Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece

Ancient Warfare and Civilization

by Robin Waterfield

"Is there anyone on earth who is so narrow-minded or uninquisitive that he could fail to want to know how and thanks to what kind of political system almost the entire known world was conquered and brought under a single empire in less than fifty-three years?" --Polybius, Histories

The 53-year period Polybius had in mind stretched from the start of the Second Punic War in 219 BCE until 167, when Rome overthrew the Macedonian monarchy and divided the country into four independent republics. This was the crucial half-century of Rome's spectacular rise to imperial status, but Roman interest in its eastern neighbors began a little earlier, with the First Illyrian War of 229, and climaxed later with the infamous destruction of Corinth in 146.

Taken at the Flood chronicles this momentous move by Rome into the Greek east. Until now, this period of history has been overshadowed by the threat of Carthage in the west, but events in the east were no less important in themselves, and Robin Waterfield's account reveals the peculiar nature of Rome's eastern policy. For over seventy years, the Romans avoided annexation so that they could commit their military and financial resources to the fight against Carthage and elsewhere. Though ultimately a failure, this policy of indirect rule, punctuated by periodic brutal military interventions and intense diplomacy, worked well for several decades, until the Senate finally settled on more direct forms of control.

Waterfield's fast-paced narrative focuses mainly on military and diplomatic maneuvers, but throughout he interweaves other topics and themes, such as the influence of Greek culture on Rome, the Roman aristocratic ethos, and the clash between the two best fighting machines the ancient world ever produced: the Macedonian phalanx and Roman legion. The result is an absorbing account of a critical chapter in Rome's mastery of the Mediterranean.

Genres: History, Ancient History, Nonfiction, Greece, Roman, Roman History, Ancient

352 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2011

About the author

Robin Anthony Herschel Waterfield is a British classical scholar, translator, editor, and writer of children's fiction.

Reviews

[Dmitri · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a compact military and political history of the Roman conflicts with Greece between 229-146 BC, told by a well-known classicist writer and translator. It is set forth without a lot of polemical frills, contrary to what is suggested in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review. Events are clearly related, and work well as an introduction. It isn't a comprehensive or in depth survey of the period. It wouldn't be possible in 236 pages, and not much cultural history is presented.

Some have been quick to criticize Waterfield's drawing of comparisons between the Roman Empire and the United States. The importance of this within the overall context of the book has been overstated as it only appears a few times. Once is in the preface where another author’s comparison of Roman indirect influence to post-WWII US international relations is noted. Waterfield points out that this is not the purpose of the book, nor his area of expertise.

A second instance is on page 101 where it is stated that “The Romans wanted to be players in the Greek world without being drawn into colonialism; they wanted political control without administrative control, as in recent decades the US avoided structures of empire while ensuring a widespread hegemony.” This may be clumsy but not his main portrayal of the period. Waterfield could have deleted these passages since they don't add much to the book.

A reader has suggested we would be better off to just read Polybius and Livy. Read them we should. They have been well referenced by Waterfield, and translated by him​ too in the case of Polybius. The scope of the historian shouldn't be limited to primary sources influenced as they were by the politics and perspectives of the time. A higher goal would be to provide analysis and critical thinking about the sources. Waterfield provides these kinds of insight.

Limiting the scope of an ancient historian to only factual representation, besides being unachievable, denies the tradition and evolution of modern historiography. To read Roman history by Gibbon, Mommsen, Syme, or Gruen provides substantially different insights on many of the same events. These writers have built upon and argued against the work of their predecessors. The Roman conquest of Greece is replete with competing theories.

Several views discussed are that Rome was defending itself against anarchy in the Mediterranean, or that Rome became involved as a series of unplanned circumstances over a long period, or Rome was intentionally extending its political and economic influence. Waterfield comes down on the side of the last purpose and he gives the various reasons for his argument. I can see some aspects of these explanations existing at the same time without contradiction.

This is a well presented and mostly uncontroversial short history. The bibliography references primary and secondary sources for further study. Waterfield indicates what he considers to be “indispensable launch pads for further inquiry” from across the spectrum of Roman history writing. It is worthwhile for a basic account of the events or to review prior reading. To citizens of the Republic, let it be it known: Rome looks no worse than others in this tome.

[Allen Walker · Rating 3 out of 5]

So, this is a pretty comprehensive overview of about a hundred years of Greek/Roman history. However, because of this and it's relatively short length, wars are sometimes resolved in a single paragraph. I would have to go and look up the conflicts themselves. Waterfield also jumps around in time a lot, going forward several years and then hopping back and it's just hard to keep track of what happened when sometimes. I wish there'd have been more delving into the character of the people involved, so for me, I'm glad I read it for the info, but not my favorite.

