitates, quae metu Romanorum tradere se eidem nolebant, fecisset iustusque rex iam videretur . The cities are named in Flor. 1.35.4, quoted in n. 15 above.

[18] Livy Per . 59: Asiam occupavit, cum testamento Attali regis legata populo Romano libera esse deberet . This will have been the basis for the tendentious complaint Appian puts in Sulla's mouth in 85 that for four years the cities of Asia had supported Aristonicus until forced to give up (Mith . 62). See Broughton, in ESAR , 4:507 n. 21. Cp. Tac. Ann . 4.55 (with Magie, RRAM , 1034-36, esp. n. 7). How Pergamum, originally hostile to Aristonicus, fared is not known: the evidence is collected by Adams, Historia 29 (1980) 308 n. 20, 309-10, who, however, was unaware of Jones's redating of IGRR IV, 292, to the aftermath of the First and Second Mithridatic wars. Note that at the time of the death in Pergamum of P. Scipio Nasica, a member of the senatorial commission, that city was not in Aristonicus's hands: Cic. Flac . 75; cf. Val. Max. 5.3.2e; ILS 8886.

[20] Below, n. 45.

The strong resistance of many Greek cities to Aristonicus is not difficult to explain. There are some indications—not, to be sure, quite decisive—that Attalus's will recognized many of the cities of his kingdom as "free," as he certainly did Pergamum, if that is the city that produced a famous text found in its theater.^[21] Livy's epitomator had the impression that the will freed "Asia" (i.e., the former kingdom, soon to be Asia provincia; Per . 59). Ti. Gracchus's declaration that it was not the Senate's business but the people's (as heir)^[22] to discuss the cities of Attalus's kingdom (Plut. Ti. Gracch . 14.2) strongly implies that some issue regarding their status had to be settled by the Romans, and the context of Gracchus's claim strongly suggests that it involved revenues of the populus Romanus , which would be lost if the cities were "freed." Taking the parallel of the procedure envisioned in the inscription just noted, in which the status of the city conferred by the will remained to be ratified by the Romans (line 7), it is most plausible that Gracchus was intending to have the assembly deride whether or not an Attalid provision for the cities' freedom was to be ratified. A new Ephesian era beginning in 134/133 has been plausibly explained as a reference to a grant of "freedom" in that year under Attalus's bequest, and certainly that city's signal resistance to Aristonicus, culminating in its naval victory off Cumae, which was the turning point of the war, must mean that it had something to lose were the Pergamene monarchy resumed.^[23] Certainly, the freedom of the Asian cities from tribute at the beginning of Asia provincia is explicitly alluded to by Appian (BC 5.4).

Ephesus and Pergamum, then, had good reasons of their own to resist Aristonicus, which need not therefore be explained, as by Justin, with reference to fear of the Romans (36.4.7): as we shall see, the evidence does not favor the notion that the Senate had as yet taken a side on the issue.

[21] Pergamum: OGIS 338, lines 3-5. Rigsby, TAPA 118 (1988) 130-37, attempts to dissociate this text from its findspot, but see the rebuttal by P. Gauthier, REG 102 (1989) p. 406, no. 279.

[22] Cf. Braund, RFK , 132-33. Dahlheim, Gewalt und Herrschaft , 208 n.98, insists that the cities mentioned were only those given to Rome; but cf. OGIS 338, line 7, for a city that was free subject to Rome's ratification.

[23] Rigsby, Phoenix 33 (1979) 39-47; Adams, Historia 29 (1980) 311-14; Strabo 14.1.38, C646. In favor of a provision in Attalus's will for the freedom of many, most, or all of the Greek cities, cf. especially Vavrinek, Révolte , 17, 55-56; Sherwin-White, JRS 67 (1977) 67, and RFPE , 82; Dahlheim, Gewalt und Herrschaft , 208; Cardinali, in Saggi Beloch , 227-78, 287; Liebmann-Frankfort, RIDA 13 (1966) 85; Carrata Thomes, Rivolta , 36; Hopp, Untersuchungen , 127-28, 130; Broughton, in ESAR , 4:507-9. The recent challenge to this position by Bernhardt, PrH , 285-94, is unpersuasive.

