Views In Greece of Roman Policy
THERE was a great deal of talk of all sorts in Greece, first
The various views held in Greece as to the Roman policy. |
as to the Carthaginians when the Romans conquered them, and subsequently as to the question
of the pseudo-Philip. The opinions expressed in
regard to the Carthaginians were widely divided,
and indicated entirely opposite views. Some commended the
Romans for their wise and statesmanlike policy in regard to
that kingdom. For the removal of a perpetual menace, and the
utter destruction of a city which had disputed the supremacy
with them, and could even then if it got an opportunity have
still been disputing it,—thus securing the supremacy for their
own country,—were the actions of sensible and far-sighted men.
Others contradicted this, and asserted that the Romans had no
such policy in view when they obtained their supremacy; and
that they had gradually and insensibly become perverted to
the same ambition for power, which had once characterised
the Athenians and Lacedaemonians; and though they had
advanced more slowly than these last, that they would from
all appearances yet arrive at the same consummation. For
in old times they had only carried on war until their opponents
were beaten, and induced to acknowledge the obligation of
obedience and acceptance of their orders; but that nowadays
they had given a foretaste of their policy by their conduct to
Perseus, in utterly destroying the Macedonian dynasty root and
branch, and had given the finishing stroke to that policy by the
course adopted in regard to the Carthaginians; for though this
latter people had committed no act of irretrievable outrage,
they had taken measures of irretrievable severity against them,
in spite of their offering to accept any terms, and submitting to
any injunctions that might be placed upon them. Others
again said that the Romans were generally a truly civilised
people; and that they had this peculiarity, on which they
prided themselves, that they conducted their wars openly and
generously, not employing night surprises or ambuscades, but
scorning every advantage to be gained by stratagem and
deceit, and regarding open and face-to-face combats as
alone becoming to their character: but that in the present
instance their whole campaign against the Carthaginians had
been conducted by means of stratagem and deceit. Little by
little,—by holding out inducements here, and practising concealment there,—they had deprived them of all hopes of
assistance from their allies. This was a line of conduct more
appropriate by rights to the intriguing chicanery of a monarchy,
than to a republican and Roman policy. Again, there were
some who took the opposite line to these. They said that if
it were really true that, before the Carthaginians had made
the surrender, the Romans had behaved as alleged, holding
out inducements here, and making half revelations there, they
would be justly liable to such charges; but if, on the contrary, it was only after the Carthaginians had themselves made
the surrender,—acknowledging the right of the Romans to take
what measures they chose concerning them,—that the latter in
the exercise of their undoubted right had imposed and enjoined
what they determined upon, then this action must cease to be
looked on as partaking of the nature of impiety or treachery.
And some denied that it was an impiety at all: for there
were three ways in which such a thing could be defined, none
of which applied to the conduct of the Romans. An impiety
was something done against the gods, or one's parents, or the
dead; treachery was something done in violation of oaths or
written agreements; an injustice something done in violation
of law and custom. But the Romans could not be charged on
any one of these counts: they had offended neither the gods,
their parents, nor the dead; nor had they broken oaths or
treaties, but on the contrary charged the Carthaginians
with breaking them. Nor again had they violated laws, customs, or their own good faith; for having received a voluntary surrender, with the full power of doing what they pleased
in the event of the submitting party not obeying their injunctions,
they had, in view of that eventuality having arisen, applied force to them.
