previous next

The two commissioners who had been sent to Illyria reported on their return that the Illyrian army had been destroyed and Gentius taken prisoner, and that Illyria had made formal submission to Rome. [2] For these successes, gained under the leadership and auspices of L. Anicius, the praetor, the senate ordered a three days' thanksgiving. A second celebration of the Latin Festival was proclaimed by the consul for 10th-12th November. [3] Some writers assert that the envoys from Rhodes who were still in Rome were summoned before the senate after the announcement of the victory, as if to expose them and their stupid arrogance to ridicule. [4] Agepolis, their leader, is reported to have declared that they had been sent by the government of Rhodes to make peace between Perseus and the Romans because that war was burdensome and hurtful to the [5??] whole of Greece and an expensive and unprofitable one to the Romans themselves. Now that the war had ended otherwise, the Fortune who presides over Rome had done well to give them an opportunity of congratulating the Romans on their splendid victory. [6] So far the Rhodians. The senate's reply was to the effect that it was neither to promote the interests of Greece nor to save the Roman exchequer that the Rhodians had despatched that embassy, but solely in the interest of Perseus. [7] Had they really felt as anxious about these two matters as they pretended to be, the envoys ought to have been sent at the time when Perseus led his army into Thrace and went on for two years attacking the cities of Greece, some by actual investment, others by intimidation; there was no mention of peace made by the Rhodians then. [8] It was not till they learnt that the mountain defiles had been crossed and the Romans had invaded Macedonia that they sent their envoys, their only motive being to save Perseus from the dangers which were hanging over him. With this reply the envoys were dismissed.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

load focus Notes (W. Weissenborn, 1881)
load focus Notes (W. Weissenborn, H. J. Müller, 1911)
load focus Notes (W. Weissenborn, 1880)
load focus Summary (Latin, Alfred C. Schlesinger, Ph.D., 1951)
load focus Summary (Latin, W. Weissenborn, H. J. Müller, 1911)
load focus Summary (English, Alfred C. Schlesinger, Ph.D., 1951)
load focus Latin (W. Weissenborn, 1881)
load focus Latin (Alfred C. Schlesinger, Ph.D., 1951)
load focus English (William A. McDevitte, Sen. Class. Mod. Ex. Schol. A.B.T.C.D., 1850)
load focus English (Alfred C. Schlesinger, Ph.D., 1951)
load focus Latin (W. Weissenborn, H. J. Müller, 1911)
hide References (25 total)
  • Commentary references to this page (4):
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 41-42, commentary, 41.6
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 43-44, commentary, 43.16
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 43-44, commentary, 44.14
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 43-44, commentary, 44.35
  • Cross-references to this page (13):
  • Cross-references in general dictionaries to this page (8):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: