Fourth Macedonian War
The Fourth Macedonian War was fought between the Roman Republic and a Greek uprising led by the Macedonian pretender to the throne Andriscus. Pretending to be the son of former king Perseus, deposed by the Romans after the Third Macedonian War in 168 BC, Andriscus sought to re-establish the old Macedonian Kingdom. In the process he destabilised much of the Greek world. Andriscus, after some early successes, was defeated by the Roman general Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus at the Second Battle of Pydna in 148 BC, the uprising subsequently collapsed. Two years Macedonia became a Roman province. In response, the Achaean League in 146 BC mobilized for a new war against Rome; this is sometimes referred to as the Achaean War, was noted for its short duration and its timing right after the fall of Macedonia. Until this time, Rome had only campaigned in Greece in order to fight Macedonian forces, allies or clients. Rome's military supremacy was well established, having defeated Macedonia and its vaunted Phalanx on three occasions, defeating superior numbers against the Seleucids in Asia.
The Achaean leaders certainly knew that this declaration of war against Rome was hopeless, as Rome had triumphed against far stronger and larger opponents, the Roman legion having proved its supremacy over the Macedonian phalanx. Polybius blames the demagogues of the cities of the league for inspiring the population into a suicidal war. Nationalist stirrings and the idea of triumphing against superior odds motivated the league into this rash decision; the Achaean League was swiftly defeated, and, as an object lesson, Rome utterly destroyed the city of Corinth in 146 BC, the same year that Carthage was destroyed. After nearly a century of constant crisis management in Greece, which always led back to internal instability and war when Rome pulled out, Rome decided to divide Macedonia into two new Roman provinces and Epirus. History of Macedonia Gabrielsen and John Lund, eds. 2007. The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and interregional economic exchanges. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
Sherwin-White, Adrian N. 1984. Roman foreign policy in the East 168 B. C. to A. D. 1. London: Duckworth
In military tactics, a flanking maneuver, or flanking manoeuvre is a movement of an armed force around a flank to achieve an advantageous position over an enemy. Flanking is useful. Therefore, to circumvent a force's front and attack a flank is to concentrate offense in the area where the enemy is least able to concentrate defense. Flanking can occur at the operational and strategic levels of warfare; the flanking maneuver is a basic military tactic, with several variations. Flanking an enemy means attacking from one or more sides, at an angle to the enemy's direction of engagement. One type is employed in an ambush, where a unit performs a surprise attack from a concealed position. Units friendly to the ambushing unit may be hidden to the sides of the ambush site to surround the enemy, but care must be taken in setting up fields of fire to avoid friendly fire. Another type is used in the attack. Upon receiving fire from the enemy, the unit commander may decide to order a flank attack. A part of the attacking unit "fixes" the enemy with suppressive fire, preventing them from returning fire, retreating or changing position to meet the flank attack.
The flanking force advances to the enemy flank and attacks them at close range. Coordination to avoid friendly fire is important in this situation; the most effective form of flanking maneuver is the double envelopment, which involves simultaneous flank attacks on both sides of the enemy. A classic example is Hannibal's victory over the Roman armies at the Battle of Cannae. Another example of the double envelopment is Khalid ibn al-Walid's victory over the Persian Empire at the Battle of Walaja. Despite being associated with land warfare, flanking maneuvers have been used in naval battles. A famous example of this is the Battle of Salamis, where the combined naval forces of the Greek city-states managed to outflank the Persian navy and won a decisive victory. Flanking on land in the pre-modern era was achieved with cavalry due to their speed and maneuverability, while armored infantry was used to fix the enemy, as in the Battle of Pharsalus. Armored vehicles such as tanks replaced cavalry as the main force of flanking maneuvers in the 20th century, as seen in the Battle of France in World War II.
