Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
And while there is more than one Demosthenes, in this case it is clear that the Athenian orator and politician (384-322) is meant, meaning that the Philip in the passage must be Philip II, not V. 20/25
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
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
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
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
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)
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.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
