A. D.

663. Visits Italy, and is defeated before Beneventum. Visits

Rome. Retires to Sicily.

665. Wars of the Romans and Saracens in Africa.

668. Assassination of Constans. Constantine IV. Pogonatus. 669. Constantine visits Sicily to avenge his father's death.

670. Cairowan founded, and taken by the Romans.

672. Invention of Greek fire by Callinicus. Saracens besiege Constantinople, and continue the attack every summer

for seven years.

672. Saracens form a winter camp at Cyzicus.

679. Defeat of the Saracen armament.

Peace with Moawyah.

Constantine defeated by the Bulgarians.

680. General council of the church at Constantinople against the Monothelites.

681. Constantine deprives his brothers of the title of Augustus, and cuts off their noses.

685. Death of Constantine Pogonatus. Justinian the Second called Rhinometus.

688. Bulgarian war.

692. War with the Saracens, and desertion of the Sclavonian troops. Establishment of Haratch. General council of the church in Trullo.

695. Revolution at Constantinople, Justinian dethroned, his nose cut off, and sent into exile at Cherson. Leontius emperor.

697, First doge of Venice elected. Carthage taken by the Saracens, retaken, and lost by the Romans.

698. Leontius dethroned, and Tiberius Apsimar emperor. 703. Successful campaign of Heraclius, the brother of the Emperior Tiberius, against the Saracens.

705. Justinian returns to Constantinople, with a Bulgarian army, and dethrones Tiberius Apsimar.

710. Cruelties of Justinian against Ravenna and Cherson. 711. Army at Cherson rebels, and places Philippicus on the throne. Death of Justinian.

712. Philippicus emperor.

713. Philippicus dethroned. Anastasius the Second emperor. 715. Fleet sent against the Saracens, under John the Deacon, rebels, and returns, having appointed Theodosius emperor.

A. D.

716. Anastasius dethroned, and Theodosius the Third emperor. Leo the Isaurian declared emperor at Amorium.

717. Constantinople besieged by the Saracens. 718. Saracen armament defeated.

723. Sardinia conquered by the Saracens.

726. Edict of Leo against picture-worship.

727. The Greek expedition, to restore image-worship, defeated before Constantinople.

GREECE UNDER THE ROMANS.

CHAPTER I.

FROM THE CONQUEST OF GREECE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CONSTANTINOPLE AS CAPITAL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. B. C. 146, to A. D. 330.

INTRODUCTION — CHANGES PRODUCED BY THE CONQUESTS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT ON THE CONDITION OF THE GREEK NATION-CAUSES OF THE CONQUEST OF GREECE BY THE ROMANS-TREATMENT OF GREECE AFTER ITS CONQUEST - EFFECTS OF THE MITHRIDATIC WAR ON THE STATE OF GREECE -RUIN OF THE COUNTRY BY THE PIRATES OF CILICIA - NATURE OF THE ROMAN PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION IN GREECE

ROMANS

DEPOPULATION

OF GREECE

FISCAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE CAUSED BY THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT · ROMAN COLONIES ESTABLISHED IN GREECE - POLITICAL CONDITION OF GREECE FROM THE TIME OF AUGUSTUS TO THAT OF CARACALLA THE GREEKS AND ROMANS NEVER SHEWED ANY DISPOSITION TO UNITE STATE OF SOCIETY AMONG THE GREEKS INFLUENCE OF RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY-SOCIAL CONDITION OF THE GREEKS AFFECTED BY THE WANT OF COLONIES OF EMIGRATION EFFECTS PRODUCED IN GREECE BY THE INROADS OF THE GOTHS CHANGES WHICH PRECEDED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CONSTANTINOPLE AS THE CAPITAL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

THE Conquests of Alexander the Great effected a permanent change in the political condition of the Greek nation, and this change powerfully influenced its moral and social state during the whole period of its subjection to the Roman empire. The international system of policy by which Alexander connected Greece with Western Asia and Egypt, was

A

only effaced by the religion of Mohammed, and the conquests of the Arabs. Though Alexander was himself a Greek, both from education, and the prejudices cherished by the pride of ancestry, still, neither the people of Macedonia, nor the chief part of the army, whose discipline and valour had secured his victories, was Greek, either in language or feelings.* Had Alexander, therefore, determined on organizing his empire with the view of uniting the Macedonians and Persians in common feelings of opposition to the Greek nation, there can be no doubt, that he could easily have accomplished the design. The Greeks might then have found themselves enabled to adopt a very different course in their national career from that which they were compelled to follow by the powerful influence exercised over them by Alexander's conduct. Alexander himself, undoubtedly, perceived, that the greater numbers of the Persians, and their equality, if not superiority, in civilization to the Macedonians, rendered it necessary for him to seek some powerful ally to prevent the absorption of the Macedonians in the Persian population, the loss of their language, manners, and nationality, and the speedy change of his empire into the sovereignty of a mere GræcoPersian dynasty. It did not escape his discernment, that the political institutions of the Greeks created a principle of nationality capable of combating the unalterable laws of the Medes and Persians.

Q. CURTIUS, vi. 9. 35. K. O. MÜLLER ueber die Makedoner, p. 34. MÜLLER'S Dorians, i. 499, Eng. trans. PLUTARCH (Aratus, 38) shews us the light in which the Greeks viewed the noblest Macedonians when compared with the Spartans.

Alexander was the noblest model of a conqueror; his ambition aspired at eclipsing the glory of his unparalleled victories by the universal prosperity which was to flow from his civil government. New cities and extended commerce were to found an era in the world's history. Even the strength of his empire was to be based on a political principle which he has the merit of discovering, and of which he proved the efficacy; this principle was the amalgamation of his subjects into one people by permanent institutions. All other conquerors have endeavoured to augment their power by the subjection of one race to another. The merit of Alexander is very much increased by the nature of his position with regard to the Greek nation. The Greeks were not favourably disposed either towards his empire or his person; they would willingly have destroyed both as the surest way of securing their own liberty. But the moral energy of the Greek national character did not escape the observation of Alexander, and he resolved to render this quality available for the preservation of his empire, by introducing into the East those municipal institutions which gave it vigour, and thus facilitating the infusion of some portion of the Hellenic character into the hearts of his conquered subjects.

The moderation of Alexander in the execution of his plans of reform and change is as remarkable as

* History and poetry seem to have taken Alexander as the type of an ambitious warrior. The phrase, "Macedonia's madman," and the circumstance of his weeping for worlds to conquer, hardly convey a correct idea of one whose views of glory were so intimately connected with the effects his conquests were to produce. From Alexandria to Candahar the unlettered do him more justice.