663330

Achaean Foreign Affairs

between 251- 222 BCE: The

influence of Aratus of Sikyon

on the Achaean League and her

foreign affairs.

Student Number: 663330.

Date: 05/05/201

Word count: 9927.

Module: CLD3000: Classic, Ancient History and Egyptology Dissertation.

Tutor: Maria Pretzler.

Submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of BA

Ancient History and History.

1 | P a g e

663330

Content.

- List over figures.

3.

- Introduction: The Early League, the Situation in 251 BCE, introduction to

Aratus. 4.

- Chapter one: The liberation of Sicyon, Anti- Macedonian actions, friendship

with Ptolemy and the Rise of the Achaean League.

8.

- Chapter two: The Achaean League during the reign of Demetrius II,

alliance with Aetolia, attacks on tyrants in the Peloponnese (Argos and

Megalopolis). 17.

- Chapter three: The Spartan Reformation, the Cleomenic War, alliance with

Macedon and the final break with Aetolia.

25.

- Conclusion: Summary of relations with Macedon, Aetolia, Sparta and

Egypt, the influence of Aratus on Achaean and Greek politics.

35.

- Illustrations and Bibliography.

39.

2 | P a g e

663330

List over Figures.

- Figure 1: The Eastern Mediterranean in 255.

5.

- Figures 2: The Location of Sikyon in Greece.

8.

- Figure 3: The Different Regions in the Peloponnese.

9.

- Figure 4: The Akrokorinth. 13.

- Figure 5: Location of Arcadia and Achaea proper in the Peloponnese.

22.

- Figure 6: The Standing in the Cleomenic War.

30.

- Figure 7: Southern Peloponnese.

32.

- Figure 8: Map over the highlights of Aratus career.

35.3 | P a g e

663330

Introduction: The Early league and its political system, the Situation in

Greece in 251, introduction to Aratus.

4 | P a g e

663330

In 251 BCE the situation in Greece was complex, due to the rivalry

between the Ptolemies and Antigonids for the domination over Greece. The

Achaeans had in 281 BCE broken out of the realm of the Macedonians and

refunded the Achaean League. The original league had split up sometime

towards the end of the 4th century BCE; according to Polybius this was because of

internal arguments between the members of the original Achaean League.

Polybius also wrote about the glorious past the Achaean League; however this

history is most likely exaggerated.1 How far back the history of the League goes

is hard to tell, since previous historians such as Herodotus, Thucydides and

Xenophon hardly mentioned the Achaeans as a great player in the periods they

covered. Herodotus mentioned the twelve districts of the Achaeans, whilst

Thucydides mentioned that the Achaeans stayed neutral during the beginning of

the Peloponnesian War.2 After the re-foundation in 281 BCE; the League soon

came to expand all over Achaea proper. Early on the political system of the

League consisted of two generals serving on the basis of rotation. However in

255 BCE this system changed to one general, with Margus of Ceryneia as the

first general. Most likely the Leagues government consisted of two chambers;

one primary assembly and one council, with Aegium as the capital. The new

system was a system where a new general was elected annually, serving for one

year at the time. However a detailed account of the system of government of the

Achaean League does not survive, mostly because Polybius hardly wrote about

the Achaean system, probably since he was Achaean himself and familiar with

the political system.

1 Polybius 2.41-42.2 Herodotus 1.145, Thucydides 2.9.

5 | P a g e

663330

In 251 BCE Greece, found herself in a situation where several different

players fought for domination of mainland Greece and the Aegean. The biggest

and most powerful of these were the great Hellenistic monarchies in the

Ptolemaic Kingdom in Egypt and the Antigonid Dynasty in Macedonia, however

the situation in the period 251- 222 BCE saw several other players who would

play major roles in Greece; the Achaean League, The Aetolian League and Sparta

as the most important of these

players. Macedonia had garrisons

and tyrants working as agents

for them all across the Greek

mainland and the Aegean, and

would spend the greater part of

this period trying to defend the

position and power of Macedonia

in Greece, among the most

important of these agents were

Argos and Megalopolis. However

in 249 BCE the Macedonian king Antigonus Gonatas lost both Korinth and Euboea

to Alexander, the tyrant who had governed these lands for Gonatas.3 The

Ptolemaic influence in the Aegean had been reduced due the naval battle of Cos

in 258 BCE, however around 250 BCE the Egyptians had begun a counter-

offensive against Antigonid dominance in the Aegean.4 Whilst the Aetolians were

an expanding power located north of the gulf of Korinth, a people who

traditionally had been associated with pirating and plundering. This due to

Aetolia being a tribal society rather than a city-state society compared too much 3 This new kingdom immediately felt the changes in the political system around the Isthmus and soon found itself under attack from the expanding Achaeans. 4 Three pieces of evidence suggested an Ptolemaic comeback in the Aegean; the founding of the Ptolemaieia festival on Delos in 249, the rebellion of Alexander in Korinth and Euboea and Ptolemies order to deploy naval forces in the Aegean in 249BCE. N Hammond, F Walbank A History of Macedonia 295.

6 | P a g e

Figure 1 The Eastern Mediterranean in 255 BCE.

663330

of the rest of Greece.5 However at this point the Aetolians had become one of the

most powerful federal states in all of Greece, an expanding power that had

influence reaching far out of Aetolia itself. The influence of the Aetolians reached

down into the Peloponnese through Elis and Messene, at the same time the

Aetolians were the dominant power in central Greece, second only to Macedon.

Sparta and the cities-states however were still down after the defeat in the

Chremonidiean War, a war which had raged through most of the 260s BCE. This

war confirmed the Macedonian hegemony over the Greek cities, and as a result

Athens herself had now a Macedonian garrison within her territory. Sparta as well

had fallen in this war, however by the mid-240s reforms were in the air in Sparta

with the young king Agis IV and his ambitions to restore Sparta to her former

glory. During the period between 251- 222 BCE the Achaeans would be allies with

the Aetolians, Spartans and the Macedonians, however in the same period they

would also be the enemy of Sparta, Aetolia and Macedonia.

5 The description of Aetolians as a backward society could be related to the fact that most historians and writers in the period came from city-states, rather than tribal communities such as Aetolia. The description of Aetolians rumour as pirates in various ancient writers works; Thucydides 1.5-6, Polybius 4.3.

7 | P a g e

663330

The main sources for the Achaean affairs in the period between 251- 222

BCE are Polybius The Histories and Plutarchs Life of Aratus, however Polybius

only covers the Cleomenic War (229- 222 BCE) in details.6 Whilst Plutarch covers

much of the events in greater detail than Polybius, Plutarch also placed more

focus on the moral of the events. Neither Polybius nor Plutarch were

contemporary historians of the events described in these works, however

Polybius is the closest to contemporary material of the period surviving. Polybius

did however grow up only a few generations after the events of 251- 222 BCE

and would have been able to speak to people who had observed the events

themselves. However whilst using Polybius as an historical source its important

to be aware of Polybiuss strong anti-Aetolian bias, as well as Polybius praise of

the affairs of the Achaeans and Aratus, and a strong bias against all of the

enemies of the Achaeans. Whilst Plutarch several centuries later wrote a

biography and not an historical work, however Plutarchs biographies contains

much of the same material as a traditional historical work, but were still not the

same as the work of an historian. Plutarch wrote his work to educate and teach

the reader morals through the study of people under diverse circumstances,

rather than to examine the true course of events.7 Both Plutarch and Polybius

probably used the same sources for their works: Aratuss Memories and the

Spartan historian Phylarchuss Histories. Both of these sources would have been

strongly loyal to their own states, and strongly against the other side.

This dissertation will put its focus on the many shifting friends and allies of

the Achaean League in the period between 251- 222 BCE. I will especially focus

on the role of Aratus of Sikyon and his impact on the foreign affairs of the

Achaean League. Aratus was able to hold the position of general biannually for 6 These two sources might provide the main evidence for the period, however Plutarchs Life of Cleomenes, Life of Agis, Life of Philopoemen, Polyaenus Strategems of War, Justin Epitome of the Philippic of Pompeius Trogus also provides much evidence for Achaean activities in the period. 7 P.A Stadter A commentary on Plutarchs Pericles xxiv.

8 | P a g e

663330

most of the period, thus being able to implement his policies on the League more

than any other general of the Achaeans. The main focus will be on the Achaean

affairs concerning the Macedonians, Spartans and Aetolians, and the influence of

Aratus on these affairs. In the second chapter Macedon will mainly be

represented through her agents in Argos and Megalopolis. By the end of the

dissertation I would have described how influential Aratus was on the history and

politics of the Achaean League in the period 251- 222 BCE, even when other

generals such as Lydiades of Megalopolis and Aristomachus of Argus were in

office.

Chapter one: The liberation of Sicyon, Anti- Macedonian actions,

friendship with Ptolemy and the Rise of the League.

