Among the poems of the Greek Anthology is one (Anth. Pal. 6.171) which purports to be the dedicatory inscription of the Colossus of Rhodes built to celebrate the Rhodians' successful resistance to the siege of their island by Demetrius Poliorcetes in the years 305–304 b.c. It has long been assumed by scholars that this epigram represents the authentic dedicatory inscription carved on the base of the Colossus, which was completed in the 280s and stood for some sixty years before being destroyed by an earthquake that rocked the island of Rhodes in the 220s.Footnote ¹ There are, however, strong reasons to doubt the epigram's authenticity, some of which come from considerations of the poem itself and others which come from a comparison with a closely related epigram (Anth. Pal. 9.518) composed by Alcaeus of Messene to celebrate Philip V's military successes during his Aegean campaign of 203–200. Verbal and thematic parallels between the two epigrams make a connection certain. It is the aim of the present study to re-examine the Rhodian epigram and its relation to Anth. Pal. 9.518 in order to propose a new date for the former in the context of Rhodes' defeat of Philip V and the advent of Rome in the affairs of the states ringing the Aegean.

Before proceeding with a review of previous scholarship on the question, a brief justification for questioning the authenticity of the dedicatory epigram is in order, but first the text of the two epigrams:

It should be stated at the outset that there is no compelling reason for accepting Anth. Pal. 6.171 as the authentic dedicatory inscription of the Colossus of Rhodes. Most ancient writers who discuss the statue make no mention of any inscription at all. Pliny (HN 34.18.41) records the builder's name as Chares and discusses his creation's dimensions, how long it took to build, the earthquake that destroyed it, and the impressive ruins it left. Philo of Byzantium (De septem mundi spectaculis) covers pretty much the same ground with more attention to the method of construction.Footnote ⁴ He does mention that the statue stood on a white marble base, prompting Gow and Page to surmise that this was where Anth. Pal. 6.171 was inscribed.Footnote ⁵ Philo, however, does not mention any inscription. If we were merely dealing with an argument from silence, we might be inclined to think that perhaps these authors simply neglected to record the inscription as a detail extraneous to their interest in the Colossus. There is, however, evidence that the Colossus did carry with it a dedicatory inscription different from the Rhodian epigram.

This dedicatory epigram is preserved in the Anthology compiled by Planudes.Footnote ⁶ It is also attested in two authors separated by several centuries. In his Geography Strabo mentions the Colossus and records a fragment of the epigram, attributing the iambic verse to an unnamed poet.Footnote ⁷ Strabo does not indicate that this epigram served as the dedicatory inscription, though he does not deny it either. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, on the other hand, does explicitly state that the dedication was inscribed on the statue's base.Footnote ⁸ Three items in the epigram point to the Anthology of Cephalas (c. a.d. 900) as a shared source for the text as preserved by both Constantine and Planudes.Footnote ⁹ It is unclear whether Constantine's claim that the epigram was inscribed on the base of the Colossus was already present in Cephalas' collection. Even if it was, it is hard to ascertain the value of the evidence for the epigram's authenticity. Thus Anth. Plan. 82 does not have a strong claim to being the dedicatory epigram inscribed on the base of the Colossus.Footnote ¹⁰ In contrast to Anth. Pal. 6.171, however, at least it has some claim. The presence of even a questionable claim highlights the total absence of such evidence for the Rhodian epigram.

To return to the poems under discussion, the turbulent decades of the 1930s and 1940s witnessed a flurry of interest in the two epigrams, which lay at the heart of interrelated studies published between 1934 and 1948 by four scholars: C.F. Edson (1934 and 1948), A. Momigliano (1942), F.W. Walbank (1942 and 1943; cf. 1940), and S. Accame (1947).Footnote ¹¹

Edson (1934) appealed to the Rhodian epigram as evidence for early Antigonid claims to Heraclid ancestry. Noting the extravagance of the Rhodian claim (Anth. Pal. 6.171.8; cf. 5) to rule over land and sea, Edson argued that it could not be meant literally and suggested instead that it was intended as a taunt directed at Demetrius Poliorcetes after his unsuccessful siege of Rhodes in 304.Footnote ¹² According to Edson, the mockery only made sense in answer to Antigonid claims to descent from Heracles, which had, therefore, to be pushed back to the age of Antigonus Monophthalmus and his son.Footnote ¹³

Momigliano (1942, esp. 54–5) agreed with Edson on the unseemly hyperbole of the Rhodian claim to rule over land and sea and adduced the epigram as the key piece of evidence supporting his argument that such claims were a standard component of poetic flattery directed at Hellenistic monarchs. In his conception the formula need only have a passing reference to reality. The Rhodians could not, after all, make any serious claim to such rule in the opening decades of the third century.

