ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

Polybius, the Achaeans, 
and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' 

A. M. Eckstein 

I N THE SPRING OF 196 B.C. the proconsul T. Quinctius Flami­
ninus, victorious in the war against Philip V of Macedon, 
announced at the Isthmian Games that the outcome of the 

war would be freedom for the Greeks. Not only would the 
states and peoples of European Greece be free from Mace­
donian hegemony and control, but all would be totally free: free 
from taxes, free from garrisons, free to live under their own 
ancestral laws-free (in a word) from Rome. Flamininus' 
announcement was greeted by the assembled Greeks with 
enormous cheers and explosive enthusiasm. It is a famous 
scene, made ironic by the subsequent history of Rome's re­
lations with the Greek world.1 

The main purpose of this paper is to investigate how Polybius 
may have emphasized the Achaean contribution to the Isthmian 
Declaration. It is first necessary, however, to review the evo­
lution of the concept of full freedom, for it has been a topic of 
intense scholarly debate-both about the specific stages by 
which the Romans arrived at this policy, and also about the 
influences that bore upon their ultimate decision. 

Some scholars believe that the outline of Flamininus' policy 
was already in place at Rome as early as 200-perhaps even 
before the war against Philip began. 2 Some maintain that in 199 

1 On the Isthmian Declaration and preceding events see Polyb. 18.44-48; 
Liv. 33.30-35; Pluto Flam. 10£{; App. Mac. 9.3f; Just. 30.4.17f; Val. Max. 4.8.5; 
Zon. 9.16. The Greek states would be EM:\)e€pO\)~, acpPo\)pt1tO\)~, acpopoAoyl1tO\)~, 
V6~1e; xpro~O\)e; 'tOte; 1tU'tpt01e; (Polyb. 18.46.5). 

2 K. E. Petzold, Die Eroffnung des zweiten romisch-makedonischen Krieges 
(Berlin 1940) 37; cf A. H. McDonald, review of E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae 
(Oxford 1957), JRS 49 (1959) 149. The Romans may have already ex­
perimented with civitates liberae ac immunes in Sicily from the mid-third 
century: Badian 37-42; cf A. M. Eckstein, Senate and General: Individual De­
cision-Making and Roman Foreign Relations, 264-194 B.C. (Berkeley 1987) 
103-15. But there is no necessity for a strong connection between free cities 

45 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

46 POLYBIUS AND THE 'FREEDOM OF THE GREEKS' 

Flamininus had run for the consulship for 198 on an explicit 
slogan of freedom for the Greeks. 3 Others have argued that the 
new Roman policy can at least be seen in Flamininus' demands 
during his two peace conferences with Philip V in the spring 
and autumn of 198.4 And still others would place the de­
velopment of the true policy of freedom only after Flamininus' 
victory at Cynoscephalae in summer 197, with the Roman Sen­
ate (and its representatives in Greece, the decem legati) being 
brought around fully to this policy only in the course of late 197 
and early 196. 5 On the first three reconstructions of events, 
Roman policy was established quite early. On the last 
reconstruction, its evolution was quite gradual and ad hoc. 

There is similar controversy over exactly who influenced the 
Senate to adopt the outlines of the Isthmian policy. Did the 
patres arrive at the policy independently early in the war? 6 Or 
did the policy evolve as the Senate came increasingly under the 
influence of envoys from the Greek states in 197-196F Or was 
the most important proponent of full freedom for the Greeks 
T. Quinctius Flamininus, as a result of his experiences in 
Greece, with his ideas being transmitted to the Senate via his 
own lieutenants?8 

within a permanent Roman province and the declaration of 196, whereby the 
Romans promised to leave the whole of Greece free, withdrawing completely 
from the region. See now J. W. Rich, «Patronage and Interstate Relations in 
the Roman Republic," in A. Wallace-Hadrill, ed., Patronage in Ancient 
Society (London 1989) 12l. 

3 J. Briscoe, «Flamininus and Roman Politics, 200-189 B.C.," Latomus 31 
(1972) 42, reiterated in A Commentary on Li'lJy, Books XXXI-XXXIII 
(Oxford 1973) 32f. 

4 See, most recently, J.-L. Ferrary, Philhellinisme et impirialisme: Aspects 
ideologiques de fa conquete romaine du monde hellinistique (Rome 1988) 59-
69. 

5 R. Seager, -The Freedom of the Greeks of Asia: from Alexander to An­
tiochus," CQ N.S. 31 (1981) 109f; E. S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the 
Coming of Rome (Berkeley 1984) I 145f; Eckstein (supra n.2) 296£, 300f (a 
variation). 

6 Cf. Petzold (supra n.2) 37; McDonald (supra n.2) 149. 
7 Cf. Seager (supra n.5) 109f; Gruen (supra n.5) 145f. 
8 Cf E. Badian, Titus Quinctius Ffamininus: Philhellene and Realpolitik 

(Cincinnati 1970) 55; Eckstein (supra n.2) 296£, 300f. 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

A. M. ECKSTEIN 47 

I 

The evidence suggests that the evolution of the Isthmian doc­
trine was only gradual at Rome. The ultimatum given Philip's 
general Nicator by Roman envoys at Athens in spring 200 
merely demanded the immediate end of Philip's wars against 
the Greeks and the payment of an indemnity to Attalus of 
Pergamum (Polyb. 16.27.1££); there is nothing here about Greek 
'freedom'. The Abydus Declaration of autumn 200 (16.34) did 
contain a senatorial demand that Philip withdraw from certain 
possessions of Ptolemy; but the intention was surely to return 
these places to the Ptolemaic government after the Macedonian 
withdrawal, not to set them free. 9 To judge from the sentiments 
ascribed to L. Furius Purpureo (Liv. 31.31.6-9), the Roman 
diplomatic position in 199 was still that libertas was only pro 
merito, not something inherent for Greeks. 10 In 198 at the Aous 
Conference and again at Nicaea, Flamininus demanded that 
Philip withdraw from specified Greek territory (the amount 
varied), but with no indication of the fate of that territory after 
the Macedonian withdrawa1. 11 It is true enough that in the 
Diodorus excerpt (28.11) Flamininus at the Aous is depicted as 
demanding, on senatorial instructions, that all Greece be left 
ungarrisoned and autonomous (aq>poupll'to<; ... a{novoJlo<;). But 
this is totally missing from Livy's far more detailed account of 
the Aous conference, and is obviously the result of a confused 
source that has retrojected by two years the terms of 
Flamininus' more famous declaration at the Isthmia. 12 

9 On the Abydus Declaration ef also Liv. 31.18. Against Petzold (supra n.2: 
37), for whom the essentials of the Isthmian Declaration can already be per­
ceived at Abydus, see (rightly) Badian (supra n.2) 67 with nA. 

10 See M.-L. Heidemann, Die Freiheitsparole in der grieehiseh-romisehen 
Auseinandersetzung (200-188 v.Chr.) (Bonn 1966) 28f. 

11 On the Aous Conference see Liv. 32.10; ef Diod. 28.11; App. Mac. 5 (a 
variant tradition discussed immediately infra); on the Nicaea Conference see 
Polyb. 18.1-9; Liv. 32.32.5-36.10; Pluto Flam. 5.6; App. Mac. 8; Just. 30.3.8ff; 
Zon.9.16. 

12 See (rightly) Heidemann (supra n.l0) 105 n.2; Seager (supra n.5) 108. E. M. 
Carawan (<< Graeeia Liberata and the Role of Flamininus in Livy's Fourth 
Decade," TAPA 118 [1988] 213) argues that Diod. 28.11 (ef App. Mac. 5) 
reflects the accurate and otherwise unpreserved tradition of Polybius, whereas 
Livy's account of the Aous (32.10) reflects an inferior annalistic source. His 
view is undermined by Polybius 18.1-10, where Flamininus' position at the 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

48 POLYBIUS AND THE 'FREEDOM OF THE GREEKS' 

Such demands for an enemy's withdrawal from territory were 
in fact traditional Roman military-diplomatic practice, and it is 
thus somewhat imprudent to see them as strong precedents for 
the Isthmian policy. If there is any implication of 'freedom' 
here, it is merely the Romans' wish that these places be free of 
the power of Philip.13 

This concept of freedom as liberation from Philip also re­
sembles the views of the Greek envoys to Rome under the 
tutelage of Flamininus' friends in winter 198/7 (Polyb. 18.11). 
They told the patres that they wished Demetrias, Chalcis, and 
Corinth (the "three fetters of Greece") to be free from Philip, 
for only then could the Greeks have any thought of eleutheria; 
as it was, Corinth threatened the Peloponnesians, Chalcis 
threatened Central Greece, and Demetrias threatened Thessaly 
and Magnesia. It was precisely this demand which the Senate 
then took up with Philip's envoys.14 Still, we perhaps see in the 
phrase referring to the Greeks' "ability to enjoy freedom" once 
they were liberated from the baleful effects of Philip's fortresses 
(18.11.7, buv(l'tov E1taupaa8at 't1l<; EA.ru8rpia<;) a hint of 
prospective Greek freedom in a positive sense, as opposed to 
mere freedom from Philip's power; and that would be 
something new.15 

Nevertheless, the first explicit reference to a Greek future 
free not only from Macedonian but also from Roman troops of 
any sort occurs in a scene that Polybius places in Flamininus' 

Nicaea Conference much later in 198 is still very far from the Isthmian policy: 
here Flamininus is concerned with 'freedom' only in the sense of Macedonian 
withdrawal from certain Greek territories. That fits well with Livy's version of 
the Aous (see infra 52f) but hardly with Diodorus (or Appian). 