9 | P a g e

663330

For the city state Sikyon the year 251 BCE would be quite turbulent, first

one tyrant was replaced by another, only four months later the young exile

aristocrat Aratus liberated the city. Then Aratus would bring Sikyon in under the

wings of the Achaean League, effectively breaking the traditional ethnic borders

in the Peloponnese. This Aratus accomplished with the help of Sikyonian exiles,

whom Aratus reinstated as

citizens of Sikyon. Aratus did

this in such a peaceful fashion

that approximately two

centuries later Cicero honoured

Aratus in De Officiis.8 Aratus did

this by convincing the people of

Sikyon to await the land

distribution question, until

Aratus got back from Egypt,

where he travelled to seek the

support of Ptolemy II Philadelphus.9

Plutarch however criticised Aratus

for his lack of skills as an orator,

however this just meant that Aratus

lacked the refinements and the traditional gestures of an orator which where

appreciated during the lifetime of Plutarch.10 However no questions can be asked

about Aratuss ability to mobilise the people, which was illustrated in his ability

to keep the peace whilst in Egypt, as well as the number of times Aratus was

elected general of the Achaean League. Aratuss coup in Sikyon could among the

8 Cicero De Officiis 2.81-83.9 Meaning to distribute the lands of present landowners and previous exiled landowners in the Sikyon. 10 Plutarch Life of Aratus 10.2-4, F Walbank Aratos of Sicyon 31.

10 | P a g e

Figure 2 Location of Sikyon in Greece.

Figure 3 The Traditional Districts of the Peloponnese.

663330

citizens of Sikyon easily have been regarded as an attempt for Aratus to make

himself the tyrant of Sikyon, due to Aratus taking the city by force. However the

recall of the exiles, redistribution of the property of the tyrants, destruction of the

monuments in honour of the tyrants and attacks on other Peloponnesian tyrants

as well as Aratus own ideas of himself as an enemy of tyrants suggests

otherwise. Several ancient authors discussed the events surrounding Aratus

liberation of Sikyon and the attachment of Sikyon to the Achaean League.

Plutarch claimed that the reason for Aratus to attach Sikyon to the Achaean

League was because of the fear of attacks from outside powers such as

Macedon, as well as internal disputes. Whilst Polybius claimed that Aratus

wanted the Sikyonians to join the league with the desire to use the league as an

instrument for the liberation of other cities from tyrants and Macedonian

garrisons.11 Both of these motives seems likely; the League was a source of

security for Sikyon and the League was used by Aratus as an instrument for the

liberation of others, illustrated in Aratus later ambitions and campaigns to

liberate states such as Korinth, Athens, Argos and Megalopolis.12 This unification

of Achaea and Sikyon would change Greek politics for the next few decades, due

to Sikyon being a Dorian city which joined the Achaean League, leading to a

break of the traditional tribal affiliations in the Peloponnese: now longer was

Achaea purely an ethnos but also a political unity consisting of more than one

ethnos. This effectively transformed the Achaean League from a small ethnic

association to a strong and powerful federal state, however yet not a mature

power. This again led to the expansion of the League, as well as Aratus as a

major figure in Greek politics. However it would take the Greek community years

to realise the importance of this change in the political landscape.11 Strabo called Aratus both a tyrant and liberator, Geography of Greece 8.382, the recall of the exiles: Plutarch Life of Aratus 9.4-5, 12.1, 13.6, 14, Pausanias Description of Greece 2.8, Cicero De Officiis 2.81-2.83, the entry into the Achaean League Plutarch Life of Aratus 9.5-6, Polybius The Histories 2.43, Pausanias 2.8 For reasons to attach Sikyon toAchaean see Polybius 2.43, Plutarch Life of Aratus 9.3-4.12 A. Griffin Sikyon 81.

11 | P a g e

663330

The liberation of Sicyon was done without the support of either Antigonus

II Gonatas or Philadelphus, who both had been friends of Aratus father, Cleinias,

whilst most of the exiles which had helped Aratus were hostile towards the

Macedonians.13 Neither Philadelphus nor Gonatas had done anything to stop the

murder on Aratus father, evidence also suggests that the Macedonians were

friends with the Sikyonian tyrants, indicating Macedonian support towards the

tyrants of Sikyon. For Macedonia it would have been more profitable to have

tyrants loyal to Macedon installed in Sikyon than Cleinias due to his neutral

status in the rivalry for the domination of Greece by Egypt and Macedon.

According to Plutarch, the reason for neither Gonatas nor Philadelphus

supporting Aratus was that Gonatas neglected his promises to help, whilst the

Egyptians were too far away.14 However Philadelphus would begin to financially

support the Sikyonians and Achaeans by the request of Aratus, whilst Aratus

would send paintings from Sikyon to Egypt.15 The funds from Egypt would keep

coming until the Cleomenic War, due to the strategic importance for Egypt with a

powerful ally in the Peloponnese. On the way to Egypt Aratus stranded on Adria,

a place which was friendly towards the Macedonians, however Aratus escaped

and came into good luck with the help of a Roman ship.16 Needless to say Aratus

was honoured when returning with the money from the Egyptian king, due to the

efforts of Aratus the Sikyonians erected a bronze statue of Aratus, which

according to Plutarch contained this inscription:

The counsels, valorous deeds, and prowess in behalf of Hellas, which this man

displayed, are known as far as the Pillars of Heracles; but we who achieved our

13 Which again would help explain the hostile attitude towards Macedon from Achaea over the next few decades.14 Plutarch Life of Aratus 4.3.15 Mainly works by the painters Melantus and Pamphilus, Sikyonian painting was according to Plutarch well reputed in the Ancient world. Plutarch Life of Aratus 12-13.16 It should be mentioned that this part of the text probably is corrupt, and both Hydrea, outside the North East coast of the Peloponnese or Andros, South East of Euboea has been mentioned as possible sites of these events. Plutarch Life of Aratus 12.2.

12 | P a g e

663330

return through thee, Aratus, for thy virtue and justice have erected to the

Saviour Gods this statue of our saviour, because to thy native city thou hast

brought and sacred and heavenly reign of law.17

By attaching the Sikyonians to the Achaeans, Aratus had in theory made them

an enemy of Macedon, due to an alliance between Alexander tyrant of Korinth

and Euboea, and the Achaeans.18 However after the liberation of Sikyon and by

the attachment to the Achaeans, followed by Aratuss journey to Egypt, Gonatas

began to make efforts to turn Aratus away from the Egyptians and instead join

the Macedonians. This desire to bring Aratus and the Achaeans over the

Macedonian side of influence was illustrated by Gonatas inviting Aratus to

Korinth.19 In Korinth Gonatas made a sacrifice allegedly in honour of Aratus,

followed by a banquet where Gonatas according to Plutarch held a speech for

everyone to hear, claiming that Aratus now had joined the Macedonian side, due

to Aratus had seen Egypt for the house of cards Gonatas claimed Egypt was.20

Following this Gonatas asked for Aratus to be viewed as a friend of the

Macedonians, however this was likely to be a trick for Egypt to assume that

Aratus had left the Egyptians for the Macedonians. But to Aratus the alliance with

Egypt was a major political victory, and later politics by Aratus indicated no

friendly ties to Macedon until the Cleomenic War of the 220s BCE.

17 Plutarch Life of Aratus 14.2.18 As pointed out in introduction events in previous years had seen Alexander of Korinth breaking out of the realm of Gonatas to found his own kingdom in Korinth and Euboea with the support of Ptolemaic Egypt. After this Alexander had allied himself with the Achaeans, the events of breaking Korinth away from Gonatas had naturally made Alexander and his allies an enemy of the Antigonid dynasty in Macedon. Neither would it help on Antigonid-Achaean relations at the time that the Egyptians and the Achaeans were allies.19 Korinth had once again fallen under Macedonian influence after the death of Alexander, this had been done during the wedding of Demetrius, Gonatas son, and Alexanders widow Nicaea by occupying the Akrokorinth whilst the guards were busy celebrating the wedding. Polyaenus Strategems of War 6.1.20 Walbank suggested that this playing-act and painted scenery referred to the recoveryof Seleucus in 245. F Walbank Aratus of Sikyon 43.

13 | P a g e

663330

During these early years after attaching Sikyon to the Achaean League

Aratus had still been too young to serve as general of the Achaeans. However

Aratus had served in the cavalry of the League like any ordinary Achaean man,

even after the contribution Aratus made to the League by attaching Sikyon to the

Achaeans. In 245 BCE however Aratus served his first period as general of the

Achaeans, in the same year when Gonatas had attempted to turn the Achaeans

from Egypt towards the Macedonian influence, with the intentions of restoring

the Macedonian influence in Greece. However the alliance and financial support

from the Ptolemies was a great personal victory for Aratus, as well as a profitable

one for the League, since this gave them little reason to return to Macedonian

dominance. When compared to previous dominant Greek statesmen such as

Pericles in Athens, Aratus proved to be an even more dominating politician:

Pericles grip on the Athenians had weakened after the First Peloponnesian war,

whilst Aratus stayed popular among the Achaeans even after both the Cleomenic

War and Social War, indicating an ability to ride of political storms21

When Gonatas could not convince the Achaeans to come over to the

Macedonian side, Gonatas accepted Aetolian troops on the Isthmus, and let them

cross over to the Peloponnese when they wanted to. A deal existed between the

Macedonians and Aetolians saying that the Aetolian League was allowed to

expand in every direction, as long as the Aetolians kept neutral towards the

Macedonians.22 Needless to say this situation placed the Achaeans in a weaker

and more defensive situation than previously necessary, this because of factors

such as a Macedonian friendly Korinth as well as Aetolian access to the

Peloponnese over land. Neither did it help for the Macedonians that Aratus had

21 F Walbank Aratos of Sicyon 43.22 The Aetolians where an historical rival of the Achaeans, and the other major federation in Greece during the Hellenistic period. However the Aetolians as a federal state can be traced back further then the Achaeans and had a rumour of being pirates dating back centuries. For descriptions of the Aetolians see Thucydides the Peloponnesian War 1.5- 1.6, Polybius 4.3.