Walbank (1942, esp. 134–7) accepted Edson's interpretation of the Rhodian epigram and expanded on it. In view of the obvious verbal parallels between the Rhodian poem and that of Alcaeus, he argued that the latter was a retort to the former.Footnote ¹⁴ Just as the Rhodians had taunted Demetrius over his unsuccessful siege of their island, so too did Demetrius' successor and kinsman Philip V gloat over Rhodian defeats during his campaign of expansion in the Aegean during 203–201 b.c.

Though scholars have accepted Walbank's demonstration of the close connection between the two poems, dissent from his interpretation of Alcaeus' epigram as a counter-taunt to the Rhodian dedication has been widespread. In a footnote Walbank (1942, 136 n. 4) himself records the otherwise unpublished objection of Momigliano that Alcaeus' epigram does not respond to the main point of the Rhodian taunt, namely its calling into question the Heraclid claims of the Antigonids. Walbank's article caused Edson (1948) to make a volte-face in his interpretation of Alcaeus' epigram. Formerly he had accepted it as a sincere expression of the poet's admiration for Philip V. Further consideration of Alcaeus' poem led him to interpret the poet's words as a ‘bitterly sarcastic’ false encomium on the king written by a political enemy.Footnote ¹⁵ Finally, Gow and Page expressed their uncertainty regarding Walbank's interpretation, though without offering a solution of their own.Footnote ¹⁶

In the midst of all these objections, no scholar offered an explanation of what has been, nevertheless, acknowledged as Alcaeus' obvious use of the Rhodian epigram. Accame (1947) took a different approach. Accepting that the parallels between the two poems made dependence of one upon the other inescapable, he was the first and only one to suggest that the commonly assumed relationship might be reversed with the Rhodian epigram dependent upon that of Alcaeus. Unfortunately, he did not propound this theory as fully as he might have, but limited his observations to some vague statements about the faded (‘slavata’) language of the Rhodian epigram which suggested that it was following a model rather than being a fresh composition. More helpfully, Accame also called attention to the odd juxtaposition of the erection of the Colossus with the theme of dominion over land and sea, an observation to which we shall return.

Other arguments based on stylistic or structural considerations might be added. The first argument builds on Momigliano's observation that, despite the importance of Heracles to the Rhodian dedication, Alcaeus' epigram makes no mention of the hero in his supposed retort. In addition to the omission of any reference to Heracles, Alcaeus also avoids any mention of the Rhodians or even an allusion to the comeuppance of the islanders. This would be a level of subtlety totally out of keeping with the tone of Alcaeus' praise of Philip in the epigram.

Secondly, the appearance of some form of μακυνᾶσθαι is easier to account for in Alcaeus' poem than in the Rhodian dedication. Alcaeus uses the word while advising Zeus to improve the existing fortifications of Olympus. Though there is no other instance, so far as I can tell, of the word being used for heightening walls – or perhaps better, lengthening them – it is not too great a stretch of the word's meaning.Footnote ¹⁷ Indeed there is a certain freshness to Alcaeus' use. The word's appearance in the Rhodian epigram, by contrast, seems odd. There it carries a meaning of setting up or erecting a statue and takes the place of more common words (ἱδρύω and various forms of τίθημι) hallowed by classical usage.Footnote ¹⁸ The Rhodian poet's choice makes more sense if it was dictated by Alcaeus' previous use of the word. In his desire to make it clear that his poem was an answer to the Messenian's he seized upon the most arresting word employed in his model and redeployed it in a unique, and not entirely successful, way.

