Perseus, Macedonian kingNIKOLA CASULE
Perseus (213–165 or 162 BCE), king of Macedo-
nia 179–168, revived Macedonian power and
pursued a foreign policy which led to conflict
with Rome in the Third Macedonian War (see
MACEDONIAN WARS). Perseus’ defeat at the Battle
of Pydna in 168 resulted in the partition of
Macedonia and the end of the Macedonian
monarchy.
The eldest son of PHILIP V OF MACEDON
(by Polykrateia of Argos), Perseus was first in
line to the Macedonian throne. Philip con-
firmed Perseus’ pre-eminence by appointing
him to key military commands and by naming
a new city “Perseis,” in his honor, in 183.
Perseus’ alleged murder of his half-brother
Demetrios in 180 (Livy 40.24.4; Polyb. 23.10.
12) did not affect Philip’s opinion of his son,
despite the dramatic accounts of family dis-
cord found in Livy: Perseus was sent by Philip
on an important mission to the Bastarnai – he
hadmarried a Bastarnean princess in 182 – and
was in Thrace when his father died unexpect-
edly in the summer of 179 (Hammond
and Walbank 1988: 490–1). Although the suc-
cession was disputed by Antigonos, son of
Echekrates and nephew of ANTIGONOS III
DOSON, his execution cleared the way for Per-
seus to become king. After securing Mace-
donia’s northern frontier and repulsing an
invasion by Abrupolis, king of the Sapaioi,
Perseus renewed the ties of AMICITIA between
Rome and the Macedonians and may have
sought recognition as king from the Senate
(Livy 40.58.8).
Having secured the kingdom and his own
position, Perseus declared a cancellation of
debts, an amnesty for individuals convicted
of crimes against the crown, and a recall of
exiles. These measures were publicized
across Greece and increased Perseus’ popular-
ity: by 178 two delegates on the council of
the Delphic Amphictyony (see AMPHICTYONY,
DELPHIC) were “from King Perseus,” and the
Macedonian king was praised as benefactor
and philhellene (SIG3 636; Livy 41.24.11;
App. Mac. 11.1.7). The issue of debt cancella-
tion was prominent in Greece during the 170s.
A number of Greek cities were suffering
from civil strife, which was driven in large
part by debt accumulation and exacerbated
in places by indemnity payments to Rome;
the AITOLIAN LEAGUE, for example, was forced
to pay a crippling sum as punishment
for its support of ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS
(Livy 42.5.7; Derow 1989: 303). Perseus won
support within such communities at the
expense of local aristocracies, who had enjoyed
Roman favor: PERRHAIBIA, THESSALY, and the
Aitolian League, among others, cancelled
their debts and saw democratic factions
come to power with Macedonian aid
(Diod. Sic. 29.33; Livy 42.13.8–9). Perseus
also concluded a formal alliance with the
Boiotian confederacy and strengthened ties
with PRUSIAS II OF BITHYNIA and SELEUKOS IV
PHILOPATOR through royal marriages. However,
opposition remained, including among the
Achaians (see ACHAIAN LEAGUE) and at ATHENS.
The Romans increasingly took interest in
Perseus’ activities. A commission in 177, in
response to Dardanian complaints, instructed
Perseus to respect his treaty with Rome. Fur-
ther commissions to Greece followed in the
mid- and late 170s, some of which were
attempting to redress the debt crisis. Driven
in part by their reports and in part by appeals
from friendly factions across Greece, the
Romans began preparations for war. The
Roman case against Perseus, augmented by an
embassy from EUMENES II of PERGAMON in April
172 (Livy 42.11–13), was widely publicized.
A fragmentary inscription of a Roman letter
to the Delphic Amphictyony (SIG3 643) enu-
merates the charges against Perseus, and these
include having ambassadors murdered; bring-
ing political strife to Greece through the cancel-
lation of debts and the destruction of leading
men; and attempting to assassinate Eumenes.