13 Cf the terms of Rome's treaty with Hiero II of Syracuse in 263, under 
which the king formally renounced his claim to areas in northeast Sicily held 
by Syracuse before the war, restricting himself to the southeast corner of the 
island (Diod. 23.4.1; cf Polyb. 1.20.1 on Roman intentions here); or the terms 
of Rome's treaty with the Illyrians in 228, under which they formally agreed 
never to sail in arms south of the Lissus River (Polyb. 2.12.3; if. 3.16.3). 

14 For the Greek ambassadors' emphasis on freedom from the -three fet­
ters" see Heidemann (supra n.10) 34. 

15 Cf also Polyb. 18.11.4 (,tou~ "EA.A...,va~ £vvotav A.a~ttV f.Mu9tp{ac;) and 
18.11.11 (,tou~ "EA.A...,va~ 'l'tuO"at 'trov 1ttPl 'til~ EA.tu9tp{a~ EA.1ti5ro~, although 
these phrases are even vaguer than the one at 18.11.7. Ferrary (supra n.4: 68 
with n.84) especially emphasizes the novelty of the Greek position on -free­
dom" in winter 198/7 at Rome. 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

A. M. ECKSTEIN 49 

camp shortly after his victory at Cynoscephalae in 197 (the 
Tempe Conference). This first indication of total Roman 
withdrawal from Greece occurs in a speech of King Amynan­
der of Athamania during the debate over whether Philip should 
retain the Macedonian throne (18.36.4, Xroptcr9EV't(OV 'PWJ..lalWV 
he '[11<; 'EAA&SO<;). But as K. S. Sacks has show-n, Polybius makes 
Amynander in fact the stalking horse for Flamininus. Thus 
Amynander addresses not Flamininus but the Greeks, while the 
Aetolian representative Alexander responds to Amynander as if 
Flamininus had just spoken (18.36.6, brnVE<JE 'tOY Tt'tov ... Kat 
1tapa1tbt'tEtv au'tov). This vision of the postwar withdrawal of 
Roman troops from Greece is therefore Flamininus' vision.16 

Yet well into the spring of 196, and despite the vision of 
Roman withdrawal expounded in Flamininus' camp in 197, 
Roman policy toward the Greeks in fact remained somewhat 
unclear. The senatus consultum brought by the decem legati to 
Greece in 196 did indicate that all Greeks except the former 
subjects of King Philip were "to be free and to enjoy their own 
laws. "17 Here for the first time is an official Roman pronounce­
ment about the freedom of the Greeks-or rather, of some 
Greeks-which has a specific positive content, as opposed to 
mere freedom from Philip. This is obviously an important step 
towards the Isthmia. On the other hand, the former subjects of 
Philip (and they were many) are by the terms of the senatus 
consultum merely to be turned over to the Romans by a set 
date, with no explanation offered as to their ultimate fate. 18 This 
suggests significant senatorial hesitation, even in spring 196, 
about extending the policy of freedom everywhere in Greece. 
Indeed, our sources are unanimous that there was strong 
sentiment among the senatorial commision of 196 for gar­
risoning the most strategic of Philip's former possessions with 
Roman troops. It took all Flamininus' persuasive power, and 

16 See K. S. Sacks, "Polybius' Other View of Aetolia," ]HS 95 (1975) 102f, 
with Eckstein's comments (supra n.2) 29M. The phrase "freedom for the 
Greeks" (18.36.6, 'tOlC; "EAATJ<H 'tTtV EM:u8Ep\av) first appears at the Tempe 
debate, but its meaning may still be mere "freedom" from Philip in the 
context of debate over Philip's fate, where fear of the king's power is a 
prominent theme (cf 18.36.4,6; 37.12). 

17 18.44.2, EAEUS€pOUC; U7t<lPX£\V Kat VOIl01.C; XPTloSm 'tOlC; HHo1.C;; cf. Liv. 
33.30.2, libertatem ac suas haberent leges. 

18 18.44.3; Liv. 33.30.2. 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

50 POLYBIUS AND THE 'FREEDOM OF THE GREEKS' 

much debate, before the decem legati were won over to the 
policy finally proclaimed at the Isthmia. Even so, the Romans 
decided to remain in temporary control of Demetrias, Chalcis, 
and the Acrocorinth fortress, along with Oreus and Eretria.19 

Since the first reference to the total Roman evacuation of 
Greece occurs in the speech of someone speaking for Flami­
ninus in 197, and since a year later it is Flamininus alone who 
convinces the senatorial commission to accept the idea of 
eventual total Roman withdrawal, it follows that T. Quinctius 
had done his best in the intervening period to convince a rather 
hesitant Roman Senate of the correctness and diplomatic 
benefits of this policy-a policy in which he deeply believed. It 
further follows that insofar as the Senate was convinced to 
adopt this policy, it was probably through the influence of 
envoys sent to Rome by the victorious proconsul, rather than 
by anything the Greeks had to say. Flamininus' envoys were 
undoutedly senatorial aristocrats, and in winter 197/6 they 
helped procure for him-under rather difficult political circum­
stances-the ratification of his preliminary peace with Philip; 
this attests to their political effectiveness. 2o By contrast, the 
Senate seems not to have been much impressed by the Greek 
ambassadors who came to Rome that winter (c{. Polyb. 
18.42.7f). One may add that the fully articulated dehnition of 
Greek freedom found in the Isthmian Declaration ("free, un­
taxed, ungarrisoned, and enjoying their own laws," as opposed 
merely to "'free, and enjoying their own laws," the formulation 
of the senatus consultum) appears only after Flamininus' con­
sultations with the senatorial commission. 21 Further, Flami­
ninus' spectacular dedication at Delphi connected his name 
directly with eleutheria, while the Greeks for their part publicly 

19 Flarnininus' consultation (and debate) with the senatorial commissioners: 
Polyb. 18.45.7-12; Liv. 33.31.7-11; Pluto Flam. 10.2; cf App. Mac. 9.3f (a 
contrary and clearly inferior tradition); Zon. 9.16 (simplified). The decem 
legati wanted garrisons placed at strategic points because of Antiochus Ill's 
advance into Thrace: Polyb. 18.45.10; Liv. 33.31.10; Demetrias, Chaicis, and the 
Acrocorinth garrisoned: Polyb. 18.45.12; Liv. 33.31.11; Oreus and Eretria: Liv. 
34.51.1, cf. Polyb. 18.45.5, 47.1 of; Liv. 33.31.4. 

20 For discussion cf. Eckstein (supra n.2) 293, 297. 
21 Ibid., 297, 299f. 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

A. M. ECKSTEIN 51 

honored him, and only him, as the author of their liberation. 22 

All in all, it looks as if the evolution of a policy of full Greek 
freedom among the Romans-hesitant as that evolution 
evidently was-owed most to the impact of T. Quinctius 
Flamininus. 23 

Yet it is also obvious that Flamininus is likely to have gone 
through his own evolution in thinking about the outline of a 
postwar settlement in Greece. He has sometimes been seen as 
an idealistic and sentimental philhellene from the very begin­
ning. 24 But recent scholarship has cast significant doubt upon 
such a reconstruction. Flamininus' political experience with 
Greeks before his consulship in 198 should not be exaggerated; 
during his Greek campaigns, he and his lieutenants showed 
themselves as comfortable in the use of terror-tactics against 
Greeks as all earlier Romans had been; the celebrated diplomatic 
offensive of late 198 that brought the Achaean League onto the 
Roman side appears to have been an ad hoc operation under­
taken only after the unexpected Roman failure to break into 
Macedon that summer (i.e. , a traditonal military solution, which 
Flamininus had clearly preferred); and even Flamininus' 
position in 198 regarding the extent of Macedonian territorial 
withdrawal (i.e., how much of Greece would be free of Philip) 
shifted dramatically against Greek interests between the spring 
and the autumn. 25 It therefore stands to reason that if 
Flamininus by the time of Cynoscephalae had come to accept a 
vision of postwar Greece that included full freedom for the 

22 Flamininus' dedication at Delphi emphasized his personal bestowal of 
eleutheria upon the Greeks: Pluto Flam. 12.5f. Various Greek states accorded 
Flamininus personally a vast array of honors: Gytheum, Argos, Thessaly, 
Corinth (where he is saluted as oetl'tllpa Kat. EA.Et>9ipwv), Larissa (Eleutheria 
games established in his honor), Cos, Chalcis, Delos. See F. W. Walbank, A 
Historical Commentary on Polybius II (Oxford 1967) 613f; J. Bousquet, 
-Inscriptions grecques concernant des Romains," BCH 88 (1964) 609. 