Finally, we might note in connection with the proceeding observation, that the placement of the two verbal parallels (μακύνου/ἐμακύναντο and πρὸς Ὄλυμπον) that exist between the poems makes more sense in the Rhodian dedication as an advertisement of its dependence on Alcaeus' epigram. In Alcaeus' epigram the two items constitute the most striking features of the poem: the warning to Zeus to fortify heaven and the notion that heaven alone remains for Philip to conquer. The poem opens with μακύνου and ends with ἁ πρὸς Ὄλυμπον ὁδός; in other words the two items function rather like bookends for the poem. By placing the two items in the opening line of the Rhodian epigram, the anonymous poet takes two memorable features of Alcaeus' poem and places them before the reader's eyes as though to announce up front his intention of answering the Messenian's poetic flattery of Philip V. It is hard to see why Alcaeus would take these two items from the first line of the Rhodian epigram and use them to bookend his own creation, especially since the phrase πρὸς Ὄλυμπον is not striking in the Rhodian dedication.Footnote ¹⁹

Up to this point the argument has relied on considerations of the style and structure of the two poems. We now shift to an analysis of details of the poems that relate to their historical context. Accame (1947), as noted, called attention to the anachronistic juxtaposition of dominion over land and sea with the erection of the Colossus in the 280s. Edson (1934) and Momigliano (1942) were also troubled by what Edson refered to as the ‘tasteless hyperbole’ of the Rhodian claim to such dominion in the aftermath of their successful resistance to Demetrius Poliorcetes. This observation led both scholars to attempt an explanation that made sense of this extravagant claim in the context of the early third century. Neither explanation, however, is satisfactory and the Rhodian claim makes more sense in the context in which Accame placed it. A brief review and refutation of both scholars' arguments will point the way toward a new solution based on Accame's interpretation.

Momigliano, as we have noted earlier, argued that the exaggerated claims of the Rhodians to rule over land and sea made the formulaic claim almost meaningless. He adduced other examples of the formula and concluded that it need have only a passing relation to reality.Footnote ²⁰ The examples to which he makes his appeal, however, are nowhere near as empty as a Rhodian claim would be in the opening decades of the third century. His examples include Theocritus' (Id. 17.91–2) and Callimachus' (Hymn 4.166–9) application of the formula to Ptolemy Philadelphus; Alpheius' (Anth. Pal. 9.526) and Melinno's (Diehl, Anth. Lyr. II² 6.209) later use of the formula for Rome; Alcaeus' epigram applying the formula to Philip V; and the Rhodian epigram.Footnote ²¹ Philadelphus, of course, had a pretty strong claim to the title.Footnote ²² Rome did, as well, especially after the wars against Philip V and Antiochus III.

So, too, did Philip V if Alcaeus' epigram was written to celebrate the Macedonian king's victories during his Aegean campaign of 202–200.Footnote ²³ In 202 the king took Lysimacheia, Chalcedon, Cius, Perinthus, Thasos, various Cyclades and Samos, where he captured part of the Ptolemaic fleet that was stationed there. Philip's successes provoked the creation of a strong coalition of naval powers including Rhodes, Byzantium, Cyzicus, Cos, Chios and Pergamum. Though the first clash between the two belligerents ended in a costly defeat for Philip at Chios, the Macedonian victory at Lade over the Rhodian fleet balanced the ledger and allowed the king to make raids on the Ionian coastline in which he not only forced the submission of various cities including Miletus, but even ravaged Pergamene and Rhodian territory.Footnote ²⁴ The expedition was finally brought to an end by the Rhodian fleet and Roman intervention. In the midst of these successes, Alcaeus' claims have the ring of truth.Footnote ²⁵

Thus out of the six examples of the land and sea formula adduced by Momigliano, five have a strong claim to reality, leaving the Rhodian epigram as the exception. Momigliano's argument for weakening the formula is rather overstated for such a slender evidentiary basis. It behoves us to look for either a better explanation of this Rhodian extravagance of expression or a more appropriate context for the Rhodian claim.

Edson's (1934) attempt to find a better explanation inadvertently points to a more appropriate context. His argument consists of two separate elements. First, he interprets the Rhodian epigram as a taunt aimed at the Antigonids, predicated on the claim of the Macedonian dynasty to Heraclid descent. Secondly, he dates the taunt to the aftermath of Rhodes' successful resistance to Demetrius Poliorcetes' siege of the island, which ended in 304.