The threat of flanking has been existent since the dawn of warfare and the art of being a commander entailed the choice of terrain to allow flanking attacks or prevent them. In addition, proper adjustment and positioning of soldiers is imperative in assuring the protection against flanking. A commander could prevent being flanked by anchoring one or both parts of his line on terrain impassable to his enemies, such as gorges, lakes or mountains, e.g. the Spartans at Thermopylae, Hannibal at the Battle of Lake Trasimene, the Romans at the Battle of Watling Street. Although not impassable, forests, rivers and marshy ground could be used to anchor a flank, e.g. Henry V at Agincourt. However, in such instances it was still wise to have skirmishers covering these flanks. In exceptional circumstances, an army may be fortunate enough to be able to anchor a flank with a friendly castle, fortress or walled city. In such circumstances it was not necessary to fix the line to the fortress but to allow a killing space between the fortress and the battle line so that any enemy forces attempting to flank the field forces could be brought under fire from the garrison.
As good was if natural strongholds could be incorporated into the battle line, e.g. the Union positions of Culp's Hill, Cemetery Hill on the right flank, Big Round Top and Little Round Top on the left flank, at the Battle of Gettysburg. If time and circumstances allowed field fortifications could be created or expanded to protect the flanks, such as the Allied forces did with the hamlet of Papelotte and the farmhouse of Hougoumont on the left and right flanks at the Battle of Waterloo; when the terrain favoured neither side it was down to the disposition of forces in the battle line to prevent flanking attacks. For as long as they had a place on the battlefield, it was the role of cavalry to be placed on the flanks of the infantry battle line. With speed and greater tactical flexibility, the cavalry could both make flanking attacks and guard against them, it was the marked superiority of Hannibal's cavalry at Cannae that allowed him to chase off the Roman cavalry and complete the encirclement of the Roman legions.
With matched cavalry, commanders have been content to allow inaction, with the cavalry of both sides preventing the other from action. With no cavalry, inferior cavalry or in armies whose cavalry had gone off on their own it was down to the disposition of the infantry to guard against flanking attacks, it was the danger of being flanked by the numerically superior Persians that led Miltiades to lengthen the Athenian line at the Battle of Marathon by decreasing the depth of the centre. The importance of the flank positions led to the practise, which became tradition of placing the best troops on the flanks. So that at the Battle of Platea the Tegeans squabbled with Athenians as to who should have the privilege of holding a flank; this is the source of the tradition of giving the honour of the right to the most senior regiment present, that persisted into the modern era. With troops confident and reliable enough to operate in separate dispersed units, the echelon formation may be adopted; this can take different forms with either strong "divisions" or a massively reinforced wing or centre s
The Roman Republic was the era of classical Roman civilization beginning with the overthrow of the Roman Kingdom, traditionally dated to 509 BC, ending in 27 BC with the establishment of the Roman Empire. It was during this period that Rome's control expanded from the city's immediate surroundings to hegemony over the entire Mediterranean world. Roman society under the Republic was a cultural mix of Latin and Greek elements, visible in the Roman Pantheon, its political organisation was influenced by the Greek city states of Magna Graecia, with collective and annual magistracies, overseen by a senate. The top magistrates were the two consuls, who had an extensive range of executive, judicial and religious powers. Whilst there were elections each year, the Republic was not a democracy, but an oligarchy, as a small number of large families monopolised the main magistracies. Roman institutions underwent considerable changes throughout the Republic to adapt to the difficulties it faced, such as the creation of promagistracies to rule its conquered provinces, or the composition of the senate.
Unlike the Pax Romana of the Roman Empire, the Republic was in a state of quasi-perpetual war throughout its existence. Its first enemies were its Latin and Etruscan neighbours as well as the Gauls, who sacked the city in 387 BC; the Republic nonetheless demonstrated extreme resilience and always managed to overcome its losses, however catastrophic. After the Gallic Sack, Rome indeed conquered the whole Italian peninsula in a century, which turned the Republic into a major power in the Mediterranean; the Republic's greatest enemy was doubtless Carthage, against. The Punic general Hannibal famously invaded Italy by crossing the Alps and inflicted on Rome two devastating defeats at the Lake Trasimene and Cannae, but the Republic once again recovered and won the war thanks to Scipio Africanus at the Battle of Zama in 202 BC. With Carthage defeated, Rome became the dominant power of the ancient Mediterranean world, it embarked in a long series of difficult conquests, after having notably defeated Philip V and Perseus of Macedon, Antiochus III of the Seleucid Empire, the Lusitanian Viriathis, the Numidian Jugurtha, the great Pontic king Mithridates VI, the Gaul Vercingetorix, the Egyptian queen Cleopatra.
