Nevertheless, it's clear that there was some sort of diplomatic exchange, that the Spartans were unwilling to bow Plut. Mor. 219F notes Spartan defiance, "When Philip invaded the Peloponnesus" and 218F4 is clear that was a Spartan "war against Philip." 10/25
-
-
That Polybius isn't just blowing smoke seems confirmed by Tacitus, who notes that this very land seizure came up as a legal issue before the Roman Emperor Tiberius (Tac. Ann. 43). 21/25
Näytä tämä ketju -
Tacitus notes a dispute "upon the legal ownership of the Temple of Diana Limnatis" which "had been wrested from [the Spartans], however, by the Macedonian arms during their war with Philip and had been returned later by the decision of Julius Caesar and Mark Antony." 22/25
Näytä tämä ketju -
Once again, that the Philip meant is Philip II is made clear by Tacitus' brief legal history of the case, which notes judgements in favor of the Messenians by Antigonus Doson (r. 229-221) and the Roman L. Mummius (cos 146), so the Philip must be II, not V. 23/25
Näytä tämä ketju -
So what can we conclude? Well, there was a well established tradition that Sparta had defied Philip, that Philip had marched against them in arms, and that the result of that march had been that Sparta lost important territory on its borders. 24/25
Näytä tämä ketju -
Which is why I responded to Pressfield treating the Laconic 'if' as a mic-drop moment like this: https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1346686713838653440 … (end/25)
Näytä tämä ketju -
Oh, as a quick addendum, Tiberius decided the land dispute in favor of the Messenians, on the grounds that the decisions in their favor were long-standing, dating back to Philip II and had been repeatedly confirmed by both Macedonian and Roman authorities.
Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.