After the end of Hannibal's War, the people were very tired. Italy's countryside has been devastated, its economy has collapsed, its public finances are running deficits, and hundreds of thousands of its citizens and allies have lost their lives during the 18-year war. The fruits of victory have always been sweet, but this time they were quite bitter. There were no deadly enemies in sight at the moment, and only this time, the Romans felt that they had been on the battlefield too many times. Everyone expects a period of peace and quiet, some rest and well-being.
However, within a year or two of the Battle of Zama, the Senate planned to fight another important new war. When the issue was raised, the Citizens' Assembly rejected such an adventure, but when they were asked to discuss it again, they reluctantly agreed. How is this achieved? The Republic is not yet ready to be a great nation. As the successor to Carthage, it now controlled the islands of the western Mediterranean and most of Spain, but it had no other territorial ambitions. Old adversaries were allowed to take care of their own affairs in North Africa, but were not allowed to act independently at home or abroad without the consent of the Senate.
Italy, although not including the Celts in the Valley of the Po River, was already quite accustomed to Roman discipline, and after the defeat of Pyrrhus and Hannibal, the Roman legions proved invincible. Rome, having taken control of half the known world, had become a superpower, but it did not yet fully understand what that meant. By contrast, for many of Rome's citizens, the Eastern Mediterranean was an unknown place. Of course, the merchants were already in business, and occasionally envoys would travel long distances to Delphi to inquire about the future. In the 3rd century, the Senate made contact with Egypt and forged friendly but distant diplomatic relations, but apart from that, Rome had little direct experience with the Greek political world, and was rarely interested in knowing more. However, this is about to change.
Rome is now more open to foreign cultures, especially Greece, than before. This may seem to some to be in danger of poisoning and decaying, but for others it is an irresistible means of civilizing a remote people. Is the Republic to lock in its new power and live in an old, comfortable, but closed state of mind? Does the outer world allow it to be like this? Political and military pleas for help, which came across the known world, began to pour into Rome. When Cato Sr. and other apologists insist that these things must be rejected, they are fighting against human nature. If a country has power but refuses to use it, it may only create a vacuum, and other malicious attempts will take advantage of it.
Does the Republic welcome the prospect of empire-building and the spread of civilization? If so, the traditional path of development will have to find ways to adjust to the new situation. Figures such as Scipio the Great foresaw a Hellenistic Rome, ready to embrace cultural diversity, to govern the Mediterranean and to implement relentless homogenization. This is, of course, a utopian vision. The imperialists will comfort themselves with their goodwill and benevolence, but it is their nature to invade and conquer, to make decisions from afar, and to believe that the identification of the inhabitants of the provinces with foreign domination will be willing, not purely a rational response to the oppression of force.
Cato the Elder and Scipio represent two different reactions to Rome's military success. The former inherited the indigenous, negative stance of "delayer" Fabian Maximus, whom Cato the Elder was a fan: Cato Sr. was a narrow nationalist with no ambitions for a broader empire. Although he knew Greek and Greek literature very well, he did not want to have any entanglement with Greek culture and the East, and it was enough to expel Hannibal from Italy. By contrast, Scipio was a natural expansionist. These two men embody the dilemmas faced by the Roman Republic: tradition and innovation, patriarchal law and Greek culture, patriotism and internationalism, blind superstition and mysticism, strict exclusion and tolerance, self-restraint and extravagance.
Which direction will Rome choose? Cato the Elder and his principles had many supporters, but Scipio, because he inherited rome's imperial destiny, saw a long road to the future. A century has passed since the death of Alexander the Great, and his Eastern Empire has split into three major chunks: the Kingdom of Macedonia, the Kingdom of Syria, and the Kingdom of Egypt, which compete with each other to form an uneasy balance of power. In addition to them were some smaller fragments, including the trading island of Rhodes and the well-to-do and wealthy Kingdom of Pergamum in Asia Minor.
Greece's small city-states, long since lost their international importance and had to reluctantly live in the frightening shadow of Macedonia, controlled Greece by stationing troops at the three strategic strongholds of Corinth, Calkis, and Demetrias (named the "Greek yoke"). Some of these city-states were united, the most important of which were the Aetolian Confederation in northern Greece and the Achaean Confederation in the Peloponnese, while Athens continued to survive in the glory of the past and had degenerated into a center of study and study on antiquity, especially on philosophy.