The first part seems pretty secure. The epigram was clearly written in response to a Rhodian victory, for the poet (Anth. Pal. 6.171.3–4) says that the Rhodians put an end to war and crowned their fatherland with spoils taken from the enemy. The appearance of Heracles in the epigram raises questions. As Gow and Page note, the cult of Heracles was not particularly conspicuous at Rhodes, so it is unclear why the epigram places so much emphasis on the islanders' Heraclid ancestry, guaranteed by their Dorian roots.Footnote ²⁶ Edson's solution explains the difficulty: the Rhodians drew attention to their Heraclid ancestry to counter the claims of the Antigonids to rule over land and sea as the successors of Heracles.

The second part of Edson's argument, that the epigram makes most sense in the opening decades of the third century after Demetrius' embarrassment by the Rhodians, is based on a very shaky foundation, namely the assertion that Heraclid origins were already claimed by the Antigonids as early as Antigonus Monophthalmus and his son. Most of the evidence points to a later date for the origins of this claim, as Edson himself admits. Edson appeals to literary and numismatic evidence to bolster his claim. A review of the evidence is in order.

First, the literary evidence. The primary basis is an epigram (Anth. Pal. 6.115; cf. 114 and 116) celebrating Philip V's dedication to Heracles of the horns and skin of a bull killed by the king:

The poet clearly states in the closing verses the Heraclid descent of the Macedonian king. To this might be added numismatic evidence illustrating a connection with Heracles. The earlier kings in the Antigonid dynasty (Demetrius I, Antigonus Gonatas, Demetrius II and Antigonus Doson) continued to use the standard Alexander type for their tetradrachmas featuring the head of the young Heracles. Philip V seems to have been the first to include a reference to Heracles in his own right on his coinage, that is to say, not as a derivative from the Alexander tetradrachmas. His bronze, silver and gold pieces often feature the club of Heracles on the reverse. Perseus, Philip's son and heir, continued the practice, as did Andriscus.Footnote ²⁸

Two points emerge with some clarity. First, there was an advertised connection between the Antigonids and Heracles. Secondly, the evidence for such a claim points most strongly to Philip V.

Edson plausibly suggested that the connection between the Antigonids and Heracles lay through the Argeads. Once again the evidence points to the reign of Philip V for the prevalence of claims to Argead descent. According to Polybius (5.10.10) Philip made great efforts throughout his life to show himself a true descendant of Philip II and Alexander (συγγενὴς Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Φιλίππου). His son Perseus also claimed kinship (συγγένειαν) with Philip II and Alexander, according to Plutarch (Aem. 12). Livy (27.30.9) records that the people of Argos elected Philip director of the Heraean and Nemean Games on the basis of the claims of the Macedonian royal house to Argive ancestry (quia se Macedonum reges ex ea civitate oriundos referunt). Livy also records (32.22.11) that when the Achaean League voted to join Rome in an alliance against Philip some delegates from Argos withdrew because they believed that the Macedonian kings were kinsmen (iam Argivi praeterquam quod Macedonum reges ab se oriundos credunt). Once again the evidence points to Philip V as the king who most emphasized the ancestral claims of his house.

Indeed, Edson brings forward only two pieces of evidence which suggest that the claim to Heraclid descent had been staked by Philip V's Antigonid forebears. One is the Rhodian epigram itself and the other is the remains of a monumental dedication from the island of Delos celebrating the victory of Antigonus Gonatas at the battle of Cos. The ruins of the so-called ‘Monument of the Ancestors’ consist of a dedicatory inscription and bases for a variously reported number of statues.Footnote ²⁹ The impressions for the feet of the first statue are larger than the others which suggests that this statue was on a grander scale than the others. Edson proposed that the bigger statue represented Heracles, or perhaps Temenus, while the smaller ones were representations of the hero's descendants in the Argead and Antigonid lines up to Antigonus Gonatas.

It is hard to know what to make of these ruins. Edson's reconstruction is certainly possible, but the remains are a very shaky foundation on which to build his argument that the Heraclid claim went back beyond Antigonus Gonatas to the founders of the Antigonid dynasty. Even if Edson was correct, that Gonatas did graft the Antigonids into the Argead dynasty with their Heraclid descent, it is not clear how much use the king made of the connection. Though an appeal to silence is fraught with uncertainty here, it is remarkable that the Heraclid claim so prominent in Philip V's own self-presentation, attested by Polybius and evidenced by both his coinage and the production of a court poet, shows no other traces in the propaganda of Gonatas or any other Antigonid before Philip. The evidence of the ‘Monument of the Ancestors’ is suggestive, but far from decisive for early Antigonid pretensions to Heraclid descent. Even if we do accept Edson's interpretation of these ruins, it only pushes the claim back to Antigonus Gonatas, not to the age of Antigonus Monophthalmus and Demetrius Poliorcetes and the siege of Rhodes.