The ideals of freedom, autonomy, and "democracy" (as opposed to royal domination) were by no means dead,^[24] and they had in any case a hard, practical manifestation: the renunciation of royal tribute. So much the more will cities not formerly subject to Attalus III, like Samos, Smyrna, and Colophon in Ionia, and Myndus in Caria, have viewed with alarm Aristonicus's energetic military expansionism.^[25] For these cities, Aristonicus's legitimacy or lack of it was not the real issue; he was "breaking the peace" by invading their territory, as the citizens of Halicarnassus claimed in an extant text.^[26] The significance of Aristonicus's attack on Ionia and Carla has never been sufficiently stressed: it was this that transformed the attempt of a perhaps questionable heir to win the Attalid kingdom into an offensive war against its neighbors. The parallel with Andriscus is striking: in both cases, dubious credentials to the throne were best overcome by offensive military adventures recalling the glory of earlier kings. It is probably no accident that at least two of the cities Aristonicus is known to have attacked, Smyrna and Colophon, were former Attalid dependencies not restored to Pergamum after the peace of 188:^[27] like Andriscus in his invasion of Thessaly, Aristonicus hoped to justify his assumption of monarchic power by restoring the dynasty's former dependencies.

The Greek cities need not have waited for certain news from Rome of the will's ratification to have taken measures for their protection against Aristonicus. Already in 133, before the Roman reaction to the Attalid legacy was known, the Pergamene assembly decreed the extension of citizenship to resident aliens, soldiers, military colonists, and others.^[28] Meanwhile, however, we must suppose, in light of prevailing second-century

[24] Cf., for example, the dedications by Asian communities to Rome on the Capitol in gratitude for their "freedom": esp. ILLRP 174, 176, 178a (+ add.). In general, see Bernhardt, PrH , 267-84 and passim. Appian, like Justin, anticipates in writing that in 133 Aristonicus was "fighting with the Romans for supremacy in Asia" (BC 1.18).

[25] Smyrna: Polyb. 21.46.6 (21.45.6 in the Loeb ed.). Colophon (Nova, at Notium): Polyb. 21.46.4 (21.45.4 Loeb ed; emended from Livy 38.39.8). Myndus: Livy 33.20.12.

[27] Cf. Polyb. 5.77.4-6, 21.46.2 (21.45.2 in the Loeb ed.), with Walbank, HCP , 3:167-68. On the status of these cities, see recently Allen, Attalid Kingdom , 39-57. Among them was also Cumae, off which the decisive battle of the war with Aristonicus was fought, possibly indicating that he had seized it as well.

[28] OGIS 338, lines 8-19, 32-36. Rigsby not only wishes to alter the provenance of this stone (above, n. 21) but assumes that it followed rather than preceded the war (TAPA 118 [1988] 130-31, esp. n. 32). This is unpersuasive in view of the stated motive of the grant: "It is [necessary] for the common safety" (lines 7-8).

practice, that a host of embassies descended upon Rome from those Greek dries of Asia Minor that wished to preserve or secure their independence, traditional or newly affirmed by the Attalid legacy; it is incredible that they would have allowed Aristonicus to threaten them without making an effort to enlist Rome on their side. As it happens, even in the very poor state of our evidence some details have survived of this diplomatic effort. Very shortly after Attalus's death, a Pergamene named Eudemus caused something of a sensation in the midst of the Gracchan crisis by bringing the will to Rome (Plut Ti. Gracch . 14.1-2). There can be little doubt about the purpose of this embassy: Eudemus's courting of Ti. Gracchus was an attempt to prod Rome toward acceptance and ratification of the will—for the Attalid inheritance would be very useful in the financing of Gracchus's plans.^[29] Colophon, too, under attack by Aristonicus, cannot but have appealed to Rome; as it happens, a recently published inscription from Claros recalls two exceedingly important embassies to Rome undertaken around this time by one Menippus "on behalf of the city" (Colophon), in which he managed to preserve its "privileges."^[30] Colophon's chief privilege was the freedom granted it by the Romans themselves in 188 (see n. 25); it was surely this privilege that was threatened in 133 by Aristonicus. It seems likely that the first of Menippus's embassies belongs to 133 and the second to the conclusion of the war, when Colophon's freedom must have been reaffirmed. Another great man of Colophon, Polemaeus, undertook an important embassy to Rome at a time of great danger by land and sea (thus most likely before Aristonicus was confined to the interior and well before Roman intervention); the friendships he won with important Romans he used to benefit his fellow citizens; he established relations of patronage between the chief men and Colophon.^[31] Other such embassies

