Flamininus persuaded both these powers to join in attacking him. At Cynoscephalae in Thessaly, not far from the scene of a greater battle, Pharsalia, the power of the Macedonian monarchy was broken (197 B.C.), and Philip renounced his supremacy over the Greeks, to whom Flamininus proclaimed their freedom at the ensuing Isthmian games. The final overthrow came in the time of Perseus, the son of Philip, who was defeated at Pydna (168 B.C.), and his dominions, with the adjacent parts of Greece, were reduced to the form of a Roman province. The later years of the Achaean league had been illumined by the leadership of Philopo2men, "the last of the Greeks," as Plutarch has called him, in whose time the whole of the Peloponnesus, including even Sparta, was for a time included in the alliance. But the days of Greece were numbered, and the only question was how soon the remainder should b3 absorbed by the advancing tide of Roman conquest. At last a pretext for interference presented itself, and the reduction of the country to bond age was signalized by the pillage and destruction of Corinth under Mummius (146 B.C.). The entire area southward of Macedonia and Epirus was constituted the province of Achaia, the title of which thus perpetuated the name of the Achaean league. The struggles in which that and the ^Etolian confederation had taken part are an evidence of the revival of a spirit of patriotism in the breasts of the Greeks, and we may well lament over the ruin of their in dependence ; but the truth must be told that this was not the feeling of the majority of the population at the time. The selfishness and cupidity of the Greek aristocracy, such as those whom we have already noticed at Sparta, had imposed so heavy burdens on the people that the great body of them cheerfully acquiesced in the Roman rule. Polybius has preserved to us the saying which expressed the sentiment of the time : "If we had not been quickly ruined, we should not have been saved."
From the time of the Roman conquest the existence of Greece was merged in that of a greater political unity, so that for the next four centuries, until the commencement of barbarian inroads, it can hardly be said to have a his- tory of its own. But we must not on this account suppose that the Greeks occupied exactly the same position as the rest of the Roman provincials. In this respect there is a marked difference between the results of the Roman con quests in the West and the East. The inhabitants of the western portion of the empire were at the time of their sub jection in a low state of civilization, and destitute of any element of strength in their social and national life. It was natural, therefore, that nations so undeveloped should easily receive the impress of Roman institutions, and should adopt the manners and ideas of their conquerors. The Romans in fact treated them for the most part as inferior beings and did not at first even regard them as absolute proprietors of the lands they cultivated. But in the East the case was different. There the Romans met with a civilization more advanced than their own, which they had already learned to respect, and an elaborate system of civil government and social usages which could not be set aside without under mining the whole fabric of society. Hence the Greeks, while subjected to the Roman administration, were allowed to retain a great part of their institutions, together with their property and private rights, and, from their superiority to the other conquered peoples, remained the dominant power in the East. Even in Asia the despotism of Rome was much modified by the municipal system of the Greek colonies and by the influence of Greek culture. Thus it came to pass that, while the Western nations were assimi lated to Rome, in the East the Roman empire became Greek, though the Greek nation in name became Roman. The effects of this are visible at every turn in the subsequent history, and to this cause must be referred many anomalies which are traceaDic at the present day in the condition of eastern Europe.
It was a part of the Roman policy, in dealing with conquered countries, to treat them at first with mildness, until they became inured to the yoke, and when this was the case, and precautionary measures had been adopted to prevent the possibility of successful revolt, to deal with them more harshly and increase their burdens. This was what happened in the case of Greece. For some time the people at large had no reason to regret the change. The fact of their subjection was not impressed too forcibly upon them, and several cities, such as Athens and Sparta, were allowed to rank as allied states. Their taxes were not increased, and they did not at once perceive the difference caused by the money that was levied being taken out of the country instead of being spent in it. This was, however, the most systematically ruinous part of the Roman system. The Government never paid attention to the provinces for their own sake, but regarded them as an instrument for maintain ing the greatness and power of Rome. The immense sums that Avere drained from them never returned, but were expended in the maintenance of the Roman army, and in the public games and architectural embellishment of the metropolis. Objects of local usefulness, such as roads, ports, and aqueducts, received no attention from the central authorities, and DO money was supplied towards their maintenance. Within a century also, when these evils Avere beginning to make themselves felt, the Roman rule became very oppressive. Though the custom duties were not un reasonable in their nominal amount, they became exorbitant through the system of farming and subletting, and as a special tribunal existed for the enforcement of the collectors claims, the farmers exercised a most tyrannical power over the mercantile population of the shores of the Mediterranean. In the wake of these harpies folloAved the usurers, to meet whose claims proprietors had constantly to sell their posses sions. The direct Aveight of the public burdens Avas further increased by the exemptions enjoyed by Roman citizens in the provinces, and by privileges and monopolies which were granted to merchants and manufacturers ; and large sums had to be paid to the Roman governors, both for the main tenance of their establishments, and to obtain exemption from the quartering of troops. But these more or less authorized exactions bore no proportion to the illegal extor tions of the proconsuls, who simply pillaged the provincials. No more perfect scheme could have been devised for pro moting oppression than that under which these officers were appointed. While on the one hand they superintended the financial administration, on the other they exercised the judicial power ; and the only tribunal to which they were responsible was that very senate by which they were appointed, and of which they themselves were members. A governor like Verres had it in his poAver to ruin a pro vince for several generations, and such instances were not rare. The treatment of Greece in this respect was no ex ception to the general rule.
The period, however, during which the greatest injury was inflicted on Greece was that of the Mithradatic War (86 B.C.). At the commencement of that struggle many of the leading men and states declared in favour of Mithradates, thinking that under his auspices they might regain their freedom. But the appearance of Sulla with an army soon undeceived them, and they laid down their arms, with the exception of Athens, which was only reduced after an obstinate defence. When the city Avas at last taken by storm, the majority of the citizens were put to the sword, their possessions seized by the soldiers, the Piraeus utterly destroyed, and Attica ravaged. In the same campaign Delphi and the other principal shrines were plundered, and an immense amount of property was ruined throughout the