14 | P a g e

663330

set his mind to liberate the Peloponnese from tyrants and Macedonian garrisons.

However during Aratus first period as general the main focus seems to have

been on the Gulf of Korinth and Central Greece, this was illustrated by the raids

made by Aratus on Locris and Calydonia. This period could also easily have been

Aratuss last period as general; this due to Aratus decision to bring the whole

Achaean army to Boeotia to fight the Aetolians during the Boeotian-Aetolian War.

However the Achaeans would arrive too late for the battle, but because of the

Achaean support for the Boeotians the Achaean had made themselves an enemy

of the Aetolians. If Aratus and his troops had arrived in time for the battle and

been a part of the crushing defeat of the Boeotians, this could effectively have

ended Aratus political career after only one term.

During the second term of Aratus in 243 BCE, it became clear that the

next enterprise Aratus wished to undertake was a liberation of Korinth from

Macedonian hands, which would be the last break with Macedon until the

Cleomenic War. This however was neither in the direct interest of the Achaeans

nor the Sikyonians, but according to Plutarch done in the interest of all of Greece,

to liberate the Korinthians

from the subjugation of the

Macedonians which held all of

Greece prisoners.23 Just

like the liberation of Sikyon,

the liberation of Korinth

was a surprise attack done

by Aratus and the next

central step in the

expansion of the League.

23 Plutarch Life of Aratus 16.2.15 | P a g e

Figure 4 The Akrokorinth, seen from the Agora of Ancient Korinth.

663330

The liberation of Korinth was by Aratus in his Memories called the sister battle of

Marathon, whilst Plutarch referred to Aratus success at Korinth as the last great

achievement of the Greeks.24 This attack happened during peacetime, and thus

against the accepted Greek international law of the time, with a small force of

about 400 men Aratus was able to secure both the city of Korinth and the

Akrokorinth. Of these 400 men Aratus went ahead with 100, and attacked the

Akrokorinth up the steepest side, while the 300 left to secured the city itself. The

morning after the attack the rest of the Achaean troops arrived, whilst Aratus

himself gave keys of the city back to the Korinthians for the first time since the

days of Philip II.25 However the Achaeans still garrisoned the Akrokorinth and the

Korinthians were convinced to join the Achaean League.

The after effects of the liberation of the Akrokorinth brought both

advantages and disadvantages to the League. One of the major effects was the

expansion of the Achaean League illustrated by Megara, Troezen and Epidaurus

joining the League, thus expanding the League towards the borders of Attica.

This again gave Aratus ambitions to liberate the Athenians from the Macedonian

garrisons located in Attica, and in 242 BCE Aratus invaded Attica and plundered

Salamis.26 The liberation of Korinth was also followed by stronger relations to

Ptolemy III Euergetes, as Euergetes got appointed the ceremonial Hegemon of

the Achaean League. This illustrated that Aratus was thinking in the lines of

traditional Hellenistic statecraft, and saw the importance of having one of the

great Hellenistic kings for support.27 However the liberation of Korinth naturally 24 For preparations and battle see Plutarch Life of Aratus 18.1- 23.4, For short account of battle see Polybius 2.43, Strabo 8.26, Pausanias 7.8.25 J.A.O Larsen Greek Federal States 307.26 This can be said to be consequence due to the newly shared border between Attica and the Achaean League, however due to the ancient reputation of Athens this was most likely one of the bigger ambitions of Aratus to begin with. However all of these early attempts of invasion of Attica failed and until 229 BCE Athens would remain under Macedonian control Plutarch Life of Aratus 24.327 In the Hellenistic world it was important to have the backup of one of the Great Kings of the Hellenistic period: Egypt, Macedonia, the Seleucid Empire and Pergamum where allgreat Hellenistic kingdoms of the time. This was especially important for Greek states

16 | P a g e

663330

also meant that the Achaeans and Macedonians would enter a stage of war. The

Macedonians went into a military alliance with the Aetolians, according to

Polybius this alliance aimed to divide Achaea between Macedon and Aetolia, and

much like Epirus and Aetolia had done with the Acarnanian federal state.28 Aratus

and the Achaeans on the other found their alliance with the reformist king Agis IV

of Sparta. The Aetolians were assumed to attack the Achaeans by crossing the

Isthmus at Megara, and when word of this reached Sparta, Agis gathered an

impressive force and crossed the Peloponnese to assist his allies. However, when

reaching the Isthmus Agis was turned away by Aratus, virtually ending the career

of Agis. There is no question that Aratus and the Achaeans would have been

aware of the reformist movement in Sparta but did not pay attentions to the

events in Sparta at the time, and rather had focused on the Korinthians,

Aetolians and Macedonians. However when Agis was able to raise such an

impressive force, in such a short time it became clear that an alliance with a

reformed Sparta could be dangerous. This would again explain why Aratus chose

to send the Spartans away, when the Spartans arrived at Korinth.29 When Aratus

sent the Spartans away it did not only mean the end of the Spartan-Achaean

alliance, but also the end of the reign of Agis.30 The reasons behind the alliance

between the Achaeans and Spartans to begin with was protection. In Sparta the which were in the middle of the rivalry of the Aegean by the Ptolemies and Antigonids. Other examples of Hellenistic kingdoms sponsoring states in Greece includes Pergamum support towards the Athenian. 28 Polybius 2.43.29 The reason for this would be the fear of a powerful Sparta, to rivalries Aratus ambitionsin the Peloponnese, indicated by the powerful army assembled by Agis and their impressive march through the Peloponnese. For description of events see: Plutarch Life ofAratus 31.2- 32.3 , Life of Agis 13.5-15, For the role of the Priestess of Athena see Polyaenus Strategems of War 8.59.30 Two different version of the death of Agis excites, Pausanias wrote about a battle with the Achaeans, Sikyonians, Mantineans and Meglopolitans against Agis and the Spartans. Indicating an impossible alliance between Aratus and the tyrant of Megalopolis (loyal to Macedon) and Mantinea. For this battle see Pausanias 8.10 However this battle is likely tonever have happened, since Agis was executed in Sparta and the first king to be sentenced to death by the ephors in Sparta. According to Plutarch one of Agiss officers saw one of his officers shredding a tear for him and said: My man, cease weeping; for even though I am put to death in this lawless manner, I have the better of my murders after saying this Agis offered his neck and noose to the executioner. For trial and execution of Agis see Plutarch Life of Agis 19.2- 20.1, Sayings of Spartans 7.1.

17 | P a g e

663330

reformist movement of Agis need a strong ally against rival tyrants, and

opposition against the other Spartan King Leonidas, whilst Aratus and the

Achaeans needed protection against possible Macedonian-Aetolian attacks.

Aratus then let the Aetolians attack Pellene, the most eastern city of

Achaea proper, before launching his own attack on the Aetolian troops inside

Pellene.31 When the Achaeans defeated the Aetolians at Pellene, the Aetolians

suffered heavy losses, according to Plutarch as many as seven hundred Aetolians

died in the Achaean attack on the city. This loss was heavy enough for the

Achaeans and Aetolians to negotiate peace, and also enough to scare Gonatas

into joining the peace. Shortly after in the winter of 240/239 BCE the old

Macedonian king died, leaving the throne to his son Demetrius II. The period 251-

239 BCE had seen major changes in the landscape of Greek politics, at the

beginning of the period Gonatas had friendly tyrants located in Megalopolis and

Argos, as well as an understanding with the Spartans and Aetolians. Change had

been adopted to Greek politics by the Achaeans accepting the membership of

Sikyon, creating a new powerful state in Greece. The liberation of Korinth had

effectively weakened the Macedonian dominance in Greece by cutting Macedon

off from their agents tyrants in Megalopolis and Argos, neither had the

Achaean-Ptolemaic alliance or the reformist movement in Sparta helped the

Macedonian dominance. The events surrounding the policies of the Achaeans

were so strongly influenced, by Aratus that as Walbank argued it is fair to say

that, Aratus was the League.32 This was something which helped Aratus to grow

more and more ambitious, and Aratus would treat the peace with Macedon as a

reason to continue the politics of raids as illustrated with the raid on Salamis in

31 The reason for sacrificing Pellene has been discussed among historians, Tarn believed that Pellene had been sacrificed as a bait, so the Achaeans could surprise the Aetolians ofguard. This was a common manoeuvre in Ancient Warfare, and was discussed by Aeneas Tacticus (16.5-8), however as Walbank argued it was more likely that the Aetolians were allowed into the Peloponnese and Pellene to get rid of Agis and the Spartans. 32 F. Walbank Aratos of Sikyon 55.

18 | P a g e

663330

242 BCE. After liberating Korinth, raiding Salamis and attempting to liberate

Athens the focus of Aratus changed towards the Peloponnese, and especially

Argos would become a future target for Aratus. The reason to why Argos would

be an important target for Aratus was linked to the tyrants of Argos ties to the

Antigonids, which also explained the interest Aratus had in Megalopolis which

would change sides voluntarily. However by the expansionist policies which I will

discuss in the next chapter, Aratus would end up with surprising, political rivals,

alliances and become the main enemy of Cleomenes III of Sparta.