At home, the Republic experienced a long streak of social and political crises, which ended in several violent civil wars. At first, the Conflict of the Orders opposed the patricians, the closed oligarchic elite, to the far more numerous plebs, who achieved political equality in several steps during the 4th century BC; the vast conquests of the Republic disrupted its society, as the immense influx of slaves they brought enriched the aristocracy, but ruined the peasantry and urban workers. In order to solve this issue, several social reformers, known as the Populares, tried to pass agrarian laws, but the Gracchi brothers, Saturninus, or Clodius Pulcher were all murdered by their opponents, the Optimates, keepers of the traditional aristocratic order. Mass slavery caused three Servile Wars. In this context, the last decades of the Republic were marked by the rise of great generals, who exploited their military conquests and the factional situation in Rome to gain control of the political system.
Marius Sulla dominated in turn the Republic. These multiple tensions lead to a series of civil wars. Despite his victory and appointment as dictator for life, Caesar was murdered in 44 BC. Caesar's heir Octavian and lieutenant Mark Antony defeated Caesar's assassins Brutus and Cassius in 42 BC, but turned against each other; the final defeat of Mark Antony and his ally Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, the Senate's grant of extraordinary powers to Octavian as Augustus in 27 BC – which made him the first Roman emperor – thus ended the Republic. Since the foundation of Rome, its rulers had been monarchs, elected for life by the patrician noblemen who made up the Roman Senate; the last Roman king was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. In the traditional histories, Tarquin was expelled in 509 because his son Sextus Tarquinius had raped the noblewoman Lucretia, who afterwards took her own life. Lucretia's father, her husband Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, Tarquin's nephew Lucius Junius Brutus mustered support from the Senate and army, forced Tarquin into exile in Etruria.
The Senate agreed to abolish kingship. Most of the king's former functions were transferred to two consuls, who were elected to office for a term of one year; each consul had the capacity to act as a check on his colleague, if necessary through the same power of veto that the kings had held. If a consul abused his powers in office, he could be prosecuted. Brutus and Collatinus became Republican Rome's first consuls. Despite Collatinus' role in the creation of the Republic, he belonged to the same family as the former king, was forced to abdicate his office and leave Rome, he was replaced as co-consul by Publius Valerius Publicola. Most modern scholarship describes these events as the quasi-mythological detailing of an aristocratic coup within Tarquin's own family, not a popular revolution, they fit a narrative of a personal vengeance against a tyrant leading to his overthrow, common among Greek cities and theorised by Aristotle
Pydna is an ancient Greek city, an important place in the history of Pieria and a major archaeological site located directly at the Aegean Sea, 16 km northeast of Katerini, 28 km north-east of Dion and 2.5 km from the village of Makrygialos. Nearby are two Macedonian tombs, discovered by the French archaeologist Heuzey during his Greek travels in the mid-19th century. Furthermore, the fortress-like bishop's seat Louloudies is located a few kilometers south of Pydna. Pydna was first mentioned by the Greek historian Thucydides and gained importance during the Peloponnesian War; the Athenians besieged Pydna in 432 BC. King Archelaus I of Macedonia besieged the city by 410 BC from the land side, while the Athenian fleet took over the siege from the sea. After the city was taken, Archelaus moved the city 20 stadia far into the inland, to the present place of Kitros. After Archelaus's death, the inhabitants of Pydna moved back to their old seaside site. Pydna was conquered by the Athenians, but fell in 357 or 356 BC to King Philip II, the father of Alexander the Great.
Philip's wife, the mother of Alexander, was killed there after a siege by Cassander 317 BC. On 22 June 168 BC, the Battle of Pydna between the Roman commander Aemilius Paullus and the last Macedonian king Perseus took place. On this day the Macedonian rule ended, in the course of the Roman victory, Macedonia became a Roman colony. Pydna issued its own coins for the first time in the late 6th century BC. Further coins were found dating from between 389 and 379 BC. Between the 6th and 7th century AD, Pydna was named Kitros, was the most important town of Pieria until the 14th century. In the 11th and 12th centuries Kitros was the seat of a Katepanikion. In 1204 Kitros, after a siege, was taken by the Franks, they turned the bishop's church into a castle and built a tower in which their commander-in-chief resided. In the 14th century the inhabitants left the village and settled in today's Kitros, in the inland of the country. At the site of the ancient Pydna, no extensive excavations have yet been carried out yet.