23 Cf Badian (supra n.8) 55: -It was clearly Titus Flamininus who developed 
the principle of the 'freedom of the Greeks' in the form in which it was 
proclaimed at the Isthmian Games and carried out after-that principle of 
which he was later so proud and for which he demanded, and received, 
exuberant gratitude." See also Eckstein (supra n.2) 296£, 300f. 

24 Cf T. Frank, Roman Imperialism (New York 1914) 50-59. 
25 A detailed discussion in A. M. Eckstein, -T. Quinctius Flamininus and 

the Campaign against Philip in 198 B.C.," Phoenix 30 (1976) 119-42. Cf now 
Gruen (supra n.5) 208 with n.24; Ferrary (supra n.4) 58~9. 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

52 POLYBIUS AND THE 'FREEDOM OF THE GREEKS' 

Greeks, this was because of his growing experience with Greek 
thinking and sentiment on this issue. In other words, if it is 
Flamininus who primarily influenced the patres regarding the 
policy of eleutheria in 197-196, the development of Flamininus' 
own ideas here was crucially influenced by his interchanges 
with various Greek statesmen, which led him to see the 
diplomatic benefits of such a policy. 

II 

Which Greek statesmen influenced the development of 
Flamininus' conception of full freedom for the Greek states, 
and the traditional Hellenistic language in which this new policy 
eventually found expression at the Isthmia? Given the state of 
our evidence, certainty is impossible. But working from the 
basic reconstruction of events established so far, the rest of this 
paper will propose that Polybius-our original and basic source 
for this period-consistently emphasized the close association 
of Achaea, and particularly the Achaean statesman Aristaenus, 
with the concept of Greek freedom. 

To begin with, it can be shown that the first explicit reference 
to the theme of libertas by a Greek in Livy's narrative of the 
Second Macedonian War appears in the speech of Aristaenus to 
the Achaean assembly in autumn 198 (Liv. 32.21). Second, it can 
be shown that the concept of libertas in Aristaenus' Livian 
speech, while primarily freedom from Philip, also hints at 
Greeks living in freedom in a positive sense-just the version of 
eleutheria that Polybius (18.11) has the Greek ambassadors 
presenting at Rome later in the winter of 198/7. And third, it can 
be shown (by new arguments, and contrary to recent doubts) 
that Aristaenus' Livian speech in fact derives directly from 
Polybius-which in turn tells us something about how Polybius 
structured the story of the development of the concept of 
freedom for the Greeks in the 190's. 

Carawan has rightly emphasized the appearance of libertas in 
Aristaenus' speech. The situation, however, is more com­
plicated than Carawan presents it. In Livy the Macedonian 
envoy to Aetolia in spring 199 (in a speech in which he accuses 
Rome of oppressing the Greeks of the West) already mentions 
that the power of Philip would appear to restrict Aetolian 
libertas, while in his depiction of the Aous negotiations of spring 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

A. M. ECKSTEIN 53 

198, Livy presents both Philip and Flamininus as employing the 
word liberare. But at the Aous liberare is meant only in the 
narrow sense of Macedonian withdrawal from certain cities. 26 
The appearance of libertas in Aristaenus' speech of autumn 198 
must therefore be seen as definitely prefigured in the Livian 
narrative of the previous eighteen months. Still, Aristaenus' 
speech seems to be the first time in Livy that we are provided 
with a strictly Greek perspective on libertas as an issue in the 
war.27 

Aristaenus' speech was crucial for the history of the Achaean 
League. For twenty-five years, ever since Antigonus III Doson 
had saved Achaea from Cleomenes of Sparta, the League had 
been the premier member of Macedon's Hellenic Symmachy. 
In the early years of the Second Macedonian War the League­
distracted by its own new war with Sparta-managed to main­
tain a position merely of benevolent neutrality toward Philip, 
wi thout taking sides in his conflict with Rome. 28 In autumn 198, 
however, envoys from Flamininus came to Achaea to propose 
that the League now reverse its traditional pro-Macedonian 
stance and join Rome's war against Philip. This proposal deeply 
divided the Achaeans, for the kings of Macedon were popular 
in many Achaean towns (not least Polybius' hometown of 
Megalopolis). In Livy (32.21), Aristaenus-the Achaean chief 
magistrate (strategos) for 199/8-is given a long and dramatic 
speech in which he tries to convince a hesitant Achaean 
assembly to accept the Romans' proposal: the League faced 
terrible dangers if it refused the Roman offer of alliance, thereby 
indicating an open preference for Philip (32.21.4-35).29 Still, at 
the end of the speech Aristaenus does present one positive 

26 Carawan (supra n.12) 214; Macedonian envoy in 199: Liv. 31.29.12; the 
verb liberare at the Aous Conference: Liv. 32.10.4, 7, with Heidemann (supra 
n.l0: 32) on its limited meaning in this context. 

27 In Livy's presentation neither the Athenians nor the Aetolians at their 
meeting of spring 199 refer to libertas. The Athenians restrict their speech to 
Philip's atrocities, while the Aetolians are concerned strictly with M acht­
politik: Liv. 31.30, 32. 

28 For Achaean politics and policies in this period see A. M. Eckstein, 
"Polybius, Aristaenus, and the Fragment 'On Traitors'," CQ N.S. 37 (1987) 
140ff. 

29 On this theme in Aristaenus' speech see esp. A. Aymard, Les premiers 
rapports de Rome et de fa Confederation achaienne (Bordeaux 1938) nf. 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

54 POLYBIUS AND THE 'FREEDOM OF THE GREEKS' 

advantage for the Achaeans in the Roman alliance, and it is in 
terms of libertas: 

liberare vos a Philippo iam diu magis vultis quam au de tis. sine 
vestro labore et periculo qui vos in libertatem vindicarent cum 
magnis classibus exercitibusque mare traiecerunt (32.21.36). 

The last phrase of the speech (37) returns to the threat Rome 
now poses to Achaea's very existence. 

Carawan has suggested that Livy 32.21.36 in fact constitutes a 
vison of Rome's having come to Greece truly to liberate the 
Hellenes, without territorial ambitions of her own; the passage 
thus fully anticipates the declaration of liberty at the Isthmia. 
This is claiming too much. The place of emphasis is occupied by 
the phrase in which the Achaeans long to "free" themselves 
from Philip (liberare vos a Philippo ).30 This emphasis fits the 
picture of Philip that Aristaenus draws in his speech: cruel, 
greedy, a murderer, subject to irrational passions, and now a 
ruler incapable even of protecting his allies. Who would not 
wish to be free of him? 31 But this usage of liberare is much 
closer to the usage in Livy's depiction of the Aous Conference 
earlier in 198 (see supra) than to the "liberty" enshrined in the 
Isthmian Declaration. The implication of libertas in the sub­
sequent sentence of Liv. 32.21.6 is, admittedly, more suggestive: 
sine vestro labore et periculo qui vos in libertatem vindicarent 
... maria traiecerunt; the Romans have come across the sea to 
"assure you your liberty." Carawan rightly notes the striking 
parallel between this phrase and the favorable commentary that 
Livy later appends to the Isthmian Declaration itself: suo labore 
ac periculo bella gerat pro libertate aliorum ... maria traiciat 
(33.33.5f). It is a point to which we shall return. Still, for the 
reader of Book 32 the phrase vos in libertatem vindicarent can 
only be a hint of future freedom for Greece. 

In fact 32.21.36 taken as a whole, with its double employment 
of libertas, seems similar in tone to what Polybius has the Greek 
envoys say in Rome later in winter 198/7: their emphasis, as we 
saw, is on freedom from Philip via the withdrawal of 
Macedonian garrisons from the "three fetters"; but there is also 

30 Cf. Carawan (supra n.12) 214, who oddly omits Liberare 7)OS a PhiLippo 
from his discussion. 

31 Cruelty: Liv. 32.21.21, 25; murder and robbery: 32.22f; ungovernable 
passion: 32.21.21, 25; military weakness: 32.21.7-20. 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

A. M. ECKSTEIN 55 

a hint (esrecially in the phrase E1taupaa8at 'tf\c; EA.EU8Epiac;, 
18.11.7) 0 a future of freedom in a positive sense.32 If in both 
cases this hint lacks specific content, it is still legitimate and 
important to see here a step forward in the transformation of 
the theme of freedom during the war, and it is important as well 
to see that it is the Achaean Aristaenus who in Livy seems to 
take the first step. But one step is not the whole way to the 
Isthmia. 

