Macedonian crown and the cities and territories that accrued under its
authority.
The‘old kingdom’, that is, the confines of the Macedonian kingdom
up until the conquests of Philip II, included the districts of Bottiaia
(comprising Emathia and Pieria); Amphaxitis, or the land between the
Axios and Strymon rivers (comprising southern Paionia and Mygdonia);
the semi-independent districts of Elimeia, Eordaia, and Orestis, on the
left bank of the Haliakmon River west of Mount Bermion; and the
remaining Upper Macedonian cantons—Tymphaia and Parauaia,
south-west of the Haliakmon valley and extending as far as the high
Pindhos mountains; and Derriopos, the cognate district to the north of
the latter, encompassing the Prespa lakes and the adjacent uplands
(Fig. 2.1).^36 The‘old kingdom’, to use Hatzopoulos’s term, becomes
recognizable to historians in the aftermath of the Greco-Persian Wars,
when Alexander I succeeded in acquiring new lands east of the River
Axios in the wake of the Persian retreat, in addition to the nucleus of
territory between Mount Olympos and the Axios valley. Both the main
narrative accounts of this period, by Herodotus and Thucydides, present
sketches of political affairs that focus almost exclusively on royal policies.
The fundamental problem for historians interested in the socio-eco-
nomic history of Macedonia is to connect the substance of these accounts
with the more detailed information that becomes available in the second
centurybc, through accounts of the Roman conquest of Macedonia; and
in a range of inscriptions that span this rapidly changing political envir-
onment. An additional challenge is the hostile framework in which
Macedonian affairs were resolved after the defeat of Perseus. The two
key narrators of these affairs, Polybius and Livy, had every reason to
disparage the policies and administrative achievements of Philip V and
his son Perseus, and to enhance the benefits supposedly brought about as
a result of the Roman settlement. Roman propaganda portrayed Perseus
as a tyrant. Kingship was an easy target for the traditionally anti-monar-
chic sentiments of the Romans; but in addition to such latent sentiments
was added the more serious and urgent pretext of sedition.^37 The inhab-
itants of Macedonian cities, towns, and villages were notionally offered
(^36) Hatzopoulos 1996, I, 231–60, needs to be read alongside 167–216, where he develops
his argument about the nature of royal and allied territories in more detail. More sceptical
interpretations of Macedonian kingship and administration focus primarily on the biog-
raphies of Philip II and Alexander III, and have nothing specific to say about cities, or
indeed any other form of settlement (e.g. King 2010, 374–5 and 390–1).
(^37) Liv. 42.13.8–9; App.Mac.11; Liv. 42.40.7–8; cf. Syll. (^3) 643.21–24 (Roman decree at
Delphi, 172/71bc, a graphic and explicit series of accusations against Perseus); Champion
2007, 263–9, esp. 264; cf. also Walbank 2002a.
60 Herdsmen with golden leaves—narratives and spaces