The visible buildings are from the Byzantine era. The remains of the ancient Polis from the Classical and pre-Greek period are lying, at least under the Byzantine buildings; the entire complex measures 320 m by 130 m. From Mycenaean times settlements were found in the hills north of the excavation site. From 1000 to about 600 BC the area was inhabited by Thracians. However, the settlement is not preserved because the eastern part has slipped into the sea. Thus, only the western half of the settlement is preserved, however, has not yet been excavated. Parts of the city wall, built in the 5th century BC, are located 500 m north of the ancient site; the exact course of the city wall is unknown. In excavation work, only parts have been discovered so far; the wall was not made of clay. It was destroyed after the city was taken by Philip II; the Christianization of Pydna began in the fourth century. At this time the first basilica was built. At the beginning of the 6th century a second basilica was built.
Both basilicas were dedicated to the patron of St. Alexander; the second basilica was burnt down after an attack by the Bulgarians. At the end of the 10th century a much larger basilica was built in its place, it measured 23.20 m by 16.60 m. It was decorated with frescoes and the floor was laid out with mosaic. During the Franconian period, the basilica was expanded into a fortress. A well was drilled and supplies were laid. Inside the basilica is a 22 meter deep well with a stone fountain. Next to the well there was a cistern. A subterranean corridor was dug, to allow the crew of the castle to escape outside. In the apse, facing the sea, there was a Fryktoria, to exchange light signals with the opposite Chalkidiki peninsula. In this way, light signals were transmitted to larger distances by means of torches, messages could be transmitted within a short time over hundreds of kilometers. Spolias were incorporated into the surrounding wall; the wall was built in two phases. In the 6th century, during the time of Justinian, the first construction phase took place.
In the 10th century the wall was reinforced and some of the gates were walled up. The wall was reinforced by rectangular towers; some of the remains of the complex date from the 16th century, the time of the occupation of Greece by the Ottomans. West of the road, which connected Pydna with Dion, are remains of the city walls and a city gate to be seen; the current course of the road is identical to that of the ancient road. So far, the surrounding necropolis have been released, they have a considerable size. The northern necropolis contains more than 3300 graves, they date from the late Bronze Age, around 1400 BC, Until the time of Hellenisticism, at the beginning of the 3rd century BC. These are large pits, in which numerous excavations were found. Many of them are kept in the archaeological museum in Thessaloniki. Two other necropolises are located in the south of Pydna; the Western was founded at the time of the classical period, in the 5th century BC, was used until the Hellenistic period. The southern graying site was cultivated until the Roman period.
The size of the tombs and the valuable burial gifts indicate that more prosperous people were buried here. The southern and western necropolis are not archaeologically explored as well as the northern ones. Near the harbor a kiln for pottery and a guest house with bathroom was excavated. Matheos Besios: "Pieridon Stefanos: Pydna, Methoni kai archaeotites tis voria Pierias", ISBN
The phalanx was a rectangular mass military formation composed of heavy infantry armed with spears, sarissas, or similar pole weapons. The term is used to describe the use of this formation in Ancient Greek warfare, although the ancient Greek writers used it to describe any massed infantry formation, regardless of its equipment. Arrian uses the term in his Array against the Alans. In Greek texts, the phalanx may be deployed for battle, on the march, or camped, thus describing the mass of infantry or cavalry that would deploy in line during battle, they marched forward as one entity. The term itself, as used today, does not refer to a distinctive military unit or division, but to the type of formation of an army's troops. Therefore, this term does not indicate a standard combat strength or composition but includes the total number of infantry, deployed in a single formation known as a "phalanx". Many spear-armed troops fought in what might be termed phalanx-like formations; this article focuses on the use of the military phalanx formation in Ancient Greece, the Hellenistic world, other ancient states influenced by Greek civilization.