The question immediately arises, did the statements of 
Aristaenus on freedom appear originally in Polybius? If so, then 
we could trace a definite development in the transformation of 
the freedom theme in the Histories: from an emphasis purely 
on freedom from Philip (in the Aous Conference) to a more 
complex formulation, first established by Aristaenus the 
Achaean and reiterated by the Greek ambassadors in Rome, in 
which the emphasis is still on freedom from Philip but where 
'living in freedom' in a positive sense is also present. 33 The 
problem here is that Polybius' Book 17-in which the Achaean 
assembly of autumn 198 must have appeared-is completely 
lost. Moreover, Carawan has recently expressed serious doubts 
that Livy's account of the Achaean assembly in fact derives 
from Polybius at all: at 18.13.8 Polybius gives Aristaenus credit 
for saving the League from destruction by convincing the 
assembly to side with Rome, while in Livy the speech of 
Aristaenus results only in a deadlock among the Achaean 
magistrates, which is broken not by Aristaenus but by the 
intervention of Pisias of Pellene with his son the magistrate 
Memnon. Only in this way did the motion for the Roman 
alliance even come to a vote in the assembly (Liv. 32.22.4-7).34 

If Carawan is correct, then we are ignorant of how Polybius 
presented the Achaean assembly or how he presented the de­
velopment of the freedom theme in his account of the war. But 
in fact Carawan's argument against Polybian derivation is weak. 
Before Aristaenus' speech in Livy, the Achaean assembly is 
completely unable to decide what to do (32.20.1-7), but after the 

32 See supra 48; cf. Ferrary (supra n.4) 68 with n.84. 
33 For Polybius as Livy's source for the Aous Conference see n.12 supra. 
14 Carawan (supra n.12) 215 with n.12: part of Carawan's unlikely 

hypothesis that Livy's account of Flamininus' activities in Greece 198-194 
derives not from Polybius but from an annalistic source hostile to the Roman 
commander. 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

56 POL YBrUS AND THE 'FREEDOM OF THE GREEKS' 

speech the majority of the assembly-once it gets a chance to 
vote-decides for the Roman alliance (32.22.7-12). Since Aris­
taenus' speech is a long and dramatic set-piece, it is clear that 
Livy intended his audience to see it as decisive. In other words, 
the basic presentation of what occurred at the assembly in 
autumn 198 is the same in Liv. 32 as in Polybius' retrospective 
remarks at 18.13; Aristaenus is the dominant figure in both 
passages. If Memnon and Pisias are missing from Polybius 
18.13, this is probably because they are an unnecessary detail in 
what is merely a brief review of the Achaean decision. 

On the other side, the arguments in favor of the Polybian deri­
vation of Aristaenus' speech in Livy are formidable. It stands to 
reason that Polybius, as an Achaean, would have covered the 
crucial Achaean decision of autumn 198 in detail; moreover, to 
judge from the retrospective discussion in Polyb. 18.13, Aris­
taenus was given the central place in Polybius' account of that 
decision (in the lost book 17)-and why not via a speech? 
Further, the main argument in Aristaenus' speech in Livy is 
precisely the reason Polybius offers at 18.13.8 for Aristaenus' 
actions: fear for the survival of the League if it did not side with 
Rome. This is hardly likely to be a coincidence. Finally, Aris­
taenus' speech in Livy contains the kind of detailed knowledge 
of Peloponnesian history (e.g. the accusation that Philip V had 
engineered the murder of the otherwise unknown Chariteles of 
Cyparissia: 32.21.23) that is typical only of Polybius among 
Livy's likely sources. 35 

To these well-known arguments one may add the appearance 
of two quintessentially Polybian motifs in Aristaenus' speech. 
First, the praise of the Macedonian king Antigonus Doson, who 
saved the Achaean League in the 220's: "that most merciful and 
just king who did so much for us" (32.21.25).36 Livy had no 
cause for a special interest in Doson, but as one of Polybius' 
heroes he won highest praise for Ju:yaAmjluxia and cptAaV-
8pcoxia.37 Second, Aristaenus argues that wise men prefer to 

35 Cf. Aymard (supra n.29) 94; Eckstein (supra n.28) 143; compare this detail 
on the obscure Chariteles with the equally obscure (to us) Memnon and Pisias 
of Pellene (Liv. 32.22.4-7: discussed supra). 

36 Antigono, mitissimo ac iustissimo rege et de nobis omnibus optime 
merito .... 

37 Polyb. 2.70.1; 5.9.8ff; cf. K.-W. Welwei, Konige und Konigtum im Urteil 
des Polybios (Cologne 1963) 37. 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

A. M. ECKSTEIN 57 

learn prudence from the misfortunes of others rather than by 
offering themselves as negative examples (29): Achaea's burning 
towns should not exemplify the folly of refusing a Roman 
alliance (cf 28). To learn from others' misfortunes and thus to 
avoid the bitter experience of one's own errors is a major 
Polybian theme (e.g. 1.1.2). Signihcantly, it appears in the speech 
Livy's Aristaenus delivers at a crucial turning point in Achaea's 
history.38 

That Aristaenus' speech in Livy derives in general from Po­
lybius' lost Book 17 does not, however, prove that any specific 
passage within the Livian speech directly reflects Polybius. Livy 
transformed his source material according to his own purposes, 
and Aristaenus' speech is in particular a masterpiece of Latin 
rhetoric. 39 Hence the appearance of the libertas theme at 
32.21.36 does not guarantee its occurrence in Polybius or his 
emphasis on Aristaenus' role in the eventual development of 
the the concept of freedom for the Greeks. The exceptions to 
this general rule about the relationship of Aristaenus' Livian 
speech to its sources would be passages where a specific 
Polybian motif is independently attested elsewhere (e.g. the 
passages on Antigonus Doson and learning from others' 
misfortunes). Does Liv. 32.21.36 fit this pattern? 

Yes, and Carawan has shown the way (supra n.12: 214). He 
notes the remarkable parallel in language between 32.21.36 (sine 
vestro labore et periculo qui vos in libertatem vindicarent ... 
mare traiecerunt) and Livy's later commentary on the Isthmian 
declaration (33.33.5££: suo labore ac periculo bella gerat pro 
libertate aliorum ... mare traiciat). But one can go further. 
Polybius' commentary on the Isthmian declaration (18.46.13££) 
closely resembles Liv. 33.33. And the phraseology of 33.33.5ff 
has clearly been adapted directly from Polyb. 18.46.14: 
SaUIHlO"'tOV yap ~v Kat 'to 'PWJlatotc;; ... 1tnO"av U1tOJlEtVat 
()a1tclvllv Kat 1tclv'ta KtV()UVOV XclptV 'tTtC;; 'troY 'EAA:rlvwv 
EAEuSEptac;; ("for it was a wonderful thing that the Romans had 
incurred every expense and peril for the sake of the liberty of 

38 For this theme in Polybius see F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary 
on Polybius I (Oxford 1957) 39, 94. The most famous example is probably 
Polybius' remarks (1.35.7) on the fate of M. Atilius Regulus during the First 
Punic War. 

39 Cf R. Ullmann, Etude sur le style des discours de Tite-Live (Oslo 1929) 
137ff; Briscoe, Commentary (supra n.3) 21. 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

58 POLYBIUS AND THE 'FREEDOM OF THE GREEKS' 

the Greeks"'). Yet if Liv. 33.33.5ff can thus be shown a direct 
echo of Polybius, and if (as Carawan rightly remarks) there 
seems an integral conceptual and literary connection between 
Liv. 33.33.5ff and the phraseology of Aristaenus earlier at 
32.21.36, then 32.21.36 probably reflects a Polybian sentiment 
directly as well as one similar to that at Polyb. 18.46.14-namely, 
the theme of freedom that originally appeared in Aristaenus' 
speech in Polybius. 

Thus in Polybius' account of the Second Macedonian War the 
initial evolution of the concept from 'freedom from Philip' to 
freedom in the positive sense occurred in Aristaenus' speech of 
autumn 198. In other words, Polybius has an Achaean 
statesman begin the transformation of the freedom theme that 
would eventually result in the Isthmian Declaration. Perhaps it 
is no surprise that Achaean historian chose to underline an 
Achaean contribution to the Roman peace settlement of 196, so 
favorable to the Greeks. Nevertheless, this aspect of the 
Histories has not been noticed. 

Despite the scanty evidence, still further indications of this 
Polybian slant on the development of the Isthmian doctrine can 
be traced. One must say, however, that Polybius did associate 
other Greeks with the theme of freedom (in particular, Attalus I 
of Pergamum), and that his emphasis on the specifically 
Achaean contribution may well contain a strong element of 
truth. 

After Book 17 Polybius continued to connect Aristaenus with 
the theme of freedom. He begins Book 18 with a digression on 
the nature of treason. Its context, perhaps a summary of 
Aristaenus' achievements, was clearly intended to defend Aris­
taenus against the charge of 1tpOOoata-an accusation apparently 
arising from his (highly controversial) switch of Achaea to the 
Roman side in autumn 198.40 Polybius (18.13ff) asserts that Aris­
taenus committed treason neither against Achaea nor against the 
other Greeks; on the contrary, he not only saved Achaea from 
destruction but even increased her power. Polybius then 
associates Aristaenus with the fourth-century Arcadian states­
men who brought Philip II of Macedon into the Peloponnese 
against Sparta. In spite of Demosthenes' fulminations, these 

40 See Eckstein (supra n.28) 145-50 (on Aristaenus' controversial actions, 
including reaction at Megalopolis, Polybius' hometown), 150-61 (on the 
context and purpose of Polyb. 18.13-15). 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

A. M. ECKSTEIN 59 

men were not traitors: they brought safety to their cities and 
many advantages to their fellow citizens, while fully preserving 
the rights of the communities ('tTlPouvn:<; 'tlI 1tpo<; 'tlI<; 1tCl'tptOCl<; 
OtKCltCl, 18.14.10). Polybius considered as traitors only those 
who admitted foreign garrisons into their cities, abolished the 
existing laws for their own political advantase, or restricted their 
fellow citizens' free speech (1tClPPTlOtCl) and £A,Eu9EptCl (18.14.9, 
ef 15.1ff). 