[29] On such attempts to win the patronage of prominent Romans for the benefit of the city, see now the important passages of two new inscriptions from Claros: Claros 1, Polemaeus, II, lines 24-31, and Menippus, III, lines 10-13. On haunting senators' houses, see Syll 656, lines 21-24; and Diod. 40.1.1. Like Stockton, Gracchi , 68, I am dubious about Badian's assumption (Foreign Clientelae , 174) that Eudemus approached Gracchus out of the obligations of clientship.

at the beginning of Aristonicus's rising may be alluded to as well in an inscription from Cyzicus and in a recently published decree from Gordos in Mysia.^[32]

It is against this background of the progress of the crisis in Asia in 133-132 that Rome's response must be understood. It must be kept in mind that the question of the Attalid succession was surely quite uncertain in 133, especially viewed from Rome. Attalus III had died, and someone who claimed to be his half brother, and son of Eumenes II, had asserted his right to the throne. Who was to say that he was not the legitimate successor? Unlike the case of the Macedonian pretender Andriscus, our sources are by no means clear on this point; indeed only Velleius Paterculus (2.4.1) explicitly denies the claim of Aristonicus/Eumenes III.^[33] It was perhaps hardly manifest that Attalus's will had indeed come into effect, for the only precedent, the will of Ptolemy VIII in 155, explicitly made the Roman people his heir only in the absence of other heirs, and Attalus's testament may well have had the same provision.^[34] This would have made the execution of the will dependent on a judgment upon Aristonicus's royal credentials. In any case, it has been pointed out that royal wills instituting the Roman people as heir seem as a rule to have been produced by kings without successors, at least at the time of writing; the best explanation for them is the king's desire to arrange for a smooth and beneficial succession in the absence of direct heirs.^[35] Certainly there is no known case of the Roman people inheriting in place of acknowledged heirs to a kingdom. Again, therefore, everything will have depended on whether Aristonicus would be judged the legitimate successor to the throne of the Attalids.

[34] SEG IX.7, lines 11-14. Because of this provision, Ptolemy's will was not in fact valid upon his death in 116.

[35] Braund, RFK , 152-53.

It seems probable that the claims of legality and equity were rather complex and perhaps impenetrable from Rome's distance. Where claims of justice clash, self-interest will often cast the deciding vote—yet even here, arguments did not lead all one way. Those cities granted freedom under the terms of Attalus's will, such as Pergamum at the least, will certainly have had no doubts about whether it had come into effect. To emphasize the point, Pergamum's ambassador Eudemus evidently brought to Rome some of the royal accoutrements.^[36] In Rome, Ti. Gracchus dearly had political reasons to push for acceptance, but this in itself will have provoked opposition among senators, many of whom will have viewed with alarm the effects this windfall would have for the outcome of the struggle with the tribune. Had Rome not been served well by the Pergamene kings? Would it not send the wrong signal to uproot an allied kingdom on questionable claims of legality? Roman manpower was stretched to its limit already—indeed, this was on any account an important element of the crisis of 133. Could it stand the further strain of a new war in Asia Minor—for assertion of the validity of the will meant war with Aristonicus—and perhaps that of garrisoning western Asia Minor afterwards, while the slave war in Sicily was still raging and the long, harsh conflict in Spain was only just coming to a close? The acquisition of Attalid reserves and revenues may not have sufficiently balanced these counterarguments to intervention in Asia Minor. Pergamum (or another, nearby city) does not appear to have regarded Roman acceptance of the legacy as a sure thing.^[37]

The evidence of the Roman response to the news of Attalus's death is so scarce and lacunose that it must be said in all fairness that it is not grossly inconsistent with diametrically opposed interpretations,^[38] but, in balance, there seems little doubt that it is more harmonious with the view that the Senate acted with circumspection and hesitancy than the reverse. We hear of a proposal by Ti. Gracchus for the use of the money in the Attalid legacy to assist and outfit the beneficiaries of his lex agraria , as well as his announcement about settling the status of the cities in the assembly, but there is no good evidence that a law was actually passed on either of these matters, and it seems likely that any such usurpation of the

[36] He was alleged to have offered Ti. Gracchus a diadem and a robe (Plut. Ti. Gracch . 14.2). The accusation need not be believed, of course, for its premises to be accepted.