Chapter two: The Achaean League during the reign of Demetrius II:

Alliance with Aetolia, Attacks on tyrants in the Peloponnese (Argos and

Megalopolis)

Shortly after the Achaeans, Aetolians and Macedonians had negotiated the

peace, Aratus and the Aetolian leader Pantaleon were able to negotiate and

create an alliance between the two age old rivals. By the spring of 238 BCE

Greece was virtually divided into two alliances; the Achaean-Aetolian alliance and

a Macedonian-Epeirote alliance. Plutarch and Polybius both claimed that the

Achaean-Aetolian alliance was a master stroke, which should be credited to

Aratus for using the prominent Aetolian politician Pantaleon of Pleuron as a cats-

paw in order to secure Aetolian cooperation against Macedonia.33 However this

explanation does not explain the why the Aetolians would join an unfavourable 33 Plutarch Life of Aratus 33.1, Polybius 2.44.

19 | P a g e

663330

alliance with the Achaeans; even with the recent acquisition of Korinth the

Achaeans were still not a dominating power in Greece. An alliance with Achaea

would also increase the possibility of war with Macedon. One likely explanation

as to why Aetolia chose to go into this alliance was provided by Justin; Aetolian

interest in the Epeirote part of Acarnania led the Epeirote queen to marry her

daughter to Demetrius.34 This again effectively broke an alliance which had

existed for over a century, meaning that Aetolia suddenly stood on their own

against a united Northern Greece. Whilst for Aratus and the Achaeans an alliance

with the dominating power of Central Greece and the Peloponnese would benefit

the Achaean plans for expansion as well as anti-Macedonian movements in the

Peloponnese and Attica.35 The alliance between Aetolia and Achaea would also

include the Aetolian allies in Boeotia, Elis and Messina thus creating a coalition

consisting out of most of the most influential powers of Central- and South

Greece, whilst Argos, Megalopolis and Hermonie were agents of Macedon.

However neither Athens nor Sparta contributed in the War of Demetrius,

indicating a change in Greek politics: No longer were Athens and Sparta direct

centres of Anti-Macedonian politics, it would also replace the independent city-

states as the political centre with the regional federal states. Both Athens and

Sparta had participated when the Greek states tried to break out of Macedonian

influence during the Chremondiean War of the 260s, however this war led to

Macedonian garrisons being placed in Attica. Another aspect of Achaean-Aetolian

alliance which would benefit the Aetolians; closer relations with the Achaean

allies in Egypt. For the Achaeans an alliance with the Aetolians would mean

greater military strength, giving the Achaeans the strength they needed to

pursue their interest liberating Athens from its Macedonian garrisons and Argos

from its tyrants. By the end of the period covered in this chapter the Greek 34 Justin 28.1.35 Prior to this alliance the Aetolians had been dominating the political stage on the western coast of the Peloponnese.

20 | P a g e

663330

states would rather see to the Aetolian-Achaean alliance, than Macedon,

including Epirus. However by the end of the period the relations between Aetolia

and Achaea would begin to sour.

For most of the period between 239- 229 BCE the War of Demetrius II

would rage, and dominate the Greek political landscape. Neither did it help that

Aratus and the Achaeans kept attacking tyrants, which worked as agents of

Macedon an attack on each of these tyrants would be counted to be equal with

an attack on Macedonia itself and was considered an act of war.36 Early on in the

period Aratus and the Achaeans would ravage Attica once more, this time

however Aratus was injured and thus needed to be carried around in a litter for a

month after.37 Due to the alliance between the Leagues the Aetolians would

become even more involved in events in the Peloponnese. For instance in 236

BCE when the Aetolians ravaged Lakonia and the Argive Heraion, at the same

time the Achaeans under the leadership of Dioetas conquered the city of

Heraea.38 However for the reign of Demetrius there are considerable

chronological problems, however the main frame of events during this period is

fairly clear and some dates can be set with certainty.39 During this period the

Achaeans turned their main focus not only towards expanding, but to expelling

the agents of the Macedonians in the Peloponnese. The most important of these

cities were Megalopolis and Argos. The vast number of tyrants and garrisons

placed out by the Macedonians was illustrated in several passages in both

Plutarch and Polybius, such as when Polybius quoted a speech by the Aetolian

orator Chlaeneas:

36 J.A.O Larsen Greek Federal States 308.37 Plutarch Life of Aratus 33.4.38 This city had a strategic location in the Alpheios Valley commanding the Western route into Arcadia. Dioetas could however not take the city by force, and did a sneak attack much like what Aratus did at Sikyon and Korinth. For details of the attack see Polyaenus 2.36.39 The actions of Aratus and the Achaean League in the period was covered in details by Plutarch, whilst Polybius hardly wrote about this decade.

21 | P a g e

663330

Who is ignorant of the deeds of Kassander, Demetrius and Antigonus Gonatas,

all so recent that reference to them is superfluous? Some of them by introducing

garrisons to cities and others by implanting tyrannies left no city with the right to

call itself free40

According to Polybius no one of the above mentioned kings placed as many

tyrants and garrisons in the Peloponnese as Gonatas, most of these tyrants tried

to stay loyal to Macedon during the reign of Demetrius II.41 Even with the alliance

and common warfare with the Aetolians, Aratus main focus remained liberating

these cities from their tyrants and garrisons.

The tyranny in Argos was well established, and the links between the

tyrant Aristomachus and his family and the Antigonids were old. Already when

Aratus got involved in Argos the people of the city had started to resist the

tyrant, and civil unrest had begun within the city despite the citizens lacking the

weapons necessary for a successful rebellion.42 There were two reasons to why

Aratus saw it important to liberate Argos from its tyrant; firstly the city had

sheltered Aratus during his time in exile prior to the liberation of Sikyon,

secondly Argos would provide another powerful member for the Achaeans.43 For

this reason and to restore the liberty of the Argives and attach Argos the

Achaean League, Aratus effectively turned himself into an arms dealer. In Korinth

Aratus convinced the Achaeans to make small daggers, which were meant to be

used to kill the tyrant within the city. However due to the betrayal of Charimenes

who warned the tyrant about the upcoming attack, the attack was unsuccessful,

and Aratuss men had to escape the city. The rule of Aristomachus would end

shortly after, when the tyrant was killed by his slaves, shortly after Aristomachus

was succeeded by Aristippus. Next Aratus launched another attack on the city, 40 Polybius 9.29.41 Polybius 2.41.42 M. Roberts, B. Bennett Twilight of the Hellenistic World 10.43 Plutarch Life of Aratus 25.1.

22 | P a g e

663330

however the Argives seemed unwilling to assist Aratus and the Achaean troops in

taking the city. The events which would follow the ascendance of Aristippus in

the tyranny would develop into a personal duel between Aristippus and Aratus.44

Even after several failures to liberate Argos, Aratus stayed determined to liberate

the Argives, even after the threats on his life supported by Demetrius and the

next few years several attempts were carried out. In 235 BCE the next major

Achaean attack on Argos came, where Aratus was able to get within the city

walls, once again the people of Argos seemed unenthusiastically for liberation.

According to Plutarch the reason for this was confusion amongst the citizens who

thought the attack was merely a part of the Nemean games, which they were

supposed to judge, rather than an attempt to liberate Argos.45 With no support

from the Argives, and suffering an injury Aratus decided to recall the Achaeans,

however Aratus did this at the worst possible timing: Aristippus was ready to flee

the city. Since the Achaeans were fleeing Aristippus decided to call in the Argive

army and chased the Achaeans, forcing the Achaean into a battle near the River

Xerias. The Achaeans fought well and where close to winning the battle, however

Aratus was injured and the wing under Aratus command retreated, effectively

forcing the other wing to face the complete Argive army alone, leading them to

retreat as well. The Achaeans went into battle the day after, however by this

point the Argives had reorganised and reinforced their army and effectively

forced the Achaeans to flee once more.46 Aristippus were most likely satisfied

44 Plutarch took a break in his life of Aratus to describe the difference between Aristippus and Aratus. According to Plutarch description of Aristippus he had killed all of his enemieswithin the city, and as a man who would come creeping out of his hole as thing in the morning. Whilst Aratus was described as a public foe of tyrants whom left with the Greeks the highest repute reputation. Plutarch Life of Aratus 26.4.45 Plutarch Life of Aratus 28.3.46 According to Plutarch the Achaean army accused Aratus for abandoning the battle, andthrowing victory away. However Aratus was able to turn things around by securing Cleonae on the Korinthian-Nemean road, and during the Nemean games Aratus sold all the Argives he found in this territory into slavery, effectively breaking interstate Greek laws. Plutarch Life of Aratus 28.4.

23 | P a g e

663330

with the Achaeans leaving the Argolid, even after losing Cleonae to the

Achaeans.