Aristaenus, in Polybius' view, did none of these things; his 
beneficial acts are parallel to those of fourth-century Arcadian 
statesmen. Indeed the Polybian definition of treason (18.14f) 
approximates, in a negative way, the definition of Greek free­
dom proclaimed at the Isthmia (18.46.5: eleutheria, no garrisons, 
one's own laws preserved). Aristaenus is thus proclaimed 
(18.14f), against his apparent adversaries, as a champion of these 
values.41 

Similarly, a retrospective defense of Aristaenus' policy during 
the Second Macedonian War (found in a digression at 24.11ff, 
reporting the debate between Aristaenus and Philopoemen), 
emphasizes Aristaenus' protection of Achaean rights in regard 
to Rome (24.13.9, 'tlI Ol1(CltCl 'tOt<; 'AXClWt<; 1tpo<; 'ProllatOt<; ). The 
remark parallels Polybius' praise of the Arcadian statesmen at 
18.14.10 ('tTlPOUV'tE<; 'tlI 1tpo<; 'tlI<; 1ta'tptOCl<; OtKata). Aristaenus 
always maintained to his fellow citizens (24.13) that the Romans 
highly valued fidelity to sworn oaths and treaties and S<?od faith 
with allies (ef 13.3: 'to 'tTlpEiv 'tou<; OPKOU<; Kat 'tlI<; ouvtmKa<; Kat 
'tTtv 1tpo<; 'tOU<; oUllllaxou<; 1tto'ttv)-a view parallel to Polybius' 
own comment (ef 24.10.10ff). Further, Polybius cites a maxim 
of Aristaenus that the morally correct course for the powerful 
is always to aim at the KClA,OV (24.12.2); perhaps this is the kind 
of advice which, in Polybius' historical tradition, Aristaenus 
gave the Romans about Greek freedom. 

This raises the issue of Aristaenus' relationship with Flami­
ninus. Indeed, something can be gleaned from the remaining 
Polybian and Polybian-derived scenes where Aristaenus ac­
companies the Roman, and where once more themes related to 
freedom often occur. 

·U On the connection of the principles of action expounded in 18.13-15 to 
international as well as domestic political relations, see the interesting dis­
cussion of D. Musti, Polibio e l'imperio romano (Naples 1978) 70-73, who 
notes also the parallel with Polyb. 9.37.9 (the speech of Lyciscus in 211/0). 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

60 POLYBIUS AND THE <FREEDOM OF THE GREEKS' 

After the crucial Achaean assembly Aristaenus first appears at 
Flamininus' side as chief envoy of Achaea to the Nicaea peace 
conference of late 198 (Polyb. 18.1-10).42 Polybius depicts him 
as a leading speaker, ready both to demand the total Macedonian 
withdrawal from Greece and to emphasize another aspect of the 
freedom theme by castigating Philip and his policies in precisely 
the same fashion as at the assembly in Achaea.43 

After Polybius' defense of Aristaenus at 18.13ff (supra 58f), he 
next appears with Flamininus and Attalus of Pergamum, 
attempting to win over the Boeotians in spring 197. From 
Polybius only a fragment of Attalus' speech survives (18.17.6); 
but in Livy (33.2.4f) the aged Attalus soon becomes ill (he 
eventually died), and Aristaenus' speech convinces the Boeo­
tians. Moreover, Flamininus immediately seconds Aristaenus' 
speech. 44 Livy says that Aristaenus employed the same 
arguments used in Achaea the previous autumn (33.2.4): this 
means a heavy emphasis on Roman military power and 
probably yet another attack on Philip. But the audience is 
perhaps also meant to assume that Aristaenus' oration included 
(as in Achaea) pertinent remarks on freedom, since Flamininus' 
supporting speech emphasizes Roman fides, an aspect of Rome 
Aristaenus strongly endorsed (Polyb. 24.13.3). Indeed, 
Polybius' comment on the death of Attalus indicates how he 
may have inserted the theme of freeedom into the Boeotian 
episode: the king (struck down at Thebes) died "in the midst of 
his most noble endeavor, fighting for the freedom of the 

42 By this time Aristaenus' term as strategos had evidently expired, but the 
Acheans appointed him chief delegate to the conference: see Aymard (supra 
n.29) 111 with n.2. Xenophon of Aegium accompanied Aristaenus to Nicaea: 
Polyb. 18.1.4; Liv. 32.32.11. 

43 Aristaenus and total Macedonian withdrawal: cf. Polyb. 18.7.1f, 9.1; Aris­
taenus ready to castigate Philip: 18.8.2ff (xpOC; 'to (JUflXA£KE09at Kat fl£fl'l't­
flOPE1V au'tci»-another argument for the Polybian derivation of Aristaenus' 
speech in Livy, since (as shown supra) that speech is filled with criticism of 
Philip: Aristaenus' themes remain consistent. In Livy's version of Nicaea, Aris­
taenus is subsumed under the term Achaei: cf. Polyb. 18.8.2ff; Liv. 32.35.1. 

44 Aristaenus was probably at Thebes as head of an official Achaean 
diplomatic delegation accompanying T. Quinctius in spring 197: cf. Liv. 33.1.2, 
with Aymard (supra n.29) 155. Nevertheless, Aristaenus' presence at Thebes 
offers strong evidence of the good personal relations that had by now 
developed with Flamininus; clearly the Achaeans in spring 197 saw Aristaenus 
as the best man to communicate with the proconsul. 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

A. M. ECKSTEIN 61 

Greeks~ (18.41.9, &.yroVt~6JlEVO<; U1t£P 'tTt<; 'trov tEAA:ftvrov £AEU­
gepta,<;).45 

Aristaenus' next Polybian appearance is during the war against 
N abis of Sparta (195), again with Flamininus, and the issue of 
freedom is even clearer. Livy's account, obviously derived 
from Polybius' lost narrative, depicts a war of liberation to 
restore eleutheria at least to Argos and perhaps also to Sparta. 46 

Aristaenus, re-elected Achaean strategos in 196/5,47 firmly 
supports Flamininus' policy against Nabis at the meeting of 
Greek allies before the war, and sides with the Athenians against 
the Aetolians in presenting Rome as the champion (not the 
subverter) of libertas in Greece (Liv. 34.23-24.4).48 After the 
failure of Argos' revolt against Sparta in the name of libertas 
(34.25.7-12), Aristaenus is depicted as the only Greek general to 
propose an attack on Sparta, a plan Flamininus approves 
(34.26.4-7). But most importantly, the set-piece 'debate' be­
tween Flamininus and Nabis during the subsequent siege of 
Sparta shows Aristaenus not only publicly supporting 
Flamininus' condemnation of Nabis as a tyrant and oppressor of 
the whole Peloponnese, but also urging Nabis to abdicate and 
thus to "restore freedom" to his subjects, like many Pelopon­
nesian tyrants in the past (restitutaque libertate, 34.33.2). As 
Briscoe notes, Aristaenus refers to the Peloponnesian tyrants 
who, from the third century on, abdicated under pressure from 
the Achaean League and its foremost leader Aratus of Sicyon.49 

Thus Aristaenus' speech, as it originally stood in Polybius, 

45 Cf Polyb. 21.20.5, a retrospective on Attalus' death verbally similar to 
18.41. 9 but specifying the Boeotian scene. 

46 Gruen (supra n.5: II 450-55) discusses the war's propaganda and finds a 
likely factual basis in the emphasis on the liberation of Argos as a matter of 
honor for both Rome and Flamininus. 

47 One might speculate that Aristaenus' re-election as strategos in the 
autumn after the Isthmian Declaration indicates Achaean satisfaction with 
both Roman policy and Aristaenus' policy toward Rome. 

48 For the theme of liberty here cf the Aetolian attack on the Athenians 
(who express gratitude for Rome's services to Greece): Athenienses, libertatis 
quondam duces et auctores... communem causam prodentes (Liv. 34.23.5); 
and the Aetolian attack directly upon the Romans: fraudis Romanos quod 
vano titulo libertatis ostentato Chalcidem et Demetriadem praesidiis tenerent 
(34.23.8). 

