Wiley
Wiley.com
Print this page Share
E-book

Rome Enters the Greek East: From Anarchy to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic Mediterranean, 230-170 BC

ISBN: 978-1-118-29354-6
456 pages
January 2012, Wiley-Blackwell
Rome Enters the Greek East: From Anarchy to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic Mediterranean, 230-170 BC (1118293541) cover image
This volume examines the period from Rome's earliest involvement in the eastern Mediterranean to the establishment of Roman geopolitical dominance over all the Greek states from the Adriatic Sea to Syria by the 180s BC.
  • Applies modern political theory to ancient Mediterranean history, taking a Realist approach to its analysis of Roman involvement in the Greek Mediterranean
  • Focuses on the harsh nature of interactions among states under conditions of anarchy while examining the conduct of both Rome and Greek states during the period, and focuses on what the concepts of modern political science can tell us about ancient international relations
  • Includes detailed discussion of the crisis that convulsed the Greek world in the last decade of the third century BC
  • Provides a balanced portrait of Roman militarism and imperialism in the Hellenistic world
See More
Acknowledgments vi

List of Maps vii

Part I Rome in Contact with the Greek East, 230–205 BC 1

1 Roman Expansion and the Pressures of Anarchy 3

2 Rome and Illyria, ca. 230–217 bc 29

3 Rome, the Greek States, and Macedon, 217–205 bc 77

Part II The Power-Transition Crisis in the Greek Mediterranean, 207–200 BC 119

4 The Pact Between the Kings and the Crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean State-System, 207–200 bc 121

5 Reaction: Diplomatic Revolution in the Mediterranean, 203/202–200 bc 181

6 Diplomatic Revolution in the Mediterranean, II: The Roman Decision to Intervene, 201/200 bc 230

Part III From Hegemonic War to Hierarchy, 200–170 BC 271

7 Hegemonic War, I: Rome and Macedon, 200–196 bc 273

8 Hegemonic War, II: Rome and Antiochus the Great, 200–188 bc 306

9 Hierarchy and Unipolarity, ca. 188–170 bc 342

Bibliography 382

Index 402

See More
Arthur M. Eckstein is a specialist in the history of Roman imperialism. He has published three books, Senate and General: Individual Decision-Making and Roman Foreign Relations, 264–194 BC (1987), Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius (1995), Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War and the Rise of Rome (2006), and 50 major scholarly articles. He is also co-editing an edition of Polybius' Histories.
See More

  • Examines the period from Rome’s earliest involvement in the eastern Mediterranean to the establishment of Roman geopolitical dominance over all the Greek states

  • Applies modern political theory to ancient Mediterranean history, taking a Realist approach to its analysis of Roman involvement in the Greek Mediterranean

  • Focuses on the harsh nature of interactions among states under conditions of anarchy while examining the conduct of both Rome and Greek states during the period, and focuses on what the concepts of modern political science can tell us about ancient international relations

  • Includes detailed discussion of the crisis that convulsed the Greek world in the last decade of the third century BC

  • Provides a balanced portrait of Roman militarism and imperialism in the Hellenistic world
See More

"A strength of Eckstein’s volume is the balance of international relations theory with the detailed history of the transformation of the Hellenistic multipolar anarchy from the First Illyrian War to the period of Roman “unipolarity”. This consolidates the placement of political theory within current historiography of the interstate relations of the mid- Republic and Hellenistic world. Based on the reception of IR Realism in the various studies cited here which have engaged directly or peripherally with Eckstein’s volume, there are two major ideas for which he argues that are already working their way through the ancient historical consciousness: that fear, threat, force and violence underpin interstate discourses and were commonplace in the experiences and strategies of both primary and secondary polities; and that all polities were stakeholders in international relations, with neither Roman (or others’) ambivalence preventing their participation, nor secondary states’ comparative weakness limiting their determination to join the negotiation of conflict. We shall in future see much more scholarship based upon these two central arguments."   (Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 7 May 2013)

 

See More
Back to Top