Aristippus had not given up on Cleonae, but was unwilling to act against

the Achaeans as long as the Achaean army was located in Korinth. This was

something Aratus was aware of, giving Aratus the opportunity to plot another

surprise attack. This was done by moving the Achaean troops further away

towards Cenchreae, located south east of Korinth, encouraging Aristippus and

the Argive army to march on Cleonae. At night Aratus smuggled his troops back

to Korinth, before Aratus snuck the Achaean army into Cleonae unnoticed. The

morning after the Achaeans fell upon the surprised Argives, which took to flight,

the Achaeans then pursued the Argives as far as to Mycenae. Aristippus and

many of the Argives fell during this battle, however the numbers of fallen given

by Plutarch is most likely inaccurate, it is likely that as many as 1500 Argives

died, however Plutarch claimed that none of the Achaeans fell.47 Even though

this was a decisive victory for the Achaeans, Aratus once again failed to free

Argos; Aristomachus, the brother of Aristippus, took over whit the help of

Demetrius.48 After this Aratus left Argos alone for a while, and turned his focus

towards the other tyrants.

The other central agent of the Macedonians, Lydiades tyrant of

Megalopolis, was watching the advancements of the Achaean and Aetolians all

over the Greek mainland, and after analysing the situation, decided to attach

Megalopolis to the Achaean League.

Other major Arcadian cities joined

shortly after, amongst them Mantinea

and Orchomenus, whilst it is unclear47 Plutarch Life of Aratus 29.4.48 he nevertheless did not take Argos nor set it free, since Agias and the younger Aristomachus burst into the city with troops of the king and took control of affairs Plutarch Life of Aratus 29.4.

24 | P a g e

Figure 5 Location of Arcadia and Achaea proper in Greece.

663330

whether or not Tegea attached themselves to the Achaeans at this point.

Mantinea and Orchomenus as Achaean states was however short-lived, due

these cities together with Tegea and Caphyae changed their loyalty and joined

the Aetolian League as associated members.49 For Lydiades to attach Megalopolis

to Achaea several reasons can be named; Aratus ravaging the Peloponnese, the

death of Aristippus as well as the development in Sparta with yet another

reformist king; Cleomenes III. For the Achaeans the membership of Megalopolis

in the Achaean League, effectively meant that the League now was more

powerful than ever. All the way from Dyme to the Akrokorinth was now under the

dominance of one powerful federal state, which had a considerable army and the

tax funds needed to sustain its army. It became clear early on that Lydiades

reason for brining Megalopolis into the Achaean League was not to follow the

policy of Aratus, but rather Lydiades sought to bring the policies of Megalopolis

into the Achaean political system. According to Plutarch, Lydiades had a personal

agenda as well, namely to free himself of the hatred from his people and become

a benefactor of his native city. Among the Megalopolitan policies which the

Achaean League now inherited from the Megaloplitans were their hostility

towards the Spartans.50 The attachment of Megalopolis to the Achaean League

provided Aratus with his first real opponent in Achaean politics. From this point

Aratus and Lydiades would hold the position of general biannually, until Lydiades

last period in 230-229 BCE. The rivalry between Aratus and Lydiades were

illustrated already during Lydiades first period as general when he proclaimed an49 This did however not seem to be a major issue for the Achaeans, probably due to the benefits a unified front between the Aetolian League and the Achaean League would provide. The move of cities between the Leagues have sometimes been seen as a peacekeeping gesture to answer Aetolian complaints about Achaean actions around the Peloponnese. Another possible reason was illustrated by the forceful annexation of the eastern Arcadian cities, whilst Megalopolis had joined peacefully. This could again have created frictions within the Achaean League, making it easier to cede eastern Aetolia to the other side. J.B Scholten The Politics of Plunder; Aitolians and Their Koinon in the EarlyHellenistic Era, 279- 217 B.C 159.50 Megalopolis had once been founded the capital of the Arcadian League against the dominance of the Spartans, this was done by combining twenty villages in Arcadia. Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica 15.72.

25 | P a g e

663330

attack on Lakonia, however no sources reports of this attack which most likely

was stopped by Aratus using his influence to avoid hostilities towards Sparta. To

attack Lakonia was also against Aratus previous policy towards Sparta, which

first had been friendship, then indifference.

Of the affairs of Macedonia and Demetrius not much was recorded,

however it is likely that he watch the expansion of the Achaean and Aetolian

League with horror. The Achaean relationship with Macedonia were in a state of

war for most of the period, and by taking down the tyrants which Gonatas had

placed out as agents the relationship soured even more. This led to Demetrius

sending the general Bithys towards the Peloponnese, where Bithys and Aratus

met in a battle in Phylakia, a village which lied on the road between Tegea and

Sparta.51 The reason for Aratus to face Bithys in open battle were presumably to

avoid the possibility of Bithys reaching Sparta, where Aratus believed Bithys was

sent to negotiated for the Spartans to join the war against the two federations.

Such an alliance would have encouraged the policy of Lydiades, rather than the

policy of Aratus.52 However as it would prove later one an indifferent position

towards Sparta would no longer be enough, especially since Kleomenes looked to

restore to power of Sparta.

For almost a decade the Aetolians and Achaeans had now been allied in

their struggle for dominance in Greece, this alliance would exist de facto until

220 BCE, however after 229 BCE the alliance did de jure not exist anymore. In

the late 230s the alliance still stood strong, and was called to help Epirus shortly

after Epeirote Acarnania had broken out of Epirus, where a republican revolution

51 For location see Pausanias 8.54.52 Aratus knew that that the past traditions in Sparta were too strong for Sparta to ever join the Achaean League, especially with the reforms of Kleomenes going on, for Aratus awar against Sparta would have been a side-track from the goals of Aratus. Which was a strong federal state providing security amid the clash of surrounding states, and if not completely independent, preferably independent from Macedon. F. Walbank Aratos of Sicyon 66.

26 | P a g e

663330

had swept over and successfully taken down the royal house of Epirus.53 Upon

arrival in Acarnania the Leagues laid siege on the Acarnanian frontier town of

Medion, whilst Demetrius whilst busy fighting the Dardanians, sent Illyrian

mercenaries to assist Medion against the Leagues.54 This effectively made the

Epeirotes join the Illyrian forces. The year after in 229 BCE, the Achaeans were

once again called north in the interest of an expanding Aetolia, this time the

appeal came from Corcyra.55 In the Battle of Paxos the Achaeans suffered heavy

losses, including one of their early generals Margus of Ceryneia. Due to this loss

the relations with the Aetolians soured, and the alliance between the Leagues

was de facto dead. The alliance seemed to only work for the Achaeans as long as

Aetolia fought for the Achaeans, and when the table turned the alliance basically

strained. After this Aratus sought to break the alliance with the Aetolians,

however the Aetolians foresaw Aratuss plan and freed themselves from the

burden of war when a Roman fleet arrived and made a peace with the new ruler

in Macedon, Antigonus III Doson.56 Shortly after, Doson faced a revolt in Thessaly

which the Aetolians took advantage of and annexed parts of Thessaly, much due

to a renewed alliance with the Boeotians.57 At the same time the Aetolians

increased their influence within both Elis and Messene, thus the Aetolians due

their new members in eastern Arcadia would increase their power in the

Peloponnese. Whilst the Achaeans themselves struggled internally between the

anti-tyrant policies of Aratus and the anti-Spartan policies of Lydiades. These

events effectively ended the most profitable and hopeful periods in the history of

Achaean and Aetolian history. Larsen speculated about whether or not the 53 Pausanias 4.35, Polyaenus 8.52, Justin 28.3.54 For location of Medion see Thucydides 3.106.55 Since Epirus left Achaea and Aetolia the year before both Amphilokia and Amrakia had joined the Aetolian League. 56 Doson, not yet king, guardian and ruler for the young price Phillip and negotiated the peace with Aetolia. Polybius 2.4557 This rebellion was, if not started by the Aetolians, at least supported by them. The evidence for this rebellion and the cities whom joined the Aetolians was spread in comments in Polybian and Livian accounts of later wars. Polybius 5.97, 5.99, 18.3, 18.38, Livy 32.33, 34.23, 39.25.

27 | P a g e

663330

Achaean-Aetolian alliance ended due to the death of Margus, or whether or not it

ended due to the arrival of the Romans in Greece. For Aratus himself the period

had proven profitable due to the cooperation with the Aetolians, however the

period has also seen a rival of Aratus in Achaean politics for the first time. The

period had also proved that even when powerful rivals of Aratus such as Lydiades

held office, Aratus was still influential enough to form the politics of the League

in Aratus picture. The period also saw the fruits of Aratus anti-tyranny politics, at

the same time as the period saw Aratus failing to liberate Argos even after

several attempts. In 229 the Achaeans found themselves in a new situations; all

of their friends and allies were virtually gone, with the exception of Egypt.

Hostilities were rising in Sparta were the reforms of Cleomenes saw the light of

day. The Aetolian-Achaean alliance was de facto dead, possibly due to the

alliance being a part of the policies of the now dead Margus and not Aratus.

Whilst Elis, Messene and Boeotia all followed their ally Aetolia out of the alliance

with Achaea.

28 | P a g e

663330

Chapter three: The Spartan Reformation, The Cleomenic War, Alliance

with Macedon and the final break with Aetolia.

Due to the revolt in Thessaly and the war against the Dardanians,

Macedon had effectively been separated from her agents in the Peloponnese.