49 J. Briscoe, A Commentary on Livy, Books XXXIV-XXXVI I (Oxford 
1981) 104. 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

62 POL YBIUS AND THE 'FREEDOM OF THE GREEKS' 

placed the glorious mantle of Aratus, one of Polybius' special 
heroes, so around the war of 195: i.e., Polybius' Aristaenus 
presents £A£u8£pia as a traditional Achaean policy. 51 

Two contemporary inscriptions complement this picture of 
Aristaenus, Flamininus, and freedom in the literary sources. An 
official Achaean dedication at Delphi, an equestrian statue of 
Aristaenus, reads: 'to KOtVOV 'tow 'AXatrov 'ApiO''tatvov Tt~o­
Ko.O£Oe;; Au~a'iov ap£'to.e;; £V£K£V Kat £uvoiae;; 'to.e;; de;; 'to f8voe;; Kat 
'toile;; O'u~~o.xoue;; Kat 'toile;; aAA.oUe;; flEAAavae;;.52 The inscrirtion 
thus presents Aristaenus as benefactor not merely 0 the 
Achaean League and its allies but of all Greece; indeed, the loca­
tion of the statue at Delphi rather than in (say) Dyme shows the 
Panhellenic character of Aristaenus' benefactions. If one asks 
why Aristaenus merited this Panhellenic claim, a reasonable 
hypothesis would be his close association with Flamininus and 
hence the policy of eleutheria. This finds support in a fragmen­
tary dedication by Aristaenus at Corinth, honoring the ap£ril of 
Flamininus and his personal benefaction to Aristaenus and to 
either the Achaeans or all the Greeks. 53 The inscription, to be 
dated between spring 196 (Philip's surrender of Corinth) and 
Aristaenus' death ca 185, most probably (as Bousquet proposes) 
derives from Aristaen us' strategia in 196/5. 54 The inscription 
emphasizes Aristaenus' close personal relationship with the 
Roman commander; but a close association with this man 
implies an association with his benevolent policies, which 
Aristaenus acribes to Flamininus' a p£'tll. Clearly the most 
famous of these policies was eleutheria, and that connection is 

50 Polybius explains and defends (2.48-51) many of Aratus' accomplish­
ments-even his most controversial acts, such as the volte-face in favor of 
Macedon in the mid-220·s. See R. Urban, Wachstum und Krise des 
achiiischen Bundes (Wiesbaden 1979) 159ff; F. W. Walbank, Aratus of Sicyon 
(Cambridge 1933) esp. 89ff (still useful). 

51 See A. M. Eckstein, -Nabis and Flamininus on the Argive Revolutions of 
198 and 197 B.C.," GRBS 28 (1987) 229f. 

52 FD IIL2 122. R. M. Errington (Philopoemen [Oxford 1969] 276-79) has 
convincingly shown that the Aristaenus of this inscription must be the 
Achaean statesman. 

53 SEG XII 214; cf Bousquet (supra n.22) 607. 
H Bousquet (supra n.22) 609; cf G. A. Lehmann, Untersuchungen zur 

Glaubwurdigkeit des Polybios (Munster 1967) 224 n.157. 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

A. M. ECKSTEIN 63 

strongly suggested by the location of the inscription at Corinth 
-site of the Isthmian Declaration.55 

These inscriptions reflect the tone of the Achaean official 
tradition on Aristaenus and his course of action in 198-195, a 
tradition upon which Polybius drew in creating his portrait of 
the Achaean statesman. This tradition, emphasizing Aristaenus 
as benefactor to Achaea and all the Greeks, associated him 
closely with Flamininus and his policy of freedom. 56 This was 
not, however, the only tradition on Aristaenus available to 
Polybius: the circle of Megalopolitan politicians among whom 
Polybius grew up certainly had a different view of the man, 
based on doubting the prudence of the Roman alliance and on 
personal enmity.57 Why, then, did Polybius choose the favor­
able picture of Aristaenus? Perhaps it facilitated justifying to his 
Greek audience the great Achaean turnabout of autumn 198; 
but Polybius also personally thought that Aristaenus' detractors 
were simply wrong.58 

Polybius' depiction of the Achaeans in general between 198 
and 194 resembles his treatment of Aristaenus: Polybius closely 

55 The political implication would be all the more dramatic if we assume 
with Bousquet and Lehmann that the inscription was dedicated immediately 
after the Isthmia. How far back in time did Aristaenus' personal relationship 
with Flamininus extend? According to Livy (32.19.1£; obviously from Po­
lybius), one important reason why Flamininus in autumn 198 launched the 
Roman diplomatic effort in Achaea was that he knew that Aristaenus per­
sonally favored an alliance with Rome. But how could Flamininus have 
known this? Previous contacts between the two are implied: see Aymard 
(supra n.29) 79; Eckstein (supra n.28) 142. Cf Aymard's speculative but very 
perceptive suggestion (112) that from autumn 198 Aristaenus hoped to playa 
role of beneficial adviser to Flamininus parallel to that of Aratus from the mid-
220's to Antigonus III and Philip V. 

56 It is interesting that in both places where Aristaenus' inscriptions were 
dedicated (Delphi and Corinth), Flamininus was explicitly and officially 
associated with eleutheria; for Delphi see Pluto Flam. 12.5f; for Corinth, Liv. 
34.50.9, with Walbank (supra n.22) 613. 

57 For the policy differences see Eckstein (supra n.28) 145f. Personal emnity: 
in an Achaean assembly of 187/186 Aristaenus publicly humiliated Polybius' 
father Lycortas in debate over an alliance with Ptolemaic Egypt, a diplomatic 
mission that Lycortas had botched. See Polyb. 22.9.1-12, with the comments 
of Lehmann (supra n.54) 198-99. 

58 See Polyb. 18.13.8 (defense of Aristaenus' policy in 198), 24.13.8ff (general 
assessment of Aristaenus far more favorable than that of Philopoemen at 
24. 13.6f). On Polybius' independent judgment of Aristaenus, cf Lehmann 
(supra n.54) 222f, a theme expanded by Eckstein (supra n.28) 145--62. 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

64 POL YBIUS AND THE 'FREEDOM OF THE GREEKS' 

associated Achaea with the theme of freedom, and possibly 
implied or indicated a specifically Achaean contribution to the 
development of Flamininus' concept of Greek freedom. De­
spite scanty and indirect evidence, a coherent picture emerges. 

At Rome in winter 198/7, an Achaean aristocrat, Xenophon of 
Aegium, appears among the Greek ambassadors advocating 
liberation from Philip while also hinting at Greeks living in 
freedom after the war. But an Achaean among the envoys does 
not surprise, and Xenophon's presence is not underlined. 59 

More interesting is Flamininus' conference with Nabis of Sparta 
at Mycenae (winter 198/7), where the new Achaean strategos 
Nicostratus, Aristaenus' political ally (cf. Aymard [supra n.29: 
111), becomes a prominent figure. Polybius has him standing 
next to Attalus of Pergamum (cf. Liv. 32.39.8) as Attalus de­
mands from Nabis a free assembly (liberam contionem, 32.40.2) 
to determine the Argive preference for Nabis' rule or a return 
to the Achaean League. The incident shows an association of the 
Achaeans and Attalus with the ideals of eleutheria-underlined 
by Nabis' refusal to allow the vote. (,() 

Polybius evidently has Nicostratus again champion Greek 
freedom in summer 197. The context of his campaign against 
Macedonian forces based at Corinth emphasized the freedom 
theme as part of the long struggle to rid the Peloponnese of 
Philip's Corinthian arx adversus Graeciae civitates (Liv.33.14.2), 
a strug~le in which even ordinary farming people willingly took 
part (cj. 33.15.5). Polybius' detailed description of the Corin­
thian campaign (cf. Liv. 33.14f) apparently presented the 

S9 Xenophon of Aegium accompanied Aristaenus at Nicaea: Polyb. 18.104. 

60 C/ Eckstein (supra n.51) 221f. Argos seceded from the Achaean League in 
autumn 198 after the decision to join Rome; the Argives even accepted a 
Macedonian garrison (Liv. 32.35, from Polybius). After Nicaea, however, 
Philip turned Argos over to Nabis-an attempt to keep the Achaeans so 
distracted by Sparta's growing power that they would avoid attacking the 
Macedonian position in the northern Peloponnese. Although at Mycenae 
Nabis refused the Argives a free decision about his rule, he did agree-under 
pressure from Flarnininus-to swear a truce with Achaea in the person of 
Nicostratus (Liv. 32.29.10,4004). 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

A. M. ECKSTEIN 65 

eventual Achaean victory as a parallel to Flamininus' at Cyno­
scephalae the same summer (cf 33.14.1).61 

Greek events in winter 197/6 thus offered Polybius an 
excellent opportunity to portray the Achaeans as not only in­
fluencing Flamininus but specificially turning him towards a 
magnanimous policy. LaW" and order collapsed amidst severe 
factional infighting and anti-Roman sentiment in Boeotia: hun­
dreds of Roman soldiers traversing the region were murdered 
(Liv. 33.29). An angry Roman proconsul launched a full-scale 
invasion, crushing the Boeotian cities with a fine of 500 talents 
and refusing negotiations with the terrified populace. Athenian 
and especially Achaean diplomatic intervention saved the 
situation, for the Achaeans, influential with Flamininus 
(33.29.11), pleaded the Boeotian case and arranged a meeting of 
Boeotian envoys with the proconsul, who reduced the fine 
from 500 to 30 talents (a most unusual Roman act) and restored 
peace. A few days later, the senatorial commission arrived in 
Greece (33.30.1). Livy's account presumably follows the 
dramatic structure of Polybius' Book 18.62 

Nevertheless, the most important connection in Polybius 
between Achaea and the freedom of the Greeks involves the 
origins of the Isthmian Declaration itself. Various historical 
models have been suggested: Antigonus the One-Eyed's 
declaration of 315, Polyperchon's diagramma of 319; the found­
ing decree of the Second Athenian League (377); even the Peace 
of Antalcidas (the King's Peace, 387/6).63 None of this is very 
convincing: the models are too remote in time and too obscure 
for Romans of the 190's, and perhaps even for most Greeks. As 
practical politicians, Flamininus and the Roman diplomats in 

61 A detailed discussion of Nicostratus' victory in Aymard (supra n.29) 
164-68; for Polybius as source for the synchronism (Livy's quidam at 33.14.1) 
see Briscoe, Commentary (supra n.3) 275. A Roman would hardly have men­
tioned this purely Greek, indeed purely Achaean, episode. 

