Q. Metellus and the "Provincialization" of Macedonia
In 148 Q. Caecilius Metellus crushed the pretender to the Macedonian throne, Philip "Andriscus," who had managed in the previous year or two not only to establish his authority in Macedonia itself (where in 167 the Roman-imposed republican system had replaced the ancient monarchy) but even to make incursions into Thessaly. Metellus proceeded to pacify the area, removing another pretender in the process, and in 146 (probably) returned to Rome to a well-deserved triumph and the triumphal cognomen Macedonicus.[4] Was Macedonia now "converted" into a province? It had long been assumed that the presence of Roman commanders and troops in Macedonia after 148 made that conclusion inevitable, but Gruen has recently issued a strong challenge to the traditional view—without full argument for an alternative.[5]
Certainly we hear nothing of a lex provinciae or of the establishment of boundaries, or even of a senatorial commission to assist Metellus—a man of only praetorian rank—in organizing a province.[6] The idea of a
[4] On the triumph, see Degrassi, IIt XIII.1, p. 557. For Metellus's spoils and his temples in Rome, see Morgan, Hermes 99 (1971) 480-505. For the cognomina ex victis gentibus , see now Linderski, ZPE 80 (1990) 158-61.
[5] HWCR , 433-36, 524. Baronowski, Klio 70 (1988) 448-53, now defends the old view against Gruen. It should be noted that it remains somewhat unclear whether Gruen rejects the traditional conception of provincialization or argues only that, as traditionally understood, it did not occur in Macedonia in 148, or in Asia in 129-126.
[6] It is generally assumed (cf. Morgan, Historia 18 [1969] 423-25) that Metellus was given proconsular imperium ; this need not affect the argument and in any case lacks evidence. Against Jashemski's view (Origins , 45, 54, 63) that all praetorian commanders sent to Macedonia were given proconsular imperium , see appendix A. There is no evidence whatever that the decemviral commission sent to assist Mummius concerned itself with Macedonia, as Morgan suggests (pp. 442-46); yet Hackl, Senat und Magistratur , 43-44, supposes that such a commission was assisting Metellus even before the outbreak of the Achaean War. On the supposed numismatic evidence for a senatorial commission in Macedonia, see appendix B.
formal reorganization of Macedonia as a province at this time would have to rely on a few scraps of late and rather poor evidence. First, Florus, the epitomator of the second century A.D. , tells us that Metello ordinanti cum maxime †Macedoniae was ordered to punish Critolaus's abuse of the Roman ambassadors at Corinth (1.32.3). Whatever the correct reading of the corrupt passage, it does not imply the creation of a province, only the "settlement" or "pacification" of the area.[7] Florus also tells us that [sc. Metellus ] Macedoniam servitute multavit (1.30.5); similarly, Porphyry of Tyre, the polymath of the turn of the third century of our era, is paraphrased by Eusebius as saying that in 148 "the Macedonians were enslaved."[8] "Slavery" in such usage is hardly a precise legal term;[9] Florus indeed implies that the Macedonians' "enslavement" was merely the restoration of a prior condition thrown off by revolt.[10] It is not surprising if, from the distance of more than two centuries, the end of the last Macedonian war with Rome looked this way, but such facile statements will tell us nothing about Macedonia's legal status from 148.[11]
Indirect evidence for "provincialization" is no stronger. The significance of Porphyry's (or Eusebius's) statement that the Romans now made the Macedonians
[7] Cf. Morgan, Historia 18 (1969) 441-42. For statum ordinare , cp. Pliny Ep . 8.24.2, 24.7. The emendations proposed by Helmreich (Macedoniae <res >) and Halm (Macedoniae <statum >) are probably on the right track.
[9] Cp. Cato Orig . 5.3b Chassignet, quoted below, n. 64.
[10] Cf. Sed prior iugum excutit Macedo , 1.30.2.
[11] Contra Baronowski, Klio 70 (1988) 449, who adduces as well the equally wretched Festus (Brev. 7; compare how Baronowski elsewhere rates this source: in S YNEISF OPA McGill, 128).
[12] Eus. Chron . 1.239-40 Schoene.
[13] Gruen, HWCR , 428 n. 169. Against Gruen's argument for merely a temporary indemnity, see also Ferrary, Philhellénisme et impérialisme , 179 n. 194; Baronowski, Klio 70 (1988) 460.