Many of these tyrants and garrisons realised the severity of the situation,

including both Aristomachus in Argos and the garrison in Athens. Aratus

immediately issued a plan to turn Aristomachus and the Argives over to the

Achaeans, however Aratus also saw the opportunity to liberate the Athenians.58

This was done by the Athenians Eurycleides and Micion taking up the

independence of Athens with Diogenes the leader of the Macedonian garrison in

Athens.59 An agreement was reached that for the amount of 150 talents the

freedom at Athens would be secured. These events took place towards the end

of the generalship of Lydiades in 229 BCE, which was why Aratus had to return to

Achaea to begin his own generalship. Towards the cause of Athenian

58 Plutarch Life of Aratus 35.4.59 Plutarch Life of Aratus 34.3.

29 | P a g e

663330

independence Aratus, as well as several others, contributed twenty talents; the

Athenians themselves were, due to financial troubles at the time, not able to

raise the money by themselves. There can be no doubt that Aratus contributed

these talents to attach Attica to the Achaean League, however Athens decided

against this unification of Attica and Greater Achaea.60 For this several reasons

could be mentioned, the most obvious reason would be the past glory of Athens,

making it almost impossible for the Athenians to accept the dominance of

another foreign power after only just regaining the Athenian independence.

Other reasons included the number of wars the Achaeans had been involved in

over the last two decades against Aetolians and Macedonians. Also the Athenians

had felt the effects of these wars, even though Athens had not been a

participating state in these wars, one of the reasons for this was the raids carried

out by the Achaeans and Aetolians in Attica. Whilst Aratus was in Attica to pay off

the Macedonian garrisons and pleading with the Athenians to join the Achaean

League, Lydiades took the opportunity to interfere in Aratuss negotiations with

Aristomachus.61

This Lydiades did to gain the upper hand in his rivalry with Aratus. After

several attempts of attaching Argos to the Achaeans there would be much

prestige for the general who succeeded. When Aratus heard about this

development he returned to Achaea and used his influence to convince the

Achaean assembly to reject the proposal of Lydiades. This has often been

interpreted as strictly a part of the rivalry between Lydiades and Aratus, however

the evidence suggests that there might be more behind this incident than the

rivalry between the two politicians. For Aratus and his indifferent politics towards

Sparta would be greatly threatened by the attachment of Argos to the Achaean 60 The way Athens gained her independence can be said to be Athens auctioning away her glorious history and reputation. W.S Ferguson Hellenistic Athens 207.61 Aratus and Aristomachus had prior to Aratuss departure to Athens reached an agreement where Aristomachus accepted to join the Achaean League after Aratus paid Aristomachus army fifty talents. F. Walbank Aratos of Sikyon 71.

30 | P a g e

663330

League. Next to Megalopolis, Argos was the other chief anti-Spartan force in the

Peloponnese at the time, indicating that it would be better for Aratus and his

politics if Argos choose to stay outside of the League as an ally, rather than

becoming a member. Aratus expansionist policies faced the difficult situation

where the trick was to absorb new members without inflicting their policies on

unwilling past members of the League. Later on in 229 BCE the Achaean

assembly allowed the Argives to join the League, this time however it was Aratus

himself who brought up the question of Argive membership in the Achaean

League.62 The new membership of the Argives led to a new boom in

membership, were Hermione, Phlius and Aegina joined the League. However

trouble was rising in the horizon for the Achaeans, the Aetolians had let the

Spartans attack and conquered their associate members in Mantinea, Tegea,

Orchomenus and Caphyae. Mantinea and Orchomenus had been Achaean as late

as in 234 BCE, but were handed over to the Aetolians as an insurance policy for

the Achaean expansion policies not to interfere in Aetolian interest. For the

Aetolians these cities would have been hard to defend, due to all of them being

surrounded by enemy territory. An expedition to Elis or Messene would not have

been an efficient way of defending the cities of eastern-Arcadia. The most logical

way would have been to attack through the heartland of Achaea proper, however

if a plan such as this existed, the Achaeans rejected it and declared that no

actions would be taken against Sparta until Achaean territory was attacked.63

For the Spartans the situation resembled the one of 370 BCE when

Epaminondas and the Boeotians had launched their attacks towards Lakonia.

King Agis, Aratus former ally, had been killed and his rival King Leonidas had

taken over with the support of the ephors, however when Cleomenes the son of

Leonidas took the throne, the Spartans returned to reform policies. The reforms 62 Plutarch Life of Aratus 35.3.63 For the Achaeans it seemed little favourable to defend the cities of eastern Arcadia, after all these cities where Aetolian not Achaean. Polybius 2.46.

31 | P a g e

663330

of Cleomenes would become highly successful and some would even survive the

fall of Sparta at Sellasia in 222 BCE. Cleomenes desired to restore the Spartan

power by restoring the constitution of Lycurgus. Agis had tried the same in the

240s BCE, however due to the joined efforts of the ephors and Leonidas, Agis

reforms were put to its end. This made Cleomenes realise that the only way his

reforms could pull through was without the ephors, thus Cleomenes began his

career by building up a great military reputation, which had help from Aratus

lack of will to exploit great military advantages.64 The military success of

Cleomenes and early reforms made Cleomenes a popular man among the elite

back in Sparta.65 As long as Sparta had lived under the laws of Lycurgus she had

grown in power, and Cleomenes believed the return of Spartan power could only

be accomplished by abolishing the ephors.66 However because of the situation in

the third century BCE, a full restoration of the Lycurgan code was effectively

impossible. Cleomenes introduced innovations into the Spartan political

institutions, whilst professing to turn the clock back. Among the reforms

Cleomenes introduced were the limitation of the powers of the Gerousia and the

foundation the patronomos, as well as carrying out successful land

redistributions. In 227, after the breakout of war between Achaean and Sparta

Cleomenes used the opportunity to place his opponents and rivals in Sparta to

garrisons cities taken from the Achaeans.67 After a quick return to Sparta with

mercenaries and political allies, Cleomenes used a squad of assassins to kill the

ephors, whilst the ephors were eating their dinner.68

64 Plutarch Life of Cleomenes 3.4- 6.5.65 Plutarch Life of Cleomenes 7.1.66 For Spartan power under Lycurgus see Xenophon Constitution of the Lacedaemodians 1.1-2, cf. Plutarch Life of Lycurgus.67 The limitation of the Gerousias power included the reduced tenure from a life period toone year, the patronomos was meant to be a council to guard the traditional lifestyle of the Spartans. 68 Plutarch reported that only one survived. Plutarch Life of Kleomenes 7.4- 8.2.

32 | P a g e

663330

War between the Spartans and Achaeans were at this point inevitable,

regardless of Aratus attempts to keep the Achaeans out of a potential war. War

between the two dominant Peloponnesian powers broke out during Aratus

generalship which occurred in the years 229- 228 BCE, the same year as

Cleomenes sized Tegea from Aetolia. The war broke out due to Sparta occupying

Athenaeum in Megalopolitan territory, however from the way in which Polybius

describes these events it is clear that hostilities between Sparta and Achaea had

begun prior to the Spartan invasion of Athenaeum.69 This war would almost

destroyed the Achaean League, even though the League survived and expanded

much after the war, its real power was shrunken and would from that point be a

vassal between Rome and Macedon. Nevertheless the Spartan fortifications at

Athenaeum and attacks on Megalopolitan territory demanded an answer from

the Achaeans, to not show weakness against their opponent. The response from

the Achaeans were a night attack on Orchomenus and Tegea, and quite possibly

also the capture of Caphyae.70 The Achaeans had the upper hand in the first

phase of the Cleomenic War, however after 227 BCE and Cleomenes abolition of

the ephors it became clear that the greatest mistake of the Achaeans was to not

act earlier. Indicating that in the beginning of the war it would have been better

to follow the politics of Lydiades and Aristomachus rather than the politics of

Aratus. Neither did it help for the Achaeans that both their allies in Aetolia and

Athens refused the plea from Achaea for help. Also Aratus longstanding friends in

Egypt betrayed him, by stopping the funding of the Achaean League in order to

sponsor the Spartans. This the Egyptians did due to the rising power of

Cleomenes made him a more likely winner of the war between the Achaeans and

Spartans, and thus a more powerful ally at the time.

69 Polybius 2.46.70 Plutarch Life of Cleomenes 4.1-4.

33 | P a g e

663330

Polybius suggests that the situation for the Achaeans was even more grim,

this due to an alleged alliance between the Macedonians, Aetolians and Sparta

with the ambition to bring on the dissolution of the Achaean League.71

Circumstances at the point would most likely make this alliance impossible,

especially with the relations between Macedonia and Aetolia at the time, an

alliance consisting out of Aetolia and Sparta was much more likely.72 However no

evidence exists for this possible alliance either, other than the Aetolian allies in

Elis joining the war on Spartan side as

well as growing anti-Achaean attitude in

Aetolia. Nevertheless the Achaean failure

to act when the odds were on their side

soon led to Spartan domination of the

war. At the beginning Aratus and the

Achaeans had declared that they would

withstand Sparta by their own efforts,

however from 227 it became clear that

they would need assistance. Neither did it

help that Lydiades fell in battle defending

Megalopolis, a death which Aratus got blamed for.73 Due to the lack of support of

their friends Aratus designed a masterstroke of a plan to get Doson and the

Macedonians on his side, effectively reversing the former strong anti-Macedonian

element in Aratus politics. The Achaean acquisition of Korinth, from the

Macedonians as well the destruction of the Antigonid network of agents in the

71 Polybius 2.45 Both Walbank and Fine argues against this alliance, however some historians such as Liax argues for it in his article Polybius Credibility and the triple Alliance of 230/229 BC p. 65-93. Due to certain circumstances in the Greece at the time it is unlikely that this alliance ever came into function.72 Macedonia had defeated the Aetolian supported rebellion in Thessaly, and thus makes it hard to believe that the Aetolians and Macedonians were allies shortly after. For defeat of Aetolia in Thessaly see; Frontinus Strategmata 2.6, Justin 28.3.73 Polybius and Plutarch placed the death of Lydiades at two different times; Polybius after the envoy to Macedon, Plutarch before. Polybius 2.51, Plutarch Life of Aratus 37.1-2.