62 For the Achaean diplomatic intervention see Aymard (supra n.29) 155f. 
63 Antigonus Monophthalmus: Diod. 19.61.3 (,to'u~ "EAATlVa~ a.1tav'to;~ i Att>­

eEpou~ acppouPll'tO\)~ au'toV0J.lOUr;;); Polyperchon: Diod. 18.55.2, cf. SyILl317.25-31 
(Athens); Second Athenian League: SylP 147.20-33 (autonomous, ungar­
risoned, untaxed, one's own form of government); the King's Peace: Diod. 
14.103, Isoc. 8.16, 68 (autonomous, removal of foreign garrisons). On these 
models see conveniently Ferrary (supra n.4) 83. 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

66 POLYBIUS AND THE 'FREEDOM OF THE GREEKS' 

Greece would naturally seek to express their policy in contem­
porary terms immediately understandable to their audience. 

Contemporary models existed. In fact, declarations of "free­
dom," "autonomy," and "government by one's own laws"­
magnificent gestures by powerful (and even not so powerful) 
states in their relations with lesser ones-proliferated in the 
Greek world throughout the third century. The motto and the 
content of the policy would be quite familiar. 64 But one model 
seems uniquely parallel in content and even phraseology to the 
Declaration of 196: the Hellenic Symmachy's declaration of war 
against Aetolia in 220, mandating that communities unwillingly 
under Aetolian control be henceforth acppou pft'tou~, acpopo­
Ao-rfl'tOUe;, £A£u6Epoue; ... 1tOAt'tEiate; Kat VOJlOte; XproJlEVOUe; "'tOte; 
1ta'tpiot<;.65 Similar language appears in Flamininus' Isthmian 
Declaration (Polyb. 18.46.5, cited supra n.t). Several recent 
scholars have thus concluded that the declaration of 220 is the 
most likely model for Flamininus' declaration of 196; Ferrary 
even sees the Declaration of 196 as Flamininus' attempt to re­
vive the Hellenic Symmachy with Rome rather than Macedon 
at its head. 66 

If the Romans modeled the Isthmian Declaration on that of 
220, where did they-and Flamininus in particular-learn of it?67 
Hardly from King Philip. Although Philip had indeed headed 
the Hellenic Symmachy in 220, he seems after Cynoscephalae 
an unlikely consultant for the terminology of Greek freedom. 
Rather, Flamininus' Greek allies probably supplied information 
about the motto and the policy of eleutheria (including perhaps 
details of the declaration of 220). But the Aetolians, targets of the 
declaration of 220 and soon after Cynoscephalae Flamininus' 
bitter enemies, seem unlikely advisers.68 

6. A convincing list in Gruen (supra n.5) 138-41. 
65 Polyb. 4.25.6ff, cf 4.84.4f: the specific case of Elis. 
" Heidemann (supra n.10) 94f; Walbank (supra n.22) 612; Ferrary (supra 

n.4) 83f, 88-95 (Flamininus' informal Hellenic Symmachy); cf Gruen (supra 
n.S) 141 (somewhat ambiguous). 

67 The full teminology of the Isthmian Declaration appears not in the 
senatus consultum of spring 196, but only after Flamininus' meeting with the 
senatorial commission at Corinth: see supra SOf and n.2l. 

U On the origins and development of Flamininus' bitter dispute with the 
Aetolians see Eckstein (supra n.2) 287-93. 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

A. M. ECKSTEIN 67 

If the declaration of 220 provided a conscious model for the 
Isthmian Declaration, the Achaeans most likely supplied it. 
Flamininus' personal relations in 197-196 with crucial Achaean 
statesmen like Aristaenus gave them significant influence on 
Flamininus, as in the Boeotian episode. Moreover, the Achaeans 
cherished the declaration of 220, for Polybius, our only source, 
reports it in great detail. 69 Indeed, Polybius' account of the 
declaration attributes most complaints against the Aetolians to 
Achaea, and Aratus of Sicyon's policy apparently triumphs in 
the subsequent action of the Hellenic Symmachy. No wonder 
the Achaeans remembered the declaration of 200 with pride. 7O 

Nevertheless, it goes too far to suggest that Achaean states­
men referred emphatically to the declaration of 220 as a specific 
model, for this would assume that Flamininus was impressed by 
a declaration of war against the Aetolians a quarter-century 
earlier.71 But Polybius' evidence for 220 does show just how 
strongly the eleutheria doctrine reflected the general Achaean 
official outlook in this period. A general Achaean emphasis on 
eleutheria, combined with the Isthmian proclamation's 
similarity to the declaration of 220, is enough to support the 
probability that Achaean statesmen were the chief Greek 
source for Flamininus' ideas on Greek freedom. 

Indeed, Polybius claims that such ideals were always part of 
the Achaean League's basic principles and goals. When he first 
introduces Achaea at 2.42.5f, Polybius carefully informs his 
audience that Achaean policy always upheld EAEU8EptU against 
kings and tyrants seeking enslavement of Greeks ("freedom," 
perhaps, in the negative sense) and extended tCrTnoptu and 
1tUPPllCSlU as far as possible ("freedom" in its positive sense).72 

69 Walbank (supra n.38: 472) suggests that a copy of the declaration was 
available in Achaea for Polybius to inspect. The decree is missing, for instance, 
in Pluto A rat. 47f on the outbreak of war in 220-217. 

70 Achaean complaints: Polyb. 4.25.3f (given more space than Boeotian com­
plaints: 4.25.2); the declaration as triumph of Aratus' policy: Walbank (supra 
n.38) 471. 

71 Flamininus might have found it amusing, given current tensions with the 
Aetolians, to model the Isthmian proclamation on an anti-Aetolian 
declaration, but he might equally have thought it impolitic and insulting to 
this Roman ally. 

72 Polybius' emphasis on -freedom of speech" (1ta.PPTlaia.) as a traditional 
Achaean policy illuminates his remark at 18.14.10 (in defense of Aristaenus' 
policy in 198) on suppression of 1t<XPP'lOta as an integral aspect of treason: i.e., 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

68 POLYBIUS AND THE 'FREEDOM OF THE GREEKS' 

Further, the Achaeans subsequently accomplished the basic 
goals of thei; policy v:ith the aid of allies (2.42.4). The rest of the 
passage merIts quotatIon: 

Though they took part in many projects in common with their 
allies, and especially in the brilliant endeavors of the Romans, 
they never showed any desire for any private profit from their 
success, but demanded, in exchange for the enthusiastic aid they 
provided their allies, nothing beyond the freedom of each state 
(bcao't(ov tA,Eu8Eptav) and the harmonious union of the Pelo­
ponnesians (2.46.6). 

That is, the Achaeans traditionally sought to impose the policy 
of eleutheria on all their allies-including (explicitly) the 
Romans. Thus Polybius' general introduction to the historic. 
policy of the Achaean League would directly present the 
Achaeans as a major influence on Flamininus' policy of 
eleutheria in 196. This suggests how Polybius may have 
structured the development of the theme of Greek freedom in 
Books 17-18.73 

But how truthful is Polybius' emphasis on the Achaean con­
tribution to Flamininus' proclamation of eleutheria? Polybius 
does not deny Achaean territorial ambitions (2.42, "the 
harmonious union of the Peloponnesians"), but his emphasis on 
the consistent Achaean concern for Greek freedom is easy to 
see as pro-Achaean bias. Further, not everyone viewed 
Achaean policies of the 190's favorably: Philip V considered 
Aristaenus' behavior of 198 as treachery to the Hellenic 
Symmachy, while the Aetolians claimed in 195 that greed for 
territory (first Corinth, later Argos) motivated the original 
Achaean change of policy and continued close cooperation with 
Rome. This propaganda shows the bitter response that Achaean 
policy could provoke.74 

Aristaenus (not a traitor) was not guilty of suppressing 1taPP'lOla. Such an 
assertion implies that Aristaenus in 198 attempted to maintain the basic 
principles of freedom in Achaean policy. On 18.13-15 cf. supra 58f; on 
1tapP'lOUx as a traditional 'Achaean ideal cf 2.38.6, 4.34.4 with Ferrary (supra 
nA) 280 n.59. 