[38] Compare, only to select the most recent accounts, Harris, War and Imperialism , 147-49, with Sherwin-White, RFPE , 80-88, and Gruen, HWCR , 592-608.

Senate's prerogative concerning foreign affairs would have sparked contentions that would not have escaped notice in our evidence, inasmuch as the mere threat to decide about the cities had the effect it did.^[39] A Greek translation of a senatus consultum found in Pergamum, which embodies or presupposes the Senate's ratification of the Attalid legacy, is often supposed to date to 133, which would imply that the Senate indeed moved with alacrity. But in fact this date is based simply on the once-unchallenged assumption that the Senate would have accepted the legacy as quickly as possible—a petitio principii for our purposes. Recent discussions of the date of the document make a convincing case against 133; indeed, a date rather closer to M'. Aquillius's return from the East in 126 is in my view most probable.^[40] In any case, given the uncertainty of its precise date, the senatus consultum Popillianum cannot be used to show that the Senate had determined as early as 133 to take over the Attalid kingdom and maintain a permanent military presence in Asia Minor. Most likely, the issue of the Attalid legacy was simply buried in the strife and subsequent tension that engulfed the city in the latter half of 133.^[41]

In January 132 Asia was not assigned as a provincia to either consul; the first priority for both consuls was dearly the inquest into the Gracchani, after which P. Rupilius left for operations against the rebels in Sicily.^[42] In early 132, then, immediate military action against Aristonicus was not envisioned, and it is an open question whether hostilities with the claimant to the Attalid throne were seen as imminent.^[43] The flight of Blossius, Ti. Gracchus's friend and adviser, to Aristonicus after the Gracchan inquest is not a dear sign of growing tension with Rome, for the refuge from Rome's power afforded by a Hellenistic king's court did not presuppose hostility.^[44] However, it is dear that early in 132 the Senate began to

[39] Plut. Ti. Gracch . 14.2. Cf. Livy Per . 58; Vir. ill . 64.5.

[40] Sherk 11. Drew-Bear, Historia 21 (1972) 75-87, points out that Sherk 13 = Drew-Bear, NIP , 1, lines 1-5, preserves fragments of another copy of this senatus consultum ; cf. also NIP , 2 = SEG XXVIII.1208, lines 1-4. See appendix G for comments on the chronology and content of this inscription.

[41] Stockton, Gracchi , 154.

[42] Sources for the Gracchan inquest: Greenidge and Clay, 13. The province of P. Popillius Laenas is not strictly known, given the uncertainty over the identity of the dedicator of ILS 23 (cf. Broughton, MRR , 3:169), but Italy seems almost certain a priori. It is dear from Strabo 14.1.38, C646, Livy Per . 59, and Cic. Phil . 11.18 that a Roman army first went to Asia under P. Licinius Crassus Mucianus, consul in 131.

[43] Gruen, HWCR , 600.

[44] Cp. Hannibal at Prusias's court in Bithynia. No weight can be put on Cicero's reference to Aristonicus and his followers in this context as hostes (quaestione nova perterritus in Asiam profugit, ad hostis se contulit, Amic . 37), for "enemies" of course they soon became. When Aristonicus's fortunes failed, Blossius killed himself rather than fall into Roman hands (Plut. Ti. Gracch . 20.4).

intervene diplomatically in the Asian crisis. After the Gracchan inquest five envoys were sent to Asia, among them P. Scipio Nasica, who had led the attack on Ti. Gracchus and was now allegedly an embarrassment in Rome.^[45] By the time they arrived in Asia Minor much fighting had already occurred. Indeed, Aristonicus's offensive against the cities of the coast had been turned back after the battle off Cumae, and he had been driven into the interior; after the cities and kings had sent troops against him, but still before the Roman commission arrived, he had launched further raids (Strabo 14.1.38, C646). Unless we compress unduly the chronology of Aristonicus's campaigns we must assume that the Senate had already known about them at the time the embassy was dispatched. Thus the embassy makes best sense as a mission of investigation sent in response to the appeals of the Greek cities of the coast under attack from Aristonicus.^[46] Clearly, in the face of Aristonicus's armed assertion of his claim to the Pergamene throne, mere legati without military forces will not have been sent to take over the inheritance or to "organize a province."^[47] But after the arrival of the envoys in Asia Minor, the pace of senatorial reaction picks up, and at the beginning of 131 one of the provinces decreed for the consuls was Asia and the war against Aristonicus.^[48] The vigorous contention over the command between them and then with P. Scipio Aemilianus, involving no less than two appeals to the people (Cic. Phil . 11.18), dearly reveals how attractive the command was. That is fully explained by the riches of the Attalids and the apparent imbalance of strength (the tide had already been turned, after all, by tiny Ephesus, and Aristonicus had been thrown back into the interior)—all the more reason for surprise that no action had been taken in 132, when one consul appears to have been free.