However there aren't a ton of books on this subject so I recommend for anyone who wants to know about the period.

[Colin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A magisterial, if dry, account of how Greece and Macedonia were absorbed by Rome

The conquest of Greece and her former Macedonian masters was a complicated process, and is generally overshadowed in the history books by the Punic Wars that were taking place or in preparation at roughly the same timeframe. When students used to ask me about it, I would usually just say, "Well, the specifics are complicated, but basically those areas ended up as Roman provinces, and that's all you need to know about the actual conquest - more interesting is the influence Greece then had on Rome . . ." All of which was true, but did not really answer the question of HOW it happened. Well, if you ever wanted to know, this book will tell you the story, in great detail. The account is a little dry - perhaps that could not have been helped - but balances between magisterial scholarship on the matter without trying to present every known historical detail, which would probably fill a whole shelf of volumes this size, and be lethally boring. Check it out if you have an interest in the history of the relations between Greece and Rome.

[Ian Sullivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just finished reading Taken at the Flood. I thought it did a good job at describing the geopolitical situation inherent in The Roman Republic's eventual conquest of Greece. His analysis was interesting, but at times I found it too cursory. This was particularly true when he was discussing key battles. Nevertheless, I appreciated his key points, namely Rome's strategy of virtual control and balance if power politics. It was definitely enjoyable and interesting.

[Spyros Stavroulakis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Αρκετά ενδιαφέρον, αν φυσικά σε ενδιαφέρει το συγκεκριμένο θέμα. Ο συγγραφέας δίνει έμφαση στις αιτίες που οδήγησαν τους Ρωμαίους στις κατακτήσεις τους, τις πολιτικές στρατηγικές που ακολούθησαν, κι ασχολείται λιγότερο με τα των μαχών και των πολέμων αυτών καθαυτών. Στην προσπάθειά του να τα εξηγήσει καλά κάποιες φορές επαναλαμβάνεται, πλην όμως όντως τα εξηγεί καλά.

[Ryan Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is obvious that Waterfield's sympathies lie with the Greeks, and his account of the Roman conquest is more focused on how the Greeks abased themselves before the Romans over the course of the second century BC. Waterfield's view of the Romans falls mainly in line with William Harris's thesis: the Romans were aggressively looking to expand their control into Greece and the Balkan peninsula almost from its first foray into Illyria in 230 BC. A useful counterpoint to other accounts, like Erich Gruen.

[Steven Nasopoulos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very readable and easy to follow

[Rich Bowers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Taken at the Flood by Robin Waterfield
 
Summary: After reading Waterfield's Dividing the Spoils, I was looking forward to follow the timeline into how Greece fell under the Imperium of Rome. Taken at the Flood begins with the start of the First Illyrian War around 230 BC and concludes with the destruction of Corinth in 146 BC.
 
Once again, Waterfield delivers an interesting and informative narrative, complete with subchapters that highlight the impact of rapid cultural exchanges during this period. The book also details Rome's conquest of Asia Minor, which was instigated by the interference (invitation?) of the Seleucid King, Antiochus in Roman and Greek matters.
 
Overall, this book aligned with what I was looking for and had a strong focus on the Macedonian Wars, which served as a lightening spark for Rome's propaganda of justifications for expansion. In addition to militarily, Taken at the Flood also emphasizes the the larger approach of a form of imperialism characterized by diplomacy and coercion that ultimately led to the domination of the Greek world.
 
Finally, I found this book to be a great way to connect my readings of Roman and Greek history over the past year. Taken at the Flood fills in the gaps of knowledge about a time period often quickly summarized in just a few paragraphs.

[Diarmuid Angland · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scholarly and dry are descriptions in other reviews and I would have to agree. This is a great work to understand a period that is often skipped over in other histories.

There was a lot of ‘this’ then ‘that’, not a lot of why. There were also some odd asides to current issues.

Following the squabble and backstabbing of the Greek communities was quite challenging at times.

Summaries or a more consistent ‘wrap-up’ at the end of each chapter would have make the book far more useful and something one could come back home to reread elements.

[Daniel Kukwa · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book gets a bit tedious when it dives into the fine details surrounding the squabbling Greek states; it would have been satisfying if this section had been condensed into a more digestible form. The Roman side of events is far more readable and fascinating, but overall this remains a solid overview of Greece's absorption into the newly coalescing Roman Empire. One stop shops for information are always a god-send to history teachers like myself.