The earliest known depiction of a phalanx-like formation occurs in a Sumerian stele from the 25th century BC. Here the troops seem to have been equipped with spears and large shields covering the whole body. Ancient Egyptian infantry were known to have employed similar formations; the first usage of the term phalanx comes from Homer's "", used to describe hoplites fighting in an organized battle line. Homer used the term to differentiate the formation-based combat from the individual duels so found in his poems. Historians have not arrived at a consensus about the relationship between the Greek formation and these predecessors of the hoplites; the principles of shield wall and spear hedge were universally known among the armies of major civilizations throughout history, so the similarities may be related to convergent evolution instead of diffusion. Traditionally, historians date the origin of the hoplite phalanx of ancient Greece to the 8th century BC in Sparta, but this is under revision, it is more that the formation was devised in the 7th century BC after the introduction of the aspis by the city of Argos, which would have made the formation possible.
This is further evidenced by the Chigi vase, dated to 650 BC, identifying hoplites armed with aspis and panoply. Another possible theory as to the birth of Greek phalanx warfare stems from the idea that some of the basic aspects of the phalanx were present in earlier times yet were not developed due to the lack of appropriate technology. Two of the basic strategies seen in earlier warfare include the principle of cohesion and the use of large groups of soldiers; this would suggest that the Greek phalanx was rather the culmination and perfection of a developed idea that originated many years earlier. As weaponry and armour advanced through the years in different city-states, the phalanx became complex and effective; the hoplite phalanx of the Archaic and Classical periods in Greece was the formation in which the hoplites would line up in ranks in close order. The hoplites would lock their shields together, the first few ranks of soldiers would project their spears out over the first rank of shields.
The phalanx therefore presented a shield wall and a mass of spear points to the enemy, making frontal assaults against it difficult. It allowed a higher proportion of the soldiers to be engaged in combat at a given time. Battles between two phalanxes took place in open, flat plains where it was easier to advance and stay in formation. Rough terrain or hilly regions would have made it difficult to maintain a steady line and would have defeated the purpose of a phalanx; as a result, battles between Greek city-states would not take place in just any location, nor would they be limited to sometimes obvious strategic points. Rather, many times, the two opposing sides would find the most suitable piece of land where the conflict could be settled; the battle ended with one of the two fighting forces fleeing to safety. The phalanx advanced at a walking pace, although it is possible that they picked up speed during the last several yards. One of the main reasons for this slow approach was to maintain formation.
The formation would be rendered useless if the phalanx was lost as the unit approached the enemy and could become detrimental to the advancing unit, resulting in a weaker formation, easier for an enemy force to break through. If the hoplites of the phalanx were to pick up speed toward the latter part of the advance, it would have been for the purpose of gaining momentum against the enemy in the initial collision. Herodotus states of the Greeks at the Battle of Marathon, that "They were the first Greeks we know of to charge their enemy at a run". Many historians believe that this innovation was precipitated by their desire to minimize their losses from Persian archery; the opposing sides would collide severing many of the spears of the row in front and killing the front part of the enemy army due to the bone-breaking collision. The "physical pushing match" theory is one where the battle would rely on the valour of the men in the front line, whilst those in the rear maintained forward pressure on the front ranks with their shields, the whole formation would press forward trying to break the enemy formation.
This is the most acce
A peltast was a type of light infantry, originating in Thrace and Paeonia, who served as skirmishers in Hellenic and Hellenistic armies. In the Medieval period the same term was used for a type of Byzantine infantryman. Peltasts carried a crescent-shaped wicker shield called a pelte as their main protection, hence their name. According to Aristotle, the pelte was covered in goat or sheepskin; some literary sources imply that the shield could be round, but in art it is shown as crescent-shaped. It appears in Scythian art and may have been a common type in Central Europe; the shield could be carried with a central strap and a handgrip near the rim or with just a central hand-grip. It may have had a carrying strap as Thracian peltasts slung their shields on their backs when evading the enemy. Peltasts' weapons consisted of several javelins, which may have had straps to allow more force to be applied to a throw. In the Archaic period, the Greek martial tradition had been focused exclusively on the heavy infantry, or hoplites.