[14] Cf. 30.37.5 (Carthage); 33.30.7-8 (Macedonia in 196); 37.45.14, 38.38.13 (Antiochus); 38.9.9 (Aetolians; apparently in order to avoid needless repetition Livy simply refers back to this passage at 38.11.8, although the terms were of course given in the senatus consultum: Polyb. 21.32.9).
have been told if a fixed term had been set to the payment. Moreover, Livy's word for the payment (tributum ) he never appears to use elsewhere for an indemnity, while, on the other hand, we are told that the Macedonians would pay half of what they had paid their kings (to the amount of about 100 talents annually);[15] since that was apparently a permanent obligation, so should this have been, unless the contrary had been explicitly stated. Probably Porphyry is simply confused by the anomalous situation and assumes the usual association of tribute with the beginning of a permanent Roman presence.[16] Not even the levying of tribute, then, was a novelty of 148, and its continuation implies "provincial status" no more than it had when first levied in 167. Furthermore, as has long been recognized, there is no reason to assume that the "Macedonian era" refers to the date of "provincialization"; rather, it surely celebrated Metellus's victory over Andriscus.[17] Finally, the possibility that some cities in Macedonia received or lost guarantees of "freedom" has no dear relevance for the matter of creating a province.[18]
On the other hand, we have some evidence, to be set beside the absence of signs of major reorganization by Metellus, that at the least major parts of L. Aemilius Paulus's settlement of Macedonia in 167 remained in force.[19] The Macedonian Merides, the four republics established in 167, certainly continued to exist in one form or another: it is likely that the first Meris continued its coinage at least into the later second century B.C. ; the first Meris probably appears as a territorial entity in Acts' chronicle of St. Paul's first mission to Macedonia ca. A.D. 49; and the first Meris (perhaps the fourth as well) is mentioned in an inscription from Beroea of Flavian date that testifies at least to the continuing significance of the Merides as political divisions of Macedonia.[20] It is likely also that the standing frontier
[15] Plut. Aem . 28.3, roughly corroborated by Polyb. 30.31.9 (cf. 31.7); cf. Livy 45.18.7, 29.4; Diod. 31.8.3-5.
[16] Cf. Morgan, Historia 18 (1969) 429 n. 40.
[17] Kubitschek, RE 1 (1894) 636. On the terminus of the Macedonian era (148/ 174) the fundamental studies are Tod, BSA 23 (1918-19) 206-17, BSA 24 (1919-21) 54-67, and in Studies Robinson , 2:382-97.
[18] On the theory that associates the civitas libera with the organization of provinces, cf. below, pp. 48-49.
[19] Larsen, in ESAR , 4:303; Papazoglou, ANRW II.7.1 (1979) 305 (but see her Villes de Macédoine , 65-66); Dahlheim, Gewalt und Herrschaft , 121; its full significance was first noted by Gruen, HWCR , 434-35.
guard that Paulus had allowed the Macedonian republics to maintain in 167 was still being deployed after 148.[21]
It appears, therefore, that if we simply accept our evidence at face value, without importing preconceptions, based on hypothetical reconstructions of Roman practice, about what must or should have been, we should con-dude that in all probability no major reorganization of Macedonia followed the war with Andriscus. After all, it was unnecessary for Metellus to reorganize Macedonia: that had already been done quite effectively by Paulus in 167.[22] Metellus, of course, pacified the region and presumably imposed terms on the defeated according to their deserts in the usual manner. It is possible that some communities, distinguished by opportune assistance in the war, were exempted from the tribute levied since 167; conversely, others who had actively supported Andriscus may have been made tributary if they had not already been so, and the imposition of an indemnity would be fully in keeping with established Roman practice.[23] The details, however, are beyond recovery.[24] We have specific information only concerning the treatment of Byzantium—and, alas, it is contradictory. The usual view is that the Byzantines were punished in some way, and that an old alliance with Rome formed against Philip V was now abrogated, but the matter is hardly settled.[25]
[21] Syll 700, from Lete in 119 (lines 19-20): that the quaestor Annius's concern for the safety of the "garrisons in the exposed places" is singled out for special praise seems best understood if they were composed of native troops rather than Roman. For the frontier guard established in 167: Livy 45.29.14, with Hammond, History of Macedonia , 3:611-12. For regular Roman use of local allied forces, cf. below, p. 195 n. 49. In view of the constant threat to Macedonia's territorial integrity, it would have been strategically absurd to disperse the small Roman force (perhaps a legion) deep into the countryside to serve this function, one to which local militias were well suited.
[22] Cf. Larsen, in ESAR , 4:303; Papazoglou, ANRW II.7.1 (1979) 305. Indeed, Livy's epitomator clumsily and misleadingly adopts the language of the Principate: Macedonia [sc. a Paulo ] in provinciae formam redacta (Per . 45).
[23] In 167 presumably only those who had paid tribute to the Macedonian kings will have been made tributary to Rome: Livy 45.18.7, 29.4; Diod. 31.8.3. For an indemnity added to the normal tribute, cf. (much later) Sulla's fine imposed on Asia: below, p. 266.
[24] The list of grants and withdrawals of "freedom" in 148 compiled by Bernhardt, "Imperium und Eleutheria," 89-90, is extrapolated from Pliny's enumeration of the cities of the Empire in the Augustan period and on highly questionable deductions from scanty other material rarely earlier than Cicero. It is therefore of very limited value: cf. Dahlheim, Gewalt und Herrschaft , 121 n. 135.