[Lyle Probert · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 rouding up for Goodreads. An enjoyable account of the Roman conquest of Greece, an area often forgotten when discussing Roman conquests. My only real criticism is that the battles and wars themselves seem a little brief here. However, I enjoyed the authors discussion on the growing Hellenistic culture of Rome following the conquest. All in all an enjoyable examination of a neglected period in Roman history.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a rare achievement on several levels, one worthy of high praise as well as the praise of reading it and reflecting upon its eerie contemporary relevance. The author takes as his subject the somewhat obscure context of the Roman conquest of Greece between the First Illyrian War of 229BC and the destruction of Corinth in 146BC. Many readers will likely know little about the context of this period, with shifting alliances and the growing power of Rome over Greek affairs despite the reluctance of Rome to annex the area outright, but rather more interested in maintaining an indirect empire on the cheap where there are periodic interventions in local affairs with overwhelming military force, followed by a renegotiation of terms and increasing realization that areas have passed from a state of freedom into a form of imperial control. The writer, on several occasions, draws specific parallels between this rare historical case of an indirect empire with the imperialistic behavior of the United States, making some pointed commentary about recent wars and the similar reluctance of the United States to annex territories it nonetheless seeks to control remotely. The result is a work of history about an obscure but important area of history and also one that bears a startling contemporary relevance to American imperialism [1].

The book itself is organized generally chronologically and from a sober perspective of a historian who wishes to give full credit to obscure historical personages within the Roman Republic, various Greek leagues of city-states, and various Anatolian realms of importance like Rhodes, the Seleucid Empire, and Pergamum. The book starts with concerns about clouds in the West, such as the desire of the Antigonid rulers of Macedonia to regain their position of preeminence over Greece and the role of the Epirot leader Pyrrhus in seeking to stop Roman expansion. The author then examines the Roman turn east in seeking to stop the unification of Illyria under powerful leaders, the course of the Illyrian Wars that Rome fought to ensure the safety of the Adriatic Sea for its trade, the growing hostility of many Greeks to the presence of the "barbarian" Romans, the somewhat hypocritical support of the Romans for the supposed "freedom of the Greeks," the behavior of both Rome and Philip V of Macedon to provoke warfare, the Romans through deliberately snubbing diplomacy to Philip upon their entrance into Greek affairs, Philip V through making an alliance with Hannibal during the Second Punic War and in his repeated attempts to increase Macedonian strength and regain previous losses due to Roman military strength. The author then examines the expansion of Rome's periphery into Asia Minor, their efforts at remote control over Greek city-states, the choice of Perseus to resist increasing Roman domination, the end of Macedon as an independent state, the establishment of firm Roman rule over Greece, and the Greek World after the battle of Pydna and its long period under imperial domination to the Romans, Byzantines, and Ottomans before its relatively recent freedom in the 1820's.

There are at least a few notable aspects to the achievements that Waterfield has in this book. One of them is sound attention to evidence, including the histories of Polybius, who was a participant in these matters on the Greek side, and a witness of some of the events he writes about, as well as attention to sculptural and numismatic evidence. Besides the attention to these matters, the author also shows a strong tendency to understand history in the context of contemporary events, pointing out that the remote control imperialism of the Romans for so long in Greece would have been less easy to conceive of without the example of contemporary American imperialism. This insight helps us to understand that we have significant barriers to understanding history unless we can see parallels that we can recognize in the present to allow us to better understand the past. For too long, the author reminds us, historians have generally followed the Roman line that their foreign expansion was haphazard and defensive in nature, rather than a conscious and deliberate attempt to gain the benefits of empire without putting forward the costly effort of occupation and direct rule. Contemporary imperialist powers like the United States, Russia, and China, would do well to recognize the way that previous efforts at such indirect rule via puppet states worked out in the Roman conquest of Greece. On the levels of both history and contemporary critique, this book works at shining a light on an area that is too little understood by many people.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

[Josep Maria · Rating 4 out of 5]

Es un libro muy denso, con información detallada de carácter militar y político. Se echa en falta un análisis global, más allá de lo que se puede deducir de la simple sucesión de los hechos. El capítulo sobre las relaciones culturales entre Grecia y Roma merecería ser más extenso.

[Igor · Rating 2 out of 5]

It feels like this book barely scratches the surface.

[Seth D Michaels · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dry but comprehensive, attentive to clarity about sourcing and historiography, unsentimental about imperialism and its costs. A solid work of history I learned a lot from.

[Jake Pomeroy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Waterfield really encapsulates the complicated politics of pivotal, chaotic periods in Classical Antiquity and turns them into incredibly gripping yarns.

