In the history of ancient Macedonia, the last three Antigonid kings--Philip V (r. 221-179), his son Perseus (r. 179-168), and the pretender Andriscus or Philip VI (r. 149-148)--are commonly overlooked in favor of their predecessors Philip II (r. 359-336) and his son Alexander the Great (r. 336-323), who established a Macedonian empire. By the time Philip V became king, Macedonia was no longer an imperial power and Rome was fast spreading its dominance over the Mediterranean. Viewed as postscripts to the kingdom's heyday, the last Macedonian kings are often denounced for self-serving ambitions, flawed policies, and questionable personal qualities by hostile ancient writers. They are condemned for defeats by Rome that saw both the end of the monarchy and the fall of the formidable Macedonian phalanx before the Roman legion. In The Last Kings of Macedonia and the Triumph of Rome, Ian Worthington reassesses these three kings and demonstrates how such denunciations are inaccurate. Producing the first full-scale treatment of Philip V in eighty years and the first in English of Perseus and Andriscus in more than fifty, Worthington argues that this period was far from a postscript to Macedonia's Classical greatness and disagrees that the last Antigonid kings were merely collateral damage in Rome's ascendancy in the east. Despite superior Roman manpower and resources, Philip and Perseus often had the upper hand in their wars against Rome. As Worthington asserts, these kings deserve to be remembered for striving to preserve their kingdom's independence against staggering odds.

Bill of sale : bought of Walford Brothers 1938 July 20 by Mrs. Virgil Idol.

"When we think of ancient Athens, the image invariably coming to mind is of the Classical city, with monuments beautifying everywhere; the Agora swarming with people conducting business and discussing political affairs; and a flourishing intellectual, artistic, and literary life, with life anchored in the ideals of freedom, autonomy, and democracy. But in 338 that forever changed when Philip II of Macedonia defeated a Greek army at Chaeronea to impose Macedonian hegemony over Greece. The Greeks then remained under Macedonian rule until the new power of the Mediterranean world, Rome, annexed Macedonia and Greece into its empire. How did Athens fare in the Hellenistic and Roman periods? What was going on in the city, and how different was it from its Classical predecessor? There is a tendency to think of Athens remaining in decline in these eras, as its democracy was curtailed, the people were forced to suffer periods of autocratic rule, and especially under the Romans enforced building activity turned the city into a provincial one than the "School of Hellas" that Pericles had proudly proclaimed it to be, and the Athenians were forced to adopt the imperial cult and watch Athena share her home, the sacred Acropolis, with the goddess Roma. But this dreary picture of decline and fall belies reality, as my book argues. It helps us appreciate Hellenistic and Roman Athens and to show it was still a vibrant and influential city. A lot was still happening in the city, and its people were always resilient: they fought their Macedonian masters when they could, and later sided with foreign kings against Rome, always in the hope of regaining that most cherished ideal, freedom. Hellenistic Athens is far from being a postscript to its Classical predecessor, as is usually thought. It was simply different. Its rich and varied history continued, albeit in an altered political and military form, and its Classical self lived on in literature and thought. In fact, it was its status as a cultural and intellectual juggernaut that enticed Romans to the city, some to visit, others to study. The Romans might have been the ones doing the conquering, but in adapting aspects of Hellenism for their own cultural and political needs, they were the ones, as the poet Horace claimned, who ended up being captured"--

When Alexander the Great died at the age of thirty-two, his empire stretched from the Adriatic Sea in the west all the way to modern-day India in the east. In an unusual compromise, his two heirs—a mentally damaged half brother, Philip III, and an infant son, Alexander IV, born after his death—were jointly granted the kingship. But six of Alexander’s Macedonian generals, spurred by their own thirst for power and the legend that Alexander bequeathed his rule “to the strongest,” fought to gain supremacy. Perhaps their most fascinating and conniving adversary was Alexander’s former Greek secretary, Eumenes, now a general himself, who would be the determining factor in the precarious fortunes of the royal family. James Romm, professor of classics at Bard College, brings to life the cutthroat competition and the struggle for control of the Greek world’s greatest empire.