34 | P a g e

Figure 6 The Standings in the Cleomenic War. Key cities of the war is marked of in red.

663330

Peloponnese spoke against the possibility of such an alliance. According to

Polybius Aratus knew that the war especially hard on the Megalopolitans,

therefore Aratus sent two secret envoys to Doson consisting of two of Aratus

friends in Megalopolis; Nicophanes and Cercidas.74 The Megalopolitan envoys

were to present Doson with two possible futures for Macedonia in Greece; either

a united Southern and Central Greece against Macedon, or to join the Achaeans

in the war if the Aetolians should enter or Achaea were about to fall. Polybius

reports that Doson agreed with Aratus on the future of Greece, his answer was a

letter sent to the people of Megalopolis where Doson promised to send help if the

Achaeans agreed.75 However Aratus and his friends kept the envoys secret, and

during the assembly where the letter was presented to the Achaeans Aratus

convinced the Achaeans only to send for Doson when they were not able to

defend themselves. After Cleomenes took Mantinea and defeated the federal

army at Hecatombaeum the Achaeans no longer had a choice, the time to call for

Macedonian support had arrived.76 However Doson did not seem inclined to help

unless the Achaeans surrendered the Akrokorinth to the Macedonians. For

Aratus, Korinth would be a major sacrifice, however because of massive pressure

from Cleomenes, who demanded to be appointed general of the Achaeans at the

time. Combined with Achaean towns joining the Spartan side; Sikyon, Argos and

Philus, as well the assault on Pellene, Pheneus and Pentleium by Spartan forces,

all suggested that time to call in Macedonian support had arrived. When the

Korinthians after a conference with Cleomenes decided to join Sparta, Aratus and

the Achaeans immediately called for Doson assistance.

74 The Megalopolitans felt the war worse than the rest of the Achaeans due to their locations close to the Lakonian border as well as not being able to receive much needed help from the rest of the Achaeans, due to effect of the war on the rest of the Achaeans. Another good reason was the longstanding relations between Macedon and Megalopolis dating back to the days of Philip II. Polybius 2.48.75 Polybius 2.50.76 For location of Hecatombaeum see Plutarch Life of Cleomenes 14.4

35 | P a g e

663330

Therefore the third phase of the war began with Macedonian involvement,

however the Macedonians were forced to travel via Euboea, rather than their

preferred route through Thermopylae. Because the Aetolians refused the

Macedonian troops passage through Thermopylae, indicating an Aetolian hostile

attitude to Achaea and Macedon, forcing the forces of Cleomenes and Doson to

face each other on the Isthmus. However no battle occurred at the time, since

Timoxenus, general of the Achaeans at the time, with the help of the rebellion of

Aristotle of Argos once again brought Argos into the realm of Achaea. When word

of his reached Cleomenes he withdrew from the Isthmus and attacked Argos,

however Cleomenes failed in the following battle and was forced to withdraw to

Sparta. Due to the following war success by the Macedonians, Aratus and the

Achaeans appointed Doson commander in-chief of all allied forces. Aratus on the

other hand began his new role as the Achaean liaison to Macedon, through his

role as general extraordinary.77 The man whom had spent his life fighting

Macedonian dominance in the Peloponnese, now suddenly found himself a good

friend and ally of Doson. The combined military strength of Achaea and Macedon

reduce the strength of Sparta to the strength before Hecatombaeum. Neither did

the foundation of the Symmachy help on the Spartan position.78 Cleomenes

appealed to Ptolemy for assistance, who demanded hostages but never sent

soldiers to the aid of Cleomenes. Whilst Doson was raiding the borders of

Lakonia, news reached Aratus and Doson about reinforcements from

Orchomenus for Cleomenes were being organised. This again forced the

Achaean-Macedonian army to attack Arcadia, where they sacked Mantinea, and

enslaved the inhabitants before Aratus renamed the city: Antigoneia.79 During 77 F. Walbank Aratos of Sicyon 103.78 The Symmachy was a military federal alliance, in which all the members kept their autonomy. The members were the Macedonians, Achaeans, Thessalians, Boeotians, Phocians, Epeirotes, Acarnanians and most likely the Locrians and Euboeans. F. Walbank Life of Aratos 104, Polybius 2.54, 5.9, 15.1, 11.5.79 Even Polybius admits these events however he defended the treatment of the Mantineans due their treachery. Whilst Plutarch claimed the treatment of the Mantineans was against the spirit of the Greeks. The new name of Mantinea is without any doubt in

36 | P a g e

663330

the advancements in the Peloponnese by the Macedonians, Doson took the

opportunity to secure the interest of Macedon by installing garrisons not only in

Korinth but also in Orchomenus and Heraea. This was meet with resentment

amongst the Achaeans, however if the Achaeans were to defeat the Spartans

they were dependent on Macedonian assistance.

In an attempt to restore the war success Cleomenes decided to attack

Megalopolis and ended up sacking the city. The sack of Megalopolis was a

massive blow towards the interest of Aratus and the Achaeans, however it could

also be looked at as a failure on the hands of the Spartans. The majority of the

citizens had escaped under the lead of the future Achaean general; Philopoemen.

Philopoemen led the citizens to Messene, where they received a plea from

Cleomenes asking them to return to Megalopolis and surrender, and Megalopolis

would be restored. However even though the citizens were willing, Philopoemen

refused the plea, leading Cleomenes to destroy much of Megalopolis.80 In

desperation from realising that most hope of winning the war was out,

Cleomenes made one last attempt to secure the Argolid. Whilst Cleomenes

expedition in the Argolid was

carried out the troops of Doson

stayed inactive in the region.

Providing evidence for the

Achaeans being dependent on

the Macedonian troops to

succeed. This again effectively

led to the Sellasian campaign,

Cleomenes choose Sellasia for

the battle deliberately; it

honour of Antigonus. Polybius 2.57, Plutarch Life of Aratus 45.80 Plutarch Life of Philopoemen 5.1-2.

37 | P a g e

Figure 6 The Southern Peloponnese with Sellasia and Sparta represented.

663330

controlled the rout into Sparta itself. Aratus himself probably participated in the

battle alongside Doson, however not as general of the League and would not

play a prominent role in the battle.81 Cleomenes knew that this would be his last

stand in the Cleomenic War, Antigonus and Ptolemy had reached an

understanding and no longer did Sparta receive financial support from Egypt.

The battle ended in a massive defeat of the Spartans, and Cleomenes urged his

people to not resist the forces of the Symmachy. Doson restored the constitution

of the Spartans without the kings, gave the district of Denthaliatis to Messene

and attached Sparta to the Symmachy.82 This period between 229- 222 BCE had

seen major changes in the role of the Achaeans in Greek politics. Aratus and the

Achaean was still among the dominate leaders in Greece, now through the

Council of the Symmachy which dealt with warfare and peace in most of Greece.

Only the King of Macedon was above the council of the Symmachy. The threat

from Sparta had been destroyed through the joint efforts of Aratus and Doson.

Aratus found himself with a new role within the League as the liaison to Doson as

well as general biannually. Doson thought so highly of his friend Aratus that

Doson advise for handling affairs in Greece to his successor Philip V was;

Being now a sick man, he sent Phillip, his successor in the kingdom, who urged

him to attach himself to Aratus above all others, and through him to deal with

the cities and make acquaintance of the Achaeans.83

81 F Walbank Aratos of Sicyon 110.82 For constitution restored without kings: Polybius 4.22, Location of Denthaliatis: Tacitus Annals 4.43.83 Plutarch Life of Aratus 46.

38 | P a g e

663330

Conclusion; summary of relations with Macedon, Aetolia, Sparta and

Egypt, the influence of Aratus on Achaean and Greek politics.

From 251- 222 BCE the Achaeans relations with their neighbours, friends

and rivals had changed several times and within this timeframe the Achaeans

had been allied and enemies with most of the major powers in Greece. This

included the two of the major Hellenistic monarchies in Egypt and Macedon, as

well as Sparta, Aetolia and Athens.84 By the end of the period the relations

between the Achaea and Aetolians were strained, though formally they were still

allies until the outbreak of the Social War in 220 BCE. Polybius believed that the

break of the alliance with the Aetolians happened because of the Aetolians,

however much of the blame for this can be placed on the Achaeans. Among the

reasons for the Achaeans to be blamed for the break of this alliance, it can be

mentioned that the Achaeans choose to go to Doson for help. It is true that the

Aetolians had refused the request for help to the Achaeans, however by going to

the Macedonians Aratus had effectively broken the last shred of hope for the

alliance to resurrect. To prevent the relations from growing too sour between the

federations, Aratus and the Achaeans had once given cities in Eastern Arcadia to 84 Officially the Achaeans and Athenians had never formally been enemies, however the Achaeans had raided Attic several times whilst the Athenians had Macedonian garrison.

