Rome Enters the Greek East

Arthur M. Eckstein is a specialist in the history of Roman imperialism. He has published three books, Senate and General: Individual Decision-Making and Roman Foreign Relations, 264–194 BC (1987), Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius (1995), Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War and the Rise of Rome (2006), and 50 major scholarly articles. He is also co-editing an edition of Polybius' Histories.

• Acknowledgments vi List of Maps viiPart I Rome in Contact with the Greek East, 230–205 BC 11 Roman Expansion and the Pressures of Anarchy 32 Rome and Illyria, ca. 230–217 bc 293 Rome, the Greek States, and Macedon, 217–205 bc 77Part II The Power-Transition Crisis in the Greek Mediterranean, 207–200 BC 1194 The Pact Between the Kings and the Crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean State-System, 207–200 bc 1215 Reaction: Diplomatic Revolution in the Mediterranean, 203/202–200 bc 1816 Diplomatic Revolution in the Mediterranean, II: The Roman Decision to Intervene, 201/200 bc 230Part III From Hegemonic War to Hierarchy, 200–170 BC 2717 Hegemonic War, I: Rome and Macedon, 200–196 bc 2738 Hegemonic War, II: Rome and Antiochus the Great, 200–188 bc 3069 Hierarchy and Unipolarity, ca. 188–170 bc 342Bibliography 382Index 402

"A strength of Eckstein’s volume is the balance of international relations theory with the detailed history of the transformation of the Hellenistic multipolar anarchy from the First Illyrian War to the period of Roman “unipolarity”. This consolidates the placement of political theory within current historiography of the interstate relations of the mid- Republic and Hellenistic world. Based on the reception of IR Realism in the various studies cited here which have engaged directly or peripherally with Eckstein’s volume, there are two major ideas for which he argues that are already working their way through the ancient historical consciousness: that fear, threat, force and violence underpin interstate discourses and were commonplace in the experiences and strategies of both primary and secondary polities; and that all polities were stakeholders in international relations, with neither Roman (or others’) ambivalence preventing their participation, nor secondary states’ comparative weakness limiting their determination to join the negotiation of conflict. We shall in future see much more scholarship based upon these two central arguments."   (Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 7 May 2013)