Some of the charges were fabricated or based
on a revisionist depiction of Perseus’ early reign:
The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine,
and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 5181–5183.
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09184
1
he is condemned for his attack onAbrupolis, for
example, but the Romans had not opposed this
act at the time (Gruen 1984: 403).
The king’s envoys to the Senate in 172 were
rebuffed (Livy 42.14.2–4), and Perseus appears
to have now devalued the currency, adopting
the lighter Rhodian standard (see COINAGE,
HELLENISTIC), perhaps with the intention of
aiding military recruitment (Hammond and
Walbank 1988: 503–4). Although the Roman
assembly did not formally vote for war until
late 172, Livy refers to belli administratio in his
discussion of events in the preceding summer
(42.18.2). Perseus’ repeated diplomatic
overtures, first to the advancing Roman force,
which had landed at Corcyra, and subse-
quently to the consul Marcius Philippus,
after his advance to Homolion, proved ineffec-
tive. Roman envoys were sent to strengthen
Greek loyalty, and some cities, including
members of the Boiotian confederacy, now
imprisoned pro-Macedonian leaders.
Perseus was victorious in the first military
encounter of the war, an engagement of cavalry
and light armed troops at Kallikinos in 171,
with the king at the head of the Macedonian
cavalry. The victory prompted a groundswell
of support for Perseus (Polyb. 27.9), intensi-
fied by subsequent Roman brutality: Aitolian
commanders who had fought at Kallikinos
were executed, and uncooperative cities,
such as Haliartos and Abdera, had their
populations sold into slavery. A pro-
Macedonian plot at Epirus in the spring of
170 failed, but resulted in the break-up of the
Epirote confederacy, with the Molossians
defecting to Perseus in 169. Macedonian sur-
prise attacks in the winter of 170/169 in
Illyria and Epirus were successful, but did not
prevent Roman forces advancing to the south-
ern border of Macedonia later that year. Per-
seus attempted, without success, to gain the
allegiance of Eumenes or Antiochos IV, but
won over the Illyrian king Genthios with
a promise of money (see GENTHIOS, ILLYRIAN
KING), though to little effect: Genthios surren-
dered to Rome in early 168.
Perseus’ forces met the army of Aemilius
Paullus at the battle of Pydna on June 22
(see PYDNA, BATTLE OF; AEMILIUS PAULLUS, LUCIAS),
168, where the tactical flexibility of the
Roman legion facilitated a resounding Roman
victory. Perseus fled to PELLA but was eventually
captured at SAMOTHRACE, where he surrendered
to the Romans (Livy 45.4-6; Plut. Aem. 26–7).
He was led through Rome in chains, as part of
Aemilius Paullus’ TRIUMPH, in November 167
BCE, and he died some years later at Alba
Fucens.
SEE ALSO: Amphictyony, Delphic; Debt, Greece
and Rome; Exile; Macedonia; Macedonian wars;
Polybius.
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS
Derow, P. S. (1989) “Rome, the fall of Macedon
and the sack of Corinth.” In Cambridge ancient
history, vol. 8: 303–19. 2nd ed. Cambridge.
Ferrary, J.-L. (1988) Philhellenisme et imperialisme:
aspects ideologiques de la conquete romaine du
monde hellenistique, de la seconde guerre de
Macedoine a la guerre contre Mithridate: 158–86.
Paris.
Gruen, E. S. (1984) The Hellenistic world and the
coming of Rome: 403–29, 505–20. Berkeley.
Hammond, N. G. L. and Walbank, F. W. (1988)
A history of Macedonia, vol. 3: 488–569. Oxford.
Harris, W. V. (1979) War and imperialism in
republican Rome: 227–33. Oxford.
Meloni, P. (1953) Perseo e la fine della monarchia
macedone. Rome.
Mendels, D. (1978) “Perseus and the socio-economic
question in Greece (179–172 BC): a study in
Roman propaganda.” Ancient Society 9: 55–73.
Walbank, F. W. (1940) Philip V of Macedon:
223–57. Cambridge.
2