39 | P a g e

663330

the Aetolians, but the Achaeans had not stopped the their expansion. The

situation from 251 to 222 BCE had changed enormously, the Achaeans had

almost united all of the Peloponnese due to the politics of Aratus. Whilst they had

been in the alliance with the Aetolians almost all of Greece had been under the

dominance of the united Achaean-Aetolian front.85

In 251 BCE, when Sikyon had joined the League, it was merely an

association of cities located in the northern parts of the Peloponnese. By the end

of the period in 222 BCE the Achaeans had reached high regard amongst the

Greeks much because of their leader Aratus. The policies of Aratus had allowed

the Achaeans to expand all across the Peloponnese, however the setbacks in the

Cleomenic War stopped the real power and influence of the League as an

independent power. However the position and respect Aratus had gained in the

court of the Antigonids gave the League a powerful place within the Symmachy

of Antigonus Doson. Within the council of the Symmachy the Achaeans were

equal with the other members, however Doson had grown fond of Aratus and

held his advice and word in high regard. The Symmachy would soon be tested

when the alliance with the Aetolian finally broke when the Aetolians developed a

radical new policy to strengthen and

avoid a further decline of the

international position of Aetolia. This

policy led the Aetolians to provoke

the Achaeans in 220 BCE, this by

sending an Aetolian force to Rhion on

the Achaean coast, a provocation

that could not be ignored. Neither did85 The influence of the alliance would not only cover the Achaean zone on the Peloponnese and Isthmus, but also the Aetolian influence stretching from Aetolia itself in Central Greece, the Western Peloponnese and all the way across Greece out to the Aegean islands, For the Achaeans sphere of influence see J.A.O Larsen Greek Federal states 202- 212.

40 | P a g eFigure 8: The highlights of the career of Aratus. Sites represented chronologically. Orange names represents battles against Macedon, yellow against Aetolia and greenagainst Sparta.

663330

it help that the Aetolians ravaged Achaea proper.86 However by attacking a

member of the Symmachy the Aeolians would face a united Greece against

them.

Phylarchus spent much of his histories criticising Aratus for fighting the

Spartans, and for letting the Macedonians back into the Peloponnese. Phylarchus

described the battle of Sellasia as one of the saddest names in Grecian history,

however this description he only gave due to the fall of Sparta.87 The battle of

Sellasia was far from one of the saddest moments in ancient Greek politics, the

victory in the Cleomenic War had been one of the Symmachy, representing an

almost united Greece. The Symmachy could arguably be said to be a product of

the policy of Aratus, Aratus himself had begun his career as merely a liberator of

one city state, but in 222 BCE he was now a liaison to the court of the

Macedonians, arguably making Aratus the second most powerful man in the

Symmachy, after the king of Macedon only. This because of the influence and

trust Aratus first had with Doson and then Philip. During the career of Aratus he

had proven to be one of the most influential Greek leaders in his lifetime. From

251- 222 BCE Aratus had held the office of general of the League as many as

twelve times, and even when not holding the office Aratus opinion had been

held in high regards by the assembly of the Achaeans. For example Aratus was

able to prevent Lydiades, in Lydiades first period of office, from ravaging

Lakonia, as well as Aratus being able stop Aristomachus from attacking the

Spartans on an expedition in Lakonia. The influence of Aratus even when

Lydiades was in power was so great that Lydiades was denounced and cast away,

because he showed enmity towards Aratus and his politics.88

86 The Aetolians ravaged the territories of Patrae, Pharaen and possibly Tritaea. Polybius 4.6-7, 4.25.87 According to Phylarchus all but 200 of 6000 Spartans died at Sellasia. Plutarch Life of Cleomenes 28.88 For the Lydiades situation see Plutarch Life of Aratus 30.3-4, for the Aristomachus situation see Plutarch Life of Aratus 34.4-6.

41 | P a g e

663330

Aratus might have been a brilliant politician, but as a military leader

Aratus was not as great. This was illustrated by Aratus failure to win wars in open

terrain; Polybius described Aratus as a good politician, but reluctant to go into

open battle against his enemies.89 Conversely, the description given by Plutarch

in the Life of Aratus claimed that Aratus was a caution man on the battle field, a

man whose main priority was the interest of the League and adapted his policies

for the best of the League.90 Regardless of which characteristic of Aratus was the

right one, it is clear that Aratus was not scared of breaking diplomatic

connections by attacking in peacetime. From the evidence it is also clear that

Aratus did what was necessary for the Leagues success both internally and

externally. After all Aratus had focused his career on expelling the tyrants of

Macedonia and expanding the influence of the Achaeans in Greece. But when it

became necessary Aratus had proved willing to go to his main rivals to seek an

alliance for the protection of the League. The fact that Aratus was willing to go to

Macedon, supports the description of Plutarch, rather than the one of Polybius, as

a cautions man who would be willing to do almost everything for the League.

Regardless of which description of Aratus is the right one, there is no doubt that

the influence of Aratus in both the Achaean League and the Symmachy made

Aratus one of the most influential Greek politicians in the Hellenistic period.

89 Polybius 4.8.90 Plutarch Life of Aratus 10.

42 | P a g e

663330

Illustrations:

Figure 1; The Eastern Mediterranean in 255 BCE, adapted from http://www.essential-

humanities.net/western-history/greek-europe/, accessed on the 26/04/2014, at 16:45.

Figure 2: Location of Sikyon in Greece, found on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Korinth_Isthmus_de.png, accessed on the

26/04/2014, at 16:59.

Figure 3: The Districts of the Peloponnese, found on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ancient_peloponnese.svg, accessed on the

26/04/2014, at 17:02.

Figure 4: The Akrokorinth, photographer Thomas Alexander Husy, photo taken

April 2013.

43 | P a g e

663330

Figure 5: Location of Arcadia and Achaea in the Peloponnese, found on

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/historians/notes/arcadia.html, accessed on the

26/04/2014, at 17:15.

Figure 6: Standings in the Cleomenic War, found on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cleomenean_War_Overview.svg, accessed on the

26/04/2014, at 17:30.

Figure 7: the Southern Peloponnese, found on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SouthernPeloponessus.gif, accessed on the

26/04/2014, at 17:37.

Figure 8; The Highlight of Aratus career, found on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LifeOfAratus.jpg, accessed on the 26/04/2014, at

18:01.

Bibliography.

Ancient Sources:

Aeneas Tacticus How to survive under Siege trans: D. Whitehead (1990)

Clarendon Press: Oxford

Cicero De Officiis trans: W. Miller (1913) Macmillan and co limited: London

Diodorus Siculus The Bibliotheca Historica trans: J. Skelton (1956) Oxford

University Press: Oxford

Frontinus Strategmata trans: C.E Bennet (1993) Harvard University Press:

Cambridge, Mass

Justin Epitome of the Philippic of Pompeius Trogus trans: J.S Watson (1994)

Scholars Press: Atlanta, GA

Livy History of Rome trans: B.O Foster (1912) Heinemann: London

44 | P a g e

663330

Plutarch Life of Agis trans: B. Perrin (1921) Harvard University Press: London

Plutarch Life of Aratus trans: B. Perrin (1926) Harvard University Press: London

Plutarch Life of Cleomenes trans: B. Perrin (1921) Harvard University Press:

London

Plutarch Life of Lycurgus trans: R. Talbert (1988) Penguin Books: London

Plutarch Life of Philopoemen trans: B. Perrin (1921) Harvard University Press:

London

Plutarch Sayings of Spartans trans: R. Talbert (1988) Penguin Books: London

Polybius The Histories trans: Robin Waterfield (2010) Oxford University Press:

Oxford

Polyaenus Stratagems of war trans: P. Krentz, E.L Wheeler (1994) Ares: Chicago

Pausanias Description of Greece trans: J.G Frazer (1913) Macmillan and co

limited: London

Strabo Geography trans: H.L Jones (1917) Heinemann: London

Tacitus Annals trans: R. Mellor (2011) Oxford University Press: Oxford

Thucydides The Peloponnesian War trans: M. Hammond (2009) Oxford University

Press: Oxford

Xenophon Constitution of the Lacedaimonians (1975) California University Press:

Berkeley

Secondary literature

M.M Austin (1981) The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman conquest

Cambridge University Press: Cambridge45 | P a g e

663330

S.L Bohec (1993) Antigone Doson, roi de Macedoine Presses Universitaires

Nancy: Nancy

P Carledge, A Spawforth (1989) Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A tale of two cities

Routledge: London

C.B Champion (2004) Cultural Politics in Polybiuss Histories University of

California: London

W.S Ferguson (1910) Egypts loss of sea power Journal of Hellenic Studies 30, pp

189- 208

A. Griffin (1982) Sikyon Clarendon press: Oxford

R.M Errington (1990) A History of Macedonia University of California Press: Oxford

J.V.A Fine (1940) The Background for th