73 Cf. Walbank (supra n.38) 234 (very brief). 
74 Philip's accusations: Polyb. 18.6.7 (a9EOta); cf. Liv. 32.34.14 (perfidia); 

Aetolian accusations: Liv. 34.23.6 (Achaeos, Philippi quondam miliUS, ad 
postremum inclinata fortuna eius transfugas, et Corinthum recipisse et id agere 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

A. M. ECKSTEIN 69 

Thus Polybius emphasized perhaps only one part of the story 
without concealing the other-a mode of presentation consis­
tent with his historiographical principle (16.14.6) that a historian 
can show partiality for his native community so long as he does 
not contradict the facts,75 Indeed, as already argued on separate 
grounds (supra 66) the Achaeans are the probable source for the 
terminology (and hence the specific content) of the Isthmian 
Decree. For Polybius, therefore, the Achaeans deserved the 
most credit for the evolution of Flamininus' thinking during 
198-196 on Greek freedom-and probably with some 
justification. 76 

Polybius evidently reiterated the close connection between 
Achaean policy and the Isthmian slogans in events of 195-194. 

ut Argos habeant). Both sets of accusations may contain some truth, but both 
were obviously presented in politically self-serving contexts (Nicaea peace 
conference, Aetolian demands for more territorial rewards from the Romans). 
Certainly from autumn 198 on, the Achaeans wanted Corinth for themselves, 
although this prospect, missing in Aristaenus' speech in Livy, thus probably 
also did not appear in Polybius; otherwise, Livy would surely have 
emphasized the prospect of Roman generosity. On Achaea's reputation after 
198 see Eckstein (supra n.28) 146-50. 

75 On this passage see T. J. Luce, • Ancient Views on the Causes of Bias in 
Historical Writing," CP 84 (1989) 20. Polybius does not hide Achaean ter­
ritorial desires in the early 190's; on Corinth see Polyb. 18.2.5,45.12, cf. Liv. 
32.19.4. It is (again) a matter of emphasis. Also see Eckstein (supra n.28) 148ff. 

76 Possibly the constitutive charter of Macedon's Hellenic Symmachy (223) 
formally mandated the freedoms proclaimed at the Isthmia in 196 (i.e., 
eleutheria, no garrisons, no taxes, one's own laws): thus Ferrary (supra n.4) 83 
with n.135, summarizing earlier scholarship. If so, the Achaeans, who saw 
themselves as major beneficiaries of the Symmachy when it was working 
'properly', would be the obvious candidates to point out this historical model 
to Flamininus. Still, doubts remain. The Achaeans were forbidden by the 
Symmachy's formal mechanism to communicate either in writing or by envoy 
with any king except Philip without the latter's explicit permission, and were 
under certain circumstances compelled to provide supplies and pay for 
Macedonian troops (Plut. Arat. 45.1£). The Achaeans were also forbidden to 
propose any measure contrary to the Macedonian alliance (Liv. 32.22.3), and 
every year they had to swear an oath of allegience before Macedonian envoys 
without a reciprocal oath from the Macedonians (cf. 32.5.4). Although Achaea 
clearly was not forced to participate in every war of the Macedonian king (see 
supra 53 and n.29) none of this resembles eleutheria. As Aymard notes (supra 
n.29: 55), these were obligations • gravement restrictive de la souverainte 
achaienne." Cf. Liv. 32.21.36 (from Polybius): liberare 'Vos a Philippo iam diu 
magis 'Vultis quam audetis. 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

70 POL YBrUS AND THE 'FREEDOM OF THE GREEKS' 

He not only depicted Aristaenus, the Achaean strategos in 195, 
as throwing the glorious mantle of Aratus and liberation around 
Flamininus' war against Nabis of Sparta (supra 61), but apparent­
ly also displayed Achaean dissatisfaction with Flamininus for not 
pushing the policy of liberation further. Thus (to judge from 
Livy) Polybius presented the Achaeans' delight at the final 
expulsion of the Spartans from Argos in 195 (contemporary 
with the siege of Sparta), and Livy's language underlines the 
extent to which Polybius and his Achaeans viewed this event as 
a true liberation. 77 Nevertheless, the outcome of the war left the 
Achaeans in 195 disturbed: Sparta remained still «enslaved" to 
her tyrant (serva Lacedaemon relicta: Liv. 34.41.4), a threatening 
neighbor. Roman politics (it seems) determined Flamininus' 
decision: he feared being surerseded if the Spartan war dragged 
on and wanted the gloria 0 its completion, even at the cost of 
compromise.78 The next year, Flamininus' decision still dis­
turbed the Achaeans for the same reasons: id minime conveni­
ens liberanti Graeciam videbatur, tyrannum reliquisse non suae 
solum patriae gravem, sed omnibus circa civitatibus metuen­
dum, haerentem visceribus nobilissimae civitatis (34.48.5f).79 

Thus, insofar as Polybius depicted a divergence in policy 
between the Achaeans and Flamininus, the divergence (in Po­
lybius' reconstruction) largely rested on the Achaeans' greater 
devotion to the ideals of eleutheria. And this makes sense. As 
early as Book 2 Polybius asserted that the ideals of eleutheria 

n Liv. 34.41.3: Iibertatem ex wngo intervalw Iibertatisque auctores Romanos 
... 'Voce praeconis libertas est Argi'Vorum. The Argives rejoined the League-in 
the Polybian tradition a voluntary and beneficial act: Liv. 34.41.4; Eckstein 
(supra n.S1) 222-28. The Aetolians, of course, had a different view (supra 68 
and n.74). 

78 Liv. 34.33.14; cf. Pluto Flam. 13.1; Aymard (supra n.29) 229-34; Eckstein 
supra n.2) 306-08. Carawan (supra n.12: 232ff) sees partisan material hostile to 
Flamininus from an annalistic source or sources in the Livian narrative of 19S; 
but the story of Flamininus' very similar political maneuvers in late 198 for 
prorogation Livy clearly derives from Polybius (cf. 18.12.1-5). 

79 The parallel in tone and content between this passage and 34.41.4 (spe­
cifically Achaean; cf. the much harsher Aetolian condemnation of Flamininus' 
decision at Sparta in 41.4) suggests that these remarks are meant to appear as 
primarily Achaean. Carawan (supra n.12: 234 n.45) again proposes that the 
criticism of Flamininus in 194 is not Polybian but a Roman source opposed to 
Flamininus. But Flamininus' defense of his policy at Diod. 28.13 (from a 
Greek source) closely resembles his defense at Liv. 34.49.lff (cf 34,48.Sf for the 
criticism). 



ECKSTEIN, A. M., Polybius, the Achaeans, and the 'Freedom of the Greeks' , Greek, Roman and 
Byzantine Studies, 31:1 (1990:Spring) p.45 

A. M. ECKSTEIN 71 

formed the core of Achaean policy throughout the history of 
the League; it was the Achaean tradition. But as we saw at the 
outset, the Romans' concept of freedom for the Greeks 
evolved gradually and hesitantly. From the Achaean perspec­
tive-both in terms of real ideals and (of course) practical 
interests in the Peloponnese-Flamininus did not completely 
absorb the implications of the doctrine of freedom, even in 
194.80 

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND 
July, 1990 

80 P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus (and presumably his many senatorial sup­
porters) cared even less in 194 about the principles of the Isthmian declaration, 
since he wished to command a large Roman force in Greece to avert An­
tiochus Ill's potential aggression (Liv. 34.43.3ff). Scipio's position, rejected by 
the Senate, may have been politically wise: Liv. 34.43.3-7; Aymard (supra n.29) 
371 n.13, 405 (s.v. ·P. Cornelius Scipio"); cf Eckstein (supra n.2) 309, 313f£. By 
contrast, and despite differences with Flamininus, Polybius has the Achaeans 
lead the Greeks in a magnificent gesture of gratitude to Flamininus for the 
extent to which he had adopted the policy of freedom. As Roman armies 
withdrew from Greece in spring 194, all Roman prisoners of war whom the 
Carthaginians had sold into slavery in Greece were searched out and 
ransomed (Liv. 34.50.5ff): ne ipsis quidem honestum esse in liberata terra 
liberatores eius servire (34.50.3). Polybius, Livy says (34.50.5f), presented only 
the Achaean financial expenditures on this project (an impressive 100 talents), 
no one else's. Cf Pluto Flam. 13.6, only mentioning the Achaean effort. Once 
more, Polybius found a way to underline Achaean allegience to the policy of 
eleutheria. 

Completion of this paper was facilitated by a General Research Board grant 
from the University of Maryland. I wish also to thank E. S. Gruen and the 
anonymous referee, who provided helpful criticism.