The style of fighting used by peltasts originated in Thrace and the first Greek peltasts were recruited from the Greek cities of the Thracian coast. They are depicted on vases and in other images as wearing the typical Thracian costume, which includes the distinctive Phrygian cap made of fox-skin and with ear flaps, they usually wear a patterned tunic, fawnskin boots and a long cloak, called a zeira, decorated with a bright, pattern. However, many mercenary peltasts were recruited in Greece; some vases have been found showing hoplites carrying peltes. The mythical Amazons are shown with peltast equipment. Peltasts became more important in Greek warfare, in particular during the Peloponnesian War. Xenophon in the Anabasis describes peltasts in action against Persian cavalry at the Battle of Cunaxa in 401 BCE where they were serving as part of the mercenary force of Cyrus the Younger. In Tissaphernes had not fled at the first charge, but had instead charged along the river through the Greek peltasts.
However he did not kill a single man. The Greeks opened their ranks and proceeded to deal blows and throw javelins at them as they went through. Xenophon's description makes it clear that these peltasts were armed with swords, as well as javelins, but not with spears; when faced with a charge from the Persian cavalry they opened their ranks and allowed the cavalry through while striking them with swords and hurling javelins at them. They became the main type of Greek mercenary infantry in the 4th century BCE, their equipment was less expensive than that of traditional hoplites and would have been more available to poorer members of society. The Athenian general Iphicrates destroyed a Spartan phalanx in the Battle of Lechaeum in 390 BCE, using peltasts. In the account of Diodorus Siculus, Iphicrates is credited with re-arming his men with long spears in around 374 BCE; this reform may have produced a type of "peltast" armed with a small shield, a sword, a spear instead of javelins. Some authorities, such as J.
G. P. Best, state that these "peltasts" were not peltasts in the traditional sense, but armored hoplites carrying the pelte shield in conjunction with longer spears—a combination, interpreted as a direct ancestor to the Macedonian phalanx. However, thrusting spears are included on some illustrations of peltasts before the time of Iphicrates and some peltasts may have carried them as well as javelins rather than as a replacement for them; as no battle accounts describe peltasts using thrusting spears, it may be that they were sometimes carried by individuals by choice rather than as part of a policy or reform. The Lykian sarcophagas of Payava from about 400 BCE depicts a soldier carrying a round pelte but using a thrusting spear overarm, he wears a pilos helmet with no armour. His equipment therefore resembles Iphicrates's supposed new troops. 4th century BCE peltasts seem to have sometimes worn both helmets and linen armour. Alexander the Great employed peltasts drawn from the Thracian tribes to the north of Macedonia the Agrianoi.
In the 3rd century BCE, peltasts were replaced with thureophoroi. References to peltasts may not in fact refer to their style of equipment as the word peltast became a synonym for mercenary. A tradition of fighting with javelins, light shield and sometimes a spear existed in Anatolia and several contingents armed like this appeared in Xerxes I's army that invaded Greece in 480 BCE. For example, the Paphlagonians and Phrygians wore wicker helmets and native boots reaching halfway to the knee, they carried small shields, short spears and daggers. From the mid 5th century BCE onwards, peltast soldiers began to appear in Greek depictions of Persian troops, they were equipped like Greek and Thracian peltasts, but were dressed in Persian army uniforms. They carried a light axe, known as a sagaris, as a sidearm, it has been suggested that these troops were known in Persian as their shields as taka. The Persians may have been influenced by Thracian peltasts. Another alternative source of influence would have been the Anatolian hill tribes, such as the Corduene, Mysians or Pisidians.
In Greek sources, these troops were either called peltophoroi. In the Hellenistic period, the Antigonid kings of Macedon had an elite corps of native Macedonian "Peltasts". However, this f
Third Macedonian War
The Third Macedonian War was a war fought between the Roman Republic and King Perseus of Macedon. In 179 BC King Philip V of Macedon was succeeded by his ambitious son Perseus, he stirred anti-Roman feelings around Macedonia. Tensions escalated and Rome declared war on Macedon. Most of the war was fought in Macedon as well as neighbouring Thessaly, where the Roman troops were stationed. After an inconclusive battle at Callinicus in 171 BC, several more years of campaigning, Rome decisively defeated the Macedonian forces at the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC, bringing the war to a close. Rome's victory ended the Antigonid dynasty and brought an effective end to the independence of the Hellenistic kingdom of Macedon, although formal annexation was still some years away; the kingdom was divided into each subservient to Rome. Roman prestige and authority in Greece was increased as a result. In 179 BC King Philip V of Macedon died and his ambitious son, succeeded to the throne. In pursuit of an alliance, Perseus married Laodice, the daughter of Seleucus IV the king of the Seleucid Empire.