[45] Strabo 14.1.38, C646. For Nasica and the relative chronology, cf. Plut. Ti. Gracch . 21.3-4; also Val. Max. 5.3.2e; ILS 8886; Pliny HN 7.120; Vir. ill . 64.9; Cic. Flac . 75, Rep . 1.6. Plutarch (Ti. Gracch . 20.4) also makes Nasica a member of the consuls' consilium at the Gracchan inquest but has gotten the anecdote wrong (cf. Cic. Amic . 37; Val. Max. 4.7.1). See Schleußner, Chiron 6 (1976) 99-103, on the makeup of the embassy.

[46] Vavrinek, Révolte , 33; Gruen, HWCR , 601.

[47] So Schleußner, Chiron 6 (1976) 109-12, who multiplies implausible hypotheses (the envoys were sent out to organize the province ahead of the imperator , who possessed the actual legal power to perform this act, but when the revolt spread, the commander was never sent) to save a flawed initial assumption of a swift Roman response.

[48] Sources: Greenidge and Clay, 18.

The report of the senatorial commission to Asia Minor must have been decisive in tilting the Senate toward action to assert Rome's claim to the Attalid kingdom against Aristonicus.

What motivated the change? I have argued that Rome's initial slowness to act in 133-132 is to be explained by the complexity of the legal and political situation in Asia Minor as well as by the turmoil of the Gracchan crisis at home: the Senate needed to find its way dear in a maze of Hellenistic politics and determine where Roman interest lay. But by the time the envoys arrived in 132, the pace of events in Asia Minor had far outstripped Roman deliberation. As we have seen, they found Aristonicus driven inland and beset by a coalition of Greek cities and the kings of Bithynia and Cappadocia (Strabo 14.1.38, C646).^[49] Accepting Aristonicus as the legitimate Attalid heir was hardly now a viable option. On the other hand, the end of the Attalids left a vacuum in the configuration of power in Asia Minor that was already being filled by ambitious dynasts without Roman participation; Rome would hardly be able to control the outcome of the collapse of its oldest ally in Asia Minor, long a friendly bulwark of stability, without direct intervention and assertion of its imperium . As it happened, the conclusion of the Numantine War in Spain and the Sicilian revolt freed Roman military resources for use elsewhere. The will of At-talus lay ready to hand as a pretext for intervention; by accepting it Rome could once again pose as the champion of Greek freedom and the defender of its allies.^[50] The Roman response to the Pergamene crisis of 133-131 is characterized not so much by belligerence, or a hesitation born of indifference, as opportunism and an abiding commitment to maintain its imperium .

[49] A critical problem in Gruen's reconstruction, according to which Rome intervened because, among other things, "Aristonicus proved more formidable than anticipated" (HWCR , 601). Nor is it dear why, if the Senate originally hoped "that the Greeks could somehow work out matters for themselves," it would have given up this hope now that Aristonicus had been turned back. In general, Gruen has difficulty explaining why Rome's apparent indifference so suddenly changed to grave concern. Sherwin-White, RFPE , 80-88, presents an even more puzzling thesis, according to which the Senate apparently accepted the legacy more or less immediately, the "revolt of Aristonicus removed any option," and annexation was decided upon—but nothing decisive was done for an inordinate amount of time.

[50] For explicit recognition of Priene, Magnesia, and Samos as socii , see Sherk 7, IIb, lines 40-44; Sherk 10, A, lines 1-2; B, lines 5, 8. Of course there will have been other societates . To what extent treaties underlay these alliances is uncertain and controversial, but I find no sign in the evidence that Rome saw a significant distinction between the moral obligations between socii without a formal treaty and those between foederati , as seems to be suggested by Gruen, HWCR , 13-95.