We might add to Edson's arguments another which at first glance may seem to signal the likelihood of an early Antigonid claim to descent from Heracles. A careful consideration of the evidence, however, will show that it in fact inclines against such a claim.Footnote ³⁰

There exists some evidence pointing to claims on the part of the Ptolemies and Seleucids to Heraclid origins, stronger for the former and weaker for the latter. If this evidence can be taken to show that already in the generation of the Successors claims were being made in these dynasties to Heraclid descent, one might expect that Antigonus Monophthalmus and Demetrius Poliorcetes would have followed suit, as well. There are two flaws with this theory. First, it is not at all clear that Heraclid claims were a feature of the propaganda of Ptolemy Soter or Seleucus Nicator. Secondly, even if we could push such claims back to the founders of the Lagid and Seleucid dynasties, it is by no means certain that the Antigonid founders would have made the same claims – indeed, what evidence that we do have suggests quite the opposite. A brief review of the evidence is necessary.

The evidence for the Ptolemies is rather fuller. Q. Curtius Rufus (9.8.22) and Pausanias (1.6.2, 8) record that there were rumours that Ptolemy Soter was the son of Philip II by a concubine who was subsequently married to Lagus. Theocritus in his encomium to Ptolemy Philadelphus (17.21–7, esp. 26–7) claims that both Ptolemy Soter and Alexander could trace their lineage to Heracles. Satyrus in his monograph on the Alexandrian demes (FGrH 20 F 1 = Theophilus, Autol. 2.7) traces the ancestry of Ptolemy Soter through his mother Arsinoe back to Heracles (through his son Hyllus) and to Dionysus the father of Heracles' wife Deianira.Footnote ³¹ From the reign of Ptolemy III comes an inscription (OGIS 54), found at Adulis on the Red Sea and recounting the events of the Laodicean War (246–241 b.c.), which states that the king's grandfather Ptolemy Soter descended through his father from Heracles and through his mother from Dionysus. The final item comes from the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator. A rather long inscription from Xanthos records that an embassy came to the Lydian city from Cytenium in European Doris to request Xanthian aid in restoring the walls of Cytenium which had been destroyed by an earthquake and the forces of Antigonus Doson. The inscription contains the Xanthian decree, the request of the Cytenians, and a decree of the Aetolian League authorizing the Cytenians to send embassies to Xanthos and other destinations. The main basis of the Cytenian appeal lies in the shared Doric kinship that exists between their city and the Xanthians, who are assured that their help will be greatly pleasing to Ptolemy owing to his own kinship with the Dorians through the Heraclid Argeads.Footnote ³²

While the evidence is conclusive for an established Heraclid connection by the reign of Ptolemy II, the authenticity of the rumours regarding Ptolemy Soter's paternity must remain in question. It is quite possible that they derive from Ptolemy II's dynastic propaganda and the establishment of the dynastic cult. It is worth noting, however, that the cult of Heracles was not promoted with anything like the zeal which the Ptolemies showed for that of Dionysus.Footnote ³³

The evidence for Seleucid claims to Heraclid descent is far less compelling. The only piece of evidence connecting the dynasty's founder with Heracles is quite late. In his encomium on Antioch, Libanius (Or. 11.91) records the origins of the first settlers of the Seleucid foundation: Argives, Cretans and the descendants of Heracles. Parenthetically Libanius says that he believes that Seleucus was a Heraclid through the line of Temenus.Footnote ³⁴ The other item comes from the Xanthian inscription already mentioned above. Among the documents contained in the inscription is a letter of the Aetolians (SEG 38, 1476.75–6) in which permission is given to the Cytenians to send embassies to Dorians throughout the world, to both cities and kings who descend from Heracles. In the latter group the letter includes Ptolemy IV and Antiochus III.