[Zachary · Rating 3 out of 5]

With Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece, Robin Waterfield succeeds in what he sets out to do, namely, to provide those relatively less learned in the minute details of the Hellenistic world at large and, more importantly, Greece of the late third and second centuries BC, with a concise, introductory history of how the Roman republic came to dominate the Balkan Peninsula at that time period. However, his history is, in the end, a bit cursory; Waterfield fails to capitalize on prime opportunities throughout the book to elaborate on what Polybius, the primary ancient source on the period, already tells us in his own history of the time period. Waterfield's account mainly consists of a description of political and military maneuvers, which, while accurate and at times somewhat intriguing, are too brief, too dry, and deserve far more attention. Nonetheless, Waterfield intends this book to be more for undergraduates interested in the ancient world than classical academics, and with this his mind, his superficial military narrative is easier to swallow. Where Waterfield succeeds most is through his more abstract discussion of ancient notions of political friendship, why the phalanx did not stand a chance against the Roman legion, the economic situation in Greece during and after the wars Rome fought, and, most of all, of Roman imperialism in Greece executed through what he calls "remote control." Waterfield's discussion of "remote control" is leaps and bounds more fascinating than his description of the battles of the Cynoscephalae and Magnesia, for instance, because it is intellectual, thought provoking, and somewhat original. Waterfield is keen to echo this theme throughout the entire book, and when he does, he succeeds brilliantly. Thus, Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece is, like the Roman conquest of Greece itself, complex and difficult to analyze. Ultimately, while the relatively new classicist does learn quite a bit from Waterfield's narrative and his thematic discussions, she will not be wholly satisfied, and, if at all interested in the topic, will still thirst for more knowledge of the time period. Given that Waterfield includes an extensive and extraordinarily helpful bibliography at the end of the book, perhaps this is exactly how he wants his readers to feel once they have finished Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece.

[Shawn Ritchie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Taken at the Flood is a very solid, readable history of a somewhat obscure era in Roman history: their conquest of the Greek lands (defined here as basically ancient Macedonia along with everything south of it and west through Thrace including modern European Turkey) during the 2nd Century BCE.

Waterfield's thesis is simply that Rome followed a recognizably imperialist plan in their slow digestion of the Greek lands, and that this should be acknowledged as such as a more valid explanation than the opposing and common claim that Rome was drawn into Greek internal strife by the Greeks themselves and ended up basically "accidentally" taking over the whole place against their wishes.

Alongside a pretty-standard chronological history of events (with useful sidebars into the effect of these events on Roman and Greek self-image, art, society, etc.), Waterfield includes his justifications for how this course of events supports his belief that this was a planned, imperialist event on Rome's part, using what records we have from letters, proclamations, etc., to reveal motive behind the actions that can be easily interpreted as imperialistic.

The argument he makes is solid; it's hard to look at the totality of Roman actions in this period along with the actual outcomes over time and not come to the conclusion that Rome was acting with purpose towards the elimination of independent freedom of action on the part of the Greeks and to increasingly control their lands, economies and people in ever-more direct fashion.

This is NOT a military history; actual battles are covered very briefly, with the focus remaining firmly on the political and social results of those battles rather than the fighting itself. That said, obviously, key battles that changed the course of overall events are certainly referenced.

The writing is fairly lively, though Waterfield's obvious anti-imperialist bent and disdain for how the Romans went about things comes through a bit strongly at times. I'm not entirely sure our modern dislike of imperialism can be transplanted back to an era where war, pillage and conquering were the way of all polities, but hey, at least he has a viewpoint he's willing to strongly defend.

This particular subset of Roman history isn't exactly drowning in well-written, non-academic writings, so I can unhesitatingly recommend it to anybody interested at all in the topic.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Three stars for "liked it". Bot readable and informative this book is suitable for an inquisitive non-scholar like myself however, for my taste, it could have gone a bit deeper into the subject matter. I preferred Mr Waterfield's other book "Dividing the Spoils".

[Sukrit · Rating 4 out of 5]

Compelling overview of the political, diplomatic, and military history of the Roman conquest of Greece. Author presented a thorough, evenhanded analysis, but some degree of sympathy for the Greeks was evident. This is valuable, because most books I have read reflect implicit bias towards the Romans -- so it is good to have the other side as well. In particular, I had not read of the atrocities perpetrated by Rome and her soldiers on the Greeks in an effort to cow them into obedience. It is valuable context to keep in mind, given the otherwise-rosy image given by authors like Cicero, Virgil, etc.

