"Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece " Topic

"Is there anyone on earth who is so narrow-minded or uninquisitive that he could fail to want to know how and thanks to what kind of political system almost the entire known world was conquered and brought under a single empire in less than fifty-three years?" --Polybius, Histories

The 53-year period Polybius had in mind stretched from the start of the Second Punic War in 219 BCE until 167, when Rome overthrew the Macedonian monarchy and divided the country into four independent republics. This was the crucial half-century of Rome's spectacular rise to imperial status, but Roman interest in its eastern neighbors began a little earlier, with the First Illyrian War of 229, and climaxed later with the infamous destruction of Corinth in 146.

Taken at the Flood chronicles this momentous move by Rome into the Greek east. Until now, this period of history has been overshadowed by the threat of Carthage in the west, but events in the east were no less important in themselves, and Robin Waterfield's account reveals the peculiar nature of Rome's eastern policy. For over seventy years, the Romans avoided annexation so that they could commit their military and financial resources to the fight against Carthage and elsewhere. Though ultimately a failure, this policy of indirect rule, punctuated by periodic brutal military interventions and intense diplomacy, worked well for several decades, until the Senate finally settled on more direct forms of control.

Waterfield's fast-paced narrative focuses mainly on military and diplomatic maneuvers, but throughout he interweaves other topics and themes, such as the influence of Greek culture on Rome, the Roman aristocratic ethos, and the clash between the two best fighting machines the ancient world ever produced: the Macedonian phalanx and Roman legion. The result is an absorbing account of a critical chapter in Rome's mastery of the Mediterranean."

link

See here
link

Anyone have read this book?
If the answer is yes, comments please?

Thanks in advance for your guidance.

Amicalement
Armand

A review here…

""The book under review, part of OUP's popularizing Ancient Warfare and Civilization series, aims to provide a straightforward "narrative … with commentary" of the expansion of Roman power in the East between 229 and 146,1 uncluttered by engagement "in any depth [with] the controversies that abound," and instead substituting "‘asides' on social and cultural matters, that illuminate and add depth to our understanding of the period" (x). In terms of the latter, Waterfield's book is an unqualified success, providing the novice to Roman Republican history with crucial—and fascinating—discussions of ancillary matters. Less successful, however, is Waterfield's claim to steer clear of controversy. His "commentary," as we will see, is driven by a powerful interpretative agenda which several scholars of Roman imperialism will find highly controversial—and deeply problematic.

After a brief "Prelude," the narrative proper begins with an account of the failed diplomacy of 230 that preceded the outbreak of the First Illyrian War, Rome's first military deployment to the East. This chapter also contains digressions on Roman imperial expansion down to this point and the nature of the Roman ruling aristocracy. Chapter Two narrates the Illyrian Wars of 229 and 219 and events in between, such as the Social War of 220-217, which pitted the Aetolian League and their allies against the Hellenic League under the leadership of Philip V of Macedon.

Chapter Three focuses on Philip V's entry into the Second Punic War via his treaty with Hannibal in 215, Rome's alliance with the Aetolian League, and the First Macedonian War between Rome (and its proxies) and Macedon. The chapter ends with a digression on Greek knowledge of and attitudes toward Rome down to this period. Chapters Four and Five provide an account of the Second Macedonian War (200-196) and the Roman declaration of Greek freedom. Chapters Six and Seven narrate Rome's wars with the Aetolian League (192-189) and Antiochus III of Syria (192-188), and contain digressions on Ennius and early Latin literature, and a comparison of the Macedonian phalanx with the Roman legion…"
Full review here
link

Amicalement
Armand