Such ad hoc arrangements may very well have been all the organization that was necessary; they hardly required the attention of a senatorial commission. It has been supposed by one scholar that a major reorganization must have followed the war because of the massive support he supposes Andriscus had won.[26] Leaving aside for the present the question of how extensive Andriscus's Macedonian support was, it was surely not some "reorganization" that would have improved matters in that case but the decision—which was the Senate's, not Metellus's—to maintain an army in Macedonia. This brings us to the next step of the argument.
Was Macedonia assigned regularly as a provincia by the Roman Senate to a commander from the time of Metellus's return to Rome in 146?[27] To think otherwise one would have to suppose that Roman troops and a commander were sent out only on occasion to Macedonia, perhaps in response to sporadic threats from the Thraco-Illyrian tribes. But if our extremely lacunose praetorian fasti for this period show enough Macedonian commanders to fill approximately three-quarters of the century from 148 to 49 B.C. ,[28] that is a "survival rate" no worse than (to take an instructive example) the Sicilian governors enjoyed. For Sicily in the period 148-49 inclusive, I count thirty Roman governors, three of whom are incerti to various degrees. Only thirty-seven years are thereby explicitly accounted for; a proportion of only about half that of the Macedonian imperatores . Even if we are to assume an average term of two years for Sicilian governors over the whole period (in fact, the terms increase from a norm of a single year in the second century to as much as three and four years in
[26] Morgan, Historia 18 (1969) 427-28. This assumption is of course necessary to support Morgan's argument that Metellus cannot have had time to organize the province, and therefore that the job was done by Mummius and the senatorial commission of 146/145.
[27] Doubted by Gruen, HWCR , 434, esp. n. 202, and now reaffirmed by Baronowski, Klio 70 (1988) 449-50.
[28] Gruen, HWCR , 434, n. 201, who refers to the lists compiled by Sarikakis, "ArconteV , and Papazoglou, ANRW II.7.1 (1979) 310-11. Cf. also that of Geyer, RE 14 (1928) 764-65. All are to be used with caution.
the first),[29] the names known to us cannot account for more than three-quarters of the relevant years. The argumentum ex silentio is here disqualified by the extremely lacunose state of our evidence after the loss of the text of Livy, for we are dependent on the random survival of epigraphic documents (never a strong tradition in Macedonia) and the selectivity of Livy's excerptor, who of course mentions only major victories and defeats. Unless one can explain convincingly why new armies might be sent out individually only when we happen to hear of them it is surely better to conclude that magistrates were indeed sent out regularly to Macedonia in succession and that we simply do not know the names of a few (perhaps not many more than about eight) of them.
Other arguments lead in the same direction. The only substantial gap in the Macedonian fasti is between ca. 141 and ca. 119, where only two proconsuls can be placed with certainty. But at some time during that gap the via Egnatia was built,[30] surely a sign of a continuing military commitment. If "the Republic accepted responsibility for the defense of Macedonia and of Illyria," as Gruen concedes,[31] that task will have been impossible to discharge without a permanent military presence, in view of the ancient problem of the pressure exerted by the Thraco-Illyrian tribes on the Macedonian frontier and the proven instability of the Macedonian republics.[32] It is, I think, therefore beyond reasonable doubt that from 148 Roman commanders and their contingents of troops succeeded each other in Macedonia without interruption. These commanders must have been assigned Macedonia provincia , as was the normal practice both earlier and later, even if we have no dear testimony for official titulature at this time.[33]
[29] For the first century, note Verres 73-71; Vergilius Balbus 61-58.
[30] See appendix C.
[31] HWCR , 435.
[32] Cato's supposed sententia of 168 on the difficulty of defending Macedonia (SHA, Hadr . 5.3 = ORF Fr. 162 [p. 61]) is here relevant; cf. Harris, War and Imperialism , 144-45. For the northern frontier in the time of Philip V, see the brief comments of Walbank, Selected Papers , 193-94; Papazoglou, Central Balkan Tribes , 149-74 (Dardani), 279-83 (Scordisci). On the military activities of the proconsuls of Macedonia, and especially the connection between Thracian raids and the internal instability of Macedonia, cf. below, pp. 31-40.
Thus, while there is no evidence of a change in Macedonia's legal status in 148, no sign of major reorganization for Roman administration or "direct rule," or of basic structural changes, it seems beyond reasonable doubt that Roman commanders were assigned Macedonia provincia and sent out regularly to Macedonia after Metellus departed in 146. The apparent antinomy between the absence of formal structures for rule and the fact of a Roman presence raises an important question concerning not merely Macedonia but the very nature of the Roman imperium . How far is it justifiable to regard Macedonia from 148 as an annexed territory?