Such evidence inspires little confidence. Nothing survives originating from the dynasty itself, in contrast with the Ptolemies and the later Antigonids. Indeed, Seleucid dynastic propaganda traces the origins of Seleucus Nicator back to Apollo (Just. Epit. 15.4.1–9). The point of Libanius' memory of Seleucus' connection with Heracles seems to be offered to explain the presence of descendants of the hero in recently founded Antioch. Earlier in the same speech, however, Libanius (Or. 11.57) had already accounted for their presence: when the Heraclids were expelled by Eurystheus, some of them settled in the region of what would become Antioch and founded the city of Heracleia near the future site of Daphne.Footnote ³⁵ As for the Aetolian decree inscribed at Xanthos, the lack of detail makes it difficult to assess the value of this testimony. There is certainly nothing to suggest that the Heraclid claim goes back to Seleucus, or that it was even promoted by the Seleucids.

In sum, there is no solid evidence suggesting that either Ptolemy Soter or Seleucus Nicator tried to link himself with Heracles or the Argead dynasty. Supposing they did, however, would that mean that Antigonus Monophthalmus need have done the same? The sources which describe Antigonus' assumption of the kingship all agree that he based his claim to this dignity on Demetrius Poliorcetes' victory over Ptolemy Soter at Salamis in 306.Footnote ³⁶ The last Argead, Alexander IV, had been killed in 310. Up to that point the Successors had for the most part maintained their loyalty to the dynasty of Philip II and Alexander, but it had lapsed with no heir. Antigonus waited until a signal victory demonstrated his superiority over the other generals who had carved up Alexander's empire. In so doing, Antigonus and his son had inaugurated at one and the same time a new dynasty and a new model of kingship, which did not depend on continuity with the past, but rested instead on individual achievement and charisma for its legitimacy.Footnote ³⁷ Whether or not Ptolemy Soter and Seleucus Nicator made a connection with Heracles and the Argeads a part of their dynastic justification – and it seems unlikely that they did – the ancient evidence bearing on Antigonus' assumption of the diadem entirely omits any mention of the notion and inclines rather to the contrary position that Antigonus avoided such a connection.

To return to Edson's case, apart from the ‘Monument of the Ancestors’, the only other evidence brought forward to support an early Heraclid claim is the Rhodian epigram. For the many reasons explored above, however, this dating of the poem is not a very good fit on literary or historical grounds. The epigram reads much more easily as a response to the propaganda of Philip V. The connection between the Rhodian epigram and Alcaeus' is clear on the basis of verbal parallels. Thematically the Rhodian epigram takes aim at Philip's claim, made by Alcaeus, to rule over land and sea. Though the Heraclid claim is not part of Alcaeus' epigram, it was an important part of Philip's propaganda, as Antipater's epigram and the Macedonian king's own coinage demonstrate. The Rhodian epigram answers to both aspects of Philip's posturing.

As to Momigliano's objection that Rhodes could not possibly have claimed lordship over land and sea as a result of the island's successful resistance to Demetrius Poliorcetes, a review of Rhodian power and influence in the decade following their victory over Philip, both before and during the Roman war against the king, will provide a more appropriate setting in which the epigram's claims do not seem so extravagant. It will also be demonstrated that the epigram's focus on freedom closely parallels the propaganda of both Rhodes and her Roman ally during the wars that opened the second century. Our primary sources for international affairs in the early second century are Polybius and Livy, whose account derives to a great extent from Polybius' history, much of which is now lost.Footnote ³⁸

The conflict between Rhodes and Philip V began with the Macedonian king's Aegean expedition of 202–200. After being soundly defeated at Lade things began to look up for the Rhodian fleet, which succeeded in blockading the Macedonian fleet at Bargylia, ending Philip's campaign. In the spring of 200 envoys from Rhodes, Attalus and Rome converged on Athens to try to persuade the Assembly to join the fight against Philip. On its way home from Athens a Rhodian squadron received into alliance most of the Aegean islands, with the exception of Andros, Paros and Cythnos.Footnote ³⁹ Ultimately the islands were incorporated into a resurrected Nesiotic League under Rhodian leadership.Footnote ⁴⁰

In addition to extending its indirect control over the Aegean, Rhodes also brought the Peraea back under its direct control. Philip had taken the island's mainland possessions during his Aegean campaign. The recovery of the Peraea was one of the objectives sought by Rhodes in the Second Macedonian War.Footnote ⁴¹ The Rhodians recovered this territory after defeating the Macedonian army which was stationed in Caria.Footnote ⁴² Nor was the recovery of the Peraea the end of Rhodian gains in the war against Philip and its aftermath.