Pyrrhus' intervention brought an unpleasant beginning to the greek world, but as already mentioned, Rome's first military campaign on Greek soil was against Illyria, a semi-Hellenistic pirate kingdom on the coast of Dalmatians. The Romans expanded further south into present-day Albania in the middle of the 3rd century. There is no doubt that the Illyrians were wary of the Latin colony established by Rome in 244 BC on the opposite side of Brudissim, one of the best seaports on the eastern coast of the Italian peninsula. During the Second Punic War, Roman envoys were murdered by Illyrian pirates, prompting the Senate to authorize a thorough intervention in these pirate states.
This angered King Philip V of Macedon. He is an unscrupulous, impulsive ruler with some dark humor. He opposed the Roman invasion of what he considered his sphere of influence. The Battle of Canny led him to mistakenly believe that Hannibal would be the victorious party, so he signed a mutual aid treaty with Hannibal. Aside from intermittent wars on the Greek mainland, the treaty did not produce much fruit. It was not until 205 BC, when Scipio the Great was about to invade North Africa, that the king understood that he had misjudged the situation and negotiated peace. He was in a position of military superiority at the time. The Romans usually discussed the terms when they were the winners, but in this case they were too weak to deal with Philippe, so they agreed to sign.
Nevertheless, the Romans had an outstanding account for Macedonia. Philip was always seeking improper benefits. When a six-year-old boy succeeded to the Ptolemaic throne, he saw it as an opportunity to plunder Egypt's overseas assets. Perhaps the author of the Biblical Book of Ecclesiastes of the same period said in a targeted manner: "O kingdom, if your king is a child, and your courtiers feast in the morning, you will be in trouble!" "In the winter of 203-202 BC, the King of Macedon reconciled with his king's partner and rival in the Greek world, the Antiochian King of Syria, whereby they would share in the spoils of war taken from the Ptolemaic dynasty.
Syria marched south, while Philip attacked the city-states in the Bosphorus region that had not offended him, annexed the Cyclades, and occupied Samos. The Kingdom of Pergamum and Rhodes were furious, and soon after the Macedonian king attacked them. This undeclared aggression further infuriates these victims, but what can they do? Macedonia and Syria are already in cahoots, and Egypt can do nothing about it. If Rome had not now become a new factor in geopolitics, Philip would have been able to do whatever he wanted and not be held accountable for his crimes.
The Kingdom of Pergamum filed a lawsuit with Rhodes for assistance from the Roman Republic. The Senate intended to send an expeditionary force at once, but the Citizens' Assembly objected and stopped its actions. In fact, Philip had no misconduct with Rome, and none of the countries that complained, demanded, or wished to intervene were official allies of Rome. If the relevant declaration of war laws are to be obeyed, war can only be declared when defending the Republic or an alliance with Rome. So in 200 B.C., the Senate gave Philip an ultimatum, which was so harsh that he was bound to refuse. The king refused as expected. During a heated dialogue, a senior senatorial envoy rebuked him for his aggression, to which the king responded that if war did occur, his fellow Macedonians would perform well.
The envoy concluded the discussion and made a negative report to the Roman Senate. The Senate decided to teach Philip a lesson. When the issue was brought up for the second time at the Citizens' Assembly, the Citizens' Assembly finally gave in and agreed to declare war. The sequence of events is clear, but the debates that the Senate can use to explain its motives have not survived. So we have to guess. Some see this as a naked manifestation of imperialism, but it is difficult to justify the commitment of the ruling elite to territorial expansion in this direction. It did not annex Carthaginian lands in North Africa, and it is currently left to rest on its hands against the reluctant Spaniards and the turbulent Gauls of northern Italy. Like the other Romans, the senators were reluctant to go to war.
Others say the Senate is full of idealists who want to liberate Greece from macedonian dictators and that it is willing to serve as the "policeman" of the known world for free. Of course some nobles, such as Scipio the Great, were intoxicated with Greek culture, but they did not have a special preference for contemporary Greeks, but only for the benefit of Rome. In the process of gradually sliding into conflict, we should not rule out the influence of miscalculation. Neither side knew much about each other, Rome may have exaggerated the threat posed by Macedonia, and Philip did not take seriously the senate's interference in his internal affairs until it was too late.
epilogue
Of all the possibilities, there is one main justification for the outbreak of hostilities and two secondary background motives. The Senate took a long-term view, based on preventing any hostile forces from gaining strength in the Eastern Mediterranean, repeating what Carthage had done in the West. The military relationship between Macedonia and Syria may only target Egypt for now, but it is easy to imagine that Rome will become a major target in the future. When the opportunity arises, the smartest thing to do is to weaken Macedonia's power.