Manuscript was great on the why, when, and who of the conquest, but light on the how. It did not explain why the Romans were so superior to the Greeks militarily. Was it their system of government? Was it their economy? Was it their culture, which gave them greater willingness to sacrifice for victory? The author hints at this question, but does not address it directly. Doing so would have made this a 5/5 book in my view.

[· · Rating 2 out of 5]

(31 January, 2021)

Robin Waterfield has an opinion: Rome conquered the Greek states in a not-so-benevolent way, mark it.

While I agree with him, it is not a pleasant sensation questioning if everything here is factual, or if any omissions are deliberate simply to encourage a certain impression - that is not why I read history books. Every historian has, perforce, a personal point of view regarding certain events in history, this author is just too overt with his.

Although 'Taken At The Flood' makes for dry reading, it is still interesting and well researched. What bothered me to no end was Waterfield's awkward insertions of more recent historical examples resembling Roman decisions and actions... to make them what? more relevant or more understandable or something? If one reads books about Roman and Greek history one 'gets' history, methinks.

This last complaint is more of an annoyance, the first one is the main reason for the 2 stars it is that bad. A more neutral presentation would have been greatly appreciated.

[Gavin · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece', is the second book I have read by Waterfield, and he does not disappoint. As the title of the book suggests, the narrative mainly focuses on outlining and illuminating the Roman subordination of the Greek speaking part of the modern Balkan peninsula.

As such, Waterfield examines the three Illyrian Wars, the three Macedonian Wars, and the varied conflict between Rome and the Greek leagues, such as those of the Boeotian's and Achaean's. As with his book on the diadochi - Alexander the Great's successors - Waterfield demystify what was a fraught period in the history of the Greek states, one characterised by fragmentation and strife.

Overall, I found this book to be accessible, readable and, ultimately, informative. Hence, it comes highly recommended for anyone who wants to learn more about one of Rome's earliest imperial forays into the eastern Mediterranean...

Happy reading,
Gavin

[Tuck · Rating 4 out of 5]

an easy to understand history of rome's takeover of greece and macedonia (and west coast of turkey and northern levant) from about 200 to 167 AD. how'd they do it? overpowering navy, land army, and power politics. they tried to convince the different city states and kings to do what rome wanted, ie. indirect rule, or crush them out. finally they even crushed macedonia and took over western turkey this strategy was so successful.
so a lot of history in 300 pages/, wonderful addition for pop hist, undergrad and public library collections. has maps, great photos, cool endnotes,and incredible bibliography

the roman square beat the hoplite phalanx, everytime.

[Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was excited to read this book as my ignorance of the events in question has for some time left me with quite curious to dispel that ignorance. Taken at the Flood reads very quickly and succeeds in painting with broad brush strokes a respectable portrait of the Roman conquest of Greece. The portrait has what at times is a quite stark economy of detail that leaves me feeling less ignorant of the events, but not as much less as I'd hoped. Still, it's a good introduction to the conquest and the analogy of the early style of empire at a distance to the American empire was interesting.

[Vicki Cline · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book covers the period when Rome was taking control of the Mediterranean, and deals mostly with Illyricum, Greece and Macedonia. Truthfully, I didn't enjoy it as much as I did Polybius, a main source for the book. My main problem was with the place names, which I'm not familiar with. There were excellent maps, but somehow they didn't help me that much.

[Panagiotis Gioxas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Περιεκτικό συμπαγές στην αφήγηση με αρκετές νότες κριτικής του συγγραφέα για τα γεγονότα που συνέβησαν.Ετσι και αυτό λειτουργεί ως ένα κομμάτι του παζλ της ιστορίας εκείνων των χρόνων.
Υ.Γ. Γιατί χρειάζεται να αναφέρει τη Μακεδονία ξεχωριστά από την Ελλάδα;Η Ελλάδα ως μέρος της βαλκανικής χερσονήσου εμπεριέχει και την Μακεδονία.

[Jo Walton]

This is a perfectly OK workmanlike book, and covering an area where there's not much existing literature. If you want to know about the Roman conquest of Greece, and you'd like a bit of modern archaeology to go with your Livy, here it is.

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good basic overview of the period. I like his idea that it was an intentional, incremental take over of Greece by the Roman Republic. Almost have to feel sorry for the Macedonians as they were in a no-win situation.

[Irene]

This is our September read at our online book chats.
http://romanhistorybooksandmore.frees...

[Альберто Лорэдо · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good and clear story of the Roman conquest of Greece, very easy read and quite fluid. Just missing a little social and cultural content but all in all a pleasant read