At the end of 198 the allies – Rome, Attalus, Aetolia, Rhodes and Achaea – met Philip near Nicaea on the Malian Gulf to discuss terms for ending the war. When it came time for the Rhodian ambassador to speak, Agesimbrotus demanded that the king return the Peraea; withdraw his garrisons from the Carian towns of Iasus, Bargylia and Euromus, and from the Hellespontine towns of Sestus and Abydus; return Perinthus to Byzantium; and guarantee the freedom of all the markets and ports of Asia.Footnote ⁴³ The Rhodian demands were later incorporated into the terms proposed by the senate after Cynoscephalae.Footnote ⁴⁴ The Romans also added the demand that Philip restore to Ptolemy V Egyptian possessions in Asia Minor.Footnote ⁴⁵

Two points merit attention. First, the emphasis placed on freedom. The notion was of paramount importance to Rhodian propaganda and became central to Rome's own propaganda in the war against Philip. Secondly, though freedom was guaranteed, many of these cities came under Rhodian influence, much as the members of the resuscitated Nesiotic League had. Both the emphasis on freedom and the expansion of Rhodian influence are important themes in the Rhodian epigram under discussion.

No less a figure than Antiochus III, the greatest Hellenistic king of his day, attested to the increased influence of Rhodes. Hoping to take advantage of the confusion caused by the war against Philip, Antiochus began to move into Asia Minor. Rhodian envoys issued an ultimatum forbidding him to pass the Cilician promontory of Chelidoniae. A chastened Antiochus obeyed the demand and hastened to reassure the Rhodians that he planned no harm for them or their Roman allies.Footnote ⁴⁶ When news of Philip's defeat arrived, the Rhodians dropped their opposition to Antiochus' designs on Asia Minor. Nevertheless, as Antiochus began to move into Anatolia, the Rhodians successfully restrained him from infringing on the liberty of the Ptolemaic allies of Caunus, Myndus, Halicarnassus and Samos. Given the inability of Ptolemy V to preserve his own allies, it is likely that the cities recognized Rhodian leadership. In 191 the Rhodians formally purchased Caunus from Ptolemy.Footnote ⁴⁷ Antiochus himself helped the Rhodians to expel the Macedonian army from Stratonicea.Footnote ⁴⁸ A final indicator of the king's regard for the island came during the dispute between Rome and Antiochus regarding his designs on Lampsacus and Smyrna. Antiochus offered to submit the question to Rhodian arbitration.Footnote ⁴⁹ This decision underlines the important position Rhodes enjoyed as a mediator between her Roman allies and the cities and states of the eastern Mediterranean.Footnote ⁵⁰

Rhodian power and influence were riding high after the defeat of Philip by Rome and her allies. Rhodes had not only recovered the Peraea but had extended her influence over key cities throughout Asia Minor. The island republic, as leader of the Nesiotic League, had also become mistress of the Aegean. No less a judge than the great Seleucid king acknowledged the island's eminence in both Asia Minor and the Aegean. Though Rhodes had to drop its opposition to Antiochus' expansion into Asia Minor, the king nevertheless respected Rhodes enough to keep his hands off the very Ptolemaic possessions that had initially attracted his attention. Understanding Rhodes' special connection with Rome, the king had sought to submit his disputes with the western power to Rhodian arbitration.Footnote ⁵¹ A few years later, the terms of the settlement after Rome's defeat of Antiochus provide eloquent testimony to Rhodian authority and regional ambitions. The settlement quadrupled Rhodian territory through the acquisition of all Caria south of the Maeander and all Lycia except Telmessus.Footnote ⁵²