Prusias II of Bithynia, an enemy of Eumenes II of Pergamon, an ally of Rome, asked Perseus to marry his daughter to him. Abrupolis, the king of the Thracian tribe of the Sapaei and an ally of the Romans attacked Macedon, laid it waste as far as Amphipolis, overran the gold mines of Mount Pangaeus, he was repulsed and driven out of his territories by Perseus. This conflict contributed to the tensions which led to the Third Macedonian War, because Rome took issue with the ousting of its ally. Perseus made an alliance with Cotys IV, the king of the Odrysian kingdom, the largest state in Thrace, he increased the size of his army. He announced that he could carry out reforms in Greece and restore its previous strength and prosperity. Perseus sent agents to endeavour to gain support in the Greek cities, he gained the support of Greeks who were treated generously, saw Perseus as their kindred, were keen on revolutionary change, or did not want to be at the mercy of Rome. Perseus' propaganda and political manoeuvres around Greece created significant political divisions within the Greek states and cities, which became caught up in bitter disputes between pro-Roman and pro-Perseus factions.
At the beginning of 173 BC the Romans sent commissioners to Aetolia and Macedonia, but they were not given the opportunity to meet Perseus. The Romans felt that it was clear that he was making preparations for war and that it would not be long before he would take up arms. In the Aetolian cities there were violent internal conflicts and the leaders of the pro-Roman and pro-Perseus factions refused to keep this in check. A Roman envoy attended the session of the Aetolian council at Delphi, he asked both quarrelling factions to abstain from war. This was agreed through an exchange of hostages; the envoy went to the Peloponnese and called a meeting of the Achaean council. He praised the Achaeans for retaining an old decree forbidding the Macedonian kings to approach their territories, clarified that Rome considered Perseus an enemy. There was violent conflict in Thessaly and Perrhaebia; this was exacerbated by a problem with indebtedness. Rome sent an envoy to try to defuse the situation, he managed to do so by addressing the serious problem of indebtedness "swollen by illegal interest" in both areas.
Eumenes II of Pergamon, in conflict with Macedon and who disliked Perseus, made a speech in the senate in Rome with the aim of precipitating hostilities. The contents of the speech were leaked only after the end of the war, he claimed. He had influence on many kings, he mentioned Prusias of Bithynia, an enemy of Pergamon, asking for the hand of Perseus’ daughter. He mentioned that Antiochus IV, the new Seleucid king, betrothed his daughter to Perseus as an example of Perseus gaining influence among kings in the east though Antiochus had just renewed an alliance with Rome, made by his father; the Boeotians, had never made an alliance with Macedon. Members of the Achaean council threatened to call on Rome in their opposition to an alliance with Perseus. Had it not been for this, such an alliance might have gone through. Perseus made preparations for war, he could draw many soldiers from Thrace. He had been stocking weapons, he seized some persuaded others through favour. Eumenes II claimed. A few days after Eumenes' speech the senate received envoys from Perseus.
They said that Perseus had not done anything hostile. However, the senators did not believe this and "their ears had been captured by Eumenes", they felt affronted when the leader of the embassy said that if Perseus saw that the Romans were bent on an excuse for war, he would respond with courage and that "the chances of war were the same for both sides and the issue was uncertain." When they returned to Macedon they told Perseus that the Romans were not preparing for war, but they were so embittered with him that they might do so soon. Perseus thought, he was determined to begin the war by shedding the blood of Eumenes, whom he hated, called for Euander, a leader of Cretan mercenaries, three Macedonian killers to arrange the assassination of Eumenes. The cities of Greece and Asia