Furthermore, Rhodes was able to accomplish this expansion of territory and influence while maintaining its reputation as the guardian of Greek liberty. The Romans had adopted the slogan not just for the war with Philip V, but it also became the rallying cry for the allies in their subsequent war with Antiochus III. It is this insistence on Greek freedom that provides the key to unlocking the meaning of the Rhodian epigram under discussion. The claim of κοιρανία over land and sea in the aftermath of 305 would be out of the question. Even despite the gains outlined above, such a claim in the aftermath of the Second Macedonian War would still be an exaggeration. The Rhodian claim to lordship, however, is closely connected with its championship of Greek liberty. In the last four lines of the epigram (Anth. Pal. 6.171. 5–8) the ‘land and sea’ formula appears twice. Once it is connected with the Rhodian claim to have extended the light of freedom not only over the sea, but even over the land. The epigram then closes with the assertion that lordship over land and sea belongs to the descendants of Heracles. The verses suggest that the Rhodian claim to lordship is parallel to and based on its services in liberating land and sea. If Rhodes' empire consists of freedom, then it truly encompassed a wide region, for Philip's defeat had guaranteed the freedom of mainland Greece, the islands of the Aegean and the cities and peoples of Asia Minor. It is precisely this that the Rhodian epigram is celebrating with perhaps just a touch of exaggeration, but given the nature of the benefits conferred by the island republic such exaggeration is entirely justified.

The interpretation advanced here is also supported by some suggestive numismatic evidence which helps to illuminate Rhodian self-perception of the island republic's newfound power in the eastern Mediterranean following on the defeat of Philip.Footnote ⁵³ In about 200 b.c. Rhodes issued a series of tetradrachmas featuring the head of Alexander as Heracles on the obverse.Footnote ⁵⁴ The innovation was unusual for many reasons. First, Rhodian coinage from 408 b.c. till the end of Rhodian independence in the first century a.d. was remarkably consistent in its patterning, with the head of Helios on the obverse and a rose with the legend ΡΟΔΙΟΝ or its abbreviation ΡΟ on the reverse. The famous Alexander-type tetradrachmas were minted concurrently with the regular issue. Secondly, the issue is notable both for the short duration of its minting, about five years, and for the large quantity of coins produced, a fact demonstrated by the large number of obverse dies. Another oddity is the adoption of the Attic standard rather than the Rhodian for the weight of the coins. This curious numismatic departure requires explanation.

The large number of coins suggests that they were intended for wide distribution. This would be guaranteed by the adoption of the Attic standard, which would ensure that the coins would be used in mainland Greece, the northern Aegean and the Black Sea region. Sippel has argued that the primary motive must have been propagandistic rather than economic, that is to say, the coins were produced in order to broadcast a message about Rhodes throughout the Greek world.Footnote ⁵⁵ The unusual nature of their introduction coupled with the intensity of their production in the years immediately following Philip's defeat by Rhodes and the resurrection of the Nesiotic League suggests a connection between the coins and Rhodes' new position in the eastern Mediterranean.

Rhodian patriotic pride was riding high in the opening years of the second century. What better way to advertise Rhodian success than the adoption of the famous imperial coinage of Alexander the Great? Rhodes' production of these well-known coins showed the residents of the Greek world, from the mainland through the Aegean and beyond Asia Minor into the Black Sea region, that the island republic was staking its claim to pre-eminence among the Hellenistic Greek states of the eastern Mediterranean. Egypt was floundering under the boy king Ptolemy V. Macedonian ambitions in the region had been checked first by Rhodes and then by her ally Rome. As we have seen, even the Seleucid Antiochus III paid his respects to the islanders. In addition to reclaiming and even expanding its mainland possessions in Asia Minor, the island had acquired a maritime empire. Whereas Rhodes' commercial dominance had long been accepted in the Aegean, now the island republic was claiming political pre-eminence, as well. The well-known and widely accepted coinage of Alexander was a perfect way to signal this to the states of the Hellenistic East.

The epigram presenting itself as the dedicatory inscription of the Colossus of Rhodes is another product of this same pride. The resistance to Demetrius Poliorcetes ensured the independence and influence of Rhodes in the new world of Hellenistic successor kingdoms. The Colossus which made the island famous was an expression of Rhodian confidence in its position. The defeat of Philip V was another watershed event for Rhodes. Their victory over the Macedonian and their newfound friendship with Rome guaranteed the Rhodians a place among the first-rate powers of the eastern Mediterranean. It is no surprise that an anonymous poet harked back to the most famous event in Rhodian history in order to celebrate the island's successes in the opening decade of the second century, a decade that saw enormous changes in the political landscape of the eastern Mediterranean with Rhodes at its very centre.